"get back in the kitchen"

[MelziGurl]

I don't think I could handle being without work. My partner knows I'd never permanently quit working to stay at home, I'd at least go part time even with kids. I've never pushed for equality in everything, I'm quite happy personally with a little imbalance. For some reason (and I seriously cannot tell anyone why) I feel like too much equality will end up being a bad thing. This is my own view, I couldn't give a rats what others want.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

@ hoopyfrood: Let me see...

Roe Vs. Wade. Pretty sure that happened, unless there is some sort of 'Feminist control group' rewriting all the history books without anyone noticing. Personally, though, I doubt it. Feminists usually have better things to do with their time.

Women's suffrage: Now, again, I'm pretty sure that this happened as well. Everyone else seems to agree with me, including history professors and the like.

Divorce Tort reforms: Yep, again, as I can recall, womens property no longer becomes the property of their husbands when they get married, or rather, their total property is held in common, barring any pre-nuptial agreements.

Domestic and sexual violence 'Shield' laws: Again, unless the entire judicial system has become compromised, I'm pretty sure these happened, thus protecting women from being named as having been raped. Thank god.


You know, I'd say it's you who dosen't get it. You've cited shit for sources, produced shit-all for reasoning beyond the usual inane conspiracist paranoia. You might have been able to do that on 4Chan, but here, you're going to have people tearing you into shreds if you start spouting crap and can't back it up.



@ Labyrinth: In fairness, however, men are far more likely to me assaulted, murdered and in general subject to physical violence, so it's not as if some great bias does exist. By the way, I call troll on hoopyfrood. Care to ban it?

 

[Labyrinth]

Then don't act like the world's imperfections are some nefarious plot against women.

Whether they're intentional or not, it happens.

Now you're talking about Islamic societies, not the Western world.

No, I'm talking about the fact that when a woman wears say, a short skirt, she's immediately considered fair game for people to look at her however they wish and in a trial of sexual harassment it could be used by the defence as an invitation. And other such attitudes. It comes back to the idea of women being either Damned Whores or God's Police.

You're the one who decides whether or not to have sex, and under what conditions, and you're the the one who goes through the pregnancy. And since you insist that you should have have full freedom to do whatever you want with your body (and whatever is in it), then you should also have the appropriate responsibilities.

When those freedoms are actually the case you might have an argument, even then, if either partner wishes to use protection should it not occur? Shouldn't men carry things like condoms so that if they wind up in a bedroom situation it's still there? If both people take responsibility, as they should, the not only unwanted pregnancy would be avoided but also various STIs. To lay responsibility on one half is to lay blame there as well. It takes two to tango.

When you abort a baby, you are killing it (if the pregnancy has advanced to that stage). You are not killing anyone when you remove a tumor.

Even if it's just a zygote, it can still be as emotionally damaging as a tumour.

I am only referring to situations where the woman knowingly engages in unprotected sex. Not accidents.

Knowingly, and willingly, I presume? Even so, I vastly disagree. People don't use abortions as an alternative to contraception. It's a last-resort.

Hey, guess what: the world is full of thugs, criminals and psychopaths who will cheerfully beat, rape, murder, rob and a loot as much as they can get away with. They don't care if you say no, or if you don't like it, or if you're a woman. What do you think happens to a lot of men who go to prison? Suddenly there are six guys who all expect to have a go fucking the new guy. But I guess it only matters when it happens to women.

The woman in your example can avoid her fate by not getting drunk at a party full of strangers. That's very risky behavior, the same way getting drunk and walking through a bad neighborhood is. A man can avoid his fate by not going to prison (though he won't have much of a choice in the matter if he is wrongfully convicted).

90% of reported rapes happen to women, that sure as hell doesn't make the other 10% justified, okay or anything close to legal, consensual sex. The number is probably higher on the basis that men have more social stigma around what's easily identifable as rape. However, most women who are raped are raped by someone they know and trust. A boyfriend, a colleague, a friend. These people are often not criminals in the traditional sense. Some of them may not even consider what they do as rape, just because the woman didn't say no. How about if the situation happened in her own home, or at a party of friends? It does, just as male rape isn't prison-exclusive at all.

I did not say anything about any different groups, nor did I say that all women are doing something. I said that women, in general, decided that men should be sensitive. Once men did that, women, in general, decided that they don't like sensitive men.

That's just silly. It's like me saying that because men, in general, have decided that women are only attractive when they look like barbies then men, in general, will reject anyone who looks different.

Here is one example [http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articlemc.aspx?cp-documentid=8319151] that I am citing here because I saw it recently and thus didn't have to go looking for it.

