"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[Stasisesque]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

Edit: Oh dear god, do NOT Google this. Even taking the appropriate cautions, just don't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

I wish you could link that; that would definitely be a historical curiosity that I've never heard of before. Likely to be something like the Antykythera mechanism, though; a technological curiosity in its own time that was lost and independently reinvented centuries later. Although I can't picture any woman with enough money and power to get someone to use the town mill to power a dildo in /any/ time -- or a man with that much money, frankly. That is definitely an odd thought.

 

[Ricky 49]

Yeah i got to agree with most of this

gender roles on the whole are a bad thing for both men and women not to be too dramatic but its a very oppressive force. to be expected to act aspire to certain things just because your born one sex or the other.

each these issues. have their effect and counter effects on the opposite sex

for example the one you mentioned
Women: slut shamming
Men: virgin shaming

also the child custody
Men: its much harder to get full custody of child than for a woman. but easier for them to walk out their responsibly (not considered a good thing at all but its still easier for men)
Women: much easier to gain full custody for the child. much harder for them walk out on their responsibility

Anti-feminism also an issue, its getting pushed back recently which is good it was a lot worse a few years ago. when there was a lot of books/films/t.v shows that depicted women struggling with careers and only being happy when they found a man that looked after them. Fortunately in last year or two have seen an increase in sales of feminism texts (texts that feminist academics consider good ones at that) to the extent that they are frequently on the top sellers list at book stores.

one issue i do have is that some feminist texts are criticized by other feminists for literally not blaming men enough and thereby inadvertently blaming women. i'm my opinion i don't valid reason to disregard a feminist text, just because you don't blame men doesn't mena you blame women either. I think its the system and culture we live in (which in all likelihood was made by men) that causing all problems. to throw blame at either sex just causes antagonisms which will just further any resentment between men and women and make this serious problem that much harder to solve. that's not to say you can't blame individuals if you meet a sexist pig, you have every right to tell them "you are sexist pig."

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

Ok well thats as much a psychological need as a societal one. Women do not have to fight for custody aand if they dont want it then thye shouldnt. They might be pressured to take it but it isnt fair on the child to do that. Men are equally competent. Women arent impoverished and if custody is an issue then they had the children by choice or atleast what led to the children. Read what Lilith has been saying all throuhout the thread. Its passive aggressive sexism against men from the start. To dismiss such a blatant aspect of gender inequality 'because they're men' is ignorant and offensive. She said nothing to remedy this that I can see so im not sure where you are coming from. Op has demonstrated she is competent at being a consistently stupid poster with this thread and everywhere else she has opened her damn mouth and im sick of hearing it so I want to confront her about this because I find it unacceptable.

I don't think you get it. Would you not fight for the custody of your child simply to make a statistic more balanced? Of course not. The fault lies with the courts who always rule in favor of the mother, not the mothers themselves.

Also, women are impoverished. Just take a short glance at the poverty rates for single female headed households. Go ahead, I'll wait. Pretty steep in comparison to every other type of household, huh?

And I really don't think Lilith has stepped as far out of line as you think, you just can't read women's studies. It is a language that is beyond many of us. That later half of the first paragraph was basically Lilith saying that feminists do care about these issues, they just see it as being a product of gender roles and patriarchy, something I'm inclined to agree with.

Edit- Sorry for misleading you as to what sex Lilith is. I can't read profiles correctly apparently. Whoops.

 

[Bertylicious]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

I can't link it because it's an exhibit at the British Museum - but there is quite a lot of evidence that vibrators, not dildos, have existed for quite a lot longer than the past 200 years. Some were attached to horse drawn motors to simulate motion - which, when you really think about it, is pretty damned disturbing. And of course, as you say, dildos have been around for almost as long as penises.

A horse powered dildo! What a marvelous coming together of virility, sexuality and freedom!

God I love people.

 

[ablac]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

Looking at the concepts of the glass ceiling and the glass escalator leads me to believe that there is still a whole lot of discrimination going around, just not active discrimination. And rarely is the reason for this discrimination so. Usually people just do it. A family man usually has no problems getting hired. A single father? maybe. A single mother? Definitely. If it were true that having children would make someone less attractive to an employer those three would be at least relatable, but the poverty rates for single mothers is absolutely staggering.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

 

[ablac]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

 

[Lieju]

Well, in junior high and elementary school, my best friend was a guy (I'm female myself). Actually, he's still my best friend, but as we went to different universities, we aren't as inseparable any more.

