Happy Atheist Forum

I believe that all ISMS are 5% useful and 95% stupid theories to beneit mainly to a few evil persons.

In the web, it is easy right now to find sites dedicated to reveal the lies of theocracy and of a matriarcal society. Here are some sites against feminazism:



antimisandry.com/

americanwomensuck.com/forums ... topic=9116

lamarchamasculina.com/boletin1.htm

des.groups.yahoo.com/group/Mandefender/

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages22.fotki.com%2Fv724%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1236601064757-vi.gif&hash=db054eb1616ff0c01d9a47c83256c0041d0051e1)

Cyberateos...posting this topic on a forum owned by a woman is not a very good game plan for being allowed to stick around.  

I will give you one post to defend the views mentioned in your OP in an intelligent manner.  I will not allow this forum to be a platform for propaganda against equality (the very foundation of feminism is the idea that women can be equal to men).  If it were not for your history of already being banned once, you'd get more than one chance.  I consider this one chance to be a charitable decision on my part.

I am am also disabling the links in your op since I am considering them spam until you use your own words and provide an intelligent defense of your position.

Whitney:

QuoteI will not allow this forum to be a platform for propaganda against equality

Ha, ha... I am searching EQUALITY: fetal persons, female persons, male persons, homosexual persons, all them should have the same basic rights.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Ha, ha... I am searching EQUALITY: fetal persons, female persons, male persons, homosexual persons, all them should have the same basic rights.

Then you shouldn't be arguing against feminism.  Feminism is so strongly associated with the ideals of equality that groups which think plants and things like that should be equal to humans are called eco-feminists.

Feminism, n,
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Whitney

QuoteThen you shouldn't be arguing against feminism. Feminism is so strongly associated with the ideals of equality that groups which think plants and things like that should be equal to humans are called eco-feminists.

Really, I should have said "feminazism", not "feminism", but feminazism is really an extreme feminism.

Quote from: "cyberateos"Really, I should have said "feminazism", not "feminism", but feminazism is really an extreme feminism.

Seriously? Seriously?

Quote from: "cyberateos"Whitney

QuoteThen you shouldn't be arguing against feminism. Feminism is so strongly associated with the ideals of equality that groups which think plants and things like that should be equal to humans are called eco-feminists.

Really, I should have said "feminazism", not "feminism", but feminazism is really an extreme feminism.

QuoteFeminazi is a term used to negatively characterize extreme or militant feminists.[1][2] Popularized by radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, it is used in North America by some social conservatives to refer to feminists whom they perceive as extremist.[3] Limbaugh has specified that the term refers to "a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur".[4][5] Webster's Dictionary defines feminazi as "extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women".[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi)

QuoteMain Entry:     feminazi
Part of Speech:     n
Definition:     an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women
Etymology:     feminist + Nazi
Usage:     derogatory

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminazi (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminazi)

Since I'm being extremely charitable today...you are allowed one more post to explain why you are using the term "feminatzi" when you should be more than aware that it is just a derogatory term made up to describe women conservatives don't agree with.  Make it good...otherwise you're getting banned again for an amount of time I'll decide based on what you decide to write.

Whitney:

QuoteMake it good...otherwise you're getting banned again for an amount of time I'll decide based on what you decide to write.

If you want that I write exactly what you have to read, then you are similar to preists or to the Pope. :banna:

Quote from: "cyberateos"Whitney:
Probably I am in the wrong site, and I should leave this forum.  

We don't allow uncivil debate here, it's in the rules.  Using derogatory terms to label those who have different views is uncivil.  You don't have to decide to leave, I just made the decision for you...permanent ban.

Feminism: wanting gender equality.
Femenazism: REALLY, REALLY wanting gender equality? Wanting gender equality but having a serious problem with Jews? The best Bond villain ever?

What you have a problem with, cyberateos, doesn't exist.

As much as it pains me to do so, I am going to (kinda) agree with the OP, I read some of those sites, and while there are many, many MRAs ( mens rights activists I disagree with, there a few I like ( Glenn Sacks is my favorite, very even keeled).

I beleive in equality of oppurtunity here, and while the feminsim of old ( suffrage, womens property rights etc ) was indeed a noble and needed cause, it has long sinced run its course. To me it seems that today, a feminist is someone who does not desire eqal rights for men and women, but instead, special rights for women.  A few issues the mainstream MRA movments are concerned with include

Child custody ( maternal gatekeeping, low rates of custodial parentage for males, general exclusion of males from childrearing )

Domestic violence ( despite the proliferation of studies showin DV to be perpertrated by both genders, the focus is still all on male-female DV, often exclusivley casting men as the villians )
The massive disparity in domestic violence shelters for women and men ( in the uk at least ), further aggravated by rubbish like this ( edit, actually, anything harriet harman has done is a prime example of this, I litterally can't think of a worse politician, with a more obvious bias against a particular group )

Horribley unequal prison terms and prison conditions in the case of women

The general portrayl of men in the media, which then goes on the protect the image of women.

There are some more that i am probably forgetting.

