Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The raw truth is women are still discriminated against because they are not part of the "old boys club" parts of society. The male pack simply does not know then and does not trust these outsiders for any responsible positions. Learning to be part of a pack is a very large part of a boy's education. That is what sports are all about. The boys learn to trust and take orders from their pack leaders.
Most girls are not exposed to similar situations and are actually encouraged to distrust all other women as ruthless competitors for good life created by snagging a 'good' (that is likely to be prosperous) man. Women are not taught to trust each other or their pack leaders.
As most jobs are pack orientated the leaders distrust someone that does not know the rules of working in a hierarchy. They prefer not to hire these people for this reason as well as the fact they are also female sex objects. Females disrupt the male pack because they are simply that – females. The pack requires, but rarely gets, a lack of internal conflict to operate. Having some of the male pack compete with other males for the attention of the women is very disruptive.
I have watched this from outside the male pack because I was never a joiner and never learned the rules. In ‘Nam I learned the pack rules were very likely to get you killed. I survived. I trust very few people and most of them are women. Most of my supposed leaders and enemies have been male competitors since I was a kid. I never did see a reason to trust them and never have.
Nonsense. I'm out to disarm anyone who would call themselves a feminist yet clearly does not match either the original objective of feminism or the current definition of the word. When I hear "feminist", I think of someone who would've agreed with the women's rights movement when it began but not necessarily what it has become. That's because feminism and always was the belief that the two sexes should be equal and treated as such, or the movement based on this belief and nothing more!
It's not my fault if you or others have chosen to give so much power to a group of sexists who prefer the label "feminists" to make their cause look noble.
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".
Nonsense. I'm out to disarm anyone who would call themselves a feminist yet clearly does not match either the original objective of feminism or the current definition of the word. When I hear "feminist", I think of someone who would've agreed with the women's rights movement when it began but not necessarily what it has become. That's because feminism and always was the belief that the two sexes should be equal and treated as such, or the movement based on this belief and nothing more!
Well you think wrong. Most of us don't live in a dictionary. In the political atmosphere, half of the words we use change meanings, or have ambiguous meanings to begin with.
Sorry about your word though. May it rest in peace.
It wasn't the best word anyway. It's better suited to the female supremacists of today.
Try "equalist" or something next time, it's much less likely to be hijacked.
Except that just claiming you are a Scotsman does not make you one, no more than claiming you are a feminist makes you one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
Well you think wrong. Most of us don't live in a dictionary. In the political atmosphere, half of the words we use change meanings, or have ambiguous meanings to begin with.
Sorry about your word though. May it rest in peace.
It wasn't the best word anyway. It's better suited to the female supremacists of today.
Try "equalist" or something next time, it's much less likely to be hijacked.
Translation: You want to give/maintain for them a label that neither fits them (in terms of either etymology or current definition) nor exposes them for the sexists they are (talking still of people who hate men or unnecessarily target them specifically, not just actual feminists you disagree with on some specific argument). I've gotten plenty of reputation comments already that suggest people are on board with not empowering sexists. Sorry you're not one of us.
Most "feminists" in the US are Jewish-American or WASP-y Northeastererns, go to ivy league universities, and end up being yuppies in Boston, NYC, or DC. Are they hot or not? Depends if you like ambitious, career-oriented, driven women.
From my experience, most of the men who hate feminists fall under 2 categories: a) non college-educated, blue-collar types (or they are unemployed) who are angry that they cannot compete sexually for these aforementioned type-A females, so in their sexual frustration blame "feminism"; or b) men who went through an extremely bitter, protracted divorce where they lost everything and are forced to pay child support, and somehow in their minds blame "feminism" for their troubles in life. Ironically, the women they divorced most likely do not harbor any traits of feminist ideology in any way, shape, or form.
Class dismissed. I await your reps.
Haha. If your waiting on me, you're backing up. Your profound analyses is lacking some key information, and third person observation is no substitute for actually having been there. As to being able to compete for tbe attentions of A type women, such as you describe, is not high on my list. Nor anyone I know, in fact. The blue collar folks are oriented to family, children have top slot, and our careers are what we do, not who we are. There is no "jealousy" regarding the attentions of women in aggressive corporate type careers. That is, flat, nonsense!
Contrary to what you may have been taught in adult Kindergarten, we working men are not all knuckle dragging forms of higher primates, either. Nor are our ladies. Your premise, there, is flawed and insulting, and makes you look VERY naive. As to bitter divorces, and feminist doctrine, that is "convenient feminism" i.e. these women undergo a metamorphoses into "feminism" that is triggered by an emotional desire for revenge, coupled with the fact that they are just materialistic shrews, anyway. Being on the receiving end of divorce like that would **** off Cbrist Himself. Afterwards, many men do turn misogynistic, but that has no bearing on this subject. Women who get stiffex do the same, in equal numbers. Tbats nust human nature. You know that stuff? Oh...sorry, a classroom doesn't teach all the possibilities involved there.
So, if any of your 20 something class pal, frat rat homeys rep you, good for you. Teacher can put a star by your name on the board. However, my advice is get out and live a little, before you start passing judgements on whole classes of people, using Dick and Jane logic, out of some book or Op Ed you read somewhere.
Class dismissed, indeed. Next time, bring all your books to class. Sorry to bust yer bubble there, Special K. But you still get to ride the short bus. :-) BTW, thanks for reaffirming us blue collar guys status in society for us. Maybe you can do your thesis on this subject. The insights you offer, are surely impressive. Quite profound. In a class by themselves. Oh..thats right, EVERBODY, gets a trophy these days. So, I shouldn't be surprised that you would await high praise for playing. We don't want anyone feeling slighted. I wish you luck, on your Safari, in pursuit of the "A type" woman. FYI, the gals, of this caliber, I have dated, are not nearly as highfalootin' about who they date as you profess them to be. They are, certainly, driven and hyper intelligent. Often, tbese women, truly, appreciate, spending time with guys outside the class your theory places them in. A commonsensicle, straightforward, simple man, is refreshing for them. Not because they dominate the relationship, but because it balances their life. Remember, the more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play. Thanks for playing. Did you pack your lunch? Lol
Last edited by NVplumber; 06-26-2013 at 08:19 AM..
Translation: You want to give/maintain for them a label that neither fits them nor exposes them for the sexists they are (talking still of people who hate men or unnecessarily target them specifically, not just actual feminists you disagree with on some specific argument).
I didn't give them the label, they stole it. What am I supposed to do? Make up a word that nobody else knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I've gotten plenty of reputation comments already that suggest people are on board with not empowering sexists. Sorry you're not one of us.
I'm not on board with not empowering sexists? That's news to me.
I didn't give them the label, they stole it. What am I supposed to do? Make up a word that nobody else knows?
That's why I added "/maintain for them the label (of feminist)". So long as you and other true feminists are referring to clearly sexist women as "feminists", the label will always serve them well for people who know what the word actually means and its origins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I'm not on board with not empowering sexists? That's news to me.
That's why I added "/maintain for them the label (of feminist)". So long as you and other true feminists are referring to clearly sexist women as "feminists", the label will always serve them well for people who know what the word actually means and its origins.
Can't fight the tide man, too many of them calling themselves feminists. Unfortunately I don't control political vocabulary in this country.
I can't in good conscience call myself a feminist, regardless of what it is supposed to mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
If you're not exposing, you're empowering, IMO.
I am exposing. I'm just not going to make up a new name for sexist nutjobs so they can then run and hide under the tent of "feminism" and claim all is well and good.
I think we're getting off topic. My point is that words change, and sometimes we have to let them go.
Can't fight the tide man, too many of them calling themselves feminists. Unfortunately I don't control political vocabulary in this country.
Everyone controls how words are used, and the dictionary is already behind us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I can't in good conscience call myself a feminist, regardless of what it is supposed to mean.
I would think it'd be the other way around, that you cannot in good conscience call them feminists, because it's a flat-out lie, no matter how popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I am exposing. I'm just not going to make up a new name for sexist nutjobs so they can then run and hide under the tent of "feminism" and claim all is well and good.
Who said you have to make up a new name? "Sexists" is far more accurate (Once more, still talking about those who would promote targetting men unnecessarily and/or giving women higher status or regard, not just people we disagree with on specific issues).
...If there was a group of men who either said or implied they hated women in general or were for men being treated better in any way, we'd call them sexist, would we not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
I think we're getting off topic. My point is that words change, and sometimes we have to let them go.
And this is not one of those times. Until the dictionary reads "archaic" next to the current definition of feminism, those who would claim to be feminists but aren't should always be called on it.
I don't think it's off topic, because we have to establish exactly what "feminist principles" are before we can discuss how they supposedly only apply to "non-dateable" guys. But we can let focus return to some other facet of the question, sure. I'll let this be my last post here. I've said all I need to say here anyway.
Everyone controls how words are used, and the dictionary is already behind us.
I would think it'd be the other way around, that you cannot in good conscience call them feminists, because it's a flat-out lie, no matter how popular.
Who said you have to make up a new name? "Sexists" is far more accurate (Once more, still talking about those who would promote targetting men unnecessarily and/or giving women higher status or regard, not just people we disagree with on specific issues).
...If there was a group of men who either said or implied they hated women in general or were for men being treated better in any way, we'd call them sexist, would we not?
And this is not one of those times. Until the dictionary reads "archaic" next to the current definition of feminism, those who would claim to be feminists but aren't should always be called on it.
I don't think it's off topic, because we have to establish exactly what "feminist principles" are before we can discuss how they supposedly only apply to "non-dateable" guys. But we can let focus return to some other facet of the question, sure. I'll let this be my last post here. I've said all I need to say here anyway.
Actually the core of my point is that it doesn't matter what we establish, what matters is modern usage. The fact that this entire discussion is taking place within the context of the use of the word by someone else is a perfect example of that.
Sexists is not specific enough.
I'll go with feminazis, but when someone calls themselves a feminist, I reserve the right to be suspicious of feminazism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
