Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Feminism Your Views [under review]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Mr_Celibate
Joined: 2/16/2012
Msg: 626
Feminism Your ViewsPage 26 of 44    (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)

why would you want to control a woman you have to force control over?

Because I love her?
 vampyreshadow
Joined: 3/21/2011
Msg: 627
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:19:25 PM
Loving someone isn't about controlling them, love is about letting someone be themselves not manipulating them to become what you want. I was married to, and had kids to a guy who thought love was about control, he will never have a relationship with his two eldest daughters because HE destroyed that, he is working on destroying his relationship with his 12 year old and his 10 year old. This crap breaks my heart, I hate to sit their and see my ex tear my girls down like he did me, I want him to buck up and be a dad, but he never will. My dad, was an is an important figure in my life, but my dad was never like my ex, he never sought to control any of us, just guide us.

The greatest favor my ex did for me, is doing the one thing my pride wouldn't allow me to do, he left. I have commitment issues, once I say for life, I mean for life, unfortunately that almost destroyed me as a person. Almost.

You want to control, then you might find a love that borders on hatred, you might wind up destroying the person you love.

If I have to manipulate or control a person to get them to love me, simply put, it isn't worth it. I want those I love to be happy, not miserable.
 FixedVariable
Joined: 10/17/2010
Msg: 628
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:38:28 PM

Really? Because this whole "right to vote" thing keeps coming up. I got a piece of paper in the mail saying that I had to register for the draft.


I'm Canadian. So yeah.. spare me. My point remains valid ALL rights come with responsibilities. Don't you dare assume that the phrase equal rights means special treatment. A little common sense does the body good and I know I said this already, but you don't seem to wanna use yours.


Probably because you choose to ignore the proof that is in the pudding.


Proof that I want special treatment? Right. I never even said I did... in fact, this will be the second time I've reiterated that I don't, so again.. I urge you to use common sense.


Indeed. And that idea is sidestepped by making companies lower/alter their qualification standards so that more people (specifically women) CAN qualify despite the fact that the work expectancy has not changed.


If there are certain requirements needed to do a certain job.. why would they be lowered? How does lowering these qualifications help me get the job? Either I CAN do it or I can't. Again... had I thought that standards should be lowered, I'd have said that.. and since I did not say that, obviously I do not think they should be.

You really seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth or thoughts inside my head that I NEVER had. You have a lot of nerve, really.


Just because you wish to keep your head in the sand, it doesn't mean that it's not going on.


I know how *I* think and how *I* conduct myself. I can't control others, but I can certainly tell them what I think. When I see stupidity I call it out. When some guy is crediting me with words and thoughts I never uttered nor thought, I call that crap out, too. How am *I* responsible for the stupidity or others, exactly?


Hell, just look on the threads in the forums that have anything to do with chivalry, paying for the first date, or child support/alimony laws.


Ok, so lets just pick a random percentage and say that 50% of the women here think they are entitled to your wallet and yes... I see those douchebags in many a thread... so I didn't deny the existence of such women, even though I didn't mention them (they don't deserve a mention). Why is it OK to pretend that the 50% who ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN EQUALITY don't exist? Or as you've chosen to do... lump those women in with the 50% of the entitled princesses?

Why is THAT ok?
 vampyreshadow
Joined: 3/21/2011
Msg: 629
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:49:58 PM
Let's look around. It is usually not Teh Feminists who are the ones advocating a male-only draft. When it comes to such discrimination, it is more likely that feminists and MRAs are fighting a common opponent: Those who insist that men and women have "proper" gender roles and, therefore, women are biologically and naturally "unsuitable" for military combat. Where feminism can be valuable to the MRA argument is that it recognizes that the concept of "proper gender roles" is largely a social construct and, therefore, denying women the right to serve in combat on that basis is illogical.