I like to read http://www.mensrightsblogs.com/feeds/ to keep up with happenings, though there is a lot of crap to sift through, some of the MRA's equate being a man with being a straight, christian male.

Heh. My dad was a big-time sexist, thought not in the ways you might think(I don't even think he was aware of the crap he was teaching me). But anyway, when I was younger, I would listen to his lectures on "women", and his image of WOMAN as a conniving gold-digging emasculating force kind of rubbed off on me.

I've been trying to shake off his influence for years.  

Quote from: "SSY"I beleive in equality of oppurtunity here, and while the feminsim of old ( suffrage, womens property rights etc ) was indeed a noble and needed cause, it has long sinced run its course. To me it seems that today, a feminist is someone who does not desire eqal rights for men and women, but instead, special rights for women.  A few issues the mainstream MRA movments are concerned with include

But it's right there in the dictionary definition: feminists seek gender equality. Anything more than that and it stops being feminism. Feminism cannot be sexism. It's a semantic paradox.

Quote from: "SSY"Child custody ( maternal gatekeeping, low rates of custodial parentage for males, general exclusion of males from childrearing )

We have issues with that over here, too. And I'd attribute those problems to sexism, the idea that men cannot be as good at parenting as women. It's based on old stereotypes.

Quote from: "SSY"Domestic violence ( despite the proliferation of studies showin DV to be perpertrated by both genders, the focus is still all on male-female DV, often exclusivley casting men as the villians )
The massive disparity in domestic violence shelters for women and men ( in the uk at least ), further aggravated by rubbish like this ( edit, actually, anything harriet harman has done is a prime example of this, I litterally can't think of a worse politician, with a more obvious bias against a particular group )

This one isn't as simple as custody. I've dated a lot of women in my life, and I can't really think of one that could physically overpower me without a weapon. Even the one that took Krav Maga. Mind you, they could certainly strike me, but it wouldn't be as devastating as me striking them. And, frankly, men are much, much more likely to be involved in physical altercations, statistically.

Quote from: "SSY"Horribley unequal prison terms and prison conditions in the case of women

This is a simple financial issue. Less women are incarcerated, but they obviously require their own prisons, therefore they get it slightly better.

Quote from: "SSY"The general portrayal of men in the media, which then goes on the protect the image of women.

This is a marketing issue. Check out the next electronics commercial you see, then compare it to the next food or homemaking commercial you see. Yeah, it's kinda annoying to see "stupid dad" commercials, but half of all entertainment is the sexual objectification of women, so I can't really complain.

Quote from: "Will"This one isn't as simple as custody. I've dated a lot of women in my life, and I can't really think of one that could physically overpower me without a weapon. Even the one that took Krav Maga. Mind you, they could certainly strike me, but it wouldn't be as devastating as me striking them. And, frankly, men are much, much more likely to be involved in physical altercations, statistically.

 I know alot of men won't hit a women even in self defense and many won't admit that they are the abused. I know in the military the man is always removed from the home even when both parties agree it was only the woman being abusive. I've had friends when I was in who were forced to leave thier homes because of abusive wives. In one case in particular he got in trouble for returning because she was abusive to the kids and he would take the abuse so they wouldn't have to. He was worried that she was hurting them in his absence, (he was right) he was arested for returning she stayed with the kids.

It seems that some women like to be equal except when they can gain more from being treated as a woman. I fully agree that women have and in many cases continue to get the short end of the stick but it seems that if women want true equality they should stop playing or alowing others to play the system with reverse sexism. Such as the cases of women getting custudy of the kids when the father would be a much more nurturing and stable envirnment. Just because men and women both allow swhat are actually sexist views that women make better parents. I can't for the life of me remenber one case of female based equal rights groups fight against this type of sexism. I do remeber on case a few years back of a father with a steady job and home kids being given to his ex who was both mentaly unstable had no job and at one point of her custodianship was living under a bridge with the kids. Despite repeated court cases the mother kept getting custody. It would seem to me the only reason was she was a women and had to be a better parent, despite contrary evidence, because of it.

Do feminists want to be the equals of men or have all the same rights of men as well as the sexist and unreasonable positions that actually give women an advantage over men. It seems to me the sexes should be equal not just equal but with favorable exceptions for one over the other. (which isen't eqality anyway)

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Will"This one isn't as simple as custody. I've dated a lot of women in my life, and I can't really think of one that could physically overpower me without a weapon. Even the one that took Krav Maga. Mind you, they could certainly strike me, but it wouldn't be as devastating as me striking them. And, frankly, men are much, much more likely to be involved in physical altercations, statistically.

 I know alot of men won't hit a women even in self defense and many won't admit that they are the abused. I know in the military the man is always removed from the home even when both parties agree it was only the woman being abusive. I've had friends when I was in who were forced to leave thier homes because of abusive wives. In one case in particular he got in trouble for returning because she was abusive to the kids and he would take the abuse so they wouldn't have to. He was worried that she was hurting them in his absence, (he was right) he was arested for returning she stayed with the kids.

