Sexual equality my ass

[Decade]

I took a men and womens studies course this semester as an easy elective that fit my Tuesday/Thursday schedule. Of course, the class is like 35 girls, 3 guys (including me) and of course, a female teacher and TA.

Now on the last week of classes we watched a video on feminism for equal rights for women.

I'll say this right now to make my stance on the matter clear, I DO believe in more equal rights for women (like equal pay...that's seriously bullshit that women get paid less for the same work), but I do NOT think it is entirely possible nor should it be. I refer to cases such as lowering physical requirement standards for important jobs like Firemen, Policemen, Army, etc. Some women can meet the requirements, some men CAN NOT, those who do are entitled to the same privlages as the other sex, but nothing more and nothing less.

Now, being one of the only guys in the class, of course we're gonna hear a lot of male bashing. Thankfully, we got this firemen/policemen/army/etc dillema cleared up instantly as almost every single woman in the class said they agree, DONT lower physical requirements.

But then again, most of the girls in my class are idiots.

First thing that popped outta a girls mouth about labor wages is

Bitchy girl: "Men shouldnt have advantages over women at all, that's NOT equality."

This is true, but I raised my hand and brought up an important point

Me: "I agree with that statement, but I also believe that for true equality women will have to give up some advantages as well."
Professor: "What advantages could women HAVE?"
Me: "Well, I'll only list one, and mind you this is only one TINY thing that doesnt really make or break equality, but if you want to have equal rights women also have to be willing to give up such advantages as having say 'lower car insurance.'"
Bitchygirl: "That makes no sense! Statistically that's because women drive better than men!"
Me: "Sure statistically you hear that, but instead of making the argument that Statistics can argue ANYTHING if you look at it in a favorable view, I'll put it in perspective.

I have no tickets, no accidents, and have had a perfect driving record since I got my license at 16 and a half. Now instead of asking all of you if you have a similar record..."

*just a side note, a lot of girls here started laughing and rolling their eyes here. Better drivers my ass

Me: "If I were to compare that to any of you with a similar record, why am I still paying more?"
Professor: "Well, this really isn't an issue, it's more of a personal issue with the subject..."
Me: "Not really. If that's the case then why are you arguing that women should be paid the same as men if STATISTICALLY men advance more in their careers in most occupations than women do"
Bitchygirl: "That's not true, a women can be capable of doing well in a job just like a man!"
Me: "Exactly, see where I'm going with this? Now, if you have the same background as me and doing the same job, shouldnt you get paid the same? Or is this a 'personal' issue?"

Of course every women in the room goes silent for a minute.

Professor: "Moving on, what else can you all list is inequality for women that we might not really think of"

And that's when I heard possibly one of the stupidest things I ever heard just blurted out, and like 4-5 ugly chicks agreed (which is strange, why did only the less attractive women agree)?

Bitchygirl: "I think there's not enough porno made for women in the industry..."

:confused: ...the fuck?

BG: "It seems like most porno is made for men"

:boggled:...well, YEA

BG: "And that as women we cant enjoy it"

I didnt even raise my hand

Me: "THERE'S GUYS IN MOST PORNOS, YOU LOOK AT THEM IF YOU WANT TO SEE A NAKED MAN SCREWING!"
BG: "YEA?! Well what about lesbian porno?!"
Me: "IF YOU'RE A LESBIAN YOU GET IT, IF YOU'RE NOT YOU DONT HAVE TO WATCH IT!"
BG: "Well what if I WANT TO WATCH TWO GAY MEN GET IT ON?!"

Everyone in the class: :eyepop: / :boggled: / :blank:

Me: "...sweetheart, go pick up a gay porno (in the gay porn section of course) and watch as much as you want. Seriously, you can have all the gay man porn you want, we dont care. But if you wanna call it inequality because you're like the ONE girl who wants to see two guys ram each other, you've got more issues than feminism can help you with."


I wonder if this chick is retarded or just a good actor, because honestly? I really bought her performance if she's not.

[Daishikaze]

lol, quite humourous.

[Kaji]

Fact of the matter with the equal pay issue is that when mitigating factors are removed, it's almost nonexistant. The only reason it persists is because women take maternity leave and then stop working for a number more years because they want to raise their children as best as they can (and more power to them for it, frankly). Therefore, when a woman has finished raising two children, she's been out of the workforce some 20-25 years that her husband has still been working. Naturally he's going to make more, simply because he's got 20-25 years of experience in a field he can put on his resume, she can't put anything down for that period, and any experience she had prior is rather dated. Not saying this applies to all women of course, and there are obviously cases where women work part time while raising children, fathers stay home while the mother works, etc., but it's still hard to refute that the common scenario when you have two parents is the mother stays home or works part time while the father works full-time raising the money to feed the family. As a whole, women are more likely to be working part time than men as well, which is another factor when potential employers look at experience.

When you consider that these studies, from what I recall, basically compare all men across the board and all women across the board, instead of comparing them based on similar jobs and work history, it's only natural that a gap would emerge, and furthermore it gives them more room to bitch about it because the factors that cause it to exist are very unlikely to ever go away, unless you want to do away with motherhood...

[Orclover]

When a man has to draw a battle line on the war of equality...I really dont think it should be drawn on "CAR INSURANCE". Mayhaps we can find a more important subject, like the draft.

[Kaji]

When car insurance rates are so oppressively high that you can't afford to drive at all even with a relatively clean record, I personally consider it an important issue. Paying 4x what a woman with a comparable record pays certainly hits home for a number of guys out there. The draft, on the other hand, isn't likely to come up again due to the fact that it's suicide for whomever proposes it. Furthermore, I personally don't think we should be sticking women on the front lines. Since the purpose of the draft is to fill in the ranks of grunts (as opposed to filling specialist billets), we'd be drafting women for roles they can't even fill.

[Praetorian]

Just for jokes; http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=16737

But now to be serious;

There is so much inequality on both sides of the fence that it'd make your head spin.


Most people know about the injustice and disadvantages women have in western society. But how about men? You were able to mention something as mundane as car insurance (which, actually is biased too - because more men drive for a living, so statistically they'd cause more accidents too. Yup, that's all there is too it. And people think it's testosterone.)

Here are some disadvantages men have. Might be nice to let them try and counter most of these.

* men being charged in domestic violence cases even when they are victims
* men being charged in rape and sexual harassment cases when there is no evidence beyond the plaintiff's complaint
* men forced to risk their lives in conscripted military service (exceptions exist, e.g. Israel, where women are also conscripted, but they are not required to serve in combat)
* humorous depiction in the media of violence by women against men, particularly castration and striking of testicles, and of prison rape
* male children being more likely to be killed by their parents
* hate crimes against men
* portrayal of "violence against women" as more important than other forms of violence
* the use of systematic rape as punishment in the prison system (see prison rape)

* child custody strongly favoring mothers in most countries; belief that children's growth is fostered more by mothers than fathers
* children aborted or given up for adoption without fathers' consent
* pregnancies carried to term despite agreements ahead of time that they would not be, subjecting men to unwanted parental responsibilities and/or child support expectations


* the government and feminist groups believing or teaching that anti-male discrimination is acceptable
* legislation biased against men (such as WIC and VAWA), using the word women in the law title
* biases in the justice system against men (i.e. - longer incarceration rates compared with women, for the same crimes, see Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo)
* statutory rape laws enforced more vehemently in instances where the victim is female and/or the perpetrator is male, and the romanticization of the inverse relationship in the news and other media (e.g. the case of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau, see Double Standard: The Bias Against Male Victims of Sexual Abuse)
* As Cathy Young articulates, in rape cases, "the dogma that "women never lie" means that there is, for all intents and purposes, no presumption of innocence for the defendant"[2]
* earlier age of autonomy for women than men in some countries (In some U.S. states women may legally move out of their parent's home at 17, but men have to wait to be 18. Likewise women may marry at younger ages than men in some U.S. states.)
* men fired from their jobs for dissenting with feminist ideology in the workplace
* research and free speech repressed unless pro-feminist


* lack of advocacy for men's rights; more social programs for women than for men
* special government agencies for women's affairs with no corresponding agencies for men's affairs
* culture that conditions males to feel bad about being male
* men being incarcerated for the inability to pay unrealistic child support payments
* men less likely to receive aid from strangers if in trouble (broken down car, harassed, attacked by an animal, etc.)
* women treated more respectfully than men in public
* men often chastized about their choice of mates, while women are not (men who consider looks important are "shallow" while women who consider money important are generally accepted. Men are often blamed for not dating taller/richer/stronger/older women, rather than women being blamed for not willing to date shorter/poorer/weaker/younger men)
* Media depictions of husbands as lazy and selfish, and wives as extraordinarily hard-working and generous, creating the belief that no matter how much a man does for his wife, he is being selfish and uncaring, and that no matter how little the wife does or how selfish she is, she deserves better. This has essentially resulted in men believing that they should become virtual slaves to their wives/girlfriends, and that even after this has happened, the woman should still feel unloved, unappreciated, and oppressed.


* relative lack of funding for men's health; far more money funded for female causes than for male causes (e.g., prostate cancer vs. breast cancer research)
* widespread infant male circumcision, predominantly in the USA.

*lack of educational aid for boys and men, given that their performance/enrollment at most levels lags behind girls'/women's; some states declaring all-male schools illegal and all-female schools legal

* High-risk employment, but receiving no special honour for doing so
* Harder physical entrance critera for men in many occupations - such as the army, police and fire service. Masculinists claim that requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay.
* Women hired, promoted, or given raises over more deserving men, because employers fear lawsuits.
* Sexual Harassment laws which create double-standards, and create a hostile-working environment for men by keeping them on-edge, and limiting their freedom of speech (and even freedom of sight)
* Other double-standards, such as stricter dress codes for males.


"Domestic violence is a key, emotional issue for both men's rights advocates and their opponents. Advocates cite government statistics that show that in 15% to 38% of the cases of intimate partner violence the victim is male. They argue that the real number is likely to be higher, since male victims are significantly less likely to report abuse than female victims, due to social stigmatisation. They also assert that the percentage of shelters for battered men should make up a respective percentage of all shelters. The National Coalition of Free Men has sued several women's shelters with the goal of allowing battered men and their children to be admitted and to receive assistance from shelters."

Of course, we all know the position of women in society could and should be greatly improved too. But I, and hopefully every rational feminist believe this should not be at the cost of men.

[Langosta]

And we need those women.. our soldiers want something to come home to

[Admiral Luis]

girls like gay porno ???:eyepop:

[Praetorian]

girls like gay porno ???:eyepop:

Not all of them. Just like not every guy likes lesbian porno.

This may come as a shock to many of you, but people are individuals! *gasp*

[Admiral Luis]

Not all of them. Just like not every guy likes lesbian porno.

This may come as a shock to many of you, but people are individuals! *gasp*



probably the ugly girls enjoy it more ... I once heard a friend of mine saying that being gay is the ultimate form sexism, thinking girls are so inferior that the idea of having sex with them is disgusting. :innocent:

[Kaji]

probably the ugly girls enjoy it more ... I once heard a friend of mine saying that being gay is the ultimate form sexism, thinking girls are so inferior that the idea of having sex with them is disgusting. :innocent:

Eh, not necessarily man. I know a heck of a lot of girls who are into the concept of two gay men, be it in porn, writing, what have you. As many of them will also tell you, though, while they may enjoy reading about it until the cows come home, they do not want to encounter two guys going at it IRL...

[Langosta]

Same with nerds and alien invasions eh?

[Admiral Luis]

Same with nerds and alien invasions eh?



lol ..........

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Those are some good points you got there prae.

[Decade]

When a man has to draw a battle line on the war of equality...I really dont think it should be drawn on "CAR INSURANCE". Mayhaps we can find a more important subject, like the draft.

Obviously you didnt really read that part close enough, repeat as necessary.

Funny you mention the draft actually, BitchyGirl happens to be in the army but argues women should be eligable to be drafted. However, immediately afterwards girls in the class started saying women would probably try to get pregnant to get out of it.

While not all girls, that'd be another factor in determining inequality in the sexes.

* child custody strongly favoring mothers in most countries; belief that children's growth is fostered more by mothers than fathers

Another point: Why should women automatically get child custody? Oh, that problems ignored by the "women cant get divorced right away" problem. Sure it's a problem, but dont ignore this one.

* Harder physical entrance critera for men in many occupations - such as the army, police and fire service. Masculinists claim that requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay.
:confused: What? There are women who MEET this requirements and still arnt allowed on the front lines.

I agree with some things you say Praet, but I disagree with some too.



To be honest I'm waiting for Kass to throw in her two cents here cause I know she's got some good points for equal women's rights, I just want to see how she might react to equal male rights as well.


Now, here's the thing. I'm FOR more equal rights, but should I call myself a feminist? The dictionary simply defines it as "Equal rights for men and women," but I think with each individual's own definition the real battle is obscured and not understandable.

I say more equal rights is something ideal and should be strived for, but total equality isn't possible due to intolerance from both sides, and for the idea that it would actually damage society in some ways if it were to happen (say lower the physical requirements for firemen/policemen/army/etc).



Now, there is one more thing from this class that really, really, REALLY annoyed me.

My professor began to tell to us stories about female soldiers who travelled to Iraq and served time. 1 complained that although their superiors ALWAYS told them to drink water, especially when doing recon work in towns (this is because it's the fucking DESERT and they gotta fight dehydration as much as possible), they would NOT because they couldn't pee as openly as men in the field.

THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T PEE :bang:

She said that men would typically go on the side of a building/car/whatever not so discretly and continue to move on, but women didn't really have somewhere to go squat without possibility of some man coming up to see them.

Mind you, they're doing RECON work where at any moment they can get into a firefight. Really, having some guy see your cha cha while you pee SHOULDN'T be your top concern if they're about to kill you.

MORONS :bang: :bang: :bang:

As such, they wouldnt drink water and hold it for hours until they came back to HQ. Look, guys dont have as much an opportunity to take cover either, therefore, either get over your humility and just piss on the side of the car or on a sand dune or whatever and accept that guys have to expose their crouches to each other or dont serve. Seriously, if you REALLY want to be treated the same as men, you have to accept what you have to do when your serving time for the country.

That's actually another thing she complained about with another girl. The girl said she didnt want to return to Iraq because she was getting "sexually harassed" by her male companions and superiors, with ass slapping and aggressive nature to each other where they would punch each other on the arms, push each other around, etc.

:bang: YOU'RE IN THE ARMY AND YOU WANT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY. Look, it's true men can be aggressive and that maybe a lot of things they do isn't right, but if you really wanna be treated like one of the guys, you have to get over the fact that men act this way around each other, and considering the guys in her unit were SLAPPING EACH OTHER ON THE ASS (she herself admitted she saw it happening), while you can argue it's sexual harassment, it sounds like they were treating her like they would each other.

Again, this is why equality isn't TOTALLY possible. Men would have to learn to be less aggressive or women would have to learn to be more aggressive and tolerate it from other men.

[Praetorian]

Oh don't worry, I don't agree with some of the points stated there either. And I even think some of them are ridiculous.

But some of them make a damn good point though.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

:confused: What? There are women who MEET this requirements and still arnt allowed on the front lines.

Women can be raped dude. Either as a POW or by their own.

And less be hounest here. Who's more likely to carry a wounded 220 lb man half a mile out of the killzone? The average male soldier? Or the average female soldier?

[Decade]

Women can be raped dude. Either as a POW or by their own.
Right...and men dont have a single hole that could be used to be penetrated unwil---oh, woops, nevermind. :meh:

And less be hounest here. Who's more likely to carry a wounded 220 lb man half a mile out of the killzone? The average male soldier? Or the average female soldier?
Hey, if a woman or guy doesnt meet the physical requirements to be on the frontline, they shouldnt be. But if they do, then it doesnt really matter what the sex is, now does it?

Keep in mind, that's the only way I justify it. If they actually MEET the requirements. I just hate it when women complain about how theres not a lot of women soldiers on the frontlines (if at all, arnt they NOT allowed at all to right now?) because the requirements are to high.

NO THEY'RE NOT. :bang:

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Right...and men dont have a single hole that could be used to be penetrated unwil---oh, woops, nevermind. :meh:

Yeah true. But Women can get pregnant and end up having a baby they dont even want.

But whatever.

[Kaji]

Women can be raped dude. Either as a POW or by their own.

And less be hounest here. Who's more likely to carry a wounded 220 lb man half a mile out of the killzone? The average male soldier? Or the average female soldier?

Amen on both counts, man. And while it's true that men can be raped as well, what's the likelihood of it, comparatively speaking? Chances are the men will be shot in the head before they rape said women (didn't that happen in the case of Jessica Lynch?).

Furthermore, mixed units carry other problems. When it's all guys, you can at least all be miserable together when there's no pussy to be had. Put a girl in the mix and you're sending that factor straight to hell, causing major morale problems, especially if the girl happens to decide to sleep with anyone voluntarily. Add in confidence issues about whether the woman will be able to pull her weight (quite literally, for that matter. Wounded/dead aside, would she be able to carry her half of the .50 caliber machine gun if she were assigned to carry it? Or would that always fall on a man to do because she's physically incapable of performing that part of her duty?)

[Kaji]

Yeah true. But Women can get pregnant and end up having a baby they dont even want.

But whatever.

Moving beyond that, women are higher maintenance than men to begin with. Can you imagine what it'd be like for a unit to be crippled because of yeast infections because they couldn't get a resupply of Tampax in time?

[Decade]

You keep ignoring the idea that the physical requirements for the frontline havent been lowered. If a women MEETS the requirements, she is capable of pulling her weight as you say. If a woman DOESNT meet the requirements, she wouldnt be allowed to go on the frontlines. Just like men.

[NERD]

One reason the military shun women from joining the ranks, and participating in combat roles is from the fear that female soldiers will hurt their morale. Which is something I don't agree to, but remember the media surrounding Jessica Lynch? So far that kind of publicity has hurt the female soldiers than helping their cause, in my opinion.

And I disagree that women are not physically fit to fight alongside men. I mean, they may not be as strong as men, which would be the main detraction against them, but you don't need physical strength to kill someone, or carry out your mission successfully. I believe given a fair chance, women can and will perform as well as men in the battlefield.

[Kaji]

You keep ignoring the idea that the physical requirements for the frontline havent been lowered. If a women MEETS the requirements, she is capable of pulling her weight as you say. If a woman DOESNT meet the requirements, she wouldnt be allowed to go on the frontlines. Just like men.

If a man can't meet the physical requirements he either keeps training until he does, or he's out of the army. There's no reassigning just because they can't meet the requirements. And I still say it wreaks havoc on morale.

[Praetorian]

Right...and men dont have a single hole that could be used to be penetrated unwil---oh, woops, nevermind. :meh:


Although to the individual (a man tortured and a woman raped) these things are both equally horrific - a raped or killed woman on the frontlines is far more likely to damage the morale of all male troops on the frontlines. Governments tend to want to avoid that.

That said, a factor in the morale being damaged is obviously because they aren't as used to it. And the only way to make them used to it is by it occuring more.

Yeah, it's extremely tricky.

You keep ignoring the idea that the physical requirements for the frontline havent been lowered. If a women MEETS the requirements, she is capable of pulling her weight as you say. If a woman DOESNT meet the requirements, she wouldnt be allowed to go on the frontlines. Just like men.

Now this is just an assumption, because I know very little about the army - but physical testing happens before bootcamp, right?

Perhaps the reason is that men are more likely to build up more muscle during bootcamp training than women are.

I'm not sure how to properly elaborate.

[Angelyne]

I actually agree that there needs to be more porn made specifically for female audiences.

[Kaji]

One reason the military shun women from joining the ranks, and participating in combat roles is from the fear that female soldiers will hurt their morale. Which is something I don't agree to, but remember the media surrounding Jessica Lynch? So far that kind of publicity has hurt the female soldiers than helping their cause, in my opinion.

And I disagree that women are not physically fit to fight alongside men. I mean, they may not be as strong as men, which would be the main detraction against them, but you don't need physical strength to kill someone, or carry out your mission successfully. I believe given a fair chance, women can and will perform as well as men in the battlefield.

And then you'll have people arguing that the Good Ol' Boys are putting the female units in too much danger when they get ambushed and take heavy casualties, and they'll be accused of not letting them fight when the male units are taking heavier losses (Chauvenistic, you know?). Sounds a lot like when we let blacks start fighting during the Civil War, except that the difference here is far less superficial, and thus less likely to just fade over time in the same fashion. True, we could mix the infantry units and such, but that leads to the morale problems mentioned above, which weakens us as a fighting force.

Seriously, people. The purpose of the military is to win wars, and to do so efficently and effectively. I've yet to see any proposition as to how integrating women into our front-line forces will in any way increase our effectiveness besides the flippant answers about a group of PMSing females machine-gunning everything to hell because they were told they looked fat in their uniforms.

[Decade]

And I disagree that women are not physically fit to fight alongside men. I mean, they may not be as strong as men, which would be the main detraction against them, but you don't need physical strength to kill someone, or carry out your mission successfully. I believe given a fair chance, women can and will perform as well as men in the battlefield.
I dont believe in the "all you need is a finger to pull a trigger" chain of thought. I do believe women should have to meet the same physical requirements men have to in order to serve on the front lines.

If a man can't meet the physical requirements he either keeps training until he does, or he's out of the army. There's no reassigning just because they can't meet the requirements. And I still say it wreaks havoc on morale.
Pssst, little secret.

It's the same for women. :watson:

Now this is just an assumption, because I know very little about the army - but physical testing happens before bootcamp, right?

Perhaps the reason is that men are more likely to build up more muscle during bootcamp training than women are.

I'm not sure how to properly elaborate.

Mr. Q, where are you to teach us about this?? :meh:

I actually agree that there needs to be more porn made specifically for female audiences.

go back to reading your playgirl, perv. :bang:

[Kaji]

Pssst, little secret.

It's the same for women.

Under the current system, which prohibits them from front-line work and gives them lower standards they have to meet as a result thereof. The benchmark for men is such that any man can serve as a grunt if need be. Hence why your reply fails to adequately address the point.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

And I disagree that women are not physically fit to fight alongside men. I mean, they may not be as strong as men, which would be the main detraction against them, but you don't need physical strength to kill someone, or carry out your mission successfully. I believe given a fair chance, women can and will perform as well as men in the battlefield.

IRT Bold statement

Yeah but what if the fight is taken to close quaters? Soldiers (Both regular ARMY and Marines) are taught to how to fight in those situations. But sometimes, instinct kicks in and all that training is thrown out the window and it comes down to a wrestling match.

But I do agree with you on your last sentence. It's just that there are certain things that prevent women from going to the front.

Last time I checked the greatest sniper of WW2 was a russain female. When she was finale killed by a German counter sniper and her killbook was retrieved there was more than 2000 confirmed kills. So it has been proven that then can be just as good as men (If not better) as soldiers. But there are just certain things....

[Decade]

That's the problem, women arnt allowed on the frontlines AT ALL at the moment (which is still a morale debate, yes). However, there are women who DO meet the physical requirement men have to be on the front line and still are not allowed to do so.

Look, I see problems with women being in the military too (I really do), but if you're gonna make an argument that women dont have the physical capability to "pull their weight" in the battlefield when it's obvious there are some women who DO meet the requirements to do so, I'm gonna repeadetly call you on it.


Now, there is one argument I have heard from a male soldier as to why he's against women on the frontlines having to do with their periods. When they're in the battlefield and getting tracked down/hunted, what are they supposed to do with their "trash," or try to mask their scent from dogs (although I think dogs get your scent from more than just their..."lady problems").

Good argument...I guess, but whatever. I'll agree with you I dont want to see women on the battlefield. But then again, I dont wanna see anyone on one either.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

the flippant answers about a group of PMSing females machine-gunning everything to hell because they were told they looked fat in their uniforms.

ROFLMFAO!

I can just imagine that.

Female Soldier: Get some! Get some!
*Car explodes. Walls crumble*
Male Soldier: (To other male soldiers) What the fuck is she doing?

[Praetorian]

Last time I checked the greatest sniper of WW2 was a russain female. When she was finale killed by a German counter sniper and her killbook was retrieved there was more than 2000 confirmed kills. So it has been proven that then can be just as good as men (If not better) as soldiers. But there are just certain things....

I'm having a Metal Gear Solid moment here, so forgive me everybody.

Sniper Wolf: "Didn't you know that 2/3rds of the world's greatest assassins... are women? "

Snake: "Lol, you said ass."

Sniper Wolf: "Twice!"

Yes, RWPW material. But I honestly couldn't resist.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

I'm having a Metal Gear Solid moment here, so forgive me everybody.

Sniper Wolf: "Didn't you know that 2/3rds of the world's greatest assassins... are women? "

Snake: "Lol, you said ass."

Sniper Wolf: "Twice!"

Yes, RWPW material. But I honestly couldn't resist.

lol what. I haven't played MGS1 in ages so i forgot, did they really say that? I remember the first line though.

[NERD]

Close combat in modern warfare is not as important as it was in the past. You are less likely to see your enemy charging in with a bayonet than during Vietnam, for example. I don't have statistics or any hard date because I'm not willing to fish out for information, but I think more soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan would die from an ambush/suicide bombings than in close combat.

I'm not saying close combat does not take place in a battlefield. It does, and you have to be prepared for that- I guess that's where the training, as well as meeting minimum physical requirement comes in. But like I've said, with every definition of basic warfare being completely re-written lately, what with satellite guided missiles to smart bombs to unmanned drones, the idea of soldiers facing another soldier in close quarters is becoming more of the relics of the past, especially if future battles would take place in an urbanized environment. Besides, more close combat stuff is left for specialized divisions like SEAL/Rangers/Green Beret, etc. Most women may not be able to live up to the harsh requirements for these specialized units, but that's a different story.

[Kaji]

Last I checked the top woman in terms of physical strength still only came to about the 75th to 80th percentile in terms of men in general. The female 50th would therefore sit considerably further down, quite possibly in the 20s to 30s on the male scale. Are you seriously proposing that the military should make special provisions and spend extra money setting up a separate organization for the small percentage of women (who may or may not even be interested in military service, for that matter) who are capable of meeting the male standard? Spending extra money on body armor made for women? Setting up separate training manuals for how to lead women's units and the special requirements placed on them?

Once again, the military is not, and should not be, a political platform from which to showcase equality. Its purpose is to win wars in the most efficient manner possible. End of story. Make a compelling case for how making it more inclusive of women will advance that mission, and I'll start considering it, but until then...

[NERD]

Once again, the military is not, and should not be, a political platform from which to showcase equality. Its purpose is to win wars in the most efficient manner possible. End of story. Make a compelling case for how making it more inclusive of women will advance that mission, and I'll start considering it, but until then...

I agree with that. However, it wins votes for politicians, and become one of the battles feminists like to pick out- disregarding the fact that most feminists will NEVER join the military.

And I'm not saying they should spend extra money to put women in the battlefields. However, the fact is that there are women enlisted for service, some who are willing to take part in the battle, and should they be qualified to fight, then I see no reason they should be kept out.

I guess the debate here could also be about something new vs. tradition, and save for the Amazons, women never have been an integral part in the battlefield, and the authenticity of Amazons is debatable. Frankly I don't know how it will turn out in the future- 10 years from now, a woman may win a Purple Heart for saving her comrades away from the enemy gunfire, this she-warrior; who knows. But you don't know until you give them a chance, and just because you don't think they will do well in the battle because they are not as strong as men seems like a poor argument for me.

[Kaji]

There are plenty of places where women can and do serve that don't require that they meet the same physical requirements. Infantry, by its very nature, is not one of those places. Furthermore, once the military loses sight of the above-stated mission, more lives end up being lost because now things have to be adjusted to deal with internal issues that inhibit the execution of the mission for the sake of PR. Is it really worth putting female units on the field if you're going to increase casualties as a result? Desertions?

On a side note, I kind of find it amusing that it't almost always the infantry that gets targeted for this and not other areas. True, there was Ms. Flynn trying to become a fighter pilot (and going down in flames, so to speak) back in the 90s, but it's very rare outside of that incident to hear of people trying to get women flying jets, on submarines, or in the various brances of the special forces (Seals, Seabees, Rangers, etc.)...

[NERD]

Well, the infantry is the most visible aspect of the military, and usually what people associate with military as well.

I do think that military in general, be that army, navy or air force, is not too keen on putting female soldiers in any position with high casualty rates, and why would that be? Fear of hurting the morale, as well as the media jumping on that. It will be very tough for female soldiers to break that idea and be involved, if that ever happens.

Women can do better than men in some positions- I think they can do better in manning an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, etc.

[Langosta]

Why are they better at that?

[delen]

Look, I'll put it this way:

Stupid people always want all the benefits of equality without any of the downside. Often times they don't even realize that there could even be a downside to "equality". This is because they are stupid.

[Orclover]

Why are they better at that?


Its a very very long list.

Women by are much better marksman on average than men. Also as some here have said here "women currently arent allowed into combat". Sure they arent..:hat:..Got a few ol lady friends who couldnt get a combat ribbon because of those rules.

And they were in more close quarters fire fights than probably all of you combined. :blank:

Every man is a chuevenist by nature, its evidence can be found in every thread ever written about equality, from both sides argueing.

[Langosta]

That's not an answer at all. Why are women better than men at manning a nuclear submarine or what not?

All I see is "they are better" but I dunno why, there wasn't a reason following it up. Orclover did the same..

I don't particularly care who is better I just hadn't heard before women make a better marksman than men do, and I wanted to know why?

Personally at this point I don't think either gender is more naturally adept at any of those jobs, and I don't see why they would be. . . I suppose if I was going to give it to a gender it would be to men because more of them do that work.

Anyway, does anybody know why women are better at those things?

[Overkongen]

Every man is a chuevenist by nature, its evidence can be found in every thread ever written about equality, from both sides argueing.

Eh?

Anywho, back when I was drafted, I was kinda skinny, because I hadn't started ninja-school yet, and as a result, the high-ups figured that I shouldn't be assigned a role which would involve a lot of heavy lifting and such. Isn't it possible that the sergeants could assign different jobs and duties in concordance to people's different strengths? We had females in sanitation and such, which, as far as I know, worked out just fine.

[Cherub Rock]

I actually agree that there needs to be more porn made specifically for female audiences.

If more porn was made for women, do you think they would buy it? And what kind of porn would that be? Softcore man-on-man? Porn that ends with kissing and cuddling instead of cumshots to the face?

[Langosta]

Porn for women.. Lifetime could devote a time slot to it

[Decade]

Every man is a chuevenist by nature, its evidence can be found in every thread ever written about equality, from both sides argueing.

...:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

That's not an answer at all. Why are women better than men at manning a nuclear submarine or what not?

All I see is "they are better" but I dunno why, there wasn't a reason following it up. Orclover did the same..

I don't particularly care who is better I just hadn't heard before women make a better marksman than men do, and I wanted to know why?

Personally at this point I don't think either gender is more naturally adept at any of those jobs, and I don't see why they would be. . . I suppose if I was going to give it to a gender it would be to men because more of them do that work.

Anyway, does anybody know why women are better at those things?

Look, if you really wanna know you have to look at mind and logic exercise tests done on groups of men and women. You'll see that generally, men excel in some problem solving aspects over women and vice-versa (spacial dimensions, short-term memory, assembling equipment in correct fashion quickly, etc are all examples of things men and women excel at over others).

It's a physical difference thing. That's why girls in general now are doing better in public schools then boys, but boys on average do better than girls in math (fuck, the SIMPSONS just covered this).

When you get down to it, it all comes down to human chemistry and how we're built. It doesnt mean the other sex CANT do it, it means that in GENERAL the other sex may be better at something than your sex.

[Praetorian]

It's a physical difference thing. That's why girls in general now are doing better in public schools then boys, but boys on average do better than girls in math (fuck, the SIMPSONS just covered this).


But even that can be ascribed to culture. In the Netherlands for example, neither gender really dominates the other at school. Boys tend to be slightly better at mathematics, tech-class, and P.E. - girls tend to be slightly better at languages. But nothing to the extend that one really dominates.

It is true however (IQ wise - if that accounts for anything) that women tend to average out more, while the biggest idiots and the smartest geniusses tend to curve more to the men.

[Radiance]

* men being charged in domestic violence cases even when they are victims.

Happened to my older brother. He went to pick up his children from his ex-wife's house and her new boyfriend (while drunk) sucker punched him. He didn't even fight back and let it go, took his kids and went back home. Next day the cops showed up at his door and arrested him on her word. He spent the next six months in lock up until we provided a recording of a conversation we had with her in which she confessed to lying. We told her we were going to take it to the judge if she didn't confess and I guess she didn't like the idea of jail time for purgery.

Another time, when they were still together my brother was being suicidal, so she called the cops, but they said they couldn't do anything about it if he wasn't hurting anyone else. So she told them he hit her and they locked him up for another six months of jail followed by six months in an insane asylum for therapy.

So the females never lie stigma is a big problem for some guys.

[fa11en87]

It is true however (IQ wise - if that accounts for anything) that women tend to average out more, while the biggest idiots and the smartest geniusses tend to curve more to the men.

I have noticed this too, it's pretty interesting. But anyways, females and males are definitely different and we'll never reach true sexual equality, whatever that is.

[wimmpy]

When I had to go the MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) at an Army base, the women were kept in a different place than us. All the physical tests to see if you can do a certain job happen in boot camp, but you just have to see a Army doctor at MEPS to for a normal phsysical, Blood work, vision, hearing, and a drug test.

They even told us at the hotel we were staying at that night "That if any of the men were seen on the 5th floor (The women's floor at the hotel) we would be kicked out right then without any questions".

[Radiance]

Hah, I remember being told that. Though the same standard wasn't held when the women were all down on the third floor where the guys were. Hell, I got booted out of my room for an hour so my mate could shag with his girlfriend.

[wimmpy]

Hah, I remember being told that. Though the same standard wasn't held when the women were all down on the third floor where the guys were. Hell, I got booted out of my room for an hour so my mate could shag with his girlfriend.

I was barely in the room, even though it was a VERY nice room, I spent all my time in the play room that had set up in the basement with a Plasman TV, an XBOX, an PS2, and 20 lazy boys. Getting up the next morning at 3am was not nice though, the coffee in the room came in handing durring the next 8 hours of waiting for my time with the doctor.

[Mysticalmelody]

* portrayal of "violence against women" as more important than other forms of violence

Ever notice how when you hear about violence against women by men in the paper, it is always referred to as "A woman was beaten" not "a man beat a woman" they never draw much attention to the man, just the woman. Now when a woman beats a man and it ends up in the paper it's referred to as "a woman beat a man" rather than "a man was beaten" The attention in violent crimes is always brought on the woman.

* women treated more respectfully than men in public

By who? ... other men? other women? What's that supposed to mean? In my opinon men treat each other with a lot more respect than they treat women. Just as women treat each other with more respect. It's because of automatically having something in common.

* men being incarcerated for the inability to pay unrealistic child support payments

My father was only asked to pay $100 a month child support. He's never paid a dime. :) Not a thing has happened to him for it.


Answers in bold

[Kaji]

When they say that the woman was beaten they are trying to drum up sympathy for her by demonizing the man, and usually follow with the woman's litany of bad things the man has done to her leading up to the beating(s). On the flip side, when a woman does something of such nature to a man, the focus is usually on the absurdity of it, or else how the woman is "justified" in it because of the way he treated her. Either way it's a no-win situation.

Regarding the second point, have you never heard of Chivalry? I know a good many who still practice this, even on small levels. While when only interacting with other men what you say may or may not be true, the means of expressing it are very different (you don't see a man getting the door for another man, pulling out the chair for another man, or picking up the check for another man on a general basis, although you might see the last one happen from time to time if it's a close friend and an emergency/accident).

As to the last one, one case proves nothing. So your dad lucked out. There are many cases where the dad not only loses any visiting rights, but is also forced to pay $3-4,000/month in child support, which is a hell of a lot of money, especially if he's making anything resembling the median wage (which is about $55,000/year last I checked. If he's paying $4,000/month in support that'd come out to $48,000/year, just to put it into perspective). These same men end up in court for inability to pay, lose whatever parental rights they have left, get labelled as deadbeats, and then put into jail/have their wages garnished, etc.

[The Republic]

I know youmight consider this invalid b/c I cant cite it, but in my AP psychology class a week ago we were learning about the effect of the media. Turns out 68% of all comercials somehow make fun of/ demonize men. 83% of those men were white.

just an interesting tidbit...

Another example is affrmative action. Regardless of how you look at it, it is discrimination against the majority (males) in this country.however, people think it is just because it's ok to discriminate when it's against the majority, right? wrong. It is DISCRIMINATION noetheless. And I am sickened that our country goes by it. We would be much better off by just not requiring anyone to fill out "race idetifyers" when applying for jobs or college and going solely on qualifacation, grades, or aptitude. Sure, it's hard to side with the wealthy or powerful, but beleive it it not when you use things like affirmative action against them, it is still discrimination.

Is it fair that I as a male am not judged on the same level as, say, a hispanic male? Is it fair that I am not judged on the same level as, say a female? Even though my qualification for, say, a job could be exactly the same as theirs, chances are I wont get the job because I am white... And male. Is this still a land of equal oppurtunity? it's really hard to say yes.

I think this issue is largely being overlooked because of what has happened in the past (ie: whites and males being in power over other groups/ females, white ensalvement of blacks, nazi movement, etc). But is it fair that I have to suffer from the wrongdoings of previous white men simply because I am a white man?

I saw once, in high school, a friend of mine (hes white) get suspended because a hispanic kid called him a "Nazi KKKer" and my friend got really offended because both his granparents died in WW2 and called the hispanic kid a "Wetback." My friend (white male) got suspended and the other student (hispanic male) didn't receive any disciplinary action. hmm...

Sry bout the long post, just needed to rant about not being accepted to UC Berkley because of the above circumstances.