A related problem with the draft/combat "gotcha" is that feminists, of course, did not create the draft. Men did. And those who promote the "traditional gender roles" mythology perpetuate it. Yet MRAs often argue as though it were women, feminists especially, who created a draft and combat positions that exclude women. I don't know where the MRAs have been over the years, but many feminists have been actively trying to get the military to allow women into combat positions in the military. The National Organization for Women, for instance, passed a resolution in 1980 opposing the male-only draft as unfair sex discrimination. Like I said before, if the MRAs were to actively push for a policy in which women were drafted into combat positions, they would find that they would come up against many of the same adversaries that feminists face: Anti-feminist men and women who promote the Woman as Fragile mythology. Good luck, boys. Glad to have you as part of the "team."
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 630
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 9:06:03 PM

My point remains valid ALL rights come with responsibilities.

Ignore the issue if you want. Men are held responsible to maintain their right. Women aren't, and I don't see feminist rallies (not just a handful on a forum saying "I would do it if I had to") to change that.




Don't you dare assume that the phrase equal rights means special treatment.

Obviously not. However, what it means and how it has actually been applied are two different things.




Proof that I want special treatment?

I wasn't talking about YOU specifically. I was talking about women in general. The post that I quoted, it was talking about women in general as well. Just because you happen to be a woman, it doesn't mean that I am specifically talking about YOU.



If there are certain requirements needed to do a certain job.. why would they be lowered?

Because we are more concerned about being PC than getting the job done. Just look at the histories of the protective jobs such as firefighting, police, and military.



How does lowering these qualifications help me get the job? Either I CAN do it or I can't.

Lowering the qualifications makes it easier to get in, therefore more people are capable to get in. It's not that hard to figure out.



You really seem hell bent on putting words in my mouth or thoughts inside my head that I NEVER had

No, you seem to think that my talk in the general sense is referring specifically to YOU and how YOU view things. Last time I checked, YOU weren't the spokesperson for feminist ideology.



Ok, so lets just pick a random percentage and say that 50% of the women here think they are entitled to your wallet and yes...

If I thought that it was anywhere close to 50%, I would think that that argument would have merit.
 FixedVariable
Joined: 10/17/2010
Msg: 631
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 9:43:15 PM

Ignore the issue if you want. Men are held responsible to maintain their right. Women aren't, and I don't see feminist rallies (not just a handful on a forum saying "I would do it if I had to") to change that.


No, only a bunch of American women in this very thread saying just that.


I wasn't talking about YOU specifically. I was talking about women in general.


Generalities. Lump all women together. Makes the kind of sense that isn't sense at all.


Because we are more concerned about being PC than getting the job done. Just look at the histories of the protective jobs such as firefighting, police, and military.


We who? Who lowered the standards?


Lowering the qualifications makes it easier to get in, therefore more people are capable to get in. It's not that hard to figure out.


I'm pretty sure I already said lowering the standards wasn't a good idea.


If I thought that it was anywhere close to 50%, I would think that that argument would have merit.


You really can't seem to read what's actually said, can you? I picked a number out of my ass because it's past midnight and I have no idea exactly how many women think the same way I do. All I do know is that there's way more women who think like me than guys the like you who like to lump all women into the bad cubby holes give credit for.
 vampyreshadow
Joined: 3/21/2011
Msg: 632
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 9:59:47 PM
Fixed-variable, this might help :)

Actually there is a MAJOR feminist player in America trying to change this fact, its called NOW. And he ignored that post totally, actually there are probably others, the irony of him blaming it on woman when the ones stalling the now on Overturning the draft are the anti feminist groups. 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg unfortunately they lost to the supreme court.

Actually NOW stands for allot of equality (NOW = National organization for womans rights)

See court cases they have been involved in

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

"Women have participated in every war our country has ever fought, and they now hold top-level positions in all branches of the military, as well as in government defense and national security institutions. They are fighting and dying in combat, and the armed services could not operate effectively without their participation. However, without an ERA, their equal access to military career ladders and their protection against sex discrimination are not guaranteed.

