Thats actually a pretty clever way of looking at it.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
EDIT:
I've been to a Foo Fighters gig but I wouldn't have needed many fingers to count my age when Nirvana ended.
DOUBLE EDIT: I think this also counts as a combo-breaker.
Chivalry is dead. And wymen/womyn killed it.
- Thread starter jockslap
- Start date
Recommended Videos
EDIT:
I've been to a Foo Fighters gig but I wouldn't have needed many fingers to count my age when Nirvana ended.
DOUBLE EDIT: I think this also counts as a combo-breaker.
So chivalry and courtesy is not dead. Only a few people do not respond well to it 
But on the other hand, chivalry 'rules' did change when the man-woman relations changed. What men now cover pools of water for a woman to walk over ? But it is not just feminists that 'ended' it, it's also just a matter of changing times. Women don't need to be treated like they are made of porcelain anymore, because most of them can take care for themselves. And as a woman, I like it better this way.
But on the other hand, chivalry 'rules' did change when the man-woman relations changed. What men now cover pools of water for a woman to walk over
? But it is not just feminists that 'ended' it, it's also just a matter of changing times. Women don't need to be treated like they are made of porcelain anymore, because most of them can take care for themselves. And as a woman, I like it better this way.
Just figured I'd put my 2 cents in...
Let's start with house work; yes, in general, women do more cooking and cleaning. But there is more to house work than cooking and cleaning. Construction, repair, maintenance, and landscaping are almost entirely done by men. Honestly, I wouldn't mind cooking (I actually enjoy cooking, though hypothetically not in this example) and cleaning, if it meant I didn't have to haul around tools and materials, wrench out car parts, tear things down, build things up, lay bricks, dig holes, mow the lawn, etc.
How about wages? Let's do a little math, to find out the balance of pay for women, shall we? An average woman has 2 children in her life*. That means we've given out $99.60 to the men, or $0.996 per man. Now, if we give a 'man'-dollar to every woman (working and not), we've given out $80, or $0.80 per woman. Simply dividing out 80% of women work, we reach $1.00 for each working woman. Now, if we take into account women on maternity leave, we get $1.025 per woman. Adjust the male salary to a dollar, and we get that for every dollar a man makes, a woman, in fact makes 3 cents more.
As for job availability; a friend of mine is the local hiring manager for a retailer, and he has actually had to refuse more skilled male applicants (I don't mean all men are more skilled), and instead hire less skilled female applicants, solely because he must maintain a certain balance of male and female employees. Basically what I'm getting at is that companies are literally being set-back as far as worker competence is concerned by gender-feminismº.
The dispersion of girls in math and science in fact has nothing to do with women being 'forced' to do anything; the upper level of the language section of SATs is split 59% female, 41% male, whereas the math section is split 93% male, and 7% female (Sadly, I only have my psychology professor's word that her study was accurate, but those are her findings.). Understandably, people are less likely to go into a field that they're less skilled at.
Looking at abuse is quite a biased issue; looking around, there is a myriad of misandrist 'studies' about physical abuse, reporting figures like 70% of women in India being abused by their husbands (More on this later). The simple fact is; yes, men are more likely to physically abuse their wives. This is not to say women do not physically abuse men; as many as 40% of violent domestic abuse cases are perpetrated by women against men[a href = "http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm"]*. The primary reason this is so often overlooked is that, ironically as this thread is about, men are more chivalrous, and believe that they should simply take the abuse for the sake of the woman. However, the interesting side comes out in non-violent domestic abuse; women are far more likely to emotionally and verbally abuse men than men are to abuse women, though this goes virtually completely under the radar (To my knowledge, two quantitative studies on emotional and verbal abuse against men have been performed, neither of which are easily accessed by the public.).
