|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2007 02:58:46 PM · #76 |
| btw, since it seems that everything everyone says is ridiculous, please spell it correctly. |
|
|
|
05/13/2007 10:48:22 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by pcody:
btw, since it seems that everything everyone says is ridiculous, please spell it correctly. |
oh come on. don't get petty. pety? pretty? pity? I never claimed spelling to be my forte.
I don't think everything everyone says is RIDICULOUS. You must not have read all of my responses. |
|
|
|
05/13/2007 10:54:33 PM · #78 |
I never wanted to turn this into a screaming match, and I don't think I have been. But this was the problem I saw from the begining, most of these responses aren't trying to bring information to the discussion, most I'm sure didn't even READ the sources I provided. This just turned into another "stop whinning" post that I'm so tired of.
If everyone "stopped whinning" there would still be slavery, no civil rights movement, no vote for women. All of those people had the same sort of backlash HOWEVER they had a more organized group because there was something more concrete to fight for. Freedom, equal rights between blacks and whites (in the books at least), and the right to vote.
The problem with the women's movement, and the civil rights movement is that because most descrimination is not concrete any longer, there is a less tangible force to fight. And people that do not take the time to understand that things ARE NOT as simple as laws see anyone pointing out what is WRONG with society as whinners. I am interested in all aspects of discrimination and societal issues but keep getting hammered for talking about women. Did you not know what thread you were entering? Of course I'm talking about women, that was the interest of this thread.
Are there no women reading this that want to add things? I asked for insight and personal experiences, information. I do not mind responding to challenging questions but I hate all of this stop whinning. I'm not whinning, I'm discussing a topic of interest to me. If you are not interested, then don't read. |
|
|
|
05/13/2007 10:55:57 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
My team for management class just did a paper on this. The glass ceiling definitely still exists. Men make their deals on the golf course, at the bar after work, in the locker room, etc. Women are not welcome at these boys club functions, and therefore get left out of the dealmaking. (Minorities, too, actually.) That's just one documented example. Women who are aggressive are thought of as "bitches" while men who are equally so are given kudos and promoted. There's an expectation of "softness" for women, but management positions require assertiveness, and the balance between the two is precarious. But women themselves also participate in it by self-selecting out to raise families, divide time between life and work in ways that men do not. Female bosses also tend to exhibit a strong, usually unconscious preference for hiring men over women.
This is the bibliography. Pertaining only to the United States and women under the glass ceiling. Sorry for the length, but someone wanted sources? There you go.
//www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat9.pdf
//www.catalyst.org/pressroom/press_releases/1999_cote.htm
//www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/glassceiling.html
//maloney.house.gov/documents/olddocs/womenscaucus/dingellmaloneyreport.pdf.
//www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdf
1. Ryan, M. and Haslam, A. (2006) What lies beyond the glass ceiling?: The glass cliff and the potential precariousness of women's leadership positions. Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), 3-5.
2. The glass ceiling: smashed or still holding strong?: Why are women still rarely in the top jobs? (2006) Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), 19-21.
3. Powell, S. (2006) Linda Wirth: Trends in female employment. Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), 36-39.
4. Krishnan, H. A. (2006) A few good women - on top management teams. Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), abstract.
5. Oldfield, C. (2006) A different agenda (women). Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), abstract.
6. Burke, R. J. (2006) Supporting women's career advancement: Challenges and opportunities. Human Resource Management International Digest 14(3), abstract.
Internet articles
//www.eeoc.gov/stats/reports/glassceiling/index.html
//home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Shattering_the_Glass_Ceili.html
//www.inmotionmagazine.com/glass.html
//seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/glassceiling/292359_glassceiling-main15.html
//www.forbes.com/ceonetwork/2006/03/07/glass-ceiling-opportunities--cx_hc_0308glass.html
//www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity/20050314-imdiversity.html
//www.ethnicmajority.com/glass_ceiling.htm
//www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=6527
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/stories/aa101095.htm
//digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace |
Thank you very much for this. I am going to try and make time after work tomorrow and do a little reading! |
|
|
|
05/13/2007 11:24:29 PM · #80 |
To bring this back to a world wide discussion, take a look at the WORLD and tell me women aren't oppressed. If you know anything about some of the horrible laws in the middle east (where women get punished for being raped), female genital mutilation in parts of africa, discarding of female babies in China, what happens to widows in India, this list goes on and on. Even in the bible women are quoted as being worth less for their labor (I don't have the verse but if someone does, that would be great), Religion does not look kindly on women in general the males are the role models and disciples and holy, even god is "he" "father", and the women destroy the world and bring sin(eve, pandora, etc). Women are meant to be nothing more than subservient to their men.
Even look at the way our NAMES work. Men are men no matter what. Mr, Senor, monsieur, what have you. Women are young and single or married and older and even have their names distinguish this. Mrs. or Miss (Ms. is the politically correct equivilant to Mr. but still does not do away with the other 2) senora/senorita, mademoiselle/madame.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2007 11:25:24 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by "rebecca":
Business men. Executives. But clearly not you. This is supported by research. Go look for it. I posted a whole page of articles. This is about the glass ceiling, and why women perceive it. There IS a good ole boys network. It may not exist on your level of whatever you do, but it IS there and no angry paranoid rant of yours will change that. |
a) as you say, "good ol' boys" and much of that is dying
b) clearly not me, and clearly not the vast majority of men. Perhaps a very small 0.02% of men - yes. So don't blame all of us men.
c) the angry paranoid rant is not my madam, but clearly yours.
Originally posted by thesaj:
So when women decide to pursue the tougher academic fields.....???
Originally posted by "rebecca":
Not sure what you're getting at here, since women do. |
No, they do not. This is a documented fact. Yes, some do. But percentage wise it is very small. Women outnumber college attendance in a ration of approx. 58% to 42%. And yet many of the hard sciences, engineering, etc have only about 10% female enrollment.
MBA = Master's of Business Administration (ie: NOT A HARD SCIENCE/ENGINEERING).
Originally posted by "rebecca":
All of the literature out there gives suggestions to businesses and governments about how to create a diverse workplace, but we only found one article, out of hundreds, that addressed what WOMEN could do about the situation themselves. |
Considering I've seen numerous print documentation on this subject. I see little validity. In fact, almost every document I have seen in recent years regarding starting a business have mostly been focused on women; some on minorities. But mostly women.
Originally posted by "rebecca":
The issue is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than your paranoia allows |
Looks at you and laughs. Rebecca, I have no paranoia. I am simply addressing the paranoia presented.
Originally posted by "rebecca":
This sounds more like an exception than a norm to me. It sounds like you were surrounded by emotionally abusive people as a child, and maybe you should find someone to help you deal with that instead of posting paranoid rants online directed at people you don't know. |
Gee, me and so many other men. *lol* No, my point is that it is very easy to find oppression. I believe everyone can FIND oppression. The question is, are you going to make it your excuse. Or are you going to overcome.
This whole post is PARANOIA. Is there validity that certain things happen in society. Yes. Sometimes women are denied opportunity. Sometimes minorities are denied opportunity. And sometimes evil white males are denied opportunity. However, it's only white males that are given the blame for these things. We are refused any opportunity to express similar trials we've endured. We're dismissed out of hand merely for being white & having XY chromosones.
We could ALL come together to fight for equality, improvement for all. But no, that's not acceptable. We are forced to divide into minorities and into segments which only furthers division and ensures that we won't overcome these things. Because a divided people is easily broken.
And then it is considered offensive for a white male to express the oppression he has suffered. No allowance is made. Simply because a majority of the small 2% of elite individuals in the world are white and male it has been determined that ALL white males are allowed no voice. And we are insulted and demonized if we voice our grievances. Just as you have done here....
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Women (and minorities) shouldn't have to struglle to BEAT THE ODDS! We should be EQUAL. PERIOD. |
Agreed....
But if you want such equality, you must give it too. The fact is, many white males suffer oppression, reverse discrimination, racial attacks, racial profiling, job & advancement denials, etc.
But we are dismissed for our grievances because we are white and male. Ironically, acts that are both racist and sexist. It's just politically correct to do so and hold such opinions against white males.
Such is extremely dangerous to the goal of equality. Instead of helping to achieve harmony and balance it merely creates a swinging pendulum.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
That is one company! You can't expect to claim it's like that everywhere. |
Perhaps not everywhere. But I've seen and heard about it at multitudes of places. And seen it more often than not. So it is definitely a common trend.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
what may APPEAR to be an unfair advantage to MAKE UP for the lack of advantages that they have had for hundreds of years. |
This is one of the reasons I dislike affirmative action. I've seen members of ethnic minorities who were upper middle-class receive large financial assistance for college. Children who were very priveledged. While at the same time, under priveledge caucasian students who went to the same schools, grew up in the same ghettos, and the same broken family situations find it devoid of assistance because of being white males.
No, I can't call such a situation fair. Does that mean I oppose helping minority groups that have been in unfair situations for generation. No. But I do oppose helping those who belong to such a group and are priveledged over those who may not and are under-priveledged. Rather, I would seek to help ALL underpriveledged regardless of their race, gender or religious belief. Isn't that true equality.
Is it fair to establish a food kitchen in an impoverished neighborhood mostly populated with minorities and offer food but only if you are a minority? I think most people think that would be ridiculous. But then why is it acceptable to do just that on a different issue such as education?
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
ANOTHER BTW... My feminist professor was the ONLY female engenineer in her class and constantly got made fun of and had to deal with that pressure and came out of the class with the highest grades. |
a) how many years ago was this?
b) is she sure it was simply because she was female?
c) was she an antagonistic feminist? if so, that'd be the more likely reason for the attacks. If she's attacking men blanketly then she's probably going to face retaliation for such attacks.
d) and yes, it's possible there was a lousy professor who encouraged an unhealthy environment. But more often than not, I've seen that people will assume they are being attacked and the motivation being race, gender, etc. When sometimes it's merely a character class with no basis on anything else.
I've been called a racist for some of my views, even a bigot. Ironically, in most real life cases I've shown myself to be neither of those and usually far less so than my accusers. But because I'll disagree on philosophy - I'll be attacked or labeled. (Of course I did find it funny being labelled a racist while I was dating a black woman. *lol* Half the women I've dated in my life were black. No, I judge people by their character. Though I may judge an environment on past experiences.)
Originally posted by "escapretooz":
I do appologize. I was more so refering to men do not get guilted when they choose work. |
Nope, we get guilted if we try to be stay at home dads. There are many things that us men are not free to do that we'd love to do.
I mean purses are a great convenience but we're made to feel awkward for having them. Even calling them European Carry-all's doesn't cut it. And you know who are usually the first to laugh at us - women.
Skirts, man....skirts are wonderful. In fact, probably 60%-80% of the men on the planet wear skirts, robes, tunics or similar items. But not in modern western society. But my few experiences with skirts is that they are quite comfortable for us men. Too bad kilts are so blasted expensive...*lol*
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Feminists don't want that either BUT it still does not mean that men are oppressed. |
Of course not....EVERYBODY KNOWS WHITE MEN CAN'T BE OPPRESSED...just doesn't happen.
Sounds very similar to the conversation I had with the regional head of the NAACP. Who when I shared about the racism I had suffered. Being attacked on a number of occasions for merely having white skin. Being forced to sit in a certain section of the city bus. And several other examples - flat out told me it never happened.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
OMEN MAKE LESS THAN MEN is a fact, not a generalization. |
FAFOS (figure out the meaning). There are three types of lies. White Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
The question isn't do but why?
And there are some valid reasons to be concerned about and to strive for their removal. But there are also numerous mitigating factors.
