#yesallwomen

Post Reply New Topic

He had one besides 'feminazi'?
Say what you will about Rush, but I believe he coined that term back in the late 80s or early 90s, and it's withstood the test of time for a reason, that being that it struck a chord with a lot of people. It's kind of besides my point though, which isn't about women taking it to far, though there are definitely some who do, but rather about the direction that much of modern feminism has gone in, which I think is counter-productive. "Equal rights" is a winning message that's persuasive, "check your privilege gender-normative cretin!" not so much.

in the middle of stuff, so will reply more later, but: huh? How is it men's fault if they're ...well, I mean I suppose if you don't go get more education, that's either your choice or something out of your control because you can't afford it, but wha? And what is this obsession with status you guys keep insisting we have when it comes to men?

One of the reasons I left OKC is that once I'd set my preferences to "age-appropriate, advanced degree", there were nine men in the area, none of whom I wanted to date. It never occurred to me to blame men for this. Actually it made me think, "Less competition for me."

I didn't specify "advanced degree" because I'm desperately seeking status, btw; I specified it because at this point I've lived in/around academia long enough that it's a big part of my cultural background, and fortunately or not that's not shared by most who just come to college to get a bachelor's degree. I also don't want to be bored, or scare the guy, and while yes, there are very bright and well-read self-educated men out there, in truth they're few and far between. Most of the guys who're that bright and bookish also want the status and/or income potential of the degree, and will take themselves back to university.

The single-mom-by-choice thing...I think it's very risky and a bad idea if you haven't a large, supportive family and/or a social-democratic country with an excellent social welfare system. In a place like the US it's just too much work and too uncertain to do it all alone -- you risk dragging the child through poverty and neglect. But otherwise...you know, people used to fret at me, and I used to fret, about raising my daughter as a single mom. How she'd miss seeing how marriages worked, would miss having a male presence in the house, and somehow this'd be a cruel deficiency. As far as I can make out, it's actually gone startlingly well. She's a really, really nice person, self-confident, smart, caring, capable, good with people, etc. She seems actually to have the same sort of advantages that girls get from going to private girls' schools. If she does wind up married, and married to a man, I think she may shock the guy with how difficult it is to push her around, especially if he had a mom who gave in a lot to keep peace. But it'd be a lucky man who'd have her for a wife.

Anyway -- my objection to the SMBC thing's economic, but when I hear guys talk about it, often it sounds as though they believe there's no social world for the children outside the house. Moms tend to have friends and be part of communities. The children have relationships with each others' families, too -- we don't use the word "auntie" here, but certainly I'm in that role for many children, and many others are in that role for mine. The daddies are in the mix more than they used to be, really because of feminism, so while my daughter knows her friends' mothers more than her fathers, she sees the families all together, and the daddies also talk to her.

What really seems to matter is that the children have enough of everything, and many people who love them, show interest, show belief in them, make it plain that they're important. It seems not to matter so much how many adults sleep in the house or what sex they are.

I have a few issues with your post:

If part of the problem is that female-run institutions don't control money, then it's hard to see how my mom did them wrong by offering it to them.

If somebody throwing a fit were an excuse for not changing a system, then we would never have desegregated most industries. Key employees can walk off the job (and take hard-to-replace skills with them) if they don't like changes in their work environment.

As far as the legal hassles of running a business, that's a problem for anyone. Earning money in developed countries exposes you to a lot of regulation. I'm also not sure that those hassles are any worse than what other organizations went through in the name of equality.

My state just passed an equal-pay law that requires employers to base their hiring decisions on education level and years of work experience. It was passed without any evidence that there was systematic hiring discrimination in the state. Even if there is, the law may not make it better. To take an example from an environment that I've worked in, an MS in engineering is only a tiny fraction of what you need to know to do the work. Well-run companies usually look for extras, like being on the school's solar car design team. The law may allow that to be considered, but you'll still need to document everything. And should you hire an MS who did the absolute minimum to earn the degree, or a BS who did impressive extra credit work? If it's ambiguous, you can probably be sued.



