Category: Let's talk
I participated in our city's chapter of the Saturday women's march, not because I'm particularly political, but because I recognize that women's rights issues are a lot more serious even in this day and age than I originally thought. I found it to be a compelling experience, and I was proud to be a part of it. It is apparently the biggest demonstration in US history, though I don't know what that claim is based on. Either way it was a fantastic experience. Did anyone else participate?
I didn't participate, but wanted to chime in a little re: women's rights.
Ten years ago, even five or six years ago, I'd have told you I wasn't political, and would have shaken my head at anything political. It's not that I didn't care at all, but I had the jaded idea that it doesn't matter what we say or do because politicians are going to be slimy and backhanded and do whatever the hell they want. Some of that attitude still exists, but I recognize more fully now just how important stuff like this is, even when it doesn't affect you. I knew it intellectually but didn't really confront it until the last half-decade or so. I would not say that I'm politically-minded. I'm not, not really. There are still a lot of things I really don't like about the system, and a lot of areas where some of you will run circles around me. But generally, I feel a lot more conscious today than I ever used to. I owe it in large part to the company I kept over the last five years, which really helped me realize that I do, in fact, enjoy some of this stuff, and think it's important, and can't just dismiss it with blanket statements.
I dunno. Not trying to hijack your topic. The point is, I agree that women's rights are a huge deal, and what with things happening the way they are, it's getting to be scary times again. It makes me angry and it makes me sad.
No no, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for. And without being too verbose, I'll say I completely agree. I knew the gulf between men and women was narrower than it used to be, but I didn't fully realize - and maybe I still don't - just how wide it actually is. Women still appear to be second class. The whole victim blaming and rape culture is just the tip of the iceburg, to borrow a vastly overused cliché. The thing is, even those of us who aren't political, or who aren't wanting to protest can still do our part to make things better even in how we treat women, regardless of our gender. The thing I find so disturbing is how many people are against this sort of protest, even now. Not just men, either, but women also.
Yes, it is interesting, but not surprising that some women are against it.
They feel women should be women.
I don't think they are wholy against it, just the concept that women should be treated as men. They don't want to be men, just receive equality.
They don't want to go to war or whatever.
I think there's a pretty big misunderstanding that equal means exactly the same. Women don't have a problem with being women, just what being a woman seems to represent more often than not. They aren't - to my knowledge at least - vying to be men. A lot of the people I personally know who have strong oppinions about feminism and womens' rites appear to think feminists are a bunch of man-hating creatures only wishing to subvert the status quo. Maybe some of them are. But all the real feminists I know, and most of what I see are women wishing to have the same rites as their mail counterparts. Not wanting to be told they have to stay at home, or being looked down on for working. Being paid the same amount as their male counterparts who are doing the same jobs. Being taken seriously (and it's amazing how often that doesn't happen), having their medical issues and rapes investigated. Basically not being considered the weaker, more inferior gender. Not constantly being objectified. The list goes on and on honestly. And that's just in North America. In other countries it's far, far worse. They're property in a lot of countries, as they were in North America for a long time.
I realize I'll be in the minority here, and for that reason I was somewhat hesitant to even post to this topic because this seems to be such a heated issue for many people. However I'll give my thoughts because I think my stance is valuable. No, I didn't participate in the "women's march" as people are calling it. In fact, I am one woman who is strongly against the women's march. Personally, I don't feel like I don't have a voice because I'm a woman. I don't feel that I'm not valued or valuable in society because I'm a woman. I don't feel that I'm a victim of anything because I'm a woman. I don't feel like I'm a second-class citizen or any other thing that women have been saying that they feel in their lives. Now, when I was a kid, I was not strong in any of the convictions I listed above. I did feel that I didn't have a voice because I'm a woman. I did feel that I was not valued or valuable in society because I'm a woman. I did feel that I was a victim of things I went through because I'm a woman. I did feel like I was a second-class citizen because I'm a woman. So my life, specifically living on my own, and having to reach a level of independence I never thought was even possible, are what have inspired what I believe to be a positive change in me.
Just to clarify, I meant to write that as a kid/young adult, I did feel that I was all of the things I listed above.
Fair enough Chelsea. I think it's great you've reached that point in your life. There are lots of women who feel the way you do. I don't condemn you for your lack of participation. My question however is, why are you "against" the march? You might be neutral on the subject now based on your own personal circumstances. Lots of people end up in that area. For instance I'm not all that interested in visually impaired issues because I don't experience them myself, though I probably should be. There are lots of people who do experience discrimination in the visually impaired world though, even if I don't. So I'm definetly not "against" such things. I don't know if that's just a word you used haphazardly, but "against" conveys an opposition. If that is so, then why? There are tons of women who not only feel inferior, but actually "are" inferior. I'm not talking about back in the middle east, though that's a horrible place for women too, but even in our own countries. This march is really for all of them, and for women at large, because it stands in defiance of all those who would see women in a subjective or secondary role. It is not just for us here in North America; there were marches in many countries around the world. It is for women everywhere, including those countries where women are truly "property". It might have started out as a march against Trump, but it became a lot more.
Also out of curiosity, what made you feel differently from how you did when you were a young adult?
Also to clarify - because lots and lots of people get their feathers rufled around here - this is not meant to be a personal attack.
I didn't participate, both because I don't like large crowds and because I don't think the march will change anything.
At the university I attended a women's lean-in circle. It was a learning experience for me because the issues the girls brought up at meetings seemed quite different from mine. They described a whole bunch of scenarios I never experienced. Things like discomfort at being the only girl in a programming course, sexist comments from professors, women TAs trying not to spend all their time helping the guy they have a crush on, and sometimes being afraid to work late in the lab with the creepy guys around.
If I heard sexist comments they were probably too subtle for me to notice and if I could prove my aptitude people took me seriously enough. I didn't really care what my classmates had between their legs. I'm not saying that the other lean-in members' experiences didn't happen, only that I didn't have them.
Yeah. Being ambivalent on a personal level is something I understand a bit. It doesn't affect me personally, so it's not going to change things for me personally.
But the idea of being actively against such a march frankly baffles me. These very real problems faced by women all over the world deserve to be brought up, and desperately need doing away with. It's mind-blowing that you can still see men and women doing exactly the same jobs at different salaries. It's mind-blowing that sexist comments, rape culture and other such nonsense is still being defended, even gently. There is no defense. It's wrong. The male-dominated system has had its way for thousands of years, and a better-late-than never switch is in order.
If a hundred-pound woman with average muscle mass tells me she's going to be a better construction worker than some dude who's got twice her size and considerably more strength, I'm going to be dubious. Ditto, though, if the smaller, weaker party is a man, and it does happen. There are certain lines of work where size and physical strength are an asset, but they aren't too many anymore. Beyond those, this equality thing has to happen. All the way down.
It always is interesting to me when people think of women being lower class they point to the middle east.
It is true it happens, but in much of that society, women are actually seen as strong.
They own the property, have lots of rights.
They wear the scarf not because they must, but because they want.
In Egypt, they had to pass a law to keep women from wearing the scarfs and such.
I'd say middle Asia was worse.
Well, my exposure to the media, and my own experience with a few girls who lived in the east colored my perception. Ditto to the places in China where women are devalued in favor of a mail child. Biggest point though is that it doesn't take a lot of looking to find examples like that. And those are just the extreme examples. There are the simple, day-to-day examples that are, for lack of a better term in our own back yard. It honestly baffles me when people consider this a non-issue. And lots and lots of people do.
Yes. I see that, and you're right on it.
I guess in all cases women don't suffer, or don't believe they do.
I thought my first post was as clear as it could be, but I'll try again. I say I'm against this march or any march that may be done in the future because aside from the fact I think wining is absolutely pointless, I have not been able to figure out what the hell these women marched for through what I've read on this topic or anywhere else that I've read about this supposed wonderful event. All I know is that my Facebook feed has been cluttered lately with people talking about what a difference they feel they made during the march, that people who are not black marched because they feel sorry about the hardships black people have endured and continue to endure, they don't like the fact that people touch others inappropriately, among other things. Guess what? No one likes being touched inappropriately, including me. I don't see a need for me to broadcast that I feel that way to the whole world though. I'm sure no one cares what my thoughts are, and that's fine. I don't think my thoughts matter in this instance. Also, as I have said in other topics, the world will *never* be equal in any way, whether we're sighted, blind, straight, gay, ETC. As people with disabilities, the world will *never* see us as equal members of society, no matter how hard we wish for them to do so. As I have said in other topics, no, this doesn't mean that we should not strive to be the best we possibly can be. It simply means that I'm a realistic person, and part of my being a realist is realizing and accepting that equality will never exist. Honestly, I still wonder why this event was impactful or helpful to society in any way. Based off of the footage I have seen, a bunch of women acted like banchies during the march, screaming and hollering, supposedly making themselves feel powerful because they came together as women to yell, scream and wine about how they don't like our new president. That is the opposite of patriotic. Although, I guess I could get some friends together, claim that my friends and I were protesting the fact that chocolate exists, then just run around our neighborhood and scream like banchies just because we could. Think women would go for that? I doubt it, and they shouldn't.
As I have also said countless times, I felt these things as a kid, teenager and young adult because that's what I was taught and, I would argue, conditioned to believe. I think you Remy have seen numerous topics where I've talked about how I grew up, so it shouldn't be hard to figure out why I felt these things. However, when I got out on my own as I said in my first post here, I questioned everything I'd ever been taught--I've always been an introspective person, and this transformation from feeling like I didn't have a voice, feeling like I was a victim of things, feeling like what I thought or felt didn't matter, to feeling like a valued and valuable member of society came firstly because I questioned everything I was taught and decided that I didn't actually believe those things. Secondly, I followed those thoughts through with the action of figuring out how I could change myself for the better, then I followed through with just that. It was hard at times, but that's my answer. There was nothing magical about it, or nothing that would be awe-inspiring to you or anyone else, about how this transformation happened. It simply happened because I put in the work, effort and sweat and tears to make it do so.
And that's all well and good for you personally, but there's a difference between seeing something as a waste of time for you personally, and being against it in general.
Obviously there are tons and tons of people who think they got something out of what happened, so who are you, and indeed who is anyone, to take that away from them?
Thank you Chelsea for your explanation. It certainly did clear things up. We may never be equal in terms of being the same. Men and women have differences beyond genitles after all, just as people with disabilities have differences. But I do believe that if enough people strive to, the gap between peoples can be significantly narrowed. That's no small thing. It's a matter of respecting one another for what they bring, not devaluing their contributions. And that's what so many women face, evin in subtle ways. Chelsea, you may not experience that personally. I don't experience a lot of the discrimination the blind community does as I said, and yes, it's hard for me to want to worry about it. But the issues are real among us too. And as it indirectly affects us, we really should care. It's easy to get wrapped up in our own lives. I'm guilty of it for sure. standing in defiance though, I don't see the need. This march was more than just a bunch of women hooting and whining. And it's far bigger than Trump, though as I said it was started around him. People speaking out do make a difference. These demonstrations do matter. Were it not so, women wouldn't even be allowed to vote, and blacks would still be at the back of the bus. People got pissed at the indecent way they were being treated, and they did something about it. That is what this is about. You don't have to join them, but please do not scorn those who choose to participate, just because you don't see the value.
Remy, we will agree to disagree. However, just as you don't want to be told to care about something that you don't care about, you have no right to tell me not to hold the opinion I do--you are a grown man who makes choices for *your* life, just as I am a grown woman who makes choices for *my* life. One of the choices I make is to not support something so foolish as people making much ado about nothin'. If you want to support crazy-acting banchies, fine, but I and many other women do not support their actions and that is fine too. Because here's the thing: when I'm mad about something, especially when it's something I'm passionate about, I try to figure out how I can change things for the better. Maybe that means I change my attitude, maybe that means I write my congresspeople, maybe that means I organize a fundraiser that would enable me to contribute to a worthwhile cause or any number of other "maybes." Protesting something though, is not and never would be anything I participate in because protesting Donald Trump is not going to change the fact that he's our President, nor is the fact Madonna yelled about tampon prices going to change anything. In short, each human being who is an adult, and has the capability of making his or her own decisions, should do just that instead of parroting what others say--I would've supported something like this when I was young and stupid, but as a grown woman who lives on her own and annalizes things like this, absolutely not. I would rather do things that *will* inspire change in the world, rather than getting together with a bunch of women and having a woman-only party or whatever you want to call it. That brings up another thing: I hear a lot of women say "Oh, you're a woman. Therefore you'll understand what I mean." My response is "Uh, no. Actually, I don't know what you mean unless you tell me exactly what you mean, by using your words." I have never understood that, because people are not mind readers. I am a woman but I don't feel I'm less than anyone, less deserving than anyone of things, a victim of wrongdoings people have committed against me, none of that. In fact, I've recently been learning how to use the assets that are available to me as a woman (my looks) mainly, are what I mean. I know I look good, and I portray that through the self-confidence that I exude. Whereas other women think it's dirty or otherwise wrong to use that sort of thing as the asset that it is--I feel empowered by the fact that I'm learning how to think differently than most women do on this issue because it will really help me throughout life.
Historically mass demonstrations have in fact made a difference on many issues. Americans have the right to both free speech and the right to demonstrate. These women certainly have the right to express themselves.
Sadly, people who have not experienced a problem, or have not been directly affected by discrimination all too often try to pretend that because it doesn't affect them, it is not important. This is a society, we must support one another. Just because I, as a man, have not personally experienced the gender issues raised, does not mean I should claim they do not exist, or through indifference not assist in addressing them. I fully support the march. It was important to many women who I love and respect, so it is important to me. It was through marches and demonstrations like this that women got the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to wear pants if they wish, the right to work outside the home, and the right to decisions over their own bodies. To deny this fact is to deny history. Someone like Chelsea got hers, so screw everyone else. I cannot accept that way of thinking as productive. No woman was forced to march or support the marchers, but to actively denounce the marchers is unnecessarily blind to the reality of women's issues.
BTW, for the record, demonstrating against a president is patriotic. Patriotism requires that we as free citizens do not blindly follow our leaders just because they are our leaders. We have the right and the obligation to protest against people or ideas we do not agree with. This is a long standing American tradition, and it is easily proven that marches and demonstrations can and have made a difference in the past.
although I did not participate in the march, I am extremely thankful and greatful that I live in a country where we have the freedom to protest. this should never be taken lightly.
if more respect for and appreciation of each genders innate sstrengths and weaknesses were practiced and processed, there would be less need for such activities. pride in oneself often breeds respect from others. in my experience, if I expect to be treated badly, I usually am. the converse is often true.
nonviolent demonstrations as those which occurred on Saturday have their place. women and men need to be heard on important and life altering issues. although I'm all in favor of working individually through the system to enact improvement, sometimes, for conversations and change to begin, events like the march need to be planned and participated in.
it is interesting to note that during the inauguration on Friday much violence occurred in D.C. angry frustrated individuals, many of them men, caused a lot of needless destruction.
conversely, on Saturday huge numbers of women gathered together in peace. few or no acts of distruction occurred. the same goes for arrests.
maybe the so called dominant gender should take a lesson from the one who believes she is treated as a second class citizen. if listening, cooperation and compromise were practiced by those in authority, we'd have a far healthier and safer world.
oh and for the record, I'm not angry enough to attend. as an almost 60 year old vintage gal, my time to protest is finishing. as a young pup I marched eagerly and often for a lot of causes. now it's time for the next generation to take up the baton. ladies you go!! you did a great job!!!!
Remy and Bill have the right of this. This isn't a matter of opinion. Facts speak for themselves.
You can choose not to go. You can choose not to be on the front lines supporting these things. That's totally fine. No one's going to call you out for that. Not everyone is into this sort of thing.
But dismissing it as a bunch of yelling and protestation and generally useless attention-getting because the people in question don't like the system? That's where your ignorance really shows.
Yes. It's attention-getting, it's loud, and it may seem silly to you. But as has been said, this is one of the ways that under-represented and oppressed minorities get their voices heard. Maybe you'd be fine with losing the right to vote, or in being treated as a second-class citizen. Maybe you don't care when racism happens - because yes, let's face it, it's still a very real problem - because as far as I know, you're white. Maybe you think there are better ways to get your point across than peaceful protests.
Well, if there are better ways, I'd love to hear them. Ways that work, I mean. Because peaceful protests have, to some extent at least, already proven their track record pretty thoroughly.
You can't logic your way out of oppression if you're alone. The system isn't built that way.
I did not participate , but I do support these things fully.
I haven't directly said so.
Chelsea it is your rite to hold the opinion you do. I'm not taking that away from you, only urging you to see past the surface of things. To some of those women maybe it was just an excuse to "act like a banchee", though heaven knows enough men act that way too at things. Maybe some of these women are just jumping on the band wagon. Maybe they'll go home to their safe and secure lives and never think about the problems beyond that brief moment in their lives. But - and yes I'm presuming here - for a lot of those women - and even men - it was a day to feel like they can make a difference. It was empowering, but also likely inspired many to do more than just march. I know in our city, there were many suggestions as to what we could do beyond that march to affect change. The problem with so many people though - and I admit I lump myself in among them - is they don't think they can really do anything, so why bother trying? But history has taught us that protests can and do affect change. It just takes enough people, and more action. And sadly, more often than not, sacrifice. Chelsea I hope you will never need to experience the kind of discrimination, inequality, shaming or belittling that so many women face, because I don't think anyone should. But, even after you've extensively explained yourself - we will indeed have to agree to disagree. Because I can't imagine how you could actually be against these women trying to make things better in their gender. I mean, whining banchees or not, at least they were doing something. They weren't just sitting behind their computer screens or phones making passive aggressive posts on (insert social media platform of choice). They're out there, lending their voices to a near world-wide collective gestalt which has, if nothing else, made history. They will be remembered as that collective, even if not as individuals.
Remy, you're awesome. Just saying. You put that in a way I don't know if I could've done, but you said all I wanted to and more.
Thank you Shepherd.
Yes, well said.
Thanks Remy for posting this topic and creating discussion on it. I didn't participate in a march, but I fully support those who want to bring about positive changes for women. You certainly expressed your thoughts on the subject far better than I could have.
if the colonists hadn't protested british oppression, we'd still be paying for stsuff with the pound. our country was tiny and insignificant. we beat the largest empire in the world. it started with protests.
martin luther king and Gandhi protested peacefully. look what they accomplished.
remy, you did express yourself well. great job.
Chelsea, perhaps some of the more extreme manifestations of women power which were shown at the marches made you uncomfortable. most people who I know wwho attended were seriously concerned and rightfully so about diverse issues.
Hi there, I didn't pertisipate, but I certainly would have if I had the money and a plane ticket. I would have brought me a tent, a cooler of dr. peppers, and veggie hotdogs and bagels.