I mean it's easy to say things like a FACT. For instance I could simply say the following:
MEN ARE CLEARLY FAR MORE OPPRESSED THAN WOMEN. THIS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT MEN DIE MUCH SOONER THAN WOMEN.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Have you BEEN TO a ghetto? Cus you can't have been living under a rock. PLEASE go there and get out on the streets in your high horse and tell them all to get a "better job" or "start your own business". |
I can tell you who tends to get out of the ghetto and who does not. Almost every individual who gets out of the ghetto usually has quit blaming others and made the most of what they had.
Those who sit there blaming everyone usually never get out. No matter how many helping hands endeavor to lift them up.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Feminism is about leveling the playing field, for all, minorities included, this also includes gays. |
And this is why feminism in it's present form is extremely dangerous. And why I oppose modern-day feminism. I do not oppose equality. But that is clearly not what feminism stands for as stated above. It merely stands for a reversal of power - rather than unification and balance of equality.
Why not simply state "a level playing field for everyone"? By your above definition you have given an exclusive (rather than inclusive) definition. This creates division and makes true equality impossible.
This is the #1 reason that these issues have been prolonged for so long. Much longer than they need be. And it's a tragedy.
Don't fight for one's race, don't fight for one's gender, sexuality or favorite type of Peep. Fight for equality for all...oppression for none. (Include everyone...even white males...and you'll see 10x the progress.)
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
You CANNOT tell me that there is still no sexism, racism, and descrimination agaist gays. THat is still going into our laws! Gays are having rights TAKE AWAY! |
Um...first off...homosexuals are not suffering racism. But I get your point. Second, I do not believe homosexuals have had any rights being taken away. Rather, they are fighting for the inclusion of certain rights. Many of their concerns are valid. Though in part I think that politically they have sought more than mere gaining of right and often confrontational in your face victory. The main issue being the contention on marriage. (I've not seen much issue with employment. Most of the homosexuals I've known have done quite well in the employment end of things. Though I will state that I think their is a societal stigma. Sadly, I believe this is really furthered by a small percentage of flamboyant homosexuals who are offensively in people's face. Where as most homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals except for their sexual preferences. Those such individuals are far easier to accept because they are normal members of society.
Ironically, I think much of the problem on the marriage issue is due to a violation of "seperation of church and state". I see no reason why we are required to get a license from the state to be married. Marriage is a religious sacriment though it has born many associated civic aspects as well. For thousands of years this worked. Today, it does not. I am of the belief that we need to divide the civil from the sacred (be it religious, spiritual, soul, or simply love).
In so seperating the two. Marriage would no longer carry any civil benefits (not with taxes, insurance, inheritance, nothing). It would merely be according to the beliefs of like-minded individuals and most importantly between those joining members be it a man and woman, man and man, or multiples of either. Then, all the civil issue at hand (ie: taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.) would be covered by a civil incorporation, much akin to commune incorporations. This would pretty much resolve the issue. Though probably not to the satisfaction of either the homosexual or religious political wings as neither would win over the other. But I truly believe this is the most just and proper way to handle the issue.
Than a homosexual couple can be married according to whatever beliefs they have. Such would only be recognized by those that share like beliefs. Thus no one forces their beliefs on others nor are prevented from action by the beliefs of others.
Then all the civil/$$$ money matters are dealt equally from a civil perspective. Thus ensuring just equality.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Please STOP making this an idividual discussion. It is about SOCIETY. |
You seem to have failed at understanding just what a SOCIETY is! A SOCIETY is a group of individuals. Therefore it is impossible to remove the individual from society without destroying society itself.
Originally posted by "spazmo99":
I don't believe that gender should play a role in hiring at all. While I'm sure that women do face discrimination, turning it around and discriminating against men is NOT the solution |
Sometimes I think hiring should all be done anonymously. No race or gender should be included on applications. Just experience, etc. And no in person interviews. Perhaps just voice, and perhaps that masked. Then race, age, sex, weight, height, etc would cease being affecting factors.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2007 11:39:01 PM · #82 |
The problem with seeing a lot of documentation about women starting businesses is that it is actually one of the things that leads women to the perception of a glass ceiling. There is no glass ceiling in a business you start yourself, and women who would otherwise pursue executive positions often leave to do just that. It's not a terrible thing, women starting their own businesses, but it helps perpetuate a vicious cycle. It means those women are among those counted as not having risen to the executive ranks when gathering data on the glass ceiling.
I don't blame men. I thought I made it clear that I believe I'm the only one in charge of my own destiny. I don't whine about the glass ceiling. I state facts from research I have actually conducted myself. The articles I posted (which all are either academic or published in publications worthy of academic citation and which you clearly haven't bothered to look at) say otherwise, with regards to all of your assertions. I'm basing mine on verifiable research. You're pulling numbers and whatnot out of your ass based on "personal experience" and passing it off as the experience of all men everywhere. My suggestion is that if you feel repressed, then work harder. I have no sense of entitlement to anything. I work for my achievements. Why shouldn't you do so as well? Makes more sense than railing against my entire gender for allegedly oppressing you.
BTW, unless you've attempted an MBA, don't you dare try to devalue it. A masters in business isn't a "soft" degree by any stretch of the imagination. I'm in classes with people who already have advanced science degrees, obtained with honors in many cases, and I watch them struggle with the material. The assertion that science is harder is stupid. It's not harder. It's not easier, either. It's merely different.
But hey, where's that dead horse graphic? Nevermind. Thread goes on ignore now.
Message edited by author 2007-05-13 23:42:57.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:06:32 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The problem with the women's movement, and the civil rights movement is that because most descrimination is not concrete any longer, there is a less tangible force to fight. And people that do not take the time to understand that things ARE NOT as simple as laws see anyone pointing out what is WRONG with society as whinners. I am interested in all aspects of discrimination and societal issues but keep getting hammered for talking about women. Did you not know what thread you were entering? Of course I'm talking about women, that was the interest of this thread.
|
I agree with you that discrimination against women in favor of men is wrong.
From some of your postings, you seem to believe that since women are discriminated against in some cases that makes it perfectly fine for men to be discriminated against in favor of women in other cases.
Discrimination based on race, gender etc. is wrong, regardless.
Try as you might, there is no right way to do a wrong thing.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:21:12 AM · #84 |
[quoe="escapetooz"] I never wanted to turn this into a screaming match, and I don't think I have been. But this was the problem I saw from the begining, most of these responses aren't trying to bring information to the discussion[/quote]
I quite disagree. I think most of the responses have tried to bring information to the discussion.
However, that information hasn't been what you and a few others want to hear. So they've been dismissed out of hand. And often insulted, called intolerant, and other derogatory (thought polite and politically correct) address.
And you want to know what. Your hard-headedness and failure to hear or understand other's experiences and oppression is why such movements as modern-feminism are failing to really accomplish anything.
You refuse to understand or support others. You dismiss their grievances. Instead of seeking unity you seek divisiveness and then are upset when you find yourself in opposition with others. The opposition you are creating.
Escapetooz, please, please...before you react. Really try to consider some of what I have said not as an attack but as bringing information to the discussion.
Let me put it to you simply this way. Men die approx 5 yrs earlier than women. You fight for equality of pay for women. But you do not fight for the equality of lifespan for men. You divide and fight for just a few oppressions which affect you, but do not stand for against oppression for all.
How much more support would you gain for the issues and struggles if you removed the divisions and fought for a whole. You said this is about society and not individuals. But you cut society into chunks, though larger than individuals it is still a division of the whole. So rather than do that, why not fight for equality for all of society?
If you fought for that....then people from all demographics could support you. Sure, there will be a few cancerous members of society. But these will die off as the body of society grows stronger. (ie: there are still blatant racist skin heads in this country, but they are few; and as the division of race is reduced they diminish.)
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
If everyone "stopped whinning" there would still be slavery, no civil rights movement, no vote for women. |
You're right. And no one is saying we should stop changing for the better.
But you fail to understand the "roots" of those movements. The roots were not in divisions and minorities. Had that been the drive, rest assured slavery would have remained.
If the argument had been merely that blacks should not be slaves. Slavery would not have been abolished. That was NOT the argument that freed the slaves in America and abolished slavery. The argument was that all of mankind are equals.
And that must always be the argument....and how it must be portrayed. Not x group deserves y. But rather ALL deserve z.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
The problem with the women's movement, and the civil rights movement is that because most descrimination is not concrete any longer, there is a less tangible force to fight. |
I believe the problem with these movements is that they assume every slight is due to prejudice.
I believe the problem with these movements is that instead of seeking unity and equality they have sought to divide; often promoting hate and retribution.
I believe the problem with these movements is that they often prejudge people simply by their color or sex.
I believe the problem with these movements is that they have no ear to hear the issues and struggles of others - the result, those others have little inclination to hear and support them.
Resolve those things and we'd see such a different world. :)
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
And people that do not take the time to understand that things ARE NOT as simple as laws see anyone pointing out what is WRONG with society as whinners. |
If you are going to dismiss or deny my struggles merely on the basis of my race or the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. How do you expect me NOT to do the same to you.
And when the expression of my struggles is returned with insults, labels, deniability and addresses that I need to seek help. What makes you expect the likes of me and others who have been treated the same to be inclined to help you? (By the way, regardless of how I've been treated and denigrated by various minority groups. I have chosen to still support - and fight for - their equality.
Dismiss me as paranoid. In truth, you simply do not understand me. We have a tendency to fear or attack that which we do not understand. It's a very human tendency.
My advice to you, is be more inclusive - less devisive. And including a few other minorities is NOT inclusion and unity. It is merely a treatise of alliance for a war. And that is the sad fact that many feminists and civil rights leaders fail to realize.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
I am interested in all aspects of discrimination and societal issues but keep getting hammered for talking about women. Did you not know what thread you were entering? Of course I'm talking about women, that was the interest of this thread. |
Funny, I've watched a number of men be hammered for sharing their experiences. I call your bluff. Do not state that you are interested in all aspects of discrimination. You are clearly not.
You may be interested in all aspects of discrimination of political minorities (women, blacks & hispanics, and homosexuals) but that is far from the definition of ALL. Which, as I've tried to express, is why you've received so much flaq.
Can you imagine how different this thread would have been if you brought it forth as an inquiry to share and express issues of discrimination that people have experienced - be they black, white, hispanic or asian; male, female or hermaphrodite; hetero, homo, or bi sexual, etc.
And then seeing how regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, age or religion individuals will have encountered oppression. We could all have come together as individuals in unity for equality and cessation of oppression.
Instead of dismissing some of the things individuals have shared here simply because they were from white males. You could have sympathized and supported them. But no, you judge them as a whole not on their character but by the color of their skin and their genitalia. Had these same individuals shared and were female I am sure you'd have been in a passionate fury & supporting them. You could have chosen to admit that such were not fair and decided to understand and support them. This thread could have been against all oppression and inequality.
Instead, it is merely about revenge. Things were inequal for us...so who gives a !@$% if they're now inequal for you. We're getting our revenge. (Mostly at the cost of individuals who were not involved in the years and centuries of oppression past.)
And then I find it offensive when so-called feminists rant and rave about miniscule issues (often a few percentage points of statistics) and seem to almost completely ignore the plight of many women in Asia and Africa who suffer horrendous abuse. Where a woman who is raped is not scene as a victim but as the criminal and is executed for being victim. Can we put more focus toward that? Same reason I tend to dismiss calls for reperations for slavery. Um...if slavery is truly such a big deal could we put more focus on ending it in the regions where it is still being done today? If it is so important to end discrimination, prejudice and racism towards blacks (and I believe it is) can blacks cease from denigrating chinese immigrants and treating them in such a dispicable manners as so many do in urban environments. Can we simply look at one another as human beings and stand for equality of us all - rather than dividing and opposing one another? accept the struggles of each of society's members as individuals and we'll see equality come to all.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Are there no women reading this that want to add things? I asked for insight and personal experiences, information. I do not mind responding to challenging questions but I hate all of this stop whinning. |
All I'm asking is that you try to understand....