[Mysticalmelody]

When they say that the woman was beaten they are trying to drum up sympathy for her by demonizing the man, and usually follow with the woman's litany of bad things the man has done to her leading up to the beating(s). On the flip side, when a woman does something of such nature to a man, the focus is usually on the absurdity of it, or else how the woman is "justified" in it because of the way he treated her. Either way it's a no-win situation.

Regarding the second point, have you never heard of Chivalry? I know a good many who still practice this, even on small levels. While when only interacting with other men what you say may or may not be true, the means of expressing it are very different (you don't see a man getting the door for another man, pulling out the chair for another man, or picking up the check for another man on a general basis, although you might see the last one happen from time to time if it's a close friend and an emergency/accident).

As to the last one, one case proves nothing. So your dad lucked out. There are many cases where the dad not only loses any visiting rights, but is also forced to pay $3-4,000/month in child support, which is a hell of a lot of money, especially if he's making anything resembling the median wage (which is about $55,000/year last I checked. If he's paying $4,000/month in support that'd come out to $48,000/year, just to put it into perspective). These same men end up in court for inability to pay, lose whatever parental rights they have left, get labelled as deadbeats, and then put into jail/have their wages garnished, etc.

1. I saw a movie pretty much attributing the media coverage to men committing violence being considered normal in society. Whereas when a woman does it, it's odd and the focus is drawn to the fact that the abuser is female. This applies to violence being committed in general not just from male to female and female to male. I'm more likely to think this is the case because when you think about it, you never see the fact that men are committing so many violent crimes in the news. You usually see it in the news if a woman commits a violent crime. The fact that men are overwhelmingly the people who do these things is really accepted by society these days and it's sad. To give perspective though, men commit violence against other men far far more than they do to women. Notice that the rarer male towards female violent crime gets the news coverage the other gets close to none.

2. Yes I know of chivalry, however I see plenty of men doing quite the opposite of chivalry and few actually giving good examples of it. On the bus for example, SO many guys sit there with their backpack sitting on the seat next to them. There are no empty seats and I'm standing, as well as a few others, even elderly people. The punk sits there like he sees nobody.
As far as the pulling out of chairs, I've never seen that except for on a date, or with a guy who was courting a girl. The opening of doors in the casual going about of daily life is not exclusive to males. I do it all the time, so do many girls I know. I don't see any more men than women holding doors open or opening doors for others. I also pick up the check very often, I'd say even moreso than my boyfriend.

3. The being put in jail for not paying unfairly high child support is an outlier on the scale. My dad is another. :) It evens out. In addition, a judge ordering that much child support to be paid is doing so because the person can afford it. Also, child support can be renegotiated. IE guy loses his job and now has a lower paying one. Bring it to court and have the case reconsidered with the new income.
Now, if a guy goes around and makes a dozen babies, that's really too bad for him, because their mothers shouldn't be shortchanged because he decided to be irresponsible. Below a couple hundred per child is really nothing compared to what the child costs to raise. Maybe those many cases you claim there are of people not being able to afford child support for their children, were because they decided to be irresponsible and have very many.

[Roxie]

* men being charged in domestic violence cases even when they are victims
* men being charged in rape and sexual harassment cases when there is no evidence beyond the plaintiff's complaint
* men forced to risk their lives in conscripted military service (exceptions exist, e.g. Israel, where women are also conscripted, but they are not required to serve in combat)
* humorous depiction in the media of violence by women against men, particularly castration and striking of testicles, and of prison rape
* male children being more likely to be killed by their parents
* hate crimes against men
* portrayal of "violence against women" as more important than other forms of violence
* the use of systematic rape as punishment in the prison system (see prison rape)

etc...
Is this being applied to the U.S.?
Moving beyond that, women are higher maintenance than men to begin with. Can you imagine what it'd be like for a unit to be crippled because of yeast infections because they couldn't get a resupply of Tampax in time?
You have no idea what casues yeast infections do you?

Besides, there's a pill that takes care of that in 24 hours.

[Collapse]

Man, the last page really sparks up the flame. I wonder how long will this last without someone's fuse get blown to kingdom come?

Anyway, on the subject of equality in the military, I'm all up for it. Like someone said, you assign different roles for both sexes and everyone gets an equal share of the credit when the task is done. Whether may it be women as snipers or men as heavy infantry, just keep things even.

I sincerely disapprove of the lack of advocacy of men in some parts though, especially for a boy who doesn't get any "advantages" who wasn't really involved in the struggle. I'm wondering if true equality exists as well or it may be just a mental whim and both sexes has differences altogether.

[Praetorian]

2. Yes I know of chivalry, however I see plenty of men doing quite the opposite of chivalry and few actually giving good examples of it. On the bus for example, SO many guys sit there with their backpack sitting on the seat next to them. There are no empty seats and I'm standing, as well as a few others, even elderly people. The punk sits there like he sees nobody.
As far as the pulling out of chairs, I've never seen that except for on a date, or with a guy who was courting a girl. The opening of doors in the casual going about of daily life is not exclusive to males. I do it all the time, so do many girls I know. I don't see any more men than women holding doors open or opening doors for others. I also pick up the check very often, I'd say even moreso than my boyfriend.



How about we're all chivalric?

Every time someone beats that on a bus, I kindly swipe away his/her bag so I can put my arse down. Of course, only after making clear that I want to sit the smeg down.

[Beowulf]

I believe that women deserve all the rights that men get. Of course this can easily be shunted into an argument as to what defines rights. What people deserve as a whole, or what society dictates that which we deserve?

[Kass]

Sorry I'm late but I've been working a lot of extra hours lately. Send out search and rescue next time. ;)

I'm not replying to anyone specifically, but to some points I saw in the thread.

Re: Women in the military. The military in the US already has a lower set of physical standards for women to pass to gain entrance. They are allowed a longer mile time, fewer pull ups, push ups and sit ups, etc. based on the average physical capabilities of women.

One area where the military hasn't compromised on those standards are in front line units. It has little to do with wanting to protect the "womenfolk" from being POWs etc., but more to do with the sheer intense physical hardships they'd have to face. To start with, everyone in a frontline unit has to be able to march a certain distance in a certain amount of time wearing at least a 40 pound pack and carrying a 12 pound rifle. The unit depends on everyone being able to do this and a lot of women can't.

The urban warfare in Iraq is a lot of close-quarters fighting. It might not require a bayonet, but when you're going door-to-door in neighborhoods looking for the enemy, you'd better know how to effectively use hand-to-hand combat.

Women can be raped if they become POWs. Newsflash. So can men. Sodomy is actually a fairly common means of torture among those not bound by the Geneva Convention. There is probably little else that is more demoralizing and emotionally damaging than a man being brutally sodomized.

If women want to be in the military, they have to take the good with the ad. That means you get shot, captured and tortured just like men. If they don't like it, they need to remember that we have an all-volunteer army. They didn't have to enlist.

For the record, I think that the women's physical standards should be the same as men's across the board. If you can't handle the duty, you've no business being in the military. A lot of it is just hard, physical work. Someone has to fix the cars, repair the generators, carry the supplies and unload the trucks.

Nerd, you don't get a Purple Heart for saving your fellow soldiers. You get Purple Hearts for being wounded in combat. You get various medals of valor/honor/meritorious service for going above and beyond the call of duty.

Re: the porn aimed at women. If that girl wants to see porn and hasn't figured out that there is a boatload of gay porn out there yet, she needs a smack upside the head with a clue by four. It's called Google and it is good. Criminey. Porn. She can't come up with something more substantive?

Re: Equal pay. Women are still paid less than men on average, but women are more likely to have large gaps in their career, they take more sick leave than men and they are more likely to work the same job part time than men. Women who don't have those career gaps and don't have kids requiring them to take more time off, etc. usually do make the same salary for the same work.

Equal pay for equal work is great and it should be the case, but remember that everyone is not equal and if the female employee is mediocre and the male counterpart is good, he'll get more money.

Re: Every man is a chauvinist. So is every woman, as evidenced by the comments in this thread. Any more, most obscenely vocal "feminists" don't want equality, they want superiority as compensation for the potential wrongs some woman might have experienced.

Re: women as crime victims. The rape of a woman by a man is pretty much the only crime in which witness testimony alone is sufficient for conviction--even if the woman is lying. Any other crime requires physical evidence or corroborating testimony. How fair is that? It isn't.

Just the allegation of rape can permanently destroy a man's career and personal life because men are presumed guilty before proven so. This doesn't happen to women accused of crimes. Look at the outpouring of sympathy and support for the woman who was executed in Texas. She brutally murdered two people during a burglary and got off sexually doing so and people thought that because she was a woman, she shouldn't face the same sentence a man convicted of the same crime would have. You do the crime, you do the time or you die. Penis or no, she deserved to be executed.

It is very common for women to make up allegations of abuse to gain the upper hand in divorces, custody disputes or just in general and when it is proven they lied, they rarely are charged for filing a false police report or perjury. A man in the same situation would be.

Re: custody issues. It is changing that the woman automatically gets custody and joint custody is more common now. However, women, even working women, still tend to be the primary caregiver int he family. It isn't a good idea to take kids from their primary caregiver or their father. As equitable an arrangement as possible should be worked out.

As far as child support goes, nearly all the time it is based on reported net wages. If women don't get custody, they pay it too. If you dont want to support a kid, don't have them. They go to jail for not paying it? Tough shit. Any person who doesn't pay deserves that. It isn't like the money is unnecessary.

The simple reality is that in many arenas, women have the upper hand. In many, they don't. It does have further to go to balance out, but women are hardly mistreated little victims of society anymore and they need to quit acting like it.

[Silverhawk]

Equal rights is fine and dandy... but i say lets look at a much more basic and simpler issue. The "name" of the group fighting for such rights. As long as equal rights are fought for under the name of feminism there will be no equality period.

Its very name suggests that it only cares for the well being of its group. First it starts with fighting for equality and later it will devolve into fighting for supremacy. It has already happened actually. What we need is another group with a more neutral name fighting for equal rights. Untill then, no matter how hard you try there will never be equality in rights.

Oh... about female porn.. i don't think she's the type that reads. I'm pretty sure female porn is categorised under "romance" in most bookstores :)

[Praetorian]

What we need is another group with a more neutral name fighting for equal rights. Untill then, no matter how hard you try there will never be equality in rights.


Equalism. :p

[Decade]

1. I saw a movie pretty much attributing the media coverage to men committing violence being considered normal in society. Whereas when a woman does it, it's odd and the focus is drawn to the fact that the abuser is female. This applies to violence being committed in general not just from male to female and female to male. I'm more likely to think this is the case because when you think about it, you never see the fact that men are committing so many violent crimes in the news. You usually see it in the news if a woman commits a violent crime. The fact that men are overwhelmingly the people who do these things is really accepted by society these days and it's sad. To give perspective though, men commit violence against other men far far more than they do to women. Notice that the rarer male towards female violent crime gets the news coverage the other gets close to none.
Oh dear me! A MOVIE shows it all!

I also saw a documentary movie in a men and womens studies class where when a 4 year old boy pets a bunny rabbit it's considered "sadistic." Movies dont give you the full story. Fuck, look at Micheal Moore.


3. The being put in jail for not paying unfairly high child support is an outlier on the scale. My dad is another. It evens out. In addition, a judge ordering that much child support to be paid is doing so because the person can afford it. Also, child support can be renegotiated. IE guy loses his job and now has a lower paying one. Bring it to court and have the case reconsidered with the new income.
Now, if a guy goes around and makes a dozen babies, that's really too bad for him, because their mothers shouldn't be shortchanged because he decided to be irresponsible. Below a couple hundred per child is really nothing compared to what the child costs to raise. Maybe those many cases you claim there are of people not being able to afford child support for their children, were because they decided to be irresponsible and have very many.

Right...and then the dads a deadbeat for not paying as much.

Anyway, on the subject of equality in the military, I'm all up for it. Like someone said, you assign different roles for both sexes and everyone gets an equal share of the credit when the task is done. Whether may it be women as snipers or men as heavy infantry, just keep things even.
Sure...equality in the sense people can be assigned any position they're good at...as long as they meet the requirements.


For the record, I think that the women's physical standards should be the same as men's across the board. If you can't handle the duty, you've no business being in the military. A lot of it is just hard, physical work. Someone has to fix the cars, repair the generators, carry the supplies and unload the trucks.
YES! THANK YOU KASS! :clap:

Re: the porn aimed at women. If that girl wants to see porn and hasn't figured out that there is a boatload of gay porn out there yet, she needs a smack upside the head with a clue by four. It's called Google and it is good. Criminey. Porn. She can't come up with something more substantive?
:eek: I...love...you...lets make babies

As far as child support goes, nearly all the time it is based on reported net wages. If women don't get custody, they pay it too. If you dont want to support a kid, don't have them. They go to jail for not paying it? Tough shit. Any person who doesn't pay deserves that. It isn't like the money is unnecessary.
OH, but wait, perfect point I wanna bold out here

How often do you hear a woman paying child support? :watson:

[Kiari]

If women want equality, they should be demanding full equality... not silly preferential treatment to make up for inability.

Most women cannot pass the physical requirement needed to work on the front lines in the army. If they can pass it, by all means they should be allowed to work there. If not? No way in hell. There is no reason to risk people's lives to put up a pretense of equality

For those concerned with the period issue, maybe you should learn a bit more about birth control. You can take it consistantly with no breaks and surpress your period, there have been tests on this for the longest time with no extra side effects reported aside from not knowing when your birth control has failed.

Women should be available for the draft too. Sure, some women would get pregnant to avoid it... but wars generally result in baby booms back home anyways.

And if a woman can decide after conception but before birth, nah, I'm not up for this parenting thing... a man should be able to walk away before birth too. "If he didn't want a kid, he shouldn't have slept with her" always sounds too much like "If she didn't want a kid, she should have kept her legs shut" to me.

Maybe those many cases you claim there are of people not being able to afford child support for their children, were because they decided to be irresponsible and have very many.

And why don't the women have any responsibility there to say "Wow... he's got like 7 kids already... but I'm sure he'll pay for MINE"... or "He doesn't make much... maybe I shouldn't have a kid because we probably can't afford it".

As for opening of doors/giving up of seats... gosh, shouldn't that just be common sense? If you're going through a door, it's nice to open it for the person with you. If you're on a bus and someone older than you, exhausted looking, pregnant, or infirm, you should give them your seat. There doesn't need to be a gender reason, we're talking about common courtesy here.

Too many women don't want true equality... they want perks.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Women can be raped if they become POWs. Newsflash. So can men. Sodomy is actually a fairly common means of torture among those not bound by the Geneva Convention. There is probably little else that is more demoralizing and emotionally damaging than a man being brutally sodomized.

Yes but when we say "rape", we also imply that there is a chance of getting pregnant.

Newsflash.

Men can't get pregnant :P

[Kiari]

Of course, both men and women can get HIV from rape. Slow death from a nasty virus does seem to be a great equalizer here.

[Ginner Ben]

OK, I'm a long time reader of these forums, but I decided to join when I read this topic.

I believe that women deserve all the rights that men get. Of course this can easily be shunted into an argument as to what defines rights. What people deserve as a whole, or what society dictates that which we deserve?

There's also an interesting thing. Ask any woman if they think it's fair to be hit if they insult you. To the stage where you would hit any guy. Almost every woman I know was disgusted when I said that I would. When they asked why, I pointed out that I was a feminist.

:duh:

Took me a couple of explanations to get it through that if they want equal rights they gain equal responsibilities. If a man insults me for no reason, to enough of a degree, I will punch him. Surely, if women are equal they deserve the same treatment.

[Roxie]

Sorry, but some women do not wish to see gay porn.

There is some porn directed more towards women, but it isn't alot. But this is what I call a "toothpaste" issue.

ex. We have 33 toothpastes to choose from, but (primariarly) only two govn't parties. The toothpaste isn't important.

Also, feminism isn't "female only". There are male feminists as well.
However, no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism (which always comes from media stereotypes + ignorance, unfortunately) enough to ask me if I see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role. It's a shame.

[Jay]

Roxie, do you see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role?

[Praetorian]

However, no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism (which always comes from media stereotypes + ignorance, unfortunately) enough to ask me if I see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role. It's a shame.


I asked you a variation of that exact question a while ago on AIM.
I am a guy.

[fa11en87]

OK, I'm a long time reader of these forums, but I decided to join when I read this topic.



There's also an interesting thing. Ask any woman if they think it's fair to be hit if they insult you. To the stage where you would hit any guy. Almost every woman I know was disgusted when I said that I would. When they asked why, I pointed out that I was a feminist.

:duh:

Took me a couple of explanations to get it through that if they want equal rights they gain equal responsibilities. If a man insults me for no reason, to enough of a degree, I will punch him. Surely, if women are equal they deserve the same treatment.


But women really aren't equal in terms of strength...

[Praetorian]

But women really aren't equal in terms of strength...


Nor are physically not-very-imposing men. Your point being?

[fa11en87]

My point is that guys shouldn't be able to hit girls because generally guys are way stronger than girls, unless it's for self-defense from a physical attack. Physically non-imposing men? How could you tell? A slender looking guy still has his male strength, unless he was
*physically injured/ill* or something.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Physicall non-imposing men? How could you tell? A slender looking guy still has his male strength, unless he was
*physically injured/ill* or something.

You actually have a good point there.

I was playing a game of pool with one of my Afghan friends and he's like massive. I mean big, like easily 380-400 lbs (Im not exargerating either) and his scrawny little cousin came in and started demanding his money (They made a bet on a Basketball game) and they started to wrestle. His scrawny cousin got him on a headlock right on the pool table, lol.

And just a side note the friend I was talking about is kind of a mean guy. So one time he was wearing this really big red shirt and somebody yelled out "Kool-aide" everyone ROFL their asses off! He doesn't mind the fat jokes since he's an ass himself.

[fa11en87]

LOL I think it's kind of funny how you described your friend as "Afghan" instead of just "friend."

[Jiant Flying Panda]

LOL I think it's kind of funny how you described your friend as "Afghan" instead of just "friend."


Because I never seen a really big middle-eastern person before. So I thought the vast majority of the other op9ers haven't either, lol.

Pointing out he was Afghan made it more interesting.

[Jay]

...And this is why political correctness is way over the top, kids. :sarcasm:

[Praetorian]

My point is that guys shouldn't be able to hit girls because generally guys are way stronger than girls, unless it's for self-defense from a physical attack.

Yeah, so girls should be able to piss off a guy as much as she wants knowing well she can get away from it unscratched?

I'm against physical violence altogether (yes, might sound ironic coming from someone who loves fightsports) - but if you piss someone off you shouldn't be able to pull a "don't hit me, I'm physically inferior!" card.

Of course you're physically inferior - which is why a person starts to fight after verbal abuse in the first place. A person is not likely to fight someone, unless he/she is (or thinks he/she is) at least equal the other person's strength. This goes for everybody. Regardless of sex.

It's not hard.

[Ginner Ben]

But women really aren't equal in terms of strength...

I'm not the equal of many people I know, physically. If I cause a fight, I still know I'll get my ass kicked.

[delen]

My point is that guys shouldn't be able to hit girls because generally guys are way stronger than girls, unless it's for self-defense from a physical attack. Physically non-imposing men? How could you tell? A slender looking guy still has his male strength, unless he was
*physically injured/ill* or something.

Fear my male strength. *flex*

[Masa the Masta]

I think that girls shouldn't have the liberty of hitting guys freely at all.


Case in point, any girl that hits me in the arm, I reciprocate.

Girl response: "Wtf? You're not supposed to hit girls."
Me: "I hit up girls all the time, what are you talking about? ;)"
Girl: "Shaddaapppp! :) You know what I mean!"
Me: "So that means it's okay for you to whack at me freely then?"
Girl: "Of course."
Me: "Right. Bend over. I'm really not joking."
Girl: "WHAT?!"
Me: "There's gotta be SOME compensation. Atta girl, that's it."


....Yeah, maybe I'll just keep my personal life to myself. >_>

[Roxie]

Roxie, do you see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role?
I do. Let me clarify, I mean U.S.

I think it's too demanding and outrageously restrictive.

I asked you a variation of that exact question a while ago on AIM.
I am a guy.
sorry, I forgot about that.

Btw, there is no inherent "male strength"
men just the ability to build muscle more quickly and maintain it more eaisly.

male =/ strong.

[Masa the Masta]

I do. Let me clarify, I mean U.S.

I think it's too demanding and outrageously restrictive.


sorry, I forgot about that.

Btw, there is no inherent "male strength"
men just the ability to build muscle more quickly and maintain it more eaisly.

male =/ strong.

If there were no inherent male strength, women would be outperforming men much more often than usual in terms of non-aesthetic sports.

Women and men would be playing on the same playing field at the same time.

Roxie, men also have testosterone in their bodies, which is pretty much what some steroids are made out of.

Men lift women up more often than women lift men up.

I'm just using random facts, some being pointless. In any case, the fact that men are more naturally disposed to having to gain muscle mass more quickly and maintaining it indicates that men are designed for more strength.

Not that you should feel threatened by this Roxie, women have longer lifespans. Men live shorter lives, I guess since our bodies burn out more quickly.

[Praetorian]

Not that you should feel threatened by this Roxie, women have longer lifespans. Men live shorter lives, I guess since our bodies burn out more quickly.


And we're predisposed to being vulnerable to more (often genetic) diseases, due to having both an X and an Y chromosone instead of just XX.

Or something along those lines anyway. Whatever, I'm an idiot and it's too late.

G'night.

[Roxie]

In any case, the fact that men are more naturally disposed to having to gain muscle mass more quickly and maintaining it indicates that men are designed for more strength.

Designed yes. However this doesn't mean they have it.

[Decade]

Sorry, but some women do not wish to see gay porn.
I kinda got that feeling from the rest of the girls in class. Bitchygirl seems to be here own "special" case.

Here's your hat bitchy girl! :bwitch:

There is some porn directed more towards women, but it isn't alot. But this is what I call a "toothpaste" issue.

ex. We have 33 toothpastes to choose from, but (primariarly) only two govn't parties. The toothpaste isn't important.
Look, you get a porno where there's a dude fucking a woman, you got a porno for women. The guy has a penis, you can get off on what he does with it all you want, generally seeing a guy slam a girl is not that uncommon of footage in porn.

If you want lesbian porn, you can find it. Typically guys are the ones who watch it, but hey, lesbians can too.

If you want gay po---well, you said you didnt, so lets skip this one.

Look, to say that there's not enough porno directed towards women is bullshit. Sure most porno is made for guys because, in essence, mostly guys watch pornos, but there's NOTHING preventing a woman from enjoying a normal porno either.

If you're gonna argue that, I'm gonna argue there's not enough "Man-Show" esque tv shows in comparison to Oprah-like talk shows either.


Also, feminism isn't "female only". There are male feminists as well.
However, no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism (which always comes from media stereotypes + ignorance, unfortunately) enough to ask me if I see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role. It's a shame.
Besides the contradiction you just made saying "there's male feminists but no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism," we dont have to look just at media stereotypes or ignorance to really see the problems there is.

Ignornace ISN'T just on the male side, it's obviously on the female side too (that's CLEARLY seen in my first post). That's what I think is one of the biggest problems with Feminism: Most women dont understand what the fight actually is (not just men).

When women arn't willing to give up advantages they do indeed have (I'm just using car insurance as a MINOR EXAMPLE), that doesnt promote equality, that promotes "perks cause I'm a woman and not a testosterone devil."

Just before I had this conversation, we watched a documentary of kids at Berkely being interviewed for what they thought feminism is and if they are one back in 1993 (it's not that different from now though) and EVERYONE had a different answer and nobody (not women OR men) gave a textbook definition.

Feminism means in the dictionary "equality of rights among the genders," but regardless of how ignorant people who are against Feminism to what the actual definition is in the dictionary, it doesnt matter either because the fight HAS been rather dilluted into something that ISN'T calling for equal rights.

True Feminism would be promoting equality for genders where women are treated equally, for better OR worse, and while I DO believe there ARE these "True Feminists" out there, they're true voices are inaudible by the war going on by other "so called feminists" and ignorant people of BOTH genders about what it is.

You want to create equality? Someone else on this thread had suggested the PERFECT name to help start that:

Equalism.

[Orclover]

True Feminism would be promoting equality for genders where women are treated equally, for better OR worse, and while I DO believe there ARE these "True Feminists" out there, they're true voices are inaudible by the war going on by other "so called feminists" and ignorant people of BOTH genders about what it is.

You want to create equality? Someone else on this thread had suggested the PERFECT name to help start that:

Equalism.

/qft

As my mother always said, the best way to avoid being considered a 'cist (racist, sexist, ect) is to hit everybody in the back of the head equally.

I am burried in Feminist every day from 8 to 4pm, out of 30 employees in the building I am one of 2 strait men(3 men total btw), and equalatist there are very very rare, feminist however you cant shake a dead cat without hitting one. :gloomy: A couple of the "equalitist" however have the do or die attitude, if a draft comes they will be damn insulted if they arent on the list. God bless em.

[Roxie]

Look, you get a porno where there's a dude fucking a woman, you got a porno for women.
Ah, no. On average women like storylines. Not just sex scenes. But stories where the people aren't total and complete strangers and there's no degrading language, etc..

But like I said, it's a toothpaste issue.

Besides the contradiction you just made saying "there's male feminists but no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism," we dont have to look just at media stereotypes or ignorance to really see the problems there is.

Wow you completely chopped and screwed my reply to make up a whole new meaning. Thanks for making up something I didn't say.

Ignornace ISN'T just on the male side, it's obviously on the female side too (that's CLEARLY seen in my first post). That's what I think is one of the biggest problems with Feminism: Most women dont understand what the fight actually is (not just men).
Most women and men don't know. But if you read my previous reply again, you can see I pointed out males for a specific reason. Just don't chop them up again, ok?


Feminism means in the dictionary "equality of rights among the genders," but regardless of how ignorant people who are against Feminism to what the actual definition is in the dictionary, it doesnt matter either because the fight HAS been rather dilluted into something that ISN'T calling for equal rights.
The fight has not been dilluted, but the meaning by others has
while I DO believe there ARE these "True Feminists" out there, they're true voices are inaudible by the war going on by other "so called feminists" and ignorant people of BOTH genders about what it is.
They're not inaubible, but no one is looking to hear them.
The media loves to promote women who claim to be feminists but at the same time try to cast shadows of doubt, thus only propping up the status quo.

[Masa the Masta]

Designed yes. However this doesn't mean they have it.

Trust me.

They have it. More often than not they'll have it over women.

Doesn't mean it's BAD that girls are weaker than guys, it's just how we're designed (as guys).

Jesus woman, at least concede that guys are stronger. :knockout:

[Decade]

Ah, no. On average women like storylines. Not just sex scenes. But stories where the people aren't total and complete strangers and there's no degrading language, etc..

But like I said, it's a toothpaste issue.


Go watch "Lolita Confinement Lesbian" if you want a storyline.

Have fun with that :boggled:

Wow you completely chopped and screwed my reply to make up a whole new meaning. Thanks for making up something I didn't say.
Hrrmmm...

Also, feminism isn't "female only". There are male feminists as well.
However, no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism (which always comes from media stereotypes + ignorance, unfortunately) enough to ask me if I see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role. It's a shame.
Looks pretty contradictory without me having to do that much work for yah. :watson:

Most women and men don't know. But if you read my previous reply again, you can see I pointed out males for a specific reason.
I did, but you gotta cover your bases.


Just don't chop them up again, ok?
NEVER! :bwitch: :frypan:

The fight has not been dilluted, but the meaning by others has
:meh: I dunno how true this is or not. Obviously the meanings been diluted, but due to that I think the actual fight has as well.

They're not inaubible, but no one is looking to hear them.
The media loves to promote women who claim to be feminists but at the same time try to cast shadows of doubt, thus only propping up the status quo.
Hence inaudible. As soon as people choose not to hear a group and choose to focus on another, their words fall on deaf ears. :meh:

[Roxie]

Go watch "Lolita Confinement Lesbian" if you want a storyline.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure they want hetero porn w/storyline. Anyway, I don't care.

Looks pretty contradictory without me having to do that much work for yah. :watson:

Why do you insist on chopping it up to make up your own meaning?

this
Also, feminism isn't "female only". There are male feminists as well.
is different from this
However, no guy has ever stopped talking about what he sees wrong with feminism enough to ask me if I see problems with the accepted American "male" gender role. It's a shame.

[Decade]

this
is different from this

THANK YOU :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Jay]

Ah, no. On average women like storylines. Not just sex scenes.

if you want a storyline, go read a bloody sex novel or watch a romantic movie, cupcake.

[Roxie]

THANK YOU :clap: :clap: :clap:
Dude, wtf?

You're not making any sense. They've always been different.
You're the one who said they contridicted as if they were the same.
I say, "they aren't the same"
You say, "but they contridict"

Just what the hell where you reading?

[Jay]

this

is different from this

yeah, not contradictory at all.

[Decade]

Dude, wtf?

You're not making any sense. They've always been different.
You're the one who said they contridicted as if they were the same.
I say, "they aren't the same"
You say, "but they contridict"

Just what the hell where you reading?

Quite honestly?


It's just really fun to mess with you :D :frypan:

Instead of doing my usual "argue with someone who just wont give," I've decided to either have fun with it or make us both laugh.

I will magically chop and slap everything together and apart! :bwitch:

[Masa the Masta]

Way to save face.

[Decade]

I seriously just dont care anymore. The only thing I really get from arguing with someone for days and pages at a time on these things is just a lot of frustration and a lot less faith in the average joe/joan shmoe. I'd rather laugh it off and move on now than fight it over. It's more fun :D

[Roxie]

Jay does that just fine, thanks.

[Kwiz]

I seriously just dont care anymore. The only thing I really get from arguing with someone for days and pages at a time on these things is just a lot of frustration and a lot less faith in the average joe/joan shmoe. I'd rather laugh it off and move on now than fight it over. It's more fun :D
I'd say so too... god, the last page is home to the biggest semantics argument I've seen in a long time.

[Decade]

Jay does that just fine, thanks.

And he does it so goooooood :D

Now come over here and give me some brown suga, roxie :innocent:

[Jay]

Jay does that just fine, thanks.

I could rant on for ages about myself, because I have a big ego.

But that's not what we're here for, is it?

That said, talk about me if you want to. :gwitch:

[Decade]

You're cuntacular, handy cunt :innocent:

[fa11en87]

I do. Let me clarify, I mean U.S.

I think it's too demanding and outrageously restrictive.


sorry, I forgot about that.

Btw, there is no inherent "male strength"
men just the ability to build muscle more quickly and maintain it more eaisly.

male =/ strong.

No inherent "male strength" huh? Wow that's just plain blatant denial. I'm all for equal rights and opportunities but males and females are just made differently in some aspects.



Yeah, so girls should be able to piss off a guy as much as she wants knowing well she can get away from it unscratched?
It's not hard.
No, I'm not saying that, but I feel that if persuasion with words doesn't work, you just just walk away. Unless they're hitting you, then you can defend yourself to a moderation, but I don't think a male should just beat a girl up to a pulp for self defense either. (Unless she's genuinely trying to kill you and is threatening.)

[Silverhawk]

Equalism. :p
winnah! :clap:

Also, feminism isn't "female only". There are male feminists as well.
Its name implies a bias for females, regardless whether the members are male/female. If you are truly fighting for equality, a much better term would be equalism or egalitarianism(i prefer the former... much simpler :)).

[Jay]

i like your avatar.

[Decade]

Dont encourage him, he'll go over every detail about it :duh:

[Jay]

I see...

...wanna troll? :)

[Klilynkun]

noooooo.... 5 pages to catch up :(

[Decade]

Sorry Jay, I went to bed right after.

Anyway, anybody wanna pick up the topic OTHER than with the military? I'm tired of focusing on just ONE aspect of the subject :meh:

[Darth_E_]

men do not get pregnant. women do
men do not give birth. women do
men do not breast feed the baby for ~2 years. women do

Hence, both sex are not equal.

[Decade]

men do not get pregnant, women do so they can get out of the draft if it's ever brought back (which it wont...hopefully)

men do not give birth. women do and must work (sometimes extra shift in case the wife was working and they need to make up the loss in cash post-pregnancy for at least a few months)

men do not breast feed the baby for ~2 years. They use bottles.

Hence, both sex are not equal.

[Orclover]

men do not get pregnant, women do so they can get out of the draft if it's ever brought back (which it wont...hopefully)


Women get pregnant, men claim to be gay...or crippled, or nuts, or any number of things. Sooo women have one more way to get out of the draft (other than current laws) than men, although a man could claim to be pregnant and stick to the story thereby getting out of the draft in another way. :hat:

Mentaly, physically, and emotionally men and women will never be equal without one or the other having to work harder than the former to catch up in the deficit catagory, blame god if you have to blame somebody (not me, I will take strength over girly flicks and better sense of smell any day). BUT we can can (and to some extent have) at least philosophically declare and make laws to tell the oposite sex and ourselves "You are Equal to me, and if not, dammit we will lie and be happier because of it". Its supposed be a silent subconsious agreement to put each other on a level playing field, and hell no its not perfect and will be centeries in the tuning just the same as racial equality but we WILL do it. Who the fuck would want be less than the oposite sex in something?

If you dont like equality amoungst the sexes, even in a lie, move to the god damn middle east. Got a whole societies of people around those parts who are right there with ya. But get the heck out of MY country and leave its shakey and unstable social progress the hell alone.

[Roxie]

men do not get pregnant. women do
men do not give birth. women do
men do not breast feed the baby for ~2 years. women do

Yes, but they don't have to.

[Kass]

Oh dear me! A MOVIE shows it all!


How often do you hear a woman paying child support? :watson:

Quite often if you pay attention. I have three or four female friends who pay child support. It isn't as uncommon as you would think anymore. By far, more men pay than women, but you can't make that assumption anymore.

Jiant Flying Panda, yeah, women can get pregnant if they are raped, but if they voluntarily join the military and voluntarily serve in a combat unit, then that is part of the deal. You can get captured. You can get tortured. You can get raped. You can get pregnant. Don't like it, don't freaking join.

That is one of the potential outcomes of being a female soldier. It isn't like it is a secret. The military is pretty up front about the bad things that can happen. They also do as much as possible toprepare their soldiers for it. Survival training, basic training, combat training--it is all so that the soldiers are prepared as best as possible for the inevitable outcomes of war.

[Langosta]

So is it a war crime to rape the enemy? .. Would anybody notice if they were raped and killed or would they just notice they died?

I don't mean to keep it on the military and all but I was wondering ^^

I say if you want equality don't give anybody anything or help in any way. Then you're all equal, or treated equally at least

[Decade]

*grumble, looks like we wont be able to get past the military aspect :knockout:

[Darth_E_]

Women and men are not equal, they're emotionally and physically different. They are not and will never be equal as long a man is a man and a woman is a woman. What we want is not sexual equality , but FAIRNESS between both sexes, in which a man is given more rights over the issues he has advantage in over the women ( ie : decision making, man is more rational, woman is more emotional ) while the woman is given more rights over the issues she has advantage over man and/or is at disadvantage to compensate ( ie : the right to take care of her children in case of divorce, the right to be independent, the right to participate in society..etc etc ), so that at the end of the day, the sharing of rights would be fair and just for each gender's physical and mental capabilities.

[fa11en87]

Women and men are not equal, they're emotionally and physically different. They are not and will never be equal as long a man is a man and a woman is a woman. What we want is not sexual equality , but FAIRNESS between both sexes, in which a man is given more rights over the issues he has advantage in over the women ( ie : decision making, man is more rational, woman is more emotional ) while the woman is given more rights over the issues she has advantage over man and/or is at disadvantage to compensate ( ie : the right to take care of her children in case of divorce, the right to be independent, the right to participate in society..etc etc ), so that at the end of the day, the sharing of rights would be fair and just for each gender's physical and mental capabilities.
Well said, but lets also state that there are exceptions, before people start getting on your ass about it.

[Darth_E_]

*tucks ass into a hole*
there..ass covered..:hat:

[EvilFred]

probably the ugly girls enjoy it more ... I once heard a friend of mine saying that being gay is the ultimate form sexism, thinking girls are so inferior that the idea of having sex with them is disgusting. :innocent:
That's just as stupid as saying only ugly boys like girl on girl porn.

[Goat]

I think some of you arn't looking at the BIG picture. The whole idea of equality is good, but in reality no one is equal to anyone. People are so diferant is so many differant ways, smater, prettier, faster, stronger, not to menching some people are born, blind, deaf, missing limbs, and any other kinds of affliction. So in reality no one is equal to anyone else because we are all so differant..maybe it would have been better if God did find a way to make us all the same, but then the world would be a very boreing place.

[Kwiz]

I think some of you arn't looking at the BIG picture. The whole idea of equality is good, but in reality no one is equal to anyone. People are so diferant is so many differant ways, smater, prettier, faster, stronger, not to menching some people are born, blind, deaf, missing limbs, and any other kinds of affliction. So in reality no one is equal to anyone else because we are all so differant..maybe it would have been better if God did find a way to make us all the same, but then the world would be a very boreing place.
Similarity and equality are two very different things.

[Jay]

Equality in rights, Goat, not equality in appearance or traits.

Which, had you been reading the thread, you would know.

[Praetorian]

Perhaps he meant to say we should judge people on an individual basis rather than by gender or race? Since people are, after all, individuals. No point to make generalisations.

[Kwiz]

If that was Goat's message, it wasn't thought out very well before being typed down..

It just bothers me when people simplistically say that "real equality is impossible."

[Jay]

If it's equality in sports, I'm better at Australian Rules football than you are, so there's no comparison there. You're probably better at NFL than I am, so there's no comparison there either.

Real equality between the races and genders IS possible though, in most aspects. (ie, a male is able to lift more than a female, so the heavy physical work should be left to the males.)

[Kaji]

Jay: But then doesn't the male deserve the extra pay commensurate with the extra risk involved in said work (e.g. construction)? That's one of the major factors in the wage gap so many people speak of...

[Aeneas]

Everyone is created equal, just some are created more equal than others.
:)

[Jay]

Aenaes: No.

Jay: But then doesn't the male deserve the extra pay commensurate with the extra risk involved in said work (e.g. construction)? That's one of the major factors in the wage gap so many people speak of...

No, because there's always an administrative side to physical labour. I know the stereotype is most women fill secretarial roles, but they do, and they're an important part of the business. And for that they deserve just as much as the men do.

It's the same business, just different departments.

[Praetorian]

Aenaes: No.



No, because there's always an administrative side to physical labour. I know the stereotype is most women fill secretarial roles, but they do, and they're an important part of the business. And for that they deserve just as much as the men do.

It's the same business, just different departments.

Except one department doesn't have the risk of dieing/severe injury.

And don't forget the nasty side effects that become apparent over time - like back injury.

[Jay]

That's why they invented compensation.

:D

[Praetorian]

I know. And that was what Kaji was talking about (I think) - and you disagreed to it.

[Jay]

No, he was talking about on-the-job pay. Or at least that's what I conceived it as. Maybe I was wrong. *shrug*

A secretary can die on the job too. A filing cabinet could be knocked over and she could get her head squashed on it. or she could slip on a piece of paper and bang her head on the desk.

*shrug* It's all subjective, I guess.

[Praetorian]

A secretary can die on the job too. A filing cabinet could be knocked over and she could get her head squashed on it. or she could slip on a piece of paper and bang her head on the desk.


Now you're just being ridiculous for the sake of it. :p

[Jay]

Yes. So sue me. :D

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

it's not that rediculous. I mean, if he said godzilla stole the secretary then took her to tokeyo and she died of culture shock, then yeah. THAT'S ABSURD.

[Jay]

Slipping on something on the floor and hitting your head would be a pretty common workplace accident, I would think.

But then, I could be wrong.

[Praetorian]

Not quite as common as the death/injury toll in construction work.

[ruaidhri]

I’ve worn many hats during my lifetime of work. A long, long time ago (35 to 40 years ago), I was the chief steward and contract negotiator for the office workers at my company. One of my jobs was to evaluate jobs and negotiate with the company on fair compensation. When establishing salaries, companies generally rated education far higher than risk of injury. The more education required the fewer qualified applicants. When the number of available positions exceeded the number of qualified applicants salaries were higher. Often, moderately “dangerous” jobs do not require much more than a willingness to do the work. Because the number of available workers is higher than the number of jobs the salaries are not as high.

Actually it all comes down to how much it costs a company to hire a qualified worker. If they can find employees for less the average salary will be lower. If they have to bid against each other for a limited supply than the average salary will be higher. In the past women were generally willing to work for less so female dominated jobs were paid less. When women moved into the male dominated jobs they usually moved in at the bottom of the salary ladder compared to the men who had held the jobs for longer periods. While the women were earning more than they had in the female dominated jobs they were not earning as much as the men doing the same work because most companies reward experience.

Because the men had more experience they were usually the first promoted to even higher positions thereby earning even more than the women. Now, as more and more women move up the corporate ladder they still remain behind the men as far as experience and salaries. Remember, a company is not going to pay more than they need to fill the job with a qualified applicant. Even in the Executive Suites women’s salaries are often behind those of the men in the adjoining offices because of experience and past salary history.

When a company promotes an individual they are not going to move them from secretary to vice president. With each promotion in between the low and the high position the company will offer what it considers a “reasonable” increase to their existing salary. If the men’s positions were higher and their service longer than their increases will also be higher. When they arrive at the VP level they would most likely be earning more than the women.

Of course, much of what I’m writing is about the world that was. It’s changing. Today, many young professionals bypass the process by moving from firm to firm. There they are in the far better position of forcing the companies to bid against each other. Many companies want to increase their employee diversity. They want women and minorities in all levels. They are willing to pay higher salaries if forced by competition. But, if you’ve worked for a company for many years and they offer you a higher job don’t be surprised if the new employee starts at a higher salary.

Is it fair? No! It’s not fair to the employee. But, then, who said it had to be. It’s simply the law of supply and demand.

[Kaji]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumoconiosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago_Mine_disaster

Some risks go beyond just simply workplace accidents...Also, a bookshelf falling over onto one person (or even 2-3 surrounding people) is drastically different from a mine caving in and trapping everyone within while slowly suffocating them...

[Jay]

Kaji, this is absolutely beside the point and pretty ridiculous; but what if a bookshelf falls onto someone working alone in an empty room and it takes another employee hours upon hours to simply walk into that room?

Yes, it's pretty silly and probably very rare, but it IS an example of how working in a building can be just as dangerous as working on construction, in other form of manual labour or in a mineshaft.

Ruaidhri: You mentioned that you're writing about the world as it was, and as it was in your younger years, prejudice abounded. Races were segregated, women were housewives, and what have you. In today's society though, I still think that men in higher positions than entry-level women SHOULD be paid more than these women. By the same token, exactly the same should hold true for women in higher positions than entry-level men.

I don't know if it does or not, being a young whipper-snapper, but if it doesn't it really should.

[Praetorian]

So you're saying that kids working as a stack filler in a supermarket should be getting compensation for potential risky work too (just like miners, construction workers and soldiers) because it might just happen that the rack they're filling might fall over, possibly killing them?

[Jay]

Or at least severly injure him, yes.

[Kaji]

Ok, so let's look at something here...

Risks for a bagger at the supermarket:
-robbery (varies)
-run over by a shopping cart (chances of it doing anything more than bruising him, much less knocking him down, are very low)
-hit by a car in the parking lot (chances of it occuring are low to begin with, although naturally it's potentially fatal if it does happen)
-slip on the floor due to a product spill (rare for it to happen, although consequences vary depending on the specific details of the incident)
-display falling over onto him (chances are low of it happening in the first place, and unless he gets pelted with 200 cans of peas it's not likely to do anything more than moderate bruising)

Risks for a coal miner:
-Black lung diseases (caused by inhalation of coal dust, which is not uncommon due to the safety standards put in place and how they are enforced by the owners of the mines)
-Cave-ins (If watching the news over the past year or so is any indicator, its not exactly an infrequent occurence, even if those are by some chance the only incidents)
-Fires (methane gas is found anywhere there's coal, and it's very prone to ignition from the slightest spark)
-Explosions (once again, methane gas)
-Carbon Monoxide poisoning (can be the result of fires or cave-ins, but even just during the course of working in the mine it's something that they actively have to watch out for
-General injuries (cuts and scrapes can get coal dust into them, which can cause infection. If someone breaks a bone or has an accident that results in severe bleeding, it's hard to transport someone out of a mine quickly when they're 2 miles or more down the shaft)

Sure, both have their risks, but if you can in all seriousness tell me that they're equal then your head's on backwards. The guy working the supermarket only really has to fear getting run over by a car, and chances are that'll never happen so long as he watches where he's going. The miner pretty much has to always be alert for dangers that could end his life in an instant (or if not end it, leave him trapped to contemplate the end if it for the 12 hours or so of air he has left to breathe). The dangers faced by the miner are generally communal in nature as well, as opposed to the relatively individual nature of the supermarket accidents.

[Jay]

Kaji, you won't hear me say that the risks are equal in every occupation, and of course different occupations pay different wages, so a coal miner wouldn't earn the same as say, a chief mechanic. I didn't mean that though.

I'm talking more about equal pay across the board in the same occupation - you know, the same pay for the office guy as for the mechanic; the same pay for the guy mining the coal as the guy operating the big heavy machinery. Unless, as I said, you're an entry-level worker. Then you SHOULD be paid less, because you're not experienced and still learning. I wouldn't expect to be paid as much as a guy who's been there 20 years.

[ruaidhri]

I believe you're missing my point.

A company is not going to pay more for an employee than necessary to fill the position with a qualified applicant. Certainly danger plays a role. The more dangerous the job the fewer the applicants. When the salary is sufficient to entice enough employees to take the job that will be what most companies will pay. Governments publish labor statistics with average salaries for all type of jobs. That’s what companies use to establish salaries. When they can’t fill positions they increase salaries. When they don’t have a problem filling the positions they don’t increase salaries. In fact, if too many people apply companies might even explore reducing salaries.

Yes, all jobs have a degree of danger. It’s all a matter of degree and how potential applicants perceive the danger. I’m sure far more people would risk working in a supermarket than high in the sky on the skeleton of a skyscraper under construction.

Again, regardless of the whether it’s 1966 or 2006, the primary factor influencing salaries is supply and demand.

As far as women in the workforce are concerned, the 1960’s were indeed very different from today. Women didn’t have many opportunities outside of the traditional female jobs. I welcomed the changes over the years. One of my best “bosses” was my last, a black woman. She simply wouldn’t have been given the opportunity in 1966. But, is her salary equal to some of the men working for her. I doubt it. Why? Because she worked her way into management from a union position. She moved through a number of lower level positions with the standard promotion salary adjustment. The men who have been in their positions far longer were initially hired in management positions. They have a far better salary base.

Now, understand, that I’m talking about middle and upper management salaries. The ranges are very wide with thousands of dollars separating the low and high. I assume that many people on OP9 aspire to higher jobs than stocking shelves in a supermarket where the salary ranges are more narrow and fixed.

[Kaji]

Jay: So the salary should be the same for the lady doing payroll as it should be for the new miner that was hired the same day? Or, to use an example from the other place we've been looking, should the fact that the butcher is at a greater risk of grinding his right hand into hamburger or otherwise exposed to greater risk of death and disability not entitle him to higher pay?

[Jay]

I believe you're missing my point.

A company is not going to pay more for an employee than necessary to fill the position with a qualified applicant. Certainly danger plays a role. The more dangerous the job the fewer the applicants. When the salary is sufficient to entice enough employees to take the job that will be what most companies will pay. Governments publish labor statistics with average salaries for all type of jobs. That’s what companies use to establish salaries. When they can’t fill positions they increase salaries. When they don’t have a problem filling the positions they don’t increase salaries. In fact, if too many people apply companies might even explore reducing salaries.

Yes, all jobs have a degree of danger. It’s all a matter of degree and how potential applicants perceive the danger. I’m sure far more people would risk working in a supermarket than high in the sky on the skeleton of a skyscraper under construction.

Again, regardless of the whether it’s 1966 or 2006, the primary factor influencing salaries is supply and demand.

As far as women in the workforce are concerned, the 1960’s were indeed very different from today. Women didn’t have many opportunities outside of the traditional female jobs. I welcomed the changes over the years. One of my best “bosses” was my last, a black woman. She simply wouldn’t have been given the opportunity in 1966. But, is her salary equal to some of the men working for her. I doubt it. Why? Because she worked her way into management from a union position. She moved through a number of lower level positions with the standard promotion salary adjustment. The men who have been in their positions far longer were initially hired in management positions. They have a far better salary base.

Now, understand, that I’m talking about middle and upper management salaries. The ranges are very wide with thousands of dollars separating the low and high. I assume that many people on OP9 aspire to higher jobs than stocking shelves in a supermarket where the salary ranges are more narrow and fixed.

Ruaidhri, I'll do my best to understand, but I'm still only a kid who's only held down one job that I had to quit because of an ingrown toenail. :bang:

I guess I'll just shut up now. :blank:

[Jay]

Jay: So the salary should be the same for the lady doing payroll as it should be for the new miner that was hired the same day? Or, to use an example from the other place we've been looking, should the fact that the butcher is at a greater risk of grinding his right hand into hamburger or otherwise exposed to greater risk of death and disability not entitle him to higher pay?

No no no, you're missing my point, I don't mean that the person in occupation X should to be paid as much as in occupation Y. Two different occupations = two different salary bases.

I just think that established - parmanent employees who've been there more than say, a year, or two years - employess should be paid the same wage, regardless of their gender.

[ruaidhri]

Jay,

I absolutely agree with you. All things being equal the man and woman should be paid equally. The problem is that sometimes all is not equal.

One thing I learned a long time ago is that salary administration is anything but fair and equal.

I have great faith that you will do well in life. Why? Because you have the spark that questions rather than merely accepts. Education helps but is not the only avenue to success. What I believe is even more important is not accepting the status quo and not giving up. From what I've observed, you have both qualities.

[Jay]

Yes, but I think that's borne more of cynicism than anything else. I really wish more people would stop listening to the people who say something is "trendy", or "cool", or "the thing to do", and start questioning the world they live in, instead of revelling in their ignorance. I don't think I'm being naive in saying that I think more people should explore their own lives and take action for themselves instead of being told what to do by the "people in charge"; I believe it's more like talking to an answering machine - you can tell it things but it will just repeat back to you what you just said and not learn anything.

I wish mankind would stop asking "why", and start asking "how".

[Roxie]

I suggest everyone read
Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743249895/102-6007247-7652158?v=glance&n=283155) By Ariel Levy

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Ariel Levy’s debut book is a bold, piercing examination of how twenty-first century American society perceives sex and women. Writing vividly, she brings her readers to places she visited to make her assessment; the elevator of Playboy Enterprises with women auditioning to be Playmates in the fiftieth anniversary edition, a Florida beach where sunbathers urge a woman to take off her bathing suit for the camera crew of Girls Gone Wild, a San Francisco Italian restaurant where a lesbian worries she’s not dressed up enough for her date, a CAKE party in New York, with women grinding each other’s pelvises in time to pulsating dance rhythms, and outside a juice bar in Oakland where a beautiful high school student shares disappointment at her experiences with sex.

Levy cleverly leads us to explore the role models women aspire to emulate. We are not pursuing the confident, self-determined, powerful, free ideal the women’s liberation movement would have dreamed for its daughters. Instead, our icons are porn stars and strippers and prostitutes. Paris Hilton and Jenna Jameson flaunt their successes in the pornography industry, and in doing so seem to earn our adulation.

Levy relates our embracing of this raunchy culture to unresolved tensions thirty years ago between the sexual revolution and the women’s liberation movement, and amongst feminists; joy at discovering the delights of our clitoris conflicting with disgust at pornography’s objectification of women. She creates a convincing argument by analyzing a diverse spectrum of material; presents a fascinating palette of interviews with revolutionary women’s libbers, nouvelle raunchy feminists, and everyday women and men. Detailed facts and recurring names are sometimes cumbersome, albeit worth ploughing through for the ‘a-ha moments’.

The reality that we model ourselves on images whose "individuality is erased" is harsh, yet Levy’s work is imbued with hope – hope that women can celebrate their uniqueness instead of their ‘hotness’, explore their sexuality as delight rather than consume sex as currency, and succeed professionally because of their brilliant minds and personalities, not because of their brilliant bodies.--Megan Jones Ady

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. What does sexy mean today? Levy, smartly expanding on reporting for an article in New York magazine, argues that the term is defined by a pervasive raunch culture wherein women make sex objects of other women and of ourselves. The voracious search for what's sexy, she writes, has reincarnated a day when Playboy Bunnies (and airbrushed and surgically altered nudity) epitomized female beauty. It has elevated porn above sexual pleasure. Most insidiously, it has usurped the keywords of the women's movement (liberation, empowerment) to serve as buzzwords for a female sexuality that denies passion (in all its forms) and embraces consumerism. To understand how this happened, Levy examines the women's movement, identifying the residue of divisive, unresolved issues about women's relationship to men and sex. The resulting raunch feminism, she writes, is a garbled attempt at continuing the work of the women's movement and asks, how is resurrecting every stereotype of female sexuality that feminism endeavored to banish good for women? Why is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering? Levy's insightful reporting and analysis chill the hype of what's hot. It will create many aha! moments for readers who have been wondering how porn got to be pop and why feminism is such a dirty word. (Sept. 13)

[Silverhawk]

I suggest everyone read
Female Chauvinist Pigs : Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743249895/102-6007247-7652158?v=glance&n=283155) By Ariel Levy
To me, that book sounds like it talks alot more about the influence of the media than feminism itself. The author probably just tried to connect it to feminism to attract more readers.

I haven't read the book of course, i base my judgements on the given reviews on the site which describes the book's content. If i see this in a bookstore, i'll give it a look and see if my perception is wrong.

[Ginner Ben]

About the differences in pay - Two points.

1) Heavy manual labour jobs, including a high risk pay more. This is for several reasons. Firstly, compensation is no good if you die. Secondly, you can be a secretary all your life, but once you're over 50 you will probably struggle to keep the job.

2) Try taking footballer's and the like out of the maths for the difference in pay. If my understanding is right, it brings it to a pretty acceptable level (if you take into account maternity and such)

[ruaidhri]

I’m in somewhat of a peckish mood today so I’m going to speak my mind.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how many posters don’t bother reading other members’ posts before adding their own. This thread is a prime example.

First, sexual equality is the issue. Somewhat understandably that has evolved into pay equality. Some posters erroneously assumed that physical difficulty and associated personal danger qualified men to earn more than women. That is both simply and blatantly wrong.

How many times do I have to write that the chief determiner of salary is the simple law of supply and demand. Certainly danger and the ability to perform physical labor do somewhat restrict the workforce and thereby do somewhat inflate salaries. But, if the truth is told, macho men like danger and love physical labor. There’s no shortage of men eager to accept the difficulty and the risk. That keeps salaries down.

However, good secretaries are worth their weight in gold. In fact, most companies no longer call them secretaries. Today, they’re administrative assistants. Unlike forty years ago when I first joined corporate America, not every manager has their own secretary. Instead, most have a PC on their desk and do their own memos, letters and filing. Only the more senior corporate directors, vice presidents, presidents, CEO’s and other senior executives are eligible for what is now known as administrative assistants. Some of these women even have their own offices. Most, however, still sit at a desk outside their executives office. These women are very talented and often keep their bosses from falling on their faces. Oh, and I hope this isn’t a big shocker to you, they are very well paid. In fact, I’d venture to say they are paid thousand upon thousands more than most hard working men in dangerous jobs.

Remember the law of supply and demand. The supply of guys willing to work hard under dangerous conditions is high. The supply of people capable of managing a corporate senior executive’s office is small. Employees have greater value when they have talents that require special knowledge and expertise.

Women have already come into their own in corporate America. They hold many of the managerial positions. They’re moving into the executive suites. More and more are demanding and getting executive salaries. If you guys out there believe a woman is somewhat less valuable than a man, think again. Chances are that if you haven’t already you will soon be working for a (gasp!) woman.

I retired four years ago. When I started all my bosses were men. When I retired, the vast majority were women. And, surprise, surprise, I believe the women, as a whole, did a better job. Why? Because they listen and learn before acting. Remember, corporations exist on accomplishments not promises. Men, I’ve found, are very good at promising results while women deliver.

So, while you Cro-Magnon throwbacks, lull yourself to sleep every night with the fairytale that men are superior, the women of the world are taking your jobs away. Why? Because they are better prepared, work harder and produce better results. Of course you can always do the hard, dirty and dangerous jobs for less money while they look down their noses at you just as your fathers’ looked down their noses at the secretaries.