I hope you all have a fantabulous day.
I don't understand. What was the point of that march? I didn't realize women were having rites removed. Rediculous. Show me proof of this. I understand that president Ronald MacDonald wants to take away abortion but he really doesn't have that power. So, what else have us big bad men done to you tender things?
Um, actually, Trump does potentially have that power.
Someone set me straight if I'm wrong here, but the president is republican, the senate is republican, and the supreme court is going to be republican dominated. This means that if it's pushed the right way/shoved at hard enough, abortion rights/gay marriage rights/a bunch of things could get overturned or tweaked in the next while. That doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen, but it's possible enough.
The fact that there's even a valid argument of pro-choice vs. anti-choice is kind of sickening to me. Ditto the whole gay rights thing. I mean, if we don't have black-haired-women's rights, why do we have to have gay rights? Why do homosexuals actually need to struggle to be seen as equal, to be given the right to marry and all that? Again, kind of sickening. And the thought that some or all of these things might be eroded by a bigot? Not my idea of a hopeful presidency.
A privileged class is always the last to realize that they are privileged. Women do not get equal pay for equal work. The ACA which Trump and the GOP want to repeal, forces women to be insured equally to men. This did not used to be true and could be reversed. Though the supreme court has declaired abortion legal, Trump and the GOP have openly stated, and taken steps to remove a woman's right to make that choice. Now, Trump has suspended funding to any organization, damestic or foreign that even explains what abortion is to women. Don't be so ignorant Mr. Margroup of the privileged class of men.
I'm not sure he can over turn the ruling, but he can make it more difficult for the poor woman to have an abortion.
Forn policy is different from here and that was why they could restrict funding, but they can't stop private funded organizations.
It is restrictive, and that is the problem.
Big bad men? Tender things? Are you serious? Margurp, that has to be one of the more ignorant and snooty responses I think I've seen you make in a while. Pasco and Shepherd have already said a lot about this. I'd reiterate the issues with equal pay in a lot of fields. There's issues with women being taken seriously in certain fields. Some of the ones close to my heart are audio production, and game development, but there are many. There's issues with women's objectification in the media and porn, issues with victim blaming in matters of rape. Not to mention all the damn double-standards out there. And I'm just scratching the surface. There are dangers of rites being revoked, but there are so many things that were never even there in the first place. And that's just on our own continent. A lot of people who aren't directly affected by it don't see it, or in some cases simply don't want to see it. Or they don't care, but mostly they just don't notice I think. Personally I'm so bloody tired of the whole racism, sexism, homosexuality thing. It's all important, but it's so infuriating that we're in 2017 and we're still having these issues.
That was what I was getting at, Remy. Thank you.
We've come how far since the 1800s, even the 1960s, and there are still supposedly legitimate questions and arguments and concerns about rights. We're all people. We all deserve the same rights. If we work at job A, doing task X, then don't we all deserve to be paid the same for that job, regardless of our gender, our skin colour or anything else? If we love someone, should we not have the right to marry them legally so long as they are above the age of consent? Should women not have the right to decide that pre-existing life (theirs, that of their family) may supersede the life of an unborn child in their womb, and thus abort?
Seriously. This blows my mind. I can understand some moral questions regarding abortion, but that's all they are...moral questions, which in no way grant anyone, anywhere, the right to decide in place of the person involved (well, beyond a medical professional who is acting in their capacity as a medical professional, saying such-and-such a course cannot be done because it risks death or whatnot).
And the reason there are still noisy, annoying protests is because these rights don't exist for everyone. People are still running up a greased hill. Protesting is their way of digging in their feet on that slope, so to speak. It allows them to feel like they're making a difference, and let me tell you, feeling empowered is sometimes more important than actually -being empowered if you're downtrodden. Protesting this way also sometimes forges friendships and associations which might prove beneficial to all involved someplace down the road. People who would never have known each other get to meet up under a common cause and work with one another. That, my friends, is one of the ways, historically and presently, that change is brought about. Gripe all you want, but it's not going away anytime soon, and all that happens when you bitch about it is that you look entitled or ignorant. Maybe both. And that's kind of damning for people who are ready and eager to stick their noses into discussions and parrot rhetoric they don't understand.
That's how I see it too, Shepherd.
the most dangerous emotion humans have is complacency. many people take for granted the limited rights that women and disabled people have. it is assumed that these things are inviolate. without vigilance and publicity before we know it, we could be back in the "good old days." thanks but no thanks.
I'm sorry but I'm sick of this male priveledge claim. Ronald MacDonald alone cannot take away abortion he needs the backing. He will be fought hard. And by the way, I will be one of the many fighting him on the issue. I just think the march is going overboard. If anything, it's men who are loosing ground in society but nothing can really be done about that.
That's exactly the problem Margorp, is that people here and elsewhere are talking about their feely feels, and saying that women all wanted to *feel* things. Well guess what? As someone who has multiple visible disabilities and whose had her fair share of discrimination myself, I can say that this women's march was much ado about nothing. Women walked around with signs saying things like "this pussy fights back" and wearing vagina hats. Does that sound like people wanting to make a change? In someone's dreams, maybe, but in the real world where I live, that's childish and child-like. Truthfully, women need to take responsibility for the fact they feel that the world sees them as less than, sees them as second-class or what have you, because they may realize that if they actually admit that they are far from the powerless people that some in the world want to make them feel like they are, the farther in life they will get. Hell, I realize I'm an introspective person and that evidently there's no sex appeal in that, but being on my own has really shown me the power I have as a woman who wants to make it in the world. I don't feel any of the things that the men on this topic are saying are so earthshatteringly felt by women, that all these women supposedly feel also. People will do anything to get attention, including not supportting our current president because that's the "cool" thing to do at the moment.
So how is wearing your vagina as a hat or whatever women were blubbering about going to show anything? Lol!
It's called symbolism, people. And while you might not want to do it yourself, and while it might not affect you personally (both of which are fine), it doesn't touch any of the points we've raised.
Just because you personally don't feel the need to do the things that are being done doesn't mean those things are bad, or wrongheaded, or useless. It just means you have a different point of view.
Just because you think you have power doesn't mean that you do. This is still sadly a male-dominated world, though that gap is getting smaller every year. If you don't believe that, then you're sadly deluded. It's all well and good to believe that these folks are making shit up, or making their real issues much bigger in order to get attention, but it's another thing entirely to understand that while the attention-getting methods might seem kind of ludicrous at times, the overall point is not.
See, the arguments being attempted here are the sorts of things that just make me shake my head. No one is going to say that absolutely every person who attended the marches was doing the right thing for the right reasons, any more than it's logical to say that all Germans were "bad Germans". Sure, some of them were there to get attention. Sure, some of them probably want to step on whoever they have to in order to get to the top. But you're making the mistake of defining a very viable and very realistic protest largely by its more demonstrative members, and that simply doesn't wash.
I don't oppose Trump because it is in vogue. I oppose him because he is a fascist and a very dangerous man to our free society.
Agree with the last poster. Trump the chump is a monster. Now as for this being a male dominant world. I personally don't by that but whatever. I asked the point of the marches and got my answer so thank you.
well, when I was up in new York, they had a march in an upstate town called, and sorry if I spell this wrong, pakipsy. THing is, me and my trainer didn't know about the march on the bridge that day, so we ended up being in the march anyway. But I would have done it even if I knew about it.
We had a march in New Jersey and it was quite disruptive to auto and foot traffick. Thank you feminism.
That's the way it goes though. Totally sympathize with disruptions and such, mind you. However good a cause may be, it's a pain in the neck when it gets in the way of everyday life. I can remember being awakened by some sort of parade years ago, while I was suffering from a pretty bad headache. And I mean this thing was -loud.
he's already making every woman pay for birth control. I'm having to spend
28 or more, not sure since they can't tell me until I go get seen. While this
takes away from already the small amount I have once bills and baby
necessarities are met, I don't know what else to do besides pay for it.
Other women won't be lucky, because their inssurance might make them
pay even more. What typical 20 year year old will pay for stuff like birth
control? I use twenty because I'm twenty. Not manyresponsible people my
age. So what will trump do when women don't have irth control or are able
to have abortions? Will he be able to solve the rise in population that will
bring? You can't sit at your computer and tell me all those women who can
not pay for bills will be responsible for using condoms or just not having sex
all together. No birth control, no abortions, women will carry their babies
out to term and most likely give them up if they do not want to step up to
the plate. Not stepping up to the plate means state takes over. State pays
for funding of a child, once child is adopted out, if they are lucky, state
pays for a check to go to that adopting family. Yeah, that's a big issue to
our america.
See, I'm a touch conflicted on this. I see what you're saying, Jodeci, but my main concern is this:
If birth control is free for women, who's going to continue funding its creation and research? Someone's got to pay for it somewhere, and if you're asking the government somehow to pay for it, that's money they're spending on something which obviously can't be spent on something else entirely. Other areas of shortfall aren't just going to go away, so it seems to me that you'd potentially be asking the government to shoulder a burden that maybe it shouldn't have to.
I mean, I know it's possible for men to get hold of condoms for free, and I'm also aware that condoms are far cheaper than the pill or whatnot, but still.
By the way, I'm totally in favour of women's care products (tampons and the like) being untaxed. They're necessities, you can't just decide not to use them. I'm not sure if they're still taxed or what's going on there, but if you still pay tax on 'em, you shouldn't. That's kind of ridiculous.
Your issue brings about an interesting quandary though. You talk about abstinence with a "yeah, that's not gonna happen" air. And generally I agree with you; expecting most people to go without sex is unrealistic. But sex is a biological desire, not a prerequisite for happy living. I say this only to illustrate one point. Wouldn't it be nice if people said to themselves, "Gee, I can't afford birth control right now, and I sure as hell don't want to get pregnant, so I'd better hold off a bit or find some other way around"? Should that be what we hope for, if not outright expect, at least some of the time?
I don't believe in restricting birth control, in any way, as a viable way to combat abortion. I also have to say, straight-up, that I wish people were just more freaking careful about pregnancy in the first place. If you know full well that you don't want a baby, then do whatever you possibly can to make sure that baby doesn't happen. I'm pro-choice, but I don't like wanton disregard for consequences any more than the next person.
A couple of comments on the last post.
First, I assume you are in favor of drugs for healthcare being a part of insurance? I do not see how supporting birth control pills is any different. It is a drug designed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, which is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for either a baby or an abortion. All drugs require continued research, this one is no different. However, that particular argument presented by the drug companies is mythical. They make a fortune and then some. Prices in other parts of the world are much lower for drugs from the exact same companies.
To your second point: I do not agree sex is avoidable really. It can be delayed, or avoided if there is no opportunity, but it is a normal part of life and necessary to adult life.To expect men and women in close proximity to avoid sex is like wishing the ocean would quit sending waves to knock down your sand castle. History and experience show us that no matter the punishment, or the taboos, sex happens period. Condoms BTW are not nearly as reliable to prevent pregnancy as the pill. They are better at preventing disease transmission, but only middling effective at preventing pregnancy, not to mention that most men prefer not to wear them when possible.
my point exactly pasco, thank you. And see, I have no issue if I have to pay
lets say, 20 bucks of it. But I can't afford the whole pill. And if it came down
to not being able to afford it, I would not have sex period, not even with
condoms.
I don't trust condoms. But the next girl, will she see it my way? Will she give
up sex if she couldn't get pills? Most girls my age are in college.
And while I agree we should hope an women and men will be responsible
about pregnancy. We can't expect it. It's not an expectation that many will
live up to. It be nice if we lived in a world where everyone cared about
consequences, but that'sunrealistic.
Pasco I mostly agree with you except for that part about sex being "necessary for adult life." I think you mean *most* adult life.
I don’t know if Trump is responsible for the birth control spending problem. I think it was in the pipe so to speak.
I do agree that it is a medication just like any other, but because it is sex, it isn’t thought of that way.
I said before, any law of any kind against abortion hurts the poor woman.
She’s not likely to have insurance, nor the money to cover cost, so she’ll have the babies.
I love the poster claim she will not have sex if she can’t afford the control methods, but that is bravado dear. Smile.
You’re going to want it with someone, and you’re going to take a chance sooner or later.
Even if you are married, that won’t sanction you having a house full of babies.
If you are married, what are you going to do when you get to number 12? Smile.
Are you going to marry a man with plenty money based on the fact he can afford to cover them? No, love, or lust just isn’t going to allow for that.
In the days before birth control, women just had the babies, but abortion has been with us if people have been having sex in some form.
I sometimes wonder how the prostitutes in the west avoided it for the most part in the 1800’s and before when prostitutes were the norm in towns. They say they had ways, but I’ve not been able to figure. Maybe some natural happening. They weren’t with men they loved, so the body just didn’t conceive as often. That is just a muse, I have no idea on it.
I believe Canada pays for birth control, do they not Shep?
I do agree that if you can afford it, you should have to pay for it, but if you are low income, I think it is more cost effective for the government, or county to pay.
Here in Colorado, we saved something like 50 million a year just buy providing IUD’s to young girls that want them.
We did a drive to invite the young to get the 5-year type. Older women weren’t targeted, but the IUD is available for them too.
That to me is good business, or economy.
That 50 million was only in abortion and other cost, but not health or child care savings.
A woman can do without tampons. You don’t need all the fancy stuff, and it is probably healthier for them to boot.
How are pads healthier than tampons?
Okay, just to clear a few things up:
I was thinking straight-up free birth control, because I'm an idiot apparently. Regarding insurance though? There's no reason it shouldn't be covered the same way other things are. I mean, at least with birth control you aren't doing anything horrible. Besides, there are women who aren't having sex who still take birth control for other reasons, so I see no reason why funding for it should be cut if it's tied to insurance like other medications.
I also take the point about sex being part of most adult life. It's true enough. But it starts to walk a shaky line, that's all. You're protecting foolish people from themselves at your expense instead of their own (if you're the government I mean). Instead of just trying to get people to be a bit more responsible, it's putting a patch on the problem. Frankly, I don't see any better way, because wishful thinking when it comes to more care about sex isn't going to change the world. Haha.
Ah! Perfect example of women carrying the burden!
Pasco, most of what I've read of your posts (or at least what I recall) I've generally agreed with and especially appreciated your presentation.
But this: "that most men prefer not to wear them when possible."
Yes, true-but men need to grow up and women need to stop enabling them in this area. Too bad. And the idea that women should interfere with the natural chemistry of their bodies to prevent pregnancy when all that is needed is a condom-well, that is a big issue in my book.
Pipe dream, maybe, but I sure wish men would carry more of the up front burden of contraception since there is no way around women being stuck with the end result. Even if the pill is better at preventing conception, it does nothing for STD prevention and again, women are far more susceptible.
if a man doesn't want to wear one, the woman could say no. it takes 2.
It does take two. Why should everything fall to the men?
seriously? Did I not say that I wished women would stop enabling in this area? And saying it is all on the man when it comes to contraception is a joke.
I have been fortunate in my own experiences, but for most women I have known, both married and unmarried, if they didn't do something about contraception, it didn't get done or was only done erratically. Yup, that is their fault for putting up with it.
Anyway, carry on.
Oh I know. I was commenting on how society sees it as a man's issue today and the women can just relax.
I agree VH.
But, you know something? I've known women who will argue with a man if he wants to wear a condom?
I've had these small arguments. "It doesn't feel natural." I won't get pregnant and I want to feel you orgasm inside me."
I've been made to understand that sperm inside a woman gives her a sense of completeness. It lifts her mood.
The argument about them not feeling good I learned was based on the woman never having had a man that used a quality condom.
I found the arguments interesting considering this discussion.
So, it is sometimes on the woman completely if the man gives in, and most will. Smile.
So, if birth control midrates all this, and we give women the rights to protect themselves regardless of financial status, this is better.
Voyager, some women have reactions to the dye and whatever used in tampons.
Pads, or just cut or torn cloth outside causes no reactions at all, nor does it change the bodies chemistry or PH balance.
What were women using before store brands?
Coat hangers, that's what. Sorry for being graphic but back alley abortions were used a lot. This is why banning abortion is actually dangerous.
This is why I'm very glad they're working on better contraceptive methods for men that don't include condoms. From the honestly small experience I have, I can say that a condom screws with sensation a bit, and that bugs me. But I'm also one of those people who understands fully and completely that the burden should not fall to either men or women on a grand scale. I think, in fact, that it should be on a case-by-case basis. If you've got a heterosexual couple whre the man doesn't want to wear a condom but the woman is okay with using birth control, doesn't feel like she's being forced, then fine. Ditto the other way around. The people involved can work it out.
But yeah. Male contraception. That's a thing that needs to keep on moving forward.
Makes me glad the wife got an IUD. I've done the condom thing and they don't all mess with sensation but most do.
Excuse me, but I meant it when I said I will have no intercourse with a man if I so chose. If I went that route, sure I'd find other ways to pleasure myself, with women for example. lol, women won't get me pregnant. But After having my first child, I understand the time, effert and money that goes in to it. I am not like many women who will say no. I don't depend on any man to pay my bills, so if he walks out of my life because I won't have sex with him, that's all on him. I'm a beautiful woman, not saying that to be arrogant, but it's true. I can have who ever I want. It happens for me all the time, there will be more. And this is so true about women being stuck with their babies. If they don't give their babies up, the man walks out if he so pleases. My baby's father is not involved, doesn't care to be involved, doesn't pay child support. So who's stuck with baby, ne. I'm not the only woman who's in this situation. And I agree with you greg, halfway, yes I believe that it would be nice if the government could gxpect americans to grow up and take responsibility. But it's not gonna happen, it's not. I just can't express that enough, there's just too many who will take their chances.
Wow that independent woman stuff. I do agree that if someone leaves you like that and sticks you with the kid they're stupid. Though as horrible as it is, we must respect a father's right to leave. Also, we should respect any man's right to not be stuck in a sexless relationship. Hmmm so I guess I see both sides.
you also forget oral doesn't get you pregnant. swallowing is what I wish I had done instead of having a baby. I wasn't trying to put up an independent feminist type of post. I just want to express how I can get around things. Besides, my boyfriend and I have talked about this. Since I can't really afford birth control this month. he's paying for it. If neither of us could, we both agreed we'd still be together. Sex isn't the only important thing in our relationship. But yes, I will not pretend it isn't a good proportion..
Of course sex isn't everything but stop doing it for a period of time and see the reaction. It's just like my exes don't need to explain to me why they left me. Same concept in reverse.
Er, we have to respect a man's right to leave? Leave what? His responsibility to a child, or a relationship with the child's mother? Very different things.
Forereel, I can remember years ago some study proposing that semen might have an impact on mood. I can't recall the specifics, but I believe the study was more notable for the sensational (oh another double entendre there) aspect than credibility.
