Feminism

What, praytell, does that have to do with the price of ouzo in Athens?

Funny you should ask, DerthNader. It's amazing what you can find with Google:
[image=http://students.washington.edu/sroby/graph.bmp]

I swear, Derth, I've read every one of your posts in this thread and the "dangerous men" thread and I still can't suss out what exactly you're after.

I always had a high opinion of guys who were the social outcasts, who weren't popular, because I always thought they'd be the last people in the world to stereotype, considering some pretty nasty stereotypes get said about THEM.

Ah, I see. You've got a fever called Cute, Accepting Outcast Boy Syndrome. The cute, accepting outcast boy is largely a mythological creature, the image of which is purveyed by the same hope-mongers who bring us whatever "hot, accessible girl next door" movie is playing this week. I don't think I've ever met one of these unicorns that didn't turn out to be a horse with a cheap, plastic horn attached. Don't believe the hype, Derth!

 

I swear, Derth, I've read every one of your posts in this thread and the "dangerous men" thread and I still can't suss out what exactly you're after

Money, more money, and tons and tons of blood...how hard is that?

(And I swear, all of that trouble of going and making up that chart...if you weren't trying to insult me with it, I would actually have found it amusing. But I can insult myself quite well, and without flashy graphics).

The cute, accepting outcast boy is largely a mythological creature, the image of which is purveyed by the same hope-mongers who bring us whatever "hot, accessible girl next door" movie is playing this week. I don't think I've ever met one of these unicorns that didn't turn out to be a horse with a cheap, plastic horn attached. Don't believe the hype, Derth!

Where the hell did I say I wanted any guy that was "cute"? I didn't, did I? Nope, because that would make me a fecking hypocrite, rattling on about the standards most guys have, and yet, being that way myself. No, I said the "outcast", that's it, nothing about looks in there, sporto.

And you know what? I found that they are indeed mythological creatures, as you said. So, no, I won't believe the hype...not about the cute nerds, not about the not-so-cute nerds. Because it all comes down to crap, doesn't it? (Okay, there are some cases that I've seen which do seem to be truthful, straight from the heart...but it's like trying to find a good wine in the middle of bottles of grape juice...unfufilling, frustrating, and futile, since it's very unlikely you'll find ANY bottle of wine improperly shelved with the Welch's, let alone a good one ).

 

I'm still waiting for proof of what you guys ultimately want, too. I mean, if it's not something like the Victoria's Secret models, why are they held up as some ideal women should aspire to? And I've noticed an awful lot of you guys like those kinds of things, otherwise, there wouldn't be a reason to put women who look like that in those underwear.

So, lay down for me your proof of what the ultimate woman is. Since I obviously have no right whatsoever to say it from what I've seen, since my perspective counts for naught in these matters, according to those such as yourself.


Right.

Firstly, piss poor effort at backtracking. I accept the retraction you didn't offer.

Secondly, until such a time as you satisfy us with evidence, the burden of proof remains upon you and not me or any other male, so kindly refrain from doing the equivalent of answering a question with a question. You make a comment, support it, don't turn it around onto me or others yet, because we won't answer until we have our proof or our apology.

Futhermore, the Victoria's Secret which you're so enamoured with isn't aimed at men, is it? ?

Finally, I must repeat myself with; PPOR, the second P and OR being of paramount importance.

E_S

 

Is your goal more equal, or equality?

farraday: Equality between the genders.

darth_paul: You've been reasonable explaining your points and you don't seem to be advocating racism or sexism, however, I have to disagree with you that an employer's freedom to do as he wants with his money trumps a minority or female's right to avoid discrimination.

Do I think that employers should be afraid to hire a white male over a female or a minority? No. Not if the white male is better qualified. But do I think that the employer should be allowed to have a policy that "Women/blacks/Irish/Italians need not apply"? Hell no.

As far as sexual harassment, this is another case where I think the "feminazis" have made the rest of us feminists look bad. A guy saying "You look nice" is not sexual harassment. A guy staring at you is not sexual harassment. To quote Chris Rock, "If your boss says 'Sleep with me, or you're fired,' that's sexual harassment. Anything else is just 'trying to get laid'." And trying to get laid is not against the law, until you refuse to take "no" for an answer.