In any case, our relationship was never sexual, at all. Me being a lesbian having a lot to do with that.
But, as we were spending so much time together, obviously we must have been a couple, and as we denied it, certain people started bullying us about it.
Especially about our wild sex-life that few of the bullies really went out of their way to invent and describe...

I don't actually know, whether they did it because they knew we weren't having sex, or because they thought we were. Probably both, but we both got bullied the same way.

As for virgin shaming, there was that for girls as well. One girl made up sex stories (I might have been a virgin, and a lesbian, but I knew enough about biology to know penises did not work the way she claimed) because she was bullied for being a virgin, and of course she got then the reputation for being a whore...

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

Looking at the concepts of the glass ceiling and the glass escalator leads me to believe that there is still a whole lot of discrimination going around, just not active discrimination. And rarely is the reason for this discrimination so. Usually people just do it. A family man usually has no problems getting hired. A single father? maybe. A single mother? Definitely. If it were true that having children would make someone less attractive to an employer those three would be at least relatable, but the poverty rates for single mothers is absolutely staggering.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

Well the anecdotal evidence you're throwing out does and doesn't seem to agree with what I'm saying. The former piece about your dad just may be evidence that could be used to say that in fact single mothers simply are looked down upon in our society and presented with less opportunities, unless you can also claim he did the same with poor, young fathers, single or otherwise. The latter simply doesn't agree with the data at all. Be happy you're one of the lucky ones I suppose. As for poor people having more children in unstable families, I don't know if that can reasonably be claimed. I'm not going to call you out on it as I need to sleep, but I don't think you're quite right on that or the idea that single mothers were usually poor beforehand.

 

[ablac]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

Ok well thats as much a psychological need as a societal one. Women do not have to fight for custody aand if they dont want it then thye shouldnt. They might be pressured to take it but it isnt fair on the child to do that. Men are equally competent. Women arent impoverished and if custody is an issue then they had the children by choice or atleast what led to the children. Read what Lilith has been saying all throuhout the thread. Its passive aggressive sexism against men from the start. To dismiss such a blatant aspect of gender inequality 'because they're men' is ignorant and offensive. She said nothing to remedy this that I can see so im not sure where you are coming from. Op has demonstrated she is competent at being a consistently stupid poster with this thread and everywhere else she has opened her damn mouth and im sick of hearing it so I want to confront her about this because I find it unacceptable.

I don't think you get it. Would you not fight for the custody of your child simply to make a statistic more balanced? Of course not. The fault lies with the courts who always rule in favor of the mother, not the mothers themselves.

Also, women are impoverished. Just take a short glance at the poverty rates for single female headed households. Go ahead, I'll wait. Pretty steep in comparison to every other type of household, huh?

And I really don't think Lilith has stepped as far out of line as you think, you just can't read women's studies. It is a language that is beyond many of us. That later half of the first paragraph was basically Lilith saying that feminists do care about these issues, they just see it as being a product of gender roles and patriarchy, something I'm inclined to agree with. And please stop calling Lilith a she. Lilith is a man. A man-y man man man.

Ok then shes a man who acts like a woman ignorant of men. I dont see in that paragraph anything supportive or sympathetic towards men. I read 'men have complete control of society and the law and thus the law pushes children upon men' men have a hard time getting a fair custody trial simple as that. The law is bias in favour of women and has been for a long time. The latter half reads 'society is a patriarchy and thus feminists do not care about male problems because women are a minority' they arent. I cant see how you view this in any way sympathetic and that is a fair translations ive read that paragraph plenty to tyr and see where your coming from but I just dont see it. I never, ever, said that single mothers are not empoverished. I agree with you that they have the highest poverty rate. I simply said it wasnt solely down to being a single mother which is true. It comes from all sources. Most notably that many single mothers were either in poverty or pretty poor to begin with. It takes little to push them over the line and you seem to be saying thats not the case.

 

[Bertylicious]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

There's a homeless bloke in the local park who believes that the Russians are out to get him and the only way to conteract polonium poisoning is to drink lighter fluid. Hilarious as he is it doesn't stop his beliefs from being wrong.

I will say it again: sex is awesome and should be encouraged. People that don't think sex is awesome and should be encouraged are wrong and, like poor old Jake, damaged.

 

[Hagi]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents .

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

 

[ablac]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

Looking at the concepts of the glass ceiling and the glass escalator leads me to believe that there is still a whole lot of discrimination going around, just not active discrimination. And rarely is the reason for this discrimination so. Usually people just do it. A family man usually has no problems getting hired. A single father? maybe. A single mother? Definitely. If it were true that having children would make someone less attractive to an employer those three would be at least relatable, but the poverty rates for single mothers is absolutely staggering.

Theres also the fact that amongst women who become single mothers poverty rates are pretty high anyway as in they start poor before becoming mothers. The potential to be a parent whom will need to devote care and attention to a child rather than a job simply isnt attractive to an employer. My father has told me this many times that if he thinks a women is going to have a child or has a young child he will simply conduct an interview in such a way to stop them getting a job. Heisnt sexist at all but he knows that if he doesnt he will be sacked from interviewing and someone else will do what he does and people he lets in will all have to go under scrutiny as his judgement is now under question. This is rampant and he has been doing this for decades. He works for network rail by the way. This is anecdotal but it is a good insider view of it. On the other hand my mother who is a single mother, whom I still legally live with, has, since my early childhood, been going from high end job to another from head of east coast stations to negotiating high grade contracts. This sint showing off we arent wealthy or rich but it causes me atleast to question your argument from my personal experience as she is like most of her freinds in this regard (single mother with high paying job). Being a single mother does not necessarily cause poverty its just that the poor, for many reasons, have many more children in unstable familys. That seems to be the case and its a shame.

Well the anecdotal evidence you're throwing out does and doesn't seem to agree with what I'm saying. The former piece about your dad just may be evidence that could be used to say that in fact single mothers simply are looked down upon in our society and presented with less opportunities, unless you can also claim he did the same with poor, young fathers, single or otherwise. The latter simply doesn't agree with the data at all. Be happy you're one of the lucky ones I suppose. As for poor people having more children in unstable families, I don't know if that can reasonably be claimed. I'm not going to call you out on it as I need to sleep, but I don't think you're quite right on that or the idea that single mothers were usually poor beforehand.

Alright what I was saying is that, from someone with plenty of experience, yes there is discrimination. However it is not because of societal prejudice but because they wont be able to do the job as well. Society doesnt hate women. Reality stops women from being employed as easily. It isnt a matter of 'your a guy, thus you are better' its 'your a woman, you stand a good chance of getting pregnant/having to deal with children rather than do your job and we dont want to employ you because it costs us more and your probably gonna work less as theres only so much time in a day'. The pint I was trying to make with the second one was that competent, skilled people get jobs. If you arent like that then things such as gender, when there are few other differing factors, and the previously mentioned practicality issues, matter a whole lot more.

 

[Bertylicious]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents .

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

God you make it all sound so solemn and dramatic. Sex isn't some kind of contract and the emotional damage you're talking about stems, I reckon, from people damaged by loneliness and sexual isolation. If we had a healthier attitude to sex it'd be heaps better.

As for this business about STDs and the horror of conception I would advise using protection, although we desperately need to come up with alternative to the condom.

 

[ablac]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

Can you read? I said people, for whatever reason, dont share your view on sex. Some believe promiscuity is wrong and many dont desire it. to encourage it is to make those people somehow wrong when it really shouldnt be encouraged or discouraged. some believe that sex is only for reproduction, this isnt merely a religous argument befoe you say it. Some believe that people shouldnt have sex casually as they are not prepared for the natural consequences that might come about. Are you that ignorant to not know these things?

There's a homeless bloke in the local park who believes that the Russians are out to get him and the only way to conteract polonium poisoning is to drink lighter fluid. Hilarious as he is it doesn't stop his beliefs from being wrong.

I will say it again: sex is awesome and should be encouraged. People that don't think sex is awesome and should be encouraged are wrong and, like poor old Jake, damaged.

Crack, Cocaine, Ecstasy. They can also be pretty awesome. People look down on the users and they fear the consequences and dont like people who are so damn irresponsible. You dont seem to uderstand that just because something is enjoyable and possibly healthy in some ways doesnt make it right and those who dont like it wrong. Ever heard of a little thing called subjective opinion? It means people can have different views with no one being 'right' and no one being 'wrong'. Sex has a lot of consequences and I dont respect people who dont respect that fact and press on anyway. Not saying you should go celibate but im saying that its ignorant to think that enjoyable=good. what about children? What if the rubber breaks or she forgets to take the pill? What then? Abortion? well nice work your irresponsibility just created a whole new wave of nasty. Abortion is a seperate argument but thats how people can view it. Things have consequences and you dont seem to care for them.

 

[Sacman]

Well I have one thing to say on topic...<.<

and Jim Jefferies says it fine...

and as far as the whole feminist speech... well we already have legal equality... which seems to be at this time fairly skewed to support women... though social equality has yet to surface... mostly because, socially, men and women are expected to fill different roles and thus different expectations are applied... Now I'm not one to preach gender roles, I simply don't believe in them... however, it seems to be the driving force behind a lot of inequalities for both genders... but the idea that we live in a society that actively represses women is just wrong... but the OP is very biased and seems to generalize most men as objectifying scum bags that conspire against women rights...