It seems that some women like to be equal except when they can gain more from being treated as a woman. I fully agree that women have and in many cases continue to get the short end of the stick but it seems that if women want true equality they should stop playing or alowing others to play the system with reverse sexism. Such as the cases of women getting custudy of the kids when the father would be a much more nurturing and stable envirnment. Just because men and women both allow swhat are actually sexist views that women make better parents. I can't for the life of me remenber one case of female based equal rights groups fight against this type of sexism. I do remeber on case a few years back of a father with a steady job and home kids being given to his ex who was both mentaly unstable had no job and at one point of her custodianship was living under a bridge with the kids. Despite repeated court cases the mother kept getting custody. It would seem to me the only reason was she was a women and had to be a better parent, despite contrary evidence, because of it.

Do feminists want to be the equals of men or have all the same rights of men as well as the sexist and unreasonable positions that actually give women an advantage over men. It seems to me the sexes should be equal not just equal but with favorable exceptions for one over the other. (which isen't eqality anyway)

I'm so glad you said "some women" because I was about to go off. Your issue is not about feminism--it's about stupid women.

I consider myself a "feminist." I don't think abusing my husband or children will give me equal rights and I don't know any other women who believe that either. In fact, I agree with you. When I first moved in with my husband, his ex-wife came to our home and tried to start a fight. When we asked her to leave, she picked up our glass topped table and threw it, then calling 911 and saying she was abused. The police arrived and before any questions were asked my husband was taken to jail. Then the questions were asked. He spent the night in jail (no charges ever filed) and within 3 months my husband and I had custody of his 2 daughters.

The problem,imo, is "the system." I also believe my husband's case and the one you mention, are rare.

I don't think it's just the system I believe it's also women allowing this behavior. Most white people decrie racism and many white people work in organisations to fight it which reduces the problem. (there is racism from minority races towards whites and other races and this is an issue but I'm not going to follow that tangent) If all white people ignored racism to minoriteis the civil rights movment never would have happened. Or if minorities had allowd members of thier own race to be apethetic and indiferant continuing in thier "proper roles" (think cowing down and talking like a slave sterotype) the civilrights movement never would have gotten off the ground.

While cases might exist of femminst fighting against women playing the "sex card" I know of none and dought many exist which is a shame. I believe for women to be treated as equals those helping to held them back by their own sex should be dealt with. If women want total equality mabey taking issue with women who abuse the system or fall into the damsel role to get what they want from the system should be taken care of by women, and men for that matter. Speaking for myself it's alot harder to want to help women's eqality if many women are themselves apethetic about, or downright abusing their roles.

(rereading my post I could see that it might be taken as negative, I was actually just musing and not trying to condecend)

Quote from: "Will"[
But it's right there in the dictionary definition: feminists seek gender equality. Anything more than that and it stops being feminism. Feminism cannot be sexism. It's a semantic paradox.
We have issues with that over here, too. And I'd attribute those problems to sexism, the idea that men cannot be as good at parenting as women. It's based on old stereotypes.
This one isn't as simple as custody. I've dated a lot of women in my life, and I can't really think of one that could physically overpower me without a weapon. Even the one that took Krav Maga. Mind you, they could certainly strike me, but it wouldn't be as devastating as me striking them. And, frankly, men are much, much more likely to be involved in physical altercations, statistically.
Horribley unequal prison terms and prison conditions in the case of women
This is a simple financial issue. Less women are incarcerated, but they obviously require their own prisons, therefore they get it slightly better.
The general portrayal of men in the media, which then goes on the protect the image of women
This is a marketing issue. Check out the next electronics commercial you see, then compare it to the next food or homemaking commercial you see. Yeah, it's kinda annoying to see "stupid dad" commercials, but half of all entertainment is the sexual objectification of women, so I can't really complain.

Sorry, but I disagree with nearly everything you said.

Feminism, is defined as equal rights, but the oft left off addendum is "equal rights, for women". Have you ever seen a feminist supporting rights for men? Or for reforming a system that favors women? If it was about gender equality, it would be called gender equality, not feminism.

Yes, stereotypes about men being bad fathers, why is nothing being done about it? I thought stereotyping was supposed to be  bad thing?

Statisitcs have shown men and women are approximatley as lilley to be victims of DV, but no one gives a shit, as your attitude shows, where as if a woman is abused, there is an outcry ( quite rightly ). The fact that men suffering like this receive such short sfrift just makes the problem worse.

If a hundred men are incarcerated, and 10 women, pay 10 times more to house the men, not 5 times more, they deserve the same treatment, if womens prisons are over funded, the funds should be diverted o those more in need ( ie, the mens prisons )

No, its not a marketing issue, it is not ok to portray all men as stupid, just as it is not ok to portray all black people as stupid, even if it does sell more of your product.

Quote from: "Tanker"While cases might exist of femminst fighting against women playing the "sex card" I know of none and dought many exist which is a shame. I believe for women to be treated as equals those helping to held them back by their own sex should be dealt with. If women want total equality mabey taking issue with women who abuse the system or fall into the damsel role to get what they want from the system should be taken care of by women, and men for that matter. Speaking for myself it's alot harder to want to help women's eqality if many women are themselves apethetic about, or downright abusing their roles.

That's a very good point.

Quote from: "SSY"Sorry, but I disagree with nearly everything you said.

Feminism, is defined as equal rights, but the oft left off addendum is "equal rights, for women". Have you ever seen a feminist supporting rights for men? Or for reforming a system that favors women? If it was about gender equality, it would be called gender equality, not feminism.

"Feminism" (really, an outdated term) one half of gender equality. If men want equality, we'll just have to fight for it ourselves. I'll join the movement as soon as I actually am victimized by sexism. So far, I've not experienced it in any meaningful way (other than what I post next).

Quote from: "SSY"Yes, stereotypes about men being bad fathers, why is nothing being done about it? I thought stereotyping was supposed to be  bad thing?

This problem is rooted in two things: the "traditional" role of the father as bread-winner, and pedophilia. The traditional role thing isn't difficult to get over, I know several stay-at-home dads. The pedophilia thing is the main problem. Have you ever taken kids to a park without a woman present? I have. They look at you like you're Jack the Ripper or Carrot Top.

Quote from: "SSY"Statisitcs have shown men and women are approximatley as lilley to be victims of DV, but no one gives a shit, as your attitude shows, where as if a woman is abused, there is an outcry ( quite rightly ). The fact that men suffering like this receive such short sfrift just makes the problem worse.

Again, men and women on average have a large difference in physical strength. Think of the strongest woman you know and the weakest man you know, now allow them to fight in your imagination. I don't know about you, but it wasn't even a fair fight. I'm not saying women are incapable of defending themselves, but in a fight your average woman simply doesn't have the same physical capability as a man. It's just biology. We, as men, have more muscle mass and are larger.

Quote from: "SSY"No, its not a marketing issue, it is not ok to portray all men as stupid, just as it is not ok to portray all black people as stupid, even if it does sell more of your product.

The same commercials that show men as stupid are sexist against women in that they essentially make out the woman to only be interested in the best kind of Windex or fabric softener, so it's difficult to really say that they're somehow worse for one gender. Anyway, in more respectable media (things other than commercials and comedies), the "stupid man" thing really isn't that common.

Quote from: "Will"Think of the strongest woman you know and the weakest man you know, now allow them to fight in your imagination. I don't know about you, but it wasn't even a fair fight.

Here's my tangent.  

I know a lot of disabled people so my scenario comes out different.  One of my pals weighs about 75lbs and can't push his own wheelchair.  

Fighting dirty can make up the difference but women aren't usually raised that way.  I was, and it has saved my life a number of times.  If you are willing to take a bite out of the hand someone puts over your mouth, the balance can be changed.

***The average human bite can exert a force equal to or greater than 120 psi, only about 7 psi less than the average pit bull terrier.  The upper end on psi bite pressure for both animals is around 250 psi.

Will, you seem to acknowledge a lot of the problems facing men, but you seem curiously apathetic in general, or all too willing to explain it away.

Feminism, outdated term, yes, also an outdated movement.

Regarding the stereotypes, you obviously know they exist, but just don't care enough to try and restore some balance to the situation? If all men are branded as paedophiles due to the vanishingly small numbers of men who are paedophiles, surley something is wrong, and something needs to be done about it ( note, there are also female paedophiles, lest we forget a fact often ignored by writers with an agenda ). Men should not be excluded from the caring of their children, it seems on the one hand, that many women don't trust men enough to look after the children, yet those that don't are labeled deadbeats. It's as if, with the assistance of the state, that fathers are bieng margenilised to nothing more than ATM machines.

Yes, men are, on average, bigger than women. This does not make it, in any way acceptable for a woman to hit a man, and not expect an appropriate response ( a lot of men would be too sacred to fight back, knowing they would be branded as wife beaters by throngs of clucking feminists ). It is also interesting, that this disparity in brute strength often just leads women to pick up weapons, which is obviously a bad thing. What most of the MRA movement want is the acknowledgement that DV happens to men also, that there are high rates of female on male DV, and the cessation of portraying every man as a potential abuser by the so called " DV industry" along with an overhaul of police and similar procedures that automatically assume the man to be at fault in domestic incidences.

Disagree about the comercials, women are no longer portrayed as mindless homemakers, but instead as domestic goddesses who are forced to endure the ineptitude of their husbands. I agree though that the crossover into other media is limited.

Edit; note to self, don't put any fingers near kylyssa's mouth.

Kylissa, even with fighting dirty, the odds generally aren't going to be even imho. Besides, with most men once you fight dirty they start fighting dirty. It's "guy code", deep inside our DNA. I've even experienced it. It's surreal.

Quote from: "SSY"Will, you seem to acknowledge a lot of the problems facing men, but you seem curiously apathetic in general, or all too willing to explain it away.

I'd be willing to fight for paternal legal equality.

Quote from: "SSY"Regarding the stereotypes, you obviously know they exist, but just don't care enough to try and restore some balance to the situation? If all men are branded as pedophiles due to the vanishingly small numbers of men who are pedophiles, surely something is wrong, and something needs to be done about it ( note, there are also female pedophiles, lest we forget a fact often ignored by writers with an agenda ). Men should not be excluded from the caring of their children, it seems on the one hand, that many women don't trust men enough to look after the children, yet those that don't are labeled deadbeats. It's as if, with the assistance of the state, that fathers are being marginalized to nothing more than ATM machines.

I don't think I said I didn't care. I do care about the pedophile thing, I plan on being the world's greatest dad someday. I also care about hyperbole, though. I think you're exaggerating your case, and it's doing more damage than good. There are inequalities in our society for men and women. We should absolutely do our best to get over them, but we shouldn't lose our perspective. Divorced fathers may be unfairly used as cash machines, I'll grant you that, but that's quite simply nothing compared to, say, genital mutilation. I mean if we want to compare the worst of sexism against men to the worst against women, it's nightmarishly one sided. Let's try and fix the worst stuff first regardless of gender. Once we get rid of things like rape in arranged marriage, legal murder of spouses, and being stoned to death for being raped, then we can move on to the troubles our gender face.

Obviously the things you mentioned are terrible, but they all happen in other, rather less developed countries. Our government ( the UK ) could stop all the injustices against men in this country in a relativly short space of time, by putting through legislature and other measures. Heck, it would even be  a start if they stopped putting through legislature and campaigns specefically against men ( read; ditch Harman, ditch her hard ). The other countries are not under the jurisdiction of us, or any other world police, and we all know how well it goes when we stick our noses into countries that don't want us.

What would you suggest they do about the backwards attitude a large part of the world holds against women? Invade all these other countries and instigate a massive program of cultural change? Does that really sound feasible? Are there any feasible means to do this? Would any of them be easy and cheap?

On the other hand, our government is in a position to help out men in this country, yet they sit back and do diddly squat, it's reprehensible. I can't help but feel you are trying to deflect the issue onto other, less relavent issues. Those countries really could do with a feminist movement, we on the other hand, need quite the reverse.

Hehe, when I started reading the OP on this thread I knew that SSYwould be jumping in and onboard against the over-bearing all-powerful women.  :rant:

Quote from: "SSY"Obviously the things you mentioned are terrible, but they all happen in other, rather less developed countries. Our government ( the UK ) could stop all the injustices against men in this country in a relatively short space of time, by putting through legislature and other measures. Heck, it would even be  a start if they stopped putting through legislature and campaigns specifically against men ( read; ditch Harman, ditch her hard ). The other countries are not under the jurisdiction of us, or any other world police, and we all know how well it goes when we stick our noses into countries that don't want us.

They don't get to commit atrocities just because they have their own country.

Quote from: "SSY"What would you suggest they do about the backwards attitude a large part of the world holds against women? Invade all these other countries and instigate a massive program of cultural change? Does that really sound feasible? Are there any feasible means to do this? Would any of them be easy and cheap?[/QUTE]
The West is bad at waging military wars, but we're experts at cultural influence. I suspect the spark to light the fire of women's rights in these places is just injecting them with of a culture of equality in the form of media.

Quote from: "SSY"On the other hand, our government is in a position to help out men in this country, yet they sit back and do diddly squat, it's reprehensible. I can't help but feel you are trying to deflect the issue onto other, less relevant issues. Those countries really could do with a feminist movement, we on the other hand, need quite the reverse.

Like I said, I think you're exaggerating the need for this "men's rights" movement. And I don't see it as deflecting because the thread is about femenism, or equality for women. It makes sense to reference the worst cases of ineqaulity.

I'm Norwegian and having read many of the posts in this threads, most of the participants being American, my main impression is that the situation in Norway differs a lot from the situation in the USA.

It has been rhetorically "pointed out" that there are no feminists fighting for the rights of men. At least there are feminists fighting for men's rights in Norway - I will comment on this later.
First of all, this could easily be misunderstood as feminist = woman. Men can also be feminists. I have a male friend who has declared himself feminist and he doesn't in any way see how it collides with the fact that he is a man. I'm also a feminist because it's really a human matter. To claim that feminists want more and better rights than men is so utterly absurd that I won't say much about it. If that was feminism, it would be an ideology that worked it's way backwards into the future, a vendetta against all men on behalf of the millions of women who have suffered in the past and those who are being oppressed right now. Of course, it is understandable that we would like to punish all oppressors, but feminism is not about this.

Feminism and men's rights: Men have it all, with some exceptions. When a couple got divorced earlier in Norway, the woman got custody of the children in nearly all the cases. This is not so straight forward any more. With the best interest of the child in mind, the parent is given custody thereafter.

The father-role has been altered. Legally, the father can now take a lot of time off work to be with the new-born child. The modern Norwegian father/husband cleans the house, does the laundry, collects the children from kindergarten and school and spends overall much more time with the children than earlier. Norwegian women expect that men do their 50% of the domestic work. And men often want to do this. Also, they want to be with their children, raise them, help them and so on.

QuoteLike I said, I think you're exaggerating the need for this "men's rights" movement. And I don't see it as deflecting because the thread is about femenism, or equality for women. It makes sense to reference the worst cases of ineqaulity.