 

You've been reasonable explaining your points and you don't seem to be advocating racism or sexism, however, I have to disagree with you that an employer's freedom to do as he wants with his money trumps a minority or female's right to avoid discrimination.

Do I think that employers should be afraid to hire a white male over a female or a minority? No. Not if the white male is better qualified. But do I think that the employer should be allowed to have a policy that "Women/blacks/Irish/Italians need not apply"? Hell no.

Would you support a law that required people to be "equal opportunity" when picking someone to go on a date with? How about a law telling you that you have to be "equal opportunity" about where you spend your money shopping?

For example, my mother will not shop at CVS because of the way they have treated the Boy Scouts over the issues of gays and atheists wanting to join. My parents are both life-long supporters of scouting and they strongly object to forcing the Boy Scouts (a private organization) to admit anyone they don't want to. Because of this issue, CVS (formerly a big supporter of scouting) announced that they would withdraw all funding for the Scouts.

If CVS were failing as a business because of a boycott like my mother's, would you support forcing people to spend money there? How about if CVS were a minority-owned business and a racist person refused to shop there because of that?

How is requiring a business to hire (and therefore pay money to) someone who they don't want to any different than requiring someone to shop at a store that they don't want to support? If an individual doesn't want to puy from someone because of their race, would you require them to? After all, if no one bought from black merchants, where would they get their income?

Why should the argument change because it goes from being a private individual deciding where to spend his money, to a private company deciding what to spend its money? In both cases, it directly affects where a person gets their livlihood.

Kimball Kinnison

 

a_g

I agree completely with most of your points, except for the following:

[face_shocked]

But ours shouldn't. Breasts are not sexual. As far as public fornication--I have mixed feelings. I don't want to look at it, but like I said about fat men in Speedos (or even skinny men in Speedos--I just don't like Speedos)--just because I don't want to look at it doesn't mean it should be against the law.

Maybe it shouldn't. But as of right now, that is the way it is. And it will take a significant social movement for that to change. I agree that fat guys in speedos are quite disgusting. And I wish they could be stopped. But they aren't showing a vital, sexual part of their anatomy (despite it being probably obvious, it is still clothed).

I think this is probably true as a general rule. (And no, I didn't take offense at the childbirth comment at all--it is something to be respected, and it's good to know that some men are aware of that. ) I just want to repeat the question I asked above--why are the "caring" professions, which are traditionally female-dominated, also generally lower-paying?

Damn, that's two times now? [face_shocked]

I would say that for the most part, they are lower-paying. Maybe because, in regards to nurses, less knowledge is needed than doctors? And the pay scale reflects that. Also, they are employees where private practice doctors are their own bosses. I would say, however, that child psychologists do get paid quite well -- as well as ALL psychologists/psychiatrists.

We've come aways since the 50s of course--we allow women to go to college, law school, medical school, etc.--but the professions that are female-dominated are still lower-paying, including my own. Male teachers with the same experience make the same amount of money I do, but as a profession, teaching pays less than male-dominated jobs, as do other female-dominated jobs such as nursing.

I would say that we have come along way since the turn of the century rather than the 50s (stable societies do move in slow stages), and we still have further to go. I think in regards to teaching that teachers in general would get paid better if teaching associations didn't protect poorer teachers. If the general believed that all teachers were high quality, they would support better pay for teachers. Also, it could be argued that the training necessary to become a teacher and the degree earned, primarily majoring in education, is flawed and would need to be changed. All teachers should hold a commanding knowledge of their fields rather than learning how to teach. If you are going to teach history, have a history degree, and so on and so forth.

True, and Title IX has helped in high schools. I just wonder what would have to happen to make our sports bring in as much money as men's sports. What do men's sports have that make them popular that women's sports don't?

Title 9 has allowed more girls to play sports at the HS and college level. But the only way that female athletes will get paid as well as male athletes is if they become as or more entertaining than men. Sports are entertainment and right now, the general public views male sports as more entertaining than female sports. Male B-ball players are quicker, can jump higher and are stronger. There may be one or two women who can dunk in the WNBA. Almost every NBA player can -- and that is entertaining.

Darth_Paul

My problem with your argument is this: My arms respond to sensual touch. So does my neck. If you're going to tell me I should be covering those up, we'll come to blows. For that matter, as a man, my chest is responsive to sensual touch. I don't think that in and of itself is enough to classify a body part as sexual. The entire human body is a part of human sexuality; I for one won't advocate unisex burkas.

Yes, but you don't need arms for sex in essence. If you follow sex all the way through to conception and birth, breasts are very important and nec

 

Hey, I have an idea!

Why dont we make EVERYBODY wear a shirt?

Solves every problem you have!

 

You've been reasonable explaining your points and you don't seem to be advocating racism or sexism, however, I have to disagree with you that an employer's freedom to do as he wants with his money trumps a minority or female's right to avoid discrimination.

I'm glad I at least explained my points reasonably well. I have nothing really to add on the subject (more, I'd guess, do you), so unless some interestingly new point on the subject arises, I'm going into agree-to-disagree mode.

To quote Chris Rock, "If your boss says 'Sleep with me, or you're fired,' that's sexual harassment. Anything else is just 'trying to get laid'." And trying to get laid is not against the law, until you refuse to take "no" for an answer.

Hmm. I will have to think about this. Not sure yet.

Yes, but you don't need arms for sex in essence. If you follow sex all the way through to conception and birth, breasts are very important and necessary. Without breasts, the child could not be fed and would die. Arms aren't necessary and though they respond to sensual touch, they aren't absolutely crucial to sex and what may come of it. And in no way am I advocating women covering up every part of their bodies.

I'd be prepared to argue that in our world of bottles and formula, the breasts are equally inessential. Then again, I would also point out that the really simple way to hold a baby to your breast is in your arms. And you're also raising the question of whether pregnancy should really be considered a natural part of sex; I think anakin_girl has had a thing or two to say about that in other threads. Basically, I can't disagree with you that society views breasts as sexual; that much is clear. I argue, however, that it shouldn't, and that even if it does, the law ought not to reflect that view. So there we are.

-Paul

 

Futhermore, the Victoria's Secret which you're so enamoured with isn't aimed at men, is it?

What, women wear that crap because they like to? Hello, sir, you are an idiot if you honestly believe that. No woman truly wears that garbage for herself. And did you know that most of the catalogue business done by such companies has MEN as its client base? And why don't YOU look it up, because if I do it, you'll say that I'm taking it out of context. And since you're the one who is so damned hyped up about what I'm saying, why don't you try and educate yourself?!!!!

I'm retracting NOTHING, because I know what I see, and those images aren't in the media being shoved down throats day-after-day because women like to see them. The women who do say they like to see them, they're doing themselves a disservice, because like you, they've blinded themselves to reality. And I really do feel sorry for you that you can't see the forest for the trees, really.

 

Just decloaking briefly on the issue of tolerance.

It's interesting that tolerance is often understood as merely putting up with that which an individual peronally disagrees or dislikes. Yet tolerance can also allow for restrained criticism of this by this individual, therefore being tolerant of others' views or acts is not to be equated with being non-critical but being restrained in the criticism.

Now it may be said, where is the line drawn? What is restrained and unrestrained criticism? Precisely the problem. I would venture that we could use the destructive-constructive distinction (almost opted to use the word 'cleavage', which is technically accurate, but given how things are going, not a wise idea.)

This thread is becoming an interesting display of various positions and how they clash.

JB

 

Why dont we make EVERYBODY wear a shirt?

Solves every problem you have!

Quoted for truth!

And A_G, if you must refer to bras as "torture racks", perhaps you need to shop for better-fitting undies.

 

I think in regards to teaching that teachers in general would get paid better if teaching associations didn't protect poorer teachers. If the general believed that all teachers were high quality, they would support better pay for teachers.

It's a Catch-22, because the reason teaching associations exist is because our pay sucks. I definitely don't agree with everything they do--I'm in favor of firing incompetent teachers--but I also don't agree with punishing all of us just because some folks are slackers.

Also, it could be argued that the training necessary to become a teacher and the degree earned, primarily majoring in education, is flawed and would need to be changed. All teachers should hold a commanding knowledge of their fields rather than learning how to teach. If you are going to teach history, have a history degree, and so on and so forth.

I'll agree with you on that one. My degree isn't in education--my first bachelor's is in French, the second one (two courses from completion) is in Hispanic studies. Most of learning to teach is learning by doing--what you learn during student teaching and once you get your first job. I do think anyone planning to teach needs some basic child psychology and some courses on the history of education and how public schools are run, but I don't think they need an entire course on how to use audiovisual equipment, which was required 11 years ago when I was in college (I am not making this up).

Yes, doctors require more schooling than either nurses or teachers--but what about other male-dominated professions, such as banking, that only require bachelor's degrees? What about male-dominated professions such as construction and auto mechanics that do not require degrees at all?

Why dont we make EVERYBODY wear a shirt?

Solves every problem you have!

Actually, Fwiffo, I would be satisfied with that. At least it would be fair. My main objection is not that I'm dying to show off my boobs, but that men are allowed to be more comfortable in 95 degree weather than I am.

And A_G, if you must refer to bras as "torture racks", perhaps you need to shop for better-fitting undies.

You're welcome to let me know where. I must be some weird in-between size or something. My mother took me shopping a few years ago when I was going through a very defiant "no bras EVER" stage--she had decided that I was so miserable because I was wearing a cup size too small--buying a size bigger has helped, but I still don't like them. I wear the nicest bras available from Victoria's Secret, and I still take them off when I get home from work.

 

"Yes, but you don't need arms for sex in essence. If you follow sex all the way through to conception and birth, breasts are very important and necessary. Without breasts, the child could not be fed and would die. Arms aren't necessary and though they respond to sensual touch, they aren't absolutely crucial to sex and what may come of it."

Arms are as necessary as breasts. Without arms, a mother can not pick up her child. Thus, you are thwarted.

 

Interesting debate so far.

I think I'd like to see more equality between the sexes. It disturbs me that in my step-father's work place (a university) it is considered discrimination to have a ratio of sixty men to forty women, but isn't considered discrimination until you have more then eighty women to every twenty men. It also disturbs me when men are passed over for jobs (particularly when they are the only person qualified to do them) because the company/government needs to hire a woman.

I'd rather get the job out of my own merit. That's the reason why I have issues with the fact that the government and Catholic church in Australia wants to give grants or scholarships that are aimed specifically at men (with no similar for women) to get male teachers back in the work place.

As for discrimination with tops. I don't wear a shirt on when I'm at home (a singlet bra certainly but not a shirt). Why? The two men who live in my house don't wear shirts on a regular occasion particularly when the weather down here is opressive. I don't see why society should say that I should be modest and boil alive while they can be cool.

We only see breasts or nakedness as sexual because of the idea that the body needs to be repressed in order for society to be controled. It's an idea that was originally based in reliious thought (Graco-Roman and medieval Christianity) which has become ingrained into our culture to the extent that we no really longer notice that we think like that. Many people do equate a lack of clothing to a immoral lifestyle because that's the way they've been brought up to see things. Many African and other cultures never thought nakedness was a bad thing - but we do.

And A_G, if you must refer to bras as "torture racks", perhaps you need to shop for better-fitting undies.

As an aside, I've been fitted multiple times by different people over the years and bras with underwire are phyisically painful for me to wear. Sometimes bra's are torture outfits if wou don't have the average body structure to wear them.

Kithera

 

I'd rather get the job out of my own merit

So would I...there's very little quotas can do at this point in time, because their initial purpose was served a long time ago. Now, all they can do is breed discord. And there's no pride to be felt in an achievement you didn't entirely earn. And there's always the potential for resentment from others who weren't part of the quota system at some point in the future.

And A_G, if you must refer to bras as "torture racks", perhaps you need to shop for better-fitting undies

Sorry, but no matter how you size them, they're still torture devices. Breasts were not made to be in holding pens.

(I can see it now, a pair of breasts banging against the inner lining of the cups screaming, "Attica!!!! Attica!!!").

But honestly, bras are strictly a utilitarian device, created for the intial purpose of placing the breasts in such a fashion as to where they would be properly contained so as not to create a scene. ("It lifts, it seperates!"). Then, along the way, it occurred to someone in the fashion industry they could make money off of women's insecurities, and started making bras that make you look like you have more cleavage than you do naturally. But they are not SEXY. Not unless you've been indoctrinated from an early age to think they are (more like brain-washing, if one comes right down to it).

 

Realizing that I missed KK's earlier post...not sure how.

No, I would not support forcing people to buy from people they don't want to buy from. However, the anti-discrimination laws were put into place for a reason--obviously there were large numbers of businesses who were refusing to hire people of a certain race, nationality, or gender, and therefore, large groups of these people were out of work. We don't have large groups of people refusing to buy from minority-owned businesses.

 

No, I would not support forcing people to buy from people they don't want to buy from. However, the anti-discrimination laws were put into place for a reason--obviously there were large numbers of businesses who were refusing to hire people of a certain race, nationality, or gender, and therefore, large groups of these people were out of work. We don't have large groups of people refusing to buy from minority-owned businesses.

But is the principle not the same? If it is your money, shouldn't you be the one ot decide who you give it to?

For example, I work for a small, privately owned engineering firm. It is completely owned by one person, who finances it out of his previous investments. Any profits left over from the business are his paycheck. He is essentially paying me and my two co-workers out of his own pocket.

Shouldn't he have the right to decide who he pays? If he decided he didn't like my haircut, or attitude, or some other thing about me, should he be required to continue employing me? I don't think so. He has the right to control his own finances, whether they are his personal ones or those of his private business. Neither you nor anyone else should be allowed to infringr those rights.

Also, just becuase you feel that the laws were needed in the past does not mean that they are needed now. Historically, it can be justified to restrict a person's rights for a time to provide for a temporary change, but to do so on a permanent basis (especially for his children or other descendents) is immoral and wrong.

Kimball Kinnison

 

But is the principle not the same?

Are you saying for example that IBM, which employs over 316,000 people, should be allowed to only hire white Christian men?

 

Are you saying for example that IBM, which employs over 316,000 people, should be allowed to only hire white Christian men?

If that's what IBM's owners decide, then they should be allowed to do so. I mean, if you decide that the principle doesn't apply to small companies (like my employer), at what point does it apply? When a company has 10 employees? 100? 1000? 100000? If a person's right to a job trumps an employer's right to decide who they will hire, shouldn't that apply to all companies?

If it does apply to all companies, would you force a person starting a business to hire a minority applicant to be their first employee, even if the owner is racist? That would be a recipie for disaster for the company and the individuals involved.

In the case of a private company, the owner should decide. It is that simple. In the case of a publicly-held or traded company, it should be left to the stockholders to decide, as with any other company policy. If it is a public institution, then the legislature should be the one to set the policy (as required by any Constitution). To do any less infringes on the rights of the individuals to dictate how they control their own property/

Kimball Kinnison

 

"But is the principle not the same? If it is your money, shouldn't you be the one ot decide who you give it to?"

If it's your livelihood, shouldn't you be allowed to earn your own keep?

You have no "right" to hold onto that cash, particularly if you're in the business of employing people to do your work for you. If you're not cool with that, then take down the sign.

"If a person's right to a job trumps an employer's right to decide who they will hire, shouldn't that apply to all companies?"

Take that, strike it and reverse it and you've got Jim Crow talking. You can be turned away if your employer does not *personally* feel you are qualified for the job, but race, sex, creed etc. are NOT grounds for dismissal. You speak of disaster, but can you imagine what kind of economic apocalypse we'd be in store for if employers were allowed a set criteria indicating what sort of folk they never want to see working for them? Where would you draw the line there? Hair color, gender, denomination...? Thousands would be out of a job in the name of personal preference, and thousands more would have no one to hire.

 

You have no "right" to hold onto that cash, particularly if you're in the business of employing people to do your work for you. If you're not cool with that, then take down the sign.

I'm sorry, but if I earned that money (even through a provately owned business), then I do have a right to hold on to it. That's called property rights, and it is one of the things clearly protected in the Bill of Rights. I cannot be deprived of that right except by due process.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If that's what IBM's owners decide...

Astonishing! Do you believe that all companies should be allowed to hire only people who are young and healthy so as to minimize health costs? This would include firing someone once they got too old or developed a health issue.

 

If it is a public institution, then the legislature should be the one to set the policy (as required by any Constitution).

Yes, and I absoluetly believe that no public institution should ever set discriminatory hiring policy or serve differently based on issues of race, sex, religion, etc. Any discrimination by a public institution ought to be strictly forbidden, because the government has no right to discriminate. But private individuals/businesses independent of the government do, and so long as no public money is changing hands, they must be free to do as they please.

You have no "right" to hold onto that cash, particularly if you're in the business of employing people to do your work for you. If you're not cool with that, then take down the sign.

Well, when you hire a person, you make certain contractual obligations to pay that person, and you're legally obligated to meet those contractual obligations. Otherwise, yes, I do have a right to do exactly as I please with my money, either as a private citizen or as an employer. To argue differently is to argue for the complete abolition of personal property rights. Not only is this an utter opposition of the American system, but it's also the road to political/economic disaster. The only forms of government that seek to abolish personal property rights are on the bottom-left of the political spectrum: Communism, socialism (not a governmental form I know), totalinarianism. If you're about to argue the advantages of those forms of government, I think I'm going to cry.

Where would you draw the line there? Hair color, gender, denomination...?

I wouldn't draw a line at all. An employer should be able to fire or hire absolutely anyone he likes, and should never have to justify his decisions legally. It's his business, his money, and his decision.

Astonishing! Do you believe that all companies should be allowed to hire only people who are young and healthy so as to minimize health costs? This would include firing someone once they got too old or developed a health issue.

Certainly I do. Why should any business be legally required to employ a worker it finds to be a liability?

Thousands would be out of a job in the name of personal preference, and thousands more would have no one to hire.

Well, I have no sympathy for the ones that have no one to hire, as it's their own fault for setting discriminatory employment criteria. As for the ones that are out of work -- do you really believe that intolerance runs so rampant that nobody is going to use this wealth of employable workers? Many businesses that chose discrimination would probably fail; the others that rose up in their places would be one great source of employment for those fired. And you're also forgetting the power of the public. I for one wouldn't be doing business with any company that employed discriminatory hiring practices. I'm sure there would be many other people with me, and a great deal of pressure could be brought to bear. I think the situation would work itself out reasonably well. One way or another, the justice of individual property rights would be maintained; the concept of these rights is more important than any practical considerations, because without personal property rights, most practical considerations become fairly worthless.

-Paul

 

You're welcome to let me know where. I must be some weird in-between size or something. My mother took me shopping a few years ago when I was going through a very defiant "no bras EVER" stage--she had decided that I was so miserable because I was wearing a cup size too small--buying a size bigger has helped, but I still don't like them. I wear the nicest bras available from Victoria's Secret, and I still take them off when I get home from work.

Granted, I take mine off when I get home too, but I can say I've never found anything comfortable at Victoria's. There's so much padding and lace, I don't know if the heat is worse or the itching they cause.

I'm roughly a 36 D at the moment, and it is a hard size to fit comfortably. But with the bazillion different brands and styles of bras out there, I always manage to find one that suits me. I think the last batch I bought I got at JC Penny. They unpadded, thick cotton and comfy and they're even underwires.

I'd say the practice of constraining breats was likely invented by women, to keep them from painfully bouncing around, especially when full of milk. The idea to use the constraints to make the breats more attractive probably came much later.

Altho I go braless when merely lounging around at home, I find it uncomfortable when going about my daily business. Also, as far as heatwaves are concerned, I find wearing a sports bra or swimsuit top to be far superior to going without, shirt or no. Why? For the simple reason that unless one has breasts small enough that they have no overhang, the under side of them sweats, and with no bra-blotter there to soak it up, it runs disgustingly down one's stomach.

I don't know about others, but I find hot AND being soaked with my own sweat to be far more uncomfortable than being hot and cozily dry.

And in short, long live the sports bra. I have no problem with women wearing them as shirts in public. They rule!

 

I'm still a little unclear on why some of the guys contributing to this thread perceive women's breasts as being sexual: It can't be because of the nipple, or men would not be allowed to go topless either. Is it the size & shape of a women's breast? But then, I see some overweight men with larger "breasts" then some women.... Are there any history buffs who can explain the origins of how the female breast became sexualized within western culture?