On to the matter of actual feminist statistics; many are flat-out made up. Many more are modified and/or misrepresented. I will use my previous example of 70% of women in India are abused by their husbands. This statistic has been used as a scientific fact on many feminist papers (including my University's welcoming speech, sadly.). It is, in fact, neither 'scientific', nor true. The source of the data was a survey ('Ask a hundred people what they think' type of thing; this is not accepted in the scientific community as proof of anything.) about women in India. Obviously, there was a question on the survey about domestic abuse against women. [a href = "http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/images/fig5_low.jpg"]Here[/a]'s the chart showing the results of the question. What's wrong with it? The title is "Women who believe (domestic violence) is justified for at least one reason", while the vertical axis is labeled Women between 15 and 49 who have been abused by their husbands. It is impossible to determine what, if anything, this graph was ever meant to represent. And yet it was published in a United Nations survey, and used as fodder for gender-feminism.
In short, do your homework before you support any side of an argument.
P.S. More to come! It's just 3:00AM and I'm sleepy.
° Gender-feminism is the term for feminists who seek more than equality. The antithesis being Equality-feminism.
Let's start with house work; yes, in general, women do more cooking and cleaning. But there is more to house work than cooking and cleaning. Construction, repair, maintenance, and landscaping are almost entirely done by men. Honestly, I wouldn't mind cooking (I actually enjoy cooking, though hypothetically not in this example) and cleaning, if it meant I didn't have to haul around tools and materials, wrench out car parts, tear things down, build things up, lay bricks, dig holes, mow the lawn, etc.
How about wages? Let's do a little math, to find out the balance of pay for women, shall we? An average woman has 2 children in her life*. That means we've given out $99.60 to the men, or $0.996 per man. Now, if we give a 'man'-dollar to every woman (working and not), we've given out $80, or $0.80 per woman. Simply dividing out 80% of women work, we reach $1.00 for each working woman. Now, if we take into account women on maternity leave, we get $1.025 per woman. Adjust the male salary to a dollar, and we get that for every dollar a man makes, a woman, in fact makes 3 cents more.
As for job availability; a friend of mine is the local hiring manager for a retailer, and he has actually had to refuse more skilled male applicants (I don't mean all men are more skilled), and instead hire less skilled female applicants, solely because he must maintain a certain balance of male and female employees. Basically what I'm getting at is that companies are literally being set-back as far as worker competence is concerned by gender-feminismº.
The dispersion of girls in math and science in fact has nothing to do with women being 'forced' to do anything; the upper level of the language section of SATs is split 59% female, 41% male, whereas the math section is split 93% male, and 7% female (Sadly, I only have my psychology professor's word that her study was accurate, but those are her findings.). Understandably, people are less likely to go into a field that they're less skilled at.
Looking at abuse is quite a biased issue; looking around, there is a myriad of misandrist 'studies' about physical abuse, reporting figures like 70% of women in India being abused by their husbands (More on this later). The simple fact is; yes, men are more likely to physically abuse their wives. This is not to say women do not physically abuse men; as many as 40% of violent domestic abuse cases are perpetrated by women against men[a href = "http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm"]*. The primary reason this is so often overlooked is that, ironically as this thread is about, men are more chivalrous, and believe that they should simply take the abuse for the sake of the woman. However, the interesting side comes out in non-violent domestic abuse; women are far more likely to emotionally and verbally abuse men than men are to abuse women, though this goes virtually completely under the radar (To my knowledge, two quantitative studies on emotional and verbal abuse against men have been performed, neither of which are easily accessed by the public.).
On to the matter of actual feminist statistics; many are flat-out made up. Many more are modified and/or misrepresented. I will use my previous example of 70% of women in India are abused by their husbands. This statistic has been used as a scientific fact on many feminist papers (including my University's welcoming speech, sadly.). It is, in fact, neither 'scientific', nor true. The source of the data was a survey ('Ask a hundred people what they think' type of thing; this is not accepted in the scientific community as proof of anything.) about women in India. Obviously, there was a question on the survey about domestic abuse against women. [a href = "http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/images/fig5_low.jpg"]Here[/a]'s the chart showing the results of the question. What's wrong with it? The title is "Women who believe (domestic violence) is justified for at least one reason", while the vertical axis is labeled Women between 15 and 49 who have been abused by their husbands. It is impossible to determine what, if anything, this graph was ever meant to represent. And yet it was published in a United Nations survey, and used as fodder for gender-feminism.
In short, do your homework before you support any side of an argument.
P.S. More to come! It's just 3:00AM and I'm sleepy.
° Gender-feminism is the term for feminists who seek more than equality. The antithesis being Equality-feminism.
Great discussion to be had, there, not at all baiting like a troll.Eggo said:
This is a very sensitive issue, and the fact that such disgusting abuse still occurs in our 'civilised' society is terrible...but none of those people are here, I'll wager.
A very small percentage of men as a gender are rapists and murderers - yet a few of you seem to be arguing that men as a whole still have this dominance over women.
None of us should have to apologise because none of us were a part of those many generations in which it was okay to beat and rape women.
I find it rather offensive when I'm grouped together with warped, shit excuses for human beings on the basis that I have testicles too. The statement "men beat women" is false, the statement that "some evil bastards beat women" is true.
Frankly, I find it sexist.
Edit; Only the first line was replying to you, Eggo, that rant wasn't specifically directed at you, hope it doesn't seem that way.
you're not seeing my point: this was your problem to begin with, and it will stay your problem. you say chivalry is dead. you think these women are bad. YOU want help. you come to us, asking for that help.jockslap said:
you can twist and turn it any which way you want, but if you blow the sand of the chest, that's what remains. i'm not condemning anyone here, but you're trying to defend with your problem, which is as useless as making this thread in the first place. i'm not going to argue this further, as you will probably not answer this post properly either, and one way communication does not work out.
Speaking of which, did you ever come across the theory of 'Leaving the past where you found it.'Eggo said:
(God I love being snide)
Might I weigh in on the similar examples of Finnboghi.
Okay, my mother is a nurse, and my father a surveyor (Quantity). When they were both employed AND my mother was working a night shift, my dad was still grossing around 25/30% more than she was despite the fact that she spend longer being trained, is a couple of years older and there is a nursing shortage in Great Britain.
This is clearly a case of something going horribly wrong. Given the amount of training that is required to become a nurse (a fair amount) coupled with the often diabolical working conditions, godawful hours and the persistant shortage of them, surely, in accordance with Supply and Demand, my mother should have been making far more money than my father?
And she didn't.
Which leads me
to my next conclusion. There is something fundamentally wrong with the current valuation of goods and services. A nurse, will provide far more in the way of keeping the entire nation going than most other proffessions (outside of the police, fire and other health care proffessionals). So why are they so badly paid?
I can't answer that question.
And chivalry is not dead. Why, only yesterday I helped a woman carry her shopping inside her house, before going off to burn an entire city to the ground.
In fact I did, that's where I got my proof for that statement from, and the simple matter is, as this man shows, most men are unaware that they are in fact granted a certain amount of family time. Yes, it is equally available. No, it is not equally taken. The simple fact that only 2% of stay at home parents are the fathers shows the imbalance of men and women taking time off to raise their children.Eggo said:
Also, granted, he's a bit of a nut-job.
I think people aren't getting what I was saying about "The Vagina Monologues" and "The Men's Story Project." I wasn't judging based on heresay, I was forming an opinion through research. I was simply pointing out that with the advancement in female society, the major female viewpoint of men being generally bad seems to not be diminishing, at least on the general level. I said that women should be more like *this* when referring to TMSP, "this" meaning the play itself and having more open feelings toward the other gender; not more like *them,* as I would not want to insinuate women should be more like men.
I realize that some women *are* more open and questioned why their plays aren't getting the spotlight instead of the one-sided ones. Not all of the Monologues are against men; some do not involve men at all. That's fine. Just put some positive examples in there of men to keep it balanced, okay? That was basically my point. As I may be invited to said Monologues someday, possibly by a future girlfriend, I would not want to be put in the position of either condoning something I was not comfortable with or taking a stand which may be misinterpreted as anti-feminine.
