PDA

View Full Version : Are men and women interdependent?



xCrucialDudex
01-11-2010, 11:08 AM
Do you think men and women are interdependent or do you believe both sexes harmoniously co-exist separately? Why?

xsecx
01-11-2010, 11:19 AM
Do you think men and women are interdependent or do you believe both sexes harmoniously co-exist separately? Why?

interdependent in what sense?

xCrucialDudex
01-11-2010, 11:42 AM
interdependent in what sense?

In a sense that describes men and women being parts of a whole, i.e. two complementary parts of one thing.

xsecx
01-11-2010, 12:47 PM
In a sense that describes men and women being parts of a whole, i.e. two complementary parts of one thing.

so you're talking about in heterosexual relationships or life in general?

xCrucialDudex
01-11-2010, 12:58 PM
Both. I'm talking all levels.

rodrigo
01-11-2010, 02:37 PM
Both. I'm talking all levels.

so in biological levels too?

xCrucialDudex
01-11-2010, 11:34 PM
so in biological levels too?

What do you think? :)

xvunderx
01-12-2010, 06:49 AM
Kinda a broad scope for the question, so since we are all the same species the answer would have to be yes.

rodrigo
01-12-2010, 07:17 AM
What do you think? :)

yeah, then there's no chance of the answer being something other than interdependent.

xCrucialDudex
01-12-2010, 02:18 PM
mmm.. okay, I'm probably more interested in your thoughts about the pheminism influenced idea that a woman can and is absolutely independent. like in any sense possible and there's absolutely nothing that makes both sexes interdependent. absolutely nothing. do you agree? what do you think about this statement? is it correct? why?

rodrigo
01-12-2010, 04:11 PM
mmm.. okay, I'm probably more interested in your thoughts about the pheminism influenced idea that a woman can and is absolutely independent. like in any sense possible and there's absolutely nothing that makes both sexes interdependent. absolutely nothing. do you agree? what do you think about this statement? is it correct? why?

can the human race exist if there are no males and females interacting?

CarlaRant
01-12-2010, 08:40 PM
I'm not sure why you wish to know such a thing, but here's my two cents.

With the advent of recent reproduction technology, the need for interaction between male and female is limited at best. The actual physical contact isn't even required to continue the human race. However, in essence, the sexes are interdependent if just for the continuation of generations.

Otherwise, the feminist thought that man and woman are not interdependent as you put it, is in my opinion, true. A man is more than his sperm and a woman is more than her uterus. The emotional and sexual gratification is not needed to continue life and can be found by oneself or through relationships of the same sex. Physically and intellectually, man and woman are capable of great things without the assistance of each other.

xCrucialDudex
01-14-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm not sure why you wish to know such a thing, but here's my two cents.

I've had a discussion about this with my friend recently. She insists, much like you, that there's nothing that makes both sexes depend on each other, except probably need for copulation and reproduction.

Since I know most of the people in here are quite clever, older than I am (presuming more wise) and most probably took at least some interest in the issue discussed I figured I'd start this topic and see what opinions are out there. Besides, I simply find this topic interesting to discuss.


With the advent of recent reproduction technology, the need for interaction between male and female is limited at best. The actual physical contact isn't even required to continue the human race. However, in essence, the sexes are interdependent if just for the continuation of generations.

While this holds true, I'm very inclined to attribute adverb "technically". In my opinion reproduction technology can't really replace a couple of human beings fully and thus is simply an inadequate and unbalanced means of reproduction. This tech initially addresses only a specific issue of the physical process of reproduction, as narrow as it is, while neglecting the spiritual or whatever you might prefer to call it part of it.

If you asked me what I mean exactly by spiritual part/component I'd have to tell you I can't really explain it cohesively. I feel something about it, but I understand I may be wrong, but... I think something like harmony, completeness, each sex fulfilling/playing out the roles that are more suitable for men and women accordingly... I'm talking statistically average men and women (of course there are exceptions and the world knows masculine women and feminine men... homosexuals still comprise a small fracture of population so I can't really see how this small percent of people can prove/disprove any theory on a global scale).

I'm also thinking things like a spiritual (or whatever it is) connection between a child and a woman, a child and a man responsible for impregnation, I'm thinking about the obvious negative, in some cases simply devastating consequences of bringing up a child, especially if it is a boy, without a father. I'm thinking about the influence of this spiritual thing/factor during the process of impregnation and bearing a child up to the point of delivery.

Are you trying to say that nothing like that really exists? Just a myth, false believes? And that in reality all that connects a man and a woman is a certain value of milligrams of the sperm and that's it?


Otherwise, the feminist thought that man and woman are not interdependent as you put it, is in my opinion, true. A man is more than his sperm and a woman is more than her uterus. The emotional and sexual gratification is not needed to continue life and can be found by oneself or through relationships of the same sex. Physically and intellectually, man and woman are capable of great things without the assistance of each other.

See, I mean not something like assistance, something more like completing each other. Being two mutually complementary parts on the multitude of levels - spiritual, sexual, emotional, social, etc.

xCrucialDudex
01-14-2010, 01:25 PM
can the human race exist if there are no males and females interacting?

See, that's exactly the problem I see with feminism propaganda. In a sense that femprop often overemphasizes the importance of independence and equality completely neglecting the obvious beneficial opportunity of an adequate, balanced co-operation and co-existance on all levels. For example, statistically average woman is probably more inclined to having and raising a baby (which requires at minimum 10-13+ years) than having a career but femprop is putting and idea into heads of many women that career is SOOOO important that it's more important than is raising a baby.

Just take a minute and think about it. What on earth is more important than raising a baby? This is perhaps the greatest job a woman can have. The resulting contribution to the development of the society is simply enormous. I have a problem seeing how this measures against making a lot of money or even making a change say in an industry or whatever. Besides, the number (or percent) of people making crucial changes and/or having an absolutely significant influence on the development of the course of human society is quite small. That means that most of us, given the current conditions we live under in the world, are going to live quite ordinary lives, working quite ordinary jobs and probably not making great - REALLY GREAT - achievements. However harsh it may sound it is quite true, I believe. So, that means that most women are going to do ordinary jobs and often times drudgery. Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it.

This is just one example. I guess you can think of some more yourself.

rodrigo
01-14-2010, 02:26 PM
See, that's exactly the problem I see with feminism propaganda. In a sense that femprop often overemphasizes the importance of independence and equality completely neglecting the obvious beneficial opportunity of an adequate, balanced co-operation and co-existance on all levels. For example, statistically average woman is probably more inclined to having and raising a baby (which requires at minimum 10-13+ years) than having a career but femprop is putting and idea into heads of many women that career is SOOOO important that it's more important than is raising a baby.

Just take a minute and think about it. What on earth is more important than raising a baby? This is perhaps the greatest job a woman can have. The resulting contribution to the development of the society is simply enormous. I have a problem seeing how this measures against making a lot of money or even making a change say in an industry or whatever. Besides, the number (or percent) of people making crucial changes and/or having an absolutely significant influence on the development of the course of human society is quite small. That means that most of us, given the current conditions we live under in the world, are going to live quite ordinary lives, working quite ordinary jobs and probably not making great - REALLY GREAT - achievements. However harsh it may sound it is quite true, I believe. So, that means that most women are going to do ordinary jobs and often times drudgery. Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it.

This is just one example. I guess you can think of some more yourself.

Yeah, you talk about a balanced coperation and coexistance on all levels, yet you classify raising a baby a womans job.

feminist propaganda doesnt put ideas into womans heads, feminist propaganda tries to show people and women that they can do much more than what historically they have been let by a society mostly led by men.

who says women choose to do other stuff instead of raising kids because of the money? do you think that it is more rewarding to raise a baby instead of doing something you truly love? have you even tried to raise a kid? have you ever carried a baby in your belly? do you know how hard it is for women to give birth that baby?
i know i dont know, but boy, it does look fucked up to think a man knows what is better for women for women to do...

you have no idea how sexist you sound and i hope its just a language barrier.

xCrucialDudex
01-15-2010, 12:11 AM
Yeah, you talk about a balanced coperation and coexistance on all levels, yet you classify raising a baby a womans job.

feminist propaganda doesnt put ideas into womans heads, feminist propaganda tries to show people and women that they can do much more than what historically they have been let by a society mostly led by men.

who says women choose to do other stuff instead of raising kids because of the money? do you think that it is more rewarding to raise a baby instead of doing something you truly love? have you even tried to raise a kid? have you ever carried a baby in your belly? do you know how hard it is for women to give birth that baby?
i know i dont know, but boy, it does look fucked up to think a man knows what is better for women for women to do...

you have no idea how sexist you sound and i hope its just a language barrier.

Nope, this time it's not the language. I expressed my thoughts pretty much clearly. And you kinda missed the point I was making.

rodrigo
01-15-2010, 06:33 AM
Nope, this time it's not the language. I expressed my thoughts pretty much clearly. And you kinda missed the point I was making.

then please explain your point better

xvunderx
01-15-2010, 09:03 AM
First of all wow... just wow...

See, that's exactly the problem I see with feminism propaganda. In a sense that femprop often overemphasizes the importance of independence and equality completely neglecting the obvious beneficial opportunity of an adequate, balanced co-operation and co-existance on all levels. For example, statistically average woman is probably more inclined to having and raising a baby (which requires at minimum 10-13+ years) than having a career but femprop is putting and idea into heads of many women that career is SOOOO important that it's more important than is raising a baby.

I would agree, that an ideal would be a perfectly balanced co-operation and co-existence. The man taking on as much of the child care as the woman, the woman working towards her dreams as much as the man. Both people sharing the load in an equal balanced way, living equally fulfilling lives in accordance with teir dreams and aspirations.

The idea that a woman should give up on any ambition other than to be a mother doesn't sound balanced to me at all.

I would also say the the decision and desire to have an raise a baby should be equal on both sides, and both sides committed to sharing the experience and the burden. The woman may have to carry the child (may as adoption is always an option), but beyond that they responsibility should be equally shared (unless one or the other really wants to take the greater share by their own choice, not by the genitals they were born with)

Feminism merely states that all sexes are equal, and that both sexes should be able to prosper and enjoy the same rights across the board. This not only covers a woman's right to persue a career, but also a mans right to stay at home and raise his family if this is a role he feels to be most fulfilling and important. Equality across the board.


Just take a minute and think about it. What on earth is more important than raising a baby? This is perhaps the greatest job a woman can have.
Why a woman? perhaps for one woman being President is the greatest job she can have. Perhaps a man would feel that raising his child is the greatest job he could have.


The resulting contribution to the development of the society is simply enormous. I have a problem seeing how this measures against making a lot of money or even making a change say in an industry or whatever. Besides, the number (or percent) of people making crucial changes and/or having an absolutely significant influence on the development of the course of human society is quite small. That means that most of us, given the current conditions we live under in the world, are going to live quite ordinary lives, working quite ordinary jobs and probably not making great - REALLY GREAT - achievements. However harsh it may sound it is quite true, I believe. So, that means that most women are going to do ordinary jobs and often times drudgery. Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it.

Again why should this be leveled only at women? Marie Curie did more as a scientist for the world than she would as a mother. Plenty of mens lives are spent shuffling paper or attaching doors to cars, why would they not be offering more to the world by raising a child?

Why should only women be born to expect nothing more than drudgery? Both sexes should have equal opportunity to reach for the stars, and equal chance of success or failure.

I went to school and learned my craft, I'm good at my craft, and getting better at it day by day, and why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't I have every opportunity to follow my dream?

Again Feminism states that a woman should have the chance to do whatever job, and have the opportunity to do any job. It might seem more in that direction, but it's trying to de-program centuries of oppression where the choice wasn't even an option.

I think it's is incredibly sexist that you think a woman should be limited to only motherhood as an aspiration. Family and work are shared responsibility, and the balance is up to the individuals involved. To say that a human being can only be one thing, and that the choice being made by what they have between their legs when they come into the world, and not by them as a person to me is straight up deplorable, and nothing better than imposing or continuing slavery based on the color of the skin.

El Moro
01-15-2010, 05:14 PM
I think Men depend on Women just as much as Women depend on Men.

CarlaRant
01-16-2010, 09:39 AM
Are you trying to say that nothing like that really exists? Just a myth, false believes? And that in reality all that connects a man and a woman is a certain value of milligrams of the sperm and that's it?

See, I mean not something like assistance, something more like completing each other. Being two mutually complementary parts on the multitude of levels - spiritual, sexual, emotional, social, etc.

I too meant technically and never denounced any spiritual belief. Your question was so broad that I answered from a biological and sociological standpoint, but I should have known that you would take it to a spiritual level-a balance of energies. I don't think that people start off without that balance. It's a sad notion of supposed enlightened people that the sexes are incomplete without each other-that they are all walking around looking for a mate, which is an idea that belittles the self and would hurt a potential partner, creating negatively charged co-dependent relationships. We are whole and finding the mate just brings the relationship to another level of intimacy.


See, that's exactly the problem I see with feminism propaganda. In a sense that femprop often overemphasizes the importance of independence and equality completely neglecting the obvious beneficial opportunity of an adequate, balanced co-operation and co-existance on all levels. For example, statistically average woman is probably more inclined to having and raising a baby (which requires at minimum 10-13+ years) than having a career but femprop is putting and idea into heads of many women that career is SOOOO important that it's more important than is raising a baby.

Just take a minute and think about it. What on earth is more important than raising a baby? This is perhaps the greatest job a woman can have. The resulting contribution to the development of the society is simply enormous. I have a problem seeing how this measures against making a lot of money or even making a change say in an industry or whatever. Besides, the number (or percent) of people making crucial changes and/or having an absolutely significant influence on the development of the course of human society is quite small. That means that most of us, given the current conditions we live under in the world, are going to live quite ordinary lives, working quite ordinary jobs and probably not making great - REALLY GREAT - achievements. However harsh it may sound it is quite true, I believe. So, that means that most women are going to do ordinary jobs and often times drudgery. Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it.

This is just one example. I guess you can think of some more yourself.

Although one of the top positions in the village is to raise and educate a child (bias=me, the teacher), even that can leave women unfulfilled. What happens when the child leaves home? Or if a woman cannot conceive? Or if she just doesn't want children? Is she not useful in your mind? Also, as already addressed by others on this board, if men and women are so interdependent, then it should be the responsibility of both parents to raise the child, not the sole duty of the woman.

linsee
01-16-2010, 02:24 PM
See, that's exactly the problem I see with feminism propaganda. In a sense that femprop often overemphasizes the importance of independence and equality completely neglecting the obvious beneficial opportunity of an adequate, balanced co-operation and co-existance on all levels. For example, statistically average woman is probably more inclined to having and raising a baby (which requires at minimum 10-13+ years) than having a career but femprop is putting and idea into heads of many women that career is SOOOO important that it's more important than is raising a baby.


Maybe it comes off as over emphasizing to you, because you are not a woman and have no idea what it feels like to be one, and have to deal with proving yourself more than others, just because you are indeed a woman.

I don't think that femprop makes having a baby any less important than having a career. I think that what femprop does, is try to get the point across that is is actually okay to have a career and not just produce children (which is also important if that is something that the woman actually wants to do).



Just take a minute and think about it. What on earth is more important than raising a baby? This is perhaps the greatest job a woman can have. The resulting contribution to the development of the society is simply enormous. I have a problem seeing how this measures against making a lot of money or even making a change say in an industry or whatever. Besides, the number (or percent) of people making crucial changes and/or having an absolutely significant influence on the development of the course of human society is quite small. That means that most of us, given the current conditions we live under in the world, are going to live quite ordinary lives, working quite ordinary jobs and probably not making great - REALLY GREAT - achievements. However harsh it may sound it is quite true, I believe. So, that means that most women are going to do ordinary jobs and often times drudgery. Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it.


Raising a child should not be a job solely for a woman. Or for a woman at all. What about gay male couples? Are they not allowed to have children, is it not as important for them to raise a child?

How do you know that women have an idea that having any job is more important that having a baby and raising it? And if they do, why is it wrong? What if they can't support the child, is that okay still since they did what was important and had a child?

I have no desire to have children. Actually, I feel disgusted when I think about actually carrying a child inside of me. Does that make my life less important or less impacting than having a child would make it?

xCrucialDudex
01-17-2010, 07:57 AM
Although one of the top positions in the village is to raise and educate a child (bias=me, the teacher), even that can leave women unfulfilled. What happens when the child leaves home?

Obviously, she can do whatever she's interested in.


Or if a woman cannot conceive?

Again, she can do whatever she's interested in.


Or if she just doesn't want children?

Same - whatever she's interested in.


Is she not useful in your mind?

By no means at all.


Also, as already addressed by others on this board, if men and women are so interdependent, then it should be the responsibility of both parents to raise the child, not the sole duty of the woman.

Abosultely correct. The only problem is that I didn't really say that raising and even having (as Viv suggested) is the sole role of a woman.

It's really alarming to see how women (and men, for that matter) aware of femprop react to simple, harmless examples even slightly suggesting that women have natural fitness to things like *statistically* speaking being better at raising children, being more compassionate in general and thus more fit to take up the positions like nurses etc.

It's really alarming to see simple statements that have no intention to offend anyone get their meanings turned around and misinterpreted. I see very this recurring theme of offensively defensive reactions with almost any woman (I don't say people because I rarely engage men on this topic, almost always women) aware of the feminism and its ideas and almost NEVER with women uninfluenced by feminism.

Those women often have ambitions for career and what not BUT they almost always follow my line of thinking believing that baby is way more important than being a president or top manager of an industry leading company, they almost always do not support feminism thinking it and its ideas are really, really strange to put it politely.

Now this is something happening in real life, over here in Ukraine in real interactions I have, with real women. How would you account for this? Women call on feminism having an agenda, not just me thinking it's putting some ideas into women's heads.

And yes, for the record, I think this is really hapening because whenever I meet a woman influenced by feminism movement ideas she's almost alway so much agitated by the need to fight for her rights that it hurts. That is why I use words like "overemphasizes".

But unfortunately and most importantly you guys saw what you wanted to see and turned my words around and made it all look very bad.

Just to be clear:
- I think both men and women should, even MUST have rights to be equal in everything
- but I believe that there's sex defined fitness to perform certain tasks/activities, GENERALLY SPEAKING
- I recognize and admit that there are exceptions for both sexes
- but I believe that majority of women and majority of men are more fit to do various tasks, like men are more fit to do physical labor better, men are more able to cope with stressful and dangerous environments - like being a soldier at war, etc.

Again, I recognize and have no problem with women being able to work in coal mines, holding a gun in the hands, standing side by side with any other men in the office in face of devastating stresses or what not.

The only problem, as I see it, is that the number of women that can do all that isn't that big and the femprop is really overemphasizing that any woman can be like that.

Technically - yes, of course. The reality looks different to me, though.

It would be much the same to say that all men are good at taking care of infants or being compassionate nurses, etc. I know I'm not good at taking care of little children, they simply irritate me and make me want to shoot myself, and I'm probably not as compassionate person as most women I know are - something that makes them want to express compassion almost always leaves me numb and not understanding why would they want to pity someone. I hope you see what I mean to say here.

Natural fitness to be better at something than other sex, recognition of this fact and understanding how to effectively use this - that's what I mean to say here.

Often times femprop makes it sound as if men are trying to hold women down and not give them access to top positions forcing them to stay satisfied with "lower" class jobs. Like nursing (I'm just afraid you guys will turn this example around too so I have to make it clear why I used it). Compassion and being able to express it to others is something majority of women are more good at than men. That's why I think women are fit for this kind of job and men aren't, GENERALLY SPEAKING. Not because I think men should have all the top jobs and women be slaves.

xvunderx
01-17-2010, 11:06 AM
Abosultely correct. The only problem is that I didn't really say that raising and even having (as Viv suggested) is the sole role of a woman.
This is what your statement comes across as from the post I quoted.


It's really alarming to see how women (and men, for that matter) aware of femprop react to simple, harmless examples even slightly suggesting that women have natural fitness to things like *statistically* speaking being better at raising children, being more compassionate in general and thus more fit to take up the positions like nurses etc.

The reason is not because of "feminist propaganda" but because it is a gross generalization, built on propaganda from the other side...

1) Males and females are equally capable to compassion. Though it is seen as a traditionally "feminine" attribute, this is more like the way a chair is a female noun in French than it is to do with the real world (Gandhi for eg was a man of great compassion, would his life have been better spent raising a child?) many men have equal compassion to many women, just like many women have a basic lack of compassion. It's the individual not the genitals.

2) Pushing this generalization pushes women towards certain rolls, and breeds them up to fulfill certain roles based on generalizations and not the natural inclinations of the individual. This limits the scope of aspiration for girls and women based on traditional ideas not based on real individuals. This kind of thinking is more often 9as in this case) directed towards females and not only seeks to push out natural choices, but also to take away the individuality of women, and pour them all into a one size fits all group.

Let's flip it: If the world were to say that all men because they have a higher level of testosterone have a greater propensity for aggression, that they are better suited to being a soldier. And that all men's lives would be better spent fighting for their country than trying to do something else like be a Doctor (because lets face it that requires a level non aggressive head)?


It's really alarming to see simple statements that have no intention to offend anyone get their meanings turned around and misinterpreted. I see very this recurring theme of offensively defensive reactions with almost any woman (I don't say people because I rarely engage men on this topic, almost always women) aware of the feminism and its ideas and almost NEVER with women uninfluenced by feminism.

What is really alarming is that you even think this! Saying this is the same as living in the 50's and saying you find it disturbing that black people who have been exposed to civil liberties propaganda get defensive about being told they can only sit at the back of the bus, and have to work menial jobs for the white man, when black people who haven't been exposed to civil liberties almost never feel this way.

Sexism has existed for centuries, and women have been treat and used poorly as a result for centuries. Feminism is only the belief that women and men are equal and should be afforded the same choices and opportunities.
Some women may still be oppressed enough to think that the small lot you are willing to afford them is all they can have, but that would be crumbling under a social pressure. (this isn't saying that a woman choosing to stay at home and raise a child is oppressed, the important thing is that it was a chpoise she came to internally and not from outside pressures seeking to keep things easy for themselves.)


Those women often have ambitions for career and what not BUT they almost always follow my line of thinking believing that baby is way more important than being a president or top manager of an industry leading company, they almost always do not support feminism thinking it and its ideas are really, really strange to put it politely.

Wow, and you say your not sexist? Feminism as I keep saying and you keep ignoring is the belief that all men and women are equal, and should have the same choices and opportunities. How is that strange? Maybe some women feel that way (I would hope because it's their choice) perhaps they aren't given the chance to do more, or are raised from the cradle with ideas like yours to believe there is nothing more they can aspired to.


Now this is something happening in real life, over here in Ukraine in real interactions I have, with real women. How would you account for this? Women call on feminism having an agenda, not just me thinking it's putting some ideas into women's heads.

I would from your statement alone assume that there hasn't been and progress in creating an equal playing ground for both sexes, and believe in old patriarchal propaganda. Without researching more on the Ukraine that's all I can assume.


And yes, for the record, I think this is really hapening because whenever I meet a woman influenced by feminism movement ideas she's almost alway so much agitated by the need to fight for her rights that it hurts. That is why I use words like "overemphasizes"

Women should have to fight for their rights, and the fact that we are still fighting is why there is this aggression. (I don't like the word agitation here, it belittles our emotions and struggle). This is like saying you wouldn't understand why Black slaves got agitated by their fight for their rights.



But unfortunately and most importantly you guys saw what you wanted to see and turned my words around and made it all look very bad.

No we saw what you are saying, that women are better suited to motherhood, and have been manipulated through feminism into unnaturally wanting the same things out of life you might want.


Just to be clear:
- I think both men and women should, even MUST have rights to be equal in everything
- but I believe that there's sex defined fitness to perform certain tasks/activities, GENERALLY SPEAKING
- I recognize and admit that there are exceptions for both sexes
- but I believe that majority of women and majority of men are more fit to do various tasks, like men are more fit to do physical labor better, men are more able to cope with stressful and dangerous environments - like being a soldier at war, etc.

But this Bullshit though. Testosterone might make many men more naturally aggressive, but you wouldn't want to be born up for nothing more that the army, to have paths such as doctor, designer, writer, artist, architect, scientist etc denied you or discourage for you based on a hormonal composition? Women are every bit as adept at dealing with stress and danger as a man. All you guys have is a greater natural propensity for better upper body strength. Sex has nothing to do with anything.


Again, I recognize and have no problem with women being able to work in coal mines, holding a gun in the hands, standing side by side with any other men in the office in face of devastating stresses or what not.

The only problem, as I see it, is that the number of women that can do all that isn't that big and the femprop is really overemphasizing that any woman can be like that.

Feminism is simply stating that a woman can do all that if she want's to do, and we are all fighting to be at a point where no one has to tell a girl that, that she grow up in a world where it is a given. The fact that we are not at that point yet means that we still have a way to go. You call it propaganda like it's a subversive lie. Yet the patriarchal propaganda you have swallowed is the natural truth.


Technically - yes, of course. The reality looks different to me, though.

It would be much the same to say that all men are good at taking care of infants or being compassionate nurses, etc. I know I'm not good at taking care of little children, they simply irritate me and make me want to shoot myself, and I'm probably not as compassionate person as most women I know are - something that makes them want to express compassion almost always leaves me numb and not understanding why would they want to pity someone. I hope you see what I mean to say here.

That you feel the same way a lot of women feel. I personally like kids when they get to an age where they can talk an express ideas the same way I enjoy the company of older people. I how ever for the most part (found only 2 babies I've ever liked) hate babies, I find them irritating unreasonable poo bombs.

Also like to add your lack of compassion is not normal to all men. I can't imagine a person looking at for eg the earthquake in Haiti right now and not feeling compassion for the people there. A lack of compassion is something unique to you as an individual, not as a man.


Natural fitness to be better at something than other sex, recognition of this fact and understanding how to effectively use this - that's what I mean to say here.

There is more the a person than chemical makeup. there is no physical reason why a man would make a better manager than a woman. It also doesn't change the way a person gets fulfillment out of different things.


Often times femprop makes it sound as if men are trying to hold women down and not give them access to top positions forcing them to stay satisfied with "lower" class jobs. Like nursing (I'm just afraid you guys will turn this example around too so I have to make it clear why I used it). Compassion and being able to express it to others is something majority of women are more good at than men. That's why I think women are fit for this kind of job and men aren't, GENERALLY SPEAKING. Not because I think men should have all the top jobs and women be slaves.

Feminist propaganda make it sound that way because it was (and still to a point is) that way. In our parents lifetime women were excluded from certain classes like sciences and taught instead things like home economics, and could expect to be a mother, nurse, secretary, but not a manager or director. feminism has changed that. However women still make less money than men for the same jobs, I even know of one woman who was turned down for a job because she was a woman and there for not trusted to put the needs of her country before the needs of her family (her husband was considered for the job).

All your argument is based around women being "compassionate" like men aren't, and like that's all a woman is. ( I personally know many women with no compassion just like you) I have compassion, but I also have a head for business, above average fine motor skills, and creativity. I can look at an object and understand how it is made and works from nothing more than a photograph, I understand science and philosophy, and have high level reasoning skills. These kinds of things make me great at my job, which is a designer and business owner.

My husband has a great sense of justice and right and wrong, he is caring and supportive, he can sense my emotions and knows (better and better) how work with me when I'm hurt or sad. Besides the things that make him great at his job, these things would make him exceptional at raising a child.

Men and women are equally adept at all jobs and callings, certain individuals are not, and that has nothing to do with genitals and everything to do with the way a person grows up and the things they love and excel at as they grow.

xCrucialDudex
01-17-2010, 12:20 PM
Viv, it seems we agree upon basic idea of the feminism but disagree after all.

I'm all for equality and giving choice to every person in the world no matter the sex.

With that in mind, assuming women have every chance of choosing whatever they think is interesting or appropriate to do at any given time in their lives, why do they still tend to choose certain types of work and activities to do? Look around we don't see too many women involved in what would sound sexist "typical men occupations"? Why is that? Is that only because of the choice? Why is that that majority of women do not seem to have an appeal for physical labor? Or being a grease monkey, or a taxi driver. Why is it that I see a lot more women comprising shops' and supermarkets' staffs than men? Why men are so obsessively addicted to racing and sports and women aren't? Some women are, of course, but most women aren't. On the flip, side why is it that women addicted to soap operas, romance, etc. and not men? Of course some men are, but most aren't.

I get you when you say it's all about individuals. It sounds great - but it seems only in theory - because the facts create the objective reality. Men and women as groups tend to do and not to do certain things. Is it simply a GREAT coincidence that it happens exactly the way it does? I don't think so. I'm willing to bet this is genetically determined on a large scale. Not on a per single person scale as you suggest. Therefore, there's a GROUP dynamics that should be accounted for and reckoned with.

xCrucialDudex
01-17-2010, 12:55 PM
Okay maybe soap operas and romance are not very good examples... mm.. dancing and yoga classes. This is something more women choose than men. Or studying foreign languages professionally, like I did, in a University. We had at max 2 guys and 10-12 girls in a group. And not every group had even 1 guy. I don't think this is some sort of coincidence either because I've seen it happening with my own two eyes for more than five years. And it's not a trend either. It's been always this way. Studying foreign languages professionally doesn't seem to be as appealing to guys as it is to girls.

CarlaRant
01-18-2010, 10:42 AM
It's really alarming to see simple statements that have no intention to offend anyone get their meanings turned around and misinterpreted. I see very this recurring theme of offensively defensive reactions with almost any woman (I don't say people because I rarely engage men on this topic, almost always women) aware of the feminism and its ideas and almost NEVER with women uninfluenced by feminism.


Abused children and animals will lash out at every perceived threat. You are poking at a wound that is generations deep and can be quite personal. When women have been socially and financially put down, physically harmed without reprecussions, and the butt of many jokes, you can see how we can get defensive.

Of course the majority of people are going to say that raising a child is more important than making money, because it's an indication of where society's values are--children, i.e. the future.

Okay, so I went back and reread everything you've been saying, and found this: "Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it."
I think either what you've read or how you interpreted what you have read is extreme. I personally have never read anything that says having any job is better than birthing or raising a child. I'm not an expert, but I've committed a lot of time reading this type of material (bachelor major: journalism, double minor: psychology & sociology, plus years in the zine scene). Feminism is a movement demanding equal treatment of the sexes and the destruction of gender roles, that's all. Most women you'll meet will not be untouched by feminist thought because it's part of history and the generally accepted culture.

Everything else has been addressed quite well by Viv.

CarlaRant
01-18-2010, 10:47 AM
Okay maybe soap operas and romance are not very good examples... mm.. dancing and yoga classes. This is something more women choose than men. Or studying foreign languages professionally, like I did, in a University. We had at max 2 guys and 10-12 girls in a group. And not every group had even 1 guy. I don't think this is some sort of coincidence either because I've seen it happening with my own two eyes for more than five years. And it's not a trend either. It's been always this way. Studying foreign languages professionally doesn't seem to be as appealing to guys as it is to girls.

It could also be that there are more females enrolled at univerisities than men.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html
That's definitely the case in the US

xCrucialDudex
01-18-2010, 12:57 PM
It could also be that there are more females enrolled at univerisities than men.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html
That's definitely the case in the US

Point is I was talking about a single department that has described specifics. I don't think there's information publicly available on the Web as to how many male and female students enrolled the Uni I studied in but almost any other department has quite a lot of guys, that's guaranteed. On the other hand, take, for example, the department of sport and you will almost always find there more guys than girls. At least this is the case over here.

xCrucialDudex
01-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Okay, so I went back and reread everything you've been saying, and found this: "Now thanks to femprop a lot of women are having this funny idea that having at least ANY job is more important than having a baby and raising it."
I think either what you've read or how you interpreted what you have read is extreme.

Exactly - extreme. I'm trying to point out that often times the femprop seems to do a lot more bad than good. Like women getting overly aggressive and start seeing issues where there are no such or start exaggerating grossly something and acting really, really agitated. Like women start forgetting the real meaning of some speaker's phrases and misinterpreting the original meaning of a phrase and pushing it to extremes.

Actually, this thread was born out of exactly some situation like that. A friend of mine posted a couple quotations by famous feminists in her on-line journal, one among of those was Gloria Steinem's "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

I asked if it means that Gloria champions the idea that women are absolutely independent, like in any sense possible - just to see how healthy the suggested meaning is. My friend came back replying that she didn't remembered exactly what it was about, but she remembered it was about women not being MORE dependent on men than vice versa. Which I think is true and is exactly what I believe.

But then right there she proceeded with the whole shebang of how women can indeed be absolutely independent if they wanted to, as if men play no significant role in lives of women at all. I can't say my friend is lame or too naive. She's quite a bright girl, very intelligent and cool person that I really admire. But.. that, THAT... IS extreme thinking and believes.

And I see this type of behavior with women influenced by feminism happening so often, I involuntarily start thinking all feminism does is putting some extreme ideas into heads of women and make them militant and abrasive.

It's just I've seen this correlation between women being extreme in their fight for the rights and them being exposed to feminism.

xsecx
01-18-2010, 01:33 PM
Okay maybe soap operas and romance are not very good examples... mm.. dancing and yoga classes. This is something more women choose than men. Or studying foreign languages professionally, like I did, in a University. We had at max 2 guys and 10-12 girls in a group. And not every group had even 1 guy. I don't think this is some sort of coincidence either because I've seen it happening with my own two eyes for more than five years. And it's not a trend either. It's been always this way. Studying foreign languages professionally doesn't seem to be as appealing to guys as it is to girls.

This of course could be a side effect of societal gender roles and not a reflection of nature. You somehow think that you're living in a world of equality and then use examples around you to show how feminists are wrong. It's not that they're wrong most likely, it's that the world you live in is stuck thinking in traditional gender roles.

xsecx
01-18-2010, 01:35 PM
And I see this type of behavior with women influenced by feminism happening so often, I involuntarily start thinking all feminism does is putting some extreme ideas into heads of women and make them militant and abrasive.

It's just I've seen this correlation between women being extreme in their fight for the rights and them being exposed to feminism.


what extreme ideas, exactly?

xCrucialDudex
01-18-2010, 01:49 PM
what extreme ideas, exactly?

Having paranoia that men are trying to belittle women when nothing like this is really happening, harboring ideas that women are superior, well AT LEAST equal, that women don't need men, at all (we've got the sperm from the labs! yay! we don't need men at all let's feast on this!) Do you feel the vibe? It's really frightening when you see THIS... either brainwashing results or some hidden agenda even, I don't know what it is exactly but its having a very obvious negative impact on women.

xCrucialDudex
01-18-2010, 01:50 PM
It looks really unhealthy. Can anyone else see this?

xsecx
01-18-2010, 01:54 PM
Having paranoia that men are trying to belittle women when nothing like this is really happening, harboring ideas that women are superior, well AT LEAST equal, that women don't need men, at all (we've got the sperm from the labs! yay! we don't need men at all let's feast on this!) Do you feel the vibe? It's really frightening when you see THIS... either brainwashing results or some hidden agenda even, I don't know what it is exactly but its having a very obvious negative impact on women.

a lot of time, men are trying to belittle women. A lot of the time, men are threatened by women in non traditional roles, especially in the work place. Most men still don't like the idea of working for a woman.

And dude. a lot of women don't need men at all, they're called lesbians. They're called women who don't want kids or romantic relationships. They do exist, they are real people and they're not out to get you.

If you've got a group that empowers women, what negative impact are you seeing? Girls that think they don't need men? Girls that think they don't have to fit into the gender role you want to assign them? This whole thing seems to be way more about your feeling threatened than any kind of radical feminist plot to kill the y chromosome.

xsecx
01-18-2010, 01:55 PM
It looks really unhealthy. Can anyone else see this?

I see your thinking as unhealthy.

xCrucialDudex
01-19-2010, 12:59 AM
Okay. I don't know it just seems however I phrase it my words fall on deaf ears.

I guess I'm pretty able to distinguish one situation when there's a real reason for a woman to react aggressively and fight back for her rights and the other one when she starts acting like that for no real reason. And you tell me I'm just threatened. Well, I don't agree with that. Besides, we can be threatened by the same sex too so it nullifies the argument.

Moreover, I think women are threatened too (when there's no real reason to be to) and often times use feminism as excuse to try and put men down in an attempt to overcome the feeling of being threatened.

For example, let's talk about real situation that happened yesterday in my country. There's a prominent pickup artist in Russia, an icon person, who wrote in his online journal that he had been attacked by a woman that tossed a cake into his face and followed up immediately with a quick speech during the press conference with UNIAN in Kiev. As it turned out the girl was a local feminist activist. Although her reasons for doing this are unclear we can only speculate, but it is clear - that was an act of expressing hatred towards the man and his teaching that lets men seduce women effectively. Now, why is it that it was a feminist activist? WHY IT HAD TO BE A FEMINIST ACTIVIST? Is feminism against men seducing women? I don't think so. And this incident is a very excellent example of when feminism influenced people take it to extremes, twist core ideas of the movement as they please and turn this fight for rights into war on men without the need to have any real reason. They develop some sort of paranoia and start believing men are the root of the evil and everything men do one way or another is going to put women down.

lo0m
01-19-2010, 06:45 AM
dusty, you're mixing a lot of groups into one.. or generalising again.. women who don't want kids don't have to be women who don't need men (that's my and my gf's case btw).. women who don't need men != women who don't want romantic relationship... you're just messing it up and I also think that CD was talking more about "extreme and dumb feminism" which has nothing to do with feminism you're talking about... at least I as a feminist can see the difference

xsecx
01-19-2010, 06:53 AM
dusty, you're mixing a lot of groups into one.. or generalising again.. women who don't want kids don't have to be women who don't need men (that's my and my gf's case btw).. women who don't need men != women who don't want romantic relationship... you're just messing it up and I also think that CD was talking more about "extreme and dumb feminism" which has nothing to do with feminism you're talking about... at least I as a feminist can see the difference

women who don't want to have kids, don't need men. They may want them, but they can in fact live completely fulfilled lives without men in them. That's the point. Just because someone's a woman doesn't mean they can't live completely happy and fulfilled lives without them.

So I'll ask you then, what are some examples of extreme and dumb feminism?

xsecx
01-19-2010, 06:57 AM
Okay. I don't know it just seems however I phrase it my words fall on deaf ears.

I guess I'm pretty able to distinguish one situation when there's a real reason for a woman to react aggressively and fight back for her rights and the other one when she starts acting like that for no real reason. And you tell me I'm just threatened. Well, I don't agree with that. Besides, we can be threatened by the same sex too so it nullifies the argument.

Moreover, I think women are threatened too (when there's no real reason to be to) and often times use feminism as excuse to try and put men down in an attempt to overcome the feeling of being threatened.


How are you in a position to decide what is and isn't a valid reason for a woman to feel threatened? Your entire way of thinking is defensive and I'm really not sure why. Why does this bother you? Why does this upset you? How does it effect your life?



For example, let's talk about real situation that happened yesterday in my country. There's a prominent pickup artist in Russia, an icon person, who wrote in his online journal that he had been attacked by a woman that tossed a cake into his face and followed up immediately with a quick speech during the press conference with UNIAN in Kiev. As it turned out the girl was a local feminist activist. Although her reasons for doing this are unclear we can only speculate, but it is clear - that was an act of expressing hatred towards the man and his teaching that lets men seduce women effectively. Now, why is it that it was a feminist activist? WHY IT HAD TO BE A FEMINIST ACTIVIST? Is feminism against men seducing women? I don't think so. And this incident is a very excellent example of when feminism influenced people take it to extremes, twist core ideas of the movement as they please and turn this fight for rights into war on men without the need to have any real reason. They develop some sort of paranoia and start believing men are the root of the evil and everything men do one way or another is going to put women down.

Maybe because pick up artists view women as objects of conquest and not people? That they exist simply to fulfil that guys sexual desires? The fact that you don't that leads me to believe that you don't really understand what feminism is about at all. That you can't see that it's mainly about women being treated as equals and not just sexual objects is kind of incredible. And that you see nothing wrong with it.

lo0m
01-19-2010, 07:08 AM
women who don't want to have kids, don't need men. They may want them, but they can in fact live completely fulfilled lives without men in them. That's the point. Just because someone's a woman doesn't mean they can't live completely happy and fulfilled lives without them.

So I'll ask you then, what are some examples of extreme and dumb feminism?

so you're talking about "need" in sense of reproduction... but that is one of the last needs human has. human also needs love, needs to share things in his/her life, needs to have someone who would take care of him/her in case of disease.. but yes, if you're talking just about not giving birth to a children - then you're right - that woman don't need a man :-)

some examples: i was opening a door few days ago to a lady.. she started to complain about "those men".. what she didn't realize (and she could if she wouldn't put herself to a gender role and wouldn't assume the worst) was that i'm opening doors to everyone, both males and females, i'm just raised that way.. even more "dumb feminist" bullshit is an article published on czech pseudofeminist server. about computers( i won't complain that the lady who wrote mixed computers and operating systems). the author clearly stated there that computers (she was talking about that overcomplexed UI) are male's weapon to keep women as slaves.. come on - this is just an idiocy.. and so on, you got the idea... what i'm talking about is pure hatred towards those stinky, brutal, undeveloped males... that has nothing to do with feminism trying to reach a state of equality among genders... actually, it gives feminism really bad advertising...

rodrigo
01-19-2010, 07:16 AM
so you're talking about "need" in sense of reproduction... but that is one of the last needs human has. human also needs love, needs to share things in his/her life, needs to have someone who would take care of him/her in case of disease.. but yes, if you're talking just about not giving birth to a children - then you're right - that woman don't need a man :-)


those other human needs dont really have to be satisfied by men

lo0m
01-19-2010, 07:22 AM
those other human needs dont really have to be satisfied by men

no, but are usually satisfied by one person of the same/opposite sex..

rodrigo
01-19-2010, 07:23 AM
no, but are usually satisfied by one person of the same/opposite sex..

but the three things you named can be easily be covered even by friends!

lo0m
01-19-2010, 07:25 AM
but the three things you named can be easily be covered even by friends!

i agree... but "can" and "usually are" are two really different statements..

rodrigo
01-19-2010, 07:26 AM
i agree... but "can" and "usually are" are two really different statements..

doesnt mean there's an actual need for them to be satisfied by the oposite sex then!

lo0m
01-19-2010, 07:32 AM
doesnt mean there's an actual need for them to be satisfied by the oposite sex then!

ask 10 women in your surroundings.. if they're heterosexual there's a good propability that they'll agree with me...
and i'm not saying that a women needs a man to feel loved.. but many persons choose one lover over many friends.. and i'm not even saying that human needs to form couples.. not at all... i was talking about that specific example ( if 'woman don't need man' equates 'woman don't want to have kids' or not.. i believe not but that doesn't mean it's impossible in some way...)

rodrigo
01-19-2010, 07:40 AM
ask 10 women in your surroundings.. if they're heterosexual there's a good propability that they'll agree with me...
and i'm not saying that a women needs a man to feel loved.. but many persons choose one lover over many friends.. and i'm not even saying that human needs to form couples.. not at all... i was talking about that specific example ( if 'woman don't need man' equates 'woman don't want to have kids' or not.. i believe not but that doesn't mean it's impossible in some way...)

they'll probably agree with you dont really considering what "need" stands for, just because i like to have sex doesnt mean i need it to live, ask 10 people in your surroundings how many of them will say they need it.

truth is, you can go on withouth an opposite sex partner or partners, you wont die if you dont have it, you wont get sick if you still have friends and close people and you can live a pretty decent life if you dont care about it.

now, that people would rather have a boyfriend/girlfriend/lifemate/ect its another deal, and most of us would agree with that i think.

lo0m
01-19-2010, 07:43 AM
they'll probably agree with you dont really considering what "need" stands for, just because i like to have sex doesnt mean i need it to live, ask 10 people in your surroundings how many of them will say they need it.

truth is, you can go on withouth an opposite sex partner or partners, you wont die if you dont have it, you wont get sick if you still have friends and close people and you can live a pretty decent life if you dont care about it.

now, that people would rather have a boyfriend/girlfriend/lifemate/ect its another deal, and most of us would agree with that i think.

agreed...

rodrigo
01-19-2010, 07:46 AM
agreed...

:)

xsecx
01-19-2010, 08:40 AM
so you're talking about "need" in sense of reproduction... but that is one of the last needs human has. human also needs love, needs to share things in his/her life, needs to have someone who would take care of him/her in case of disease.. but yes, if you're talking just about not giving birth to a children - then you're right - that woman don't need a man :-)


Rodrigo already covered this. So I guess you'll just retract your previous statement?



some examples: i was opening a door few days ago to a lady.. she started to complain about "those men".. what she didn't realize (and she could if she wouldn't put herself to a gender role and wouldn't assume the worst) was that i'm opening doors to everyone, both males and females, i'm just raised that way.. even more "dumb feminist" bullshit is an article published on czech pseudofeminist server. about computers( i won't complain that the lady who wrote mixed computers and operating systems). the author clearly stated there that computers (she was talking about that overcomplexed UI) are male's weapon to keep women as slaves.. come on - this is just an idiocy.. and so on, you got the idea... what i'm talking about is pure hatred towards those stinky, brutal, undeveloped males... that has nothing to do with feminism trying to reach a state of equality among genders... actually, it gives feminism really bad advertising...

I find it interesting that you can tell based on a single comment that the woman was practicing extreme feminism. I take it you had an in depth conversation with her about her motivation, what she actually meant, and what had happened in her life to lead her to feel that way? In the other case the example may be dumb, but you're blind if you think that there isn't a history of male oppression and that women aren't equal today and that there are women who feel obligated to combat that. I can't really begrudge the sentiment. It's not the sentiment that's idiocy, and that's the point. There are plenty of women that are pissed, and based on a lot of the comments in this thread, it appears they still have a reason to be.

xCrucialDudex
01-19-2010, 08:47 AM
...
some examples: i was opening a door few days ago to a lady.. she started to complain about "those men".. what she didn't realize (and she could if she wouldn't put herself to a gender role and wouldn't assume the worst) was that i'm opening doors to everyone, both males and females, i'm just raised that way.. even more "dumb feminist" bullshit is an article published on czech pseudofeminist server. about computers( i won't complain that the lady who wrote mixed computers and operating systems). the author clearly stated there that computers (she was talking about that overcomplexed UI) are male's weapon to keep women as slaves.. come on - this is just an idiocy.. and so on, you got the idea... what i'm talking about is pure hatred towards those stinky, brutal, undeveloped males... that has nothing to do with feminism trying to reach a state of equality among genders... actually, it gives feminism really bad advertising...

Oh boy someone who actually understands what I'm trying to point out here!


How are you in a position to decide what is and isn't a valid reason for a woman to feel threatened?

Well, following this line of thinking how can women know what is and is not a valid reason for men to feel threatened?


Your entire way of thinking is defensive and I'm really not sure why. Why does this bother you? Why does this upset you? How does it effect your life?

It's defensive because I cannot agree completely that feminism is THAT good as many people are trying to convince me here it is. Don't get this wrong - it's all good and fine while it holds to its basic idea of empowering and emancipating women and making them equal. My beef with feminism starts when in reality I see A LOT of women making this an ABSURD WAR ON MEN by being militant, too extreme and simply stupid. Now, I don't know how else I can illustrate this. I can simply see this. You obviously can't. Maybe in US majority of women are more thoroughly educated or civilized, or whatever. Maybe you just don't get to see that side of feminism as I do. I don't know why you keep ignoring what I'm saying - there are TONS of examples when feminism aware people are doing or saying extremely stupid and dumb things. lo0m provided one example too.

This absurdity and stupidity makes me feel upset because it clearly looks like brainwashing to me. Much like a lot of religious groups converting what I consider to be normal people into God loving sheeps.

Unfortunately, as a result of many women being militant and extreme, vocal and basically very active in an attempt to achieve professed equality they actually intimidate otherwise normal men by crushing on them with all this "you're a man, you're in no fucking position to tell me what to do, actually YOU are the one who's wrong and needs to be fixed blah blah blah", generally speaking overreacting to the point of extreme behavior and thinking and making large generalizations attributing putative qualities and behaviors to any men they see or don't like for whatever reason.

Otherwise normal women turn into infuriated war waging soldiers. And it seems its the only thing important to them - to bash on men. First, I encountered this myself, so I know what I'm talking about exactly. Second, I can see this happening around me. So it effects my life directly and lives of other men and I think I have a right to question what's going on and be vocal about it.



Maybe because pick up artists view women as objects of conquest and not people?

And what is wrong about that? I mean almost anything in our lives one way or another is a conquest of something.


That they exist simply to fulfil that guys sexual desires?

You know this is some really stereotypical thinking. And again you see women as victims here when it's not necessarily the case. This looks like double thinking. We don't like how they treat us but how we treat them is alright and no one has the right to questions this. How about men and the way most women treat them?

Actually women are very, very cruel when it comes to dating/mating. They often play men as they want - they like it and some don't even try to hide that they are. They're being a tease and like to have power over men and shoot them down. Some make men pay for them, just for fun, or no purpose. It makes them feel good. Now, I realize that this is nature. This is women the way they are. Some are good girls, some are bad ones. So, what's wrong with men conquering women? After all, this is our destiny on the instincts level - to conquer as many women as possible and spread the seed. This is something nature made us to be. If you can't agree with this I believe you're lying to yourself.

Now, do we have men waging war on women because they're naturally being or playing hard to get? No we don't, but women do. Talk about equality and healthy feminism!


The fact that you don't that leads me to believe that you don't really understand what feminism is about at all.

I didn't get this one. Rephrase it please.


That you can't see that it's mainly about women being treated as equals and not just sexual objects is kind of incredible. And that you see nothing wrong with it.

It's incredible to see you speaking about men treating women as sexual objects as if it's something outrageous. This is our nature. I'm not championing the idea that men SHOULD treat women like that but intrinsically there's nothing wrong with that. It's nature. It's the way men are. Just like women being harsh and cruel when selecting appropriate mate/man. You know, it's OK to be a man. Suppressing those internal drives will only make you feel bad.

xvunderx
01-19-2010, 09:26 AM
Well, following this line of thinking how can women know what is and is not a valid reason for men to feel threatened?

It seems that what is being threatened is mens comfort in the power they have over woemen, the only thing being threatened is mens ability to put women down, the same way a slave master would have felt threatened when his slaves started to make a move for freedom.


It's defensive because I cannot agree completely that feminism is THAT good as many people are trying to convince me here it is.

Feminism is that good, because women deserve equal rights and an equal footing on this planet.


Don't get this wrong - it's all good and fine while it holds to its basic idea of empowering and emancipating women and making them equal. My beef with feminism starts when in reality I see A LOT of women making this an ABSURD WAR ON MEN by being militant, too extreme and simply stupid.

The war isn't on men, it's on the power men exercise to put women down. No one has anything against men, they can do what they want as long as it doesn't put women down.


Now, I don't know how else I can illustrate this. I can simply see this. You obviously can't. Maybe in US majority of women are more thoroughly educated or civilized, or whatever. Maybe you just don't get to see that side of feminism as I do. I don't know why you keep ignoring what I'm saying - there are TONS of examples when feminism aware people are doing or saying extremely stupid and dumb things. lo0m provided one example too.

Your examples thus far have all been completely reasonable though, you haven't shown an example of anything "extremely stupid" though your constant belittling of the females fight is sexist in itself.



This absurdity and stupidity makes me feel upset because it clearly looks like brainwashing to me. Much like a lot of religious groups converting what I consider to be normal people into God loving sheep.

It isn't making sheep, it's showing women they are worth more than men like you want them to believe they are. Believing that I should be equal, and being willing to do what I have to along with other women doesn't make me or any feminist a sheep. We all share the same values because they are right, and we are all fighting for it together. I mean perhaps patriarchal propaganda brainwashes all men into thinking they deserve more power and privilege than they do, and all sexist men are sheep because of it.



Unfortunately, as a result of many women being militant and extreme, vocal and basically very active in an attempt to achieve professed equality they actually intimidate otherwise normal men by crushing on them with all this "you're a man, you're in no fucking position to tell me what to do, actually YOU are the one who's wrong and needs to be fixed blah blah blah", generally speaking overreacting to the point of extreme behavior and thinking and making large generalizations attributing putative qualities and behaviors to any men they see or don't like for whatever reason.

But they are right, and you don't have any right to tell any of us what to do, and it's getting to the point where no man feels that just because he is a man he has any right to tell women what to do or be is exactly the fight at hand.

It isn't extreme to say that, it's the truth, and the only way for a man to hold the power.

What these women are fighting against in this example is men to putting women down and to stay on top. Something that is not equal.


Otherwise normal women turn into infuriated war waging soldiers. And it seems its the only thing important to them - to bash on men. First, I encountered this myself, so I know what I'm talking about exactly. Second, I can see this happening around me. So it effects my life directly and lives of other men and I think I have a right to question what's going on and be vocal about it.

Oppressed isn't the natural state it's the result of centuries of inequity and men putting down women. Male dominance over women isn't right, and that fact that you think it is proves that these women have a point, and still have to fight. No one is bashing men. Men currently enjoy an unfair privilege over women, I can see why you would want to keep that, it makes your life easier, but that ease comes from oppression. It's an undeserved privilege, and it's the symptom of an unequal society.


And what is wrong about that? I mean almost anything in our lives one way or another is a conquest of something.

To conquest over someone, is to put that someone down. That's why it's wrong, it creates inequality.


You know this is some really stereotypical thinking. And again you see women as victims here when it's not necessarily the case. This looks like double thinking. We don't like how they treat us but how we treat them is alright and no one has the right to questions this. How about men and the way most women treat them?

If a woman is domestically violet against a man, that's not cool or ok. If a woman seeks to remove male power over women, something that hurts them and creates inequality between the sexes, then, sorry, but that inequality is hurting women, your ease and pleasure here comes from hurting women. It isn't treating men bady to take back the right that are owed you.


Actually women are very, very cruel when it comes to dating/mating. They often play men as they want - they like it and some don't even try to hide that they are. They're being a tease and like to have power over men and shoot them down.

But this has nothing to do with feminism


Some make men pay for them, just for fun, or no purpose. It makes them feel good. Now, I realize that this is nature. This is women the way they are. Some are good girls, some are bad ones. So, what's wrong with men conquering women? After all, this is our destiny on the instincts level - to conquer as many women as possible and spread the seed. This is something nature made us to be. If you can't agree with this I believe you're lying to yourself.

Treating women as nothing more than sexual objects out them down because it casts them as something there only for the pleasure of men and dehumanizes them as thinking feeling human beings. Heck if you are going the animal route, women get less change to swap seed so should be much choosier, and only have sex with the Brad pits of this world leaving the weaker specimens out of luck.


Now, do we have men waging war on women because they're naturally being or playing hard to get? No we don't, but women do. Talk about equality and healthy feminism!

What has this got to do with the right of women to be treat like equal human beings? Individuals on either side play little games with other individuals. If a woman wrote a book on how to manipulate men into giving it up and how to use them for your own pleasure, then you can get upset about that, but that's not what you are talking about here.


It's incredible to see you speaking about men treating women as sexual objects as if it's something outrageous. This is our nature. I'm not championing the idea that men SHOULD treat women like that but intrinsically there's nothing wrong with that. It's nature. It's the way men are. Just like women being harsh and cruel when selecting appropriate mate/man. You know, it's OK to be a man. Suppressing those internal drives will only make you feel bad.

Because again, taking and promoting the idea of using women as sexual objects de-humanizes them, already explained that one.

Girls just not finding some one at all fanciable isn't the women being cruel, it's just the guy who for some reason just must not seem like a good person to have a relationship with. I've had lots of guys come on to me I just wasn't interested, it might not be nice for them to have been rejected, but it wasn't cruel to tell them no. I wasn't putting down men by my power to chose, just like if (when I was single) I hit on a guy who wasn't into me and he told me "no" he wouldn't be exploiting his power over me, I just wouldn't be to his taste and we'd both move on.

In this quote it seems you are saying that women should suppress the urge to reject someone they don't find attractive?

xsecx
01-19-2010, 09:26 AM
Oh boy someone who actually understands what I'm trying to point out here!



Well, following this line of thinking how can women know what is and is not a valid reason for men to feel threatened?



It's defensive because I cannot agree completely that feminism is THAT good as many people are trying to convince me here it is. Don't get this wrong - it's all good and fine while it holds to its basic idea of empowering and emancipating women and making them equal. My beef with feminism starts when in reality I see A LOT of women making this an ABSURD WAR ON MEN by being militant, too extreme and simply stupid. Now, I don't know how else I can illustrate this. I can simply see this. You obviously can't. Maybe in US majority of women are more thoroughly educated or civilized, or whatever. Maybe you just don't get to see that side of feminism as I do. I don't know why you keep ignoring what I'm saying - there are TONS of examples when feminism aware people are doing or saying extremely stupid and dumb things. lo0m provided one example too.

This absurdity and stupidity makes me feel upset because it clearly looks like brainwashing to me. Much like a lot of religious groups converting what I consider to be normal people into God loving sheeps.

Unfortunately, as a result of many women being militant and extreme, vocal and basically very active in an attempt to achieve professed equality they actually intimidate otherwise normal men by crushing on them with all this "you're a man, you're in no fucking position to tell me what to do, actually YOU are the one who's wrong and needs to be fixed blah blah blah", generally speaking overreacting to the point of extreme behavior and thinking and making large generalizations attributing putative qualities and behaviors to any men they see or don't like for whatever reason.

Otherwise normal women turn into infuriated war waging soldiers. And it seems its the only thing important to them - to bash on men. First, I encountered this myself, so I know what I'm talking about exactly. Second, I can see this happening around me. So it effects my life directly and lives of other men and I think I have a right to question what's going on and be vocal about it.




And what is wrong about that? I mean almost anything in our lives one way or another is a conquest of something.



You know this is some really stereotypical thinking. And again you see women as victims here when it's not necessarily the case. This looks like double thinking. We don't like how they treat us but how we treat them is alright and no one has the right to questions this. How about men and the way most women treat them?

Actually women are very, very cruel when it comes to dating/mating. They often play men as they want - they like it and some don't even try to hide that they are. They're being a tease and like to have power over men and shoot them down. Some make men pay for them, just for fun, or no purpose. It makes them feel good. Now, I realize that this is nature. This is women the way they are. Some are good girls, some are bad ones. So, what's wrong with men conquering women? After all, this is our destiny on the instincts level - to conquer as many women as possible and spread the seed. This is something nature made us to be. If you can't agree with this I believe you're lying to yourself.

Now, do we have men waging war on women because they're naturally being or playing hard to get? No we don't, but women do. Talk about equality and healthy feminism!



I didn't get this one. Rephrase it please.



It's incredible to see you speaking about men treating women as sexual objects as if it's something outrageous. This is our nature. I'm not championing the idea that men SHOULD treat women like that but intrinsically there's nothing wrong with that. It's nature. It's the way men are. Just like women being harsh and cruel when selecting appropriate mate/man. You know, it's OK to be a man. Suppressing those internal drives will only make you feel bad.


I had replied to this and then thought that it may actually be a lot better if someone else, especially one of the women on this board responds instead. If they don't, then I'll undelete my comment.

lo0m
01-19-2010, 10:04 AM
Rodrigo already covered this. So I guess you'll just retract your previous statement?

actually no, i agreed with rodrigo's last post as I was trying to express something very similar thing.. maybe with bad words, i confess... but thanks for telling me what to do , i would be propably lost without you...




I find it interesting that you can tell based on a single comment that the woman was practicing extreme feminism. I take it you had an in depth conversation with her about her motivation, what she actually meant, and what had happened in her life to lead her to feel that way? In the other case the example may be dumb, but you're blind if you think that there isn't a history of male oppression and that women aren't equal today and that there are women who feel obligated to combat that. I can't really begrudge the sentiment. It's not the sentiment that's idiocy, and that's the point. There are plenty of women that are pissed, and based on a lot of the comments in this thread, it appears they still have a reason to be.
you may also find interesting the fact, that people do not communicate only with words, but also with look, body posture etc... also i didn't say anywhere that men and women in today society are treated as equals..i'm not blind.. but you know - that is really not my problem if that women had bad experience with some man.. i am a different person than the hypothetical "him".. i was just polite.. i wasn't treating her as something lower than me, but she was treating me as sexist pig (and yes - i could see it in her eyes as every other person would i believe).. you can't know it but one of the girls in my family has actually really bad experience with her ex and I've talked to numerous other beaten women, so can you please close your Psychology 101 and actually go and talk to oppressed women? you'll find out that in most cases they are not angry.. they are ashamed .. and they can treat a normal, polite man in a normal, polite way .. they didn't develop a new reflex so they get angry when they see another man
on the contrary- extreme feminists were usually not treated bad (ok, i can only talk about those i knew in person).. they are just angry... and men are as good target for anger as another social or ethnical minority... this may have jumped out of topic, but THIS is what i meant by "extreme and dumb feminism"... hatred

xCrucialDudex
01-19-2010, 10:17 AM
I had replied to this and then thought that it may actually be a lot better if someone else, especially one of the women on this board responds instead. If they don't, then I'll undelete my comment.

No need, I got it.

xCrucialDudex
01-19-2010, 10:24 AM
... extreme feminists were usually not treated bad (ok, i can only talk about those i knew in person).. they are just angry... and men are as good target for anger as another social or ethnical minority... this may have jumped out of topic, but THIS is what i meant by "extreme and dumb feminism"... hatred

That's what I'm saying if I get your right, man.

Viv, Dusty, Carla, Linsee and everyone else thanks for your detailed replies and keeping it cool. I don't necessarily agree with everything you wrote in replies to me but I'll sure think about it all thoroughly.

xsecx
01-19-2010, 10:35 AM
actually no, i agreed with rodrigo's last post as I was trying to express something very similar thing.. maybe with bad words, i confess... but thanks for telling me what to do , i would be propably lost without you...


Rodrigo said the same thing I did, so which is it? I mean, I know you just posted because your issues with me but I'd hope that if you're going to post some opposition, it'd at least make sense.



you may also find interesting the fact, that people do not communicate only with words, but also with look, body posture etc... also i didn't say anywhere that men and women in today society are treated as equals..i'm not blind.. but you know - that is really not my problem if that women had bad experience with some man.. i am a different person than the hypothetical "him".. i was just polite.. i wasn't treating her as something lower than me, but she was treating me as sexist pig (and yes - i could see it in her eyes as every other person would i believe).. you can't know it but one of the girls in my family has actually really bad experience with her ex and I've talked to numerous other beaten women, so can you please close your Psychology 101 and actually go and talk to oppressed women? you'll find out that in most cases they are not angry.. they are ashamed .. and they can treat a normal, polite man in a normal, polite way .. they didn't develop a new reflex so they get angry when they see another man
on the contrary- extreme feminists were usually not treated bad (ok, i can only talk about those i knew in person).. they are just angry... and men are as good target for anger as another social or ethnical minority... this may have jumped out of topic, but THIS is what i meant by "extreme and dumb feminism"... hatred

So among all of your talents you're also a mind reader? You can tell exactly what she was thinking and why? Holy shit that's incredible! We need to get you in front of the world right away! I mean shit, you knew exactly what was going through that womans mind, based purely on a couple of words and the look in her eyes. Fuck, it must be militant feminism at work!

So just to be clear, your first post to me was about the fact that I made a general statement but then you go on to say " extreme feminists were usually not treated bad". So yeah, why are they angry? If they're just angry, what do they say when you ask them?

lo0m
01-19-2010, 11:01 AM
Rodrigo said the same thing I did, so which is it? I mean, I know you just posted because your issues with me but I'd hope that if you're going to post some opposition, it'd at least make sense.



So among all of your talents you're also a mind reader? You can tell exactly what she was thinking and why? Holy shit that's incredible! We need to get you in front of the world right away! I mean shit, you knew exactly what was going through that womans mind, based purely on a couple of words and the look in her eyes. Fuck, it must be militant feminism at work!

So just to be clear, your first post to me was about the fact that I made a general statement but then you go on to say " extreme feminists were usually not treated bad". So yeah, why are they angry? If they're just angry, what do they say when you ask them?

ha, so know you're trying to say that you can't tell from a girl's face if she likes, dislikes, despises you? never had a communication without words? come on... you can of course exaggerate what I've stated to "mind reading", "sexual shamanism", or whatever you like but that really doesn't change anything about an incident that I've been through, does it? :-)

yeah, you've put a bunch of different hypothetical women to one badly described group and I've named a majority based on my actual experience with part of feminist groups that i see as not sincere.. you can hardly compare those two statements from the outlook of generalising (that's not propably in english, but you get the idea)...
when i was talking with majority of feminists, they were maybe angry - but on specific things.. bad law, bad employer, bad man or even a general bad situation of women, but not JUST angry on everyone with a dick.. this minority is giving feminism a bad name and whatever you say can not change my opinion that it's just a bunch of cunts easily comparable to your local aryan redneck...

xsecx
01-19-2010, 12:14 PM
ha, so know you're trying to say that you can't tell from a girl's face if she likes, dislikes, despises you? never had a communication without words? come on... you can of course exaggerate what I've stated to "mind reading", "sexual shamanism", or whatever you like but that really doesn't change anything about an incident that I've been through, does it? :-)

No I'm saying you can't be sure why she reacted the way she did. Seeing someone's reaction and knowing why they reacted are totally different things. This was supposed to be an example of extreme feminism. What isn't clear though is why you think it was, rather than a woman saying something and looking at you funny.



yeah, you've put a bunch of different hypothetical women to one badly described group and I've named a majority based on my actual experience with part of feminist groups that i see as not sincere.. you can hardly compare those two statements from the outlook of generalising (that's not propably in english, but you get the idea)...
when i was talking with majority of feminists, they were maybe angry - but on specific things.. bad law, bad employer, bad man or even a general bad situation of women, but not JUST angry on everyone with a dick.. this minority is giving feminism a bad name and whatever you say can not change my opinion that it's just a bunch of cunts easily comparable to your local aryan redneck...

And yet, my badly described group, you admit don't actually need men.
Wait, so now these feminists have a reason to be angry?

Also, way to call yourself a feminist and then use a derogatory sexist term to describe women. top shelf, really. This may explain why the feminists around you hate you.

lo0m
01-20-2010, 12:47 AM
No I'm saying you can't be sure why she reacted the way she did. Seeing someone's reaction and knowing why they reacted are totally different things. This was supposed to be an example of extreme feminism. What isn't clear though is why you think it was, rather than a woman saying something and looking at you funny.

first, it's not the point of this discussion if I can tell what she thought or not. you weren't there so you can hardly understand all communication, both verbal and nonverbal, that happened. it's upon you however, if you'll take it or leave it.




And yet, my badly described group, you admit don't actually need men.
Wait, so now these feminists have a reason to be angry?

they don't "need" in biological terms.. I believe that human has other "needs".. I agreed with rodrigo they it's not really a "need" in sense there's no other way, yet I believe that majority of women would describe it as "need", even it's "only" something they want to.. and I still didn't consider push of society - there are countries where having a husband is really a "need"...

off course they have - but not a priori.. they (feminist women I can relate to) are not angry at YOU because of something you can't control (whether you were born a male or a female)... if you don't see the difference between these two than I don't know how to specify it more for you..


Also, way to call yourself a feminist and then use a derogatory sexist term to describe women. top shelf, really. This may explain why the feminists around you hate you.
hmm, that's leads me to a though that you don't really grasp the idea of feminism... yes, it is an insult but I have no problem with using insults where I find them appropriate (that's maybe my problem but again - out of topic). I won't say I love every woman on this planet.. I treat both sexes as equal.. it's not a distinctive factor for me (other than biological).. so if a male's a racist, he's an idiot to me.. if female's a racist, she's an idiot to me, too... and I've picked racism, as it's ideology of fear from or hatred towards minority... and as I stated, I'm putting women who hate all men regardless of their intellect, emotions and benefit for equal society in the same group... because then it's definitely not about some equality - it's another form of opression...

xsecx
01-20-2010, 09:05 AM
first, it's not the point of this discussion if I can tell what she thought or not. you weren't there so you can hardly understand all communication, both verbal and nonverbal, that happened. it's upon you however, if you'll take it or leave it.

Actually, it is. You used it as an example of radical extreme feminism. For that to be the case, you'd have to have an awful lot more than a couple of words and a look. For all you know she was talking to her self about someone else. Now if you want to actually come up with other real examples, then sure, we can talk about that.



they don't "need" in biological terms.. I believe that human has other "needs".. I agreed with rodrigo they it's not really a "need" in sense there's no other way, yet I believe that majority of women would describe it as "need", even it's "only" something they want to.. and I still didn't consider push of society - there are countries where having a husband is really a "need"...

I like that your hatred of me is so intense that it makes you say stupid shit just to try and illustrate that you don't agree with me.



off course they have - but not a priori.. they (feminist women I can relate to) are not angry at YOU because of something you can't control (whether you were born a male or a female)... if you don't see the difference between these two than I don't know how to specify it more for you..


Could you please make up your mind? Either they have a reason to be angry or they don't. If they have a reason to be angry, then what is it? If they don't, then how do you explain their anger? Did it ever occur to you that they may very well have a reason but just don't feel the need to share it with you? Oh shit, I forgot, you can read minds so you know everything about everyone's motivations.




hmm, that's leads me to a though that you don't really grasp the idea of feminism... yes, it is an insult but I have no problem with using insults where I find them appropriate (that's maybe my problem but again - out of topic). I won't say I love every woman on this planet.. I treat both sexes as equal.. it's not a distinctive factor for me (other than biological).. so if a male's a racist, he's an idiot to me.. if female's a racist, she's an idiot to me, too... and I've picked racism, as it's ideology of fear from or hatred towards minority... and as I stated, I'm putting women who hate all men regardless of their intellect, emotions and benefit for equal society in the same group... because then it's definitely not about some equality - it's another form of opression...

It's an insult that is used specifically to degrade women, so how exactly is it appropriate for you to use it? So if a males a racist he's an idiot, a gender neutral term, if a woman is an extreme feminist she's a cunt, a sexist derogatory term. How the fuck does that factor in your head has treating people equally?

lo0m
01-20-2010, 11:51 AM
Actually, it is. You used it as an example of radical extreme feminism. For that to be the case, you'd have to have an awful lot more than a couple of words and a look. For all you know she was talking to her self about someone else. Now if you want to actually come up with other real examples, then sure, we can talk about that.

I like that your hatred of me is so intense that it makes you say stupid shit just to try and illustrate that you don't agree with me.

you are really wrong on this one.. i have never said that or expressed that as far as i know.. if i hated you i wouldn't discuss with you..
guess what - i agree with you but i think you used really bad terms... you could describe it, yet you've again chose to act arrogant..




Could you please make up your mind? Either they have a reason to be angry or they don't. If they have a reason to be angry, then what is it? If they don't, then how do you explain their anger? Did it ever occur to you that they may very well have a reason but just don't feel the need to share it with you? Oh shit, I forgot, you can read minds so you know everything about everyone's motivations.

it's not about reason to be or not.. recently oppressed women do feel ashamed most of the time.. they're trying to find the fault in themselves.. and stuff like "come on, it's a really nice guy, i used to attend high school with him" which people often say doesn't make it any better.. some of those women later don't want any other women to feel the same.. they're running shelter for those women, they're trying to push legislative changes etc and then they of course feel anger if something is not going as they want it.. that's normal... i hope it's clear now... but you could easily find this out on yourself.. it was clear before



It's an insult that is used specifically to degrade women, so how exactly is it appropriate for you to use it? So if a males a racist he's an idiot, a gender neutral term, if a woman is an extreme feminist she's a cunt, a sexist derogatory term. How the fuck does that factor in your head has treating people equally?
if a male is racist he's a motherfucker - does that sound better?... there is propably something lost in translation which is my fault as english is not my mother tongue... but again . it could be already clear to you that if i have this stand about women i wouldn't degrade them with sexism.. try to not focus on actual words but rather on the meaning of what i'm saying... really, i'm tired of your picking for words.. you know already that i'm not sexist and yet you're waiting for one word so you can accuse me... oh well...

so, i don't hate you in any way, i agree with most of your opinions regarding the topic of this thread.. thank you for your time... :-)

xsecx
01-20-2010, 12:24 PM
you are really wrong on this one.. i have never said that or expressed that as far as i know.. if i hated you i wouldn't discuss with you..
guess what - i agree with you but i think you used really bad terms... you could describe it, yet you've again chose to act arrogant..



It's really interesting then that you completely ignored this entire post until I posted something in it, completely ignoring everything others have said. And if it isn't your hatred that makes you say stupid shit, then I don't really know what excuse you have then, other than you really think you have the ability to mind read.



it's not about reason to be or not.. recently oppressed women do feel ashamed most of the time.. they're trying to find the fault in themselves.. and stuff like "come on, it's a really nice guy, i used to attend high school with him" which people often say doesn't make it any better.. some of those women later don't want any other women to feel the same.. they're running shelter for those women, they're trying to push legislative changes etc and then they of course feel anger if something is not going as they want it.. that's normal... i hope it's clear now... but you could easily find this out on yourself.. it was clear before


How is it not about reason? You basically said that "extreme feminists" were angry over nothing, making their feelings not matter. And no, it's still not clear. What exactly is your issue with extreme feminists? And what are some examples of extreme feminism?



if a male is racist he's a motherfucker - does that sound better?... there is propably something lost in translation which is my fault as english is not my mother tongue... but again . it could be already clear to you that if i have this stand about women i wouldn't degrade them with sexism.. try to not focus on actual words but rather on the meaning of what i'm saying... really, i'm tired of your picking for words.. you know already that i'm not sexist and yet you're waiting for one word so you can accuse me... oh well...

so, i don't hate you in any way, i agree with most of your opinions regarding the topic of this thread.. thank you for your time... :-)

Uh, you did degrade then with sexism by calling them cunts? And no, I'm not actually sure that you're not a sexist. I think you may believe that you're not, but your words here don't really demonstrate that you're not.

lo0m
01-20-2010, 02:12 PM
It's really interesting then that you completely ignored this entire post until I posted something in it, completely ignoring everything others have said. And if it isn't your hatred that makes you say stupid shit, then I don't really know what excuse you have then, other than you really think you have the ability to mind read.


if you'll compare the time I've voted and time I've first commented you'll know it's not true (if you can from your position of admin).. also, sorry to hurt your ego, but you're not that important.. it was crucialdude's post in first place that pushed me to read the following discussion - and then react to something you wrote - maybe it's because you're acting like "i know everything the best" even if i'm not the author of the original post :-)... and no, i don't need an excuse to express my feelings.. if you really think that i hate (H-A-T-E) someone over the internet with different outlook on the world and also think that you can interpret an incident better than someone who actually experienced it, than your socializing had to stop somewhere in the kindergarten... i'm sorry to say that - but this is really way too much :-)) mindreading :-))) next time you'll tell me that all mothers out there can read mind because they can understand their speechless child ... or you'll propably be dead, because someone will point a gun on you and you won't run.. you can't read his mind, can you ? there are many types of language.. i see you're stuck with intellect, with the words, you give em so much stress (or weight? baaad english) but that doesn't mean other communication does not exist.. and i'm not talking about telepathy if you would like to accuse me...


How is it not about reason? You basically said that "extreme feminists" were angry over nothing, making their feelings not matter. And no, it's still not clear. What exactly is your issue with extreme feminists? And what are some examples of extreme feminism?

my issue with extreme feminism is that it is basically hatred..it is not a strive for equality, it is a strive for fight back to their fairly exaggerated sense of masculine society... i gave another example which you mysteriously ignored..


Uh, you did degrade then with sexism by calling them cunts? And no, I'm not actually sure that you're not a sexist. I think you may believe that you're not, but your words here don't really demonstrate that you're not.
oh, next time you'll say i'm what? a nazi? a meat eater? maybe i believe that i don't eat meat - but hey - you can still not be sure if i'm not hallucinating or something. like if everyone was waiting for your verdict.. wake up from that dream...
again, maybe you should really concentrate on an actual message than on picking words of someone who is inferior from position of language.. wait, i've said that before here and in other threads and it has still no effect.. you're propably not capable of that anyway...

xsecx
01-20-2010, 02:21 PM
if you'll compare the time I've voted and time I've first commented you'll know it's not true (if you can from your position of admin).. also, sorry to hurt your ego, but you're not that important.. it was crucialdude's post in first place that pushed me to read the following discussion - and then react to something you wrote - maybe it's because you're acting like "i know everything the best" even if i'm not the author of the original post :-)... and no, i don't need an excuse to express my feelings.. if you really think that i hate (H-A-T-E) someone over the internet with different outlook on the world and also think that you can interpret an incident better than someone who actually experienced it, than your socializing had to stop somewhere in the kindergarten... i'm sorry to say that - but this is really way too much :-)) mindreading :-))) next time you'll tell me that all mothers out there can read mind because they can understand their speechless child ... or you'll propably be dead, because someone will point a gun on you and you won't run.. you can't read his mind, can you ? there are many types of language.. i see you're stuck with intellect, with the words, you give em so much stress (or weight? baaad english) but that doesn't mean other communication does not exist.. and i'm not talking about telepathy if you would like to accuse me...

And yet, you still feel the need to keep writing me back. Here's the irony. You say you feel/think something, but yet your posts reflect something completely different. I also find it interesting that if you're a feminist you didn't actually find anything wrong with anything else crucial dude said. You've also completely missed my point, I guess it's because you spend too much time mind reading vs actual reading. I'll make it really simple for you. Your example was bullshit. What you did do though was validate sexist behavior, so good job.



my issue with extreme feminism is that it is basically hatred..it is not a strive for equality, it is a strive for fight back to their fairly exaggerated sense of masculine society... i gave another example which you mysteriously ignored..


Go back and read, I didn't ignore it at all. It's hatred based on something. Are you saying that hatred is just made up and therefore not important? What are some examples of extreme feminism?



oh, next time you'll say i'm what? a nazi? a meat eater? maybe i believe that i don't eat meat - but hey - you can still not be sure if i'm not hallucinating or something. like if everyone was waiting for your verdict.. wake up from that dream...
again, maybe you should really concentrate on an actual message than on picking words of someone who is inferior from position of language.. wait, i've said that before here and in other threads and it has still no effect.. you're propably not capable of that anyway...

If you talk about how much you want to exterminate the jews, then yes. When you call women cunts, guess what it makes you? Maybe you should look inward and figure out why you made that wording choice? Or are you now going to try and tell me that you didn't think cunt was derogatory and sexist? And if that's the case, you really shouldn't be using words you don't understand, but it's kind of hard to believe that given the context that you used it.

lo0m
01-21-2010, 01:04 AM
And yet, you still feel the need to keep writing me back. Here's the irony. You say you feel/think something, but yet your posts reflect something completely different. I also find it interesting that if you're a feminist you didn't actually find anything wrong with anything else crucial dude said. You've also completely missed my point, I guess it's because you spend too much time mind reading vs actual reading. I'll make it really simple for you. Your example was bullshit. What you did do though was validate sexist behavior, so good job.

who said i didn't find anything about CD's post I don't agree with? I just saw my reply would be useless as others (you propably) adressed the issues already (women as sexual object thing, etc..) .. so you can find it interesting but who the hell cares.. also, i tried to actually understand his general standpoint more than minor flaws or misunderstandings..



Go back and read, I didn't ignore it at all. It's hatred based on something. Are you saying that hatred is just made up and therefore not important? What are some examples of extreme feminism?

i didn't say that hatred is not important... i just say it is a strong, often dumb and negative emotion which propably doesn't lead to an valuable end.. as in other hate-filled philosohies
hey dusty, you can think of your own, don't you.. to generalise it - i mean those stands that say that everything bad on this planet is because of male and everything good is because of females... and also trying to spread this idea... you didn't encounter enything like that?



If you talk about how much you want to exterminate the jews, then yes. When you call women cunts, guess what it makes you? Maybe you should look inward and figure out why you made that wording choice? Or are you now going to try and tell me that you didn't think cunt was derogatory and sexist? And if that's the case, you really shouldn't be using words you don't understand, but it's kind of hard to believe that given the context that you used it.

so i've talked about the superiority of males then to follow your example? hardly.. in fact, in czech word "kunda" which is translated as "cunt" can be used for both males and females even if the literal meaing is "vagina"... and i think that i saw it used it for males in english too... i see you're using your language superiority now - but hey - we can talk in czech whenever you want :-)

xsecx
01-21-2010, 02:22 PM
who said i didn't find anything about CD's post I don't agree with? I just saw my reply would be useless as others (you propably) adressed the issues already (women as sexual object thing, etc..) .. so you can find it interesting but who the hell cares.. also, i tried to actually understand his general standpoint more than minor flaws or misunderstandings..

Well, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so you did. Of course, by not mentioning the things you didn't agree with, but stating about something you did agree with, you actually help reinforce his opinion because he thinks you agree with him. So what minor flaws or misunderstandings are you talking about? If you believe that some of what he was said was sexist, how is that a minor flaw?



i didn't say that hatred is not important... i just say it is a strong, often dumb and negative emotion which propably doesn't lead to an valuable end.. as in other hate-filled philosohies
hey dusty, you can think of your own, don't you.. to generalise it - i mean those stands that say that everything bad on this planet is because of male and everything good is because of females... and also trying to spread this idea... you didn't encounter enything like that?


I have. I've personally been blamed for slavery. I've personally been blamed for women being raped and oppressed around the world. Now, I know I'm not directly responsible, but I do understand and accept that fact that as white male, with white male privilege that even thought I may not directly be responsible for those things, I still accept my share of the blame. I never yelled back that the woman that was telling me that was just a dumb cunt. I accepted her anger and tried to talk to her about it. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But it doesn't make that anger any less real and it doesn't mean that it's not based on something real. There's a difference between taking the blame for something that isn't your fault and completely dismissing someone's anger as based on something made up, which you did.




so i've talked about the superiority of males then to follow your example? hardly.. in fact, in czech word "kunda" which is translated as "cunt" can be used for both males and females even if the literal meaing is "vagina"... and i think that i saw it used it for males in english too... i see you're using your language superiority now - but hey - we can talk in czech whenever you want :-)

So your use of the word cunt wasn't meant to be degrading and derogatory? Or are you now trying to say that it isn't a sexist term? Or are you just claiming general ignorance and shouldn't have used the word because you didn't understand it?

lo0m
01-22-2010, 01:50 AM
Well, you haven't actually said anything to the contrary, so you did. Of course, by not mentioning the things you didn't agree with, but stating about something you did agree with, you actually help reinforce his opinion because he thinks you agree with him. So what minor flaws or misunderstandings are you talking about? If you believe that some of what he was said was sexist, how is that a minor flaw?

what's this, a presumption of guilt? I didn't so i didn't, there's not 'so you did' other than the one in your head..
cd used some ideas and expressions that i can't agree with, yet i believe it was no sexism from his side as a belief that women are inferior (and got that idea from the rest of his writing also even if i wouldn't choose the same words at all)...
and I didn't "agree" with him, i replied to you and i've stated that 'I think that CD is talking more about "extreme and dumb feminism"' than actual feminism as a strive for equality.. this makes me hardly identified with his words in whole...


I have. I've personally been blamed for slavery. I've personally been blamed for women being raped and oppressed around the world. Now, I know I'm not directly responsible, but I do understand and accept that fact that as white male, with white male privilege that even thought I may not directly be responsible for those things, I still accept my share of the blame. I never yelled back that the woman that was telling me that was just a dumb cunt. I accepted her anger and tried to talk to her about it. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. But it doesn't make that anger any less real and it doesn't mean that it's not based on something real. There's a difference between taking the blame for something that isn't your fault and completely dismissing someone's anger as based on something made up, which you did.

share of the blame? well, live your live as you wish, but you're not guilty of rape because you were born a white male (actually . this is both racism and sexism) therefore not responsible (directly or indirectly).. you're the generalising person so i can partly understand.. but you're also a unique person with no other attachment to other "white males" other than you allow or you were born with (skin color and sex)... i can say that you're an alcoholic because you're a white male in his 30ies.. but that is not only prejudical and somehow idiotic statement but it also doesn't make you an alcoholic in any way.. actually it has nothing to do with you and I would be an idiot if i would generalize like this... i'm sad when i see a person clinging to his past .. but clinging to the past of some hypothetical and strictly generalised "white male"? that makes no sense to me.. don't identify yourself with the emotions of others (nota bene based on oversimplifing and prejudice) .. it's NOT related to YOU.. i know you think i hate you and will totally dismiss my interest in you with some picking for words or ridiculing my concern and i'm somehow ok with that - but this was honest...

btw - you maybe got the idea that i'm yelling at the women back when i'm accused of being inferior cause i'm male.. that's not exact as i'm usually just turning my back without a single word.. i just don't let it touch me..



So your use of the word cunt wasn't meant to be degrading and derogatory? Or are you now trying to say that it isn't a sexist term? Or are you just claiming general ignorance and shouldn't have used the word because you didn't understand it?
i didn't mean it degratory.. it is propably a sexist term in english, i'm not sure.. but if you're absolutely positive it is (and you're the authority here concerning your mother tongue - i don't dismiss that), than it is my fault and i shouldn't have used it (and will not again). i take the full blame...

xsecx
01-22-2010, 09:01 AM
what's this, a presumption of guilt? I didn't so i didn't, there's not 'so you did' other than the one in your head..
cd used some ideas and expressions that i can't agree with, yet i believe it was no sexism from his side as a belief that women are inferior (and got that idea from the rest of his writing also even if i wouldn't choose the same words at all)...
and I didn't "agree" with him, i replied to you and i've stated that 'I think that CD is talking more about "extreme and dumb feminism"' than actual feminism as a strive for equality.. this makes me hardly identified with his words in whole...

So you can tell what was going in someones head, but you don't accept that fact that if you fail to voice opposition of something that it's the same as agreeing with it? So sexism is just when women are inferior? This goes back to my previous statement I honestly believe that you don't understand what feminism and now sexism is about. You present yourself as this free thinker who is all about love but the words you chose fail you.




share of the blame? well, live your live as you wish, but you're not guilty of rape because you were born a white male (actually . this is both racism and sexism) therefore not responsible (directly or indirectly).. you're the generalising person so i can partly understand.. but you're also a unique person with no other attachment to other "white males" other than you allow or you were born with (skin color and sex)... i can say that you're an alcoholic because you're a white male in his 30ies.. but that is not only prejudical and somehow idiotic statement but it also doesn't make you an alcoholic in any way.. actually it has nothing to do with you and I would be an idiot if i would generalize like this... i'm sad when i see a person clinging to his past .. but clinging to the past of some hypothetical and strictly generalised "white male"? that makes no sense to me.. don't identify yourself with the emotions of others (nota bene based on oversimplifing and prejudice) .. it's NOT related to YOU.. i know you think i hate you and will totally dismiss my interest in you with some picking for words or ridiculing my concern and i'm somehow ok with that - but this was honest...


Do you honestly believe that things aren't easier for white males than any other group of people on this planet? Unique personality has nothing to do with it, it has to everything to do a with a system of privilege that is global that benefits you and me, and every other white male whether we want it to or not. If you don't believe this, then you're either blind or ignorant. If you think prejudice doesn't exist in this world then you're just not paying attention. Or you live in a place where everyone is white so it doesn't matter. Travel the world some. See how people view you versus other people. See how you can get into places where others can't. Come to terms with the fact that you do have a hand in a lot of fucked up things that go on in the world rather than feeling like you don't and in turn dismiss the very real anger because it's "not my fault"



btw - you maybe got the idea that i'm yelling at the women back when i'm accused of being inferior cause i'm male.. that's not exact as i'm usually just turning my back without a single word.. i just don't let it touch me..


So why doesn't it touch you? Why don't you think about it and talk to them about why they feel that way? About what happened in their life to make them feel that way? You talk about compassion and then fail to exercise it when someone in front of your clearly had to have been through something traumatic to be that filled of hate.



i didn't mean it degratory.. it is propably a sexist term in english, i'm not sure.. but if you're absolutely positive it is (and you're the authority here concerning your mother tongue - i don't dismiss that), than it is my fault and i shouldn't have used it (and will not again). i take the full blame...

Yeah, but based on what I've read, the equivalent is a derogatory term in czech. I mean, how can calling someone a female sexual organ as an insult not be sexist?