The Glade 4.0

Genetic pairing.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'll tell you why I think this is the case. I believe the movement for equality has been mostly a women movement. Men never accepted that it was okay for themselves to do what women do. They've changed to be more open to viewing women as equals, but that doesn't mean they want to participate in cross gender roles as much as women were looking to do so. Women had a strong reason to desire equality. Men already had their roles. They don't feel the need to change that role, even though women are much more equal now.

Naturally, I think it all goes back to the hunters and gatherers vs the nurtures and caregivers, like seen in all of the animal world. A man is naturally going to be a competitive being, and look to provide for his family first. It's just etched into our brains that it works that way, without even thinking about it. It's worked that way for thousands of years. If people think that's going to change just because we live in a PC world these days, they're nuts. It's like asking why animals mark their territory with urine. It just is what it is. Men have natural traits that they are better at. Women have natural traits that they better at. People love to act like we're all equal at everything just because there's a PC movement for equality. We're still very different, down to our very instincts and DNA. I wish we could just accept our differences and still be equals on a social level.

The entire feminism movement has gone out of hand, like you stated. The number of double standards that have developed on this issue are just outrageous. We want equality, but we still want all of the child support money because when it comes to that, we're only a single mom. Why aren't you an independent woman, like you constantly drill into our ears, when it comes time to go to court? All of the sudden, now you're a poor woman left out to dry because the person that provided for her screwed her over and now it's time for handouts. I'm not saying I'm against child support at all, but I think you get my point on this issue when it comes to those feminist wenches.

What about dating? Generally, men still have to be the hunters (their natural role in this world) to find a mate. Women just sit back and wait, again generally speaking. You sure don't want equals when it comes to that. Women want an alpha male, that is until she goes back onto her feminist movement...then she hates the a-hole, conceded, sexist, prick.

How about education? You want equality, but I bet that doesn't mean giving up that pell grant for being a "single" mother, even though the dad still takes care of the child too. Not every dad is a dead beat dad. Almost all scholarships go to special need
students (minorities and women). I'm sure you'll gladly take those as you preach about how unequal life is.

*sigh* I can't even continue because it'd take too much time to list all of the ways I feel the feminist movement is a completely double standard. Don't take this the wrong way, as I know there are many deserving individuals out there who truly do need all of these things. Not only that, they deserve their child support they get, their scholarships, etc. I'm just speaking to the women who claim things are unequal and that men are the devil. Maybe things aren't yet equal, but they are damn well on their way.
I don't even have time to get into all of the double standards.

_________________

I should also point out that you don't see nearly as much complaint about a lack of female coal miners or garbage collectors as CEOs.

We DO occasionally get the spectacle of women wanting to get into the infantry, but that discussion invariably ends up leading down the road of "combat arms are the best way to become a General".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

My idea of feminism is that women should be able to do whatever they want.



From my knowledge, drug dealers who live on the beach tend to get laid the most... Millionaires work all day, not chase women. People with the greatest social exposure to members of the opposite sex have the most options. It's really that simple. It doesn't have to do with money.

Anyways, from the abstract of an empirical study:



http://www.nber.org/papers/w10499

_________________
"The map is not the territory."

Power.

_________________

*thinks of all the legislators in trouble*

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenson_v._ ... aconite_Co.

Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. was the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States, filed in 1988 on behalf of Lois Jenson and other female workers at the EVTAC mine in Eveleth, Minnesota on the state's northern Mesabi Range, which is part of the Iron Range.

It was also made into a major motion picture. North Country.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395972/

So, one lawsuit contradicts DE statement?


As they weren't suing to become coal miners, the relevance is quite limited.

I would dare say that since it was so unusual as to have been made into a movie, this one lawsuit would lend credence to DE's statement.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yes, really. Aside from the fact that sexual harrassment of coal miners has exactly zero to do with what I said, one lawsuit wouldn't disprove it even if it WAS so that a woman could be a coal miner or garbage collector, I didn't say there was NO complaint in those regards, just that it was considerably less than for CEOs.

That's because really, coal mining and garbage collecting and such aren't jobs that people of either sex really do because they either A) have a passion for the work itself or B) because they think they'll get rich. It's done because it pays the bills.

That's not the sort of thing that feminists care about. They care about things like high-paying professional jobs because A) they pay a lot and B) they'll be in a position of power, especially power over men. They see themselves getting those jobs if the world was really fair because no man could do as well as they if it weren't for the "glass ceiling" or whatever.

When it comes to highly physical jobs like coal mining though, it gets a lot harder to argue that, and it's not a job that has any glamour or any potential to sit in an office and give men a hard time. Therefore they don't care nearly as much, especially since it's a losing proposition to argue that with jobs that are primarily about strength and stamina.

Feminism is about perpetuating resentments as long as possible in the same way as racism complaints are. The situation can never be admitted to be equitable, because then not getting what one wants can't be attributed to the big bad evil Male/White Guy/etc. and there's no more reason to be calling for more and more of other peoples' money.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'd agree if you were referring only to Dworkin or McKinnon's style of Feminazism. You're not likely to ever find a "Sex-positive Feminist" with a proverbial chip on her shoulder over the whole thing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I am. "Feminist" necesarily refers to that sort of feminism when not specified otherwise. "Sex-positive feminism" is a qualifier that removes the female-supremacist connotations of "feminism" by itself. "Sex-positive feminism" and "feminism" are incompatible and mutually exclusive so reference to one necessarily precludes reference to the other. In fact, sex positive feminism really needs a better name (one that doesn't include the word feminism at all) because "feminism" is really just proclaiming the supremacy of the female in the same way that, say, white supremacy does. Unforunately there's no better word to be had that I can think of

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Renaming "standard" feminism as "female supremacy," maybe?

That would work too, sort of. REally though, even in its most acceptable forms "feminism" conveys the idea that the focus should eb on the female, when it really should not be on either sex.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."