How about instead of pointing out all the bad examples and focusing on the negative, and berating people for it, we point out some positive things and focus on them, and encourage people to be more like that? I was simply pointing out how ironic it was that the major women's play is more the former and the major men's play is more the latter. I am sure there are cross-examples of both, I just wish the positive women would get more recognition, that's all. I would actually *like* to see one of the positive plays.
ASIDE: Upon further research of TMSP and my own post, I see I misdescribed TMSP pieces on homosexuality as "tolerant," when they are clearly more about acceptance and learning to coexist positively. That was my misnomer. It was late and I was tired, so my word choice got skewed. My bad.
ASIDE 2: As for the comment about how one-sided the last couple millenia have been, well we don't live there anymore do we? *I* didn't commit those horrible acts against women, and I'd wager that at least in the more developed societies of the world women of our current generation have not had to suffer like that either. I am not so naive as to be blind to the fact that there is still *discrimination*, but hardly to the amount and intensity of even 100 years ago. I am very upset when any group of people blame me for other's actions simply because I share their traits. I pointed out how I realize not all women are one-sided and I wanted those open women to get more recognition so I can see their culture too, that's all.
I realize that some women *are* more open and questioned why their plays aren't getting the spotlight instead of the one-sided ones. Not all of the Monologues are against men; some do not involve men at all. That's fine. Just put some positive examples in there of men to keep it balanced, okay? That was basically my point. As I may be invited to said Monologues someday, possibly by a future girlfriend, I would not want to be put in the position of either condoning something I was not comfortable with or taking a stand which may be misinterpreted as anti-feminine.
How about instead of pointing out all the bad examples and focusing on the negative, and berating people for it, we point out some positive things and focus on them, and encourage people to be more like that? I was simply pointing out how ironic it was that the major women's play is more the former and the major men's play is more the latter. I am sure there are cross-examples of both, I just wish the positive women would get more recognition, that's all. I would actually *like* to see one of the positive plays.
ASIDE: Upon further research of TMSP and my own post, I see I misdescribed TMSP pieces on homosexuality as "tolerant," when they are clearly more about acceptance and learning to coexist positively. That was my misnomer. It was late and I was tired, so my word choice got skewed. My bad.
ASIDE 2: As for the comment about how one-sided the last couple millenia have been, well we don't live there anymore do we? *I* didn't commit those horrible acts against women, and I'd wager that at least in the more developed societies of the world women of our current generation have not had to suffer like that either. I am not so naive as to be blind to the fact that there is still *discrimination*, but hardly to the amount and intensity of even 100 years ago. I am very upset when any group of people blame me for other's actions simply because I share their traits. I pointed out how I realize not all women are one-sided and I wanted those open women to get more recognition so I can see their culture too, that's all.
look it's certainly not that im against women or think that the women are plotting against us, nor am i saying that all of the abuse and poor treatment women had to endure throughout the ages didn't happen. What im saying is that i think the powerful negative reaction of some women, or as i like to call them womyn to something as nice and considerate as opening a door, or helping pick up some dropped books, or offering to help with groceries or something, is rather annoying. By the same token im sure men would do the same or at least similar things where the history of sexism flipped, and i would still feel that the extreme feminist (or male-ist in this case) reaction is uncalled for. As theklng said, perhaps this whole thread is all about me and im just too stupid to realize it. Or perhaps where i live the extreme feminist attitude is considerably more common. whatever the case, other people seem to have noticed exactly what im talking about.
by the way guys (and gals!), regardless of wether ur posts where for my point or against it or even for ur own point, i think its really cool that the discussion has gone this well, im quite happy
by the way guys (and gals!), regardless of wether ur posts where for my point or against it or even for ur own point, i think its really cool that the discussion has gone this well, im quite happy
It's the hauling the 50lb bags up a ladder that isn't rated to support me that I object to. No, I will stay on the ground and do the dishes.Bulletinmybrain said: