why do men have to be so feckin obvious?

TrixieCat

Ahnimus wrote:

Egalitarianism is a good thing. It's an unbias cause. However, feminism, under the guise of egalitarianism, only seeks the advancement of female social influence.

It is a bit lopsided, dontcha think???
Why the hell would we try to advance men???? That is the point of feminism.
I think of egalitarianism as to equal all people. Meaning poor, rich, educated, illiterate, etc.
Feminism is an entirely different species, as it should be.
Are you going to find fault with the NAACP next?

MattCameronKicksButt

TrixieCat wrote:

It is a bit lopsided, dontcha think???
Why the hell would we try to advance men???? That is the point of feminism.
I think of egalitarianism as to equal all people. Meaning poor, rich, educated, illiterate, etc.
Feminism is an entirely different species, as it should be.
Are you going to find fault with the NAACP next?

Oh. I think I understand now. Thanks Trixie. No offense Ahnimus.

Some women take things too far - the post feminists/ladettes but women had to be tough to make a difference and thank God they were.

TrixieCat

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

Oh. I think I understand now. Thanks Trixie. No offense Ahnimus.

Some women take things too far - the post feminists/ladettes but women had to be tough to make a difference and thank God they were.

Some of any group can take something too far. Greenpeace is pretty much peaceful whereas PETA can be pretty radical. And there are organizations that make PETA look like the Girl Scouts.
I do not need to help advance the WMA.

FinsburyParkCarrots

This thread needs to get sexy back.

MattCameronKicksButt

TrixieCat wrote:

Some of any group can take something too far. Greenpeace is pretty much peaceful whereas PETA can be pretty radical. And there are organizations that make PETA look like the Girl Scouts.
I do not need to help advance the WMA.

I'm thinking of silly girls that act like men acting their worst. Like you sort of said this thread has been taken out of context right from the start so I'm going to leave now before I really kill it!

TrixieCat

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

This thread needs to get sexy back.

http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/6970-bigthumbnail.jpg

catefrances

TrixieCat wrote:

I know no one has the time or the desire to read back through the trainwreck that this thread is, so I will let you know that I do not feel that way.
However, I am a feminist, lover of animals, people and words.
So, you are free to draw you own conclusion. Most here already have I am afraid.

I was just teasing. Though I have pm'd someone about an obstinate cow and he found it quite amusing. You have to save that for the proper time.

yes, so many things need to be saved for the proper time and place.

Ahnimus

TrixieCat wrote:

It is a bit lopsided, dontcha think???
Why the hell would we try to advance men???? That is the point of feminism.
I think of egalitarianism as to equal all people. Meaning poor, rich, educated, illiterate, etc.
Feminism is an entirely different species, as it should be.
Are you going to find fault with the NAACP next?

I'll find fault in anything. Thankfully I can see the good parts to it. Though, when it comes to feminism it's fading fast and being replaced by equalism or egalitarianism.

Feminists generally accept that an over-representation of women is acceptable, but an over-representation of men is not.

MattCameronKicksButt

Ahnimus wrote:

I'll find fault in anything. Thankfully I can see the good parts to it. Though, when it comes to feminism it's fading fast and being replaced by equalism or egalitarianism.

Feminists generally accept that an over-representation of women is acceptable, but an over-representation of men is not.

Yes! Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Women have too much to live up to these days.

Some guy's get shouted down as soon as they voice their opinion. It's not fair.

TrixieCat

Ahnimus wrote:

I'll find fault in anything. Thankfully I can see the good parts to it. Though, when it comes to feminism it's fading fast and being replaced by equalism or egalitarianism.

Feminists generally accept that an over-representation of women is acceptable, but an over-representation of men is not.

I just have to say that I REALLY don't like the word generally.
Feminists have as many sub-groups as Democrats for crying out loud.

TrixieCat

catefrances wrote:

yes, so many things need to be saved for the proper time and place.

Like?


Ahnimus, feminism is a disjointed, dysfunctional group, at best. We are like the democrats in that we are struggling to find someone to lead us and yet the party is so spread out on all of the 'important' issues, we can't get it together.
I always will fight for the underdog...always.
And as a woman, I often find myself as the underdog. Am I very fortunate to be a white female born in America that took advantage of her educational offerings?? Yes, I am . I think everyone should be offered that.

