Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 17, 2003, 12:01 pm

Castille: Legally, women have equal rights. If we consider the actual situation, women actually have more rights than men.

Agnes Ostic: So, castille, what extra rights do women have??

Castille: They don't. Thats the point.

Err, we have a turncoat, here.

Yes, whatever, I am a fine male spokesman for the feminist cause, Castille. This doesn't change the fact that you haven't the slightest clue what the feminist cause is.

castille · Oct 17, 2003, 12:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)

You fucking moron.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, thank you. I appreciate your fine language, and I hope that when you stand up for the feminist cause, other guys don't beat the shit out of you.

For the absolute brainless people:

By "extra rights", feminists are implying women should have rights BEYOND equality.

Legally, all women have equal rights. In fact, some workplaces are sued for sexual harrassment against women, while sexual harrassment against men (for example, a female executives fires you for not sleeping with her!) is ignored.

In family courts, women have more rights than men in terms of child custody. Why do courts all assume women can take care of children better than men? (isnt that sexism too?)

Women have sexist posters. They say things like "So much men, and not enough bullets". If a man had such a poster with women on it, they'd be sued for discrimination.

Is it my imagination, or is the feminist cause going beyond their goals?

fedfem · Oct 17, 2003, 01:27 pm

Castille, it is your imagination. You are using examples that have nothing to do with feminism. Just as all men are not misogynists, all women are not against men.

Female executives have in fact been prosecuted for harassment. Some men are given custody, the court does not assume anything. In most cases it makes more sense for the mother to have custody due to economic and historical reasons.

I am a Feminist and have not engaged nor thought the way you have alleged.

GuidoNius · Oct 17, 2003, 02:42 pm

Nor I, castille.

So all this insulting for naught? Finally, we don´t have extra rights. We have equal rights.

Fair enough, I´d say. Now it´s just a matter for leaving the matter rest, making it sure that our rights are honoured.

Oh, but you had a problem with that too. I dare not ask what problem because I´d be certain to get the question "why do you think there´s a problem with that".

Oh well, sigh, so much for consistency.

xm.bretton · Oct 17, 2003, 05:04 pm

feminist... menimist? whats the male version?

fedfem · Oct 17, 2003, 05:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,)
feminist... menimist? whats the male version?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The Promise Keepers.

xm.bretton · Oct 17, 2003, 08:31 pm

they look religious though.

fedfem · Oct 17, 2003, 08:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,)
they look religious though.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They are. They use religion to support male superiority and keep women where they want them.

Just to clarify..they are the opposite of feminists.

They are our enemy.

xm.bretton · Oct 17, 2003, 08:42 pm

I didnt mean opposite of feminist... I mean the same purpose of feminism except for the opposite gender of the species ;)

to keep things equal is a good goal... I feel bad that the women think they need to do all the work. I will help.

I'm a meninist :)

fedfem · Oct 17, 2003, 09:45 pm

male feminists are still feminists. Better yet, they are just good Men.

Sodfather · Oct 17, 2003, 10:43 pm

Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands.

The Wife of Baath's Tale

RebelWithanAK · Oct 18, 2003, 12:46 am

What, as compared to the traditional marriage where husbands have control over their wives?

Sodfather · Oct 18, 2003, 02:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
What, as compared to the traditional marriage where husbands have control over their wives?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yes, traditional for those times that is. It's a perfectly sound explanation for the man-hating feminists brought up here; perhaps if they cannot rule men, they hate them...

fedfem · Oct 18, 2003, 10:44 am

Marriage is a partnership not a relationship where one tries to rule the other, geesh. The whole "traditional" marriage ideal is put forward by supporters of patriarchism. It is based on religious ideals, not humanistic ones.

Women no longer need to keep quiet if they are beaten by husbands(only recently has that changed) They no longer need to be slaves to their husbands or have baby after baby until their uterus falls out.

We have come a long way but still have a ways to go in the US.

castille · Oct 18, 2003, 12:39 pm

So tell me....what specific laws do we need to change to ensure absolute equality for women?

Be specific. Quote the EXACT LAW, not some vague re-interpretation throw out by the Feminist TImes.

Feminism on a bumper sticker: "All men are pigs, and I married their king!".

Is that the feminist cause? I find it ironic if we reversed that, we could get sued for discrimination.

I don't mind "moderate" feminists; my girlfriend is moderate, she believes in equality, but also appreciates there are things men are good at, and vice versa. Hell, if you want absolute equality, then women should get penile transplants!

RebelWithanAK · Oct 18, 2003, 01:02 pm

We already have its reverse - "take my wife" jokes and the like, not that I'm giving any excuses for that bumper sticker. But you're committing the fallacy of taking one particularly vivid example and imbuing it with the quality that it is indicative of the entire movement. It isn't. That said, under law women may be equal, but in reality they are unequal in terms of wage levels, employment, and the like. How to deal with that? The same way we deal with the disparity in income levels, employment, education and rights of racial minorities.

fedfem · Oct 18, 2003, 01:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
So tell me....what specific laws do we need to change to ensure absolute equality for women?

Be specific. Quote the EXACT LAW, not some vague re-interpretation throw out by the Feminist TImes.