Another very thorny issue being raised here.
If a man and woman have consensual sex, and the woman gets pregnant, I feel like the onus is on both people to do what needs doing. The woman is physically incapable of just walking away, since the baby is inside of her and all, so that isn't even a choice she's able to make. There's nothing to be done about this.
Now, here's the thing. Sometimes there is a perfectly viable reason for a man to leave a relationship after his partner gets pregnant. In a case like that, should the man be tied to his past because he was one of two people who made a choice that ultimately brought life into the world? Let's say the woman involved cheated on him, or did something else that totally shattered his trust. Let's say, to muddy the water even further, that she cheated on him at such a time where the paternity of the child is in serious question. That's an ugly situation. Or hell, the relationship didn't work; god knows it happens.
Or let's say the man thought the woman was on the pill, and she wasn't. Or she forgot. Or she claims to have forgotten but wanted a kid more than the man did. Another ugly situation.
I personally don't see a clear-cut way around this. A man is not a beast just because he leaves (though some are pretty fucking irresponsible if you ask me). And a woman is not the victim just because she's pregnant. Seriously, these cases I hear about sometimes, where a woman uses a child as financial or emotional leverage, have just got to stop. It's disgusting.
I've never been in this situation before. Thankfully, all of my partners were childless, and I have never fathered a child of my own. Speaking for myself though, I'd probably discuss this rather exhaustively before it happened, if it was in the cards at all. I don't even want children anymore at this point, but if I managed to get my partner pregnant, I wouldn't just up and bail either. If the relationship ended, even if it was messy and I was no longer in the child's life, I would at least try to help out a little bit. Whatever may have happened since, after all, a child came into the world partially because of me...although if I was being asked or expected to contribute financially, I would probably be asking rather firmly to at least be a small part of that child's life. If I am going to be told that I owe money for the care and raising of this child, then whatever my feelings for my ex-partner might be, I want to try do more right by that child than a cheque, you know?
Sorry, that was kind of a ramble.
VH is right; men do need to be more responsible about controception. It's true both women and men there are who feel condoms aren't natural. But sex is a very serius thing more and more are treating casually. I'm not here to preech about that, but I will say responsibility is a burdin to be shared, and people do need to act responsibly when it comes to their sexuality.
Margurp, Society sees controception as a man's issue? No, they really don't. Maybe they're trying to get men to be more responsible, but that's about it. I've heard of quite a few instances where women have needed (or felt they've needed) to have condoms on hand. If anything society needs to hold both parties responsible. Since as has been so ... aptly put, it takes two. Usually it takes two. Sometimes it takes one, and then it's sexual assault. And any man who's going to do that just needs his peg scowered to the nub with a cheeze grater.
I think Shepherd nailed it best when discussing the shared burdin. It is a case by case basis which should not be dependant on societal pressure. I hate condoms. They're annoying. But were I to be with someone who insisted, I'd bloody well be using them. Might even do it anyway because the last person I was with who wasn't my wife said she was on birth control, then faked a pregnancy and tried to kill me. Sadly Jackoffjill is likely right about society probably not growing up in this regard. Hell, we all know smoking is terrible for us, but lots of people still make a habbit of blowing and sucking anyway, in many cases regardless of what it does to them, or heaven forbid the people around them. I for one would be interested in male birth control that didn't involve a knife. Though I'd get snipped in a heartbeat as opposed to having my wife get her tubes tied. As for birth control, that mess can screw with some women in ways which haven't even entered into this discussion. Not always of course, but often enough. What this all boils down to is shared responsibility, shared accountability and shared equality. That's what feminism is really, men and women who want women to have the same rights, privoleges and opportunities as men; not for them to be men. Femininity is nothing to be ashamed of. Neither is independence something to be scorned, Margurp. Funny how you never hear mention of an "independant man" isn't it?
As for Trump, as unnerved as even I am at what he's doing so far, he is, as I stated, only the catelist for this demonstration. Many countries were involved, many men and women for a variety of issues, including countries where even the most ignorant of us can't not know at least some of what's going on.
Thank you Shepherd for righting a ramble about the father mother beast victom so I didn't have to.
I do still think men are seen as the ones who have to take charge of the sexual landscape and often the woman doesn't need to do much accept go for her yearly check up. Both people should be held to the same standard but that just isn't the way it is.
I also agree on the case by case sort of thing. Because that is true greg,
women are just as capable of being beasts as men.
Women do use their children for financial and emotional use. I know a couple
of girls who are like this and it makes me sick. Your children didn't ask to be
born in this world, that's why I stepped up to the plate and took on my
responsibility as a mother, even if it meant I had to do it on my own.
Well poster above me you have an option other women wouldn't think of. You are bisexual.
If you weren't, I say again, that other methods of sex would be fine for a while, but if you are able, and your partners able, you're going to want all of it at some point, not just oral.
I like your boyfriend for taking up some of the financial responsibility for birth control.
I think we as men should pay half, if it requires being paid for.
VH, I read that study, and a couple others. You might be right, but I never understood why women argued against the use of a quality condom when it was them that would be pregnant.
Even if you have a man that will support you, and all, you must deal with that 9 months.
I think if women want to be equal, they must accept an equal share of the sexual, or relationship woes.
If a man leaves you, he is responsible only for the care and such of the child, but does not owe you himself for life because you had his child.
Sometimes as pointed out, things happen and the couple break up. The child shouldn’t be a part of the mess.
If a woman is found to have tricked a man in to her getting pregnant, I think she should have to be 100% responsible for her child, but that isn’t how the law sees it, and that’s sad.
Women are even allowed to save a man’s sperm and use it after he’s gone to get pregnant and say so.
Because it is his sperm, he must support the child legally.
That isn’t equality.
No, the coat hanger wasn’t the only method. Some women simply didn’t get pregnant by specific men.
I’d love to learn why.
Wow Remy you seem bitter. Most men don't need to strut around and act as if they're hot shit. When they do it looks idiotic but the majority don't need to spout off about being independent.
I do not understand the words you just typed Margurp. Care to explain them?
My main point was that you do seem a bitt bitter towards this subject.
In a better world, everyone would be bitter towards this subject. In a perfect one, the subject would not exist. Balls yes I am bitter, because I have a wife, and a daughter, and friends who happen to be female. And even though you might not care or see the problems, they exist. And because people use scornful terms like "independent woman" as if it's an insult or something to be ashamed of. Sure, because what? Because every woman who wants to be "independent" is a man-hating bigot? Yeah there are some feminist zealots out there. There are zealots everywhere who don’t make up the whole. But really what I’m bitter about is not the ignorance of the situation, but the off-handed dismissal. I’m definitely still pretty ignorant of much of what goes on, and I’ll admit I don’t go specifically looking for things to broaden my view, but once you do see something, you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn’t exist. Let me ask a controversial question Margurp: in what situation, if a woman has been raped, is it her fault?
You should have added if she were dressed provocatively?
Oh, don't taint the experiment, Forereal.:)
This should be interesting.
And Jodeci, yeah, you did the right thing and stepped up because the father of your child isn't in the picture anymore, so good on you for figuring your shit out, tough as it was.
Remy, the bitterness thing...thank you again. I was talking to a friend of mine about this last night actually and we both find we're in about the same boat re: bitterness, because we both know people who are in disadvantageous positions because of their gender, or orientation, or both, and it's sickening. And even apart from those people, this whole "just wait and see mentality" that's being adopted is nuts. Okay, so obviously don't act out without thinking, but sitting passively back, or saying that so-and-so should be proven guilty and hasn't been yet? Or that the system itself isn't broken because we personally aren't affected by it? It's crap. Pure crap.
Smile. Okay.
Remy, rape is never the woman's fault. Lots of women ruin it for the female population by crying rape just because they can. That should make us hang our heads in shame but it doesn't. No, we are told by society to never question the R word. It makes both men and women look bad.
Statistically speaking, that doesn't happen very often. The phrase "lots of women" is misleading as hell. I want to say that the number of false rape claims is less than 1% of all rape claims in total. My numbers might be a little off, but not by much. In the vast, vast majority of cases, if a woman cries rape, she's right.
As such, the fact that there are a poisonous few who will use it as a weapon against men is sickening, but hardly germain. If a woman claims to have been raped, the fact that a few women out there have falsely claimed the same thing should not enter into conscious thought. The claim should be taken on its own merits, whatever those are. Because let me tell you, most women who are raped feel some sort of shame, and it's not precisely the nicest thing, even still, to claim that you've been raped. Given the way the police and others may treat the woman in question, it can be downright demeaning, and nobody wants that.
In other words, to claim you were raped takes courage if it's true, and it's nearly always true, so the very best thing a person can do if that claim is made is to support it, not frown and start voicing doubts.
I'm sorry, but as long as there is even one false claim we should suspend judgement until it is shown to be true or false.
Ah, but is that true of all other crimes? Because people lie about stolen stuff far, far more than they lie about being raped, in order to fuck over insurance companies or whatnot. Are you suggesting that every reported crime should be treated with the same healthy skepticism?
Because see, I'm not sure if I buy that.
Okay sure. If person A claims that person B committed a crime against them, you don't just immediately arrest person B with no evidence, convict them with no evidence and then throw away the key. But as a member of law enforcement, I'd be going into the situation expecting that person B did at least something, unless I had very strong evidence to the contrary. And "somebody lied about this before" is not strong evidence. I'd expect that there was a crime committed, and I would legally and fairly investigate. Obviously, people are innocent till proven guilty, but that includes the accused (in other words, don't you dare claim they might be lying without a damn good reason, because they're innocent of that particular behaviour until proven guilty).
But I digress. This isn't really part of the discussion I suppose.
I think that's ridiculous. If the police hadn't believed me when I was raped,
I have no idea what I would've done. I was already hysterical, I guess
what backed up my claims was that other women started coming forward.
Not all of us women use rape as a weapon. Also wayne, I'm sure I would
want more, if I didn't look for women company. I'm definitely sure I'd want
my boyfriend in more than one way. But it's too bad and I will do all I could
to prevent it tptation. Even if it meant to end our relationship. Yes, I'm
that sure I'd go that far. I love my daughter with all my heart, but I see
how hard it is to raise a child on your own. I pay for everything for my
baby and it's hard. And I know I don't have th means to take care of
another. IT's fact, so I will not have a child and risk another's life in the
system.
Let me also mention that having another baby is risk to my health and my
unborn fetus. With my first pregnancy I had preclamsia, it's a nasty birth
complication, etc, look it up if you feel that interested. Anyhow, I was lucky
with my first, I realized my syntoms weren't right and went to the hospital.
Sure enough I had preclamsia, and if I had kept away from doctors and went
about my business. Sure enough I would've had a seizure with my baby.
Anytime I get pregnant this is a huge factor that will play into my
pregnancies. So in otherwords, not a good idea.
Thank you Shepherd for touching on all that. The statistics are pretty much as you say. I couldn't believe it when I found that out. I'm usually pretty skeptacle of statistics, because I always wonder how they were reached, but there you have it. Still though, rape is a very, very serious issue because it can and often does have long lasting effects. I agree that it would be great if we could prove every rape so the innocent who do get charged falsely don't get punished. The problem is, it's really hard to prove a rape claim. Especially a long-lasting one. And it's already socially stigmatizing for women to report it as it is. it takes a hell of a lot of courage to report rape. it shouldn't. it should always be treated seriously. Women should not be made to feel more shame because of what happened to them. They already have enough emotions racing through them after that. I realize I'm using the blanket "they, but in this case, I feel it is pretty accurate. Don't even get me started on all those countries where women are treated as "property". Hell, that was North America not too long ago also. There are far, far too many instances where the woman is blamed for her own rape also. “Oh, she was dressed a certain way.” Hell with that. I don’t care if a girl’s walking down the street, bare naked with every orifice on display. Maybe men can’t control their arousal, but they can bloody well control what they do with it. If you’re with a girl, even if she seems into it at first, if she tells you stop, you put your dick back in your pants and stop. It is that simple. You have a hand. Use it.
And Jill, wow. SO sorry to hear you had to go through that. that is a terrible condition to endure.
The more I hear about pregnancy the worse it sounds. You'd have to be drugged out, crazy or following some intense biological programming that I lack in order to suffer it willingly.
I'm not suggesting that every woman uses rape as a weapon. I am saying that the women who do wreck it for the one's who truly suffer. That's the worst crime.
They do, you're right. It's an extreme example of the few wrecking it for the rest.
Ah. You keep heaping reasons on top I didn't have, but we agree, you'd want the sex.
If we take away all the factors you have, well, young girls are going to want and have sex, so again, preventing birth control, or making it difficult to get for women harms the poor.
People with money will get what they want.
You have a daughter dispite all your reservations. It is just how it goes.
which has been my point wayne. no t any women have been through the
exact experience I have, and if they have they probably don't have the same
outlook as I do. Hence why birth control still should be funded and abortion
be an option.
Greg, you are misinformed if you seriously think that I am deluded because I am a woman and I know that I have power in the world. In fact, I'd argue that my womanhood can be used in ways that I know other women are too afraid to use to their advantage. For example, JackOffJill said in some of her posts to this topic that she knows she's beautiful and isn't afraid to say that. I too, know I'm beautiful and would use my confidence, good looks and possibly flirtation in a job interview, if I felt those things would help me get hired. Because as a woman, I do have that power: the power to use what I've been given for the beautiful attractive qualities that they are. And why wouldn't or shouldn't I? If I believe in myself and am truly comfortable in my skin as a woman, that will be clear to those who interact with me, even if it's on a surface level. Now before you try and jump me here, I'm not saying that I'd dress skimpy or act like a sleezy woman; I simply mean to demonstrate that women do have the right and dare I say the gift, of expressing ourselves through our beauty (both inward and outward), our flirtatiousness or whatever else we feel will help us do well.
I realize that other women may not have ever given this particular thing any thought outside of what they've heard other women say. A point I've been trying to make through my posts to this topic is that I've given this sort of thing lots of thought within the last several years, and now, I come from a place of wanting to empower other women to share their voice which they may not have known they have or could use. Because one point of this whole discussion that I feel strongly about is that women are only victims of things, or only feel like they cannot speak up or have their own thought processes of things, because other women have likely told them to feel such-and-such a way. If as a woman, someone has never thought about what it'd be like to think differently than the way she did growing up, I want to show women that they can think about things and stand on their own two feet, by standing out rather than simply fitting in with the crowd because it's what every other woman does.
I know that I'm not equal to men, but that doesn't bother me--within the last few years, I've really become comfortable with the fact that both sexes balance each other out throughout their lives. Still, I think it's crucial that women believe that they are powerful forces in the world, because we are. So too, are men, just in different ways.
In one breath, you're trying very hard to convince me that you're aware of how powerful you are.
In the very next, you're saying you know you're not equal to men.
Sorry. Game over. This is why you don't get it, and why your opinion on the subject really isn't valid.
It's all well and good to make sure women feel empowered, and to use what they have, all that jazz. That's good thinking.
But if that all comes with the caveat that men and women aren't equal, then you really don't understand what's going on. That very schism is what things like the women's marches are there to destroy. You might be okay with negative stigmatization, unequal rights and unequal pay, but most aren't. You might be okay thinking that you're not equal to men, but most women aren't. You consequently might not understand how it is that people can do silly, outlandish and even downright ludicrous things in the name of their pursuits. It seems to me that you are dead set on using only what you have, and accepting that because you're a woman, you're lesser than a man (not equal, so I'm assuming you don't think you're greater? You've given no evidence of this.). This makes me inexpressibly sad.
You're not deluded because you'll use your looks/flirtatiousness/whatever else. I don't have a whole lot of feeling on that one way or another.
You're deluded because you think the sexes are inherently unequal, insofar as their abilities and rights both are concerned.
And just so we can nip one argument in the bud before it tries to show up: yes, most men are larger than women, and also stronger on a pound-for-pound muscle-for-muscle basis. This is nothing more or less than biology, however, and only comes into play if those facts are central to what you're trying to do with your life. In very, very specific ways, men and women are not equal. But the only times those inequalities should matter is when they have to. Just because most men are inherently larger and stronger than women, statistically, doesn't mean that women should be paid less, treated worse or negatively stigmatized when they do things that buck the status quo.
I'll try to help, and maybe I'm wrong on this.
Chelsea, the women aren't trying to be (equal (to men, most are wanting to be treated fairly.
In some ways women are more powerful than men, but in other ways no.
Example, a man can’t bear children.
It has been proven that in sports, women simply don’t have the power as men no matter what drugs they take, or how well they build the body.
Sure, I understand some of these women were out for the wrong reasons, but I’d say generally, most just wanted to be treated fairly.
In the work place, if you are a shelf and you are cooking the same dishes, working the same hours, why should you be paid less for that job then your coworker based on the fact he’s male?
In the tech industry, you have the same information, and you have created programs, technology that is put in to a product, and you know your stuff. Why can’t you be promoted like your coworker?
You’d be correct, some women can use their sex appeal, beauty, perceived, of course, to get things, but in some cases, so can men.
You get in an interview, and basically rub your feminine powers in a straight women’s face, you’re not going to get anyplace based on how beautiful you are, or the idea she might have a chance to get with you.
She’s just going to look at what you can do for the company based on your abilities, merits.
That is what these women want men to see as well.
Being a sex object, powerful, beautiful women is all fine and good after 5, but when it comes to promotion, merits should be why, not the fact the man in charge feels you’ll probably just get pregnant and quit.
Playboy some years ago, did an interview with a women minister in Egypt. This lady, and I believe she’s still in office, had the power to have the men under her beheaded or could bust their balls so to speak.
She said she knew this.
She was a wife, a mother, and she said she enjoyed dressing in a feminine manner. She did not like wearing Manish looking clothing.
She said she had a husband, and tried not to work overtime, because she enjoyed cooking him and her family a meal, being his wife and such.
She said she was always careful not to make the men she ruled in her job feel emasculated.
She said she was a woman, enjoyed being one.
That is what I believe many women want, but are not given that space.
They must march, protest, and bring this to attention in hopes of change.
That lady I spoke about had the ball hammer, but refused to use it. Why can’t men do the same where women are concerned?
Because you are a woman, do you feel you should be paid less for that job you got after you worked hard in the interview to be a sexy and beautiful woman?
Well Chelsea, I’d love to take you to bed, so I’ll give you this job, but you need to sleep with me at least once for it.
Oh, sure, I understand you have a doctorate in this field, and you’ve created tons of things, but you can’t have this job unless you share that pretty body with me at least once.
I’m also going to pay you $5 per hour less than the going rate.
Okay, that’s over kill, but reality from the base you are coming from, it seems.
Chelsae is proving my point. Women do have power and I don't understand why the fems pretend they don't and try to be more than equal by stepping on men to get to the top.
Women do have power, but by and large they don't yet have enough. They have way more than they used to, but it's not enough.
And people stepping on men to get what they need isn't fair. A little of that is sort of unavoidable with any large change, but if it happens a lot, or if the desire to do it trumps the desire to be equal, then that's obviously bad. People like me are talking about truly equal rights wherever possible, not the replacement of women for men at the top of the pyramid.
Tell a woman who's making less than her equally educated, equally skilled male colleagues that she has power.
Tell a woman who's been propositioned by a male superior to gain status that she has power.
Tell a woman who's been raped, under any circumstance, that she has power.
See how far it gets you.
Well I'm seeing a world that protects women in demonizes men, at least in the United States. How much more power does a woman need? The pay gap is most likely do to women picking less paid professions.
No. The pay gap being spoken of, at least by me, is in the same professions. It doesn't exist everywhere, but it still does exist.
And okay. You're right. There are people in the United States, Canada, Britain and pretty much everywhere else who are trying to demonize men in order to empower women. Sure there are. I'd be a liar if I said that there weren't such people. But by and large, those people don't represent the majority, and thus don't change the overall point of the argument. Said point, by the way, is that equality is a thing still being worked on, still very much a work in progress. It's leaps and bounds better than it used to be, but it's still not there yet.
No one need be demonized to prove this point, so I'm behind you on that point at least. I just don't think it happens as often as you do, and I don't see it as being emblematic of the struggle in any case. It's counterproductive.
It sure is. We'll never have equality as long as there's a power struggle. Furthermore, even if we all get equal treatment down the road we still won't be equal. Why? Because we're all different. Sounds harsh but there it is.
I'm glad that someone sees that I'm talking sense, because the reality is that no matter how much people say that they want equality in the world, society will never be equal. As I've been saying, that does not mean men are better than women or vice versa. The problems arise because many women and men alike want to see something in the world that the world will never see. The problem is not a woman like me who realizes this fact, but those who advocate marching in pussy hats, and those who go around marching in pussy hats--if you don't believe me that that happened in this recent march, look it up for yourselves. I'm powerful as a woman, and I don't need to, nor wanna be equal to men. Know why? Because there are things that I as a woman bring to the table, that a man doesn't bring to the table and vice versa. Why not start encouraging people to be confident in themselves in the here and now (whether they're men or women) instead of being an echo chamber in society? Why not start encouraging men and women alike to assess why they believe certain things that they parrot, instead of encouraging them to protest? Why not start encouraging men and women alike to have *their own* voices, rather than praising them just because they agree with *your* point of view?
Okay, I'm going to have to define the word "equal" since the ignorance surrounding this word is kind of astounding.
When I say that men and women are equal, I do not, absolutely do not, mean that every man and woman will have the same skills, the same intellect, the same looks, the same standards. That, of course, is not feasible. We're not robots. We're human beings.
Equality does not, repeat, does not, have anything to do with one's overall skillset or capacity or intellectual pursuits or whatnot.
When we are talking about equality in this context, we are talking about equal rights.
Women who protest are doing so because they do not have equal rights. They get shafted when it comes to jobs, they get harassed when they shouldn't, they have to fight five times as hard to do some things even though gender should absolutely not be part of the equation. And they're rightly sick and tired of it. I don't blame them.
Women are sick of being denied jobs because they're women. They're sick of having to prove themselves eight times over for jobs that have nothing to do with muscle mass and strength and size. They're sick of getting cat-called, wolf-whistled, leered at, talked at, preached at, groped, chased, stalked, propositioned and raped by men who somehow think they have a right to do these things. They're sick of living as second-class citizens in a world run by men. Again, I don't blame them.
So from here on out, when I say that men and women should be equal, I'm talking about rights. I'm kind of disgusted that I actually had to explain this in a civil rights discussion, but oh well. Now I have, so there's no more room for silly arguments.
One of the ways women empower themselves and one another, Chelsea, is by marching. Marching, wearing stupid hats and making a lot of noise and generally making nuisances of themselves, does a few very important things:
1. It lets these women demonstrate to one another that they're not alone. This is hugely important if you live in a world where you feel like a second-class citizen, or at the least, feel like no one else gets the issues you go through every day.
2. It might make these women feel as if other people besides themselves are willing to stick their necks out in the struggle for equal rights. This goes hand in hand with point #1, because important friendships and connections can be formed this way. One of the best things you can do, if you're part of a minority, is to do things which help empower both yourself and other members of the minority, if you want things to channge.
3. Such demonstrations pose a public nuisance. They're loud, they're aggressive, they're outlandish. So fine, that bugs you. That means they're doing their job. They're demonstrating in a way that isn't easily ignored. They have a right to nonviolent protests and are exercising that right both to support their cause and to spread awareness of that cause to others. It is far harder to ignore something when it's all around you than it is if it's just, say, in an internet message board you never visit, or published in some sort of editorial or open letter. In other words, if you think they're annoying and wish they'd go away, then they've gotten your attention. Some people, like you, will put your head in the sand and decide not to rock the boat. More civic-minded people, however, might decide "Hey, this is annoying, what are they carrying on about?", dig into it, and decide to join the struggle. The casualties like yourself are, in general, outweighed by all the benefits.
4. Pursuant to point #3, these marches and protests create social pressure on all levels. Build that social pressure up high enough, and it becomes extremely difficult to ignore the problems. And they are problems, let's not gild the lily. I've pointed them out before. Trump is looking like he's going to be a serious thorn in the side of the women's rights movement on several key issues. Protesting long and loud enough has a chance, at least, to prove to those in power that these changes, or blockades, won't just be taken lying down. And one of the neat effects of social pressure of this kind is the way it can hedge even powerful entities into corners. This is precisely what is wanted and needed.
I hope that explains things a little better, and gets you to realize that you're in a pretty small minority (that is, people who are willfully ignorant of the reality of the situation). You should maybe consider trying to remedy that before you presume to speak further.
A few things that I forgot to say earlier:
1. To those of you who live in Canada, why do you care about what happens in a country that you've probably never set foot in and never will set foot in?
2. Have you all never heard of negotiations? In case you haven't (and it seems like you haven't), let me spell out what they are for you: negotiations are what you, man and woman alike, do in order to get the pay you feel you deserve at a job. If you don't get the pay you feel you deserve at a job, you, man or woman alike, have the right to go elsewhere until such time that you either get what you want from a different job, or you settle for something else. So this "women are mad because they're paid less than men" crap, does not carry any weight.
3. As I have been saying, women need to take responsibility for their actions or lack thereof. Right now many women are acting like fools; they need to own that truth, straighten themselves out, and learn how to change their situation for the better if they are truly unhappy about it.
4. How have all of you who are for these marches determined what is proper pay for women verses what proper pay is for men? Because it's not like a woman gets hired at McDonald's and is told "You're a woman, so you're gonna be paid less than minimum wage because you look like crap. You man over here, you're gonna make $25 thousand a year because we love men!"
1. We care because America is very big and likes to stick its nose into other people's business. We also care, in the case of Canada, because we're right next door. I'm less than an hour from New York (Buffalo, to be exact), and about three and a half hours from Detroit. We also care because many of us non-Americans have American friends who may be in a really tough position before much longer, or already are. Friends who are women, or LGBT, or black, or latino, or whatever. The death-knell has sounded; when you start busting out the "why do you care?" rhetoric, collapse of your argument is imminent.
2. Negotiation is a good idea when both sides stand to bargain from a place of strength. I don't know too many people who have actually negotiated their salary, and I would furthermore argue that a lot of people simply don't have the freedom to say "that person wants to pay me a bit less than I deserve, so screw it, I'll wait". Sometimes you have that luxury, sometimes you don't. To act like it's something available to all, at all times, is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. It should be kept in mind, however, when available, becaeuse it is generally a strong idea. You don't necessarily have to act a fool if individualized negotiation can get you what you want. Let me clarify, though, that the pay gap is still sometimes an issue depending on what field you're in. To say that it holds no weight is like saying climate change isn't real. You're deluded. Moving on.
3. Everyone, women and men alike, need to take responsibility for their actions. I agree with you. If people act in a way you think is foolish, then either they don't know what they're doing, or they're doing it deliberately because the greater good, which you stubbornly refuse to accept as real, is being served. That's your problem, not theirs. Yours alone. Individuals in individual scenarios do need to arm themselves to better their situation. Again, I agree with that point. But we are talking about universal human rights, and the fact that women are still being treated unequally by society. We're talking about situations that are generalized, not specific. So please remember to keep your rhetoric generalized, because it fails otherwise.
4. I don't need to determine specific pay for a woman or whatnot in order to understand that the marching and protests are about far, far more than pay gaps. I don't need to know every single number to understand that rape is still a problem, that abortion is still a hot-bed of controversy, and that women are still very, very under-represented in a lot of fields. I know enough to fully and completely justify these protests as the civil movement they represent. I do not endorse violent protest, as two wrongs don't make right. But I do happily endorse and try to support the movement for people to have equal rights. We're coming along slowly, but we have a lot of work ahead of us still.
Now, where were we?
Well Chelsea, I hate to say, but honey I don't believe you've been keeping up with current events and what is actually the case.
Do some back reading and see what has been happening in the tech industry with women.
That is just one example of why they should march.
I do agree some didn't have the right cause in mind, but that will be the case with these things.
You also need to do some reading on the republicans stance on women birth control issues.
Well Wayne, you and I are in that same industry and women are certainly not misrepresented. The stem field may not do all it can to include women but I don't believe that is by design. Studies show that more boys tend to be more interested than girls. This is of course in general as women do indeed go into stem fields.
It doesn’t matter Margurp whether more men are interested in the tech industry than women. That doesn’t give men the rite to be paid more. Besides, that's one out of many industries. Even something as outlandish as the film industry, where the top actors and even actresses make arguably more money than God, there is division in what the genders are paid. Put simply, the unequal pay issue is a real thing. Do a quick internet search, then come back and tell me we’re fabricating the problem?
Thank you Shepherd for all you’ve said. You’ve saved me a lot of time and effort responding.
Chelsea? Why do we care? Is that a real question? Why do we empathize with others of our species? Based on many, many of your comments it feels like you aren’t the most empathetic of people, at least not on the internet. Am I wrong? Why do I care? Well first, because surprise! Things aren’t much different in Canada than in the US. There are also the reasons Shepherd already stated. Plus the undeniable fact that, as I’ve stated several times now, the Women’s march wasn’t “just” about them there American gals. Were that true, we wouldn’t have a bunch of countries participate. We were marching for women’s rites as a collective. This is bigger than trump, bigger than America. And that’s what makes the whole thing so amazing. A bunch of countries came together in support of rites which, in many countries are even far worse off than in America. Sort of surprising considering how self-centerdd so many of us are, but sometimes big problems bring the world together for a while. I honestly can’t believe you’ve asked that question. I’m sorry if I’m getting personal here but I ask this because you seem confident and intelligent. Do you really not see the value in standing up for equal rites? Again, baring in mind that equal doesn’t meen exact same, but fairness in respect and treatment? “Pussy” hats not withstanding. By the way, pussy” hats are just an extreme manifestation of someone’s displeasure or sense of humor. Those hardly make up the majority of demonstrators.
saying one day that men and women will be equal is like saying that the world will soon become color blind. both of those statements will always be false.
Maybe, but if people felt that way any other time throughout history, black people might be enslaved in factories, women would not have the vote and be subservient to their husbands, segregation would still be more of a thing, and disabled people would be locked away. So yeah, trying to make people more equal? Not really seeing the problem there.
In America anyway, and I'm absolutely sure it is world wide, the tech industry hasn't given women fair opertunity.
Sure, you'll have more boys then girls, but what about the girls that have exactly, or more education then the boys that are interested?
Have you not been reading the new lately about this happenings in the tech industry?
We now have some women CEO's and that helps, but not really?
Do some research on Google. They've just now started to do something about it.
Why, complaints, court and such things.
It wasn't designed, but it wasn't open or a free for all either.
The tech industry just weren't hiring women, and when they did, weren't promoting them properly or paying them the same rate for the same job the male counter parts were doing.
I'm not even a new hound and I know this from the little news I allow in my life.
Do you not read the news?
I do, in fact, read the news in order to stay up on the trends and so on. I see this as a problem with the education system as I've sort of said. It's not even a problem. Not all women get into management. So what? Not all men make it eether. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Except it's not that simple, I'm afraid. I wish it was.
I mean seriously. There has been an issue up till recently that talks about how women are apparently not as good at math as men. This has been proved false, by the way, and utterly baseless, yet there are still people who believe it.
A lot of tech-based stuff requires that you be at least solid with math skills, and so while I doubt women were utterly barred from the field, it was male-dominated, and still is, largely because women were encouraged, by men in their lives and by one another (let's be honest, it came from everywhere) not to go into these fields even when they otherwise might have wanted to. This is true of a lot of areas, actually. Pay gaps have existed as well, quite apart from all the societal conditioning. And what we're trying to break down is all that predisposition toward or against certain roles held by both men and women.
I mean, put the shoe on the other foot. There's no really good reason a man can't be a nurse, yet nursing has been a female-dominated field. Ditto flight attendants. These barriers ought to become either entirely nonexistent or at least partially so.
Even if men or women are better suited to certain jobs (which is certainly up for debate), that is no reason to diminish the pay of one gender for gender's sake. If someone's doing a good job, they should be equally compensated for their time, effort and/or talents.
If a man is in a lowere paying position than a woman, he would be the one getting paid less. It's the way the world works.
Wow! Such interesting posts on this board topic. I wonder what kind of world we would live in if everyone lived by the mentality that if I disagree with you then you must be wrong. Sounds like a rather limiting negative view of the world to me. I would much rather live in a world where everyone is allowed to hold and voice their own opinions without automatically being labled as being wrong.
Again, we are not talking about different jobs with different pay grades outside of gender. We aren't talking about a CEO bringing home a hundred thousand a year while a short-order cook makes forty percent of that. We're talking about something like two managers in similar situations making different money because one is male and the other female.
Are you kidding margurp? Of COURSE! Of course a man in a lower paying position would be paid less. Obviously. Are you just splitting the short and kirlies here or what? As sShepherd said, if two people are in the same position, from entry level to higher up, they should get the same wage regardless of gender. There are factors which determine wage. One's genitalia should not be one of them.
And it isn't. I'm sorry but talk about getting bent out of shape.
And that's what we're trying to tell you. Sometimes it is.
In many cases, entry-level stuff especially, your gender will not impact how much money you make. And I know it sounds ludicrous, but this pay gap thing really has been an issue at times, and sometimes still is. It's not as if nine in ten women will face it (because no, they won't, that would be a huge stretch), but if even one in ten women faces it, that's a problem.
And this says nothing, absolutely nothing of the fact that people are often paid less money, regardless of their gender, if they're in the wrong setup. Look at all those factory workers in other countries who make pennies a day and have trouble feeding their families, when the stuff they make sells for hundreds of times its actual creation price. And that part isn't necessarily a women's rights issue or Trump's fault, but it's an indication that some really awful stuff happens to people (men, women, blacks, Hispanics, all sorts really) that shouldn't be happening.
Tell you what though. Let's pretend for a moment that the pay gap doesn't exist, ever, for anyone. Let's pretend that women are taken just as seriously as men in all fields. Let's pretend that you're right with all of your objections. The one thing I don't think you'd dare deny is that harassment is still very much a thing that happens. Rape happens. Assault happens. Sexual blackmail happens. Here's what I'll say. We live in a society where, even if you wanted to take all that other shit away, still treats women as objects more often than it doesn't. We live in a society where the 1% or so of women who falsely cry rape make it somehow okay for men and women alike to cast doubt on any woman making that claim. We live in a society where some men, at least, think it's okay to treat women as objects, in a way that women rarely do to men in reverse. We live in a society where this sort of power is so casually and so often used that it slips under the radar. Women aren't ignorant. They get it. They know what's going on. They don't know how else to fight back except to get loud, to step on toes, to finally and with a whole lot of force tell the world that they're tired of the casual backhanded way that they're put down.
Tell you something. I would support a women's march on those grounds alone, and never mind the rest of it. The rest of it is just a lot of toxic icing on a rather poisonous cake.
You forget that men can be raped. Men can be slapped around, men can be treated like shit. What will you do about that? Will you scream in the streets about it?
Honestly? Yes I would. That deserves the same sort of attention. Men being raped is just as bad as women being raped. Statistically I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen as often, but it's still just as wrong for men to be abused.
I actually raised a point like this a couple of years ago, and here's what I was told. It might do you well to think on it from this angle.
If anyone, regardless of gender or orientation, is abused, that's wrong. This means in the workplace, or by someone they know, or by a stranger, or anything of that nature. It's wrong. Doesn't matter who does it or who gets hurt. Wrong. We agree on that much, right?
Now here's the reason why you hear way way more about it from women than you do from men. It's because by and large, this is a male-driven society, and it has been this way pretty much since time out of mind. I mean, look at how long we had government before it was okay for women to vote, just as one example. It's better than it was, but it's still not great. The reason you hear way more about it when women are abused and raped and all that is because they're basically the lower class, or so they oftentimes feel. They're the ones in the disadvantageous position, and they're finally getting the nerve to shout about what's happening. One of the reasons this is so jarring and so troubling to some men (and even a few women) is because they really haven't done this too much before. This is a relatively new thing, this resistance and fist-shaking and demanding of equal rights.
So what happens is exactly the sort of stuff we're seeing on this thread. Every time a legitimate thing is raised, it's turned around or toyed with to suit a different agenda rather than just being faced. As someone not even heavily embroiled in this particular struggle, I can tell you it's still extremely disheartening to see this. And I've been where you are, guilty of the same things I'm pointing out. I've made the argument that it's bad when men get raped. I've made the argument that it's bad when women occasionally cry rape when it's not true. And the arguments themselves are valid enough, in context. There is a point to be made.
But what we have here, in essence, is the equivalent of comforting your friend whose brother was killed by a drunk driver by saying to that friend, "Well, I think maybe your brother had been drinking too, so I think he could've been at fault". You might be right, and there might be a time and a place to say such a thing, even a better audience, but it isn't here and it isn't now.
You don't get anywhere protesting women's marches regarding civil rights by suggesting that men, too, have problems. Because yeah, sure they do, but that's not the point. The point is that women have problems. Stop trying to deflect. Stop trying to use "yeah but" as your first line of reasoning.
If you can prove to me that the problems women face don't exist, then go ahead and prove it. if you can't, then there are really only two good things to do here.
Either accept it and try to help, or accept it and go away. Not trying to be overly harsh here, but it really boils down to two choices. This sort of argument totally deflects from the main points of the issue.
The reason some of them are wearing pussy hats is to poke fun at Trump who talked publicly about grabbing a woman's pussy when ever he felt like it. They are purposely turning the tablesdd@
I accept that women face issues and I will fight for a woman until she steps on my neck. Don't wave your hand and say that men are pigs and men are this or that. If you want equality the best thing to do is treat us how you would like to be treated. Remember, if you want to be respected you must be respectable.
Even myself who believes I'm an open minded thinker was surprised last time I flew.
The flight attendants assisting me was, well, um, male!
Laughing.
I was impressed. He was cute too.
So, sure, men have jobs and places they aren't exactly accepted as much, but it is really small, and if they insist will not be paid less because of it.
Margurp, the vast majority of feminists are not waving their hands and saying all men are pigs. Are some? Absolutely. I'd wager they're either just following the band wagon, or have been so mistreated bya man they've grown cold and hard. I don't like those blanket statements either. I try hard to be respectful to women. Doesn't make me feel good when I'm lumped in with mister bald-headed, scraggly-bearded ketchup-stained wife-beater wearing, beer swilling, trailer-trash rapist. There's a vivid hyperbole for you. But the majority of women don't want men to go away, they want men to see them as equals and to be accorded the same wages, respects and freedoms. I'm not understanding why you're being so adverse to all this. Women aren't asking for special privoledges, just to be seen as equal members of society. And right now, in many ways and in many countries, they are not.
If they were simply asking for equality I'd agree with you. I'm sorry, but I am seeing women trying to get better treatment and blame men for not giving them everything willingly.
What's actually happening is that most women are protesting what you're doing right now. Most women are protesting all the bullshit you're using to deflect from the main points. Most women are tired of the not-all-men arguments. Most women know full well that most men aren't pigs, but rather than couching every criticism they have in careful language, they're being direct and sometimes too general.
Yes, there are women out there who want to step on a man's neck to get where they're going. Sure there are. But they're in the minority. Trust me on this.
As for the rest of them, who are trying to get us to give them equality willingly...well hell, can you blame them? If I was a woman in such a poisition, and came in here and read this topic, I'd be furious with you, Kevin. You're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in the path of meaningful discourse. You're using weak arguments and baseless claims to suggest that this isn't ideal. Put another way, you're actually acting against the struggle for equal rights, because moment spent disabusing you of your fancies are moments not fighting the good fight. Time has been spent pointing out that only a very tiny minority of women will falsely cry rape. Time has been spent clarifying that no, most men are not pigs of the first order. Time has been spent explaining that yes, there is still male-centered preferential treatment in the work force in some places where it doesn't belong. Time has been spent pointing out that most women are not, in fact, trying to step on a man to get the rights they deserve. All of these things that were apparently needed...well, in my opinion, they speak for themselves and shouldn't have been. At the end of the day, I just hope I'm getting through to you a bit.
Yes you are. I never said most women claim rape when it doesn't happen. I said as long as one falsehood is out there, it's only fare that we work to prove actual rape in every case. Maybe we can say that the few have ruined it for the many. Now will you come back and tell me that the movement isn't emasculating to men in the least?
Honestly? I can't even believe we're still having this discussion.
You know what? We've been on the top of the hill for a few thousand years. I think even if absolutely no women were doing anything wrong at all, some of us would find it a bit emasculating to suddenly realize that women were rocking the boat and fighting for what they deserve. I am absolutely not speaking for myself here in the present tense, since I do not feel emasculated in the slightest by any of what's going on, but I've been in that position before. I've felt emasculated a few times, have gotten angry using the "not all men" defense, have felt like people are getting stepped on. But here's what I've come to realize.
In a struggle for equal rights like this, it is absolutely, positively guaranteed to make someone feel stepped on. Let a group possess a thing for several generations, then challenge their right to have it, and some among that group are going to feel as if they're unfairly targetet no matter how righteously, gently or cautiously it's done.
Tough luck.
Feathers are going to be ruffled a little bit when the status quo gets a well-deserved shake.
But let me be clear on this.
Men, as a group, have been upholding a system (some much more than others) which shuts women out. Now women are fighting back against that system. It needs to be said that women have had their own hand in making that system; it can't be lumped onto the shoulders of men all on its own.
This means that if the system starts getting attacked, and you've been even indirectly part of it, then yeah, you may feel like you've got a target painted on you. You don't, but you may feel that way. Learn to deal with it. Don't take an accusation about one man as a condemnation on the whole gender. Put bluntly: it's not all about you. It's not all about me. Not all about any one of us, really.
If you haven't done anything horrible to women, then you're amid the group with nothing to hide and nothing to feel guilty about. There is nothing inherently shameful or bad about being male, so the feeling of emasculation is not justified unless or until someone tries using you as an object lesson.
I've done that a bit here, but only to prove to you that you've got a few things backward. If a woman did that to you, slapped all the hideous things done in the past on your shoulders and expected you to bow to them? No, that's not fair, and not okay, and whatever the greater good, that shouldn't be allowed. So deal with those cases if and when they come up, and dismiss or fight them as the undeserved prejudice they represent.
But otherwise, it's nothing personal. It's something that has to be done, and because men have been on top for so long, it's maybe a bit weird for some of us to suddenly realize that no, this is not, in fact, how things are going to keep on rolling.
TL:DR version: Don't take it personally, because it's not personal unless you've said or done something to make it so. Resist the urge to take offense at things not aimed at you. Admit where you might do better, but don't feel the need to bend your neck just because you're a man.
Now, I want to strike at this from a slightly different and hopefully less combattive angle.
Right now, and for quite some time now, the media has been flooded with stories of abuse against women, of rape alligations, of sexual assault, of workplace harassment, of women's rights issues in general. It is pretty easy, if you aren't careful, to wonder where in the hell it all came from, to wonder why every second or third story you seem to see is some man or other getting smeared.
There are two reasons for this.
1. Almost all of it is true
...and as such, it paints a pretty ugly picture of the guilty men in the equation, doesn't it? That's testament enough in and of itself, but...
2. Awareness is a form of power
Ever heard the expression "forewarned is forearmed"? It's true in most cases. Not only that, but finally being able to talk openly about all the bullshit they've had to deal with is probably pretty damned empowering for some women. Let 'em have it. If you aren't the guilty one, then you aren't on their hitlist. Spreading awareness not only makes it harder for bad people to do bad things (because it helps better prepare others and helps to negatively stigmatize the behaviour with social pressure), but it also generates public outcry against unfair or uneven punishments given to offenders, such as men convicted of rape in college apparently having a viable argument against prison because it would ruin their athletic scholarship and maybe even their future athletic career.
In other words, all the media frenzy has nothing to do with men as a gender, and everything to do with the worst among us. For every one horrendous story you hear, there are many that you don't, because they're not all that noteworthy in the grand scheme of things.
There are man-haters out there, and I don't find that stance tenable in the slightest. Ditto the women-haters out there who I'm sure would object to all my rhetoric herein.
The important thing to remember is that in today's climate, it's the scandal that sells, the scandal that grabs and keeps attention. Who can blame the media for its attention if there are still a disproportionately large number of sexual assaults of various degrees happening every day?
I would wager that most human beings agree that rape is rape, regardless of the target, that sexual assault on a man or a woman is equally wrong. Let the media have its feast. Eventually they'll get over it. Frankly, I just hope that any abuse victims, regardless of their gender or other status, are being treated as they deserve, and that any who manipulate the system or the current climate for their own personal agenda are exposed for exactly the dishonest folk they are.
How many bosses are really grabbing a woman's ass and/or pussy at work? I am sure it's not happening as much as you think.
Is that what sexual harassment is to you, Margurp? Is anything beneath genital grabbing "not" harassment?
And for that matter Margurp, how are you sure this isn't happening much? Did you look it up? Because I just did. I didn't even need to go beyond the first page of Google to see some pretty staggering statistics from a variety of sources. Now, I'm a little skeptacle about stats, because you just never know. 50% of marriages ending in divorce is a popular one, and it's not measured accurately. But that many sources certainly paints an unpleasant picture. ANd these are, as far as I can tell, very recent studies conducted in only the united states. TO say nothing of other countries where women have it far worse. There's also a lot of news stories about this crap happening. Doesn't take much searching to find it. So if you must struggle against this reality, please tell me from where you are acquiring your certainty. Because I would love to think better of people and be proven wrong.
Also, remember what I said before. It's not happening everywhere, all the time, to all women. Not by a longshot. Many professional and personal relationships are just fine. But it's happening enough that it's a problem.
Just keep in mind what I said about how the media will make it look like every man is doing it when they're not. Don't take eight news stories as a condemnation of the entire gender. Conversely, don't take eight news stories and decide that the media is having a good time, and that the numbers don't matter.
Well, grabbing them by the pussy I don't think is meant physically, but that does happen.
What I think was meant is if you are popular, or rich, you can have any you want sexually.
We have a church here that teaches that men should not hold women's hand unless they are serious about her.
They believe if you hold her hand basicly her panties will drop, or she'll become less resistant to your sexual advances.
This is a church, so go figure.
Wayne, I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Everyone has agency. And I mean, okay, you don't want to lead someone on, but I'd hardly say hand-holding is a life commitment. I don't go holding hands with people just for sport or anything, mind you, but I also think this notion that a woman will become somehow weakened to your advances because you do so is...well, ludicrous.
Well that's church for you. And for the record, I don't think it's right for someone to be made uneasy in the work place but I think sensitivity training sometimes goes overboard. I am on the board of the NFB in my state, and we are told if you so much as give someone a hug and they complain about it you're done fore. Is that fare?
It's tricky. On the one hand, I do think you deserve your personal space, and to not have it violated. On the other hand, I don't think assault/harassment should be actually made to stick if someone makes what they see as a kind gesture and isn't pushy (patting someone's arm or giving them a quick hug or whatnot).
For me, it's all about body language and signals. I don't want someone coming up and grabbing me out of nowhere, so I won't do it to them, even if they can see me coming. Now, if they do it, I'm not going to howl that I'm being harassed right away, but I'm probably going to ask them not to do it again or whatever, and then if they persist in doing whatever I don't like, then I'll push it further.
No means no. I get that. And we shouldn't just assume that people want a hug. But in general, I agree with you that some people take it a step too far. I guess what I'm saying is that if you do touch someone without essentially being invited to, it might be a mistake, but I'm not sure if the vehemence with which some people will follow through on it makes a whole lot of sense.
This sort of reminds me of Justin Trudeau, our Prime Minister. In a very highly publicized incident, he was turning aside in a somewhat crowded place, and one of his elbows struck a woman's chest. People went nuts. I think it's ridiculous. He wasn't trying to assault her; he accidentally bumped her, and as far as I'm concerned that warrants nothing more than an apology.
Ditto teachers. They're hedged on all sides now in certain areas. If you offer help the "wrong" way, you can get in trouble. If you are a male teacher asking a female student to stay after class for a moment, or vice versa, that will raise eyebrows somewhat even though it used to happen all the time. There are all these slippery do's and don't's about how you're supposed to interact, and honestly, while I think some care is absolutely a good thing, going too far just means that no one is prepared for the real world, where sometimes people make honest mistakes, or where intention really does matter.
Exactly, and that's why I say that men are a bit cut down today. I'm not saying women shouldn't have rights. I'm saying we should have mutual respect.
That's what we're saying too, Margurp. But in many ways, mutual respect is not there. And yes, harassment can get really blown out of proportion. If you touch someone's arm or give them a hug, it is, in my opinion, up to that person to make it clear to you that they are uncomfortable with that contact, not go tattling to their higher ups and get you in trouble. However, if you do not heed their words, then yes, it is on you. You do need to be careful, and at times it really is extreme. But you have to wonder, what insidents forced that extreme stance?
We do have mutual respect most of the time. That's what I've been trying to tell you.
For every case where a woman harps on a man for doing something he shouldn't, there are probably dozens where nothing wrong occurred. You hear about the ones were stuff happens (sometimes too loudly) because of the overall social climate we live in. Just ride it out. It gets better. And like I said, if you're one of the men who doesn't deserve any censure, then it's not an issue for you.
The people usually getting ragged on usually deserve it. When they don't, it's perfectly okay to say so.
For the record, the teaching example I gave in my last post? I've seen it happen to women too. This whole hyper-aware-of-personal-space thing, political correctness, taking offense at the tiniest thing even when absolutely no offense was intended, thin skin stuff...it affects women too, believe me. It affects men a little more though because (and here I'm making a generalization, but an accurate one) men are used to sort of doing stuff and expecting the world to accommodate, because it always has. Men have made the rules, enforced them, made decisions and enforced those too. Now that this particular thing is no longer only the province of men, it means that men are being forced to stop and think about what they're doing a bit. In a lot of cases, that's a good thing even when no harm was done or threatened. In other cases, it errs a bit on the side of hypersensitivity, like you said. I think this is a case where we can agree that sometimes people go too far, and take offense from stuff that really needn't be offensive. But I think we can also agree that the few times this happens, compared to the majority of times where it doesn't, is just part and parcel for a changing interpersonal dynamic, and probably does more good than harm. Eventuually I think people will settle down and stop freaking out about unintended slights and issues, and when this happens, I strongly suspect most of your objections will blow away.
That said, Kevin, you're still sorta doing exactly what I talked about a few posts back. "Yeah but". But at least on this point, I sympathize a bit. I've been here too. Still am sometimes. I hate it when someone gets tarred with the same brush because of their gender or their profession or whatnot. It might be understandable, but it still annoys the ever-loving hell out of me.
Upbringing, uptightness, and the desire to feel powerful brings it on most times.
Women can tell when they are actually being sexually harassed, but sadly this has been over used.
ALl pretty true.
And I think we make allowances when we pat women on the head and say, "you're absolutely right. You have nothing and we have everything."
See right there, that wording? That's a perfect example of the kind of patronizing condescention we're talking about. First, what are we making allowances for exactly? Second, nobody's saying they have nothing and we have everything. Progress has been acknowledged. There just hasn't yet been enough of it to shorten the gap. You're just using one-liners without any substance. I'm aware "patting someone on the head" is an expression, but anyone who actually treats someone in that manner isn't making allowances for anything. They're basically saying "awwww, look at you thinking. it's so adorable." It's the equivalent to saying to a blind person "wow, you can get from point A to B without help. That's so amazing."
Margorp and LTE, the point that is being missed by most people on this topic is the fact that as I've said before, the world will never, I repeat never, be equal. It really is that simple. If women think they are being underpaid, the onus is on those women, not on anyone else, to change their situation for the better. However that is just it: these women who marched, don't want equal rights. They want to yell and scream because they are mad that their presidential candidate did not win. So instead of doing something productive, all they can do is scream and otherwise throw temper tantrums because they still want something to happen that likely will not happen.
I read the news every day and what I've seen is a bunch of men and women alike, wining for one reason or another. Either someone touched women in a way that woman doesn't like (which unfortunately is part of life sometimes) or they said something that a woman didn't like (which is unfortunately also part of life sometimes). So what we have here are a bunch of men supporting, I would even argue enabling, crybaby women rather than telling those women to quit their wining and get over themselves, stop asking for special treatment, and being the hateful, vile people that they are--and they are, they're the most devisive group in the world today. They don't accept responsibility for their actions, and neither do men like ones on this topic. They continually make allowances for women to feel good about the fact they're being disruptive to and in the world. That, to me, is one of the major problems with this whole discussion. Another problem is that the men on this topic attack me because they can't attack my arguments. Men and women alike though, need to stop being sore losers because they didn't get what they wanted. Oh, and while I'm at it, I don't live in Canada and I haven't ever been to Canada. However what little I know about it already, shows me that there are a bunch of liberal-minded people there who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves. Which is another thing: no one wants to think for themselves, no matter where they are. People want to tow whichever party line they choose to, instead of thinking outside their box, the way margorp and LTE have done with what I've contributed to this topic. So while most women (and men, according to this topic at least) want to gripe about something that *they* have the power to change, I'll keep feeling the way I do. Because here is another thing: if some women feel they're paid less, that's those women's problem. If some women feel like second-class citizens, that's those women's problem. If some women feel like less than a man, that's those women's problem. It's their problem, and they are the only ones who can fix it.
Chelsea, as long as I see baseless, dangerous, shortsighted and downright wrongheaded stances put forward on this website, I will oppose them. And if that means opposing you by extension, tough luck.
I don't have to dismantle your arguments, as such. They aren't arguments, and don't even deserve the dignity of an honest dismantling. I tried that while I still thought you had some credibility. You've lost all of that. And as such, I no longer feel I need to show you the respect of disassembling your so-called rhetoric politely.
I guess when a woman gets raped, or a man gets abused, or anyone has anything bad happen, it's just the way the world works? We should tell the victim to get the hell over it instead of accepting that there's actually an honest-to-god problem with the world? See, Chelsea, this is called victim-blaming. You are not necessarily saying that the victim was at fault for what happened to them, but you are putting all of the onus on avoiding such things in future squarely on the shoulders of the victim. Psychologically, what this does is essentially make victims feel as if, had they been better prepared the first time, bad things wouldn't have happened to them. Try telling that to a rape victim, I double-dog-dare you.
Victim-blaming, in this and many other guises, is just one of the reasons why women's marches and civil rights movements and all that jazz are so sorely needed. It is, in a very real way, victims reaching out and making an outcry because they were victimized. They are fighting the system by putting social pressure upon it. They are doing what they can to try and ensure that future victimization is limited. And because they see your president as an agent of regression in this arena, they are protesting. Never mind that he didn't even win the popular vote. Never mind that he has already ignored some of the rulings handed down by your supreme court. Never mind that it has been pretty strongly indicated that Russia had a public hand in your so-called democratic process by making otherwise small scandals all but explode. Any one of those things by itself might be enough to stir up protest, but there's so much more, which has been targeted at Muslims and women and generally non-white non-male non-Christians, that I think it would at the very least seriously raise suspicions of anyone with half a brain. Trump is facing protests because he is saying, doing and promising things which deserve to be fought against. Simple as that.
You say you hope you never go to Canada because of the crime of liberal-mindednsss, and try and dismiss Remy and myself, as well as any non-Americans with an opinion about America apparently, by suggesting we deal with our own problems first. God knows we all have problems, after all. See, I'm tempted to respond to that silly little diatribe with the statement that you folks deserve whatever Trump tosses you, but no. I'll take the high ground. You don't deserve that. Frankly, you as a country have my sympathy, even if enough Americans voted for Trump to make an honest scrap of it. This Canadian, at least, may be critical, but also recognizes that very real problems are facing very real people. What I will say, however, is that I am immensely glad that people like you are in a very small and very powerless minority. With dangerous stances like that, you'd do far more harm than good in any sort of position where you decisions might influence people. I'll be content, I suppose, as long as your pseudo tough-love victim-blaming blindly conservative views aren't permitted to infect greater swaths of the community at large.
Seriously. This sort of thing actually makes me feel a little sick. Is this what some of us, as human beings, can actually condone?
Chelsea. I don’t dislike you. I like you.
Okay, now that we have that established, let us talk.
Tell me, how do women fix the problem of being underpaid for the same job men get paid more for?
How do women fix the problem of sexual harassment, and I don’t mean general, or tasteless jokes, but actual, if you don’t sleep with me, I’m going to make sure you don’t get whatever it is you are trying to achieve?
That could be a promotion, food on the table, reasonable housing cost, you name it, but something she has applied for, and must receive from a man that wants her, but can’t get her without holding her sexually hostage?
Tell me how women fix that fact in some places they are basically sold to the highest bidder when it comes to who they will marry?
The father, brother, or male head of house doesn’t think about his sister’s feelings, only what the man that has come to him can provide in the way of financial rewards. He doesn’t ask his sitter if she would be interested in spending her life with this man, or giving herself to this man physically, he tells her to wash herself and make herself presentable so the man will not take back his offer.
Tell me, dear Chelsea, how women can fix the issue of date rape? You know what that is, so I’ll not explain it?
Tell me dear friend, how women can fix the issue of not even being on a date, but maybe working late with a man on a project she’s not interested in romantically, but she wakes up sore, or feeling as if she’s had sex when she knows she didn’t consent to it?
Okay, so that could be fixed by never ever trusting a man to provide you a drink that isn’t sealed from the factory? Women could become distrustful of all men, right?
You know about Bill Cosby, a highly respected and talented person who in my humble opinion could have plenty sex with his choice of willing ladies.
Instead of picking the willing, he chose to drug the unsuspecting because he couldn’t take no for an answer.
Most times, he didn’t even ask, just slipped her a mickey and that was that.
Tell me how women can have a say of what they do with their bodies and not have to fight for a law that says they get to decide if they are having a baby or not?
How can women make men accept the fact they are mentally able and not lesser so then men based on the fact they are female?
I’m really interested in your reply.
I need to add this Chelsea. Look how many years it took for the women Cosby was abusing to get the courts to even listen to the claims?
One women wasn't enough for the legal system to even look in to her claims, it took several.
Why wasn't he checked in to even if her claims wer false and he came out innocent?
I think Chelsea was one of the people who told me I should just calm down when I ranted about unwanted touch, so this is in character.
The main point Chelsae is trying to make is that we should stop blaming men and try to solve your own issues.
This is sick and disgraceful. Tough love? No. That's not what this is. That implies some level of caring and empathy. I don't have anything more to say about this than Forereal and Shepherd have already said. But in my mind, there are three sides to this. Those who care, those who are apathetic and those who find fault. Honestly I can't believe what I'm reading here. Some real twenty-first century progress being made here, let me tell you. I too can't wait to hear the answers to these questions, Chelsea. I will whole-heartedly agree with you on one point. Women (and really anyone) do need to advocate for themselves. Nobody should take crap from others. We need to stand up for ourselves and each other. And that's what peaceful protest is all about. Don't confuse the band-wagon followers with those passionate about the issues. Everyone should be able to defend themselves. That's a fantastic ideal. Unfortunately it's about as realistic as everyone in the world being equal, isn't it? And okay, you're right about that too. We probably won't all ever be completely equal. But it's that thinking that absolutely ensures we won't get any closer. So I'm going to keep doing the little things I can to defend the weak crybabies you seem to despise so much. After all, according to your words to me long ago, I'm just another crybaby anyway. I'd best stick to my own kind. By the way, the day we stop caring about those less able or less fortunate than ourselves, it'll be a darker world. That isn't even just a Christian thing to do. it' salso the empathetic human thing to do.
Questions here still stand, Margurp. It's the system that is to blame. And that system is, in many ways, dictated by men. It's not like every man or even all men are to blame for every issue. But as a collective body, men hold the majority of influence and power. It's not just how those poor helpless women folk "feel" (sarcasm), but about what is actually, tangibly happening. These issues aren't just smoke and mirrors to piss and moan about. This is reality. And in many other countries, the reality is far damn worse. And yes, people in general need to take charge of their own issues. I just don't get this active opposition. Especially from you Chelsea. Don't see the issues? That's fine. Being so against acknowledging them though? I don't get that at all, despite your explanations.
Stop talking about women as if they're weak and have no power. That's the real tragedy with this topic. Women do have a voice and it's certainly not up to me or anyone else to find it for them. If a man comes up to a woman and says "sleep with me and I'll give you a job" and she doesn't say "no", who's problem is that really? The power of no folks! So don't blame men for this. Don't say that the big bad man forced the poor woman to do something.
The big bad man didn't and often can't absolutely force these things, not anymore.
But the big bad man (sorry, I like that phrase because it's illustrative) made the fucking offer in the first place. Why do we live in a world where most people seem to think it's okay that these big bad men get to keep throwing their weight and their influence around?
Okay, fine. Advocate for self-empowerment. I've said this before. Women are not helpless and lacking agency. Some of these issues can and will be solved by empowering them in a way that is understood and easily proven. But on the other hand, some of these issues begin, and exist, because men make them exist. And so when the #1 big bad man in these women's eyes, Trump, starts saying, doing and promising things which will remove that agency? They did the logical thing. They got attention. They protested. And guess why they did it? To make sure the world at large knew damn well where they stood. To make sure the world at large wouldn't ignore them as women have been ignored so often in the past. Guess what this is? It's a classic situation where a person or people did exactly what you're suggesting. They didn't whine and cry that they were helpless. Instead they proved that they weren't; the fact that this topic thread sprang up and got as large as it did, here on a relatively unknown and not highly-travelled part of the internet, and the fact that it seems to have generated some actual talking points (at least for you, Kevin, in the sense that you said earlier that I've gotten through to you on a few things), is testimony that the women's protesting and marching and all that was precisely the sort of social pressure needed to affect change.
You're not a crybaby, you're not helpless, if you're actually taking strides to better your situation and those around you.
Women did this.
Ergo, women are not crybabies and powerless, and no one's saying they are.
At worst, we're saying that these so-called big bad men need to be convinced to stop throwing their weight around, and that the rest of us should understand that this state of affairs is not the way it should be.
Looks like game, set, match to me.
I think the marches go far past even Trump. I just think instead of blaming and shaming, women can just say no to unwanted advances. Men will always come on to women. This is human nature. A woman has the power to reject such advances.
Some men will, yes. But one of the reasons that a fair number of men still do it is because they feel like it's okay to do it. As such, I disagree with you that it's just the way things are. I mean, do women come onto men the same way? Do women have trouble taking no for an answer sometimes? Do women make inappropriate comments and stare like idiots and generally make pests of themselves? Not near on the same level as men do, put it that way.
See, we aren't just animals anymore. That's something to keep in mind.
Exactly! All of that. And yes, it does go beyond Trump. I said that waaay back, many times. That's the whole point. Women aren't weak, and not powerless. That's the point too. They're standing up for their rites by making their voices heard. Are some being vulgor about it? Maybe. But when gentleness doesn't produce results, what's next? The whole point isn't that women don't have power. The point is that they are still being put in the position to feel like they need to excersize that power to shed light on issues which are clearly in need of improvement. And that too is the point. Hell, look at the porn industry. That's one whole big sticky wad of problems. I don't even care that people watch porn. We're sexual beings. But the amount of actual degrading filth out there is a testament to exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, rapeplay anyone? I get that everyone has something that turns them on. Whatever. But there are a lot of women who really are treated as objects. it's a whole industry, and it is by far a male-centerd and dominated one. Doesn't help that there are clear studies that show there are more than a few instances of young men and boys being exposed to such videos and coming away with the belief that that's how women want to be treated, and that's how sex is done. Girls get raped over that shit. Is it the parents' responsibilities to ensure their children are either not exosed to or are taught about such matters? Personally I think so, but that's a whole debate in and of itself. But even so, that stuff is so incredibly easy to find. And kids have tablets and phones in school now. Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a debate on the benefits or harm of porn. I'm merely illustrating a point: it's one very clear instance of why this march is still necessary. Confession time: I liked porn. I liked hearing and seeing two people enjoying one another sexually. But you know one of the reasons I think it's a problem? Because of these issues. If nothing else, you never know which of those girls (maybe guys, who knows, but probably not) are doing that willingly and because they genuinely want to be doing it. Rant over.
And yes, girls can say no to mens' advances. Women do. all the time. And if you're a decent human male you'll respect that. Problem is, enough guys don't that it is a clear problem. Do you hear about men being raped? DO you hear about women stalkers? Do you hear about girls not taking no for an answer? Yes to all of that. And that is bad too. But the ratio of men to women victims, especially in terms of rape is ... well, what do you think it is?
I'm sorry but we are animals deep down. And, ah here we go with more bullshit about how porn hurts women. The women do it willingly for crying out loud. I'm sick of this victim stuff. Yes, sometimes the women are drugged and forced to fuck animals and that's nasty and should stop but that's not the majority of the porn industry. I will not say, "I'm a man and should tone down my sexuality." This what I meant about men having less and less rights today. It's ridiculous.
Women do say no to the big bad man.
They refuse the sex for the promotion, but why should they have to?
Next time you need a job, how would it feel if the big bad man said, bend over? Smile.
You need to feed your family. You've worked ther for years, but now because you refuse to bend over, you stand the chance to lose the job and your livelihood.
You go to court, and you can't exactly prove you were told to bend over, but you don't get the job.
You aren't fired, but you never ever get promoted.
You get on a list as a trouble maker and everytime you apply, they say, well, you didn't bend over, so.
For some strange reason, now correct me if I am wrong. But I feel what is
indirectly being said here is this:
Women claim to be raped, most haven't even been raped. Women claim to be
harassed and most of the time they aren't. All this women are bad notion, so
because some of us women lie, cheat, steal, just like men, we don't deserve
equal rights?
I've been in a few positions that when I've said no, I wasn't listened to. One
time I was raped, other couple fo times I was lucky the men were drunk and I
could convince them to sit down and or fall asleep. When all that happened
to me, I was 100 pounds and five feet. These men were big and I was very
afraid. Would you say I'm playing victim? Would you say I deserve it? Would
you say I don't deserve equal pay?
It makes me sick that your generalizing all women. I'm none of those things
you claim.
We are animals deep down, you say? Well, you show me a chimp who could explain to you, or demonstrate to you, how fighter jets are built. You show me a bonobo who can do neurosurgery. You show me a gorilla who happens to be a chess grandmaster. You show me an orangutan who can converse fluently on the potential existence of an almighty creature. Better yet, put them all in a room together and watch what happens.
You might think I'm making sport. I'm not. I'm making a point.
Animals are governed by their instincts. They fight, mate and do basically everything else according to instinct. Some of them use tools. Some of them express pretty complex thoughts and emotions (as compared to other animals, I mean). But they're far, far, far down the ladder from us in most ways. To put this in perspective, the most intelligent of the great apes, as best we can discern it, has the approximate cognition of a four or five-year-old human being. Know any five-year-old surgeons, pilots or psychiatrists? Because I don't.
The point is that we've evolved a huge long way from where we came from. And because we've done this, we can't just fall back on so-called instinct. Frankly, the reason that animals rape one another sometimes is because they probably don't have enough self-awareness to be ashamed when they do it, or when it happens to them. Mating is pleasurable, at least up to a certain point, and since mating is also required to further the species, it's pretty much win-win without a conscience.
But like it or not, human beings have consciences, unless they're sociopaths. They've evolved to enough of an extent that their awareness of themselves as distinct individuals also brings with it a sensitivity toward others. We do not do harm to one another, by and large, because we don't want that harm done to us. Better still, we don't do that harm because we know how upsetting it would be to us, and that's the basis for our empathy when you get right down to brass tacks. Animals don't have that, and we do. Now, let's dispense with the "we're all animals deep down" logic, because really that's just the last grasping-at-straws of an argument that's already been torn to pieces. It justifies, or attempts to justify, the supposed "way of the world". Sorry, no dice. Two hundred years ago, it was just the "way of the world" that you could be killed out of hand if you, as a black slave, displeased your white master. And that's not even scratching the surface.
As we continue to evolve, we also continue to diverge. We realize more and more that if we are self-aware, we cannot in good faith and good conscience maintain the barbaric practices we've upheld and attempted to justify in the past.
Now, regarding porn:
I would like to believe that most people involved in porn are doing it willingly, and are happy enough to do it. Frankly, I don't have the stats. Where I will differ a bit from Remy is in scope. I say if people enjoy creating porn, and no one's getting hurt or taking unnecessary health risks, then go for it. If a man or a woman knows they have other options but chooses to get into the porn industry, that's their call. I don't really see anything wrong with someone who decides they want to sell their body in such fashion; it's their body, and their right to market it. I object to this sort of thing only in two senses. First, with the point that Remy made; some men seem to grow up thinking that porn is normal, when it's specifically meant to be hypersexualized and not too realistic. I don't like the notion that harm comes as a result of lack of information on the part of the consumer, if you will. The other way I object is with regard to the way in which it's being produced and marketed in the first place. If you dress something up a certain way, then you're feeding the problem to some extent. This becomes problematic, because while decisions are still being made by the person watching, they're being led up a path that's not necessarily a good road to walk on.
So a summary of that? I wish porn was a little differently constructed somehow, and I wish people were far more aware of it so that they knew it wasn't all that realistic. Do those things, and I think it becomes a much less potentially harmful pastime.
No, I'm not against porn, by the way. I just have some reservations, as stated above.
Jodeci, I don't think anyone's saying that innocents deserve things when the guilty lie and make it worse for them. I think at worst, there's this whole notion that men are often rough beasts, and nothing's going to change it, so the best thing we can do is continue reacting to their roughness instead of trying to raise enough awareness of and resistance to it that it becomes negatively stigmatized.
If us men are going to be rough, women should get rough. If you say no and he won't listen, kick him in the groin, the face, the chest. Smack him with a frying pan. Or just take him to court. He deserves it.
Were does she get the frying pan when we're on a date and sitting on the couch?
Take him to court?
Well, she let me in, got comfortable and took of her shoes, top, and was in her underwear because, she was comfortable and not afraid of me.
Maybe she just took of her shoes only and had on that sexy short skirt. Just invitation, right?
Well, I thought she wanted sex, so?
I'm a muscle head. At times I'm around 200 LBS even though I don't look it, so that means it is all muscle.
She's 5 feet and 100 LBS. She weighs roughfully what I can with with one hand.
She's going to do what again?
Smile.
Oh, wait, time out, I am going to let her go get the frying pan, forgot.
Even with that, she's going to have to catch me first, or unaware when she swings it.
She'll need a gun, or me to be really slow.
Even if it isn't about sex, its about domination meaning, I have the power and position to refuse her a job promotion based on she's a girl.
Have you ever seen animals rape each other?
If we men are animals, shouldn't we wait for the mating signals?
Smells, sounds, flat out invitations?
Have you noticed how animals mate? At no time does the male just attack the female, she has to make herself available.
To be fare animals do rape to show dominance. It is wrong, but rape is going to happen. Wouldn't it be great if we just said don't rape a person and the world was magically at peace? It doesn't happen that way though.
No, it doesn't happen that way. So we have to make it so negatively stigmatized that men who otherwise might consider it are more deterred than before. No, you aren't going to stop them all. That's a pipe dream. But it's possible to stop more of them, and to punish the guilty ones far harder so they never do it again. It's also possible to drive home just how fucking backward some of these behaviours are, which will hopefully make fewer men willing and able to screw around that way.
Funny how I'm pegged as being conservative. I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I tow no party line. I think for myself, rather than towing a party line. With that out of the way: no one here is saying that rape is OK. As someone whose been raped myself, I had my share of hardships after that particular experience. However, I very quickly realized that the fact I was raped was *one* man's decision and that I shouldn't let anyone suffer (including myself) because I'd been raped. Just because *one* man made a bad choice, does not mean that others (including myself) should suffer for any amount of time. So that's another thing that needs to change: women need to learn that they do have power, as well as some responsibility, in such a situation. A woman going off with a total stranger because she trusts that a trustworthy friend who'd introduced her to him or her, is not something anyone (man or woman) should do. Another thing is that rape, like domestic violence, will never stop. Does the world want those things to stop? Sure. Is that realistic though? Absolutely not. Just like disabled people will never be equal, so too, will ugliness in the world, never disappear. As I have said time and time again, I'm sick of most men on this topic claiming that women have no freedom and no responsibility for the things that happen to them and in their lives. Women absolutely do have freedom and responsibility, even if part of their responsibility is a woman not going off with someone she thinks is trustworthy, just because she's never had a bad experience with anyone before. President Trump is not responsible for the fact that many women don't believe that they have the power to say "no" or "I don't want to do that." President Trump is not responsible for the fact that some women allow themselves to feel like second-class citizens. President Trump is not responsible for the fact that many women are mad because they didn't get their way in this recent election. President Trump is not responsible for the fact that some women feel they are only seen as sex objects by men. You know who's responsible for all of those things? *Women*! Because here is the thing most people posting to this topic are failing to admit: despite the fact that many women are trying to convince the world how hard they really have it in life, *they*, the women who say such things, are the only ones with the power to change their situations for the better. Men can't convince them of that, and evidently other women can't either...yet, the women saying how hard their lives are, would rather point the finger at anyone besides themselves because that's easier than being introspective and examineing themselves/thinking about how they could change things for the better for the greater good of men and women.
But Chelsea, how do they change this? What is your solution?
If protesting isn't the way, if making announcements not the way.
If posting articles, and trying to get laws pasted from protesting, what is the way?
Okay, I'm gonna slam the door on this foolishness.
1. No one ever once said or suggested that all women are always helpless, powerless or defenseless.
2. No one ever once said or suggested that eliminating all forms of abuse was a realistic goal.
3. No one ever once said or suggested that victims should not learn to empower themselves so as to better cope with having been victimized, and to better arm themselves against being victimized in future.
In fact:
1. While some people really are helpless in individual situations, it's not that common. Convincing a person that they have both agency and a voice loud enough to be heard is the main goal here.
2. Lowering the incidents of abuse is a realistic goal, as is making it extremely clear to any who would practice abusive behaviour that it will under no circumstances be tolerated. "the way of the world" be damned. We have consciences, empathy and social skills. It is not that hard not to abuse people.
3. Victims can often do things to help themselves, and telling them or showing them these things is an excellent idea. It might not help, but it probably will. It may not do a thing about the mindset of a would-be abuser, but it can help the victim get out of a situation or minimize the damage if the worst should come to pass.
Now, for a few side points.
1. No one ever said Trump is personally responsible for every bad thing that happens to anyone, whether those be women, Muslims, disabled people or other groups. What we said was that Trump is embarking on courses of action which essentially take some avenues of choice and freedom away from people with minorities. Since these minorities are doing the empowerment thing and trying to make sure they maintain a voice, it strikes me that their protests are precisely the sort of victim-strengthening warranted by Chelsea as the only way to make the world better. There's a really huge logical disconnect happening here, and it isn't mine.
2. Just because a situation will never be prrfect doesn't mean we shouldn't fight hard for it to be better. Okay, so some men or women are going to abuse people no matter what you do. Fine. But that doesn't mean it's okay to say "oh well, we've made progress from the chimps" and leave it at that. Just because homosexuals have more rights than they used to doesn't meantthat we get to pat ourselves on the back and quit pushing. It never ends, and as members of a minority, we who have disabilities know this. It never. fucking. ends. And that's awful, but it's the way the world works. When people protest, they aren't expecting perfection, they're trying for better than they've got. Or they're trying to stop reversion before it makes things worse.
3. I was always taught that if you don't know how to do something, and you need to do that thing, you should ask for help. Do you know what a protest of this sort is, in essence? It's an enormous cry for help. It's a bunch of people saying "we don't know any other way to fix what's wrong", and "we need help".
So here's my challenge, Chelsea:
Tell me what these victims are supposed to do. And none of your "find a way" bullshit. What is the way that they can help themselves, if you think protesting is so childish and counterproductive and useless? What can these people do if they really think their position isn't fair?
Remember, you can't weasel out of it by saying that it's a mindset issue. All that need be done if you try that is for someone with half a brain to cite the statistics that prove the inarguable truth of gender imbalance. Put another way, you can't say "if you don't believe it, it doesn't exist" and make it true; if you could say that, no one would have cancer right now, would they?
So come on. Meet the challenge. Put your money where your mouth is, and prove to us that you actually have ideas that work, instead of just the idealism you so vehemently despise.
One final point.
I'm calling you conservative because you've called yourself conservative as recently as a year or so ago. Or is it just another case of the chemeleon changing its spots to suit the climate.?
I will answer the challenge put forth to her in my own way in order to put forth a tangible idea. It needs to be about individualism. Work out your issue in your own way and don't worry about what the majority is saying. In this way, you can lead by example.
'I will not say, "I'm a man and should tone down my sexuality." This what I meant about men having less and less rights today. '
What do you mean by that?
I mean exactly what I wrote. Men are seen as sexual aggresors and women as the gate keepers. The fems tend to call for men to tone it down because our hormones are just to dangerous or something.
Sorry, but when I was raped I was caught unawares in a shower by my ex's
father. I got lucky once he tried to get into the shower with me I could
escape from him because he let me go finally to take off his clothes. Did I
let that break me down? no, but I cant deny if I was someone else maybe I
would've handled it differently. I'd be damn he was going to take
advantage of me like that and get away with it. So once I said something,
other women stepped forward and I felt good about that. I gave others
encouragement to put this man behind the bars. I had no frying pan, I am
not strong, I can't even carry a case of waters without it hurting my
hands. This is how weak I am. Not all women are, some can defend
themselves. But I don't believe all men are like this. If I did, I wouldn't be
with a man. But
here's what I can't understand.
some women claim to be victims when they aren't. so us who are, shouldn't
be allowed to call ourselves victim.
how then can we stand on a point that not all men are sexual beasts?
Not everyone sees things in oney one way, if we did, we wouldn't need
political parties and what not. we'd just need some sort of dictator.
Margroup, individualism is all well and good. Self sufficiency is worthy. That said, you forget, we live in society. Your rights end where mine begin. Individualism argued as the only way to succeed means a survival of the fittest environment. Dog eat dog, I win you lose mentality. We, acting in society, can modify the worst elements of that behavior so that more of us survive to contribute to the well being of the whole. Collective, or group, action is behind many of our greatest achievments including the very democracy that permits you to have the views you express without being shunned or killed for them. Individual responsibility and self advocacy are important and desirable, but so is group and cooperative behaviors. And if I really need to point it out, it isn't just women who benefit from a more inclusive social norm. In a survival of the fittest, individualistic environment, with no modifying checks, do you really think you as a blind person would have survived long enough to write on this forum?
I think I might. And Jack off Jill, I'm not trying to minimize what happened to you. I'm just trying to point out that just because some jerk hurt you that doesn't mean you can paint us all as sexual beasts as you put it. You survived what happened because of your inner strength. That's why I don't get this women don't have power bullshit.
I don't paint men as sexual beasts. And sure, some women do, so in return
you have no right to paint all us women as playing victims.
Not men are like this, I'm very aware.
but women aren't just against the fact that men are rapist. there's more to it
than rape.
This goes further than sexual behavior
Does it? Please enlighten me.
I can step in here. Before I do, let's remember:
1. No one is saying all women are helpless
2. No one is saying all men are beasts or doing something wrong
3. What we're saying is that the system right now still needs improvement, and one of the ways to get there is by peaceful (nonviolent) protests, among other things
Now, as far as it going further than rape/abuse:
I've hit on this in a previous post, but either it got buried or wilfully ignored, so here we go again.
When any group holds power for long enough, they tend to sort of just...do stuff without thinking a lot of the time. Case and point: look at all the stuff done by people who held power in the past that we'd dismiss now as barbaric, such as public stoning and flogging and all that jazz.
Men have, whether you accept this or not, been mostly in power across the world for most of history. They're bigger and stronger by and large, so if they wanted stuff, they could usually just take it. I'm not even kidding, that's probably partially how it happened back in the bad old days. Very, very early on (like when we were still further down the evolution chain than we are now) it was probably even instinctual, to an extent.
But then we got smarter. We started becoming self-aware. And the targets of that do-what-I-please attitude started fighting back. They started realizing that just because they're smaller and maybe physically weaker, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. So over a long period of time, things began to change.
Now, in the present day, what you're dealing with is a sort of remnant of that. Men still often just...do stuff without thinking about it. Sometimes that stuff is totally harmless, and sometimes they have every right to do stuff that -isn't harmless. But sometimes, their unthinking behaviour causes harm, however small, and due to the way society continues to evolve, some of these issues aren't tolerated anymore.
I'll raise a really simple example.
A man makes no secret of his appreciation for a woman. He stares at her, maybe even makes a casual comment to her about how she looks.
Analysis: This is something animals do, and which people still do to an alarming degree. Animals do it to declare their intention to find a mate; men do it for this reason also sometimes, but they also do it just because they think they can. At its roots, there isn't a whole lot wrong with appreciation of something you find beautiful, but that's the key word. Appreciate. Do you have to tell the woman? and if you think you do, and she brushes you off, do you get upset? If so, it's clear your appreciation matters more than for its own sake. You wanted approval for it.
Conclusion: It's not at all wrong to appreciate a woman's attractiveness. It's not even necessarily wrong to tell her so (although if you don't know her, your mileage will vary on this one). But before you do, ask yourself what the point is. Giving her a compliment may make her feel like you want something of her (remember, she's been conditioned to expect this, because of both instinct and social pressure).
I use this example because it's shockingly common. Men not only stare or wolf-whistle or make comments, but they sometimes get upset and hostile when they aren't rewarded with the attention they expected. Most women I know and am close to could probably tell you of at least a couple situations where they received some sort of attention from a man that was not only unwanted, but downright uncomfortable because of how it was displayed.
With greater self-awareness comes greater resistance to the idea that we are just sexual objects, and since this kind of attention often makes the target feel objectified, it's deemed threatening, or at the very least a little creepy.
So it's not dead wrong, and you're not a monster if you've checked out a girl's ass in passing or commented on it...but I daresay I understand, at least indirectly, how this could upset people.
And yes. Before anyone makes a "yeah but" argument, women do this too, but it's considerably less common. It's equally unacceptable when pushed on a man, so the fault lies with the behaviour, not the gender. It's just that males are far more apt to display this behaviour than females.
This is just one example of how men control, or seek to control, social interactions. It does not mean women are powerless, and does not mean all men are beasts. It simply means that there is a psychological dynamic at play here which is potentially damaging, a dynamic I bet you seven or eight in ten men haven't much thought about. And that, right there, is the issue. It's not so much that men are horrible and oppressive and deserve to be kicked. They aren't, and they don't. It's that society is filled with extremely casual behaviour like this which largely defines it. This women's right stuff is, in its way, an erosion of that complacency.
It is human nature to desire and wish to be desired. Stop fighting it unless it gets violent. I'm sorry but women also happen to be sexual beeings so why aren't women telling each other to control their urges?
Greg, if you read what I said correctly, I never said that I don't have conservative values. I have values that are conservative and values that are otherwise. I know you'd love to be able to have me as your laughingstock as you always have, but that's not gonna happen anymore.
Margorp, again, I'm glad to see that *someone* understands what I am getting at here. It's nice to see that I don't have to spell it out for everyone. You hit the nail on the head, in saying that while it's nice to do things collectively, people, men and women alike, need to also understand the power that we have as individuals, as people with our own thoughts, mind sets, differing perspectives, ETC, that we each can bring to the table of our own accord. Then with that understanding, those people need to move into action, instead of bitching the way they've been doing sihnce their candidate didn't win the recent election. It's ashame that others don't get what I'm trying to drive home. Because many women have been saying for years that men are perverts, and many women have been buying into the thought that men often feed them about women being "the weaker sex." Many women buy into the thought that they are victims, as you've seen on this topic. How anyone cannot see the sense in that, is ludicrous to me. Because newsflash: if you stand for nothing, you fall for everything. And still, not a soul has been able to tell me how this women's march bettered the world. If anything, the march along with all these protests people have been doing, have worsened the state of the world. There's more violence than ever before, more women crying for one reason or another, and no one actually going about the change they supposedly want to see, in a way that actually means something positive for the world. The most these protests and the march have done, is give many women and men the fuzzy wuzzies inside, as evidenced by the fact this topic is even a discussion. I know that makes people feel like they're doing something worthwhile, but I don't happen to be one of those people. I'm actually making things happen for the world in real life, not by marching and telling people I'm a woman so hear me roar.
Women are sexual beings too, even though most women try to act like they aren't. And, who's fault is it that men get upset after a woman doesn't receive a genuine complement well? Women's! The women who think that just because they are told they are attractive, that that means that a guy isn't gonna control his urges. Those women are the ones at fault, because they are the ones who misjudge the men who pay them genuine complements. It isn't the men's fault for speaking up to begin with. Many women think they are only seen as sexual objects, and they look at being seen that way as if it's a bad thing. If they examined their views of things, maybe they could learn to understand where men are coming from when they say that they see an attractive woman. Hint hint: eye candy was created for a reason.
This goes further then sex though people.
Also Chelsea, remember, this wasn't limited to America, so we aren't bitching because the person we wanted to win the election didn't.
Forget Trump, he's not the issue.
Sure, women are sexual, but so are men to women. That isn't the issue either.
I suppose we as disabled people don't need lobbing.We can do our own thing right?
You personally shouldn't use the services for the blind, because that was established because of passing laws, and such for a collective group. You should just do your own thing, right?
You can't use the laws, the ADA and such, because that was established by a group.
We have no need for such organizations, right?
Chelsea, you didn't meet my challenge. Sorry. You fail. Try again another day.
Kevin, you didn't read my last post very clearly either.
It is human nature to desire and wish to be desired. but it is not necessarily human nature to force that sort of interaction on anyone.
As an individual, your right to desire someone, all by itself, is inviolate. Go ahead. Desire them all you want. Think about them. Dream about them. Do whatever it is you do in your own head. But the instant you do something about it in the real world which directly deals with the object of your desire, it becomes an interpersonal endeavour. This means that that other person also possesses agency. They have the right to not desire you. They have the right to tell you this, and honestly, if you desire them (even in a passing sense) they have the obligation, in my opinion, not to lead you on and think your desire will mean something when it doesn't. Following from that, if you express that you desire someone, and they reject you, and you get upset, your feeling itself is also inviolate. You got rejected. Ouch. Pick yourself up and try again with someone else, I suppose. So your pride got a little wounded. But what you absolutely do not do is push, beg, get angry, get vengeful because someone had the temerity to tell you no.
I'm not actually saying you'd do these things, I'm just proving a point. Sure, desire is part and parcel with the whole human condition thing, but so is dealing with rejection in a mature way.
Also, let's remember that the example I gave was talking more about casual appreciation, no strings attached. If you aren't planning on following up your compliment, you have to be even more careful with it. Offering it isn't necessarily wrong, but you should perform a hasty little risk-benefit analysis in order to figure out whether it's a course worth pursuing.
And, I'm gonna close on this little gem, and then probably bow out of the topic. At this point, I really hate to be snarky, but I've said all that really needs saying from my side of it, and barring some miraculous turnaround, there is no way I'm going to change my viewpoint. My mind is open, as it always is, but it'll have to be good.
So, the gem:
Chelsea said:
Women are sexual beings too, even though most women try to act like they aren't. And, who's fault is it that men get upset after a woman doesn't receive a genuine complement well? Women's! The women who think that just because they are told they are attractive, that that means that a guy isn't gonna control his urges. Those women are the ones at fault, because they are the ones who misjudge the men who pay them genuine complements. It isn't the men's fault for speaking up to begin with. Many women think they are only seen as sexual objects, and they look at being seen that way as if it's a bad thing. If they examined their views of things, maybe they could learn to understand where men are coming from when they say that they see an attractive woman. Hint hint: eye candy was created for a reason.
Mind. Blown. Seriously. It is a woman's fault when a man takes rejection badly. That's utterly fucking amazing.
All your credibility, such as it was, is now completely gone. I haven't seen anything this nonsensical in literally years. Congratulations.
This is not about a lost election. That is an exceedingly self serving view of a genuine protest. That is what Trump supporters tell themselves so they don't have to hear.
Protests are legal, necessary, and part of our rights to free speech and to assemble. Just because you think you are above it all does not make the protests invalid or stupid.
Chelsea, you said you do more than these protests to affect change? Fine, tell us about it. Just saying it don't make it so.
As far as your claim Chelsea that violence has increased? That is plain false. Protest is not violent in itself. These have been very non-violent protests as compared with others historically. BTW, in spite of Trump's claim, violence and murder in the United States is down, not up. Be careful of the many false narratives being floated by the Fascist forces now in power in the United States.
Margorp, you think you would have survived without society. I respect your self confidence, but I believe that view is extremely naive. But, I guess that would be better discussed in a different thread.
Well I'm sorry but what Chelsae and I are getting at is that both men and women are sexual beeings. The problem is that society tells us it is wrong to express ourselves. This isn't the Victorian age folks. Women are not always going to keep their legs closed and their feet on the ground. Men are not going to ignore how they feel in the name of preserving virtue.
Kevin, if it wasn't for you I'd be long gone already. You, at least, seem to listen sometimes, so try this.
Of course we have a sexual dimension to us. There is nothing wrong with this.
See, this is what not reading thoroughly gets you. No one has disputed this particular claim.
The issue is not that men and women have urges. The issue is not that men and women will sometimes act on those urges.
The issue is that statistically speaking, men are more forward than women. This, again, would not be a problem by itself.
BUT...
Here's where the problem comes in.
Unfortunately, men have a history of just doing things because they can, or because they've never been stopped or checked before. One of those things is the expression of desire. Another is the expression of that desire by force, if necessary. So here are a few points and problems.
1. It is not only women who have strong-armed women into the belief that they are not, or should not be, sexual creatures. Men, too, have punished women for not adhering to these standards. Ever notice how much more scorn is heaped on an unfaithful woman than on an unfaithful man? I think even the Bible works with this. I actually agree that women have been unfairly repressed, and this women's rights thing is yet another way to release that repression by degrees.
2. If I have the right to desire you, then you have just as much right to not desire me. What's more, you do not have any obligation whatsoever to return my feelings or my appreciation if I express them to you.
3. A point recycled from my last post. A man is not a monster for desiring a woman, or vice versa. We're sexual creatures, after all.
4. Women are now aware enough of themselves and of society at large that they do not necessarily wish to be objectified. Men, by contrast, should be aware of this, and they should move forward with this thought in mind.
So let me lay something out here. I'm going to make up a fictitious scenario to prove the silliness of the point being assayed here.
I think Chelsea is attractive. Chelsea is a little flattered, but not at all interested, and says so.
I'm an entitled man, and her rejection upsets me. I tell her so.
And this is...her fault somehow? Her fault that she doesn't find me attractive? Her fault that I handled her rejection badly? Hell. fucking. no. It's my fault, not for speaking up in the first place, but for handling it immaturely when I was rejected.
Seriously. There seems to be this naive idea that if women stopped repressing themselves and each other, every expression of desire from a man would be okay, or even welcome. Sorry, but that's just not how the world works. Even in the animal kingdom, when females choose mates, there is selection going on. They usually don't just pick the first one who wanders in. And even if they did, we as human beings do not. This means that no matter how unrepressed a culture we have, rejection is still going to be part of it. Rejection not because it is shameful to be a sexual creature, but rejection because the woman is just...not all that interested in the would-be mate.
As such, the conclusion I draw is this:
Men and women ought to be a little bit less uptight about expressing desire. I agree there.
But when men in this society still take rejection badly, still rape, still get angry when they're told no, and still generally act like children, it's not going to convince the women that opening up and being less guarded is to their advantage.
You might be saying, "But Gregg, only a very small percentage of men rape". And it's true, statistically. Most men don't go that far. But all you have to do, if you're wondering why the hell women are so uptight, is to look at all the clearly-unwanted advances women get from men. The stuff that ultimately doesn't go any further than a mild to moderate feeling of discomfort, say. It happens all the time; like I said before, most women I know would probably be able to tell me of at least one such instance of it happening to them personally. Now, some of that is because women are taking even some well-meant dead-end no-strings-attached compliments badly. But they've been conditioned to take them badly not only by one another, but by the men who want more than just a smile for their trouble. So I think if this is going to get better, it falls to both men and women to unsnarl this particular tangle. The reason I've focused on men, however, is because we're still in a position of power, more or less. We are, in a literal sense, the aggressors. When things go wrong in this arena, it is usually more the man's fault, and as such, I think we bear more responsibility. If nothing else, more awareness from us, and improvement on our side, will help to convince women, hopefully, that men aren't nearly as creepy and pushy and spoiled as they might think. Women can't just magically stop believing that, so let's help them if we can. It's win-win, wouldn't you say?
I love women, but I also understand that opening their legs is their choice not mine.
Again this isn't only about sex, or the sexual being.
Oh I understand all that. I just think sometimes this women's lib thing goes way to far. It's a shame that so many people feel it should come to that.
So powerless women of the world, listen to what Saint Greg says, OK? Don't ever speak up when you feel something is wrong, powerless women of the world, because men won't listen to you anyway, because they have more power than you ever will. So how dare you even think you have any agency, powerless women of the world!! How dare you be sexual, powerless women of the world!! Puh-lease. I have nothing more to say at this point. It's clear that we're dealing with a bunch of children here, who don't want to learn and broaden their horizons as I do and have. Because the way you change things in the world, as I've said, is for women to accept *their* wrongs, rather than blaming others. Instead of women crying about how they feel society hates their guts because they're women, or for any other reason, they ought to be introspective and figure out what it is about themselves that they could change for the better. Because little life lesson: these protests that have been going on have been far from peaceful...and anger and bitterness gets nowhere. I'm surprised you guys can't tell that I answered that question long ago; you would just rather deny that because you don't like the fact that I hold the women who are wining responsible, at least to some degree. I don't blame men for being sexual, nor do I blame women for being sexual...that's human nature. What is not natural though, is people saying that *poor* woman this, and *women* have it soooooooooooo hard. Yeah women have it hard, right along with every other human being.
Chelsea, will you pen my diaper and give me a bottle then?
Laughing.
Women's work.
Just had too.
I think Chelsae is trying to appeal to common sense but it isn't working.
Nope. Guess it isn't. Smile.
Common sense? Oh come on. No, Chelsea is making claims which are not factual. Violence, where? She also claimed to have done more for women individually than all the group action. I asked for exampless and got crickets. Women's lib going too far Margorp? The fact you use that term shows how behind you are. We are speaking of women's rights, not women's liberation. They are not the same thing at all. Much of what both of you say is true, but that doesn't make the things being said by Gregg and Wayne any less true. That is kind of the point. There is an array of possible behaviors which can all move the bar. Some are individual, some are as a group. Both are okay and each has it's place. Just because some women want to try and make things better than they are doesn't make them whiny. It also doesn't preclude that they may be doing things as individuals also. Painting an entire group with that broad brush of derision shows an unwillingness to hear any view different from your own. That is why they must demonstrate. To be heard. Chelsea, you have benefitted from what earlier women did in mass protest, don't say you haven't. Margroup, surely you must realize that historically men have prevented women from succeeding. They didn't used to vote, they weren't allowed to own property. They were not permitted divorce even in a violent marriage. They were not permitted to do what was considered men's work. One of those jobs they weren't allowed to do originally was secretary. Interesting it was thought only men could be secretaries. These are all facts. Surely you do not deny them? Surely you realize that it was through protest and group action, as well as individual action and a lot of individual bravery that things are so much further along now. What about now? You are saying things are wonderful so why re they still complaining? Well, just within the past two months their right to equal medical care has been openly threatened. Their right to birthcontrol has been threatened. Their ability to exercise their rights under Roe verses Wade has been threatened. If I were them, I'd be upset and scared too. Protest is a reasonable response combined with writing congress etc. I believe that if the Right weren't so openly threatening these already gained rights, this protest would not be happening. Trump just makes it worse through his rhetoric. They are protesting threatened changes in policy, and that is constitutional and their right to do.
Let's forget about Trump for a second. Men and women are both having their livelyhoods threatened. This is the world now. Now consider this fact:
A man and a woman found guilty of the same crime get treated differently. The man will do harder time. In divorce, the man automatically gets the shorter end of the stick. Women now want to be able to get an Eagle Scout as boy scouts do. Yup you can look that one up. They're saying that the boy scouts should include girls. But uh, don't you have the girl scouts for that? I can go on and on.
Actually no on divorce anymore.
Because women now are earning as good, or more then men, divorce is fairer.
Good to know. And thank you for saying women can now earn more than men today. I believe the other stuff I said still stands.
Here's the thing. No one ever said women were not capable of earning more than men either. And no one ever said that bad splits, in employment or custody or divorce or anything, always went in favour of one party or the other. What has been said is that until fairly recently, it was very common to see women being paid less than men for doing the same work. It was also very common to see women urged very, very strongly not to work at all, to be housewives. Even as recently as the 1940s and 1950s, the so-called housewife stereotype was a pretty dominant reality, such that when you saw a woman in a movie, on TV (later on) or in any sort of media working, it was considered rare, inspiring, new and all that. And that was only sixty-ish years ago, folks.
So yeah. No one ever said that men don't get the shaft sometimes. But in every case where a man gets the worst of it, there are probably ten or more where the woman gets it instead.
This is not so true in cases of divorce and custody, where up till recently the woman's word was being taken almost automatically above the man's. The great thing about the women's rights movement is that it's actually trying to correct this. It's about fixing imbalances, whichever way they swing, and that one has been particularly hard on men, so that's inevitably got to shift.
But remember what I said about that "yeah but" defense? You're doing it again.
It doesn't matter that men sometimes get a raw deal. It doesn't matter that sometimes a woman is capable of earning more than a man (though almost never for the same job, I should note). What matters is that by and large, women still have rights issues, and as Bill said in his last post, their protests are because people are threatening to impinge on some of their bodily rights. So yeah, the rest of what I've just been talking about sucks. Sure it does. Nobody, man or woman, should be getting a tough break because of their gender. But that isn't the main point. Every time you bring up something like that, Kevin, it sounds as if you're trying to deflect from or weaken or nullify the main point. it doesn't work, I promise. For every man who gets taken to the woodshed in divorce court, there are twenty women on the street who are getting leered at. For every one man whose gender screws him out of something for no reason, ten women face the same issue, and have been facing it off and on for the last...well, forever, really, but up till the last hundred and twenty years or so, they weren't terribly loud about it, and men were more ruthless about squashing them when they were.
So yes. Men suffer too. I hear you. Women are not alone in their suffering. I hear that too. But this is all the more reason to fight for women's rights. Why? Because the inevitable fallout is that everything gets turned over and looked at. It's not just going to be a power shift where women hold ninety percent of the cards in half a century. It's going to mean that, insofar as we can, equality will come to the fore. People will be taken, rejected, considred on individual merits outside of gender, except where gender has a decisive impact on those considerations. One way or another, this has to happen, and the result, when the dust settles, should be that everyone's happy.
You're dancing around the main point of my post. We're going to get to the point where men will need to fight for rights.
No we won't. That will only happen if the balance of power shifts largely the other way. And there's absolutely no indication that this can or will happen.
If for some reason it does, then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But until there's proof, the worry that we'll have to one day struggle for men's rights is baseless. It's paranoid. It's a deflection from the main point that already exists. I'm in favour of truly equal rights, put it that way. Right now, and in the foreseeable future, that means women are playing a little catch-up. If it ever shifts too far, then men will have to do the same thing. But please don't worry about this until or unless it happens.
And even if that were true that men will at some point have to fight for rights because the pendulum has swung too far, it hasn't happened yet. To stop one group from obtaining equal treatment because you fear they will go beyond that is idiotic. If that were the rationale, no one would ever get to improve their situation. If at some point men have to push for equal treatment, then that's what we'll do. Geez that is a poor argument. That is the rationale that has kept down ethnic minorities, women, glbt people, etc. Brother!
alright. so girlfriend moves here. 2 months later, she has a job making as much money as I do, same place, same job, no special treatment besides men in the office j most likely making a pass at her because they don't yet know she is my girlfriend. I made sure my boss didn't get wind of it because she wanted the job on her own marets, background and qualifications, not because she knew someone that has been on the teams for a few years. it is better. not saying everyone's case is liek this, but a lot of companies won't risk it anymore because of the risk of that woman being able to prove sexual descrimination or what have you and take it to the news or the press.
It is happening. Men are getting pushed down. So much for equality. I think the problem is that women don't have good role models so let's advocate for that. Women need a positive role model and for some reason they grow up without one.
Same can be said for men.
Role models are important to a point, but once you get grown, well, you make your own choices.
Yes but the point I am trying to make is that men tend to have more role models. Women are brought up in a real clusterfuck of an environment.
Women have been brought up in an environment where both the men and women around them have been guiding them, sometimes gently and sometimes firmly, toward certain goals and expectations, and now that's changing.
Men, on the other hands, often have role models who are frankly not ideal for one reason or another. And this is one thing we're struggling against.
Men aren't being pushed down. Women are pulling themselves up. Huge, huge difference.
Chris, that's good to hear. And yeah, you're right, it's impossible to just dismiss your girlfriend's situation as the norm, but it's happening more and more, which is what we're after.
Well, I'll not change your mind, but role models for both sex depends on the community the grow up in.
Example, many black men don't have dads, so the role models or people that raise them are mothers.
If she's not strong, then the street does the raising.
So a role model could be the man with the new BMW and 6 girls on the street making the payments.
Sometimes these girls on the street have daughters.
You get the idea.
Then where does the men are pigs and women are cunts attitude come from?
That comes from people who are generalizing. Generalizing, I should add, just like you've been doing off and on during this entire discussion.
Just because a small percentage of women believe that men are pigs doesn't mean that most of them do, and doesn't mean that men are being stepped on enough to invalidate the women's rights struggle. Same goes the other way. Just because some men are assholes doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Kevin, don't let these knotheads talk you out of your view. Women are not pulling themselves up, they're wining because of the sore losers that they are. As I've said, we are not truly talking equal rights here. We're talking women who are wining about things they *perceive* to be true.
As for the point you made about women not having role models, I think the reason they don't have role models is because as I've also said earlier, women are too busy wining, to actually take responsibility for *their* stuff. So since most women are not introspective, they cannot possibly have women role models who are introspective. It's easier to blame others, but as I've said, the world as a whole would be a better place if men and women alike took responsibility for being the problem if they aren't the solution.
I don't think anybody could argue with that. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. That's common sense. And I will not, by the way, support this screeching in the streets.
Have you any idea how neatly you've just hung yourself?
You label public protest as screeching in the streets, and you won't be part of it.
Fine. Okay.
But that means that since screeching in the streets, AKA public protest, is part of the solution, and you're not supporting it, then you are part of the problem. Nice job.
That said, I now have nothing left to say to either of you. Kevin, if you're going to do what Chelsea is doing, and believe in a world that doesn't exist, I obviously can't stop you, and neither can anyone else. You have little to lose, since this fictitious world of yours is unbalanced in your favour and allows you to maintain your ignorance with little pressure to do any real thinking.
No one is arguing that people should just whine and hope their problems go away, but the fact that a nonviolent public protest is seen as whining just demonstrates the cluelessness of some people. A challenge that was made many, many posts ago has still never been taken up. To reiterate this challenge, I have yet to see practical advice on what women can do to better their situations. Practical advice that works, I mean. Not just idealism or fact-twisting or make-believe. You can't meet the challenge by saying there is no problem in the first place; the problem is concrete, not something you can hand-wave into obscurity. So I will not be responding further to this topic until or unless someone meets my challenge properly. Until then, I consider the matter closed. Kevin, Chelsea, you are deliberately setting yourselves as part of the problem. I expected better, but what is done is done.
I don’t believe that women are paid only 80 percent of mens pay for the same job. In my 35 years of employment I’ve worked hourly and salaried jobs. I’ve never observed that women were paid less. All employees were paid the same irregardless of gender.
As litigious as the American culture is today, any employer who tries to pay women less than men would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an EEOC complaint.
The concensus of economists that I’ve read regard the 80 percent “pay gap” as a urban myth. This figure is determined by comparing the median salaries of full-time working men with full-time working women. This method doesn’t account for the host of variables that can influence this result. There is no consideration of the legitimate choices women make regarding their careers and families.
Women may choose to not work full-time or leave the work force for any number of reasons; to start a family, or care for a loved one or family member for example.
To be honest, the only talk I hear of the “pay gap” comes from politicians at election time trying to court a particular demographic.
Exactly and thank you for saying this. The pay gap is a fictional problem.
In post 217 I wasn't very clear. I don't think the pay gap is a result of willful or intentional discrimination.
So what do you think it is?
I think the "earnings gap" is the result of women having the freedom to make choices in their individual lives. Women and men too for that matter are totally free to choose their owm paths in life. If a woman wants a career or not that's her choice. Like I wrote previously, women are free to enter the work force, leave the work force, work part-time or not work at all. Women are free to choose what careers they have. If a woman wants to be an aeronautical engineer or a check out person at Walmart they may do so. Obviously, if you compare the earnings of a aeronautical engineer and a sales clerk, the difference in earnings is huge.
I don't know any rational man who feels women should somehow be subjugated to men. The march in Washington sold itself as a march for "womens rights". I think it's strange that a march for "womens rights" would tell women who were anti-abortion to stay home. Don't those women deserve the same protections? Are they not woman enough? Are they not the right kind of woman? That rally in Washington no more spoke for "all" women any mor than I can speak for all men or "the blind".
In my opinion, that was a anti Donald Trump rally, which is OK with me. If the rally was for "womens rights" then why were the majority of the speeches directed at President Trump?
Anyway, that's just one mans opinion.
See, here's the issue with that.
Those women's rights activists who asked anti-choice people to stay home did so because those anti-choice people, by and large, want to inflict that morality on others. There is no point in them protesting, because as far as they are concerned, they have nothing to protest. They're getting what they want.
That being said, I think women's rights spreads further than this, and as such, telling any woman to stay home just because of what she believes is a bit shortsighted.
Trump is threatening a woman's right to choose. He is trying to take one choice away from them, and thus impinge upon their freedoms. This affects all women, but especially those who would be able to make the choice to abort if it came to it.
What saddens me is that the anti-choice stance is pushy as hell. A bunch of pro-choice people will tell you "Okay, hey, don't abort if you don't want to. Nobody's going to force you". They're okay, as long as everyone has the right to choose. This is why I think of pro-choice as the only viable stance, by the way. Anti-choice, on the other hand, believe that their morality, their objection to abortion, should not only apply to themselves, but should apply to everyone else. They're not content just to say "Nope, I'll never ever do it". They have to make sure others can't.
And those sorts of people are the ones your women's rights advocates don't want to deal with. People who are so polarized to a way of thinking that freedom to choose is trumped by some sort of morality that not everyone shares.
So then you agree that the “womens” march didn’t represent the interests of all women, and that a womans personal and private views on abortion are the litmus test to determine if their concerns warrant inclusion. What about issues like universal pre-K, work-place flexibility, and family leave, just to name a few. are women who view these issues as relevant, but are anti-abortion automatically disqualified from the discussion?
What about the whole concept of equality that you and others have so vociferously advocated, apply to all women? Are you advocating that women who don’t share your views are not worthy of participating in advocacy for otherwise traditional womens issues?
In a country of over 300 million people, at least half of whom are women, it is impossible and frankly dishonest to claim that you speak for all women. Every woman in this country is an individual with their own unique history and opinion. The rally we’re discussing, was, in my opinion, a rally to support women with the viewpoint of the organizers of the rally; nothing more and nothing less.
This is why I advocate for individualism. Women are not robots and should not go along with other women for the sake of group-think.
No party or demonstration speaks for all in the society, or group.
But, this march spoke for women as generally, and addressed for women’s issues.
A woman can choose any job she wants, but promotions and yes, equal pay are a problem.
Do you remember that recently a woman took some tech companies to court and won?
If this doesn’t exist, why was she in court?
Why did she win her claims?
That was in America.
After she won, several women followed suit.
No, not every woman is suffering, but as a group yes.
I shouldn’t say suffering, I should call it lacking.
No people’s story will be same, but the story exists.
I remember that court case and I admit that started the wheels in motion. Things are much better now though.
You'll note that I said that asking women to stay home was shortsighted, BluesFan. Personally, I think that was a bad move.
The right to choose affects all women, whether people want to admit it or not. So do other things. As such, I think any rally that tries to fight for women's rights should be open to all. A person can be anti-abortion but can have all kinds of other perfectly valid beefs, after all.
You can't say that a pro-choice stance only includes only a subset of all women, because the right to choose will impact everyone. On other issues, though, I agree with you. No one should be excluded.
I do think it is possible to be polarized badly even when you're on the right side.
margorp
, that was recent friend. It just got done last year. 2016.
I'll not change your mind.
The reason is because you are much like others thinking it isn't happening, or simply not accepting it.
Did you know what the first lady Obama's wife talked about just before they left office?
You know, maybe you are right. These women need to shut up and stop complaining because it is falling on bad ground.
Maybe they should just continue using what they've always used.
Course, they'll get labeled as tramps, but they'll be getting what they need.
Smile.
My whole point during this whole thing is that it's out of control. I am all for human rights but the constant shouting about it's not enough is just crazy. Women seem to act as if they have nothing and men have it all. Okay, we were once at the top of the heap but that certainly isn't the case today. Keep pushing us down.
And as I've said before, there's a reason the shouting is so loud.
1. The media. The media blows everything, absolutely fucking everything, out of shape.
2. Attention. Protests, shouting, all that jazz, is meant to get, hold and compel attention. If you find it annoying, it's working. This is good. It means that since the struggle is not done yet, people will continue to be aware of that fact.
3. Reality. Women are a lot better off now than they were a century ago, but things are still not completely even. They still live in a world full of men who like to leer at them, proposition them, and generally make nuisances of themselves. And okay, many of those men really and truly mean no harm at all, and some of these women may be overreacting to the attention they receive. Fine. I can concede that too. But that doesn't mean that all cases are this way, and it doesn't mean the mindset which drives these interactions, on both sides, is healthy. It's not. It's a remnant of that bygone era where men were firmly on top. This remnant is still somewhat toxic, ergo the shouting. People want it gone because they recognize what it means.
If that's not clear-cut enough for you, then I just...don't know what would be.
Really gone this time. BluesFan indirectly enticed me back in because he brought up some differing points of view, but this is going to descend into the same old shit before long.
My hope is that women get tougher in order to protect themselves. Men will do as they do. Face facts, men and women are hard-wired to behave a certain way. We are different, deal with it.
Let’s see. Hard wired.
So, you never clean house? You never take out trash?
Your wife is supposed to do all the cooking, and washing?
You sit down and say, “bitch, bring me a beer and the paper.” I’ve worked hard all day, and you’re the woman?
When a girl comes in and you like her skirt, it is fine because you’re hard wired to tell her you would love to see her naked?
I’ll admit, I’m a man and I love a lovely girl, and I’d like her to agree to let me see her naked, but.
But.
If she comes in to my office, applies for a job, I look at what she can do for the company, and not for me.
She could get naked and all, but if she can’t type, read, or do the job, she’s not getting it.
Her ugly twin who can do the work and keeps her skirt on gets the job and gets paid the rate.
Understand?
Bullshit about hard wired.
Not what I meant. I meant a man can't be blamed for making some slightly off color comment once in a while. I'm sure some women do it as well. Yes we need to control ourselves in the work place. That's obvious. I don't think anybody has a problem with that.