Let me point out a few things about that. The situation they were in was not a matter of "Honey, I'll stay home with the kids, you work." but instead a matter of he wasn't able to get a job and as such was staying home. What she is ashamed of is the fact that she's married to an "unemployable" and who she sees as stereotypically female. She feels the 'man' in the relationship. This is where the flaw lies, that she cannot be the woman in the relationship and still be the breadwinner. It's a social, cultural shift which needs to happen, and is happening, but slowly. Presuming that if one is a stay at home father one will be divorced is one hell of a negative stereotype. In addition here are some things for you to read:
http://www.examiner.com/x-300-Fatherhood-Examiner~y2008m5d9-Stay-at-Home-Dads-The-Unintentional-Feminists
http://www.momsrising.org/blog/
http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/subtemplate.php?t=briefingPapers&ext=menshousework

 

[Rolling Thunder]

No, I just expect people to back up their statements with corroborating evidence. It's something of a leftover from when the Escapist was new and everyone held to a much higher intellectual/funny standard. All you produced was an article on MSN which Labyrinth just demolished.

And could you please cite what feminists are doing today to undermine equality? Because I've yet to see evidence. My mother is a femininst, and I can not recall her ever undermining equality.

 

[Labyrinth]

Well yeah, usually men look at women who wear short skirts. That's also precisely the reason why most women wear them. There have been some cases somewhere where a miniskirt etc. has been argued to be some kind of "invitation," but you're seriously delusional if you think that Western societies are like the Middle-East. Fact is that women can do pretty much whatever they want to.

Now that's one hell of a presumption. Who says that the skirt is for you? It might be for a boyfriend, or a girlfriend. It's no more an invitation than a woman wearing a sparkly pendant on a long-ish chain.

It's your responsibility. If you don't like it, don't have sex.

It's the man's responsibility too. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't fuck.

A pregnancy is not a fucking tumor. End of discussion.

You're taking a simile out of context.

If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have unprotected sex.

If only it was that simple.

What is your point?

That your generalisations are a crock of shit.

Except that isn't true, whereas what I said is true.

You know, I can point to thousands of porn sites, advertisements, social pressure to get thin and look sexy etc as my evidence for what I said being "true" to your value thereof. Where's your back-up?

The guy was exactly what a guy is supposedly supposed to be. A sensitive wimp who stays at home to change the diapers. But I guess that wasn't really what the woman wanted after all. In some other article I read recently, a woman talks about men who are "kitchen bitches." Men were encouraged to become like women, and women were encouraged to become like men, but suddenly women are unhappy about the situation. Almost seems as if the feminist utopia is bullshit.

Look! It's a gender role! Feminism isn't about saying "All men must be weaklings in the home!" and you're severely deluded if you think it is. This part of it is about men having the option, shameless, unstigmatised and supported, to be home dads just as women have the option of being shamless, unstigmatised and supported breadwinners.

 

[Graustein]

produced shit-all for reasoning beyond the usual inane conspiracist paranoia.

Where have I talked about conspiracies or exhibited paranoia?

I dunno, claiming to know what feminists really aim for in defiance of history, the common definition of the term, the persistent arguments of at least one self-identified feminist and common sense, all the while refusing to produce even the tiniest shred of evidence to support your claims beyond your own rhetoric seems just a bit paranoid to the layman. Although, if you squint, you can see it's not paranoia, merely bullshit.

EDIT: I'm glad you've managed to see behind the lies of feminists everywhere, and know what they're really after. Not even feminists can seem to agree on what the feminist movement is aiming for, what with all [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism] different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism] branches [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism] which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism] you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_feminism] are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism] undoubtedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism] aware [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism].

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Labyrinth, expecting me to not look at a woman wearing a short skirt is not only unreasonable, it is utterly insane! I really do hate to agree with hoopyfrood here, but somehow expecting that a man not look at an attractive woman, regardless of what she is wearing, is......batshit crazy. I sincerely hope I have misinterpreted your position, and that is all will say on this matter until your clarify the point.

produced shit-all for reasoning beyond the usual inane conspiracist paranoia.

Where have I talked about conspiracies or exhibited paranoia?

I dunno, claiming to know what feminists really aim for in defiance of history, the common definition of the term, the persistent arguments of at least one self-identified feminist and common sense, all the while refusing to produce even the tiniest shred of evidence to support your claims beyond your own rhetoric seems just a bit paranoid to the layman. Although, if you squint, you can see it's not paranoia, merely bullshit.

Well put.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Just strive for what you're comfortable with. Don't bother with what's normal or not.

Myself, I'd love to be a stay-at-home dad. I like to take care of people, and I want to be a good father figure (something I felt was lacking in my own life), so why not throw those 2 together? Plus I find it very rewarding to clean my room, most of the time it's the cleanest and tidiest place in the house. I take pride in that. I don't really like working for strangers, I want to work for the people I love, protect them and take care of them.

 

[Labyrinth]

Labyrinth, expecting me to not look at a woman wearing a short skirt is not only unreasonable, it is utterly insane! I really do hate to agree with hoopyfrood here, but somehow expecting that a man not look at an attractive woman, regardless of what she is wearing, is......batshit crazy. I sincerely hope I have misinterpreted your position, and that is all will say on this matter until your clarify the point.

I should expand on that, true. Appreciating aesthetics is one thing but the attitude which I see underpinning much of that is one of superiority and possession. I guess the idea that if it's on show, it's available. For example when a bulldyke friend of mine got wolfwhistled with a demand to watch by a man driving with what would be considered an attractive blonde. He doesn't actually want to watch he'd probably be revolted but he felt the need to state that he could. Obviously not the case all the time but in any discussion about sexism and gender there is grey. Lots and lots of grey.

A short skirt does not mean one is easy or available. Nor do large breasts, a shapely behind or an attractive face.

EDIT: I'm glad you've managed to see behind the lies of feminists everywhere, and know what they're really after. Not even feminists can seem to agree on what the feminist movement is aiming for, what with all [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism] the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_feminism] different [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism] branches [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_feminism] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_feminism] which [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism] you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_feminism] are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism] undoubtedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism] aware [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism].

Ohh! Don't forget the "Three Waves" of feminism!

 

[goerhgerhawv]

ban me for this post or something whatever i just signed up to this forum to say that hooperfrood is a genuine grade-A complete fucking idiot and i dont even like feminists

edti: seriously just post some sources, when i read your first couple of posts i was all "ok i'll sign up and explain that im pretty neutral so giving me a valid source might bring me round to his way of thinking" but then i read the rest of the thread and wished i hadnt

 

[goerhgerhawv]

read the edit i made

 

[Rolling Thunder]

@Labyrinth: I understand, however, the fact of the matter is that if a woman does wear a short skirt, she should expect that heterosexual men look at her in a sexual fashion, attempt to flirt with her and in general, prick up their ears (and something else, most likely) and pat her attention. Compliments as well. Sorry, but if we didn't, we'd nevr have any fun, and I doubt women would either. Personally, I flirt with every female between the ages of 18 and 45, so I'm probably guilty of this, but entirely unrepentant. What you describe, however, has convinced me of the validity of your point. A short skirt is not an invitation to sex, neither is dinner or so on.

But I feel it should be pointed out that the men who regard it as such tend to be few and far between.

hoopyfrood - Your vox pop is a bit silly. I'm fairly sure I manage to be fairly masculine and caring at the same time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the majority of men manage it. Simply because you are stuck between 'pussy' and 'cockbag' does not mean the rest of us are.

 

[Puzzles]

It isn't meant to be offensive, it's just that I'm a terrible chef so food prep should be done by m'lady who enjoys it, I'm sorry if I sound a bit curt sometimes when I suggest she keep making her super good foods.

 

[Labyrinth]

You want total freedom, but when it's time to take responsibility you'd rather give it to someone else, either fully or partially.

You're missing the entire point of this. The freedom to have a child doesn't land the responsibility squarely on the mother, and it's the same in use of protection. As I've said time and again. It takes two to tango.

IWhy isn't it that simple?

Because our endlessly beautiful world doesn't work that way. It is, as you say, full of shit. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it.

What generalizations? I simply said that the world is full of shit and women are not shielded from it by some magic bubble any more than men are. If you want to go out and get wasted with a bunch of strange men, you'd better be prepared for the risks involved.

So? The fact that men want women to be attractive and not fat (whatever those things mean to any individual man) doesn't mean they want them to look like barbie dolls. This is completely irrelevant anyway.

It's irrelevant because it's pointing out an equivalent flaw in your argument?

Except it doesn't really work that way, which is something feminists don't understand. Despite their visions of a feminist utopia where gender is rendered meaningless, they don't really like girly men and kitchen bitches. It's an all-too common story that a woman settles down with some sensitive, caring and submissive guy and then cheats on him with an exciting bad boy who laughs at feminism. Another common story is that a man acts in a sensitive, caring and submissive way and has no luck with women, but as soon as he starts acting like an asshole women can't get enough of him.

Why the Ladies Love Jon Hamm of 'Mad Men' [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/08/17/why-the-ladies-love-mad-men-s-jon-hamm.aspx]

Point me to these 'common stories' please. In addition, women's tastes vary enormously, just as men's do. One group of women are attracted to traits which another isn't. To say that just because the other isn't attracted (which is what you're doing) means that no-one ever wants it is bullshit.

In addition, I recommend you read this [http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml], or this [http://brokenporcelaindoll.blog.co.uk/2008/01/02/more_pretty_nice_guys~3516823] on those "Nice Guys" who act sensitive, submissive and caring in order to get women. Moral of the story is if you act friendly to get close to a woman then expect to fuck her later because you've been friendly you're doing it wrong.

@Labyrinth: I understand, however, the fact of the matter is that if a woman does wear a short skirt, she should expect that heterosexual men look at her in a sexual fashion, attempt to flirt with her and in general, prick up their ears (and something else, most likely) and pat her attention. Compliments as well. Sorry, but if we didn't, we'd nevr have any fun, and I doubt women would either. Personally, I flirt with every female between the ages of 18 and 45, so I'm probably guilty of this, but entirely unrepentant. What you describe, however, has convinced me of the validity of your point. A short skirt is not an invitation to sex, neither is dinner or so on.

But I feel it should be pointed out that the men who regard it as such tend to be few and far between.

Funny, I seem to meet a lot of them. It's also an underpinning thing in media, and a subtle, even subconscious thing amongst men who aren't stereotypical dickheads.