Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
No it isn't ridiculous at all. Take a visit over to academe, the mysandrists have hijacked it most completely. I suspect public education has similar problems. They go completely beyond reasonable thoughts and often advocate positions that would be seen as clearly racist/sexist/hateful/damaging if only the genders were reversed.
No it isn't ridiculous at all. Take a visit over to academe, the mysandrists have hijacked it most completely. I suspect public education has similar problems. They go completely beyond reasonable thoughts and often advocate positions that would be seen as clearly racist/sexist/hateful/damaging if only the genders were reversed.
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education. And I haven't really seen anything that would make me think otherwise.
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education.
Maybe when you go to university, you'll notice. There is in fact a grand ideological hijacking in higher education, in all but the hard sciences and professional faculties -- where a certain objective standard must be met -- women are given licence to speak no small amount of hateful speech under the guise of "theory." Not that I myself have any problem with any sort of speech (hateful or otherwise) but I don't lmuch care for double standards, go on, substitute the genitalia and make the same sort of essays, or analyses that the "feminists" often come up with, see what happens to you.
If you think that "feminism" hasn't used PC as a means to hijack academic thought (particularly in the humanities) then you haven't ever been to a university.
Want examples? Here's one. A couple of years ago a prof (male) at the university of Toronto wrote an angry diatribe against Mark Lepine Day. Mark Lepine, in case you didn't know, was the guy who went beserk in Montreal and killed 11 women in an engineering faculty. Every year, Canadian Universities take to memorializing the day with a flurry of rhetoric characterizing all men as Mark Lepines in hiding.
He'd had enough of this obvious BS, and wrote that it was obvious that the purpose of said memorials was not to remember anyone, but to use the event to paint all men as violent oprressor and further a specious politics in the process.
Need I say that he was crucified by the "shouters" of academe? Calls for his resignation went out far and wide. Yet "feminists" and leftists "routinely" make these sorts of deconstructions of established practices/rituals/celebrations, why was his any less valid?
Stop any person from Toronto to Montreal and ask them if they know the names of any of the victims? I bet that 99% of the time they can't even name one, but they can name Mark Lepine. He's a symbol of the potential for violence in all men, right? I guess it's valid to use a mentally unstable serial killer as a prototype for all male behavior, isn't it? Must be, he's a white male. We can't have Osama stand for Arabs, justifiably. Unjustifiably, we're not even allowed to use crime stats that suggest racial/community patterns in certain types of crime, but it's perfectly alright to paint all men under the common denominator of a mysogynist serial killer. Or to routinely misrepresent violence towards women as a domestic middle class suburban phenomenon.
Some claims must pass without question no matter how often they are empirically disproved, while the obvious truth of other arguments must be silenced because they "offend" a particular political body.
It's just ridiculous to think that through some loophole in the law you think men are oppressed- as if it's some general trend.
"Oh well through a technicality in Section B49 of the Pennsylvania Legal Code, women can theoretically fraud a man out of some cash"
And that's your grand example.
Give me a break.
You want to talk about money? 76 cents on the dollar my friend. Case closed.
P.S. I suppose I would call my lawyer in the unlikely event that your scenario would occur..
Oh give me a break. Fathers have no rights. Men accused of being fathers have no rights. Men at work accused of sexual harrassment (regardless of validity) have no rights.
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
Think you could actually come up with a point by point reply to trumpetman instead of posts like this which are nothing more than *LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA*?
Think you could actually come up with a point by point reply to trumpetman instead of posts like this which are nothing more than *LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA*?
That's rich! I thought I was the king of humorless point by point replies. No, I'm not going back to that crap.
Well I guess you have a point- that widespread resentment is occuring because women are not behind the kitchen "where they belong." I mean their salaries almost reach men's salaries! That's an encroachment that no one wants! Why, they should be making 50 cents on the dollar for what a man makes instead of near 80 cents. They're oppressing men everywhere!
And oh the stereotypically manipulating, cunning, sneaky female will decept you with her ways! Stay away! Because that's a new view.... You know it's not like women have historically been considered as that!
-------
It's just ridiculous that only a few decades after title nine, we have a MASSIVE REACTION to females as...get this... "OPPRESSORS."
That's better than saying African Americans are now the great oppressors in society.
There has always been a huge resentment of women throughout history. This is nothing more than its modern manifestation as shown by a very conservative poster with relatively extreme right wing politics (abortion terrorists). It's okay. I'm often extreme left.
Women have been beaten down enough throughout history. To claim that women now are the "grand oppressors" in society is to IGNORE the white male power structure that truly oppresses. I must say, I am a member of that in race and gender alone. It's sickening and I try my best to disassociate myself from it.
I'm sorry, but I rather enjoy trumptman's long-winded replies to sometimes a single word. After all, if he has to explain it...
Keep em coming.
(P.S. I fully expect my parents, house, girlfriend, or career prospects to become part of the discussion because well, that's what trumptman does.)
Maybe when you go to university, you'll notice. There is in fact a grand ideological hijacking in higher education, in all but the hard sciences and professional faculties -- where a certain objective standard must be met -- women are given licence to speak no small amount of hateful speech under the guise of "theory." Not that I myself have any problem with any sort of speech (hateful or otherwise) but I don't lmuch care for double standards, go on, substitute the genitalia and make the same sort of essays, or analyses that the "feminists" often come up with, see what happens to you.
If you think that "feminism" hasn't used PC as a means to hijack academic thought (particularly in the humanities) then you haven't ever been to a university.
Want examples? Here's one. A couple of years ago a prof (male) at the university of Toronto wrote an angry diatribe against Mark Lepine Day. Mark Lepine, in case you didn't know, was the guy who went beserk in Montreal and killed 11 women in an engineering faculty. Every year, Canadian Universities take to memorializing the day with a flurry of rhetoric characterizing all men as Mark Lepines in hiding.
He'd had enough of this obvious BS, and wrote that it was obvious that the purpose of said memorials was not to remember anyone, but to use the event to paint all men as violent oprressor and further a specious politics in the process.
Need I say that he was crucified by the "shouters" of academe? Calls for his resignation went out far and wide. Yet "feminists" and leftists "routinely" make these sorts of deconstructions of established practices/rituals/celebrations, why was his any less valid?
Stop any person from Toronto to Montreal and ask them if they know the names of any of the victims? I bet that 99% of the time they can't even name one, but they can name Mark Lepine. He's a symbol of the potential for violence in all men, right? I guess it's valid to use a mentally unstable serial killer as a prototype for all male behavior, isn't it? Must be, he's a white male. We can't have Osama stand for Arabs, justifiably. Unjustifiably, we're not even allowed to use crime stats that suggest racial/community patterns in certain types of crime, but it's perfectly alright to paint all men under the common denominator of a mysogynist serial killer. Or to routinely misrepresent violence towards women as a domestic middle class suburban phenomenon.
Some claims must pass without question no matter how often they are empirically disproved, while the obvious truth of other arguments must be silenced because they "offend" a particular political body.
Get real.
Any feminist who claims to "hate men," you have my permission to shoot. If we did the same thing to men who hated women, I would have a much larger pool of willing females from which to choose, if you know what I mean.
I believe it's possible to hate women so much as to deny their cultural acheivements to western civilization. Shouldn't we just teach the basic ALL MALE works of art and literature? That's what's been done forever, what's the difference now?
The difference is a backlash against the literary works of Sappho, Emily Dickinson, Christine de Pizan, and Virgina Woolf
.... against the social achievements of Anne Hutchinson, Sojourner Truth, Susan B,. Anthony, and Elizabeth Blackwell.
....against the art of Georgia O'Keefe, Frida Kahlo, and Judy Chicago.
...against the great mythological and legendary figures of Primordial Goddess, Fertile Goddes, Ishtar, and Judith.
Granted only some get protested against, but as a whole, does this curriculum represent a threat to men?
I don't believe so.
BTW, "Feminism," contrary to popular belief, is not a 'dirty word.'
College has no liberalizing effect on students. In fact, students get more conservative at the end of their fourth year in college than at the beginning of their first year.
I'm jumping in here . . . yes there are lots of feminists in college and yes there are also 'mysandronists' There are probably more in academe than anywhere else.
But there is still a need for critical thought about gender relations.
It is a difficult area to think clearly about . . . or to think about at all . . . . I see normally very intelligent people get truly rabid when they confront the idea that women have been excluded from certain roles . . I see intelligent men actually vent hatred that can only stem from something outside of particular experiences (Brussell's "bitten"?) and, I see very intelligent women react in the same way.
But still, in our past women had been excluded from the public discourse for years, and have only relatively recently been a part of that aspect of our history that can write and talk its own History.
In other words: only relatively recently have women been able to say what they are and what their roles in thier lives should be.
Look at cultures that are obviosly mysoginist: Taliban for instance.
In our history we have put women in almost the same place . . there are reams of historical texts about the "place of woman"
and, in Philosopy, you see that even our deepest metaphorical understandings of Nature and Culture have been grounded in gendered metaphors that always relegate Woman to the role of passive, non-participant aspect of the cosmos: for instance in Plato all matter fills form by filling the formless, unnameable and therefor completely powerless Chora . . . which of course is femenine.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
But also there is some truth to the reversal of the situation: for instance, my wife was passed up for an academic position NOT because they were men wanting another man but because they were a department almost exclusively of women
and besides, a profound questioning of the 'meaning' of gender (not sex but the construction of the idea of the 'sexes') would be, not just liberating for women but also for all of us . . .. all seven+ different sexes . .
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education. And I haven't really seen anything that would make me think otherwise.
Well I guess you have a point- that widespread resentment is occuring because women are not behind the kitchen "where they belong." I mean their salaries almost reach men's salaries! That's an encroachment that no one wants! Why, they should be making 50 cents on the dollar for what a man makes instead of near 80 cents. They're oppressing men everywhere!
It's just ridiculous that only a few decades after title nine, we have a MASSIVE REACTION to females as...get this... "OPPRESSORS."
There has always been a huge resentment of women throughout history. This is nothing more than its modern manifestation as shown by a very conservative poster with relatively extreme right wing politics (abortion terrorists). It's okay. I'm often extreme left.
Women have been beaten down enough throughout history. To claim that women now are the "grand oppressors" in society is to IGNORE the white male power structure that truly oppresses. I must say, I am a member of that in race and gender alone. It's sickening and I try my best to disassociate myself from it.
I'm sorry, but I rather enjoy trumptman's long-winded replies to sometimes a single word. After all, if he has to explain it...
Keep em coming.
(P.S. I fully expect my parents, house, girlfriend, or career prospects to become part of the discussion because well, that's what trumptman does.)
My goodness Shawn, do we have so little firepower left intellectually that we have to just make assertions and call names?
As for whether you have seen it or not, I did not know you were the sole determiner of truth. If you haven't seen it, it must not be so.
As for the resentment, you obviously didn't trouble yourself to read the article. One of the most common named problems with education is that boys acting like boys in an elementary setting are declared ADD and given Ritalin. Yep all those drugged up 8 year old boys are pissing and moaning that women aren't in the kitchen where they belong. Of course all the others we don't know where they are but they sure as heck aren't on a college campus because as the article mentioned only receive 43% of all college degrees are given to men.
Your unsupported pay assertions again are becoming numbingly unpersuasive. Equal work for equal pay among feminists means they get to decide what jobs are equal and should receive commiserate pay. So if I, as a feminist declare that a secretary is equal work to an elevator repair mechanic and the secretary makes 70% of what the mechanic does then I declare her oppressed. You would know this if you actually researched what you believe.
Any study that has compared genders with the same degree and job has found that they are within 2-3% of each other. If you are going to mindlessly assert it at least post a link to prove it.
As for Title IX, if there have been 20,000 male scholarships lost, numerous athletic teams actually dismantled, etc. and it has all only been done to men, then that is systematic oppression of men. The lawsuits were brought about by womens groups so it was done by women. This isn't just nonsense. I remember reading about teams that gave us numerous Olympians were dismantled. Simply do a Google search and you will see how many men and of course their educations have been removed from colleges.
As for me being an abortion terrorist, if you want to commit libel, then I suggest you study sharply for your law degree so you can defend yourself in court. You cannot even find a statement where I support abortion terrorists. You have to resort to such attacks because you no longer have the ability to think and reason. How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do. Keep committing your hate speech and don't be surprised if you receive a subpoena someday.
The fact that you try to disassociate yourself from what you are shows that feminists do not seek gender equity but rather practice hate speech. Why would anyone want to be associated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, and criminality. Since that is what they associate being male with, you obviously do not wish to be male. However most males do none of these things and thus should not be called and treated as such.
I did include your career prospects, so I hope you feel better. Though I don't have to discredit you as it is obvious from the replies you are quite good at doing that yourself.
How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do.
I was with you until you posted this. This isn't a left vs. right issue. Frankly, there is no left or right. The world is not black or white or left or right or liberal or conservative. I'm sick of all the people perpetuating these ridiculous generalizations.
Again, there's no need to ... stoop to SPJ's level, if you will.
I was with you until you posted this. This isn't a left vs. right issue. Frankly, there is no left or right. The world is not black or white or left or right or liberal or conservative. I'm sick of all the people perpetuating these ridiculous generalizations.
Again, there's no need to ... stoop to SPJ's level, if you will.
Well we are not supposed to personally attack someone. I know I am not perfect at that but I try. Feminists are considered to the left politically and so that is what I was speaking about.
If you want to give me a synomym that would include feminists, Shawn, and that others will stil understand, I'll be happy to use it.
I thought of "how typical of cat-lovers" but I figured that wouldn't go well with all your "meowing."
...against the great mythological and legendary figures of Primordial Goddess, Fertile Goddes, Ishtar, and Judith.
I feel it should be noted that while Tiamat the Primordial Goddess , and Ishtar or Inanna the Fertility Goddess, were believed to be deities, Judith, whose historical existence is not corroborated, was never believed to be a supernatural being, but a woman, which already makes her a more interesting and significant character if you ask me.
But don't mind me, please carry on. I find this discussion fascinating.
But there is still a need for critical thought about gender relations.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
Do you not think the reverse is true? Men are so disposable by societal standards that they don't think about it.
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
If you didn't, you would be chastized with, "Well what sort of man are you that you wouldn't defend a woman?"
Now honesty, I am not saying I wish for this type of behavior to end. I would gladly do this for my wife, as I am sure you would for yours and I don't really expect this to change. I am just pointing out that there are sexist roles that men must fill that women don't think about.
An example of this is medical research. It was claimed that medical researchers had been sexist and done almost all their reseatch using men. The test subjects had been typically 97% male.
However this isn't an empowered position, it is a weak position.
If my wife and I are broke. We have no money and the rent is due. Who do you think is going to be the one that has to sign up for a medical experiment that pays well but could pose some risk? Is this an empowered oppressive position?
If you look at breast cancer and prostate cancer, similar numbers of men and women die from each. If you look at the difference between funding and awareness between the two, you would be shocked.
Comments
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
This is ridiculous.
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
No it isn't ridiculous at all. Take a visit over to academe, the mysandrists have hijacked it most completely. I suspect public education has similar problems. They go completely beyond reasonable thoughts and often advocate positions that would be seen as clearly racist/sexist/hateful/damaging if only the genders were reversed.
Originally posted by Matsu
No it isn't ridiculous at all. Take a visit over to academe, the mysandrists have hijacked it most completely. I suspect public education has similar problems. They go completely beyond reasonable thoughts and often advocate positions that would be seen as clearly racist/sexist/hateful/damaging if only the genders were reversed.
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education. And I haven't really seen anything that would make me think otherwise.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education.
Maybe when you go to university, you'll notice. There is in fact a grand ideological hijacking in higher education, in all but the hard sciences and professional faculties -- where a certain objective standard must be met -- women are given licence to speak no small amount of hateful speech under the guise of "theory." Not that I myself have any problem with any sort of speech (hateful or otherwise) but I don't lmuch care for double standards, go on, substitute the genitalia and make the same sort of essays, or analyses that the "feminists" often come up with, see what happens to you.
If you think that "feminism" hasn't used PC as a means to hijack academic thought (particularly in the humanities) then you haven't ever been to a university.
Want examples? Here's one. A couple of years ago a prof (male) at the university of Toronto wrote an angry diatribe against Mark Lepine Day. Mark Lepine, in case you didn't know, was the guy who went beserk in Montreal and killed 11 women in an engineering faculty. Every year, Canadian Universities take to memorializing the day with a flurry of rhetoric characterizing all men as Mark Lepines in hiding.
He'd had enough of this obvious BS, and wrote that it was obvious that the purpose of said memorials was not to remember anyone, but to use the event to paint all men as violent oprressor and further a specious politics in the process.
Need I say that he was crucified by the "shouters" of academe? Calls for his resignation went out far and wide. Yet "feminists" and leftists "routinely" make these sorts of deconstructions of established practices/rituals/celebrations, why was his any less valid?
Stop any person from Toronto to Montreal and ask them if they know the names of any of the victims? I bet that 99% of the time they can't even name one, but they can name Mark Lepine. He's a symbol of the potential for violence in all men, right? I guess it's valid to use a mentally unstable serial killer as a prototype for all male behavior, isn't it? Must be, he's a white male. We can't have Osama stand for Arabs, justifiably. Unjustifiably, we're not even allowed to use crime stats that suggest racial/community patterns in certain types of crime, but it's perfectly alright to paint all men under the common denominator of a mysogynist serial killer. Or to routinely misrepresent violence towards women as a domestic middle class suburban phenomenon.
Some claims must pass without question no matter how often they are empirically disproved, while the obvious truth of other arguments must be silenced because they "offend" a particular political body.
Get real.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
It's just ridiculous to think that through some loophole in the law you think men are oppressed- as if it's some general trend.
"Oh well through a technicality in Section B49 of the Pennsylvania Legal Code, women can theoretically fraud a man out of some cash"
And that's your grand example.
Give me a break.
You want to talk about money? 76 cents on the dollar my friend. Case closed.
P.S. I suppose I would call my lawyer in the unlikely event that your scenario would occur..
Oh give me a break. Fathers have no rights. Men accused of being fathers have no rights. Men at work accused of sexual harrassment (regardless of validity) have no rights.
Meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
This is ridiculous.
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
Think you could actually come up with a point by point reply to trumpetman instead of posts like this which are nothing more than *LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA*?
Originally posted by Matsu
Maybe when you go to university, you'll notice.
Heh. Poor Matsu. He's been... I'm not sure what the word is. Not pussy-whipped. Pussy-bitten?
Originally posted by BR
Think you could actually come up with a point by point reply to trumpetman instead of posts like this which are nothing more than *LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA*?
That's rich! I thought I was the king of humorless point by point replies. No, I'm not going back to that crap.
Well I guess you have a point- that widespread resentment is occuring because women are not behind the kitchen "where they belong." I mean their salaries almost reach men's salaries! That's an encroachment that no one wants! Why, they should be making 50 cents on the dollar for what a man makes instead of near 80 cents. They're oppressing men everywhere!
And oh the stereotypically manipulating, cunning, sneaky female will decept you with her ways! Stay away! Because that's a new view.... You know it's not like women have historically been considered as that!
-------
It's just ridiculous that only a few decades after title nine, we have a MASSIVE REACTION to females as...get this... "OPPRESSORS."
That's better than saying African Americans are now the great oppressors in society.
There has always been a huge resentment of women throughout history. This is nothing more than its modern manifestation as shown by a very conservative poster with relatively extreme right wing politics (abortion terrorists). It's okay. I'm often extreme left.
Women have been beaten down enough throughout history. To claim that women now are the "grand oppressors" in society is to IGNORE the white male power structure that truly oppresses. I must say, I am a member of that in race and gender alone. It's sickening and I try my best to disassociate myself from it.
I'm sorry, but I rather enjoy trumptman's long-winded replies to sometimes a single word. After all, if he has to explain it...
Keep em coming.
(P.S. I fully expect my parents, house, girlfriend, or career prospects to become part of the discussion because well, that's what trumptman does.)
Originally posted by Matsu
Maybe when you go to university, you'll notice. There is in fact a grand ideological hijacking in higher education, in all but the hard sciences and professional faculties -- where a certain objective standard must be met -- women are given licence to speak no small amount of hateful speech under the guise of "theory." Not that I myself have any problem with any sort of speech (hateful or otherwise) but I don't lmuch care for double standards, go on, substitute the genitalia and make the same sort of essays, or analyses that the "feminists" often come up with, see what happens to you.
If you think that "feminism" hasn't used PC as a means to hijack academic thought (particularly in the humanities) then you haven't ever been to a university.
Want examples? Here's one. A couple of years ago a prof (male) at the university of Toronto wrote an angry diatribe against Mark Lepine Day. Mark Lepine, in case you didn't know, was the guy who went beserk in Montreal and killed 11 women in an engineering faculty. Every year, Canadian Universities take to memorializing the day with a flurry of rhetoric characterizing all men as Mark Lepines in hiding.
He'd had enough of this obvious BS, and wrote that it was obvious that the purpose of said memorials was not to remember anyone, but to use the event to paint all men as violent oprressor and further a specious politics in the process.
Need I say that he was crucified by the "shouters" of academe? Calls for his resignation went out far and wide. Yet "feminists" and leftists "routinely" make these sorts of deconstructions of established practices/rituals/celebrations, why was his any less valid?
Stop any person from Toronto to Montreal and ask them if they know the names of any of the victims? I bet that 99% of the time they can't even name one, but they can name Mark Lepine. He's a symbol of the potential for violence in all men, right? I guess it's valid to use a mentally unstable serial killer as a prototype for all male behavior, isn't it? Must be, he's a white male. We can't have Osama stand for Arabs, justifiably. Unjustifiably, we're not even allowed to use crime stats that suggest racial/community patterns in certain types of crime, but it's perfectly alright to paint all men under the common denominator of a mysogynist serial killer. Or to routinely misrepresent violence towards women as a domestic middle class suburban phenomenon.
Some claims must pass without question no matter how often they are empirically disproved, while the obvious truth of other arguments must be silenced because they "offend" a particular political body.
Get real.
Any feminist who claims to "hate men," you have my permission to shoot. If we did the same thing to men who hated women, I would have a much larger pool of willing females from which to choose, if you know what I mean.
I believe it's possible to hate women so much as to deny their cultural acheivements to western civilization. Shouldn't we just teach the basic ALL MALE works of art and literature? That's what's been done forever, what's the difference now?
The difference is a backlash against the literary works of Sappho, Emily Dickinson, Christine de Pizan, and Virgina Woolf
.... against the social achievements of Anne Hutchinson, Sojourner Truth, Susan B,. Anthony, and Elizabeth Blackwell.
....against the art of Georgia O'Keefe, Frida Kahlo, and Judy Chicago.
...against the great mythological and legendary figures of Primordial Goddess, Fertile Goddes, Ishtar, and Judith.