[Jay]

A great read. Well said! :clap:

[Masa the Masta]

I’m in somewhat of a peckish mood today so I’m going to speak my mind.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how many posters don’t bother reading other members’ posts before adding their own. This thread is a prime example.

First, sexual equality is the issue. Somewhat understandably that has evolved into pay equality. Some posters erroneously assumed that physical difficulty and associated personal danger qualified men to earn more than women. That is both simply and blatantly wrong.

How many times do I have to write that the chief determiner of salary is the simple law of supply and demand. Certainly danger and the ability to perform physical labor do somewhat restrict the workforce and thereby do somewhat inflate salaries. But, if the truth is told, macho men like danger and love physical labor. There’s no shortage of men eager to accept the difficulty and the risk. That keeps salaries down.

However, good secretaries are worth their weight in gold. In fact, most companies no longer call them secretaries. Today, they’re administrative assistants. Unlike forty years ago when I first joined corporate America, not every manager has their own secretary. Instead, most have a PC on their desk and do their own memos, letters and filing. Only the more senior corporate directors, vice presidents, presidents, CEO’s and other senior executives are eligible for what is now known as administrative assistants. Some of these women even have their own offices. Most, however, still sit at a desk outside their executives office. These women are very talented and often keep their bosses from falling on their faces. Oh, and I hope this isn’t a big shocker to you, they are very well paid. In fact, I’d venture to say they are paid thousand upon thousands more than most hard working men in dangerous jobs.

Remember the law of supply and demand. The supply of guys willing to work hard under dangerous conditions is high. The supply of people capable of managing a corporate senior executive’s office is small. Employees have greater value when they have talents that require special knowledge and expertise.

Women have already come into their own in corporate America. They hold many of the managerial positions. They’re moving into the executive suites. More and more are demanding and getting executive salaries. If you guys out there believe a woman is somewhat less valuable than a man, think again. Chances are that if you haven’t already you will soon be working for a (gasp!) woman.

I retired four years ago. When I started all my bosses were men. When I retired, the vast majority were women. And, surprise, surprise, I believe the women, as a whole, did a better job. Why? Because they listen and learn before acting. Remember, corporations exist on accomplishments not promises. Men, I’ve found, are very good at promising results while women deliver.

So, while you Cro-Magnon throwbacks, lull yourself to sleep every night with the fairytale that men are superior, the women of the world are taking your jobs away. Why? Because they are better prepared, work harder and produce better results. Of course you can always do the hard, dirty and dangerous jobs for less money while they look down their noses at you just as your fathers’ looked down their noses at the secretaries.


Yeah?? Well men are still stronger. :gloomy:


In many places, a woman can do just fine, but there's places where a man excels too. I don't think it's a sweeping feminine dominance in the work place either, women I feel still have awhile to go before they become truly 'equal', but there will always be places where one sex is superior to the other. Will this be true equality? Probably not, but it'll be equal in that the advantages men have will be balanced out by the advantages women have.

I don't like to count out either sex. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I'm not one to say what a woman's weaknesses are, I'm a guy. :watson: I'll leave that to the girls to decide.

[Ravage]

So, while you Cro-Magnon throwbacks, lull yourself to sleep every night with the fairytale that men are superior

OK

And, surprise, surprise, I believe the women, as a whole, did a better job.
Because they[women] are better prepared, work harder and produce better results.
Lol. Yes, well said indeed...

[Orclover]

About the differences in pay - Two points.

1) Heavy manual labour jobs, including a high risk pay more. This is for several reasons. Firstly, compensation is no good if you die. Secondly, you can be a secretary all your life, but once you're over 50 you will probably struggle to keep the job.

Over 50 we are all struggling to keep a decent job less we went real far in college...the great equalizer. Forget sexism at that point, agism is a mother.

2) Try taking footballer's and the like out of the maths for the difference in pay. If my understanding is right, it brings it to a pretty acceptable level (if you take into account maternity and such)

My Mother, with 24 years of HR experience under her belt, would disagree with you there. She has also been teaching classes in Equal Oportunity Employment Law for a very long time, the US is better than most countries at it but were still not equal.

[Trump]

Here's how things go where I work (defense contractor). Program managers often share one administrative assistant. Granted program managers are still many steps below vice president level, but still the ladies that work in those positions have generally been there a very long time and know what they are doing. EVERYONE knows who they are and I think most people respect the job they do. I just did a quick search on the job postings and the pay grade for administrative assistants seemed to be just below the pay for finance jobs.

There are other women who have worked their way up to the director level and such. I don't know for sure, but they are respected just like their male counter parts and I would expect their pay to be based on the same things as the men. They might make a little less since many women have taken time off to raise children, but that isn't inequality. They even got paid for that time off in many cases, how is THAT fair? As a guy I would never be allowed to work part time at this sort of job but women are allowed because of children. They get paid less, but I'd love to be able to work 10 less hours a week for 10 less hours of pay.

So in general, I think women with the same experience as men make the same amount.

[Klilynkun]

We will never be equal....NEVER......what a world... what a world

[Orclover]

Forget "being" equal, It would be nice if we would just "treat" each other as equals.

[Decade]

Wont happen, simply cause everyone knows everyone else is inferior to them in some way and you cant regard someone as equal when you know that.

If everyone were equal, why would someone get paid more than someone else?

...wait, is this turning into a "lets go communist" thread?

[Masa the Masta]

Sieg Heil. :clap:

[ruaidhri]

True, there really is no equality. A lot goes into what one person earns and another doesn’t. Some people are just lucky. Some are smarter. Some are more disciplined in getting results. And, still others, take credit for work completed by others.

The question raised by this forum is: Are women treated equally with men? All things being the same they probably are. But, when can you remember has everything between two people been the same. Forget gender. We know that attractive people are hired and promoted faster than unattractive people. We know that taller people command more respect and have a better chance of moving to the top. We know that people educated at certain schools have an advantage over others not so fortunate. We know the boss’ son or daughter, niece or nephew is a shoo-in for the job. I expect we all realize that life isn’t fair; it’s life.

Businesses attempt to make things fair and equal. They analyze jobs and assign worth. Mostly, they check what other firms pay for qualified applicants. They then establish a range of pay for that job. People performing the job earn salaries within the range. But, some are at the higher end while others are not so fortunate. Certainly, seniority plays a role as most companies reward experience. But performance also helps establish salary. Some are just better employees than others. They accomplish more. They’re more valuable to the company and they earn more because the company wants to keep them.

Women are moving into higher and higher positions with more and more responsibility. That’s good. Many are paid equally with the men in similar positions. Others, for a variety of reasons, are not. It would be very unwise for any company to pay a women less simply because she was a women. They would be sued and they would lose.

Yes, as Trump pointed out several managers do often share a single administrative assistant. These administrative assistants earn good salaries. They earn even better salaries when they work for senior executives. I know of some that earned over $100K annually and that was a number of years ago.

Further, many of the secretaries from years past are no longer restricted to those positions. They are today’s managers, directors, vice presidents and even presidents. Those secretaries (Administrative Assistants) that remain in executive offices are paid adequately so they don’t flee to greener pastures. It gets back to the law of supply and demand.

Back to the issue of this thread, yes, men do have advantages. But, then, so do women. Both will use their advantages to further their own careers. I don’t blame them. Both will probably complain when someone else gets the job or the raise. I understand. Certainly, it’s wrong if the reason was gender and not ability. But, what if the selection process depended on who was the best looking or tallest or the multitude of other reasons one person gets the nod while the other doesn’t? Isn’t that also unfair?

[gentlemanandscholar]

Sieg Heil. :clap:

Hitler was a communist... ?:watson:

[Orclover]

Wow. Coulda sworn he was a fascist.

[Decade]

Really? Hitler WAS a communist? :eyepop:

[Beowulf]

Technically he was a socialist,
Nazi, Acronym for the "National Socialist German Workers Party" or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSADP).

[kiev33]

Women can be raped dude. Either as a POW or by their own.

And less be hounest here. Who's more likely to carry a wounded 220 lb man half a mile out of the killzone? The average male soldier? Or the average female soldier?

And guys can't be raped?

[Roxie]

Really? Hitler WAS a communist? :eyepop:
That, sir, is what a pm is for!!!

[The Republic]

you see, the reason femenists offend me is because they assume that, as a male, I automatically think of myself as better than females and am in a more favorable socioeconomic position than they are, so they need to work against me with things like affirmative action, media favor of women and court bias in favor of women to get back at me. Its just like, WTF, I never said/ thought I was better than u because I have a wang, so stop crusading like I did!

[Masa the Masta]

...I just like using Sieg Heil. :( Blah. What's the Russian one for that? 'Cause Russia was communist.

[Wizdom]

Wow it took me a long time to get though these pages.

While all of my points have already been stated (and Beautifully) by Kass and Rruaidhri, I have a few points thing to share.

It seems to me that a lot of people who want equality (especially in this thread)…

(Point 1) want (as some people pointed out) the perks and not the disadvantages.

For example: They want to fight on the frontline but don’t want to give up low car insurance.

(Point 2)Are not perceptive to see the strives for equality happening today.

Are things really that bad? Aren’t we improving day to day?

Women’s suffrage was in 1920 as appose to centuries of inequality.
Just a few decades ago the primary job for a women was housewife. Today women are on the incline curve of managerial positions.

Black women are among the most discriminated on in America. Then again Black women are among the most successful also.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that……

(Point 3) People will bitch and cry about unfairness but are unwilling to do anything about it.

How many are you are in Amnesty international? How many not just protest but make efforts to make change?

Too hard and too much work you say? How about something small as not laughing to a racist/sexist/degrading joke?

That makes life to dull you say. Well you have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

Jay made a good point

" Stop asking why and start asking how"



I'll use myself as an example.

I am a man. Strike one!
I am black. Strike two!
I don’t follow the crowd. Strike three!

By many definitions I should have struck out a long time ago, but I persevered. I sought knowledge ( in and out of the classroom). And I helped others to help others.

In college I co-founded the M.A.L.E.S organization. Men Achieving Leadership Excellence and Success. We not only helped ourselves to be community leaders but we also helped our community as well and collaborated with various groups (including feminist groups) in order to make change. We even won the community service award for our state.



I not saying for everyone to be a revolutionary, but for every time you see an injustice how many times did you stand up to it?

If a man doesn’t give up his seat, give up yours.

If Men don’t do chivalry anymore then how about you do it.

Gandhi said it best when he said " “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

[Lychee]

Now, there is one argument I have heard from a male soldier as to why he's against women on the frontlines having to do with their periods. When they're in the battlefield and getting tracked down/hunted, what are they supposed to do with their "trash," or try to mask their scent from dogs (although I think dogs get your scent from more than just their..."lady problems").
.


Just to get this problem outta the way:
http://www.mooncup.co.uk

Ahm...dogs smell you even if you are miles away from them or if you were at a place months ago.
It's totally regardless for them if you re a man or woman.

[Idlethought]

Oh shit Prof you co-founded MALES? I'm joining that!

[Roxie]

Ahm...dogs smell you even if you are miles away from them or if you were at a place months ago.
It's totally regardless for them if you re a man or woman.
yup. I use Insteads (http://oochi.biz/instead/public/) and I made a thread. It eliminates all odors associated with a woman's period. Plus you can wear it for 12 hours and have sex with it in.

I love it.

[chibi1284]

There has been lots of talk about gender equality, wages, and females serving the military, but what bothers me the most is why more are into math and sciences? There might be a good number of females in your math or biology class in college, but one thing that you cant dispute is the lack of females in engineering. Does it have to do with gender roles? Is it genetic?

[Audobahn]

or how about in the usa where, if there is a draft again women cant get drafted.. OR how about in a custoday dispute the women gets the child? Or why do most colleges have more women than men?

equal rights my ass.

[Klilynkun]

yup. I use Insteads (http://oochi.biz/instead/public/) and I made a thread. It eliminates all odors associated with a woman's period. Plus you can wear it for 12 hours and have sex with it in.

I love it.


My eyes...nooooo...my eyes.....

[Orclover]

My eyes...nooooo...my eyes.....


As I frequently tell my wife, "girls are icky".:eyepop:

[Decade]

Wow, I'm surprised this threads still updated.

Even more so people are asking or mentioning things already talked about

And yes, girls are VERY icky :eyepop:

[Roxie]

at least we don't have smeg.

[Kwiz]

There has been lots of talk about gender equality, wages, and females serving the military, but what bothers me the most is why more are into math and sciences? There might be a good number of females in your math or biology class in college, but one thing that you cant dispute is the lack of females in engineering. Does it have to do with gender roles? Is it genetic?

Things like this are cultural, and sure as hell aren't genetic. Since gender is determined simply by whether you have an extra X chromosome or a Y chromosome, the chromosomes responsible for brain and nerve system development are asexual factors.

But this isn't to say that gender has no impact on how a brain will work. We do know (some of us all too well) that hormones affect mood and judgement.

All those factors aside? Our brains are almost identical in terms of structure - it's how we get wired and rewired by social environments that really makes the difference.

[Ichisan]

Me: "...sweetheart, go pick up a gay porno (in the gay porn section of course) and watch as much as you want. Seriously, you can have all the gay man porn you want, we dont care. But if you wanna call it inequality because you're like the ONE girl who wants to see two guys ram each other, you've got more issues than feminism can help you with."

You called her 'sweetheart'? What are you, her father? How patronizing.

[Beowulf]

You called her 'sweetheart'? What are you, her father? How patronizing.
That was laughably stupid. What are we forbidden from using terms of endearment now? I call my girl 'kitten.'

[Jay]

You called her 'sweetheart'? What are you, her father? How patronizing.

Aww, don't be so negative, cupcake.

[Praetorian]

at least we don't have smeg.

smegma*

And actually, you do.

Don't misuse the word smeg, because I'll be furious if you do. ;)

[Beowulf]

You called her 'sweetheart'? What are you, her father? How patronizing.
Jay's right buttercup, don't be a sour-puss...

[Jay]

Exactly honeybun; the POINT was to be patronising. :)

[Decade]

Thanks a lot sports. Now who wants some ice cream??

[ZaichikArky]

What's smeg? You know,the Instead Cup looks a lot like a female condom. It looks huge compared to the other brands! I've wanted to try the "Keeper" because for some reason the idea of sticking rubber in my vagina sounds interesting XD. I've been wanting to try out one of the cups for a while because with birth control, my period is very very light for about 3 days and sticking in even the lightest tampon is too much for that small amount of fluid and makes it hurt. And why are all these cups ordered from the UK? >_<. It looks like a low price in pounds for the Instead Cups, and I'd buy them but I wouldn't get how you order to America(and the shipping is probably high : ()

[Roxie]

What's smeg? You know,the Instead Cup looks a lot like a female condom. It looks huge compared to the other brands! I've wanted to try the "Keeper" because for some reason the idea of sticking rubber in my vagina sounds interesting XD. I've been wanting to try out one of the cups for a while because with birth control, my period is very very light for about 3 days and sticking in even the lightest tampon is too much for that small amount of fluid and makes it hurt. And why are all these cups ordered from the UK? >_<. It looks like a low price in pounds for the Instead Cups, and I'd buy them but I wouldn't get how you order to America(and the shipping is probably high : ()
OH, no, no! They're available in America!! Check it out http://www.softcup.com/

Insteads are bendy. So you pinch the ends, put it in and it opens up into place. You don't even feel it.

[Decade]

:eek: SHUT THE FUCK UP, DEVIL WOMEN

A wise bird once said "Dont trust anything that bleeds for a few days each month and still lives"

[ZaichikArky]

Oh cool thanks for the info! I did hear you can just purchase them at walgreens and I can try looking for them there : ). The only problem is that they're meant to be disposable. Do you use yours more than once? I mean, I'm a person who still drinks milk a month after the expiration date :p. I'd probably be inclined to reuse them.

[Beowulf]

I believe the phrase is, "Too Much Information"

[mare_imbrium]

I'm late to the party but I wanted to bring up something I haven't seen anybody mention yet. Also I want to voice my support for Rhuidari's posts - wages are not set based upon the amount of physical labor or risk, they are set on brains. Smart people make more money than a set of muscles. Unless the risk is very, very high, and then because there are few takers there is more money to be made - and importantly also because for many extremely high risk jobs you have to be smart to be able to survive. There are people who work in construction who make a great deal of money but it isn't the risk involved, unless you want to lump that under "collective bargaining." But actually those who make a lot of money (electricians make a good living, for example) are highly skilled. Not those who simply cart heavy bags of cement around.

Now on to the new point. I've noticed people taking offense at women who, upon getting into generally male-dominated parts of society - the military, high-up management, some industries-complain when they are the object of sexual conversation, punched or slapped on the ass. I definitely agree there are WAY TOO MANY uptight people. But this is what I wanted to offer for consideration: men or women may say that they want equality and they want women in those formerly male-dominated areas. But when they complain about those women, call them uptight because they don't want to be slapped or taken to a strip club as an executive perk, they are not saying they want those women to be equal, they want those women to be men.

Think of it as a cultural thing. International business/relations is so important nowadays. I'm not a business major, but my hunch is that in international business classes students are taught basics of other cultures they will be dealing with and how not to offend them. Are we up in arms because we have to change our business practices a bit in order to do business with the Japanese, Germans, Indians? Just imagine that women, even though they grew up beside you, are to a certain extent part of a different culture. And that they do good jobs (many, many women do) and will be a valuable asset to the workforce (and they are). Is it still so bad if companies "court" them to a certain extent? A caveat with that though. I AM against affirmative action and I do think people should be less uptight because there is a certain amount of give-and-take in these cases. I think that women (or other cultures we do business with) should forgive our foibles just as we forgive theirs, but that doesn't mean an offensive practice should get the green light just because "that's the way it was always done."

And I do think that to a certain extent the opposite is true: there are many feminists who don't want equality, they want men to be women. I'm awfully sick of the white guilt/male guilt in this country. We should be respectful of the prejudiced situations people still often find themselves in and try to alleviate them WITHOUT the massive guilt. That just creates a backlash. I don't think that we should all forgive men who are unthinking, inconsiderate pigs, but I don't think that we should force all men to become as sensitive and introspective as many women are. There IS a middle ground in there and I would really like to find out what it is because I have two sons to raise.

Everyone should strive to be confident without being an asshole, self-reliant without being totally closed off, respectful of their own and others emotions without being ruled by them.

Sorry this is so long, I guess this is what you get when I've been holding it in for 8-9 pages.

[Klilynkun]

I'm a person who still drinks milk a month after the expiration date :p.

Say what now :eyepop:

[Roxie]

Oh cool thanks for the info! I did hear you can just purchase them at walgreens and I can try looking for them there : ). The only problem is that they're meant to be disposable. Do you use yours more than once? I mean, I'm a person who still drinks milk a month after the expiration date :p. I'd probably be inclined to reuse them.
Uh, no. I'm awfully sick of the white guilt/male guilt in this country. We should be respectful of the prejudiced situations people still often find themselves in and try to alleviate them WITHOUT the massive guilt. That just creates a backlash. That would be nice. And I'm not saying "you should feel guilty!" but I think anyone who, being at the top power structure as white-males are, begins to realize thier privileges and how others are not allowed to share them, guilt probably happens at some point. I don't know if this process of realization can happen without guilt. Not that the guilt should be permanent, but is probably a stepping stone.

I don't know...I'm speculating b/c I've only met one or two white men who would actually admit to the priveleges their skin gives them that may be denied to others. I don't think that we should all forgive men who are unthinking, inconsiderate pigs, but I don't think that we should force all men to become as sensitive and introspective as many women are. There IS a middle ground in there and I would really like to find out what it is because I have two sons to raise.
I don't know how "introspective" and "sensitive" most women are (all the really sensitive ppl I know are male, seriously.), but I definently think the expectations placed apon males in American society is extremely restrictive. These expectations don't promote compassion, nor communication, which is absolutely nessecary when trying to hear others out.

[Klilynkun]

Men are often portrayed and expected to be tough/hard. The shouldn't feel much compassion at all - kind of like a robot. They are not supposed to be able to comfort ppl... but instead deal with problems.

Men aren't usually supposed to talk too much as that can be construed as a sign of weakness... ie - whining, b*tching

Men are supposed to at times have super human tolerance to pain as well.

Also... men are usually classified as only having one thing on their mind... this is sometimes ingrained in girls as they grow up that all men want is sex.

This is why boy bands are so successful because their image tends to be the opposite of what the general consensus of men is... that's also the reason why ppl like 50 cent and eminem want to beat them up

[Klilynkun]

We're not in the 1950s anymore, and I hope I can give Roxie more credit than to buy into those being genuine expectations that restrict males in modern American society.

While compassion is not a mandatory requisite for any of the administration models, communication is key, and the capacity for such is a cornerstone of successful management, not to mention being a life skill. There's a reason Comms majors get hired by big business and occasionaly government.

Unfornunately... where i was grown up... those were some of the factors that did restrict the males in my community. Society has changed since the 1950s but those expectations are still here. You don't have to look too hard.

[Klilynkun]

And you don't have to look too hard to see that other things have been added as well. Like I said before, effective communication is a requirement in the workforce today, and playing the taciturn type isn't going to get you anywhere but a pink slip. Your third point barely makes a tangent, but confidence is something that both men and women in upper management have picked up quite a while ago, as ruadhri pointed out. People are more open about homosexuality, and you don't see (too) many gay guys frat-talk on and on about how they're going to get laid or whatnot.

Pop icons have never been realistic reflections of what we expect of either gender, even back then, so I'm not seeing much of a relevant connection to 50 Cent and Eminem.

Actually there are quite a lot of musical artists that reflect exactly where they come from, and the reaction to society as it is right now. Obviously everything they say shouldn't be taken as truth word for word... but they usually do reflect expectations of genders to some degree.

Effective communication is not a list of dos and donts like a cookbook. I am criticized loads of times in various jobs for not expressing my "feelings" - whether i'm working in a team or not - and my response is almost always, I thought I was here to work and not to socialize. Ppl's work ethic differs as well... what might be effective communication for one person may not be for another.

I remember when I had to take communication in univeristy - i couldn't stand that class. All reports where oral. I had a lot with that course because although my reports always contained what I wanted to say, my teacher would say that now effective communication because I didn't tell her what she wanted to hear, or she would imply stuff about what I "wanted" to say even though I didn't want to communicate it.

Effective communication differs from job to job as well. You wouldn't communicate the same way you would working at an internet company than working at a construction site.

[mare_imbrium]

Actually if you look at many men, at least those portrayed on television, they seem...neutered. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but often they seem like silly goofballs whose wives are just SO much smarter and better than they are. I think many men today are having a crisis of gender roles. Society says that how they used to be is wrong and hasn't really put anything new in its place. There can be a lot of guilt between couples today - somebody on one of the first couple of pages mentioned guilty men becoming "slaves" to their girlfriends and wives. I don't think all men are riddled with guilt and all women are selfish and want to be pampered, but it's still something to think about. The effects of this are regional - some places more or less.

And Roxie I have been rethinking that choice of words almost since I posted it. It's not that I'm saying women are all considerate, or sensitive, I was more looking for the...stereotypical "womanly" characteristics to go with the stereotypical male characteristics I mentioned.

Oh and don't get me started about sexuality! You'd think we'd be past the whole "men want it all the time and women give grudgingly" stereotype, but it's still out there and still hurting people. It hurts women who DO like to have sex, causing them to worry that they are sluts or nymphos. It hurts men who don't have the sex drive they feel they should, causing them to feel like they are not "manly." I spent years of my relationship miserable (obviously there were good things or I would not have married him) because our sex drives are uneven and I want it more frequently than he does (at least when I'm not breastfeeding a baby, then I could pretty much go without indefinitely). I had a lot of anger and confusion - I was taught guys wanted it all the time, and so I wondered if maybe there was something wrong with me that he didn't want me. We fought about it a lot. I eventually realized the stereotypes are wrong and that men and women are all different with different sex drives. It wasn't until a couple years after I was married that, in a large discussion online with a bunch of women that I realized how many couples have this problem. My husband and I are not the only ones the stereotypes have caused anguish.

Oh and since I'm back making another post, I thought I would mentioned the porn thing. I hate to break it to guys (who probably don't care) but gay porn? Made for men. Hetero porn, also made overwhelmingly for men. And lesbian porn is...also made for men! There is some lesbian porn out there that was created for female audiences but (and I don't watch the industry or anything) I get the idea that it is a niche market. Yes, porn IS made for men. It's not that they are having sex, it's how they portray it. Two things off the top of my head: the whole man banging the woman from behind in an unnatural sex position so that the viewer sees minimal amounts of the man and all of the woman (I hope they are just kidding but I've heard an awful lot of men act like they'll "catch the gay" if they see too much of a naked man). And let's not forget the money shot. There are women out there, I'm sure, who want that all over their chests, faces and in their hair - and more power to them - but I don't think that's the norm at all. I don't know if I necessarily need elaborate story lines - honestly the storylines in porn are crap and if they had a GOOD storyline it would be a 'real' movie - but I personally like to watch foreplay, the couples actually getting undressed, that sort of thing. I've seen far too much porn that just jumps right to the "action" with no rhyme or reason. Oh, and the close-up penis-in-vagina shot, the one where the cameraman seems to silently scream "see folks, the're really doing it!" is so clinical and leaves me with a kind of ugh feeling.

[Klilynkun]

^ exactly :D

Do ppl actually think that porn isn't for men? It's almost become sort of like a right of passing in some places... to be able to go and buy a porn magazine... not that you would, but just that you can. I remember when I was in highschool... around 16... i found the h-comic (yes comic, not manga) that this comic book store sold next to spiderman... I totally don't believe that they actualy looked into the comic to see what it was about cuz the comic never had any nudity on the covers. Hell... i'm so inclined to say that comic books are for men as well... I know girls read them, but do you really need all the women in the comic books to have their clothes spray painted on. Even Oracle from batmanlooks good, and she's in a wheelchair.

[Roxie]

Please, expand. I'm intrigued.
Well, from what I see and have heard my friends say it seems men (U.S.) are expected to be:
Atheltic
Logical
Providers
"Naturally" not as nuturing

Acceptable emotions are:
Anger
Lust
Excitedness

Liking certain things such as flutes, figurenes, or clothes more than sports or cars can put your sexuality into serious question.

Those are just some examples. I just feel it's incrediably restrictive. Woman have a bit more leeway when playing with gender roles. mostly b/c they're expected to "grow out of it" and one day "blossom" into...whatever.

But that's all I've got at 1am. gotta sleep now.

[Ichisan]

That was laughably stupid. What are we forbidden from using terms of endearment now? I call my girl 'kitten.'

And do you call girls around the office 'kitten' too, honey?

Do I need to point out that when you call an adult something people usually only call their children, you're talking down to that adult.

[Ichisan]

Exactly honeybun; the POINT was to be patronising. :)

Ah. Not only patronising but smug about it.

So if he'd said 'Look, you fucking moron, ...!' and someone said it was offensive, it would be ok if the POINT was to be offensive.

[Decade]

Calm down there squirts and go have a big heapin bowl of ice cream :D

[ZaichikArky]

Say what now :eyepop:


Somehow, the kind of milk I get preserves very well :p. I don't pay attention to most expiration dates, actually. Unless it smells nasty, or looks nasty, I just eat it! I don't think I've ever had a problem of food poisoning that was the result of expirated food. A little over a year ago, I got food poisoned really badly from the dining hall. I was throwing up all night long >_<. And before that I hadn't thrown up since I was 7. Damn dining hall breaking my record!

[Kwiz]

Somehow, the kind of milk I get preserves very well :p. I don't pay attention to most expiration dates, actually. Unless it smells nasty, or looks nasty, I just eat it!

Something is very wrong when you're eating milk... :P

[Beowulf]

Ah. Not only patronising but smug about it.

So if he'd said 'Look, you fucking moron, ...!' and someone said it was offensive, it would be ok if the POINT was to be offensive.
Look, you fucking moron, the point was that there is a thing in the vocabulary of many people called a 'term of endearment.' It denotes that the person being addressed is very well liked by the addresser. It shows that they are being affectionate or loving, or in the case of Jay and I, sarcastic. My girlfriends name is Catherine. Cat for short (oops technically another 'term of endearment' thing, sorry) and thus 'kitten.' People also use terms of endearment for children to show that the child is cared for and loved. And no I wouldn't call my coworker (his names Ryan btw) 'kitten.' He probably wouldn't like that. And since I feel no love for him then I would have no reason to use a term of endearment for him. Not to say that men don't use (less lovey) terms for each other. Dude, Bro, etc. are all male terms of endearment. Sorry I had to explain this to you.

[ZaichikArky]

Something is very wrong when you're eating milk...

LOL!! I think that I was thinking of food in general. My milk has actually very rarely turned curdy. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks its a waste to get rid of food if it's past the expiration date. The thing is, I often take this a bit too far :p. I buy food only for my self and do not go to a dining hall. I also food-shop about once a month. Maybe some day I will get insanely food sick from my disregard of expiration dates, but it hasn't happened yet!

You know, a little less than a week ago I actually had sour cream that had expired in January. Not kidding ^_^*. No mold, but it tasted weird so I only had a bit and finally threw it out :p. It's cause I rarely make food that requires sour cream.

I remember my roomate freshmen year telling me she threw my bread out because it was moldy. She said "Sorry I hope it wasn't a science expiriment or anything." which cracked me up. She then said that mold is very dangerous. I n moldy bread cases, I throw the moldy slices away and consume the rest of it :p. But lately I've been much better about preserving my bread so it doesn't mold as easily.

In my opinion, expiration dates are far too precausionary. Use your sense of smell/bit of taste instead of throwing decent food out.

[Decade]

Another example for the cause:

At a supermarket in my town, only guys are allowed to clean under registers, simply cause theres a womens rights law that says that women are not obligated to do domestic work at the office, even if it's the same job title and position as a man (...the fuck? That mean they cant be janitors?). Anyone else smelling the bullshit at this point?

When a female employee told me this, I told her: "Oh, well then obviously you should be paid less for not doing the same job with same obligations."

"UGH! No, you're obviously not for equal rights"


...I guess I'm not.

[Kwiz]

Another example for the cause:

At a supermarket in my town, only guys are allowed to clean under registers, simply cause theres a womens rights law that says that women are not obligated to do domestic work at the office, even if it's the same job title and position as a man (...the fuck? That mean they cant be janitors?). Anyone else smelling the bullshit at this point?

Reeks of bullshit. You have a job description, you do the work described. How much more simple can it get?

[Roxie]

Yeah, that's uber odd.

We all cleaned the registers. That rule is so absurd.
Every cashier should be responsible for their own station.

[Druid]

I don't understand why people complain....It all works out in the end. Men pay for women's dinners, cars, house, insurance, food, electricity, ect. whilst in a relationship. Plus, women and children are the first to be evacuated in disasters such as fires and sinkin boats. Survival> extra $3.50 a hour....

[Kass]

I've always found men to be far more effective communicators than women. Don't mistake talking a lot for communicating. A man will tell you "I'm pissed off about xxx" and perhaps stomp around, punch a wall or look like his head will explode. Women are far more circumspect and enigmatic. Women tend to go around in a huff, drop hints, sulk and pull the most irritating "you should know why I'm mad" routines. How the bloody hell should anyone know why you are mad if you don't tell them?

A man will tell you when you screw up and he will tell you when you do a good job. So it isn't a five-minute monologue. It's only "Good job, so-n-so." or "Dinner's good."

Women are far less confrontational and not just in negative situations. About the only time I find women to come out and say what they feel in a straight forward and clear manner is when they are gushing "I love you." For almost anything else, they are very oblique in their approach. Completely unkowingly, under the umbrella of sympathy, empathy, sensitivity and compassion, women soft-sell and hide their core feelings and opinions. Rather than say "This infuriated me," women say "I didn't really like it when..." I don't really like it when my cubemate plays wierd rennaissance music, but I can live with it. On the other hand, I get infuriated when people talk to me like I am stupid. I will not tolerate it. Those are two different states of dislike and women blur the distinction.

About 10 years ago when I was working for the Girl Scouts, our executive director passed out a copy of an article from Working Woman magazine I believe. (It has been a decade.) It was a study on women and communication in the workplace. The basic results were that women tend to be far too circumspect in communication.

Women often confide personal information to early or inappropriately in professional relationships and when that information spreads (as it always does), they get mad. Rather than deal with the offending party right away, they tend to talk about them behind their back, try to get others to turn on them and create stressful, factionalized work environments. In disputes alter, this information is often used against them. By contrast, men do not tend to share personal information as casually as women, simply eliminating the problem before it starts. In cases where it does happen, the men will confront the person who made them mad and deal with it in short order.

In cases of professional evaluations, they tend to sugar-coat negative feedback. Rather than come out and say that the employee is frequently late to work, they will say the employee needs assistance in scheduling. the nurture side of women tends to hinder blunt criticism. Men will say he's late a lot.

In cases of disputes over professional issues, say how to approach a problem, women tend to simply avoid them and would rather capitulate and watch the other party fail than stand up for their approach. The whole "Fine, do it your way, but you'll regret it" attitude I find they also take in differences of opinion with men in relationships as well. Men tend their ground until some sort of compromise is worked out or minds are changed.

Women tend to avoid confrontation as long as possible, creating that stressful work environment, until so many little, inconsequential things have added up they explode. When they finally vent and blow, their reactions are disproportinate and emotional because they've stewed for so long. As a result, the criticism is harsh and personal rather than professional. It negatively affects work environments. Women also hold grudges more than men, so once the confrontation occurs, rather than resolve the issue, it just changes it to something else. Men rarely wait to confront someone when they are angry or someone has screwed up. Because of that, they haven't stewed about the problem for a long time, blowing it out of proportion. Men don't personalize criticism and are far better at separating Joe the Manager from Joe the Buddy from Work. They don't get as offended when the boss says "You screwed up and if you do that again, I'll have no choice but to take xxx action." Once the confrontation occurs and a resolution is reached, that's the end of it. No grudges. It's the professional equivalent of going out back beating the crap out of each other, then hitting the bar for drinks.

The study found that all-female workplaces were the worst for these types of behaviors. Even the introduction of one man into the environment diminished that kind of behavior, though women continued to sugar-coat problems and stand their ground in professional disputes less. In a relatively equal man-to-woman ratio, the behaviors were least egregious, though they said women still tend to share personal information to freely in the workplace. when outnumbered, women will stand their ground a bit more.

The study was performed by women, by the way. They used nurse's stations as the all-female office place as it is by far the most common place you will find all women on staff.

In my professional career, I've found this to be essentially true, though I think women are standing their ground more when it comes to differences in professional approaches. Far and away, the most unpleasant workplace I ever worked in was the Girl Scouts, which was an entirely female staff. I've never been around such backstabbing pettiness before in my life. One day, one of my event reports was missing from the office. I'd turned it in and it just got lost on someone's desk. When I was told about it, I said I could get another copy, but I would have to go across town to the other office and I couldn't do that just now because I was in the middle of something. I'd go as soon as I was done and I should finish in about 30 minutes.

That is NOT how it got back to the budget coordinator and ultimately the executive director. Apparently, it got back to the event director as I didn't have time to go get it and she could just wait until I was good and ready to give it to her. From there, it evolved and by the time it got to the ED, it was too damned bad it is lost, it's not my problem so-n-so lost it and I wasn't going to get her another copy. That was just her tough luck. Too bad, so sad.

I was stunned and I had a witness to the conversation who looked at the ED and said that was ridiculous and not what I had said. I didn't get an apology form anyone, but a "Well, so-n-so has been sick (she was--she had a transplant and never got completely better afterward) and you have to make allowances for her. You have to just accept this and go get the report. If she asks for something, drop everything and cater to her whims."

The gossip, back stabbing and outright lying was out of control, which to me is if it occurs more than one time in the workplace. I'd sooner debase myself and blow Dubya than I would work in an all-female office EVER again.

In contrast, my next job was in the courts and the judge and most of her staff was female. The only male was the bailiff. We also had male prosecutors in the office daily. Just that one man on staff and the frequent appearances of other men made the workplace a hundred times better.

Most women need to take some communications lessons from men on how to communicate effectively. Just say what you mean right away and be succinct. Then, build a bridge and get over it. Women say more and convey less.

[Decade]

The study found that all-female workplaces were the worst for these types of behaviors. Even the introduction of one man into the environment diminished that kind of behavior, though women continued to sugar-coat problems and stand their ground in professional disputes less. In a relatively equal man-to-woman ratio, the behaviors were least egregious, though they said women still tend to share personal information to freely in the workplace. when outnumbered, women will stand their ground a bit more.

God you hit that so well, this was the next thing I was gonna gripe about.

This is why most doctor offices have so many problems amongst the staff. For example, in my dads office theres not more than 1 or 2 nurses I would say is actually nice and do the job, the rest of the 30 women don't stop being suddle and bitching and pulling malicious pranks on each other, eventually causing unneccessaraly huge arguments in the office. It annoys the fuck outta my old man, but he cant fire any of them because hes got no one else to work for em.

But don't take just his office, I found this in MOST doctors offices, women always bicker among themselves and it interfers in their work.

[Ichisan]

Look, you fucking moron, the point was that there is a thing in the vocabulary of many people called a 'term of endearment.' It denotes that the person being addressed is very well liked by the addresser. It shows that they are being affectionate or loving, or in the case of Jay and I, sarcastic. My girlfriends name is Catherine. Cat for short (oops technically another 'term of endearment' thing, sorry) and thus 'kitten.' People also use terms of endearment for children to show that the child is cared for and loved. And no I wouldn't call my coworker (his names Ryan btw) 'kitten.' He probably wouldn't like that. And since I feel no love for him then I would have no reason to use a term of endearment for him. Not to say that men don't use (less lovey) terms for each other. Dude, Bro, etc. are all male terms of endearment. Sorry I had to explain this to you.

Well then, boyo, now that you've got past all that, maybe next you can look up 'patronising' and see if I was using the word appropriately, because you've just proved that I was. Congratulations, Skippy.

[Decade]

Ah shut up you sensitive pansys

here's your special hats kittens :bwitch:

[I Like Shinny!]

Me: "...sweetheart, go pick up a gay porno (in the gay porn section of course) and watch as much as you want. Seriously, you can have all the gay man porn you want, we dont care. But if you wanna call it inequality because you're like the ONE girl who wants to see two guys ram each other, you've got more issues than feminism can help you with."


I wonder if this chick is retarded or just a good actor, because honestly? I really bought her performance if she's not.
Lol, go to arrinfantasy.com/forums and you'll meet more chicks who love hot sweaty man sex just as much as she does. ^^

Well anyway, men do get a lot of shit and they do get beat up by their wifes... or boyfriends. God, I just hate those bitchy chicks who think woman got it worst then men do. :meh:

[Decade]

I just dont know if it's a real fight or just ignorance anymore

[Roxie]

God, I just hate those bitchy chicks who think woman got it worst then men do. :meh:
I assure you it's not us being "bitchy".

[Resolut]

So we women really do have it harder than men? In a sense yes. I'm sometimes discriminated against in class, simply because I have sex with people I'm not going out with, whereas men who do the same thing are considered god amongst their friends. On the other hand, a woman can just as easily get away with anything she wants, so long as she's not dumb about it; the same way a man can. We women have it just as hard as men do.

[Kass]

I don't think either side has it harder than the other. They have it different.

Face it, the vast majority of women, while demanding their own careers and equal pay, still expect men to the be the primary breadwinners in the home. The financial success or failure of a family is blamed on the man.

Women have difficulty breaking into some traditionally male-dominated fields.

Women have an advantage when it comes to sexual power in the culture and workplace. They use it too, almost always with impunity. If a man tries to exert the same sexual power, he's jacked up for sexual harassment faster than you can say harassment.

It is more acceptable for women to want time off to spend with the family. Men are expected to work long hours.

Men tend to be more successful in public/political arenas. Women still face a stigma as being to strong, too unfeminine, too shrill, too cold in political arenas. (Unfortunately, with examples like Hillary Clinton, Ann Coulter and Nancy Pelosi, we're kinda doomed.)

It isn't a matter of more or less difficulty. It is a matter of what kind of difficulties.

[Resolut]

Kass said better what my crappy vocabulary couldn't. :bang:

[Roxie]

different yes...like if you have bad kids ppl always blame the mother..
and women, while working full time still do most of the house work

I was thinking more along the lines of rape, spousal abuse, etc..which I believe all together are throughly undereported (by all).

woe unto the woman who decides to not have kids. Not only will she be socially reviled and misunderstood, but her company's healthcare may not pay for her bc, because they consider it "optional" while covering viagra and all of it's generic forms.

However, I also agree that we don't allow men to be nuturing in this culture and that it's almost found to be odd that a man would take time off to look after his kids. I really hate that.

[Decade]

I was thinking more along the lines of rape, spousal abuse, etc..which I believe all together are throughly undereported (by all).

If you wanna look it up, the number of reports of these crimes has risen since feminist movements began.

woe unto the woman who decides to not have kids. Not only will she be socially reviled and misunderstood, but her company's healthcare may not pay for her bc, because they consider it "optional" while covering viagra and all of it's generic forms.

Viagra is for an actual medical condition. Birth Control isnt a medical condition, it's for having sex with the probability of not having a child as a result of it. If you really wanna whine about it, men dont get birth control covered for most jobs either.

Well, maybe if you're Ron Jeremy.

[Kass]

different yes...like if you have bad kids ppl always blame the mother..
and women, while working full time still do most of the house work

Actually, they blame the parents. Plural.

I was thinking more along the lines of rape, spousal abuse, etc..which I believe all together are throughly undereported (by all).

The most underreported dometic violence crimes are mother-on-son molestation and wife-on-husband spousal abuse. Please tell me how that makes women victims or martyrs.

woe unto the woman who decides to not have kids. Not only will she be socially reviled and misunderstood, but her company's healthcare may not pay for her bc, because they consider it "optional" while covering viagra and all of it's generic forms.

Every company I have ever worked for covered birth control. It saves money. It's cheaper than paying for a pregnancy. That would be six different employers and eight different insurance companies. Don't kid yourself. It isn't about women. It's about money and the bottom line.

Viagra is only covered by insurance if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition, such as impotence resulting from prostate cancer. It isn't covered for some guy who wants to see blue and have a four-hour erection.

As for women not having kids, that is not as much a stigma as it used to be. There are a lot of men who seek out women who don't want children because they don't want them either.

However, I also agree that we don't allow men to be nuturing in this culture and that it's almost found to be odd that a man would take time off to look after his kids. I really hate that.

Maybe not, but women still expect them to pick up the tab.

Women are NOT victims of men anymore. They are victims of their own sense of martyrdom.

Outside of the elite corporate offices and Wall Street, things are much improved and those offices constitute a woefully small percentage of the employment options in this country. The women I see suffer most are the ones who talk like you do. "Women are treated so badly. Men won't let us do anything. We have to stand up and fight."

No, they don't need to stand up and fight. They need to stand up and be responsible for their OWN lives and actions. It isn't men stopping them anymore. It's their own self-defeating attitudes. What's the saying? A man who believes he will die tomorrow generally finds a way to make it happen.

They need to quit playing the martyr card and play the competent card. Men are far more likely to treat them as equals when they aren't treated like the enemy.

The most disgusting sexual harassment I've ever heard came out of women's mouths. My current female co-workers see nothing wrong with looking at a Coast Guard recruiting brochure and analyzing the quality of young, male ensigns' asses or lamenting that ensigns that look like are never stationed at our location. They have no problem discussing their sex lives and the sex lives of others in normal or raised tones in the office. It'd be a little less offensive if they at least were hushed about it. At least two men I work with have complained about it (one is an older, conservative in not the not political manner and the other is younger and conservative). It offends me.

Nothing has been done to end the problem completely. Just a random "let's change the subject." If the men in my office behaved in that manner, they'd all be fired and our company would be sued.

Turn-about is NOT fairplay and that is the state into which we've evolved. If you can call it evolution.

[Druid]

Seems like stupidity to me...

Mothers....tell your children to not do what i've done in the house of the rising sun...

[Roxie]

Actually, they blame the parents. Plural.
Maybe where you are, but not here. It's always and I do mean always "Didn't your mother...."



The most underreported dometic violence crimes are mother-on-son molestation and wife-on-husband spousal abuse. Please tell me how that makes women victims or martyrs.
I said "by all", as in underreported by all parties.



Every company I have ever worked for covered birth control. It saves money. It's cheaper than paying for a pregnancy. That would be six different employers and eight different insurance companies. Don't kid yourself. It isn't about women. It's about money and the bottom line.
That's nice, but some refuse to. I've surprised alot of people when I told them my insurance actually covered it.


As for women not having kids, that is not as much a stigma as it used to be. There are a lot of men who seek out women who don't want children because they don't want them either.
It's still a pretty big stigma.



The women I see suffer most are the ones who talk like you do. "Women are treated so badly. Men won't let us do anything. We have to stand up and fight."
You've got it all wrong. I don't blame "men", as every man is a different person, but I think it's the entire culture that has been supported by men and women. And I think you do need to fight aganist that.


Turn-about is NOT fairplayI absolutely agree

[Resolut]

I'm screwed in two ways; I'm black and a woman. Automatically, it's assumed that because I'm both these things, I need to "rise up and overcome" or some lame bull crap. I think pointing out that I'm black and a woman doesn't help anything; it just makes me and the people around me feel more awkward. I've never really thought of my friends as white, black, male, or female, and I assume they do the same about me (except for a few... assholes.)... I think everyone should feel this way; screw double standards... how right is it, that I can call my friend a nigger, but he can't call me one, because he's white? I can call him a slut, but he can't call me one, because he's a man? Minorities play their cards so often, it just bugs me. Whether it's the racist card, or the sexual card, minorities can get away with anything, if they just remind the white men that they were oppressed a few decades past.

[Jon885]

If you wanna look it up, the number of reports of these crimes has risen since feminist movements began.



Viagra is for an actual medical condition. Birth Control isnt a medical condition, it's for having sex with the probability of not having a child as a result of it. If you really wanna whine about it, men dont get birth control covered for most jobs either.

Well, maybe if you're Ron Jeremy.

Many women take birth control pills to help regulate their period. Not always for fucking.

[Praetorian]

Maybe where you are, but not here. It's always and I do mean always "Didn't your mother...."

But look at it from the other side - it also means that people place more importance on mothers than on fathers. How is this a good thing for men?

[Beowulf]

Well then, boyo, now that you've got past all that, maybe next you can look up 'patronising' and see if I was using the word appropriately, because you've just proved that I was. Congratulations, Skippy.
Congrats sweetheart, you just picked up on the point of my whole post. If it makes you feel better I only patronize people when their idiots.

Maybe where you are, but not here. It's always and I do mean always "Didn't your mother...."
Actually around here they tend to blame the fathers more then anything else. The women get painted as the innocent victims 99% of the time. Another thing I've noticed (maybe it was mentioned, I'm not gonna read through this beast of a thread) is how heavily favored women seem to be during periods of divorce. How often have you heard of a guy getting alimoney from his ex-wife? I never have that's for sure. Women just seem to be able to get anything they want in divorce court. And then you hear about all these support groups and whatnot for women who are "victims" of divorce. How many of these exist for guys?

[Kass]

Many women take birth control pills to help regulate their period. Not always for fucking.

There are other medical uses for pills as well, i.e. alleviating migraines, but the percentage of women who use it for something other than birth control is rather low. Regulating your period is a nice, but not necessary thing.

~~~

The problem with the women's movement is that it no longer supports equality, but superiority because of past discrimination. It doesn't work that way and quite frankly, I find 90% of what the Gloria Steinems of the world say pretty damned offensive because if you listen to them, women who choose to stay home, be wives and mothers or give the check book to their husband, are traitors to their gender and set women back, and men are unnecessary in families and in raising children, women are no different than men (did they fail biology in school?), blah blah blah blah. They publish entire books on how unnecessary men are. I believe I linked to one earlier in this thread.

Men are hardly unnecessary, especially when raising kids. I've done it for 13 years and it fucking sucks, to be blunt, and yes, a man is necessary in a child's life. Children need a daily, positive man in their life as much as they need their mom. If I could have found my guy 10 years ago, I would have latched on to him and been a happy girl. I just waited longer. My daughter would have been better off with a good man in her life everyday when she was little. She has lost a LOT not having that. She's missed out on all the special moments a daughter can only share with a father. She's at greater risk to be molested or taken advantage of. Children of single mothers are a pedophile's favorite prey. She is far more likely to end up in a dysfunctional relationship than a child from a nuclear family home. She is more likely to end up with a much older man (not necessarily a bad thing) because she is looking for the man she wanted to have in her life growing up, a father figure not a husband (the bad thing--it's not the right reason to choose a partner).

Over all, I've done a lot to overcome those things with the help of my father, for whom I thank God everyday, who stepped up to be a major part of her life in place of her dad, but it isn't the same. Giving Grandpa a card on Father's Day just doesn't make up for Dad not being there.

But, according to the feminist movement, men aren't necessary. Go ahead, have a kid on your own. Kick Dad out. Remember, women can do everything and don't need help.

It's all sexist bullshit.

I'm sick and tired of that attitude. Because I let someone else make most of the major decisions that affect us doesn't set anyone back and it doesn't make me or women like me traitors to our gender. It takes that one more layer of stress that I couldn't handle off my back and allows someone who wants to deal with it deal with it. I'm still a perfectly capable, strong woman who is raising a child alone and am so valued at work that I get 12% raises when the others in the office get 4%. I get bonuses when no one else does. I did it all wearing dresses, bras, make up, getting squicked by spiders, wearing pink and lavendar, refusing to ever own a "power suit," letting guys get the door for me, baking, sewing and generally being the girly girl that is so frowned upon now. I am more successful than the obnoxious, in your face, I-am-woman-hear-me-roar women who kick and scream about how unfair it is being a woman. You know why? Because I treat all people with the same respect (except my ex-husband who lost it), I do my job very well, I work hard, I don't work to alienate myself from half the world and I don't piss and moan about what I don't have. I decide what I want and I go get it.

Life isn't fair. Build a bridge. Get over it. As long as they build these divisions in their head and make it an Us vs. Them world, they will always be held down or the victim of someone or another. When it isn't men anymore, it will just be another group.

When the NOWs of this country start standing up for people and quit alienating men and a large number of women who choose other than what they have decided we should be, I'll support them again. When they quit holding men to higher standard than they hold themselves to and quit demanding respect without giving it, I will respect them. When they quit dividing this country based on who has a penis and who doesn't, I'll stand with them. Until that time, they are part of the problem, not the solution. I will not contribute to the divisiveness in this country that they foster.

It isn't a fight, which is what they have made it. If you're fighting someone, you aren't seeking equality. You're seeking victory, which means someone else LOSES. It isn't Us vs. Them. It's just US. Everyone. They need to quit picking sides and start helping anyone who needs it, regardless of gender--or race, ethnicity and anything else for that matter. It isn't a fight.

[Roxie]

Regulating your period is a nice, but not necessary thing.
Oh, yes it is!

I had regular periods until last spring. I had a period that lasted about six weeks and was so heavy that I had leave my job, pick up another pack of sanitary napkins, but not before it looked liked I had killed small child by sitting on him (luckily the shirt was long enough to cover it up). And the store was only 4 blocks away!! and I took the train!! I had to throw away so many underwear..

Anyway, the pills help regulate my period and shrink my cysts. Lots of women have cysts and it's very common among African-American women.

[Kass]

I've had cysts too. It's common among all women. They suck, but being able to tell what day and time your period will start isn't medically necessary. The cysts made the pill medically necessary, not a 28-day cycle. It makes life a lot easier and a lot less embarrassing, but you won't die or get sick with irregular periods.

The pill also increases your risk of certain cancers, especially if you have a family history of cancer, causes mood swings, leg cramps and blood clots if you aren't careful.

As for periods getting irregular, welcome to getting older. LOL You're mind is next.

[Roxie]

What? I'm only 22!

[Kass]

According to one young man at my daughter's school, that's ancient. me? I'm prehistoric.

Irregular periods happen to everyone. Stress, diet, environment, physical activity, etc. can all affect your cycle. Basically, if your body doesn't like one thing going on around it, it can royally bugger our periods.

[Decade]

Many women take birth control pills to help regulate their period. Not always for fucking.

Periods are not a medical condition, they are common for almost every women every month and therefore not needed for specific cases of a few people suffering from it. While periods can be medicated to be less severe and uncomfortable for those 4 days of the month, they arn't necessary. Viagra is still meant for use for actual medical conditions. Birth control is meant for birth control first, medical conditions as a secondary effect which can easily be treated by other medications that are covered by most health plans.

Buy your own damn condoms.

[Orclover]

Periods are not a medical condition, they are common for almost every women every month and therefore not needed for specific cases of a few people suffering from it. While periods can be medicated to be less severe and uncomfortable for those 4 days of the month, they arn't necessary. Viagra is still meant for use for actual medical conditions. Birth control is meant for birth control first, medical conditions as a secondary effect which can easily be treated by other medications that are covered by most health plans.

Buy your own damn condoms.


So its Viagra over Birth Control then? Welcome to the far far faaaaar right. Any further to the right and you will need to start handing out burqas.

[Beowulf]

So its Viagra over Birth Control then? Welcome to the far far faaaaar right. Any further to the right and you will need to start handing out burqas.
I'm confused by your reasoning...

[ZaichikArky]

Periods are not a medical condition, they are common for almost every women every month and therefore not needed for specific cases of a few people suffering from it. While periods can be medicated to be less severe and uncomfortable for those 4 days of the month, they arn't necessary. Viagra is still meant for use for actual medical conditions. Birth control is meant for birth control first, medical conditions as a secondary effect which can easily be treated by other medications that are covered by most health plans.

Buy your own damn condoms.


Je-zus. This post annoys me too. First of all, birth control covers a *variety* of ailments other than prevention of pregnancy. What about those women suffering from 10 day long periods or cramps from hell that make them pass out. Also, some women need this period regulation because they have a period not every month, but every 3 months. And ovarian cysts can be a big issue with some women and are more common than you would think. Birth control helps control the appearance of cysts which can create a lot of problems for a woman's reproductive health. I see my boyfriend every 3 months and take birth control every day. I may stop this at some point, but I like it because I don't have to deal with fatal cramps anymore. And I'd really love to heard about these other medications that control other symptoms because most of the time, they do not work on contact. Midol doesn't seem to alleviate cramps for me . There are a lot of herbal medications out there, but good luck going through all of that. The point is that birth control helps a *variety* of ailments. I do agree that the primary use of it is to prevent pregancy, but the secondary uses are just as important to a lot of women.


So its Viagra over Birth Control then? Welcome to the far far faaaaar right. Any further to the right and you will need to start handing out burqas.

I don't exactly get it either. I think that Orclover is refering to the idea that fertility and insemination is more important than birth control. Because you know how them conservatives are against reproductive rights.

[Decade]

Seriously, what dont you get?

Impotence IS a medical condition that SOME men suffer (of various ages), Periods are something almost every women experiences, but it's not a medical condition that generally needs to be treated (thats why you see so many damn commercials for tampons). There ARE cases when they become so severe that women need medical attention, and so they seek it out, but birth control is typically NOT what is prescribed by doctors to treat their problems.

Why?

CAUSE IT'S BIRTH CONTROL: Helping to control periods is only a secondary effect of SOME birth control. Seeing as you can get better treatment from medication that is SPECIFICALLY meant to help you with that, birth control should NOT be covered by your insurance. Men dont get birth control covered, why should women?

And to even get more into the nitty gritty, there IS a pill for men now too, but that's not covered by your insurance either.

[Orclover]

I don't exactly get it either. I think that Orclover is refering to the idea that fertility and insemination is more important than birth control. Because you know how them conservatives are against reproductive rights.

Bingo, I work for a Womens Health Network (no I am not saying which one :P), the lack of birth control for women covered by insurance vs. the extreme range of male fertility/impotancy drugs covered by all insurance companies is a particular itch on my ass that pisses me off. Men who claim that birth control for women is less important than them having 4 hour erections whenever they want should try bleeding out of thier dicks a few days a month, or comming down with a permenent irreversible condition....like being pregnant. :gloomy:

Decade, I hope to god you somehow get knocked up.

[Decade]

You're an idiot.

Impotence IS a permanent irreversible condition WITHOUT treatment or medication. Pregnancy (while some will argue that you can have an abortion, but im gonna ignore this road as there would be to many arguments on this alone) ends after 9 months. Impotence lasts the rest of your life.