The issue of the draft is often raised as an argument against the ERA. In fact, the lack of an ERA in the Constitution does not protect women against involuntary military service. Congress already has the power to draft women as well as men, and the Senate debated the possibility of drafting nurses in preparation for a possible invasion of Japan in World War II.

Traditionally, and currently, only males are required to register for the draft. After removing its troops from Vietnam in 1973, the United States shifted to an all-volunteer military and has not since that time conscripted registered men into service. In 1981, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a male-only draft registration.

In recent years, however, Department of Defense planning memos and Congressional bills dealing with the draft or national service have included both men and women in the system. With or without an ERA in the Constitution, it is virtually certain that a reactivated male-only draft would be legally challenged as a form of sex discrimination, and would likely be found unconstitutional.

Congress could respond by developing a system of national service that would balance equality on the basis of sex with the functional status of individuals. The system could include both military and civilian placements, and exemptions could be granted as always to those unqualified to serve for reasons of physical inability, parental status, or other relevant characteristics.

Since there is presently no imminent prospect of reinstituting the draft and no way to know what its requirements would be if it were reactivated, a discussion about the ERA’s relation to it is primarily theoretical. However, the immediate practical value of putting the ERA into the Constitution would be to guarantee equal treatment for the women who voluntarily serve in the military and to provide them with the “equal justice under law” that they are risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to defend." Quoted from NOWs ERA campaign

Actually most of NOWs ERA campaign they want it to be gender neutral
 wildsquirrels
Joined: 4/8/2012
Msg: 633
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:12:01 PM
I didn't read all of this thread but I have a question, why would women want the opportunity to get drafted? That sounds a lot crazy to me. Look at Vietnam, korea... Prisoners of war aren't always treated like human beings, and being in a war zone that posibility is always there. And one other thing can we at least agree some self titled feminists don't want equal rights, they want every privilege they can get, with none of the responsibility. granted there are other special interest groups doing the same, but this thread isn't about them.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 634
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:27:04 PM

Generalities. Lump all women together. Makes the kind of sense that isn't sense at all.

If you want to interview each and every woman about her personal stance, then feel free. I have no such desire, so I will speak in generalities. I also like how you omitted the part where I mentioned that the post I quoted (which you wrote) was talking about women in general as well.


I'm pretty sure I already said lowering the standards wasn't a good idea.

Indeed, however, you asked why would something like that happen, and I answered it.


We who? Who lowered the standards?

We as a PC society. The standards were lowered by the companies whose standards were "too high."


All I do know is that there's way more women who think like me than guys the like you who like to lump all women into the bad cubby holes give credit for.

You KNOW that there's "way more" eh? Have any backing to that claim?
 vampyreshadow
Joined: 3/21/2011
Msg: 635
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:39:23 PM
First, MCS, quit dodging the link I posted, NOW is fighting against most of your claims of what feminists are against...

NOW is a feminist organization, and fought on men's side to get woman only schools to open up to the opposite sex, fought against the all male draft along with the ACLU, fights gender bias in custody and child support, and are huge Backers of the ERA, which helps with both sides of the issue. Like the Guy who sued hooters to get a job, which he did thanks to the ERA

Second of all, to the guy who asked why woman want drafted? No one wants drafted if they did they would just enlist, I do not support the draft unless it is a dire emergency, but if I am told I have to go, and men are told they have to go, I am not going to dodge it, I probably could, due to the same reason a man in my position could, I am the primary (actually only) caregiver for 2 kids, probably soon to be three kids, but in my situation, I think I would go to prove a point. I know I could, my parents would be supportive.
 newonthescene76
Joined: 2/24/2007
Msg: 636
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:10:00 AM
So feminists don't want equal responsibilities as well? Surprise surprise.

Do feminists want to get the job they got into based on merit or because a quota had to be fulfilled?

Do feminists want equal pay for the same "work" or just equal pay for the same "title?"

Or...do feminists want equal pay for DIFFERENT work and want to make the work "comparable" instead of simply doing the same work?

I think, more often than not, these so called "feminists" just want the benefits without the pitfalls. As someone said earlier. There are no feminists on a sinking ship.


I find it interesting that an ethnic minority is the one that is bringing up quotas and affirmative action policy. It's not just women who are "filling quotas". Couldn't it also be said that you gained your education, job, etc. from filling a quota and not having the actual skills necessary to do the job?
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 637
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:36:12 AM
I find it interesting that an ethnic minority is the one that is bringing up quotas and affirmative action policy. It's not just women who are "filling quotas". Couldn't it also be said that you gained your education, job, etc. from filling a quota and not having the actual skills necessary to do the job?


I find it puzzling how women make up more than 50% of the population, and yet they are somehow a minority.

Also, considering my job history, my credentials, as well as the amount of diversity that was already in the jobs that I went into, there was no quota to be met. Unlike some people that are looking for a handout, I actually worked to get where I am. Nice conjecture, however.



First, MCS, quit dodging the link I posted, NOW is fighting against most of your claims of what feminists are against...

"most of the claims" is a bit of a stretch, but if it so pleases you, I will say that what they are doing is a good thing (at least from the snippets that you've pulled). There, you happy now?!
 newonthescene76
Joined: 2/24/2007
Msg: 638
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:48:37 AM
^^^^^^^
I wasn't actually saying you personally. But you make it seem that women only get jobs due to affirmative action and I was trying to point out that, in general, the same could be said for ethnic minorities. And although you know that you got where you are today based on your skills and not your skin color, there are some people who will refuse to believe that. That is why it was interesting to me that you would allow that bias in your thinking regarding women. Many women got where they are because of their skills and not because of a quota.
 vampyreshadow
Joined: 3/21/2011
Msg: 639
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 1:51:55 AM
MCS, Just because we are a large portion of the population doesn't mean we don't run into bias and discrimination, I hold, and have earned more credentials in my trade then allot, due to how and where I was raised, I can do the job better then quite a few men, I still cant enter allot of interviews being cut off without a chance. If I was a small male, I would get an eye raise and tested, as a small female, I am just sent away without a chance to prove myself. The problem with my trade is two fold, they discriminate based on assuming lack of physical capability, and its a high risk trade. I can have glowing communication with a potential boss until he sees me, then he hires some joker strait out of the pen (that lacks a needed according to the add qualification) without even giving me a shot. Yes this happened to me. Small town, I know that helpers driller, and he is PISSED because he wanted me on the job and referred me, just neglected to tell the boss that I was a woman.

My skills are in a highly male dominated trade.
 FixedVariable
Joined: 10/17/2010
Msg: 640
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 5:21:09 AM

If you want to interview each and every woman about her personal stance, then feel free. I have no such desire, so I will speak in generalities. I also like how you omitted the part where I mentioned that the post I quoted (which you wrote) was talking about women in general as well.


So, now you're upset that I didn't make you come off as even worse for generalizing more than the once??

What is it about you that you think it's perfectly fine to generalize, anyway?


We as a PC society. The standards were lowered by the companies whose standards were "too high."


Wow is "WE" have such power to change laws, then let's stop discussing and lets "WE" change them back. Can't "WE" change them? Hmmm... actually, I guess "WE" will have to try to convince lawmakers that lowering standards was NEVER the intent, since in reality "WE" can't do much else.


You KNOW that there's "way more" eh? Have any backing to that claim?


So I have to back up my claim that you SHOULDN'T generalize? Have you read ANY of this thread. Yes, I "KNOW" because I've read their thoughts that they shared with the rest of us over the last 20something pages? Is that enough back up for you.. you know.. what's already right here in the thread?

Somehow I suspect you'll say no, but that's not surprising. You seem to think my telling you that you're wrong to generalize, has no merit.

I think that says enough.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 641
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 5:55:52 AM
So, now you're upset that I didn't make you come off as even worse for generalizing more than the once??

What is it about you that you think it's perfectly fine to generalize, anyway?

This entire thread is a generalization. The whole basis of feminism is that women were GENERALLY treated worse than men.


So I have to back up my claim that you SHOULDN'T generalize?

Your claim is that there are "way more" women who think like you than men who think like me. Postings from this thread is hardly a large enough sample to apply to society as a whole. And if you're specifically talking about this thread, firstly I -still- don't think you're correct, especially considering that thread is rife with post that circle around the idea that feminism is just all around toxic and should have never been implemented...or at least that it has turned into something completely terrible.

As it stands, most of the men in this thread are anti modern feminism if not feminism in it's entirety. I doubt there are many people who are against women having equal rights. However, where the bulk of the rub comes in is when women are being awarded special privileges.

You seem to think my telling you that you're wrong to generalize, has no merit.

Well yeah. If you (and the mass majority of the posters) are going to generalize, then you have no right to call someone out for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy 101.
 Beckstar1980
Joined: 2/25/2012
Msg: 642
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:30:37 AM
Its neither; it is a framework or a way to view society
 FixedVariable
Joined: 10/17/2010
Msg: 643
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 6:37:15 AM

The whole basis of feminism is that women were GENERALLY treated worse than men.


It was about rights they DIDN'T have.


And if you're specifically talking about this thread, firstly I -still- don't think you're correct, especially considering that thread is rife with post that circle around the idea that feminism is just all around toxic and should have never been implemented...or at least that it has turned into something completely terrible.


If you've read the thread, I find it IMPOSSIBLE that you have not seen the amount of women in it who aren't interested in special treatment. You obviously don't want to see it.

So be it. I am going around in circles with you. You think ALL women are demanding they be treated special... many of us (men and women) know better. Stick with your generalizing then. It's a clear warning system.


Well yeah. If you (and the mass majority of the posters) are going to generalize, then you have no right to call someone out for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy 101.


I am NOT generalizing. I don't generalize because I know it makes no sense, but that doesn't seem to phase you, at all. I don't put people into little cubbies whether they fit or not. I'm aware and intelligent enough to know that everyone is different and I'm not a hypocrite, to boot. But apparently, generalizing works for you.. since you keep insisting on doing it.
 cubanguy
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 644
view profile
History
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 8:20:30 AM
For the sake of the argument... a generalization is just a wide view for set of elements which hold a common characteristic. By its use, it doesn´t imply a fallacy as long its assumed that can be exceptions to that overview.
Personally, I never been able to understand this mentality about the need to scream "I´m not, I´m different" when a generalization is made over any subject.
For example, a bird is an animal, same like a dog and a cat, yet is not a mammal.

In the same line of thinking, same if I say: feminism is a movement of and for the women.
There is not a fallacy on the composition in that sentence since pressupouse that many men supported it too, that not all women are feminists, nor all men agreeded with that political view... without the need to be so specific.

Same if I say: men and women are heterosexuals.
That generalization is based on the fact of being the most common approach of sexual interest. The majority of the population is atraccted to the opposited sex yet, it doesn´t exclude anyone because the word "all" is not being used and it´s assumed the existance of homosexual people... just for the simple fact we know them.

Same if I say: discussing about feminism is like speaking about religion and/or communism with a priest or a member of the party.
Because opinions are welcome, as long they are favorables ones and because in any given argument, the defenders have to have the last word and any word said aftar that one, it would be the begining of a new argument.
Yet, while a generalization, the "is like" doesn´t give an absolute meaning, and it´s assumed there are still people who can debate about the good and the wrongdoings without the innate necessity of becoming confrontational and argumentative for the sake of it.

Disclaimer: English is my second language, however it applies to any other as just basic definition of concept, basic grammar and basic rules of any language structure and use.
 Fleuron
Joined: 8/18/2010
Msg: 645
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 9:43:42 AM

Also, considering my job history, my credentials, as well as the amount of diversity that was already in the jobs that I went into, there was no quota to be met.


The amount of diversity in the US military? Since when, now….? Your itty bitty lifetime?

How do you think ‘diversity’ in the US military happened, out of the kindness of old white guys’ hearts? They just woke up one day and decided to quit segregating black men from all the shiny white boys.

Jim Crow ring a bell? How about Tuskegee? Oh….I mean the military unit, not the black men who were lied to and used for four decades as guinea pigs for syphilis ‘testing’.

Meh, who needs human rights?

How ironic that same government now employs you.

You are aware of the correlation between feminism and the civil rights movement? Oh, right….like so many ungrateful women….you only approve of rights that benefit YOU.
 PittsburghVixen
Joined: 6/27/2009
Msg: 646
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 9:56:17 AM

You are aware of the correlation between feminism and the civil rights movement? Oh, right….like so many ungrateful women….you only approve of rights that benefit YOU.

Fleuron, did you mean to say "ungrateful men"? I thought your post was directed at mrcs84? Sorry if I misread it.
 Iona_Bob
Joined: 3/31/2012
Msg: 647
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 10:07:42 AM

Like the Guy who sued hooters to get a job, which he did thanks to the ERA

No. We do not have a ratified Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution. There is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection from discrimination in employment based on sex.


You are aware of the correlation between feminism and the civil rights movement? Oh, right….like so many ungrateful women….you only approve of rights that benefit YOU.
Yes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964:

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The word "sex" was added at the last moment. According to the West Encyclopedia of American Law, Representative Howard W. Smith (D-VA) added the word. His critics argued that Smith, a conservative Southern opponent of federal civil rights, did so to kill the entire bill. Smith, however, argued that he had amended the bill in keeping with his support of Alice Paul and the National Women's Party with whom he had been working. Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) led the effort to keep the word "sex" in the bill. In the final legislation, Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." The final bill also allowed sex to be a consideration when sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Title VII of the act created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to implement the law.


http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
 1ukn4u
Joined: 10/30/2010
Msg: 648
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 10:55:09 AM
First off as a general consensus men on this thread have talked about issues on working side by side with other women. I personally do prefer to work beside a woman rather than work beside a sweaty ugly man anyday and any man who disagrees would be gay. However there are legitimate issues we are bringing up that are simply being ignored by the ladies on this thread.


First of all in my personally experiences and the personal experiences of everyone I know and most of the personal experiences expressed on this thread. There are 3 types of women in the work place. Type 1 can do everything a man can no problem. Type 2 needs some help with some of the physical and is willing to compensate as a team member by doing extra of the things she can do. Men as a whole don't mind helping with some of the physical part of your job if while I'm doing this you are helping them in their work on things you can do. Then there is the overwhelming majority type 3 women. These women force men to help them with what they aren't physically able to do and then offer no help in return. If men don't help them it can even cost a man his job. This has happened to me. I think we men have no problems with type 1 and 2 women but a major issue getting paid the same as type 3 and type 3 woman doing far less work for that same amount of money.


2nd issue. Child support. I've provided the statistics that show a women on average pay far less amounts of child support. As a matter of fact I provided the diversification of child support funds being disbursed to a vast majority of women. This means 2 things. A. Women are not ordered to begin with to pay their rightful percentage of child support. B. On average even when they are ordered to pay they aren't paying and the attorney general isn't enforcing it repeatedly when it comes to women paying.



3rd issue. Women in our nations military. Men are responsible for registering for the draft and are responsible for responding when they are called apon. Yet women aren't. Well you ladies have brought up that we haven't had a draft in a very long time. Well our volunteer military is an extreme majority men. Why aren't the women volunteering? If we have a military quota and made it to where our military has to be 50/50. We could make women register for the draft and draft women till our military is in fact 50/50. That's what they would do to men if they stopped volunteering or weren't volunteering as women have done.


My list could go on and on forever. Yet these are in fact responsibilities women and their groups have not addressed. You ladies can ignore them and make excuses for them not to exist but they are in fact logical issues that concern men and if you are truly interested in equal rights and responsibilities you will address them. If your groups were truly interested in equality they would truly address them too.
 Iona_Bob
Joined: 3/31/2012
Msg: 649
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 11:59:10 AM
Thank you for a thoughtful and non-emotional post. {You did screw up here, however "I personally do prefer to work beside a woman rather than work beside a sweaty ugly man anyday and any man who disagrees would be gay." You are using "gay" as a pejorative, a put-down. Think about it in the context of discussing equal rights.}

There are a few topics I would like to address in response to your post. With respect to equal opportunities in employment: there are many instances of affirmative action being abused; some say it should never have been implemented in the first place. Some of the more egregious examples of "reverse discrimination" have been taken to court:
The impetus towards affirmative action is to redress the disadvantages[3][4][5][6][7] associated with overt historical discrimination.[8] Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.[9] Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticised as a form of reverse discrimination, and such implementation of affirmative action has been ruled unconstitutional by the majority opinion of Gratz v. Bollinger. Affirmative action as a practice was upheld by the court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States

It is NOT a part of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (AKA Public Law 82-352). it was introduced in 1961 - Executive Order No. 10925 issued by President Kennedy and later "embraced" by President Johnson with Executive Orders 11246 and 11375.

Some see affirmative action as a threat to small business and an overreach by the federal government. If you agree, vote Ron Paul for president. Here is what he had to say in 2004 re a resolution to honor Public Law 82-352:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/



I will try to make time this afternoon to respond further as I am interested in your perspective. Thanks.

P.S. I will point out that while segregation (in general, but primarily black/white) was officially banned AFTER WWII:


During the Second World War African-American enlistment was at an all time high. However, the U.S. military was still heavily segregated. Over 125,000 African-Americans served overseas during World War II. No African-American would receive the Medal of Honor during the war. According to the Army, their paperwork was lost. It would take over 50 years and a presidential order before the U.S. Army reviewed their records in order to award any Medals of Honor to black soldiers. This war marked the end of segregation in the U.S. military. In 1948 President Truman signed Executive Order 9981, officially ending segregation and racial inequality in the military.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_discrimination_in_the_U.S._Military

... there was still much to be addressed in the way of ongoing discrimination. The "teeth" to enforce was not given until The Civil Rights Act of 1964; which indeed was intended to quell racial as well as sexual discrimination (and is the ONLY law of which I am aware that can be invoked for court cases in the event of such discrimination).
 emptyvases
Joined: 4/4/2012
Msg: 650
Feminism Your Views
Posted: 4/21/2012 12:30:51 PM
I'm going to mention an issue related to this topic directly. Feminism itself is a movement that is part of the atomization
(balkanization) of the population, to break down the dominant culture itself.
PC, or cultural marxism works to dismantle the dominant culture via splintering.
In other words, the typical white woman has no voice until she becomes a "feminist," at which point she becomes the enemy of the dominant white male population. Every group has done this with the blessing of the elites who are doing the social engineering. Blacks, browns, homosexuals, feminists, etc., are all permitted and encouraged to join forces against the dominant culture. Most women have no idea that as "feminists" they are being used by the elites who are using a divide and conquer strategy to gain and keep control.
Anybody can reference what I'm saying here. These are the same techniques that the Bolsheviks used to gain control of Russia. These techniques have been time tested and are extremely effective.
The Frankfurt School promoted these top down ideologies as a means to deconstruct entire cultures.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Feminism Your Views [under review]