 

[Zeckt]

Is it not ironic that in 50 years from now, people will look back and think "wow, they were really backwards back in 2010+. Women were insulted for simply enjoying sex while men were idolized for it? and they never actually tried to determine which parent is best for child custody?!"

Same thing as we do now about the 1950's and treating women like crap. But yeah, I lost my virginity fairly late and was ridiculed to the EXTREME at work. Double standards suck!

 

[ablac]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?

If I may weigh in here.

Not sure if this is what ablac means but wanted to add my two cents .

Sex isn't bad but it is a serious matter.

On the simplest level there are STDs and pregnancies, both of which you risk even when using protection. Above that are the emotions that come with sex, especially for less experienced people it can be a very, very intimate thing with heavy and serious emotions that come along with it. Both your own emotions and those of your partner have to be taken into account. There are other things as well that come into play when sex gets involved.

Promiscuity can easily lead to many problems when sex is no longer taken seriously and unfortunately it's not so rare for promiscuous people to forget about these things. And even if they themselves are capable of dealing with it all their partners may not be.

That's not to say that promiscuity is bad, there are undoubtedly many promiscuous people who do take sex seriously. But it's not something that should overall be encouraged for everyone and it certainly is possible to have moral qualms with it. It shouldn't be discouraged either of course.

Everyone should figure out for themselves how promiscuous they want to be and not be encouraged or discouraged in either direction. And everyone should take sex seriously, I do think it's amoral if you do not as there is another person involved.

God you make it all sound so solemn and dramatic. Sex isn't some kind of contract and the emotional damage you're talking about stems, I reckon, from people damaged by loneliness and sexual isolation. If we had a healthier attitude to sex it'd be heaps better.

As for this business about STDs and the horror of conception I would advise using protection, although we desperately need to come up with alternative to the condom.

Yes ok how about you invent this magic alternative. Ever heard of Freud? Much of psychology is related to sex and that can mean people feel strongly when its present in their lives. It can affect people and your arrogance to claim a theory of psychology oyu invented holds any ground, by your own admission you have no expertise, is insulting and degrading to the scraps of an argument you have.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

It's no better than the "men are the source of the worlds problems" argument.

Men != Patriarchy. This is the problem with typical antifeminism and other people getting defensive about privilege. Always asserting that when someone says something like "patriarchy" or "male supremacist thought" or "male privilege" or in terms of race, "white privilege", they're saying that white heterosexual men are evil and need to go away.

That's a farcical strawman. I'm tired of anti-feminists using these farcical, extreme comparisons to things. Society is littered with male supremacist thought. It's called male privilege. In fact most language lends itself to the idea that men are better than women.

It doesn't mean that men are bad or even to blame. It means that male privilege exist as a descriptor of society.

The way to stop what your calling "male farcical strawmans" is to change the type of language that your using, as the terminology used by feminists is indictive of blame against one gender, and is hypocritical seeing as how both genders have allowed and encouraged the subjugation of women. In fact women have even encouraged the subjugation of specific groups of women from within the feminist movement itself, as early feminist would not allow African American women to march with them in their protests. Even the term "feminist" denotes exclusivity, that it's a girls club were men are not allowed. The term "feminist also denotes a selfish single-mindedness that prioritizes the equality of women above the equality of everyone else. Don't take this post to mean that I am against the ideals of feminism, because that could not be farther from the truth. I am an egalitarian, and so believe in the equality of all people. I just think that more good could be accomplished if we could stop the finger pointing (both the consciences kind, and the linguistic kind) and instead of dividing ourselves into smaller groups such as feminist and so on, work as one people (female, male, black, white, etc) towards the equal treatment of everyone.


Edit: It is also because of your use of that specific language that I read your OP as more hate speech against men than anything else.

 

[Bertylicious]

snip

Yes ok how about you invent this magic alternative. Ever heard of Freud? Much of psychology is related to sex and that can mean people feel strongly when its present in their lives. It can affect people and your arrogance to claim a theory of psychology oyu invented holds any ground, by your own admission you have no expertise, is insulting and degrading to the scraps of an argument you have.

Steady on now. It's not like I was suggesting free love with your mum or something.

All I'm saying is that sex is great and makes people happy. Is that so terrible?

Actually, I guess I am suggesting free love with your mum. Is that what is so upsetting?