MattCameronKicksButt

TrixieCat wrote:

Am I very fortunate to be a white female born in America that took advantage of her educational offerings?? Yes, I am . I think everyone should be offered that.

True. But you obviously don't have to suffer English 'Ladettes'. Apparently, post feminism.

Some girls take the feminism thing for granted and act like jerks.

TrixieCat

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

True. But you obviously don't have to suffer English 'Ladettes'. Apparently, post feminism.

Some girls take the feminism thing for granted and act like jerks.

Yes, I realize that. There are jerks everywhere.
Ready to beat you down. That is their own shortcoming MCKB...not yours.

Ahnimus

TrixieCat wrote:

Like?


Ahnimus, feminism is a disjointed, dysfunctional group, at best. We are like the democrats in that we are struggling to find someone to lead us and yet the party is so spread out on all of the 'important' issues, we can't get it together.
I always will fight for the underdog...always.
And as a woman, I often find myself as the underdog. Am I very fortunate to be a white female born in America that took advantage of her educational offerings?? Yes, I am . I think everyone should be offered that.

Are you sure that isn't an observer bias?

Cause, when I go to the welfare office they tell me "You are a white male, you should have no problems, welfare is only really here for women and minorities." or something to that effect. Likewise, when my friend's wife assaulted him, he was the one sitting in anger management therapy after court. How am I to fare in a child custody battle? I could afford car insurance if I had two X chromosomes, since I have a Y chromosome, insurance is 25% more.

So, perhaps this feeling of being the underdog is the feeling you get no matter what your sex, or race or place in society is.

MattCameronKicksButt

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you sure that isn't an observer bias?

Cause, when I go to the welfare office they tell me "You are a white male, you should have no problems, welfare is only really here for women and minorities." or something to that effect. Likewise, when my friend's wife assaulted him, he was the one sitting in anger management therapy after court. How am I to fare in a child custody battle? I could afford car insurance if I had two X chromosomes, since I have a Y chromosome, insurance is 25% more.

So, perhaps this feeling of being the underdog is the feeling you get no matter what your sex, or race or place in society is.

You're very bitter.

I will ask you one question. When a woman says she likes to have a lot of sex, do you think she's a slag? (Maybe not you personally but how many men do you know that would think that)? It's okay for a man to say it.

I still don't think all women are respected equally.

I understand what you mean though.

(Poor Helen,, this was supposed to be a light hearted thread).

Ahnimus

MattCameronKicksButt wrote:

You're very bitter.

I will ask you one question. When a woman says she likes to have a lot of sex, do you think she's a slag? (Maybe not you personally but how many men do you know that would think that)? It's okay for a man to say it.

I still don't think all women are respected equally.

I understand what you mean though.

(Poor Helen,, this was supposed to be a light hearted thread).

When I was a teenager, I was disgusted by men/boys and their attitudes about sex, but now I see that women are really no different. (A) they are all sluts or (B) it's just human nature. 5% - 10% of all children are the result of extra-marital affairs. If a woman tells me she likes sex, I'd like her even more. I've been with enough women that didn't really enjoy it, it's boring.

TrixieCat

Ahnimus wrote:

Are you sure that isn't an observer bias?

Cause, when I go to the welfare office they tell me "You are a white male, you should have no problems, welfare is only really here for women and minorities." or something to that effect. Likewise, when my friend's wife assaulted him, he was the one sitting in anger management therapy after court. How am I to fare in a child custody battle? I could afford car insurance if I had two X chromosomes, since I have a Y chromosome, insurance is 25% more.

So, perhaps this feeling of being the underdog is the feeling you get no matter what your sex, or race or place in society is.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you are paying more car insurance simply because you are a male??? Really??? Then why is my sister in law being paid less to do the same job her male counterpart is doing????
See???
It is unequal everywhere you look. I do NOT bode well in situations where people will not take responsibility for themselves. So please don't cry me a river about your woes. I am sorry, truly, that you are/may be going through some rough times. But lets see the statistics. White men vs women and minorities on welfare and WIC.

MattCameronKicksButt

TrixieCat wrote:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you are paying more car insurance simply because you are a male??? Really??? Then why is my sister in law being paid less to do the same job her male counterpart is doing????
See???
It is unequal everywhere you look. I do NOT bode well in situations where people will not take responsibility for themselves. So please don't cry me a river about your woes. I am sorry, truly, that you are/may be going through some rough times. But lets see the statistics. White men vs women and minorities on welfare and WIC.

:eek:











growwwl!

Ahnimus

TrixieCat wrote:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you are paying more car insurance simply because you are a male??? Really??? Then why is my sister in law being paid less to do the same job her male counterpart is doing????
See???
It is unequal everywhere you look. I do NOT bode well in situations where people will not take responsibility for themselves. So please don't cry me a river about your woes. I am sorry, truly, that you are/may be going through some rough times. But lets see the statistics. White men vs women and minorities on welfare and WIC.

My point exactly. If I say "There is an inequality here" you say "please don't cry me a river about your woes". Feminism at it's worst. On the other hand if I said "There is an inequality here" and it was women that were getting screwed you'd be all over that shit with your unwavering support.

Quite the request by the way, the best I could find for statistics is this:

The baseline probabilities reflect the general differences in SA rates by family type. The lowest rates are
for couples (7-10 percent), especially those without children (5.3 for women and 7.1 for men), singles
come next (16.7 and 10.7 percent for men and women, respectively), while lone-parents have the
highest rates (50.4 percent in the case of lone-mothers, 27.4 percent for lone-fathers). These values are
less than the related economy-wide averages principally because of the particular baseline
characteristics they represent, as noted above, but provide a good basis for looking at the differences
associated with each of the variables included in the models.14

The EI generosity index, whose effects were not predictable a priori, are in fact mixed. They are
positive for couples, both with and without children, suggesting that lower EI generosity has reduced SA
participation rates for such individuals. This is consistent with the “gateway” hypothesis, whereby
individuals are less likely to enter an EI–SA cycle when EI generosity is diminished. For single mothers,
however, the coefficient estimates are negative, suggesting that EI and SA tend to be substitutes. For
unattached individuals, the results are negative for men, positive for women; but while the effects are
statistically significant, they are generally not very strong.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2004231.pdf

It might appear negative for men because they can't actually get SA most of the time. EI is one thing, but welfare is a different story, I've been down to the Ontario Works office and had them tell me to my face "You should have a rich uncle." I do but he won't give me a dime. A co-worker of mine ran into the same problem.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Ahnimus wrote:

My point exactly. If I say "There is an inequality here" you say "please don't cry me a river about your woes". Feminism at it's worst. On the other hand if I said "There is an inequality here" and it was women that were getting screwed you'd be all over that shit with your unwavering support.

Quite the request by the way, the best I could find for statistics is this:

The baseline probabilities reflect the general differences in SA rates by family type. The lowest rates are
for couples (7-10 percent), especially those without children (5.3 for women and 7.1 for men), singles
come next (16.7 and 10.7 percent for men and women, respectively), while lone-parents have the
highest rates (50.4 percent in the case of lone-mothers, 27.4 percent for lone-fathers). These values are
less than the related economy-wide averages principally because of the particular baseline
characteristics they represent, as noted above, but provide a good basis for looking at the differences
associated with each of the variables included in the models.14

The EI generosity index, whose effects were not predictable a priori, are in fact mixed. They are
positive for couples, both with and without children, suggesting that lower EI generosity has reduced SA
participation rates for such individuals. This is consistent with the “gateway” hypothesis, whereby
individuals are less likely to enter an EI–SA cycle when EI generosity is diminished. For single mothers,
however, the coefficient estimates are negative, suggesting that EI and SA tend to be substitutes. For
unattached individuals, the results are negative for men, positive for women; but while the effects are
statistically significant, they are generally not very strong.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2004231.pdf

It might appear negative for men because they can't actually get SA most of the time. EI is one thing, but welfare is a different story, I've been down to the Ontario Works office and had them tell me to my face "You should have a rich uncle." I do but he won't give me a dime. A co-worker of mine ran into the same problem.

87.33% of statistics is bollocks.