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
To bring this back to a world wide discussion, take a look at the WORLD and tell me women aren't oppressed. If you know anything about some of the horrible laws in the middle east (where women get punished for being raped), female genital mutilation in parts of africa, discarding of female babies in China, what happens to widows in India, this list goes on and on. |
Now here we can agree on. I think there is great oppression in the world. Oppression that requires immediate and life-saving action. Not just for women. But yes, definitely for women. Not sure if you see the difference.
Originally posted by "escapetoos":
Even in the bible women are quoted as being worth less for their labor (I don't have the verse but if someone does, that would be great) |
Yes there are some harsh passages in the Bible regarding women, and certain ethnic groups. That said, it's always good to post a reference to the passage as often things are mis-quoted. I've seen a great many assumptions of what's in and not in. Ironically, I could probably find passages more questionable. Though one does have to take things in a historical context.
The truth of the matter is that much of the labor in those days was physical. The most expensive labor required physical strength. Many of the tasks for females were quite menial. The idea being that many jobs that women did could be done by either men or women. But a number of jobs that were done in such times required greater physical strength. The average male can lift more than the average woman. Therefore a 100 men could move more bags of grain than a 100 women. Where as a 100 men could grind grain equally (or other less strength based jobs) as a 100 women. This simple reality made for a higher pay grade. Simply supply and demand. If you have a task that a 100% of your work base can do. Then it's demand equals $1. But if you have a task that only 50% of your workforce can do, then it demands $2. (simplified economic comparison).
Now days, we have many many many more non-physical jobs. In these jobs women's pay should be equal. And potentially women's employment levels should be equal as well - so long as women choose to accept such work.
However, if I had a business carrying bags of rice. I will tell what my determination for hiring will be. "You want a job...here, carry that that stack of 100 lbs bags of rice over to that warehouse." I'll then see how many you carry over in the day. Guess what. I don't care if you're male or female. I care whether you can carry those 100 lbs bags of rice. All that said, I'd wager that I'll have more males than women as employees. NOT because I am sexist. Just because I'll find more men capable of lifting the weight of the bags then women. Does this make my hiring sexist? No, it is simply a case of economics. Now there is a way to potentially balance the employment. That is to simply pay by the lbs. A dime for every lbs of rice carried. Now, I can employ men and women equally. And in fact, I am paying them identical wages. But the fact that the average woman is weaker than the average man means that overall, the women are likely to carry less lbs of rice. Therefore they are also likely to earn less than the men. Is this sexism? No, it's merely economics. Anything else would be "subsidy". Which would mean requiring one individual to work hard and accomplish more but be paid less in order to subsidize another.
Now the issue is when said work is not physical. And there is no difference in capability (be it between sex, race, weight, height, etc). Such case means performance should usually be equal and should therefore receive equivalent pay. This happens much of the time but there are exceptions. And those exceptions are wrong.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:43:22 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The problem with the women's movement, and the civil rights movement is that because most descrimination is not concrete any longer, there is a less tangible force to fight. And people that do not take the time to understand that things ARE NOT as simple as laws see anyone pointing out what is WRONG with society as whinners. I am interested in all aspects of discrimination and societal issues but keep getting hammered for talking about women. Did you not know what thread you were entering? Of course I'm talking about women, that was the interest of this thread.
|
I agree with you that discrimination against women in favor of men is wrong.
From some of your postings, you seem to believe that since women are discriminated against in some cases that makes it perfectly fine for men to be discriminated against in favor of women in other cases.
Discrimination based on race, gender etc. is wrong, regardless.
Try as you might, there is no right way to do a wrong thing. |
This is very true. During my college time, all the things where professor has to award marks based on his own judgement (example presentation, project reports etc), all the girls will have nice marks. No matter how good i do, there will be a girl to out score me there.
When the companies came for hiring, all the girls had more than 3 jobs by the degree end (and most of them in good companies). We on the other hand we could hardly managed to get a job to start with. This is descrimination. (of course most of the profs were males and most of the interviewers were male). Well as i remember no woman ever complained.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:48:18 AM · #86 |
AGAIN I WILL USE CAPS, I AM NOT GOOD AT PULLING OUT PIECES. APPOLOGIES, I KNOW IT APPEARS IN INTERNET SPEAK TO BE "YELLING" BUT I ASSURE YOU THIS IS ALL MEANT CALMLY.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "rebecca":
Business men. Executives. But clearly not you. This is supported by research. Go look for it. I posted a whole page of articles. This is about the glass ceiling, and why women perceive it. There IS a good ole boys network. It may not exist on your level of whatever you do, but it IS there and no angry paranoid rant of yours will change that. |
a) as you say, "good ol' boys" and much of that is dying
b) clearly not me, and clearly not the vast majority of men. Perhaps a very small 0.02% of men - yes. So don't blame all of us men.
c) the angry paranoid rant is not my madam, but clearly yours.
Originally posted by thesaj:
So when women decide to pursue the tougher academic fields.....???
Originally posted by "rebecca":
Not sure what you're getting at here, since women do. |
No, they do not. This is a documented fact. Yes, some do. But percentage wise it is very small. Women outnumber college attendance in a ration of approx. 58% to 42%. And yet many of the hard sciences, engineering, etc have only about 10% female enrollment.
MBA = Master's of Business Administration (ie: NOT A HARD SCIENCE/ENGINEERING).
Originally posted by "rebecca":
All of the literature out there gives suggestions to businesses and governments about how to create a diverse workplace, but we only found one article, out of hundreds, that addressed what WOMEN could do about the situation themselves. |
Considering I've seen numerous print documentation on this subject. I see little validity. In fact, almost every document I have seen in recent years regarding starting a business have mostly been focused on women; some on minorities. But mostly women.
Originally posted by "rebecca":
The issue is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than your paranoia allows |
Looks at you and laughs. Rebecca, I have no paranoia. I am simply addressing the paranoia presented.
Originally posted by "rebecca":
This sounds more like an exception than a norm to me. It sounds like you were surrounded by emotionally abusive people as a child, and maybe you should find someone to help you deal with that instead of posting paranoid rants online directed at people you don't know. |
Gee, me and so many other men. *lol* No, my point is that it is very easy to find oppression. I believe everyone can FIND oppression. The question is, are you going to make it your excuse. Or are you going to overcome.
This whole post is PARANOIA. Is there validity that certain things happen in society. Yes. Sometimes women are denied opportunity. Sometimes minorities are denied opportunity. And sometimes evil white males are denied opportunity. However, it's only white males that are given the blame for these things. We are refused any opportunity to express similar trials we've endured. We're dismissed out of hand merely for being white & having XY chromosones.
We could ALL come together to fight for equality, improvement for all. But no, that's not acceptable. We are forced to divide into minorities and into segments which only furthers division and ensures that we won't overcome these things. Because a divided people is easily broken.
And then it is considered offensive for a white male to express the oppression he has suffered. No allowance is made. Simply because a majority of the small 2% of elite individuals in the world are white and male it has been determined that ALL white males are allowed no voice. And we are insulted and demonized if we voice our grievances. Just as you have done here....
*******WHITE MEN ARE NOT OPPRESSED ON THE WHOLE. OF COURSE EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON FACES THEIR OWN SITUATIONS THEY CAN LABEL AS "OPPRESSION" BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS. WHITE MALES STILL HOLD MOST POSITIONS OF POWER, WHETHER THAT BE GOVERNMENTAL OR IN THE CORPORATE OR PRIVATE SECTORS (CEOS, MANAGERS, ETC). I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TO SAYING EVIL WHITE MALES. I HAVE NEVER, EVER SAID THAT IT WAS MALES FAULT. IN FACT I HAVE REPEATEDLY, AGAIN AND AGAIN SAID THAT IT IS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM HOWEVER WHITE MEN ARE ON THE BENEFITING END AND HOLD THE MOST POWER. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM EVIL, THAT MAKES THEM A PART OF SOCIETY, MOST OF THEM UNKNOWINGLY AND UNMEANINGLY BEING OPPRESSORS.
WHITE MALES AREN'T ALLOWED A VOICE? DO YOU WATCH TV. THEY ARE THE VOICE. THEY ARE WHAT WE LISTEN TO ON THE NEWS, IN POLITICS, IN RELIGION. MALE VOICES ARE HEARD WAY MORE THEN FEMALES OR MINORITIES. YOU ARE TAKING YOUR PERSONAL EXPEREINCES AND TRYING TO APPLY THEM LIKE A BLANKET. ID ON'T FEEL I HAVE INSULTED YOU FOR YOUR GRIEVANCES. I HAVE DEFENDED MYSELF AGAINST YOUR INSULTS TRYING TO KNOCK AT MY EVERY POINT WITH A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I EMPATHIZE, I DO NOT DOUBT EVERY PERSON HAS HAD THEIR SHARE OF CONFLICT IN LIFE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT HOWEVER. AND MANY OF YOUR POINTS I AGREED WITH WHICH YOU SEEM TO NOT HAVE NOTICED.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Women (and minorities) shouldn't have to struglle to BEAT THE ODDS! We should be EQUAL. PERIOD. |
Agreed....
But if you want such equality, you must give it too. The fact is, many white males suffer oppression, reverse discrimination, racial attacks, racial profiling, job & advancement denials, etc.
But we are dismissed for our grievances because we are white and male. Ironically, acts that are both racist and sexist. It's just politically correct to do so and hold such opinions against white males.
Such is extremely dangerous to the goal of equality. Instead of helping to achieve harmony and balance it merely creates a swinging pendulum.
PLEASE GIVE ME EXAMPLES OF THESE "ATTACKS" AND "RACIAL PROFILING". I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A TOUCHY ISSUE WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I AM FOR IT HOWEVER I 100% UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE THAT ARE. I HOWEVER FIND IT TO BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AS UNFAIR AS IT MAY SEEM IN THE SHORT TERM. PLEASE TELL ME HOW WOMEN EVEN HAVE TO POWER TO OPPRESS MEN. WE DON'T. AND I DONT WANT A PENDULUM SWING, I WANT EQUALITY. THAT IS THE PROBLEM, PEOPLE WHO GET INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH ME FEAR THAT. WHY CHANGE A PENDULUM IF IT IS LIFTED TO YOUR SIDE? GETTING IT TO THE MIDDLE REQUIRES SOME SACRIFICES FOR THE GREATER GOOD, BUT HAVING IT TIP TO THE OTHER SIDE IS A SCARY THOUGHT, A THREATENING THOUGHT, AND HENCE THE BACKLASH.
THE IDEA BEHIND FEMINISM IF WE ARE TO USE THE "PENDULUM" ANALOGY IS TO GET IT TO REST SOUNDY IN THE MIDDLE. IN FACT SINCE WHEN HAS IT EVER "SWUNG" OUR WAY IN SOCIETY? WOMEN HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS ALL OVER THE GLOBE. TODAY WE ARE COMING CLOSER, AT LEAST IN MORE ADVANCED COUNTRIES, TO EQUALITY BUT WE ARE NOT THERE YET. IF WE ARE TO USE ANALOGIES LETS TRY A SCALE. MANY OF THE WEIGHTS ARE STACKED IN THE DOMINANT SIDES FAVOR, IN ORDER TO EVEN IT OUT, SOME THINGS NEED TO BE TAKEN OUT AND PLACED ON THE OTHER SIDE... OR THINGS ADDED TO THE OTHER SIDE. EITHER CASE MAKES DOMINANT SIDE ANGRY APPARENTLY.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
That is one company! You can't expect to claim it's like that everywhere. |
Perhaps not everywhere. But I've seen and heard about it at multitudes of places. And seen it more often than not. So it is definitely a common trend.
I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF COMMON TRENDS AMONG WOMEN I KNOW TOO. THOSE ARE FINE AS ANECTODAL NOTES BUT ARE NOT VALID ARGUEMENTS. THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN SAY AS I AM NOT SURE THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT THIS CAME FROM.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
what may APPEAR to be an unfair advantage to MAKE UP for the lack of advantages that they have had for hundreds of years. |
This is one of the reasons I dislike affirmative action. I've seen members of ethnic minorities who were upper middle-class receive large financial assistance for college. Children who were very priveledged. While at the same time, under priveledge caucasian students who went to the same schools, grew up in the same ghettos, and the same broken family situations find it devoid of assistance because of being white males.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS AT ALL. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION. I RECEIVE AID FOR SCHOOL THOUGH BECAUSE I HAVE A LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD AND IT IS ALL NUMBERS, THE FAFSA, IT'S NATIONAL IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT. IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACOUNT RACE OR GENDER, JUST INCOME. SO I WASNT TOO AWARE OF THOSE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.
No, I can't call such a situation fair. Does that mean I oppose helping minority groups that have been in unfair situations for generation. No. But I do oppose helping those who belong to such a group and are priveledged over those who may not and are under-priveledged. Rather, I would seek to help ALL underpriveledged regardless of their race, gender or religious belief. Isn't that true equality.
Is it fair to establish a food kitchen in an impoverished neighborhood mostly populated with minorities and offer food but only if you are a minority? I think most people think that would be ridiculous. But then why is it acceptable to do just that on a different issue such as education?
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
ANOTHER BTW... My feminist professor was the ONLY female engenineer in her class and constantly got made fun of and had to deal with that pressure and came out of the class with the highest grades. |
a) how many years ago was this?
NOT THAT MANY. SHE IS FAIRLY YOUNG.
b) is she sure it was simply because she was female?
YES. SHE IS ALSO OF A MIXED, ALMOST UNIDENTIFIABLE ETHNIC BACKGROUND THAT MIGHT HAVE TIED IN, IT IS ALL INTERCONNECTED, AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE DESCRIMINATION SO I DID NOT MENTION IT.
***************************************************************************************************
c) was she an antagonistic feminist? if so, that'd be the more likely reason for the attacks. If she's attacking men blanketly then she's probably going to face retaliation for such attacks.
OH MY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN WITH THIS ONE. THIS GOES BACK THE FEMINIST STEREOTYPING. SHE IS NOT SOME RAGING CRAZY FEMINIST TELLING THE MEN THEY ARE ALL PIGS. I CAN ASSURE YOU IF YOU MET HER AND LISTENED TO HER FOR HALF AN HOUR YOUR VIEWS WOULD BE CHANGED, I ONLY WISH I WAS AS INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED AS SHE. IT REALLY OFFENDS ME THAT YOU EVEN ASKED THIS. SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST INTELLIGENT, EVEN TEMPERED PEOPLE I KNOW. SHE IS THE VERY EXAMPLE OF FAIR TREATMENT. SHE DOES NOT PICK FAVORITES IN CLASS, SHE GIVES THE SAME TYPE OF RESPONSE THE MOST INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS DOWN TO THE MOST OFFENSIVE. SHE EVEN REFERED TO US ALL AS SCHOLARS (SUCH AS I WOULD BE SCHOLAR MULDER) AS THAT IS WHAT WE ARE AND IT IS COMPELTELY GENDER NEUTRAL. IF SHE EVEN SO MUCH AS PUSHED BACK A DATE FOR SOMEONE SHE RULED TO PUSH IT BACK FOR THE WHOLE CLASS SO AS NOT TO GIVE THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.
I HAVE A LOT OF FEMINIST FRIENDS AND THEY ARE MUCH OF THE SAME. VERY INTELLIGENT, BRIGHT, YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN. YES THERE WERE MEN IN MY CLASSES.
YOU HAVE BOUGHT THE FEMINIST STEREOTYPE HOOK LINE AND SINKER.
*****************************************************************************************************
d) and yes, it's possible there was a lousy professor who encouraged an unhealthy environment. But more often than not, I've seen that people will assume they are being attacked and the motivation being race, gender, etc. When sometimes it's merely a character class with no basis on anything else.
I've been called a racist for some of my views, even a bigot. Ironically, in most real life cases I've shown myself to be neither of those and usually far less so than my accusers. But because I'll disagree on philosophy - I'll be attacked or labeled. (Of course I did find it funny being labelled a racist while I was dating a black woman. *lol* Half the women I've dated in my life were black. No, I judge people by their character. Though I may judge an environment on past experiences.)
HMM DATING BLACK WOMEN MAKES YOU NOT A RACIST BUT APPARENTLY HAVING BOYFRIENDS AND HUSBANDS DOESN'T STOP FEMINISTS FROM BEING "MAN-HATERS"
Originally posted by "escapretooz":
I do appologize. I was more so refering to men do not get guilted when they choose work. |
Nope, we get guilted if we try to be stay at home dads. There are many things that us men are not free to do that we'd love to do.
I mean purses are a great convenience but we're made to feel awkward for having them. Even calling them European Carry-all's doesn't cut it. And you know who are usually the first to laugh at us - women.
Skirts, man....skirts are wonderful. In fact, probably 60%-80% of the men on the planet wear skirts, robes, tunics or similar items. But not in modern western society. But my few experiences with skirts is that they are quite comfortable for us men. Too bad kilts are so blasted expensive...*lol*
THAT IS WHAT I WAS ADDRESSING WHEN I SAID THAT. I AGREED THAT MEN HAVE A HARD TIME WHEN THEY WANT TO BE STAY AT HOME DADS. PLEASE READ THE CONVERSATION BEFORE YOU TAKE OUT A PART AND DISAGREE WITH ME ON AN ITEM I JUST AGREED WITH.
AGAIN, SOCIETY. FEMINISM IS ALL FOR THE BLENDING OF GENDERS, MALES AND FEMALES BOTH EXPLORING BOTH MASCULINE AND FEMININE SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM. AT THIS POINT I BELIEVE YOU ARE ARGUING WITH WHAT YOU PERCIEVE FEMINISM TO BE ABOUT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING. SURE WOMEN LAUGH, THEN AGAIN MOST WOMEN AREN'T FEMINISTS. I AM VERY LIBERAL ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING. I AM ALL FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT. A LITTLE BOY AND ONE OF MY PRESCHOOLS I WAS PHOTOGRAPHING AT HAD PINK FINGERNAILS AND I STOPPED AND THOUGHT "THAT IS REALLY COOL!"
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Feminists don't want that either BUT it still does not mean that men are oppressed. |
Of course not....EVERYBODY KNOWS WHITE MEN CAN'T BE OPPRESSED...just doesn't happen.
Sounds very similar to the conversation I had with the regional head of the NAACP. Who when I shared about the racism I had suffered. Being attacked on a number of occasions for merely having white skin. Being forced to sit in a certain section of the city bus. And several other examples - flat out told me it never happened.
THAT IS FUNNY THAT HE SAID IT NEVER HAPPENED, OR AT LEAST THAT YOU INTERPERET THAT TO BE WHAT HE SAID. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I GOT PICKED ON FOR BEING WHITE TOO. I GOT CALLED "LITTLE WHITE GIRL" I WAS A PUNY LITTLE SHRIMP AND WOULD GET PUSHED IN THE HALLS (ON PURPOSE, ID EVEN DODGE AND THEY'D GET ME) BY MOSTLY BLACK GUYS AND GIRLS, HECK I EVEN HAD A BLACK GUY HAVVE ME IN A HEADLOCK ONCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY OPPRESSED ME. THEY HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON MY LIFE AND WERE NOT IN A POSITION OF POWER. THEY HAD ANGER AND HOSTILITY TOWARDS ME AS A PRODUCT OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT, A PRODUCT OF THEIR OPPRESSION.
IT'S SAD. BUT THAT WAS JUST A FEW SELECT PEOPLE I ENCOUNTERED. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM A TESTAMENT TO THEIR RACE, NOT IN MY EYES, BUT TO SOCIETY I KNOW IT HAPPENS.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
OMEN MAKE LESS THAN MEN is a fact, not a generalization. |
FAFOS (figure out the meaning). There are three types of lies. White Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
The question isn't do but why?
And there are some valid reasons to be concerned about and to strive for their removal. But there are also numerous mitigating factors.
I mean it's easy to say things like a FACT. For instance I could simply say the following:
MEN ARE CLEARLY FAR MORE OPPRESSED THAN WOMEN. THIS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT BY THE FACT THAT MEN DIE MUCH SOONER THAN WOMEN.
MEN DO DIES SOONER THAN WOMEN. PLEASE TIE TOGETHER THE DEATH TO WOMEN AND THEN MAYBE I WILL CALL THAT A VALID ARGUMENT. OTHERWISE IT'S JUST SILLY.
AGAIN, IM NOT BLAMING MEN FOR THE PAY DIFFERENCE. IT IS A SOCIETAL PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MORE TIMES I CAN SAY THAT FEMINISM IS NOT ABOUT BLAMING MEN.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Have you BEEN TO a ghetto? Cus you can't have been living under a rock. PLEASE go there and get out on the streets in your high horse and tell them all to get a "better job" or "start your own business". |
I can tell you who tends to get out of the ghetto and who does not. Almost every individual who gets out of the ghetto usually has quit blaming others and made the most of what they had.
Those who sit there blaming everyone usually never get out. No matter how many helping hands endeavor to lift them up.
AGAIN LIKE I SAID IN THAT ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. SOME PEOPLE HAVE THAT IN THEM TO BE MOTAVATED. OTHERS WERE NEVER TAUGHT TO AND NEVER THOUGHT TO FIND THAT IN THEMSELVES. AND REASONS FOR NOT GETTING OUT OF THE GHETTO ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF NO LONGER BLAMING OTHERS. FOR EXAMPLE, A WOMAN GETS PREGNANT AND HAS TO CHOSE THE QUICKEST JOB TO MAKE MONEY, MAKE ENDS MEAT FOR HERSELF AND HER FAMILY. DOESN'T MATTER IF SHE'S BLAMING ANYONE OR NOT. IT'S GUNNA TAKE SOME HELP FOR HER TO GET OUT OF THAT CYCLE. POVERTY IS A CYCLICAL THING, NOT JUST A MATTER OF MOTAVATION.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Feminism is about leveling the playing field, for all, minorities included, this also includes gays. |
And this is why feminism in it's present form is extremely dangerous. And why I oppose modern-day feminism. I do not oppose equality. But that is clearly not what feminism stands for as stated above. It merely stands for a reversal of power - rather than unification and balance of equality.
Why not simply state "a level playing field for everyone"? By your above definition you have given an exclusive (rather than inclusive) definition. This creates division and makes true equality impossible.
This is the #1 reason that these issues have been prolonged for so long. Much longer than they need be. And it's a tragedy.
Don't fight for one's race, don't fight for one's gender, sexuality or favorite type of Peep. Fight for equality for all...oppression for none. (Include everyone...even white males...and you'll see 10x the progress.)
THIS DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE. I SAID LEVELING THE PLAYIG FIELD FOR EVERYONE. HOW IS THAT DANGEROUS. YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY POINT I AM TRYING TO GET ACROSS. MEN ARE IN POWER POLITICALLY AND FINANCIALLY AND SOCIALLY. THEY DON'T NEED THE HELP. THEY ARE ABOVE EQAUL. WHAT IS WRONG WITH RAISING EVERYONE ELSE TO THAT LEVEL?
WHEN MINORITIES, WOMEN, AND SEXUALITY STOP GETTING TARGETED, THEN ILL STOP FIGHTING FOR THE CAUSES. YOU TELL ME IF THERE WAS A LAW SPECIFIED TO MEN THAT MEN WOULD NOT RISE UP. YOU ARE MISTAKEN. YOU BAN MEN FROM MARRYING WOMEN AND YOU BETTER BELIEVE THAT MEN ARE GUNNA FIGHT. STOP THIS MEN ARE JUST AS OPPRRESSED AS EVERYONE ELSE NONSENSE. I HAVE SAID NOTHING "DANGEROUS" HERE. THERE IS NOT "DANGER" IN MAKING PEOPLE EQUAL, AND IT IS NOT DIVIDING. MEN AND WOMEN AND WHITES ALIKE ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MOVEMENT. IT'S NOT SOME SPECIAL CLUB THAT ONLY "BLACK" OR "WOMEN" ARE INVITED TO. THE ONLY "DANGER" IS THE PEOPLE LIKE YOU OPPOSSING IT WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF THEIR INGO.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
You CANNOT tell me that there is still no sexism, racism, and descrimination agaist gays. THat is still going into our laws! Gays are having rights TAKE AWAY! |
Um...first off...homosexuals are not suffering racism. But I get your point. Second, I do not believe homosexuals have had any rights being taken away. Rather, they are fighting for the inclusion of certain rights. Many of their concerns are valid. Though in part I think that politically they have sought more than mere gaining of right and often confrontational in your face victory. The main issue being the contention on marriage. (I've not seen much issue with employment. Most of the homosexuals I've known have done quite well in the employment end of things. Though I will state that I think their is a societal stigma. Sadly, I believe this is really furthered by a small percentage of flamboyant homosexuals who are offensively in people's face. Where as most homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals except for their sexual preferences. Those such individuals are far easier to accept because they are normal members of society.
GAYS LOST THE RIGHT TO ADOPT IN SOME STATES. TELL ME HOW THAT IS NOT HAVING A RIGHT TAKEN AWAY? I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR STANCE IS ON GAYS, THAT IS A RIGHT BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM A SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE NOT BASED ON PARENTING SKILL, INCOME, CRIMINAL RECORD BUT ON WHO THEY CHOOSE TO LOVE.
Ironically, I think much of the problem on the marriage issue is due to a violation of "seperation of church and state". I see no reason why we are required to get a license from the state to be married. Marriage is a religious sacriment though it has born many associated civic aspects as well. For thousands of years this worked. Today, it does not. I am of the belief that we need to divide the civil from the sacred (be it religious, spiritual, soul, or simply love).
In so seperating the two. Marriage would no longer carry any civil benefits (not with taxes, insurance, inheritance, nothing). It would merely be according to the beliefs of like-minded individuals and most importantly between those joining members be it a man and woman, man and man, or multiples of either. Then, all the civil issue at hand (ie: taxes, insurance, inheritance, etc.) would be covered by a civil incorporation, much akin to commune incorporations. This would pretty much resolve the issue. Though probably not to the satisfaction of either the homosexual or religious political wings as neither would win over the other. But I truly believe this is the most just and proper way to handle the issue.
Than a homosexual couple can be married according to whatever beliefs they have. Such would only be recognized by those that share like beliefs. Thus no one forces their beliefs on others nor are prevented from action by the beliefs of others.
I DON'T DISAGREE THAT CHURCHES CAN DENY CEREMONIES. I DON'T AGREE WITH IT MORALLY BUT I AGREE THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. HOWEVER YOU CAN BE MARRIED BY A COURT JUDGE, AND SINCE THE SOLUTION YOU PROPOSED IS NOT EVEN ON THE TABLE IT S ONLY FAIR THAT GAYS BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. IT IS NOT FAIR TO SAY THOUGH THAT THOSE THAT DON'T BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. WHAT IF I SAY I DON'T BELIEVE IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE? AM I ALLOWED TO DENY THEM RIGHTS? NO. EXAMPLE, GAY MARRIAGE ONLY BEING ALLOWED IN THE STATE THEY ARE MARRIED IN. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL LIVING YOUR LIFE WITH YOUR WIFE AND YOU NEED TO MOVE FOR YOUR JOB IN ANOTHER STATE THAT SAYS IT DOES NOT SANCTION YOUR MARRIAGE. IT IS UNFAIR.
YOU NEED TO LOOK AT SITUATIONS FROM THE OTHER PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE. IT IS THE POPULAR BELIEF IN RELIGION TO BE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. BUT TURN IT AROUND AND THINK OF HOW YOU WOULD FEEL IF TOMORROW HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS UNDER ATTACK. WHAT IF PEOPLE SAID THE LOVE YOU HAD WAS WRONG AND YOU COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY OR WHY THEY WOULD CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE. WOULD YOU STOP LOVING YOUR WIFE? WOULD YOU FEEL ANGRY, HURT, UPSET? WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO FIGHT FOR IT?
Then all the civil/$$$ money matters are dealt equally from a civil perspective. Thus ensuring just equality.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Please STOP making this an idividual discussion. It is about SOCIETY. |
You seem to have failed at understanding just what a SOCIETY is! A SOCIETY is a group of individuals. Therefore it is impossible to remove the individual from society without destroying society itself.
UNDERSTOOD. THAT'S WHY I MADE THE STATEMENT THAT IT IS IT'S OWN ENTITY IN A CYCLE CONSTANTLY BEING SHAPED BY INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS SHAPING THEM. WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOCIETY IS THAT YOU CAN'T CLAIM TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHOLE BY GIVING EXAMPLES OF A PIECE. THAT'S LIKE LOOKING AT PHOTO AND PICKING A PIXEL AND SAYING "SEE THERE IS BLUE" WHEN IT COULD THE ONLY SPECK IN A RED IMAGE.I LOVE PERSONAL STORIES AS ANECDOTAL, BUT THEY ARE NOT FACT NOR CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.
Originally posted by "spazmo99":
I don't believe that gender should play a role in hiring at all. While I'm sure that women do face discrimination, turning it around and discriminating against men is NOT the solution |
Sometimes I think hiring should all be done anonymously. No race or gender should be included on applications. Just experience, etc. And no in person interviews. Perhaps just voice, and perhaps that masked. Then race, age, sex, weight, height, etc would cease being affecting factors.
I DON'T BELIEVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. BUT AS IVE SAID I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SEE WHY IT IS A TOUCHY SUBJECT AND SEE BOTH SIDES. AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THOSE INVOLVED, AND THERE IS NO DOUNT THAT IT IS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS TRYING TO EVEN THINGS OUT IN THE FUTURE. THINGS WORK IN CYCLES. WEALTH BREEDS MORE WEALTH AND POVERTY BREEDS MORE POVERTY (WITH THE OBVIOUS EXEPTIONS). AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS ATTEMPTING TO GIVE OUR GENERATION A BULSTER OF EQUALITY FOR THE NEXT. I THINK IT IS MEANT AS A TEMPORARY STITCH ON A BIG GAPING WOUND, NOT MEANT TO STAY.
|
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 12:48:35 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by "rebecca":
You're pulling numbers and whatnot out of your ass based on "personal experience" and passing it off as the experience of all men everywhere. |
Because I understand how research is done. I understand how common bias is in the interpretation of results. I also understand the difference between causality and correlation. And most such reports are really reports of correlation. This means other factors often are involved but not weighed or considered.
Then there is a presentation, often biased. This is where a claim is made soley on an aspect of research. Obviously women are oppressed because they earn less than men. But I can quote numerous reports with not merely correlation but recorded fact that the average male lifespan is approx. 5 yrs less than the average woman's lifespan. Therefore, one could argue that men are oppressed in society.
So is it any wonder that I weigh my own personal experiences higher than any so called report or study. (Often mis-interpreted and mis-represented.) I've been sent studies to read that declare x does not happen. And yet, having experienced x and knowing a number of other individuals that have experienced x. Why would I believe a study that told me x didn't happen?
Originally posted by "rebecca":
My suggestion is that if you feel repressed, then work harder. |
Wise advice....not always effective. But often changing. Women are firefighters today. That is largely in part to a number of women who worked harder than the men to show beyond a doubt they were capable. Such opened the doors for others to succeed and excel in such roles.
This is often how change is made. I worked in a school kitchen that was mis-managed. It was maddening and I almost quit (which would have also required dis-enrollment from the school). I was working far harder than I should have been and was being put in unfair positions. But another guy in that kitchen who became one of my best friends worked even harder. His doing so encouraged me to continue on. We both knew we were being unfairly treated. But we excelled together with each other's support.
Originally posted by "rebecca":
BTW, unless you've attempted an MBA, don't you dare try to devalue it. A masters in business isn't a "soft" degree by any stretch of the imagination. |
I did not devalue it. I merely placed other degrees above it. It is an extremely notable to earn an MBA. It's challenging to earn a Masters in History and Education. However, it is far harder to earn a Masters of Physics or Engineering. Less people have the nack, inclination, diligence, and what ever other criteria to pursue and achieve such. And no, nothing you can say will make it otherwise.
We have a shortage of teachers for hard sciences (physics, math, engineering, etc). Because of that, those who teach such get paid more than those who teach history, literature, art or economics.
So no, I am not going to devalue an MBA. But I will tell you undeniably that there are tougher degrees that are valued more highly. Why? Because there is a shortage. And if you want to presuppose they are equal in value or difficulty. Then explain to me why more people do not go for those degrees even though there is more of a demand and higher pay?
And if you tell me "because they don't want to or are uninterested". Then I will respond. Then don't expect them to get paid the same as those more needed jobs.
WHY do less females go into computer science? A field which respects and admires the likes of Ada Lovelace & Admiral Grace Hopper
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
Computer science, a field that has an early history of having notable woman innovators. And yet women have a tendency not to enter the field...even though women often make very good programmers. When I was majoring in computer science there was a strong drive at my school to attract women to the major. But presently I read articles that enrollment of women in computer science programs is in decline.
And never in any of my classes did I see any women derided. Rather, most of the professors commented that women made excellent programmers and have a very notable history in the computer science field. And that they were puzzled by why more women did not enter the field.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:12:49 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
AGAIN I WILL USE CAPS, I AM NOT GOOD AT PULLING OUT PIECES. APPOLOGIES, I KNOW IT APPEARS IN INTERNET SPEAK TO BE "YELLING" BUT I ASSURE YOU THIS IS ALL MEANT CALMLY.
|
Off course use CAPS, but to tell you a simple truth, it is difficult to read it. And for this reason, I as a habit tend not to read it. So most of what is written is CAPS is not read at all.
I am not sure that i am the only one, but if there are many more like me who ignore things in CAPS, this defeats your very purpose of writing that someone should read what you have said.
So you can write in CAPS, it might get ignored. Its simple. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:38:18 AM · #89 |
AND HERE I GO AGAIN.
Originally posted by theSaj:
[quoe="escapetooz"] I never wanted to turn this into a screaming match, and I don't think I have been. But this was the problem I saw from the begining, most of these responses aren't trying to bring information to the discussion |
I quite disagree. I think most of the responses have tried to bring information to the discussion.
PERSONAL INFORMATION. THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID I DO NOT MIND BUT DOES NOT STAND FOR ALL. GIVE ME FIGURES, ARTICLES, SOMETHING ELSE TO WORK WITH PLEASE.
However, that information hasn't been what you and a few others want to hear. So they've been dismissed out of hand. And often insulted, called intolerant, and other derogatory (thought polite and politically correct) address.
I DON'T RECALL CALLING YOU INTOLERANT. I THINK I SAID YOU WERE UNINFORMED AND MISJUDGING MY RESPONSES.
And you want to know what. Your hard-headedness and failure to hear or understand other's experiences and oppression is why such movements as modern-feminism are failing to really accomplish anything.
PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME HARD-HEADED. I AM ANYTHING BUT. LET'S NOT GET TO NAME CALLING PLEASE. I HEAR, I UNDERSTAND, AND I TRIED TO MAKE THAT QUITE CLEAR. BUT I DON'T WANT THIS DISCUSSION TO TURN INTO A SOAP OPERA ABOUT THESAJ AND HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. NO, YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT WAS NOT THE KIND OF INFORMATION I WANTED, AT LEAST NOT IN THIS BULK AND NOT USED TO DISPROVE ALL OF MY POINTS. IM SORRY, YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THEM BASED SOLEY ON YOUR LIFE AND YOUR PERCEPTIONS. I CAN TELL YOU ALL SORTS OF STORIES ABOUT MY LIFE BUT I AM TRYING TO REFRAIN.
You refuse to understand or support others. You dismiss their grievances. Instead of seeking unity you seek divisiveness and then are upset when you find yourself in opposition with others. The opposition you are creating.
OTHERS OR YOU? I DO NOT DISMISS YOUR GRIEVANCES, I SIMPLY SAY YOU ARE THINKING TOO SMALL. YOU ARE SEEKING DIVISIVENESS BY YOUR MISINTERPRETATIONS, SAYING I ONLY WANT EQUALITY FOR WOMEN... THE CONTRADICTION IS IN YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD NOT BE EQUALITY IF MEN HOT PUSHED TO THE BOTTOM WOULD IT? NO, THAT WOULD BE SUPERIORITY, WHICH IS WHERE MEN CURRENTLY SIT. WANTING EQUALITY IS UNITY. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN THAT. AGAIN YOU ARE GOING OFF OF THE STEREOTYPE OF A FEMINIST AND NOT THE THINGS THAT I AM SAYING.
Escapetooz, please, please...before you react. Really try to consider some of what I have said not as an attack but as bringing information to the discussion.
Let me put it to you simply this way. Men die approx 5 yrs earlier than women. You fight for equality of pay for women. But you do not fight for the equality of lifespan for men. You divide and fight for just a few oppressions which affect you, but do not stand for against oppression for all.
AGAIN, THAT IS NOT OPPRESSION. PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH WHAT OPPRESSION IS. PAY AND LIFESPAN ARE NOT THE SAME, AND IF YOU WANT TO GO INTO MY PERSOAN STANCES, I AM AGAINST SOCIETIES DEGENERATION OF FOOD AND HEALTH. HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, AND SIMILAR AILMENTS ARE SOMETHING CAUSED A LOT BY THE FOOD THAT IS ALL AROUND US AND THE LACK OF EXERCISE DUE TO MANY FACTORS. I AM 100% AGAINST ALL THIS. I DO MY BEST IN MY LIFE TO EAT HEALTHY, I AM ALL FOR BETTER FOOD, IN SCHOOLS AND ACROSS THE BOARD. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS FORUM IS ABOUT. AND A MAN'S LIFESPAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OPPRESSION. YOU WANT TO TALK LIFESPAN, DO A LITTLE RESEARCH INTO THE POVERTY STICKEN. THEY DON'T DO SO HOT EITHER, AND THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH FOOD AS WELL, BUT EVEN MORE SO TO HEALTH CARE. MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE POOR DIE FROM THINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT EARLY AND TAKEN CARE OF IF THEY HAD PROPER HEALTH CARE.
How much more support would you gain for the issues and struggles if you removed the divisions and fought for a whole. You said this is about society and not individuals. But you cut society into chunks, though larger than individuals it is still a division of the whole. So rather than do that, why not fight for equality for all of society?
SOCIETY CUTS ITSELF INTO CHUNKS. THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. AGAIN, FEMINISM IS FIGHTING FOR EQUALITY FOR ALL... *******THAT IS WHAT EQUALITY IS. IT'S IN THE NAME. I CAN'T SAY IT AGAIN. IT'S NOT CUTTING MEN OUT, IT'S SAYING MEN ARE NOT EQUAL RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE SUPERIOR, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOT FOCUSED ON********** DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF EQUALITY?
If you fought for that....then people from all demographics could support you. Sure, there will be a few cancerous members of society. But these will die off as the body of society grows stronger. (ie: there are still blatant racist skin heads in this country, but they are few; and as the division of race is reduced they diminish.)
LIKE I SAID BEFORE. IF YOU ARE ON THE RECIEVING END, WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT FIGHTING FOR EQUALITY? ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE HAPPILY, BLISSFULLY, UNAWARE THAT YOU HAVE ANY ADVANTAGE? THAT IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD. KNOWLEDGE. YOU TALK ABOUT ME NOT LOOKING AT PROBLEMS THAT DON'T EFFECT ME THEN WHY DO I MENTION RACISM OR HOMOSEXUAL DESCRIMINATION. I AM A WHITE HETEROSEXUAL. AND EVERY STEP OF THE WAY IF THE RARE MALE DESCRIMINATION SCENARIO IS BROUGHT UP (MALE NURSES, STAY AT HOME DADS) I HAVE EMPATHISED AND STATED THAT THEY WERE VALID CONSCERNS AND FELL UNDER THE BRANCH OF FEMINISM TO A DEGREE) IT IS YOU WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT DO NOT EFFECT HIM. YOU WHO ARGUES AGAINST MY EVERY POINT WITH SOME "THIS ONE TIME THIS HAPPENED TO ME STORY"
TAKE A STEP BACK AND GAIN SOME PERSPECTIVE. YOU ARE YELLING AT ME FOR NOT LOOKING AT YOUR LIFE AND TELLING YOU YOU ARE RIGHT. I AM NOT EXCLUDING CONCERNS THAT ARE NOT MINE.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
If everyone "stopped whinning" there would still be slavery, no civil rights movement, no vote for women. |
You're right. And no one is saying we should stop changing for the better.
But you fail to understand the "roots" of those movements. The roots were not in divisions and minorities. Had that been the drive, rest assured slavery would have remained.
If the argument had been merely that blacks should not be slaves. Slavery would not have been abolished. That was NOT the argument that freed the slaves in America and abolished slavery. The argument was that all of mankind are equals.
UMM WHAT? NO, SURE. NO ONE EVER SAID IT WASN'T FAIR TO ENSLAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON THERE RACE... ARE YOU KIDDING? THEY WERE STILL NOT CONSIDERED EQUALS. AND LETS PUT THAT WORD OUT THERE "MANKIND". AT THAT POINT WOMEN WERE STILL NO WHERE NEAR EQUAL OR NEAR GETTING THE VOTE. NEED I REMIND YOU THE BIBLE WAS STILL USED TO "PROVE" THAT BLACKS WERE SUBORDINATE, MUCH LIKE IT IS USED AGAINST WOMEN AND GAYS. WITH THAT MANY WORDS YOU CAN MAKE THAT BOOK SAY WHATEVER IS BEST AT THE TIME.
And that must always be the argument....and how it must be portrayed. Not x group deserves y. But rather ALL deserve z.
THEY ARE THE SAME ARGUMENT. YOU ARE ARGUING IN A CIRCLE HERE. IF "A" GETS "C" AND "B" DOESN'T. SAYING "B" DESERVES "C" AND THAT ALL PEOPLE DESERVE "C" IS THE SAME THING. IT IS NOT SECTIONING OFF ANYONE, IT IS OPPERATING UNDER THE KNOLEDGE THAT "A" ALREADY HAS "C" THEREFOR DOES NOT NEED MENTIONING.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
The problem with the women's movement, and the civil rights movement is that because most descrimination is not concrete any longer, there is a less tangible force to fight. |
I believe the problem with these movements is that they assume every slight is due to prejudice.
I believe the problem with these movements is that instead of seeking unity and equality they have sought to divide; often promoting hate and retribution.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM PROMOTING AND THE GROUPS THAT DO ARE SMALL BUT GET THE MOST ATTENTION. DO NOT USE THE WORD OFTEN. IT IS NOT CORRECT. AND IT IS A HARMFUL ASSUMPTION. DO I DO NOT PROMOTE HATE OR RETRIBUTION NOR DOES ANYONE I KNOW OR ANY OF THE ARTICLES I HAVE READ BY MANY INFLUENCIAL SCHOLARS AN ACTIVISTS. AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, YOU ARE ARGUING BASED ON STEREOTYPES THAT YOU BELIEVE.
I believe the problem with these movements is that they often prejudge people simply by their color or sex.
THESE MOVEMENTS ARE TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THAT I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU ARE COMING UP WITH THIS STUFF. PLEASE, GO TO A FEMINIST GROUP. I BET YOU WILL BE SUPRISED. JUST GO AND LISTEN AND DON'T SAY A WORD. IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR YOU.
I believe the problem with these movements is that they have no ear to hear the issues and struggles of others - the result, those others have little inclination to hear and support them.
HOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE AN EAR TO THEIR STUGGLES BEFORE TRYING TO ONE UP THEM WITH YOUR LIFE AND SAYING "SO SAD CHARLY I'VE BEEN THERE TOO"? THE DON'T GET AN EAR BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE MEDIA, THEY ARE NOT IN POSITIONS OF POWERS. THE BEAUTIFULLY WELL SPOKEN, INTELLIGENT AND WONDERFUL FEMINIST AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE LEFT TO THE WAYSIDE AND TO HAVE ONLY FOLLOWERS READ WHILE THE NUT JOBS END UP ON TV AND IN THE PRESS TO ILLUSTRATE HOW CRAZY US "SPECIAL INTEREST" GROUPS ARE.
Resolve those things and we'd see such a different world. :)
RESOLVE THOSE THINGS AND WE'D SEE SUCH A DIFFERENT WORLD. REALLY. I DON'T MEAN THIS INA CONDESCENDING WAY. YOU DO NOT SEE WHAT I SEE. I HAVE READ MANY, MANY, MANY ARTICLES AND NOT A ONE OF THEM WAS ABOUT BLAMING OR HATING MEN. WHY THEN IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE SEE FEMINISTS AS? BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW NUT JOBS THAT THINK THIS. THERE IS EVEN A SOME CRAZY SECT OF FEMINISM THAT WANTS TO FORGO MEN COMPLETELY AND START THEIR OWN SOCIETY. SOMEWHAT LIKE A CULT. BUT WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT A CULT ON TV YOU DON'T THINK ALL CHRISTIANS ARE LIKE THAT, WHY? BECAUSE CHRISTIANS ARE REPRESENTED IN MANY, MANY WAYS AND ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE GENERALIZED, ALSO BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE OF FEMINIST SO WE GET THE WONDERFUL "CULT" STANDING MAKING EVEN WOMAN WHO ARE IN FACT FEMINISTS TO CALL THEMSELVES SUCH FOR THE BACKLASH THEY MAY GET.
WOULDN'T YOU BE AFRAID TO CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN IF ALL THE WORLD KNEW ABOUT YOU WAS THE JONESTOWN MASSACRE? OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR YOUR BELIEFS BUT CRAZY STUFF LIKE THAT STICKS AND IT'S HARD TO GET RID OF.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
And people that do not take the time to understand that things ARE NOT as simple as laws see anyone pointing out what is WRONG with society as whinners. |
If you are going to dismiss or deny my struggles merely on the basis of my race or the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. How do you expect me NOT to do the same to you.
I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. I HAVE DISMISSED THEM AS VALID ARGUMENTS. NOT AS STRUGGLES. IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE THE ONE PLAYING VICTIM HERE, NOT ME.
And when the expression of my struggles is returned with insults, labels, deniability and addresses that I need to seek help. What makes you expect the likes of me and others who have been treated the same to be inclined to help you? (By the way, regardless of how I've been treated and denigrated by various minority groups. I have chosen to still support - and fight for - their equality.
YOU PERCEIVE WHAT YOU WANT. THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN DOING. I CAN'T SAY IT ANY MORE.
Dismiss me as paranoid. In truth, you simply do not understand me. We have a tendency to fear or attack that which we do not understand. It's a very human tendency.
I WAS NOT THE ONE THAT USED THE WORD PARANOID. THIS HUMAN TENDENCY IS HAPPENING IN YOU. IT IS FUNNY TO ME THAT YOU DO NOT SEE THAT. ACT LIKE I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOU PLEASE. NOW I AM GOING TO GET PERSONAL. I HAVE NOT HAD A SUGARY LIFE. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE FEMINIST DEBATE. I HAVEN'T HAD A HORRIBLE LIFE, BUT I HAVE HAD SOME BAD SITUATIONS. MY STEPDAD IS CUBAN AND BEAT THE WHOLY LIVING HELL OUT OF MY MOTHER. DID I BRING THIS UP IN A FIT WHEN SOMEONE SAID MEN GET ABUSED TOO? NO. I SAID OF COURSE, I DONT WANT ANYONE BEING ABUSED. IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY SOMEHTING ABOUT CUBANS, I STILL HAVE THIS BITTER TASTE IN MY MOUTH BECAUSE OF HIM BUT I DO NOT SAY WELL I KNOW THIS ONE AND HE WAS AWEFUL. HE DOES NOT STAND FOR HIS WHOLE COUNTRY OF PEOPLE. THIS IS MY POINT. EVERYONE HAS THEIR STRUGGLES. YOURS DO NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE MY STATEMENTS. I THROUGH OUT THAT VERY PERSONAL TIDBIT IN HOPES THAT YOU WILL LEARN THAT YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET THAT HAS STRUGGLES. IT IS BEST IN FORUMS LIKE THESE TO LEAVE THAT OUT OF IT AND SPEAK ON MORE NEUTRAL TERMS.
My advice to you, is be more inclusive - less devisive. And including a few other minorities is NOT inclusion and unity. It is merely a treatise of alliance for a war. And that is the sad fact that many feminists and civil rights leaders fail to realize.
YOU DON'T KNOW MANY FEMINISTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DO YOU? FEMINISM IS ALL INCLUSIVE, AT LEAST IN MY INTERPRETATION, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL. AND YOU COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THIS WHOLE THING. THIS IS CLOGGING UP MY WHOLE THREAD AND IM SURE THE BLOCKS OF TEXT ARE NOT INVITING ANY NEW READERS. I AM SADDENED THAT THIS IS THE FRUITS OF MY LABOR.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
I am interested in all aspects of discrimination and societal issues but keep getting hammered for talking about women. Did you not know what thread you were entering? Of course I'm talking about women, that was the interest of this thread. |
Funny, I've watched a number of men be hammered for sharing their experiences. I call your bluff. Do not state that you are interested in all aspects of discrimination. You are clearly not.
YOU CLEARLY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THE MALE ONE. IF YOUR ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE I AT LEAST HAVE A LITTLE MORE SCOPE THAN YOU. I HAVE NOT HAMMERED, THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION IN YOUR SMALL "POOR MEN" WORLD.
You may be interested in all aspects of discrimination of political minorities (women, blacks & hispanics, and homosexuals) but that is far from the definition of ALL. Which, as I've tried to express, is why you've received so much flaq.
AGAIN. MEN ARE THE SUPERIOR GROUP. HENCE THEM BEING LEFT OUT OF THE OPPRESSION DISCUSSION IN A FREAKIN WOMEN'S RIGHTS THREAD. WHAT IS YOUR OBSESSION WITH BRING IT BACK TO MEN. BRING ME SOME TALES OF IRAQI DESCRIMINATION AFTER 911. TELL ME YOU CARE AND NOT ABOUT A TIME AFTER 911 WHERE SOMEONE STUBBED YOUR TOE OR CALLED YOU FAT. PLEASE. THIS IS GETTING ABSURD.
Can you imagine how different this thread would have been if you brought it forth as an inquiry to share and express issues of discrimination that people have experienced - be they black, white, hispanic or asian; male, female or hermaphrodite; hetero, homo, or bi sexual, etc.
I DID. I WANTED TO KNOW FROM PEOPLE ALL OVER THE DPC WORLD. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT KEEPS HARPING ON WHITE MALE "DESCRIMINATION" AND "OPPRESSION". YOU HAVE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER THIS THREAD WITH YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND POINTING OUT HOW WHITE MEN ARE SO DOWNTRODDEN.
And then seeing how regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, age or religion individuals will have encountered oppression. We could all have come together as individuals in unity for equality and cessation of oppression.
PLEASE TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE. YOU DID NOT LISTEN TO THE FEMALE SITUATIONS, YOU JUST QUICKLY BLAZED BACK WITH YOUR OWN.
Instead of dismissing some of the things individuals have shared here simply because they were from white males. You could have sympathized and supported them. But no, you judge them as a whole not on their character but by the color of their skin and their genitalia. Had these same individuals shared and were female I am sure you'd have been in a passionate fury & supporting them. You could have chosen to admit that such were not fair and decided to understand and support them. This thread could have been against all oppression and inequality.
I DID NOT DISMISS. I SAID THEY WEREN'T VALID ARGUEMENTS. YOUR ISSUES ARE YOUR OWN. HAVE YOU BEEN RAPED, MOLESTED, HAD GENITAL MUTILATION, FOOT BINDING, DOMESTIC ABUSE? NO. YOU COME AND TELL ME ABOUT SOME BITTER TEACHER YOU HAD AND SAID "SEE LOOK! MALE DESCRMINIATION!" I AM SORRY SHE WAS SUCH A BITTER OLD WOMAN TO YOU AND THAT HAD AN EFFECT ON YOU BUT THAT IS NOT STANDING FOR A WHOLE SOCIETY.
REDUNDANCY MUCH? REDUNDANCY MUCH? REDUNDANCY MUCH? REDUNDANCY MUCH?
REDUNDANCY MUCH? REDUNDANCY MUCH?
Instead, it is merely about revenge. Things were inequal for us...so who gives a !@$% if they're now inequal for you. We're getting our revenge. (Mostly at the cost of individuals who were not involved in the years and centuries of oppression past.)
WHEN DID I EVER MENTION REVENGE? YOU ARE GOING OFF IN YOUR OWN WORLD NOW. AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GO MEET YOU THERE IN THAT LAND YOU ARE GOING TO. I DO NOT WANT REVENGE. I DO NOT WANT REVENGE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MIGHT BE MORE YOUR STYLE.
And then I find it offensive when so-called feminists rant and rave about miniscule issues (often a few percentage points of statistics) and seem to almost completely ignore the plight of many women in Asia and Africa who suffer horrendous abuse. Where a woman who is raped is not scene as a victim but as the criminal and is executed for being victim. Can we put more focus toward that? Same reason I tend to dismiss calls for reperations for slavery. Um...if slavery is truly such a big deal could we put more focus on ending it in the regions where it is still being done today? If it is so important to end discrimination, prejudice and racism towards blacks (and I believe it is) can blacks cease from denigrating chinese immigrants and treating them in such a dispicable manners as so many do in urban environments. Can we simply look at one another as human beings and stand for equality of us all - rather than dividing and opposing one another? accept the struggles of each of society's members as individuals and we'll see equality come to all.
FREAKIN HELL I WANTED TO DO THAT. I SPOKE ON THE THINGS I KNOW, THAT IS US ISSUES. I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES BUT I DIDN'T THINK I WAS THE RIGHT PERSON TO TALK ABOUT IT, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS DISCUSSION TO THE TABLE. I KNOW HORRIBLE THINGS ARE GOING ON EVERYWHERE. WHEN DID I EVER SAY I DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THAT. I DO. I REALLY, REALLY DO.
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO SUCH A SMALL SCALE. A VERY SMALL ONE, THAT BEING YOURSELF. AT LEAST I TALKED ABOUT THE US BECAUSE I KNEW A THING OR 2. BUT I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE SAME, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOURSELF BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THAT YOU KNOW.
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
Are there no women reading this that want to add things? I asked for insight and personal experiences, information. I do not mind responding to challenging questions but I hate all of this stop whinning. |
All I'm asking is that you try to understand....
Originally posted by "escapetooz":
To bring this back to a world wide discussion, take a look at the WORLD and tell me women aren't oppressed. If you know anything about some of the horrible laws in the middle east (where women get punished for being raped), female genital mutilation in parts of africa, discarding of female babies in China, what happens to widows in India, this list goes on and on. |
Now here we can agree on. I think there is great oppression in the world. Oppression that requires immediate and life-saving action. Not just for women. But yes, definitely for women. Not sure if you see the difference.
I DO.
Originally posted by "escapetoos":
Even in the bible women are quoted as being worth less for their labor (I don't have the verse but if someone does, that would be great) |
Yes there are some harsh passages in the Bible regarding women, and certain ethnic groups. That said, it's always good to post a reference to the passage as often things are mis-quoted. I've seen a great many assumptions of what's in and not in. Ironically, I could probably find passages more questionable. Though one does have to take things in a historical context.
The truth of the matter is that much of the labor in those days was physical. The most expensive labor required physical strength. Many of the tasks for females were quite menial. The idea being that many jobs that women did could be done by either men or women. But a number of jobs that were done in such times required greater physical strength. The average male can lift more than the average woman. Therefore a 100 men could move more bags of grain than a 100 women. Where as a 100 men could grind grain equally (or other less strength based jobs) as a 100 women. This simple reality made for a higher pay grade. Simply supply and demand. If you have a task that a 100% of your work base can do. Then it's demand equals $1. But if you have a task that only 50% of your workforce can do, then it demands $2. (simplified economic comparison).
Now days, we have many many many more non-physical jobs. In these jobs women's pay should be equal. And potentially women's employment levels should be equal as well - so long as women choose to accept such work.
However, if I had a business carrying bags of rice. I will tell what my determination for hiring will be. "You want a job...here, carry that that stack of 100 lbs bags of rice over to that warehouse." I'll then see how many you carry over in the day. Guess what. I don't care if you're male or female. I care whether you can carry those 100 lbs bags of rice. All that said, I'd wager that I'll have more males than women as employees. NOT because I am sexist. Just because I'll find more men capable of lifting the weight of the bags then women. Does this make my hiring sexist? No, it is simply a case of economics. Now there is a way to potentially balance the employment. That is to simply pay by the lbs. A dime for every lbs of rice carried. Now, I can employ men and women equally. And in fact, I am paying them identical wages. But the fact that the average woman is weaker than the average man means that overall, the women are likely to carry less lbs of rice. Therefore they are also likely to earn less than the men. Is this sexism? No, it's merely economics. Anything else would be "subsidy". Which would mean requiring one individual to work hard and accomplish more but be paid less in order to subsidize another.
Now the issue is when said work is not physical. And there is no difference in capability (be it between sex, race, weight, height, etc). Such case means performance should usually be equal and should therefore receive equivalent pay. This happens much of the time but there are exceptions. And those exceptions are wrong. [/quote]
FINALLY A POINT WE CAN AGREE ON. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 01:39:16 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
AGAIN I WILL USE CAPS, I AM NOT GOOD AT PULLING OUT PIECES. APPOLOGIES, I KNOW IT APPEARS IN INTERNET SPEAK TO BE "YELLING" BUT I ASSURE YOU THIS IS ALL MEANT CALMLY.
|
Off course use CAPS, but to tell you a simple truth, it is difficult to read it. And for this reason, I as a habit tend not to read it. So most of what is written is CAPS is not read at all.
I am not sure that i am the only one, but if there are many more like me who ignore things in CAPS, this defeats your very purpose of writing that someone should read what you have said.
So you can write in CAPS, it might get ignored. Its simple. |
I just didn't want to put a long rant at the end out of context and did not know how to section off the quotes like saj does.
how is that done? is it it just painstakenly by hand quoting? i tend to mess that up if that is the case.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 01:41:27. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:24:47 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "rebecca":
BTW, unless you've attempted an MBA, don't you dare try to devalue it. A masters in business isn't a "soft" degree by any stretch of the imagination. |
I did not devalue it. I merely placed other degrees above it. It is an extremely notable to earn an MBA. It's challenging to earn a Masters in History and Education. However, it is far harder to earn a Masters of Physics or Engineering. Less people have the nack, inclination, diligence, and what ever other criteria to pursue and achieve such. And no, nothing you can say will make it otherwise.
|
I have to disagree, the MBA program I'm in is every bit as difficult as my grad program in engineering, in some ways the MBA is even more challenging. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:39:13 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by "spazmo99":
I don't believe that gender should play a role in hiring at all. While I'm sure that women do face discrimination, turning it around and discriminating against men is NOT the solution |
Originally posted by thesaj:
Sometimes I think hiring should all be done anonymously. No race or gender should be included on applications. Just experience, etc. And no in person interviews. Perhaps just voice, and perhaps that masked. Then race, age, sex, weight, height, etc would cease being affecting factors. |
I DON'T BELIEVE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION. BUT AS IVE SAID I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SEE WHY IT IS A TOUCHY SUBJECT AND SEE BOTH SIDES. AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THOSE INVOLVED, AND THERE IS NO DOUNT THAT IT IS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS TRYING TO EVEN THINGS OUT IN THE FUTURE. THINGS WORK IN CYCLES. WEALTH BREEDS MORE WEALTH AND POVERTY BREEDS MORE POVERTY (WITH THE OBVIOUS EXEPTIONS). AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS ATTEMPTING TO GIVE OUR GENERATION A BULSTER OF EQUALITY FOR THE NEXT. I THINK IT IS MEANT AS A TEMPORARY STITCH ON A BIG GAPING WOUND, NOT MEANT TO STAY.
|
It's not affirmative action if employers claim to be EOE, yet discriminate against male applicants. It's discrimination plain and simple and it's wrong no matter which direction it cuts.
You can dress it up however you want by calling it "affirmative action" or whatever fluffy name you want, but at its core, it gives an unfair advantage to one group over another and that is the very definition of discrimination.
Sorry, you can't call for an end to discrimination against one group while advocating discrimination against another without drowning in your own hypocrisy.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 02:41:04. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:54:04 AM · #93 |
| is it discrimination for guys to surrender their seats to gals on public transport? |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 02:55:43 AM · #94 |
If you are interested for equality for all, why is the thread named "are women equal"? Why not say "is everyone equal"? Perhaps you can see that that is impossible. People are different.
Let's bring in disabled adults. Their lot is far worse than a woman's. Why not be concerned about how they are paid about 1/4 of what an entry level fast food server is paid. They generally can't advocate for themselves and are at the mercy of sometimes corrupt care takers. How about the elderly poor? There are just so many groups and so little resources.
Also. You did ask for personal experiences in your very first post in this thread. At least that is how I read it. I think you owe an apology to the saj for trying to belittle him when he took you up on your offer.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
anyhow, Personal experiences? Information? I would love to talk about this issue. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO SUCH A SMALL SCALE. A VERY SMALL ONE, THAT BEING YOURSELF. AT LEAST I TALKED ABOUT THE US BECAUSE I KNEW A THING OR 2. BUT I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE SAME, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOURSELF BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THAT YOU KNOW.
|
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 07:03:56. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 03:04:17 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I just didn't want to put a long rant at the end out of context and did not know how to section off the quotes like saj does.
how is that done? is it it just painstakenly by hand quoting? i tend to mess that up if that is the case. |
Here is small tut:
Bold : [ b ] text [ /b ]
italics : [ i] text [ /i]
underline is: [ u] text [ /u]
Note: please remove the space after [ and before ]
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 03:08:11 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I just didn't want to put a long rant at the end out of context and did not know how to section off the quotes like saj does.
|
just put
[ quote=escapetooz ] text blah blah blah [ /quote]
off-cource remove the spaces between [ ] so that editor can recognise them.
it works:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
for example : |
here is the sample
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I just didn't want to put |
and another line
Originally posted by escapetooz:
a long rant at the end out of context |
|
|
|
|
05/14/2007 03:40:51 AM · #97 |
LOL! I just read through most of the thread since my last post and I gotta say that initially it did sound like Monica wanted to have a dialog, but subsequently bashed any viewpoint that didn't echo her own and attacked everyone with opposing views - "you don't know what you're talking about" etc.
For the record, Monica, I have nearly 30 years of adult life experience which you know little or nothing about, so it's quite presumptive of you to assume I don't know what I am talking about. You, on the other hand, have been an adult for 3 years and presume to know everything about this issue. I am not saying your aren't intelligent - you seem like a very sharp person, but there is no substitute for experience and I believe most everyone whose views you are attacking has been around a lot longer than you. Some people might call that blatant arrogance. And your intolerance and closed-mindedness will only hinder you from getting any potential benefit from the experience of a debate like this.
With all due respect, I think I'll wait til you grow up a bit before giving any credence to your opinions - at least on this particular issue. We get it, Monica, you came under the influence of a ranting feminist college professor who inspired you to right the wrongs on behalf of women throughout the world. Ugh - where have all the individual thinkers gone??
All that and I didn't say "stop whining". :) |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 08:09:48 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
LOL! I just read through most of the thread since my last post and I gotta say that initially it did sound like Monica wanted to have a dialog, but subsequently bashed any viewpoint that didn't echo her own and attacked everyone with opposing views - "you don't know what you're talking about" etc.
For the record, Monica, I have nearly 30 years of adult life experience which you know little or nothing about, so it's quite presumptive of you to assume I don't know what I am talking about. You, on the other hand, have been an adult for 3 years and presume to know everything about this issue. I am not saying your aren't intelligent - you seem like a very sharp person, but there is no substitute for experience and I believe most everyone whose views you are attacking has been around a lot longer than you. Some people might call that blatant arrogance. And your intolerance and closed-mindedness will only hinder you from getting any potential benefit from the experience of a debate like this.
With all due respect, I think I'll wait til you grow up a bit before giving any credence to your opinions - at least on this particular issue. We get it, Monica, you came under the influence of a ranting feminist college professor who inspired you to right the wrongs on behalf of women throughout the world. Ugh - where have all the individual thinkers gone??
All that and I didn't say "stop whining". :) |
You know what. Life experience only takes you so far. And please don't pull that on me. My feminsit professor was no ranting, she was brilliant. Don't know if you read what i said about her, but you should.
I don't see how I attacked anyone here, I was defending myself against attacks. Any point I tried to make was not looked at but instead was repeatedly countered over and over again with some sort of "oh you think women have to so bad look at this" yea I get it. But this post is about women. I don't see why that is such a hard concept to grasp. All I got were bitter male responses claiming that sexism is on both ends, which it is to a degree.
I am really offended that you brought up the age thing. You think I've only been an adult for 3 years you don't know very much about me. I had to grow up very fast, and even if that wasn't the case you think childhood experiences don't count? If that is the case a lot of theSaj's experiences would be rendered moot.
In your life experience how much have you studied up on feminist issues? Your life experience lets you know a lot of things about the portion of individuals around you. It is unjust to say you know more than me because you have been on the earth longer. Point me to the studies you have done and then I will find that your points are more valid than mine. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 08:09:49 AM · #99 |
deleted. this was an accidental repeat of the last post.
Message edited by author 2007-05-14 08:10:16. |
|
|
|
05/14/2007 08:24:59 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by pcody:
If you are interested for equality for all, why is the thread named "are women equal"? Why not say "is everyone equal"? Perhaps you can see that that is impossible. People are different.
Let's bring in disabled adults. Their lot is far worse than a woman's. Why not be concerned about how they are paid about 1/4 of what an entry level fast food server is paid. They generally can't advocate for themselves and are at the mercy of sometimes corrupt care takers. How about the elderly poor? There are just so many groups and so little resources.
Also. You did ask for personal experiences in your very first post in this thread. At least that is how I read it. I think you owe an apology to the saj for trying to belittle him when he took you up on your offer.
Originally posted by escapetooz:
anyhow, Personal experiences? Information? I would love to talk about this issue. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
YOU ARE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT TO SUCH A SMALL SCALE. A VERY SMALL ONE, THAT BEING YOURSELF. AT LEAST I TALKED ABOUT THE US BECAUSE I KNEW A THING OR 2. BUT I GUESS YOU COULD SAY THE SAME, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOURSELF BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THAT YOU KNOW.
|
|
Why? Because feminist issues are a topic I decided to focus on. It is unfair to throw all of the other inequalities in my face and go "see, look at that". Would you have done that to a civil rights activist back in the day? The handi-cap were treated far worse back then I can assure you.
I wanted personal experiences, yes. Stories about how things are in other countries, tid bits of what's going on in our country... ones that are on topic. I didn't want a total take-over of the thread with a long-winded, unreadable personal argument to my every statistical point. Personal experiences are meant as a sharing device, not as an argument. You may think I tried to belittle him yet he is the one that resorted to name-calling. And need I mention yet again that this was a post about women's rights and he came in here saying left and right how horrible things are for men and then claiming that I had no scope on all people. DId you read everything? If so I don't believe we are reading the same arguments.
You think i didn't hear him out? I read his every word and replied with my opinion and then he with is, both of getting increasingly more frustrated, I tried to see his side but it was so frustrating that he did not stop and address the female side in a feminist thread and instead focused on the male. Did he or any of you others that are yelling at me for my strong opinions take a that took a good look at the sources that I provided before going off on some tirade on how feminists are "man-haters"? Do you ever sit and have chats with the women in your life about it? Or is it always so me, me, me?
I am dissapointed that there has only been one female response on this whole thing, perhaps a couple others so excuse me if I have forgotten anyone. As usual a feminist post has scared away the women and brought on an angry group of men arguing against me supposed "man-hating". What woman would be brave enough to pipe in now after the carnage that has taken place here.
I am frustrated and suprised by the response here on this thread. I opened the famed "Pandora's Box" and all that's left is hope, as the story goes.
You think I attacked the saj here that's your opinion. I happen to think otherwise. I tried to keep it as civil as I could being that this is a touchy subject, one that I have spent a great deal of time studying and talking to people about. You don't agree with me fine, but if you don't start taking a walk in a woman's shoes I will lose all respect. The Saj and others have had blatant disregard for this thread. I don't think it would have mattered what I said. It didn't matter all of the numerous points I DID agree with him on. It didn't matter the time I spent addressing his conscerns but saying they were not ARGUMENTS against STATISTICS, which he just blew off my saying stats were "lies"
I am done being attacked. I have not been the instigator here. If anyone wants to discuss civily on FEMINIST issues be my guest. I don't go into a gun control forum saying "Hey, you care about gun conrtrol laws why not drug laws too you hypocrite!" which is all that I have gotten here simply for talking about women's issues.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:39:15 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:39:15 PM EDT.
|
