Is it? I see some blokes on here call ALL females "feminists". What does that mean? Are all women feminists? Are there some that arent?

Why does it seem to be the so-called "righties" that call them that? What does it mean when they do it? Its like they are trying to insult women but what is the insult in it?

What would a woman have to do to NOT be a feminist?

SOB

Like Germaine Greer. I am woman hear me roar.

I think there are still a few around, especially in the workplace. They're pretty annoying, especially when they put men down, that's not equality.

They're the same as male chauvinists, but when you pull them up on it they deny it of course.

The hard core feminist would believe that there is no job a man can do that a woman can't do as well. I don't agree with their cat cry about being equal on all fronts.

I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanist and overly competitive people annoy me. Who cares what they've got to prove?

Absolutely not.
The opposite is now needed.

I see teh ppl that go on about "feminism" arent posting. I want to know what it is that makes all the women here feminists.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 6:51am:

Is it? I see some blokes on here call ALL females "feminists". What does that mean? Are all women feminists? Are there some that arent? Why does it seem to be the so-called "righties" that call them that? What does it mean when they do it? Its like they are trying to insult women but what is the insult in it? What would a woman have to do to NOT be a feminist? SOB

Who are these people who call all females feminists?

Why does the thread title not match the content? You ask an interesting question then launch into something unconnected.

To answer the thread title, is feminism still relevant? I would say barely.
It has achieved what it set out to achieve. The vast majority, if not all, the reforms outlined by the 1st and 2nd wave have been accomplished. Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity?

To keep it relevant, the 3rd wave, and some 2nd wavers, have had to invent new problems. They've invented new forms of oppression everywhere, even to the extent if you disagree with a feminist you're deemed sexist or misogynistic.

Quote:

Why does the thread title not match the content? You ask an interesting question then launch into something unconnected.

the title is just one of the questions


Quote:

Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity?

In australia im not sure if they are allowed on the front lines yet. Also theres still some jobs labelled "womens jobs" that are paid less. However i pretty much agree that its mostly irrelevant nowadays except for the exceptions of course.


Quote:

even to the extent if you disagree with a feminist you're deemed sexist or misogynistic.

Doesnt that depend what you are disagreeing about?

SOB

I wonder how our society would react if Muslims believed that women should be obeyed and men should walk behind their wives and wear burkhas in public? Or if men were being held in brothels as sex slaves? As far as I can see women continue to be paid less for the same work, continue to be under represented in parliment and top echelon jobs. Young women continue to have less expectations than their male counterparts in all walks of life.

Gender equality still requires vigilance IMO.

Quote:

I wonder how our society would react if Muslims believed that women should be obeyed and men should walk behind their wives and wear burkhas in public? Or if men were being held in brothels as sex slaves? As far as I can see women continue to be paid less for the same work, continue to be under represented in parliment and top echelon jobs. Young women continue to have less expectations than their male counterparts in all walks of life. Gender equality still requires vigilance IMO.

I wonder who you might be sucking up to Grey?

Actually I think that you don't possess any common sense at all.

You are commonly known as a moron  ;D

Couldn't be bothered posting in this anti-democratic movement.

It's pretty silly for humans.
Might do well for sheep, but not too good for humans.

I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is.

Is that because you couldn't wear shorts when you burnt your bra DNA?

Q. How many Feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. Trick Question.  Feminism never changed anything.

Q. How many Feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. One to change the bulb, one to bitch about how the socket is being exploited by the bulb's obvious phallic nature, and one that wishes she was the socket.

I'm a Top Contributor on Yahoo's Gender Studies line - and let me say this - I do not call every woman a 'feminist' - and I have friends around the world on that site, most of them women.

IGOR'S GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED BY THE GRAPPLER
Feminism - the Feminism that represents legitimate issues and aspirations of genuine women.

Faux Feminism -  the extreme end of feminism that is dedicated to domination and control of society.  As divorced from Feminism and feminism.

feminism - the lip service style of feminism, the unthinking style of accepting whatever is fed to the speaker, Useful Idiots, those too dumb to know the difference.

Baby Feminists - kids just out of school who parrot the official feminist line without any real understanding of the real world.  Can also apply to recent immigrants, or even to older people new to the arguments.

Those are the yardsticks which I use...love 'em?

No - feminism is no longer relevant - womne have had full equal rights in society for ages now - and a lot of privileges such as perpetual EEO (once designed to be a temporary fix to the perceived lack of opportunity for women, but now a mile deep in concrete); unfair child custody and divorce that give them power both inside the family home pre-divorce and then outside it after; deliberately violent DV 'laws' that are nothing more than an abuse of legal process and of men directly and which constitute a Reign of Terror and a crime against humanity (you may ask some time); deliberately perverted education system since 1986 to favour girls over boys with predictable results as we are seeing right now with declining men's education and prospects and the disastrous supplanting of ability and knowledge with book learning, and so forth.

What has feminism to 'fight' for here today?  Absolutely nothing except the claimed 'level playing field' that they are resisting at all costs - since it would restore to men and boys their equal rights.

As for the rest of the world?  Feminism, with its rhetorical intrusions into other nations, is abrogating the rights of those nations to self-government, and is creating a situation in many where we of the West, because of the never-ending feminist virulent verbal attacks, are seen as 'crusaders' and 'cultural imperialists' - which, in turn, creates insecurity and potential terrorism for the West.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

[quote]In australia im not sure if they are allowed on the front lines yet. Also theres still some jobs labelled "womens jobs" that are paid less. SOB

Women are not allowed in frontline positions for a number of reasons - primarily that a vastly higher percentage of them lack the physical strength and the stamina.   The few who do prove the rule - not the other way around.  Then there are any number of other problems - but my primary one is this - We of the West have been fighting in recent years what are essentially 'colonial wars' against easy-beats - and the fighting has been minimal, as have the casualties and the necessity for any prolonged exposure to continuous combat.  'Women in combat' is the product of the mistaken belief that this will always be the case, and that therefore it is somehow 'safe' and 'equality' to put women at the sharp end.  Sharp end at the moment?  Where exactly is that apart from the very few in direct contact with the  enemy at any give time?

Secondly - on 'women's jobs that pay lower' - where exactly are these?  The banks?  The public service?  Teaching?  Nursing?  extra numbers in medicine, pharmacy etc?  All 'protected jobs' with easy conditions, luxury conditions by comparison with real work, and all well paid for the work they do.

Furthermore - immediately prior to the 2007 election, I looked into a feminist website touting women in politics (could be the one run by a past girlfriend of mine).  It touted that women receive 89% of the 'wages' that men do.  Further inquiry showed that women actually perform 36.8% of work hours while being 43% of the workforce.  That comes down to a simple figure - they are - on those government figures overall, entitled to take home pre-tax an INCOME - not WAGES - of 84.45% that of men.

Thus, by feminist and (mangina) government figures themselves, women actually receive a bonus or premium of 4.55% just to go to work in air-conditioned conditions and sit around most of the day.

So...er...your argument was?

What about demanding 50% CEOs?  The government itself, by its imposition of AA/EEO, has decreed, through the implementation of that policy through policy (it is not law!!) that an organisation can set its own policy in determining its promotion etc process.

Ya with me so far?

Therefore, a company/organisation has the unmitigated right to choose for itself who it will or won't have to head its runnings - for its own best interests.  Which ever dodo you promote in the public service to push twelve papers around a day may not matter - but it matters in the real world.

What about quota representation in elected government itself?

Well - sorry for all you ideologues out there - whether you be fascists/communists/ultra-socialists or whatever - but here in MY country it is We, The People who will decide who we will offer the privilege of representing us!  And not some jumped-up clown-lead party that seeks its justifications from some benighted midnight sun country of 7 million people, with the highest divorce rate in the world, Uberkontrolled economy and social life, and where men can be charged with rape under all sorts of ridiculous 'laws'.

Like linking the price of petroleum here with Singapore - a pissant island, linking our social life in this vast country to small and narrow-minded Sweden is total lunacy and only has one aim - removal of real rights!

Damn - they even make Volvos!

Amadd wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Quote: I wonder how our society would react if Muslims believed that women should be obeyed and men should walk behind their wives and wear burkhas in public? Or if men were being held in brothels as sex slaves? As far as I can see women continue to be paid less for the same work, continue to be under represented in parliment and top echelon jobs. Young women continue to have less expectations than their male counterparts in all walks of life. Gender equality still requires vigilance IMO. I wonder who you might be sucking up to Grey? Actually I think that you don't possess any common sense at all. You are commonly known as a moron  ;D

Well we can trade insults if you like I'mmad but I don't really think you have the imagination for it.

Quote:

The Grappler - here in MY country it is We, The People who will decide who we will offer the privilege of representing us!  And not some jumped-up clown-lead party that seeks its justifications from some benighted midnight sun country of 7 million people,

And Bush v Gore  /  Obama v McCain is the best We, The People can come up with out of your 313.5 million choices is it? Judging from the society revealed by your entertainment industry We, The Sun-soaked are not surprised.  ;D

i get your drift grey
I doubt whats 's name the yank, understands.

There is definitely still a real and necessary need for society to more fully embrace females as equals.
Note my language.?
.. and surely you recall recent stats which show that women continue to receive less payment than males, for the same service. Across the board, pretty much.  So claims to the contrary are simply not true.

Society, .......as shown by claims made , above, of unfair treatment for males, especially in CSA cases, ...as an example, ...... is not effective as we live it.

There is inequity to both sexes, in much of our current legislation, and that is symptomatic of the failure of society to recognise individuality, and the insistence that everyone fits a mould.

Lets face it kids, ( m&f) if we don't look after ourselves, we can't reasonably expect others to care..
and anecdotally , and from observance, . Men are their own worst enemies when it comes to marital conflict, ....
and I really BELIEVE that if, as a society, we (men) had more respect for the role of women, in all facets of society, ..
that MEN wouldn't feel the need to kill their spouses and children, quite as often as is happening NOW.


Imagine for a second fellas,  actually trusting and loving your spouse,...??!  And being  a good father and husband, without resentment.!??

HARD isn't it?

I've  met and understood enough Aus men to know that , for many many of them,  misogyny is the way of life.!! To think differently would be very disturbing.!!

But hey, not all of you.
I have hopes for the future... sort of. Many humanist options need to be pursued.

So yes, I have to say ,  :), Feminism is still necessary.     It represents a hope, a chance for better things for us all,... not the doom expounded by the anti's.

Grey wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:52am:

I wonder how our society would react if Muslims believed that women should be obeyed and men should walk behind their wives and wear burkhas in public? Or if men were being held in brothels as sex slaves? As far as I can see women continue to be paid less for the same work, continue to be under represented in parliment and top echelon jobs. Young women continue to have less expectations than their male counterparts in all walks of life. Gender equality still requires vigilance IMO.

Yeah not many want the role reversed. Its not just muslims either,. I have seen some pretty darn oppressive xtians and bahais. The AOG in australia tells women they exist to serve men.

Yeah we do still have a ways to go but we have come a long way and each generation seems better than the last. Hmm kinda. Theres a bit of weirdness in the generation thats around 30 now.

SOB

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is.

How did it do that?

It got women recognised as people that can do anything instead of being slaves to men. Can you imagine the sheer boredom a woman would feel in this age where there are washing machines and dishwashers if she had to stay home all day? The housework only takes a couple hours instead of all day.

SOB

Quote:

unfair child custody and divorce that give them power both inside the family home pre-divorce and then outside it after

Not from what i have seen. The reason the mother used to always get the kids is because she is who looked after them while the father went to work. This has changed now and the unemployed father can get custody even if he beat the mother in front of the children. The unfairness is both ways.


Quote:

deliberately perverted education system since 1986 to favour girls over boys with predictable results as we are seeing right now with declining men's education and prospects and the disastrous supplanting of ability and knowledge with book learning, and so forth.

What is this? Can you explain please?


Quote:

As for the rest of the world?  Feminism, with its rhetorical intrusions into other nations, is abrogating the rights of those nations to self-government, and is creating a situation in many where we of the West, because of the never-ending feminist virulent verbal attacks, are seen as 'crusaders' and 'cultural imperialists' - which, in turn, creates insecurity and potential terrorism for the West.

'
While i actually agree that we shouldn't be interfering most would say that we are "freeing" the women so they can vote or walk down the street without being killed. Of course our definition of "rreeing" ppl is killing them so no win there.

SOB

Quote:

Secondly - on 'women's jobs that pay lower' - where exactly are these?  The banks?  The public service?  Teaching?  Nursing?  extra numbers in medicine, pharmacy etc?  All 'protected jobs' with easy conditions, luxury conditions by comparison with real work, and all well paid for the work they do.

Real work? WTF is "real work"? you think a brickie should be paid more because he lifts more bricks? What a tired old line. Teachers and nurses are way more useful than a brickie.


Quote:

Furthermore - immediately prior to the 2007 election, I looked into a feminist website touting women in politics (could be the one run by a past girlfriend of mine).  It touted that women receive 89% of the 'wages' that men do.  Further inquiry showed that women actually perform 36.8% of work hours while being 43% of the workforce.  That comes down to a simple figure - they are - on those government figures overall, entitled to take home pre-tax an INCOME - not WAGES - of 84.45% that of men.

Yes. And the reason for this is that women are offered part time jobs when men get full time jobs. In fact most women are expected to work parttime instead of fulltime.


Quote:

Thus, by feminist and (mangina) government figures themselves, women actually receive a bonus or premium of 4.55% just to go to work in air-conditioned conditions and sit around most of the day.

WTF? You think all women sit in air conditioned offices and dont do anything all day? Dont the figures say its 43%? That means its 57% men sitting around in air conditioned offices doing nothing all day.

SOB

Grey wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 8:47pm:

[quote] And Bush v Gore  /  Obama v McCain is the best We, The People can come up with out of your 313.5 million choices is it? Judging from the society revealed by your entertainment industry We, The Sun-soaked are not surprised.  ;D

(**coughs**) - I'm an Australian - and my use of We, the People is a sometimes futile attempt to get people to realise that it is they who hold true power in this land - and that they should both act that way and demand that they be treated that way.

Is there a point in slagging Obama and co?  e.g. - do you disagree with the will of the people, and would rather that we have an imposed democracy, handed down to us by a select group? ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 6:43am:

[quote author=7A595D6F604554545C551D7445535B300 link=1340052695/9#9 date=1340074021] It got women recognised as people that can do anything instead of being slaves to men. Can you imagine the sheer boredom a woman would feel in this age where there are washing machines and dishwashers if she had to stay home all day? The housework only takes a couple hours instead of all day. SOB

The Pill got women recognised as available work fodder - not as people who can 'do anything' - since every person is an individual and each his his/her own limitations.

Imagine how boring it would be for men these days - when rather than plugging away in filthy factories, they can just sit around unemployed and vilified for doing so. ;D

According to many many studies many women CHOOSE to work part-time - all that other is guff - and the reason they work 43% of hours is that they get into jobs that only require the hours they want, they don't do as much overtime

You cannot honestly say that in this day and age women are somehow kept out of full-time jobs - in fact the opposite is true and men are - unless they are jobs that involve hard work in the open.

One woman driving a tip truck on a mining site doth not a forest make.....

The fact is that while most women work shorter hours in air conditioned jobs - it is still primarily men who work the longer hours in the difficult and dangerous jobs - as clearly shown by work statistics.

As for 'Australian men being misogynistic' - I think you need to look up the true definition of that vastly over-used word instead of the silly feminist one that plays the guilt trip and the finger-pointing game as a means of avoiding fact. ;D

Quote
Quote:
Secondly - on 'women's jobs that pay lower' - where exactly are these?  The banks?  The public service?  Teaching?  Nursing?  extra numbers in medicine, pharmacy etc?  All 'protected jobs' with easy conditions, luxury conditions by comparison with real work, and all well paid for the work they do.


Real work? WTF is "real work"? you think a brickie should be paid more because he lifts more bricks? What a tired old line. Teachers and nurses are way more useful than a brickie.

You reckon a brickie is less useful and deserves less pay and kudos for his constructive work, labour and expertise?

Now THAT is precisely the problem with Australia at the moment!

Teachers are more useful?  At what these days?  Look at the failings of the education system and talk.

Nurses have their uses - the hours are regulated and under cover.

The brickie works outside in the weather etc, the work is hard, and he builds things!

Poor fellow, my country - when people make silly comparisons like that. ;D


ADDS:-  Where are these women who are offered part-time jobs MORE so than men are?  The public service?  Nursing?  Teaching? Construction? Retail?  The Armed Services? ;D

The fact is that we live in a country where most full-time constructive work has vanished and will continue to vanish - and countless hundreds of thousands are unemployed or on piece-work or part-time casual (<1 in 13 of our total workforce - so they say - more than 2 kids in a class of 26 will be unemployed every day of their life), and this has been the case for decades now. :o

Quote:

(**coughs**) - I'm an Australian - and my use of We, the People is a sometimes futile attempt to get people to realise that it is they who hold true power in this land - and that they should both act that way and demand that they be treated that way.

No we dont. We vote thats ALL.


Quote:

Imagine how boring it would be for men these days - when rather than plugging away in filthy factories, they can just sit around unemployed and vilified for doing so.

Not sure what you mean by this but nobody can do that.


Quote:

As for 'Australian men being misogynistic' - I think you need to look up the true definition of that vastly over-used word instead of the silly feminist one that plays the guilt trip and the finger-pointing game as a means of avoiding fact.

Did i say that? I dont think so.

SOB

No - YOU didn't say 'Aust men are misogynistic' - some ideologue did.

I just tossed that one in with the rest - otherwise I'll be here all day - and I have a country to save from itself!  And it ain't the US of A!

The reason we don't have that power is that we remain silent, and that we have no real voice in politics - not while ever we have a government of two parties run by agenda and ideologies that are not approved by We, the People.

That's why I call them the Tag Team - one gives us a hiding with their ideology - then the other gets a shot.

Time for a new party! :)

Well, you bat yourself into a desirable position when you see the writing on the wall.
The feminist writing stated to me that they want me to work for them forever, or until I drop dead.
I didn't really like those terms, and chose a different path. One which has employers in a spin.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

It has achieved what it set out to achieve. The vast majority, if not all, the reforms outlined by the 1st and 2nd wave have been accomplished. Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity?

Sure. The vast majority of the world. India, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa.

Less than 20% of the world's population live in developed countries. The rest live in rural villages or rapidly industrialising cities.

Equal wages, child care, shelter from domestic violence, etc, rates a mention in a few places, but not many.

Take India. The middle classes are well-educated and informed. Women's issues get a fair bit of airplay on TV, in parliament, and in general political debate.

But in 80% of the country, women are still little more than chattel. Even wealthy, Western-educated professional women have their marriages arranged by their parents.

So - in 20% of the world, women are entitled to equality of opportunity. In the rest, it's business as usual.

Feminism is still relevant.

Big Donger wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:25am: It has achieved what it set out to achieve. The vast majority, if not all, the reforms outlined by the 1st and 2nd wave have been accomplished. Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity? Sure. The vast majority of the world. India, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa. Less than 20% of the world's population live in developed countries. The rest live in rural villages or rapidly industrialising cities. Equal wages, child care, shelter from domestic violence, etc, rates a mention in a few places, but not many. Take India. The middle classes are well-educated and informed. Women's issues get a fair bit of airplay on TV, in parliament, and in general political debate. But in 80% of the country, women are still little more than chattel. Even wealthy, Western-educated professional women have their marriages arranged by their parents. So - in 20% of the world, women are entitled to equality of opportunity. In the rest, it's business as usual. Feminism is still relevant.

ADDS:-  So - er - in that 20% - where you cite the absolute difference between the Indian middle classes and the poor - exactly how much better do men fare overall?

You cannot compare the middle classes with the rest and make that your blanket statement - and you provide support for the old contention that 'feminism' is a middle class movement designed to privilege that class.

REPEATS:- As for the rest of the world?  Feminism, with its rhetorical intrusions into other nations, is abrogating the rights of those nations to self-government, and is creating a situation in many where we of the West, because of the never-ending feminist virulent verbal attacks, are seen as 'crusaders' and 'cultural imperialists' - which, in turn, creates insecurity and potential terrorism for the West.

Now - you wanna be a crusader and go out and fix all those problems?  Go for it - but why do we of the West have to continue to be battered over all the silly issues that feminism keeps dredging up, and the lies it insists on telling about 'wage gaps' , political representation, the rape industry, the DV industry and so forth?

These are problems created by government on behalf if its delusions of women's rights and equalities, and they need fixing here and now!

How about starting at home first with all the very deep wrongs and divisions in Australia at the moment.

Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway!

Fathers rarely get custody overall.

What I do recall clearly is the article about the magistrate who wrote an apology to the children concerned over his own doubts and indeed rejection of claims of abuse by the mother - after he awarded custody to her anyway and savaged the father's visiting rights anyway - on the basis that it was sufficient that she 'believed' the abuse to have been the case!

WTF sort of law is that?

Hey - I believe ea ;Dch of you owes me $1m - fork over!


LATE ADDITION BEFORE I GO:-  (**coughs**) I have a 17 year old girl friend (not girlfriend) in Malaysia - she has health problems, wants to be an electronics engineer and would love to serve in their armed forces, and her parents do not expect that she marry on order, but choose her mate for herself.

I believe we can seriously over-generalise the situation in many of those countries, and thereby run the risk of shooting all the cats as grey ones... :'(

Hear hear. Good post that.

Quote:

Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway!

I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in?


Quote:

Fathers rarely get custody overall.

You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think?

SOB

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 8:13am:

Grey wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 8:47pm: [quote] And Bush v Gore  /  Obama v McCain is the best We, The People can come up with out of your 313.5 million choices is it? Judging from the society revealed by your entertainment industry We, The Sun-soaked are not surprised.  ;D (**coughs**) - I'm an Australian - and my use of We, the People is a sometimes futile attempt to get people to realise that it is they who hold true power in this land - and that they should both act that way and demand that they be treated that way. Is there a point in slagging Obama and co?  e.g. - do you disagree with the will of the people, and would rather that we have an imposed democracy, handed down to us by a select group? ;D

As an Anarchist I'm all for the will of the people. An imposed Democracy handed down by a slect group is exactly what we have got.

Political parties are gangs. Since the time of the divine right of kings power has come from above. The evolution of the political process has been towards sharing of power amongst increasing numbers of people. But every step of the way that has naturally been an unwilling process. Power continues to flow from the top down.

The last step into true democracy is to reverse that flow. When we elect representatives amongst the people we know, rather than have them foisted on us by the political gangs, we'll have got somewhere.

Then we can set about making decisions locally and spending our money locally, on those things that can be done at grass roots level without bureacracies and parties taking a cut to expand their empires.   

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 11:14am:

Big Donger wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 10:19am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:25am: It has achieved what it set out to achieve. The vast majority, if not all, the reforms outlined by the 1st and 2nd wave have been accomplished. Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity? Sure. The vast majority of the world. India, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa. Less than 20% of the world's population live in developed countries. The rest live in rural villages or rapidly industrialising cities. Equal wages, child care, shelter from domestic violence, etc, rates a mention in a few places, but not many. Take India. The middle classes are well-educated and informed. Women's issues get a fair bit of airplay on TV, in parliament, and in general political debate. But in 80% of the country, women are still little more than chattel. Even wealthy, Western-educated professional women have their marriages arranged by their parents. So - in 20% of the world, women are entitled to equality of opportunity. In the rest, it's business as usual. Feminism is still relevant. ADDS:-  So - er - in that 20% - where you cite the absolute difference between the Indian middle classes and the poor - exactly how much better do men fare overall? You cannot compare the middle classes with the rest and make that your blanket statement - and you provide support for the old contention that 'feminism' is a middle class movement designed to privilege that class. REPEATS:- As for the rest of the world?  Feminism, with its rhetorical intrusions into other nations, is abrogating the rights of those nations to self-government, and is creating a situation in many where we of the West, because of the never-ending feminist virulent verbal attacks, are seen as 'crusaders' and 'cultural imperialists' - which, in turn, creates insecurity and potential terrorism for the West.

You raise a good point. I remember Laura Bush having a pivotal role in US politics after September 11 in championing the rights of women in Afghanistan.

While the Hawks led the security crusade and the War On Terror, Laura was on Oprah selling the soft campaign - the cause of Afghani women and girls.

Thank Gud for Uncle Sam. 

Still, feminism's "rhetorical intrusions into other nations" is not all Western imperialism. There are plenty of grass roots women's organisations spearheading development campaigns in Asia and Africa.

Vananda Shiva, for example, leads a movement that protects local seed strains against multinational patent crops in India. Her ideas are based on Vedic philosophy, feminism and Western thought on biodiversity and ecosystems.

For Vananda Shiva, women's issues are not separate from the economy or the environment. You'll find the same ideas in microfinancing - the project that won the Bangladeshi, Muhammed Yunus, the Nobel prize for economics.

In the developing world, women's groups are leading the push against globalization, cultural imperialism and foreign ownership of land and resources. It's a completely different take on feminism to the "second wave" of equal employment rights in the West.

In many developing countries, women are both child-rearers and farm labourers. While men in rural areas often move to cities to find work, women are left to tend to the children and the crops. They often run small family businesses - a shop, a cow that produces milk for neighbours, piecemaking for the clothing industry. They often do the bulk of the work in families and communities - while the men are off harvesting or producing goods for us in the West.

In the West, women have largely earned equal rights. It's a different matter entirely in many parts of the developing world.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall.

You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think?

SOB[/quote]


ABS

In April 1997, there were 978,000 Australian children who were living with one natural parent and who had a natural parent living elsewhere. The vast majority (88%) lived with their natural mother.

Things must have changed in a hurry…

::)

FriYAY wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 2:38pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 11:24am: Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall. You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think? SOB

ABS

In April 1997, there were 978,000 Australian children who were living with one natural parent and who had a natural parent living elsewhere. The vast majority (88%) lived with their natural mother.

Things must have changed in a hurry…

::)
[/quote]

Thats more than 10 years. Not that much of a hurry. And why should i believe you anyway?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 2:49pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 2:38pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 11:24am: Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall. You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think? SOB ABS In April 1997, there were 978,000 Australian children who were living with one natural parent and who had a natural parent living elsewhere. The vast majority (88%) lived with their natural mother. Things must have changed in a hurry… ::)

Thats more than 10 years. Not that much of a hurry. And why should i believe you anyway?

SOB[/quote]

It’s from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

SOB – Staid Obtuse Boring  ;D

Big Donger wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 11:25am: It has achieved what it set out to achieve. The vast majority, if not all, the reforms outlined by the 1st and 2nd wave have been accomplished. Can you show me one area where women aren't allowed equality of opportunity? Sure. The vast majority of the world. India, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa. Less than 20% of the world's population live in developed countries. The rest live in rural villages or rapidly industrialising cities. Equal wages, child care, shelter from domestic violence, etc, rates a mention in a few places, but not many. Take India. The middle classes are well-educated and informed. Women's issues get a fair bit of airplay on TV, in parliament, and in general political debate. But in 80% of the country, women are still little more than chattel. Even wealthy, Western-educated professional women have their marriages arranged by their parents. So - in 20% of the world, women are entitled to equality of opportunity. In the rest, it's business as usual. Feminism is still relevant.

Well obviously equality of opportunity hasn't been achieved much in the non-Western world. This is obvious when you consider equality is a Western idea.
Whether or not other nations choose to go down that path is up to them. Grappler makes a good point that any intervention into non-Western countries is viewed by some as a kind of cultural imperialism. Even building schools for women and children in Afghanistan hasn't brought much praise.
I think many countries should think hard about uprooting their thousands of year old traditions before committing themselves to the siren of 'equality.' 'Equality' sounds like a nice word and goal, but it hasn't necessarily brought happiness. The hard truth is, that some people need to be dependent on others because they can't take on the self-responsibility to be equal to others. Those that have tried to be other's equal but fail end up miserable because their expectations weren't fulfilled. Some people are happy to be commanded and we shouldn't let the utopians scream 'equality' in their ear like it's some magic formula for happiness.

Exactly, Bolshie. As Goebels said, (the German) "people should give in to their overwealming desire to obey."

Well, love it or hate it, the fact is some people would rather others make their decisions for them.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 11:24am:

Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall.

You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think?

SOB[/quote]

Jeez - what bubble do YOU live in?  I've known  one custodial father in years. ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:01pm:

Well, love it or hate it, the fact is some people would rather others make their decisions for them.

True, Bolshie, but there are a lot of people who don't want their decisions made for them.

Take the tinted races. They whinge and moan about cash crop economies and foreign investment and IMF Structural Adjustment Policies and currency speculation and free trade zones and water privatisation and Amerikan farm subsidies and multinational seed patents and all the rest.

You'd think they wanted self determination, right?

New line - the issues here are that 'international feminism' - no matter how laudable the aims and intents - is a shot duck in the West UNTIL the glaring problems created by feminism in the west are repaired and set right.

Women may have some say in globalisation and so forth - and they certainly get the media attention with marches and stuff - but most of the quiet work goes on outside of that arena.  Don't be mislead by media focus on loud events.

You have many more immediate concerns here and now - including where your country is going in the spiralling petroleum decline - what price all your international feminism then?

Feminists need to focus on their own country first and fix the problems there, many of them created by government to boost women.

Contrary to the myths and the propaganda passed around in the fevered hope that we'll all just shut up and go away- the argument is NOT over in the West - not while feminists hold their ill-gotten gains at the expense of men and families.

Big Donger wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:16pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 4:01pm: Well, love it or hate it, the fact is some people would rather others make their decisions for them. True, Bolshie, but there are a lot of people who don't want their decisions made for them. Take the tinted races. They whinge and moan about cash crop economies and foreign investment and IMF Structural Adjustment Policies and currency speculation and free trade zones and water privatisation and Amerikan farm subsidies and multinational seed patents and all the rest. You'd think they wanted self determination, right?

If they want self-determination, go for it.

Might I add this - as a student of Terrorism etc - many countries view the feminist push as not only an attack on their culture - but on their God, on whom that culture is based.

Why is it that feminists sitting in the West cannot see that they are not only creating violence and hostility against the women they claim to be freeing from oppression, through proselytising that these women should change their 'God-given' role as women on that culture- but they are also inflaming those cultures to a backlash against the West (as if they needed inflaming!)?

This is a serious security risk, and will cost lives.

ADDS:-  Not only that - but where is this vaunted 'respect' and 'equality' for those cultures?

Can you not see how deeply insulting that entire approach is to them?

(hurls another dead fish on the floor)...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Single-Parent_Families.aspx

Read it and weep....

..."never-married fathers (1.5%), and widowers (0.9%)".....

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

(hurls another dead fish on the floor)... http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Single-Parent_Families.aspx Read it and weep.... ..."never-married fathers (1.5%), and widowers (0.9%)".....

The way to make a link is to select the url and click on the lil earth icon on top left of the editor. This will place the code on it to make it active. If you still cant figger it out please let me know and i will provide a screenshot on how to do it.

SOB

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

(hurls another dead fish on the floor)... http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Single-Parent_Families.aspx Read it and weep.... ..."never-married fathers (1.5%), and widowers (0.9%)".....

Invalid. Not australia.

SOB

FriYAY wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 3:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 2:49pm: FriYAY wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 2:38pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 11:24am: Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall. You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think? SOB ABS In April 1997, there were 978,000 Australian children who were living with one natural parent and who had a natural parent living elsewhere. The vast majority (88%) lived with their natural mother. Things must have changed in a hurry… ::) Thats more than 10 years. Not that much of a hurry. And why should i believe you anyway? SOB

It’s from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

SOB – Staid Obtuse Boring  ;D


[/quote]

Not a link though. You prolly made it up.

SOB

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 11:24am: Quote: Whoever said that fathers who abuse etc are getting custody needs to stand back and look at the facts...I've never heard of a single instance of any such thing - and with the current climate of accepting anything a woman says as 'abuse' - there is no yardstick by which to judge at all anyway! I said it and my sisters ex beat her in front of the children then took custody of the children.She even has to pay him maintenance! He beat the crap out of her. Put her in hospital. That abuse enough for you? Geez are you saying no women get abused? What kind of bubble do you live in? [quote]Fathers rarely get custody overall. You need to back that up because nearly every custody battle i know of the father has gotten custody (unless the father doesnt WANT custody which is sometimes the case). One didnt. Hmm thats seems to be a bit of a pendulum swing dont you think? SOB

Jeez - what bubble do YOU live in?  I've known  one custodial father in years. ;D
[/quote]

And what happened? Are there any who lost a custody battle where they wanted custody? And what was the reason given if so? Can you back up your claim that the system is biased towards woman or not?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:57pm:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 4:52pm: (hurls another dead fish on the floor)... http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Single-Parent_Families.aspx Read it and weep.... ..."never-married fathers (1.5%), and widowers (0.9%)"..... Invalid. Not australia. SOB

Yeah but:-

a) have you ever noticed that figures like this are very hard to find these days?  I collect statistics for certain things that are pretty non-PC - and you will not be amazed to find that they are not readily available - a bit like my Service records....

I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted - and I've had open stats on crime resolution rates before from 1976 to about 2005 (from memory) - but they have vanished now....

b) He-e-e-y - let's go international here.....just for the sake of it....

If the current feminist barrow is Internationalism - let's all bite the cherry......might as well enjoy it before the petroleum-free world closes down again and we are running coal-fired ships......

"Truly, my son - in generations past, men and women flew in huge birds five miles high at five hundred miles an hour and with 500 people on board for 5000 miles!  Now go tend the horses"....

I was talking about australia though. I noticed the trend a few years ago that men were getting custody more often. The situation with my sister is ridiculous imo and seems to be overcompensation on the part of the judge or laws for giving it to women for so long.

SOB

Misogyny . -  Hatred of or hostility toward women. 

Universal Dictionary    Readers Digest, 1988

:) ;D ;D ;D :-?
Yep .//// Readers Digest... hardly a feminist organisation.

angeleyes wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:47pm: I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is. Is that because you couldn't wear shorts when you burnt your bra DNA?

No its more because many Women lost the right to choose to stay home and look after their children.

It is because the big winners out of the feminist movement have been corporations who now get two workers from a family for the price of one. To move towards wage equality has meant as much a real money wage drop for men as an increase for woman. At the end of the day the biggest overall impact has been that one average male wage will no longer pay the bills for an average family.

For many Women the idea was the option to work but the reality for most has become the necessity to work.

Women went after choice but got a swap of the mandatory option. They have gone from working not being a viable option to where not working has become not a viable option while in terms of total family income the benefit has been negligible.

Singles and career women are in front but the average female has paid dearly for the few to benefit.

I support the principals and am dissapointed that it has been an abject failure.

Jalane, I hate to ask, dear, but are you the Grappler?

I see a distinct similarity in your posts.

http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/sex.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19^th, 2012 at 10:30am:

I want to know what it is that makes all the women here feminists. SOB

It maybe that they have been exposed to too much of your shiit, but that is only my opinion.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:47pm: I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is. Is that because you couldn't wear shorts when you burnt your bra DNA? No its more because many Women lost the right to choose to stay home and look after their children. It is because the big winners out of the feminist movement have been corporations who now get two workers from a family for the price of one. To move towards wage equality has meant as much a real money wage drop for men as an increase for woman. At the end of the day the biggest overall impact has been that one average male wage will no longer pay the bills for an average family. For many Women the idea was the option to work but the reality for most has become the necessity to work. [i]Women went after choice but got a swap of the mandatory option. They have gone from working not being a viable option to where not working has become not a viable option while in terms of total family income the benefit has been negligible.[/i] Singles and career women are in front but the average female has paid dearly for the few to benefit. I support the principals and am dissapointed that it has been an abject failure.

And this is down to Feminism?  Surely you speak of economic pressures here.
After all, isn't greed and economic rationalism the raison d'etre of  NOW.? Women are not exempt from these pressures.

Seems you lay all the ills of the world on Feminism's doorstep.

Get real!, pussy,  or is that Mouse???? 
Nice to have more than half the world's pop. to blame eh? :-? 8-)

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

I was talking about australia though. I noticed the trend a few years ago that men were getting custody more often. The situation with my sister is ridiculous imo and seems to be overcompensation on the part of the judge or laws for giving it to women for so long. SOB

Not a link though. You prolly made it up.

SOB SoReN.

Adamant wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 10:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 10:30am: I want to know what it is that makes all the women here feminists. SOB It maybe that they have been exposed to too much of your shiit, but that is only my opinion.

What does that even mean? Do you ever make sense?

SOB

Soren wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 5:34pm: I was talking about australia though. I noticed the trend a few years ago that men were getting custody more often. The situation with my sister is ridiculous imo and seems to be overcompensation on the part of the judge or laws for giving it to women for so long. SOB Not a link though. You prolly made it up. SOB SoReN.

you obviously didnt read the whole thread - or comprehend. I gave examples and the extreme example of my sister. The person i was talking to (not you obviously) pointed out that there arent any statistics.

However. This is how things work. They move in one direction then the other before coming to rest in the middle. The fact that it seems to be veering in the opposite direction from a few years ago is good because it may even up a bit soon.

As pointed out before a lot of men simply dont want the kids. They want access to them but not to look after them.

SOB

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

Might I add this - as a student of Terrorism etc - many countries view the feminist push as not only an attack on their culture - but on their God, on whom that culture is based. Why is it that feminists sitting in the West cannot see that they are not only creating violence and hostility against the women they claim to be freeing from oppression, through proselytising that these women should change their 'God-given' role as women on that culture- but they are also inflaming those cultures to a backlash against the West (as if they needed inflaming!)? This is a serious security risk, and will cost lives. ADDS:-  Not only that - but where is this vaunted 'respect' and 'equality' for those cultures? Can you not see how deeply insulting that entire approach is to them?

Absolutely and I have no time for the sort of 'moral relativism' you're preaching. torture is wrong, stoning people to death for bonking is wrong, don't care where it is.

right on grey!!
No matter WHERE it is.

And , scoff if you like, Mice, but its happening here,  everyday.  Not  just overseas, but right here in good old Oz, where everyone gets a fair go.  Don't make me laugh.  ::)

Perhaps your brain doesn't want to hear about it?

To my mind.... the worst example of equality would be ..
(horror story)

when Women...kill as many husbands and partners, .....

as Men now kill 'their' women and children.!!! :(

Emma wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:57pm:

right on grey!! No matter WHERE it is. And , scoff if you like, Mice, but its happening here,  everyday.  Not  just overseas, but right here in good old Oz, where everyone gets a fair go.  Don't make me laugh.  ::) Perhaps your brain doesn't want to hear about it? To my mind.... the worst example of equality would be .. (horror story) when Women...kill as many husbands and partners, ..... as Men now kill 'their' women and children.!!! :(

How about when as many women die in war as men as an example of equality?

Sounds like something you'd hear on Fox News. How many women are prepared to defend our borders over in Eeraq?

For some strange reason, a number of women have been fighting for front-line combat positions for years.

They must be completely nuts.

No not completely nuts Karnal,  just because they don't think the same way you do.

People are people, male or female, and it doesn't seem strange to me that some women want to contribute in such a direct manner to our nations concerns.

But its not just nationalistic fervour.  At a much deeper level , its a genuine desire to pit oneself against whatever comes your way, and the will to strive, to overcome, these challenges.  Not really much different from the ideals of males who volunteer, as far as I see it.

There was a thread about women in the military but I cant find it now

SOB

Emma wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 11:29pm:

No not completely nuts Karnal,  just because they don't think the same way you do. People are people, male or female, and it doesn't seem strange to me that some women want to contribute in such a direct manner to our nations concerns. But its not just nationalistic fervour.  At a much deeper level , its a genuine desire to pit oneself against whatever comes your way, and the will to strive, to overcome, these challenges.  Not really much different from the ideals of males who volunteer, as far as I see it.

What, fighting the hun is the same as volunteering at your local church?

If there was any way I could get out of combat, I would do it. If there was any way I could avoid joining the army and being yelled at all day, I would do it.

Fighting for the equal right to fight on the front lines is the same as fighting for the right to marry if you ask me.

Equally life threatening.

Absolutely feminsim is still relevant.  What sort of mysognystic caveman would even suggest that it's not?  There is still much to be acheived, much of which is explained in this excellent essay by one of my favourite fellow feminists.  The whole essay makes for great, enlightening reading, but to sum up:


Quote:

Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions. My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy

http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

... wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 11:34am:

Absolutely feminsim is still relevant.  What sort of mysognystic caveman would even suggest that it's not?  There is still much to be acheived, much of which is explained in this excellent essay by one of my favourite fellow feminists.  The whole essay makes for great, enlightening reading, but to sum up: Quote: Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions. My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

I think its lovely your husband has installed WiFi in your house so you can post your opinion from the kitchen.

... wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 11:34am:

Absolutely feminsim is still relevant.  What sort of mysognystic caveman would even suggest that it's not?  There is still much to be acheived, much of which is explained in this excellent essay by one of my favourite fellow feminists.  The whole essay makes for great, enlightening reading, but to sum up: Quote: Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions. My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

It's always funny how those who complain the most about stupid misogynist men, are nothing but misandrist women.

If it wasn't for the few women who are nothing but man haters, there wouldn't be such a growing backlash against feminism, and therefore there wouldn't be people asking if feminism was still relevant. 

Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today.

Quote:

Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today.

Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance.

Grey wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote: Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today. Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance.

Apart from the old rebut that two wrongs don't make a right, can you not see the difference here? Perhaps not, since by your reply you have shown that you don't seem to understand what a self defeating comment is. Let me explain.

Saying that all women are sluts is not a self defeating comment. It's just a sexist and inaccurate comment.

Saying that all men are sexist is a self defeating comment. This is because the comment itself is sexist, and therefore is itself the very thing it was accusing an entire group of being.

Have a read of that website before you go defending the type of feminist I'm attacking. They are basically talking about wiping 3 billion people out and genetically changing the few men left to make the world a perfect place. Even if it is a joke it is seriously sick.

Grey wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 5:45pm:

Quote: Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today. Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance.

How dare you suggest feminism is about profit?  It is about creating a better world, free from the influence of evil patriarchs like yourself, who have oppressed womyn for so long you don't even realise you're doing it. 

This is gold and perfect timing. This is what you are defending grey.


... wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today. Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance. How dare you suggest feminism is about profit?  It is about creating a better world, free from the influence of evil patriarchs like yourself, who have oppressed womyn for so long you don't even realise you're doing it.

These new feminist don't want any male help. We are all evil and should be eliminated. This is what the extremes of feminism has become. Us men are like Jews in the eyes of Himmler. Something to be used before being exterminated.

... wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today. Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance. How dare you suggest feminism is about profit?  It is about creating a better world, free from the influence of evil patriarchs like yourself, who have oppressed womyn for so long you don't even realise you're doing it.

;D Awww and I was just trying to get into your pants. 'Profit' as a positive gain, it doesn't have to be about money.

Well Q ...your statements consist of overarching dogma. Indeed you don't realise it at all.

'Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today.- You Q

I wonder? who said that ? on this thread?  Don't see that comment ...???

If its on the link... I'm not interested in reading it.
The espoused 'new feminist vision', as just put to us who don't usually consider such things, is verrry interesting....!!!

Not a bad idea ladies. :)  Utopian,  even desirable.....  but I think its likely to happen in any case,
:)
  ...I think it's becoming clear,  in the nature of things,  ....the the major roles so long held by men in our society, are no longer in as much demand... given technology and other advances, apart from war ( not a natural female aim  anyway...  well not on the scale of men anywy) and holders of genes, men are basically redundant...and they know it,, evn if unable to understand and consciously internalise it.  Many scientific facts concerning male potency decreasing alarmingly in recent decades, and the aging pop....  +  ::) heaps of stuff...suggest natural attrition will do the job. ;)

Hence the longing for the good old days,  and the hissy fits heaped on the PM et al.

Whether MEN are able to grasp that 'the times have changed'.. or not.. and adjust accordingly.. history will show it.

This seems to still be a problem. the few. the few radicals in the feminist movement wrecking it for everyone else and the few deadbeats who still want women to stay in the kitchen (which is impossible now anyway).

the thing is that throughout history it has been the radicals that have managed to change things so maybe we need them to be there for a lil longer.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 9:28am:

This seems to still be a problem. the few. the few radicals in the feminist movement wrecking it for everyone else and the few deadbeats who still want women to stay in the kitchen (which is impossible now anyway). the thing is that throughout history it has been the radicals that have managed to change things so maybe we need them to be there for a lil longer. SOB

They must not of wrecked it too bad cause they still won.

Emma wrote on Jun 20^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 9:06pm: angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:47pm: I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is. Is that because you couldn't wear shorts when you burnt your bra DNA? No its more because many Women lost the right to choose to stay home and look after their children. It is because the big winners out of the feminist movement have been corporations who now get two workers from a family for the price of one. To move towards wage equality has meant as much a real money wage drop for men as an increase for woman. At the end of the day the biggest overall impact has been that one average male wage will no longer pay the bills for an average family. For many Women the idea was the option to work but the reality for most has become the necessity to work. [i]Women went after choice but got a swap of the mandatory option. They have gone from working not being a viable option to where not working has become not a viable option while in terms of total family income the benefit has been negligible.[/i] Singles and career women are in front but the average female has paid dearly for the few to benefit. I support the principals and am dissapointed that it has been an abject failure. And this is down to Feminism?  Surely you speak of economic pressures here. After all, isn't greed and economic rationalism the raison d'etre of  NOW.? Women are not exempt from these pressures. Seems you lay all the ills of the world on Feminism's doorstep. Get real!, pussy,  or is that Mouse????  Nice to have more than half the world's pop. to blame eh? :-? 8-)

And this is down to Feminism?

Yep sure is - the feminist movement was exploited for economic gain by the business sector.

I am not blaming anyone, the fact that in the end the feminist movement was exploited and has hurt more women than it helped is just a sad truth.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 9:56am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 23rd, 2012 at 9:28am: This seems to still be a problem. the few. the few radicals in the feminist movement wrecking it for everyone else and the few deadbeats who still want women to stay in the kitchen (which is impossible now anyway). the thing is that throughout history it has been the radicals that have managed to change things so maybe we need them to be there for a lil longer. SOB They must not of wrecked it too bad cause they still won.

Haha I meant they wreck it like "peaceful protests" get wrecked. Obviously they didnt wreck it when they started it though they were needed.

SOB

Dnarever wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 10:52am:

Emma wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 10:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 20th, 2012 at 9:06pm: angeleyes wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 19th, 2012 at 12:47pm: I support equality but in my view the reality is that the feminist movment hurt more woman and families particularly than it helped as unfortunate as that is. Is that because you couldn't wear shorts when you burnt your bra DNA? No its more because many Women lost the right to choose to stay home and look after their children. It is because the big winners out of the feminist movement have been corporations who now get two workers from a family for the price of one. To move towards wage equality has meant as much a real money wage drop for men as an increase for woman. At the end of the day the biggest overall impact has been that one average male wage will no longer pay the bills for an average family. For many Women the idea was the option to work but the reality for most has become the necessity to work. [i]Women went after choice but got a swap of the mandatory option. They have gone from working not being a viable option to where not working has become not a viable option while in terms of total family income the benefit has been negligible.[/i] Singles and career women are in front but the average female has paid dearly for the few to benefit. I support the principals and am dissapointed that it has been an abject failure. And this is down to Feminism?  Surely you speak of economic pressures here. After all, isn't greed and economic rationalism the raison d'etre of  NOW.? Women are not exempt from these pressures. Seems you lay all the ills of the world on Feminism's doorstep. Get real!, pussy,  or is that Mouse????  Nice to have more than half the world's pop. to blame eh? :-? 8-) And this is down to Feminism? Yep sure is - the feminist movement was exploited for economic gain by the business sector. I am not blaming anyone, the fact that in the end the feminist movement was exploited and has hurt more women than it helped is just a sad truth.

Capitalism has exploited everybody Dna. You cannot blame women for the fact that labour saving devices have failed to kick in to save hours of work. Neither can you blame the emancipation of women for the fact that nuclear fasmilies now require two wages where one would've sufficed. Capitalists would've got women working regardless, just as they are now pushing to get the last hour out of the old, sick and maimed.   

quite right grey 

sucking the marrow out.!! :( >:(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 9:28am:

This seems to still be a problem. the few. the few radicals in the feminist movement wrecking it for everyone else and the few deadbeats who still want women to stay in the kitchen (which is impossible now anyway). The thing is that throughout history it has been the radicals that have managed to change things so maybe we need them to be there for a lil longer. SOB

Hmm - so this means that feminism is not relevant, since the only disputes seem to be between the rabid minorities at both ends?

The radicals rarely change anything unless it is by force - and most of the advances in social etc conditions have been nothing more than part of the ongoing process for better rights and lifestyle etc for all - a process - BTW - which was interrupted by feminism with its active discrimination, campaigns against men's genuine equalities, and so forth.

Once those crying issues are resolved, we can get on to actually working out what true equality is.

One thing it ain't is continuing to hand women privilege and power without responsibility, and handing to the state to pun9ish anyone who disagrees - as occurs under EEO in job applications and promotions etc, in DV issues, and so forth.

It is for those reasons - and a few others - that I have deemed the feminist years as a Reign of Terror.

e.g. refusal to employ or promote a capable man because he understands EEO - but does not accept it as a proper policy since it involves deliberate direct discrimination (and any number of other reason why it is a wrongful policy) - is an act of violence, theft of equality and rights, and economic disempowerment as a means of punishment  for 'wrongful thinking', installation of a man-hostile work environment, the exercise of proxy social and though control in advance, and of social control by force and by theft of income.

(translates:-  You don't sign your life and soul up to something you know is wrong, and we'll steal from you your right to fair treatment and a fair income, thus leading to a secure life and decent retirement, for your work and abilities).

Reign of Terror anyone? :o

Quote:

The radicals rarely change anything unless it is by force - and most of the advances in social etc conditions have been nothing more than part of the ongoing process for better rights and lifestyle etc for all - a process - BTW - which was interrupted by feminism with its active discrimination, campaigns against men's genuine equalities, and so forth.

If it wasnt for the radicals in the early feminism movements women wouldn't be voting and working today. They would still be riding sidesaddle. etcetc. What was "interrupted" was the push to have women "get back where they belong" by the men who realised they were getting out. My mother was involved in the womens movement and has told me about it.

Now of course the pendulum is swinging a bit. But in those early years radical feminism was needed.

SOB

[Reign of Terror anyone? :o[/quote]


Weirdo........ 
thanks but no thanks, we've had enough of the reign of terror .....  male dominance over women and children. 
Times they are a changing.... too bad you are too set in concrete to see any benefits.  poor thing... oh.. hope you don't have any kids.  You'd do in their heads with your dogma. :)

Just reread grapplers post. You know grappler usually does some pretty good posts but this time its a lil weird. Nobody i know has found the workplace to be hostile towards men. What the heck industry do you work in grappler?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 26^th, 2012 at 6:26am:

Quote: The radicals rarely change anything unless it is by force - and most of the advances in social etc conditions have been nothing more than part of the ongoing process for better rights and lifestyle etc for all - a process - BTW - which was interrupted by feminism with its active discrimination, campaigns against men's genuine equalities, and so forth. If it wasnt for the radicals in the early feminism movements women wouldn't be voting and working today. They would still be riding sidesaddle. etcetc. What was "interrupted" was the push to have women "get back where they belong" by the men who realised they were getting out. My mother was involved in the womens movement and has told me about it. Now of course the pendulum is swinging a bit. But in those early years radical feminism was needed. SOB

Cane toads were brought here for a reason too.  Remind me how that worked out again?

Quantum wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 6:05pm:

This is gold and perfect timing. This is what you are defending grey. ... wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:59pm: Grey wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:45pm: Quote: Perhaps if they didn't make such stupid self defeating comments such as; 'All men are sexist', then feminist may be taken more serious today. Patriarchs have made the stoopid self defeating comments that start "all women are..." for so long it's no wonder some women see profitt in addressing that imbalance. How dare you suggest feminism is about profit?  It is about creating a better world, free from the influence of evil patriarchs like yourself, who have oppressed womyn for so long you don't even realise you're doing it.  These new feminist don't want any male help. We are all evil and should be eliminated. This is what the extremes of feminism has become. Us men are like Jews in the eyes of Himmler. Something to be used before being exterminated.

That's right, Quantum. These new feminists - the fashionable ones in overalls and work boots - don't want any male help. They're separatists. They just want to live together in a big commune and have sex with each other.

Disgusting.

Karnal now declares as female.!!!

I always sort of figured you were female...... you are just too smart to be a fella. ;)

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

Feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

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

My position? Feminism is still relevant although the degree of relevance depends on the particular society under consideration.

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 11:34pm:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. Feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism My position? Feminism is still relevant although the degree of relevance depends on the particular society under consideration.

Sounds reasoned to me.

and I think
that it's a given,
what's good for women is good for everyone
because
we share :)

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 11:57pm:

and I think

No.  The problem is that you don't.

Grey wrote on Jun 27^th, 2012 at 11:48pm:

MissFixItOrElse wrote on Jun 27th, 2012 at 11:34pm: "Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. Feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism My position? Feminism is still relevant although the degree of relevance depends on the particular society under consideration. Sounds reasoned to me.

Thanks  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJTX0iWYX9A

If Abbott ever becomes PM, I guess the question of how relevant feminism may be,  will become apparent once more.
Because this clown has daughters, he likes to try and have people believe he has an "enlightened" attitude towards women, which is clearly false, like almost everything he claims about himself.
Whether that is from a lack of self awareness, or just a lack of credibility, or maybe both, but whatever it is, nobody who really values and cares about equality for women, would even consider wanting this bloke as our PM.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJTX0iWYX9A If Abbott ever becomes PM, I guess the question of how relevant feminism may be,  will become apparent once more. Because this clown has daughters, he likes to try and have people believe he has an "enlightened" attitude towards women, which is clearly false, like almost everything he claims about himself. Whether that is from a lack of self awareness, or just a lack of credibility, or maybe both, but whatever it is, nobody who really values and cares about equality for women, would even consider wanting this bloke as our PM.

Lucky all the misandrists are a worthless portion of the population.

Thanks Mozzaok ...but I don't need to view your vid.

I've heard it all before.   ::)