I'm not sure of that. My dad was pretty involved. He didn't complain much, though.

You see women as having so called maladaptive behaviors that they usually do not. You cannot ask women as a whole to change something you think they do, that they actually don't do.

Obviously different cultures are different, but what I see here in the US is men ranting about women that as far as I can tell are a rarity. I think men who have had difficulty dating sometimes make a lot of incorrect assumptions, and misunderstand a lot of what they have been told. Not to mention, sometimes they seem to only be able to find themselves attracted to the wrong women, based on some false idea of what is attractive, and not anyone they could actually get along with. When it comes to guys who fall into this group, I run out of patience with their complaining fast, because it is a cage of their own making.

As for those few women who only care about money - well, there are enough wealthy men who only care about young sexy bodies to get the two matched up. I'm not going to be friends with that woman/wife or that guy/husband, and they are not the norm.

The women you say are attracted to criminals - that is even more rare, and has more to do with psychological issues than any feminine ideals. I have yet to meet a single one of those women, they are EXTREMELY rare and, thus, really inapplicable to any generalized discussion.

I was thinking someone might call me out on the plural but I was too lazy to reword the sentence.

If they've changed direction I may have missed it; I'm not involved in things like that in the way I was in my younger days. But I don't see anything like what you describe trickling into my kids' lives, although I have been on a rant about how modern grading rubrics and homework policies favor girls.

Ahh, I thought that might be the case, as feminism doesn't mean what it used to anymore. You really ought to check out a few of the links I posted in my first reply to you, they'll give you a better idea of what I'm talking about when I refer to the current strain of feminism.

In Seattle you have a choice between being boring and having money or having a soul but no money. There isn't time for both.

I read some of them. I actually derived a variety of messages from them, not any single "this is what the movement has evolved to." Mostly, I don't think you have a single movement; you just have a lot of different people each with their own opinions. And if it sometimes seems contentious that would be because everything in today's world has gotten contentious, when it goes online at least. In real life people work things out agreeably, although you would never guess that reading online.

It's because American culture is about being contentious. It's always been that way. The story is that things are gained through struggle rather than through finding an ethical equilibrium. We're less communitarian than ever. We're less nice to our neighbors than ever. Everything is about the individual, or the group identities to which individuals belong. Movements no longer seem to be about creating a better world for everyone, but fighting exclusively for specific interest groups / identities that are seen as being held back by some other interest group / identity. Everyone is oppressed and unfairly held back by someone else. Everything is about struggle and competition against someone else. Everyone has to have this "fighter" mentality. We all have to fight viciously and ruthlessly for the scarce scraps of meat and demand what is rightfully ours.

And yet all the families at our elementary school got together and made it a better place. Yet all the school districts in the county are banding together to raise funds together, to pool resources. Yet I know if I need something there ARE neighbors who will run to my rescue. Yet multiple times I've been in the meal-delivery-chain for a family struck by long term illness.

The world only SEEMS dog eat dog contentious because those are the most vocal story lines. But more people actually care about their communities than don't, and more people live by "pay it forward" than don't. We may all have a level of selfish nature, but we also all yearn for community and a world that is nice place to live in.

I only fight the fights that MUST be fought, and I'm really good at them. It's been a very long time since I've pulled my gloves out.

If you want to live in a nicer world, you have to believe in a nicer world.

Should have known better than involve in this debate as feminists don't acknowledge that men and women have roles in dating, rather think these are cultural only. No sense in arguing against such ideas as it can lead nowhere.

Imo, the right always seems to be full of uneducated fools, and the left always seems to be full of self-righteous intellectuals that tear themselves apart. In the end, I'm always far more fearful of the unified fools than the divided intellectuals.

should have known better indeed--if your arguments have no evidence to support them then positing them is wasting everyone's time, including your own.

Psssttt...

Don't get dragged in. Don't do it.

Run away!! !

There are no arguments against unprovable ideas that culture is behind every gender difference. It's like claiming there is life on Alfa Centaurus. It's useless to debate such stupidity.

good advice, noted for future reference.