Feminism on a bumper sticker: "All men are pigs, and I married their king!".

Is that the feminist cause? I find it ironic if we reversed that, we could get sued for discrimination.

I don't mind "moderate" feminists; my girlfriend is moderate, she believes in equality, but also appreciates there are things men are good at, and vice versa. Hell, if you want absolute equality, then women should get penile transplants!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I would say most feminists are moderate and we do appreciate the differences. As far as laws...it is more about enforcing than changing. As Rebel said there are still disparities between income and such.

I would also argue that bumper stickers with comments like that are not feminist they are attempts to be humorous. You are labeling it feminist because YOU believe feminists think all men are pigs which is false(as you noted with your girlfriend). Feminists are not big. fat, hairy women in overalls who hate men 'cause they can't get them.--geesh. We are sisters,wives, mothers, grandmothers who want everybody to have the same opportunities.

Waychel · Oct 18, 2003, 08:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands.

The Wife of Baath's Tale<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think this is far too generalizing.. many women actually get off on being dominated by the man they are in a relationship with (dominated - please don't go reading too deep into what I write and misconstruing this as doormat or spousal abuse or something... -___-)

I think if anything, most women these days want equality in their relationships. I still wouldn't say that is what all women want though, because every women looks for different qualities in a man and expects different things from a relationship.

G. Adams · Oct 19, 2003, 08:39 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands.

The Wife of Baath's Tale<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Chaucer was satirising here, being ironic? You understand? He was putting the Wife of Bath (prologue) in the position of any mysoginistic man to highlight the hypocracy of the day. She was doing exactley what men were doing, and like men, being proud of it. Hell she practically says what I just said, that why should men be able to sleep around and abuse women if she can't do the same to men?

castille · Oct 19, 2003, 09:38 am

Under law equality exists.

In reality, short people are discriminated against. I don't see anybody taking action against that. Any "shortists"? Or fat people? Actually, some fat people are sueing air forces for refusing them into piloting roles (due to blood pressure levels).

What about rich people? They're discriminated against, as are poor people. White people? If you're white, middle-class, office worker, then you're sure to get people trying to prevent you from equality.

In "reality", people ALWAYS discriminate against anything. Some people discriminate against jocks, others discriminate against men, some discriminate against blacks, others might even refuse you for a job if you wear Polo instead of Hugo!

I personally discriminate against lazy, unmotivated, and "wannabe" people. I refuse to hire them, do business with them, or even make much contact with them.

Its up to you to deal with it. Unless you are willing to deal with your hyprocricy and deal with EVERY SINGLE discrimination case in the world, then you just have to accept people are ruled by emotions.

Read "Dead White Males" (forgot the author). Its an interesting book.

Oct 17, 2003, 12:01 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Castille: Legally, women have equal rights. If we consider the actual situation, women actually have more rights than men. Agnes Ostic: So, castille, what extra rights do women have?? Castille: They don't. Thats the point. Err, we have a turncoat, here. Yes, whatever, I am a fine male spokesman for the feminist cause, Castille. This doesn't change the fact that you haven't the slightest clue what the feminist cause is. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 17, 2003, 12:40 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) You fucking moron.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, thank you. I appreciate your fine language, and I hope that when you stand up for the feminist cause, other guys don't beat the shit out of you. For the absolute brainless people: By "extra rights", feminists are implying women should have rights BEYOND equality. Legally, all women have equal rights. In fact, some workplaces are sued for sexual harrassment against women, while sexual harrassment against men (for example, a female executives fires you for not sleeping with her!) is ignored. In family courts, women have more rights than men in terms of child custody. Why do courts all assume women can take care of children better than men? (isnt that sexism too?) Women have sexist posters. They say things like "So much men, and not enough bullets". If a man had such a poster with women on it, they'd be sued for discrimination. Is it my imagination, or is the feminist cause going beyond their goals? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 17, 2003, 05:04 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	feminist... menimist? whats the male version? xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 17, 2003, 05:24 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,) feminist... menimist? whats the male version?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The Promise Keepers.

Oct 17, 2003, 08:31 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	they look religious though. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 17, 2003, 01:27 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Castille, it is your imagination. You are using examples that have nothing to do with feminism. Just as all men are not misogynists, all women are not against men. Female executives have in fact been prosecuted for harassment. Some men are given custody, the court does not assume anything. In most cases it makes more sense for the mother to have custody due to economic and historical reasons. I am a Feminist and have not engaged nor thought the way you have alleged.

Oct 17, 2003, 02:42 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Nor I, castille. So all this insulting for naught? Finally, we don´t have extra rights. We have equal rights. Fair enough, I´d say. Now it´s just a matter for leaving the matter rest, making it sure that our rights are honoured. Oh, but you had a problem with that too. I dare not ask what problem because I´d be certain to get the question "why do you think there´s a problem with that". Oh well, sigh, so much for consistency.

Oct 17, 2003, 08:38 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,) they look religious though.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They are. They use religion to support male superiority and keep women where they want them. Just to clarify..they are the opposite of feminists. They are our enemy.

Oct 17, 2003, 08:42 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	I didnt mean opposite of feminist... I mean the same purpose of feminism except for the opposite gender of the species ;) to keep things equal is a good goal... I feel bad that the women think they need to do all the work. I will help. I'm a meninist :) xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 17, 2003, 09:45 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	male feminists are still feminists. Better yet, they are just good Men.

Oct 17, 2003, 10:43 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands. The Wife of Baath's Tale

Oct 18, 2003, 12:46 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	What, as compared to the traditional marriage where husbands have control over their wives? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 18, 2003, 02:26 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) What, as compared to the traditional marriage where husbands have control over their wives?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, traditional for those times that is. It's a perfectly sound explanation for the man-hating feminists brought up here; perhaps if they cannot rule men, they hate them...

Oct 18, 2003, 10:44 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Marriage is a partnership not a relationship where one tries to rule the other, geesh. The whole "traditional" marriage ideal is put forward by supporters of patriarchism. It is based on religious ideals, not humanistic ones. Women no longer need to keep quiet if they are beaten by husbands(only recently has that changed) They no longer need to be slaves to their husbands or have baby after baby until their uterus falls out. We have come a long way but still have a ways to go in the US.

Oct 18, 2003, 12:39 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	So tell me....what specific laws do we need to change to ensure absolute equality for women? Be specific. Quote the EXACT LAW, not some vague re-interpretation throw out by the Feminist TImes. Feminism on a bumper sticker: "All men are pigs, and I married their king!". Is that the feminist cause? I find it ironic if we reversed that, we could get sued for discrimination. I don't mind "moderate" feminists; my girlfriend is moderate, she believes in equality, but also appreciates there are things men are good at, and vice versa. Hell, if you want absolute equality, then women should get penile transplants! Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 18, 2003, 01:02 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	We already have its reverse - "take my wife" jokes and the like, not that I'm giving any excuses for that bumper sticker. But you're committing the fallacy of taking one particularly vivid example and imbuing it with the quality that it is indicative of the entire movement. It isn't. That said, under law women may be equal, but in reality they are unequal in terms of wage levels, employment, and the like. How to deal with that? The same way we deal with the disparity in income levels, employment, education and rights of racial minorities. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 18, 2003, 01:28 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) So tell me....what specific laws do we need to change to ensure absolute equality for women? Be specific. Quote the EXACT LAW, not some vague re-interpretation throw out by the Feminist TImes. Feminism on a bumper sticker: "All men are pigs, and I married their king!". Is that the feminist cause? I find it ironic if we reversed that, we could get sued for discrimination. I don't mind "moderate" feminists; my girlfriend is moderate, she believes in equality, but also appreciates there are things men are good at, and vice versa. Hell, if you want absolute equality, then women should get penile transplants!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would say most feminists are moderate and we do appreciate the differences. As far as laws...it is more about enforcing than changing. As Rebel said there are still disparities between income and such. I would also argue that bumper stickers with comments like that are not feminist they are attempts to be humorous. You are labeling it feminist because YOU believe feminists think all men are pigs which is false(as you noted with your girlfriend). Feminists are not big. fat, hairy women in overalls who hate men 'cause they can't get them.--geesh. We are sisters,wives, mothers, grandmothers who want everybody to have the same opportunities.

Oct 18, 2003, 08:46 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands. The Wife of Baath's Tale<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think this is far too generalizing.. many women actually get off on being dominated by the man they are in a relationship with (dominated - please don't go reading too deep into what I write and misconstruing this as doormat or spousal abuse or something... -___-) I think if anything, most women these days want equality in their relationships. I still wouldn't say that is what all women want though, because every women looks for different qualities in a man and expects different things from a relationship. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Oct 19, 2003, 08:39 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,) Geoffrey Chaucer had it down pat when he wrote the Canterbury Tales. Within this series of tales, he notes that what women really want is power over their husbands. The Wife of Baath's Tale<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Chaucer was satirising here, being ironic? You understand? He was putting the Wife of Bath (prologue) in the position of any mysoginistic man to highlight the hypocracy of the day. She was doing exactley what men were doing, and like men, being proud of it. Hell she practically says what I just said, that why should men be able to sleep around and abuse women if she can't do the same to men? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 19, 2003, 09:38 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Under law equality exists. In reality, short people are discriminated against. I don't see anybody taking action against that. Any "shortists"? Or fat people? Actually, some fat people are sueing air forces for refusing them into piloting roles (due to blood pressure levels). What about rich people? They're discriminated against, as are poor people. White people? If you're white, middle-class, office worker, then you're sure to get people trying to prevent you from equality. In "reality", people ALWAYS discriminate against anything. Some people discriminate against jocks, others discriminate against men, some discriminate against blacks, others might even refuse you for a job if you wear Polo instead of Hugo! I personally discriminate against lazy, unmotivated, and "wannabe" people. I refuse to hire them, do business with them, or even make much contact with them. Its up to you to deal with it. Unless you are willing to deal with your hyprocricy and deal with EVERY SINGLE discrimination case in the world, then you just have to accept people are ruled by emotions. Read "Dead White Males" (forgot the author). Its an interesting book. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.