Granted only some get protested against, but as a whole, does this curriculum represent a threat to men?
I don't believe so.
BTW, "Feminism," contrary to popular belief, is not a 'dirty word.'
Originally posted by mrmister
Keep your eyes open in college, boy-o.
College has no liberalizing effect on students. In fact, students get more conservative at the end of their fourth year in college than at the beginning of their first year.
Who wants to challenge that?
In fact, students get more conservative at the end of their fourth year in college than at the beginning of their first year.
they realize they're about to have to live in the real world.
But there is still a need for critical thought about gender relations.
It is a difficult area to think clearly about . . . or to think about at all . . . . I see normally very intelligent people get truly rabid when they confront the idea that women have been excluded from certain roles . . I see intelligent men actually vent hatred that can only stem from something outside of particular experiences (Brussell's "bitten"?) and, I see very intelligent women react in the same way.
But still, in our past women had been excluded from the public discourse for years, and have only relatively recently been a part of that aspect of our history that can write and talk its own History.
In other words: only relatively recently have women been able to say what they are and what their roles in thier lives should be.
Look at cultures that are obviosly mysoginist: Taliban for instance.
In our history we have put women in almost the same place . . there are reams of historical texts about the "place of woman"
and, in Philosopy, you see that even our deepest metaphorical understandings of Nature and Culture have been grounded in gendered metaphors that always relegate Woman to the role of passive, non-participant aspect of the cosmos: for instance in Plato all matter fills form by filling the formless, unnameable and therefor completely powerless Chora . . . which of course is femenine.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
But also there is some truth to the reversal of the situation: for instance, my wife was passed up for an academic position NOT because they were men wanting another man but because they were a department almost exclusively of women
and besides, a profound questioning of the 'meaning' of gender (not sex but the construction of the idea of the 'sexes') would be, not just liberating for women but also for all of us . . .. all seven+ different sexes . .
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
This is ridiculous.
Women aren't even close to being the grand oppressors.
RIDICULOUS.
No, there is no grand "hijacking" or "takeover" by women in higher education. And I haven't really seen anything that would make me think otherwise.
Well I guess you have a point- that widespread resentment is occuring because women are not behind the kitchen "where they belong." I mean their salaries almost reach men's salaries! That's an encroachment that no one wants! Why, they should be making 50 cents on the dollar for what a man makes instead of near 80 cents. They're oppressing men everywhere!
It's just ridiculous that only a few decades after title nine, we have a MASSIVE REACTION to females as...get this... "OPPRESSORS."
There has always been a huge resentment of women throughout history. This is nothing more than its modern manifestation as shown by a very conservative poster with relatively extreme right wing politics (abortion terrorists). It's okay. I'm often extreme left.
Women have been beaten down enough throughout history. To claim that women now are the "grand oppressors" in society is to IGNORE the white male power structure that truly oppresses. I must say, I am a member of that in race and gender alone. It's sickening and I try my best to disassociate myself from it.
I'm sorry, but I rather enjoy trumptman's long-winded replies to sometimes a single word. After all, if he has to explain it...
Keep em coming.
(P.S. I fully expect my parents, house, girlfriend, or career prospects to become part of the discussion because well, that's what trumptman does.)
My goodness Shawn, do we have so little firepower left intellectually that we have to just make assertions and call names?
As for whether you have seen it or not, I did not know you were the sole determiner of truth. If you haven't seen it, it must not be so.
As for the resentment, you obviously didn't trouble yourself to read the article. One of the most common named problems with education is that boys acting like boys in an elementary setting are declared ADD and given Ritalin. Yep all those drugged up 8 year old boys are pissing and moaning that women aren't in the kitchen where they belong. Of course all the others we don't know where they are but they sure as heck aren't on a college campus because as the article mentioned only receive 43% of all college degrees are given to men.
Your unsupported pay assertions again are becoming numbingly unpersuasive. Equal work for equal pay among feminists means they get to decide what jobs are equal and should receive commiserate pay. So if I, as a feminist declare that a secretary is equal work to an elevator repair mechanic and the secretary makes 70% of what the mechanic does then I declare her oppressed. You would know this if you actually researched what you believe.
Any study that has compared genders with the same degree and job has found that they are within 2-3% of each other. If you are going to mindlessly assert it at least post a link to prove it.
As for Title IX, if there have been 20,000 male scholarships lost, numerous athletic teams actually dismantled, etc. and it has all only been done to men, then that is systematic oppression of men. The lawsuits were brought about by womens groups so it was done by women. This isn't just nonsense. I remember reading about teams that gave us numerous Olympians were dismantled. Simply do a Google search and you will see how many men and of course their educations have been removed from colleges.
As for me being an abortion terrorist, if you want to commit libel, then I suggest you study sharply for your law degree so you can defend yourself in court. You cannot even find a statement where I support abortion terrorists. You have to resort to such attacks because you no longer have the ability to think and reason. How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do. Keep committing your hate speech and don't be surprised if you receive a subpoena someday.
The fact that you try to disassociate yourself from what you are shows that feminists do not seek gender equity but rather practice hate speech. Why would anyone want to be associated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, and criminality. Since that is what they associate being male with, you obviously do not wish to be male. However most males do none of these things and thus should not be called and treated as such.
I did include your career prospects, so I hope you feel better. Though I don't have to discredit you as it is obvious from the replies you are quite good at doing that yourself.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do.
I was with you until you posted this. This isn't a left vs. right issue. Frankly, there is no left or right. The world is not black or white or left or right or liberal or conservative. I'm sick of all the people perpetuating these ridiculous generalizations.
Again, there's no need to ... stoop to SPJ's level, if you will.
Originally posted by BR
I was with you until you posted this. This isn't a left vs. right issue. Frankly, there is no left or right. The world is not black or white or left or right or liberal or conservative. I'm sick of all the people perpetuating these ridiculous generalizations.
Again, there's no need to ... stoop to SPJ's level, if you will.
Well we are not supposed to personally attack someone. I know I am not perfect at that but I try. Feminists are considered to the left politically and so that is what I was speaking about.
If you want to give me a synomym that would include feminists, Shawn, and that others will stil understand, I'll be happy to use it.
I thought of "how typical of cat-lovers" but I figured that wouldn't go well with all your "meowing."
Nick
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
...against the great mythological and legendary figures of Primordial Goddess, Fertile Goddes, Ishtar, and Judith.
I feel it should be noted that while Tiamat the Primordial Goddess , and Ishtar or Inanna the Fertility Goddess, were believed to be deities, Judith, whose historical existence is not corroborated, was never believed to be a supernatural being, but a woman, which already makes her a more interesting and significant character if you ask me.
But don't mind me, please carry on. I find this discussion fascinating.
Originally posted by pfflam
But there is still a need for critical thought about gender relations.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
Do you not think the reverse is true? Men are so disposable by societal standards that they don't think about it.
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
If you didn't, you would be chastized with, "Well what sort of man are you that you wouldn't defend a woman?"
Now honesty, I am not saying I wish for this type of behavior to end. I would gladly do this for my wife, as I am sure you would for yours and I don't really expect this to change. I am just pointing out that there are sexist roles that men must fill that women don't think about.
An example of this is medical research. It was claimed that medical researchers had been sexist and done almost all their reseatch using men. The test subjects had been typically 97% male.
However this isn't an empowered position, it is a weak position.
If my wife and I are broke. We have no money and the rent is due. Who do you think is going to be the one that has to sign up for a medical experiment that pays well but could pose some risk? Is this an empowered oppressive position?
If you look at breast cancer and prostate cancer, similar numbers of men and women die from each. If you look at the difference between funding and awareness between the two, you would be shocked.
Equality indeed,
Nick
It's your favourite, favourite thing. You wheel it out all the time.
It's annoying.