Ok then, I'll bite, please explain to me, how the fact that some women are circumsized in africa, means men should get screwed over in the UK? What possible reason, does the circumcision of women in Africa, have to cause the horribley unequal position men find themselves in the UK? How is it relavent at all?

Quote from: "SSY"Ok then, I'll bite, please explain to me, how the fact that some women are circumsized in africa, means men should get screwed over in the UK? What possible reason, does the circumcision of women in Africa, have to cause the horribley unequal position men find themselves in the UK? How is it relavent at all?

It's not horribly unequal. It's just unequal in some areas just as women are unequal in others. I freely admit that. Spousal abuse is illegal in the US and UK regardless of gender. If my girlfriend came after me with a baseball bat, I'd be well within my rights to call the police and have her arrested for assault. No inequality there. Even if the cops don't believe me, I can file for a restraining order. Bam, done.

You seem to be involved in some form of cognitive dissonance.
You allude the fact that the police would probably not beleive you, but you then you gloss over it. Did you know there are only 2 shelters for male victims of DV in the uk, yet over 500 for women for instance? This is way out of line with the incidences of domestic abuse.

Where are women treated unfairly? I genuinley can't think of a single instance.

Quote from: "SSY"You seem to be involved in some form of cognitive dissonance.
You allude the fact that the police would probably not beleive you, but you then you gloss over it. Did you know there are only 2 shelters for male victims of DV in the uk, yet over 500 for women for instance? This is way out of line with the incidences of domestic abuse.

Equality doesn't mean ignoring real differences, it means getting over false differences. Men and women are equally smart, likely equally capable of raising children, capable of most of the same careers, etc., but when it comes right down to physicality, men are on average much stronger. That means that in the rare (according to the DoJ, the ratio of domestic violence against men vs. women is about 8 to 1) cases that the man is a victim, the man must also be in a position where he can't simply defend himself, which lowers the number of cases requiring a shelter considerably.

In my case, I'm a 6' tall, 25 year old man that's in pretty decent shape. I could probably defend myself from a girlfriend or wife that had lost her temper and started getting physical. I wouldn't need a shelter and I wouldn't need the police to believe me, as I wouldn't need their protection just an officially filed 911 call to use to get a restraining order.

Quote from: "SSY"Where are women treated unfairly? I genuinely can't think of a single instance.

Women still only make something like $0.70 on the dollar compared to men. Women are either completely ignored or are over-coddled with sexual harassment law. Women being treated as sexual objects or second class citizens is still rampant even progressive places like the US and UK. Have you watched TV lately? Look at this:
It's common, it's blatant, and it's never corrected.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "SSY"You seem to be involved in some form of cognitive dissonance.
You allude the fact that the police would probably not beleive you, but you then you gloss over it. Did you know there are only 2 shelters for male victims of DV in the uk, yet over 500 for women for instance? This is way out of line with the incidences of domestic abuse.

Equality doesn't mean ignoring real differences, it means getting over false differences. Men and women are equally smart, likely equally capable of raising children, capable of most of the same careers, etc., but when it comes right down to physicality, men are on average much stronger. That means that in the rare (according to the DoJ, the ratio of domestic violence against men vs. women is about 8 to 1) cases that the man is a victim, the man must also be in a position where he can't simply defend himself, which lowers the number of cases requiring a shelter considerably.

In my case, I'm a 6' tall, 25 year old man that's in pretty decent shape. I could probably defend myself from a girlfriend or wife that had lost her temper and started getting physical. I wouldn't need a shelter and I wouldn't need the police to believe me, as I wouldn't need their protection just an officially filed 911 call to use to get a restraining order.

Quote from: "SSY"Where are women treated unfairly? I genuinely can't think of a single instance.

Women still only make something like $0.70 on the dollar compared to men. Women are either completely ignored or are over-coddled with sexual harassment law. Women being treated as sexual objects or second class citizens is still rampant even progressive places like the US and UK. Have you watched TV lately? Look at this:

It's common, it's blatant, and it's never corrected.

70 pence in the pound is just plain misleading, when correcting for experience, types of jobs worked etc you get 98 pence in the pound.

"An article entitled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum stated: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." [7]"

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html (http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html)

Any souces for sexual harrasment law claims? If anything, it seems women are pandered to in an extreme degree most of the time.

Again, any sources for second class citizens etc? Saying nothing is being done about is also untrue, my country has a specific equality minister, and a womens minister, both of whom fill thier days with this sort of claptrap.

As to your domestic violence figures, can I see that report? I am highly dubious of the figure, especially considering some toher reports I have read, I would be interested in thier testing methodology. Domestic violence agsint men is much more common than most people think, and it deserves an equally serious response.

Quote from: "SSY"70 pence in the pound is just plain misleading, when correcting for experience, types of jobs worked etc you get 98 pence in the pound.

"An article entitled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum stated: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." [7]"

http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html (http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html)

Whoa, slow down there. What study is this? All the article does is say that it's a study performed by "June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office"... that's not much to go on considering the statistics I'm referencing are from the US Census Bureau.

Quote from: "SSY"Any souces for sexual harrasment law claims? If anything, it seems women are pandered to in an extreme degree most of the time.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Quote from: "SSY"Again, any sources for second class citizens etc? Saying nothing is being done about is also untrue, my country has a specific equality minister, and a womens minister, both of whom fill thier days with this sort of claptrap.

Did you see the video? The video had very clear sexist remarks by both conservative and liberal newscasters (well, news "personalities"). Nothing was done to censor their ignorant and sexist remarks. We were talking about media, right?

Quote from: "SSY"As to your domestic violence figures, can I see that report? I am highly dubious of the figure, especially considering some toher reports I have read, I would be interested in thier testing methodology. Domestic violence agsint men is much more common than most people think, and it deserves an equally serious response.

I got it from the written by the Justice Department. I'm not sure how different the statistics are across the pond, but I can't imagine they're very different. (//http)

Quote from: "Will"Again, men and women on average have a large difference in physical strength. Think of the strongest woman you know and the weakest man you know, now allow them to fight in your imagination.

The girl won, hands-down, in every imaginable situation except when the guy had a gun.

I put her against the strongest guy and she still has a chance.

Hell, she could have beaten ME up, six times out of ten( The times when I wasn't able to take advantage of my greater speed and agility ).  I wouldn't fight her, I'd just run...In fact, she won the all-school arm wrestling competition.  So PHHHHHHH.
Of course, she lives on a farm...


Why hasn't anyone mentioned the draft?

OK, ladies, who here wants to be drafted into the military?  How many of you have signed up for the draft?

Quote from: "hobo child"Why hasn't anyone mentioned the draft?

OK, ladies, who here wants to be drafted into the military?  How many of you have signed up for the draft?

While I do think that it only makes sense for an gov that views men and women as equal to include the women in the draft, I'm not going to lobby for them to do it.

Let's lobby to get men excluded from the draft, that way we can both be equal.

Quote from: "Will"Let's lobby to get men excluded from the draft, that way we can both be equal.

Yeah, that's the way to go!

Quote from: "Will"Let's lobby to get men excluded from the draft, that way we can both be equal.

The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

Quote from: "Tanker"The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

Right...but they haven't gotten rid of it.  So, it's only a matter of time until they decide to open the draft again.  Both my grandfather, and my dad had to deal with worrying about getting drafted (my grandad enlisted so he could pick what part of the military he went into and my dad was rejected for not having depth perception).

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Will"Let's lobby to get men excluded from the draft, that way we can both be equal.

The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

It does still exist and men aged 18 to 26 are still required to register.  It just has not been necessary to institute for the past 30 years, there are plenty of volunteers and when that goes low they flash the sign-up bonus and voila! new recruits  

Quote from: "Tanker"The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

Then why do we have to register?

Quote from: "hobo child"

Quote from: "Tanker"The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

Then why do we have to register?

Because it still exists, it's just not active as there is no need at the moment.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "hobo child"

Quote from: "Tanker"The draft no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years or so. It's an all volunteer military in the US. The argument is rather moot.

Then why do we have to register?

Because it still exists, it's just not active as there is no need at the moment.

Wasn't there some talk of putting the draft back on active status at some point during this Iraq bs?

Quote from: "Whitney"Wasn't there some talk of putting the draft back on active status at some point during this Iraq bs?

I think they were worried they would have to do that but the recruits keep on coming and soldiers and Marines are re-enlisting so I guess that fear was put away...there was an issue with so many reserves being called over also, and I think there was some spin from groups opposed to the war brought up to get more people against it, as if that was necessary.  A friend of mine re-enlisted while he was in Iraq, he got a $20k bonus and a fancy thermos (that he gave to me).  He was back for a year or so and is back over there now, where people are still re-enlisting so I don't think it will be needed.

We talked about the draft and other issues like women in direct combat when I was in the Army.  I agree it's not a good idea, and it has nothing to do with women's ability to kick-ass either.  Sure would be nice to take men out of the draft as well, but hopefully volunteers will continue coming so it won't be an issue.

The draft is gone and you do NOT have to register for it.
(from wikipedia)

QuoteConscription in the United States (also called compulsory military service or the draft) has been employed several times, usually during war but also during the nominal peace of the Cold War. The United States discontinued the draft in 1973, moving to an all-volunteer military force, thus there is currently no mandatory conscription.

However, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency; men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed. More recently registration is not required, instead information is collected for each person after their 18th birthday.

(and on the selective service)

QuoteOn December 1, 1989, Congress ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a system capable of drafting "persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care and professional occupation", if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.[46] In response, Selective Service published plans for the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System " (HCPDS) in 1989 and has had them ready ever since. The concept underwent a preliminary field exercise in Fiscal Year 1998, followed by a more extensive nationwide readiness exercise in Fiscal Year 1999. The HCPDS plans include women and men ages 20â€"54 in 57 different job categories.[47] As of May 2003, the Defense Department has said the most likely form of draft is a special skills draft, probably of health care workers.[48]

So technicly there is in place plans for an extremely limited draft for qualified medical personel (or other extremly specilised skills) only in case of extreme national emergency. The draft for the vast majority of the public is not going to happen...ever... even in a war.

I reapeat this as a veteran (it was kinda my job to know stuff like this, among others) The draft is not in effect.

while registation for selective service for all men 18 to 25 is required(fixed it)(even illeagal aliens funnyily enough) it is not enforced in anyway especialy if you can prove you did not knowingly not
register

One last time there is NO draft.

Quote from: "Tanker"The draft is gone and you do NOT have to register for it.
(from wikipedia)

QuoteConscription in the United States (also called compulsory military service or the draft) has been employed several times, usually during war but also during the nominal peace of the Cold War. The United States discontinued the draft in 1973, moving to an all-volunteer military force, thus there is currently no mandatory conscription.

However, the Selective Service System remains in place as a contingency; men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed. More recently registration is not required, instead information is collected for each person after their 18th birthday.

(and on the selective service)

QuoteOn December 1, 1989, Congress ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a system capable of drafting "persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care and professional occupation", if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.[46] In response, Selective Service published plans for the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System " (HCPDS) in 1989 and has had them ready ever since. The concept underwent a preliminary field exercise in Fiscal Year 1998, followed by a more extensive nationwide readiness exercise in Fiscal Year 1999. The HCPDS plans include women and men ages 20â€"54 in 57 different job categories.[47] As of May 2003, the Defense Department has said the most likely form of draft is a special skills draft, probably of health care workers.[48]

So technicly there is in place plans for an extremely limited draft for qualified medical personel (or other extremly specilised skills) only in case of extreme national emergency. The draft for the vast majority of the public is not going to happen...ever... even in a war.

I reapeat this as a veteran (it was kinda my job to know stuff like this, among others) The draft is not in effect.

while registation for selective service for all men 18 to 25 (even illeagal aliens funily enough) it is not enforced in anyway especialy if you can prove you did not knowingly not
register

One last time there is NO draft.

Sorry, once again wiki is incorrect.  Registering is still a requirement, whether or not it can be fully enforced does not matter, there are several things that will be difficult for males (like obtaining student loans, etc.) if they have not registered and most states have even addressed this with adding it as a requirement as well.  Because it is not currently active and/or being implemented or utilized does not mean it does not exist and has been done away with as you state.  Your second source even proves it does exist and can at any time become effective again, even if they expect it to be in limited specialties.  It's a common misconception that this all went away after the Vietnam war, this is just not true.  I too was in the service, that is not really a novelty to this knowledge.

Sec. 454. Persons liable for training and service(a) Age limits; training in National Security Training Corps; physical and mental
fitness; adequate training facilities; assignment to stations and units;
training period; medical specialist categories
Except as otherwise provided in this title (sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix),
-5-
every person required to register pursuant to section 3 of this title (section 453 of
this Appendix) who is between the ages of eighteen years and six months and
twenty-six years, at the time fixed for his registration, or who attains the age of
eighteen years and six months after having been required to register pursuant to
section 3 of this title (section 453 of this Appendix), or who is otherwise liable as
provided in section 6(h) of this title (section 456(h) of this Appendix), shall be liable
for training and service in the Armed Forces of the United States: Provided, That
each registrant shall be immediately liable for classification and examination, and
shall, as soon as practicable following his registration, be so classified and
examined, both physically and mentally, in order to determine his availability for
induction for training and service in the Armed Forces: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, any registrant who has failed or refused
to report for induction shall continue to remain liable for induction and when
available shall be immediately inducted. The President is authorized, from time to
time, whether or not a state of war exists, to select and induct into the Armed
Forces of the United States for training and service in the manner provided in this
title (said sections) (including but not limited to selection and induction by age group
or age groups) such number of persons as may be required to provide and
maintain the strength of the Armed Forces.http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/MSSA-2003.pdf

We'll just have to agree to disagree but I sure know I had to provide the info on my son's FASFA and college applications.

You're right, Vanreal about registering being mandatory. It was a typo on my part however it really is not enforced. I belive now they just take the info at your 18th birthday, rather then requiring registration, wiki was NOT the only souce I checked but views seeemed to differ on the point from site to site.

Quote from: "Tanker"You're right, Vanreal about registering being mandatory. It was a typo on my part however it really is not enforced. I belive now they just take the info at your 18th birthday, rather then requiring registration, wiki was NOT the only souce I checked but views seeemed to differ on the point from site to site.

I found that too, it's kind of vague, and since it hasn't reared its ugly head or been of any consequence (nor do I think it ever will be) it really doesn't matter.  Personally I think everyone should have to do at least two years after getting out of high school, or reaching 18 if not in school.  I see a lot of nuckle heads that could use it to realize nothing comes for free.  (Although sitting around in the motor pool and playing bones in the field might not drive that point home, hehe  :headbang: !

http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm
Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.

Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.

Quote from: "VanReal"getting it back on topic it should be equal for both men and women....and feminists rock  :headbang:  :headbang: