If it weren't for sexual attraction men and women wouldn't even talk to each other

[SteveC80]

I have a hard time looking at women beyond sexual creatures

 

I dont find i have much in common with them,i dont find most of them entertaining or funny

[SassyKitten]

In my experience, friendships with men and with women each have their downside. With men, it's what's obvious when you read this board, with some, not all. With woman, it's female competition, also with some but not all.

 

Expanding on that a bit, I notice it a lot when I'm in class. I'm one of the top performers, and I'm not beat with the ugly stick, so women to some extent seem to feel an inferiority complex in my presence unless they're the type who has a healthy sense of confidence. When it comes time for exams, male classmates (most of whom are married and have never flirted with me) are much more likely to want to study with me than female classmates. Although I'm in a conservative region entering a field that's supposedly a man's world, women seem to be more likely to give me a hard time about following this path than men are.

 

That said, the demographic I'm most likely to form lasting friendships with is gay men. None of the competitiveness some women have, and none of the sexual ulterior motives some men have.

[meerkat stew]

Here, let me make it simple . . .

 

In one sentence (or a paragraph if you'd like), what was the point you were trying to make by your post? Because your post was actually the indecipherable one. It had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

 

Getting out the crayons...

 

OP makes a thread about gender disharmony currently.

 

Others refer to "gender wars."

 

Still others say they have never experienced "gender wars."

 

I give examples of manifestations of gender manipulation in plain view, not even conspiracy, in entertainment...

 

in how men are imprisoned unjustly (as far as exaggerating goes, I represent these people as clients and see this kind of thing day in and day out professionally, and know the exact extent of the problem, do you? then you aren't qualified to claim someone is exaggerating)...

 

so let's add one... in how men are abused and stripped of rights day in and day out in the divorce courts (you might be interested to know that most pedophilia does not originate in the mind of a pervert, but in the mind of a divorce lawyer towards the purpose of denying someone's rights to see their children... think I'm exaggerating?)... Why on earth any sane man enters a marriage contract these days I have no idea.

 

in how women are manipulated towards bad political action by polarizing them against men in characterizing the average man as a creep who threatens her and her children's safety. This results in more government control, higher taxes, and denial of many men's rights, ostensibly for "saving the children," but really for "growing the government" and forwarding a statist agenda...

 

in how women are lied to with bogus statistics about "wage disparities" and "glass ceilings" to further forward leftist agenda and strip men of their rights. There is no wage disparity in this country whatsoever once the raw statistics are modified for the impact of leaving the workforce to have children on earning power, yet you never see accurate statistics reflecting this because they don't forward the "proper" political agenda.

 

As far as "glass ceilings" go, we came very close to having a female vice president (guess that doesn't count though because she is a republican). Ranks of women in powerful positions continue to increase -rapidly-. Does that stop the glass ceiling brand of gender manipulation? Of course not, no more than having a black president has put a dent in race-baiting.

 

But of course, because these very real social phenomena don't concern women or their pet issues, they don't really exist. "I haven't experienced the gender war" well of course you haven't because you have been a beneficiary of it and haven't paid the price of it that men pay every day.

[purgatori]

You have a good point.

 

Without the sexual attraction we would never date each other and issues such as trust and infidelity wouldn't exist and neither would the bitter crybabies.....wow what a concept.

 

Nonsense. You don't need sexual attraction to feel, or fall in, love for another person. That which people call 'sexual attraction' is but one particular manifestation of 'libido' -- i.e. that part of us which leads us out of ourselves towards others. The people who think that without the almighty 'SEX', all romantic affiliation would cease maybe right with regard to their own case, but they are wrong with regard to people whose emotional and mental life is larger than their own.

[Pyro]

Nonsense. You don't need sexual attraction to feel, or fall in, love for another person. That which people call 'sexual attraction' is but one particular manifestation of 'libido' -- i.e. that part of us which leads us out of ourselves towards others. The people who think that without the almighty 'SEX', all romantic affiliation would cease maybe right with regard to their own case, but they are wrong with regard to people whose emotional and mental life is larger than their own.

 

I was with my ex for over 3 years and near the end the passion faded and I wasn't that interested in her sexually and that in part lead to our breakup, so IMO sexual attraction is a must for a successful relationship.

[Woggle]

I agree with Meerkat that many women are oblivious to this plus there are many who are fully aware but believe men are getting their just desserts. I wish more women were honest enough to come right and say that.

[purgatori]

I was with my ex for over 3 years and near the end the passion faded and I wasn't that interested in her sexually and that in part lead to our breakup, so IMO sexual attraction is a must for a successful relationship.

 

Passion of some sort, certainly, but not necessarily 'sexual' passion. There are many historical accounts of great love affairs between eunuchs and castrati, as well as other couples for whom sexual passion/gratification was unavailable to one or both of the partners.

 

As I said, you may be right about your own case, but it is clear that there are others for whom love/romantic passion persists beyond sexual attraction.

 

@Woggle: I'm not a woman, but I do believe that men are getting their just desserts... or at least they would be, if they were suffering to a much greater extent than they are now. Whiners like you and meerkat conveniently forget that for the greater portion of human history, -- and in most regions of the world today -- men have treated women to subjuguation, degradation, and vilification of the most abhorrent kind. John Lennon wasn't wrong when he said, 'woman is the n----- of the world.'

Edited August 4, 2010 by purgatori

[Lovelybird]

good point, purgatori, man and woman want each other not only in sex area, but other areas also.

 

Talk about gender war, both gender has responsibilities. The ground before Cross is all level. In the end, the difficult relationship between man and woman is caused by our selfishness, of both sides. It is not a gender thing, it is a "human thing"

[Pyro]

I agree with Meerkat that many women are oblivious to this plus there are many who are fully aware but believe men are getting their just desserts. I wish more women were honest enough to come right and say that.

 

I guess that your mind is to narrow to come up with the thought that maybe very few women admit to that because only very few women think like that.

 

How about concentrating your thoughts on the majority of women?

[gamma1]

Here, let me make it simple . . .

 

In one sentence (or a paragraph if you'd like), what was the point you were trying to make by your post? Because your post was actually the indecipherable one. It had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I agree with you. It seems that some people insist on there being a gender war. It's these same people who are often incapable of having opposite sex friends, which is a real shame. I value my friendships with women just like I value my friendships with other men.

[Enchanted Girl]

Getting out the crayons...

 

OP makes a thread about gender disharmony currently.

 

Others refer to "gender wars."

 

Still others say they have never experienced "gender wars."

 

I give examples of manifestations of gender manipulation in plain view, not even conspiracy, in entertainment...

 

in how men are imprisoned unjustly (as far as exaggerating goes, I represent these people as clients and see this kind of thing day in and day out professionally, and know the exact extent of the problem, do you? then you aren't qualified to claim someone is exaggerating)...

 

so let's add one... in how men are abused and stripped of rights day in and day out in the divorce courts (you might be interested to know that most pedophilia does not originate in the mind of a pervert, but in the mind of a divorce lawyer towards the purpose of denying someone's rights to see their children... think I'm exaggerating?)... Why on earth any sane man enters a marriage contract these days I have no idea.

 

If that many of your clients are losing cases, then you're a bad lawyer. You get cases day in and day out and all of them lose and get imprisoned? Wow. It's a wonder you get clients at all.

 

If you're not a lawyer, then stop pretending that you know all this from experience because you have "clients."

 

And if you are a lawyer and not losing this many cases, then I'm not surprised to hear that you were exaggerating.

 

in how women are manipulated towards bad political action by polarizing them against men in characterizing the average man as a creep who threatens her and her children's safety. This results in more government control, higher taxes, and denial of many men's rights, ostensibly for "saving the children," but really for "growing the government" and forwarding a statist agenda...

If you really want me to believe this is true, then explain to me how people go from thinking that men are creeps to raising taxes because I'm pretty sure the two are unrelated.

 

in how women are lied to with bogus statistics about "wage disparities" and "glass ceilings" to further forward leftist agenda and strip men of their rights. There is no wage disparity in this country whatsoever once the raw statistics are modified for the impact of leaving the workforce to have children on earning power, yet you never see accurate statistics reflecting this because they don't forward the "proper" political agenda.

 

As far as "glass ceilings" go, we came very close to having a female vice president (guess that doesn't count though because she is a republican). Ranks of women in powerful positions continue to increase -rapidly-. Does that stop the glass ceiling brand of gender manipulation? Of course not, no more than having a black president has put a dent in race-baiting.

 

But of course, because these very real social phenomena don't concern women or their pet issues, they don't really exist. "I haven't experienced the gender war" well of course you haven't because you have been a beneficiary of it and haven't paid the price of it that men pay every day.

How is saying that women should get equal pay, stripping men of their rights? Unless, the rights you are talking about is the right to make more money than a woman who has the same job as a man and the same experience and education. I don't get it.

 

As for the rest, I wasn't complaining about us never having a woman President. It honestly doesn't bother me because I know it's possible and that the world isn't some giant gender warzone. I only brought it up because you keep saying that the government raises taxes and passes all these anti-man laws when it's run by mostly men. It doesn't make sense that they would be against themselves, but you keep saying this is true.

 

OVERALL:

 

That still has nothing to do with whether or not women and men can be friends if you take away sexual attraction.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Enchanted Girl

[zengirl]

Sure about that?

 

Have you ever watched television or seen a movie? Other than handsome, young leading men, how are men portrayed in entertainment these days? Crook/pervert/clown/shady businessman about sum it up? What gender is the primary audience for dramatic entertainment?

 

How on Earth would watching a movie be part of my actual life? I mentioned that it was the life I lived. The things I watch/read/see on a forum aren't part of the live I live. They are entertaining pursuits to fill the gaps of time in between interacting with real people.

 

Besides that, men and women are portrayed negatively and positively in all sorts of films.

 

Ever been to a county jail? Did you know that in a country where debtor's prison is supposedly anathema in the eyes of the law, whole new wings of jails are being built all over the country to house supposed "deadbeat dads" who lost their jobs in the recession and can't continue inflated support payments?

 

Believe it or not, I don't spend much time at county jails. So, no, that's not part of my life. I don't have any children. Nor have any friends with children they aren't paying for.

 

Nor does anyone get thrown in jail in America for not paying child support. Wages get garnished. If there are no wages, or the man is dishonest enough to work under the table (and not get caught on tax fraud or somesuch), nothing happens to him but repeated attempts to collect.

 

Ever followed politics or lawmaking? Ever seen a billboard on the highway claiming things like "1 out of 3 children has been sexually molested on the internet?" Ever wonder where these types of bogus statistics come from and whom they are used to manipulate against whom and to what ends?

 

I do follow politics a bit. Even in politics, I've experienced more issues with people over religion, sexuality, race, or basic concepts of freedom than gender. Generally, the people who believe what I believe are well beyond gender issues and accepting even of much less commonly accepted issues of equality and freedom. I suppose there are some gender issues in certain politics very different from my own, but I generally disagree with those people on a host of things, so it isn't noticeable. The people who want to take away my rights as a woman tend to be against giving rights in general, accepting every sexuality and religion (or lack of it), etc.

 

Also, how on Earth is child molestation a gender issue?

 

Ever wonder if there really are that many bad men out there doing bad things that justify laws growing the government so rapidly at all our expense to protect us from all the bad men? or are other forces at work than "bad men?" Ever wonder if a 50% + tax burden on the average income earner is really justified? Ever wonder why the economy has become so anemic over the last 25 years?

 

What laws could you possibly be talking about?

 

What do taxes have to do with gender?

 

I have some theories on why the economy is anemic, and I'm a big fan of following economic trends, as I dig statistics in general and am very politically active, but again, what does that have to do with gender?

 

Ever hear of gender-baiting issues such as glass ceilings and wage disparities? Ever accept them blindly as fact? I did... until I looked into the facts behind the "gospel." Ever wonder why such gender-baiting happens to be trotted out feverishly at election time?

 

Okay, the glass ceiling is/was real (more was than is) and was documented by wages. The numbers are sometimes more complex, in terms of wage disparities, today, as you have to factor in the various choices each individual makes. I've said that to women and men alike. . . but on a message board or in a classroom or something.

 

None of my friends actually are intensely bothered by things like that in the vague hypothetical: They believe in freedom and equality for all and seeing people as people, just as I do. Life's pretty simple when you do that. Really. But then you have to stop trying to make all your problems some sort of societal ill or find a group (feminists, gay people, immigrants, liberals, conservatives, Jews, Christians, atheists, women, men, blacks, whites, rich people, poor people, etc) to pin your problems on. Honestly, there are real social problems, but trying to find some mysterious source behind them is silly. Social problems exist because of evolving situations, and we can assuage them with action, social change, and good laws, sure, but never eradicate them. . . and scapegoating any one trend or group is pretty much pointless.

 

It's nice to have laws in place to deal with specific issues that arise. Beyond that, I don't care much, they haven't arisen for me personally or to any extreme degree for most women my age, of my education, that I know. We are pretty happy. I choose to honor the struggles that came before me, that my mother experienced, by appreciating the laws and social mores that were changed. But that's about it. .

 

This forum is pretty much a microcosim of life.

 

I come to this board to remind myself what unhappiness looks like close up, so I can continue to do the work necessary to be healthy and happy. (Well, and also because I'm bored. But my point is: This is not a microcosm of life. . . . at least not any life I've ever had or want to.)

Edited August 4, 2010 by zengirl

[meerkat stew]

If that many of your clients are losing cases...

 

It's OK that you are ignorant of how the criminal justice system works on a local level, but despite that ignorance, you show no hesitation to offer insults and groundless opinions about something you obviously know nothing about, men are used to that from women, par for the course.

 

If you really want me to believe this is true, then explain to me how people go from thinking that men are creeps to raising taxes because I'm pretty sure the two are unrelated.

 

It's OK that you don't understand how laws are made in this country, here's a primer for you composed of a single, completely hypothetical, but very realistic, example:

 

A. Hundreds of thousands of pedophiles (males) are stalking your children on the internet (this has been a public service announcement paid for by the "War on Pedophiles Assoc." which, lo and behold, receives federal grants).

 

B. Three congressmen announce the "Internet Safety Act of 2012." "We must protect the children from this growing menace!" Provisions include a)a joint task force on internet sex crimes, which in actuality is just a budget increase for certain executive agencies and commensurate salary/power increase for those in power in those agencies, b) stiffer criminal penalties, shifted burden of proof, reduced evidentiary standards, and a relaxed entrapment standard for those accused (i.e. the presence of the kiddy porn picture on your computer creates a prime facie government case, which you must disprove, as opposed to being proven guilty, doesn't matter that the feds actually sent the picture to your computer).

 

C. An amendment gets tacked on to the bill in the middle of the night ( on page 1356 of 1499) providing for a federal sales tax on all e-commerce "We must tax the porn purveyors!... (and everyone else)"

 

D. Bill becomes law, in the first year the government "creates" 10,000 pedophiles by putting up a government funded porn site and seeding it with some pictures of underaged girls in cheerleader outfits, sending out these pics as free bonuses to customers.

 

E. 99% of these "pedophiles" who are actually just clueless, harmless porn fans... are ... men. 9,945 men and 55 women.

 

F. Everyone who buys anything off the internet pays more due to the tax. Since the internet is mostly male still, men pay the tax disproportionately.

 

G. Enchanted Girl sits back in lalalogic land, "Good! porn should be illegal anyway! I don't care if some innocent men suffer complete denial of their civil rights because I feel like my children are safer."

 

and that is the crux of the gender war.

 

If it ain't about children, abortion rights, free healthcare for hypochondriac females, workplace equity, or some large corporate goal that can be concealed as "green," women, as a voting bloc, just don't give a ****. And more egregious, if it -does- involve one of the above, women, as a voting bloc, have no scale of social justice and can be manipulated into believing that if one child benefits, any number of rights may be stripped away from others with impunity.

 

and that is the crux of the gender war.

 

H. Six months later, Enchanted Girl's uncle Schmedly is charged with pedophilia after thinking he was downloading "Big Busty Bosoms 47" and unbeknownst to him, was sent "We Ain't Legal 35" by the government. Upon being convicted, Schmedly has to go around the neighborhood and tell everyone he is a pedophile. People start talking, Enchanted Girl suddenly wakes up, "that's not right what they did to Uncle Schmedly!" No **** sherlock.

 

How is saying that women should get equal pay, stripping men of their rights? Unless, the rights you are talking about is the right to make more money than a woman who has the same job as a man and the same experience and education. I don't get it.

 

It's OK that you don't understand the zero sum nature of corporate America. Here's a hypothetical.

 

Accounting firm has one partnership slot with the prestige and extra cash that entails.

 

Angela and Bill are candidates. Both have been at the firm ten years. Both are equally bright.

 

Angela works flex time, 30 hours a week, after taking a two year family leave.

 

Bill did not take family leave, works 80 hours a week.

 

The experience disparity between Bill and Angela shows in the respective quality and efficiency of their work. Bill is approximately 25% ahead of Angela in quality of work product.

 

The firm has 80% male partners currently.

 

Who will get the partnership and why?

Who will be pissed off and why?

 

That still has nothing to do with whether or not women and men can be friends if you take away sexual attraction.

 

I think you need to go back and reread the OP, esp the part referring to "gender war."

[flying]

It's OK that you are ignorant of how the criminal justice system works on a local level, but despite that ignorance, you show no hesitation to offer insults and groundless opinions about something you obviously know nothing about, men are used to that from women, par for the course.

 

Wow, you just really hate women.

 

I think this post is exactly the kind of thing the OP was referring to, whether he knows it or not.

[meerkat stew]

How on Earth would watching a movie be part of my actual life? I mentioned that it was the life I lived. The things I watch/read/see on a forum aren't part of the live I live. They are entertaining pursuits to fill the gaps of time in between interacting with real people.

 

If you are conscious, you are living "real life" and that includes whatever you are doing while conscious, be it posting on an internet forum, reading a book or talking to someone in a park. Some would argue that you are living "real life" even in a coma, just a very limited one, but that's for another type of discussion.

 

Besides that, men and women are portrayed negatively and positively in all sorts of films.

 

True, but currently, other than leading men, younger sex symbols and children, males (specifically white males in any position of authority) are portrayed badly in entertainment, much moreso than similar women. Why is this? A political climate that relies on gender polarization and hatred of men to manipulate a female voting bloc towards certain ends?

 

Believe it or not, I don't spend much time at county jails. So, no, that's not part of my life. I don't have any children. Nor have any friends with children they aren't paying for.

 

I don't have cancer, nor am I undergoing chemotherapy, but that doesn't mean the impact of cancer in my community, socially, economically, etc., is not part of my life. Same for any social issue that does not touch us directly.

 

Nor does anyone get thrown in jail in America for not paying child support. Wages get garnished. If there are no wages, or the man is dishonest enough to work under the table (and not get caught on tax fraud or somesuch), nothing happens to him but repeated attempts to collect.

 

Ah, another budding legal expert. Sure about the above? Ever hear of the legal term "civil contempt?" may want to do some research before making definitive incorrect statements such as the above.

 

Also, how on Earth is child molestation a gender issue?

 

Tired of typing, so will just restate that most pedophilia in the U.S. is created in the minds of divorce lawyers and bitter ex wives, not in the minds of perverts. If you can't see the gender issue here, you are thicker than you seem.

 

What laws could you possibly be talking about?

 

What do taxes have to do with gender?

 

See my internet example in the previous post. One thing I do want to reiterate here is that this is not conspiracy tinfoil hat stuff. This is going on right now in broad daylight, not hidden in a smoky room, and it relies heavily on gender polarization/gender wars to pull off. It relies on convincing the female voting bloc that they and the children are threatened by bad men, and dulling the boundaries between outlier criminal men and average men.

 

This political polarization is a primary factor in the poor state of gender relations in the U.S., why fewer men are considering marriage and children as sane options, why there is backlash. It is simplistically characterized as "feminism" but runs much deeper than that.

 

I have some theories on why the economy is anemic, and I'm a big fan of following economic trends, as I dig statistics in general and am very politically active, but again, what does that have to do with gender?

 

Not much theorizing necessary. The economy has become anemic, lost its immune system so to speak, because the parasite that is centralized bureaucracy has become too large, the tick has become larger than the dog endangering the host's very life. How and why did this happen, and what relation to gender?

 

Government seeks to grow, for the moment that requires legitimacy (votes), women are easily politically manipulated by yanking at their maternal instincts (save the children), the convenient bad guy who threatens the children is male. So amplify the true number of "bad guys" and begin a campaign to dull the boundaries between normal men and bad (sleeping with the enemy so to speak), and you have a recipe for achieving any level of government growth and power desired. Now let's say the roles were reversed and your gender was the one villified to achieve the political goals and government growth. Mightn't you resent that a bit and grow distrustful of women? Three of your friends are living in squalor while their exes and children live in nice houses full of luxury... are you more or less likely to marry and start a family?

 

There are plenty of injustices done to women, violence, etc. But that isn't the crux of the political social engine that has caused the gender war.

 

Okay, the glass ceiling is/was real

 

Women have been in the professional workplace for about 50 years. Prior to that, it was a cultural and biological necessity that they -not- be, not some evil plan to keep women down, the survival of the species demanded it and the nature of work was such that women could not perform much of it. After that, it has been a cultural and economic necessity that they have been included in every facet of the workplace.

 

Point is, women have been assimilated as quickly into workplace equality as they possibly could be. Bogus concepts like wage disparity and glass ceilings are just campaign slogans and fodder for fantasyland sociology cum women's studies pseudo academics. In other words, political propaganda tools to polarize women against men, to create some patriarchy out of thin air that never existed and doesn't exist now. Life was tough and unfair for 99.9% of everyone on the planet regardless of race, gender, etc. up until the advent and blessings of capitalism, yet that hasn't stopped finger-pointing and polarizing in a historical revisionist attempt to divide and incite specific political action in the present.

 

and scapegoating any one trend or group is pretty much pointless.

 

Excellent, then we are in agreement that the anti-male polarizing and political manipulation at the expense of men needs to end sooner rather than later.

[zengirl]

Excellent, then we are in agreement that the anti-male polarizing and political manipulation at the expense of men needs to end sooner rather than later.

 

If it was happening, sure. We aren't in agreement that it is happening or that any of the things you list make any sense whatsoever.

 

I've no desire to blame men, as a group, for things any longer. To deny any patriarchal influences on archaic versions of our society would be wrong, but I really don't care. If I was living a past life then, I've no memory of it, and I don't even know I was a woman. Pretending that doesn't exist. . . that seems nonsensical. I mean, women had to wait longer than any other group for the right to vote. I don't understand how you can pretend there was no inequality that ever existed. That strikes me as insane. It's like holocaust-deniers or the people who don't believe in dinosaurs.

 

Talking about things now is a different and more complex story. In my personal circles and life, I've never really encountered any major gender discrimination, and I'm cool. I'm good. I've got my laws. Mostly, fellows in my generation seem to understand that women are people too. Not all of them, but there will always be some outliers, and you can't blame that on them being men. But I run in educated, liberal, not-religious circles in a free, Western society. Everybody doesn't. Just like racism exists more in certain places, I'm sure sexism does too. But. . . I don't really feel the need to fuss about it. If I hear about specific injustices, I'll do what I can to help the cause----and that's towards any human beings, male, female, white, black, gay, straight, etc. But these male injustices you've cooked up. . . well, I just don't buy them. Mostly because you come off as unhinged here.

 

All I want is the right to work as I please, control my own body, support myself with a decent job, vote, have all the legal rights of a man, be safe, and pursue happiness, like everybody else. . . . and so far, I'm pretty happy with my freedoms in these areas, in regard to my gender. I call myself a feminist because I do believe I deserve the right to vote and such, and that's what I learned feminism to be and what the dictionary definition more or less confirms. Men aren't evil. Women aren't evil. We can get along, and we do every day. Some men can't, and some women can't, and they are unhealthy outliers.

[meerkat stew]

Wow, you just really hate women.

 

Another interesting aspect of the gender wars is the hyperbolic overuse of words such as "hatred" among the stupid. After all, I never saw terms such as "hate crimes" until women became a politically manipulable bloc.

 

Typical though, female poster makes insulting comments. I insult back. So I must "hate" women

[flying]

Another interesting aspect of the gender wars is the hyperbolic overuse of words such as "hatred" among the stupid. After all, I never saw terms such as "hate crimes" until women became a politically manipulable bloc.

 

Typical though, female poster makes insulting comments. I insult back. So I must "hate" women

 

I didn't call you stupid, and I didn't make a personal insult. I do think it's funny that you're saying others use hyperbole, but aren't so interested in turning that lens on yourself.

 

But...it's pointless to have a discussion with you about this, and honestly, meerkat, I could care less if you want to insult my intelligence. I don't know you from Adam and you don't know me, so who cares?

 

I'm just calling you out. I mean, yeah, I think that based on your posts in this thread, you do hate women, and I think it's sad. But it also illustrates nicely what Woggle was talking about. That's all.

[meerkat stew]

I didn't call you stupid

 

No, I called you stupid, though indirectly, as I've found that people who overuse the terms "hate" and "hatred" are in fact generally stupid.

 

, and I didn't make a personal insult.

 

The passage of mine you quoted was in response to insults directed at me. You quoted my admittedly insulting reply as evidence of some "hatred" of women on my part.

 

I do think it's funny that you're saying others use hyperbole, but aren't so interested in turning that lens on yourself.

 

Feel free to call me out on any specific hyperbole you find in my posts. I have no problems at all "turning the lens" on myself.

 

But...it's pointless to have a discussion with you about this, and honestly, meerkat, I could care less if you want to insult my intelligence. I don't know you from Adam and you don't know me, so who cares?

 

Yet you apparently know me well enough, and care enough, to attribute hatred of women to me based on a largely political diatribe of mine. I imagine you don't see anything inconsistent in that though.

 

I think that based on your posts in this thread, you do hate women, and I think it's sad.

 

What's sad is the fact that men can't air their cultural, political or gender grievances without being accused of "hating" women, and that is one big reason that men are withdrawing from traditional gender relations in droves.

[meerkat stew]

I've no desire to blame men, as a group, for things any longer.

 

Want to make something clear here. I don't blame women for the current state of affairs other than the ease with which women are politically manipulated and blinded to the consequences of certain types of political action. Men are also manipulated politically, just not so simply as women.

 

To deny any patriarchal influences on archaic versions of our society would be wrong, but I really don't care.

 

There never was any "patriarchy," but rather aristocracy, a tiny minority of men -and women- controlled everything. It's no accident that, as nations move further from aristocracies, that rights increase for all, men and women.

 

I mean, women had to wait longer than any other group for the right to vote.

 

I'm glad you brought the above in, makes an excellent point.

 

It was 1850 before all non property-owning white males could vote, states began granting women's suffrage as early as 1869, literacy requirements to vote weren't abolished until 1965, native americans were granted voting rights 4 years after women, so in addition to unfairly massaging historical fact, the above quoted statement is incorrect.

 

The restriction of voting rights was largely in favor of a land-owning aristocracy, not gender based (yes male, but that wasn't the primary characteristic, inherited wealth was), yet voting restriction has been forced into service by gender polarizing political interests during the last 40 years in a tired attempt to demonstrate "hundreds and thousands of years of men oppressing women."

 

It simply isn't the case. Quality of life and the state of human rights pretty much sucked for everybody of every gender and race everywhere on the planet until the industrial revolution essentially created the middle class, and the blossom of capitalism in the late 19th and 20th centuries brought the middle class to fruition. Everyone but a tiny privileged few has been oppressed throughout the entirety of human history up until the last 120 years or so.

 

Mostly because you come off as unhinged here.

 

Right from the playbook. Anytime anyone wants to discuss issues that are important to men, either a) tell them they "hate" women, b) call them an "unhinged" conspiracy theorist, or c) dismiss the issues as unimportant because you, as a woman, haven't directly experienced them.

 

Exactly why men are becoming more and more angry about the status quo. Male cultural and legal issues that are very real are dismissed as trivial.

 

Did you google "civil contempt" yet?

[flying]

The passage of mine you quoted was in response to insults directed at me. You quoted my admittedly insulting reply as evidence of some "hatred" of women on my part.

 

It was. And I repeat:

 

despite that ignorance, you show no hesitation to offer insults and groundless opinions about something you obviously know nothing about, men are used to that from women, par for the course.

 

See in particular the bit in bold. How does this not express a strong dislike - if not hatred - of women as a group? Stop being disingenuous, it's such a waste of everyone's time. And you might be aware that it's stuff like this that will ultimately undermine any reasoned points you might be trying to make. But hey, you're on your own with that.

 

Feel free to call me out on any specific hyperbole you find in my posts. I have no problems at all "turning the lens" on myself.

 

Okay!

 

What's sad is the fact that men can't air their cultural, political or gender grievances without being accused of "hating" women, and that is one big reason that men are withdrawing from traditional gender relations in droves.

 

Hee hee, I like this one. Of course, in my own post I never said anything about whether "men" can do anything. I said something about you. You extrapolated to "men" because that's what you do. In fact, I see you as the one who started and perpetuated the particular gender war that developed in this particular thread - because you raised the ante to discuss women in a negative way (they're easily manipulated, they talk about stuff they don't know anything about, they don't care about any political or social issues that don't have to do with kids or women, blah blah womenaredumb blah). In a way it's fascinating to watch. But you really should stop being so weaselly and just own it.

 

Anyway, back to the hyperbole/conspiracy theory quoting:

 

If it ain't about children, abortion rights, free healthcare for hypochondriac females, workplace equity, or some large corporate goal that can be concealed as "green," women, as a voting bloc, just don't give a ****. And more egregious, if it -does- involve one of the above, women, as a voting bloc, have no scale of social justice and can be manipulated into believing that if one child benefits, any number of rights may be stripped away from others with impunity.

 

A political climate that relies on gender polarization and hatred of men to manipulate a female voting bloc towards certain ends?

 

most pedophilia in the U.S. is created in the minds of divorce lawyers and bitter ex wives, not in the minds of perverts.

 

women are easily politically manipulated by yanking at their maternal instincts (save the children)

 

Women have been in the professional workplace for about 50 years. Prior to that, it was a cultural and biological necessity that they -not- be, not some evil plan to keep women down, the survival of the species demanded it and the nature of work was such that women could not perform much of it.

(Note: this one isn't so much hyperbole as just funny, because seriously, 50 years? You don't know much about the Industrial Revolution. )

 

Bogus concepts like wage disparity and glass ceilings are just campaign slogans and fodder for fantasyland sociology cum women's studies pseudo academics. In other words, political propaganda tools to polarize women against men, to create some patriarchy out of thin air that never existed and doesn't exist now.

 

After all, I never saw terms such as "hate crimes" until women became a politically manipulable bloc.

 

And that's just in this thread!

 

Oh, also:

 

Yet you apparently know me well enough, and care enough, to attribute hatred of women to me based on a largely political diatribe of mine. I imagine you don't see anything inconsistent in that though.

 

Huh? I don't know you at all, nor would I care to. I read your posts, and it's from those that I've gleaned this bit of info. Maybe you should reread them. That's all I know about you, and it's quite enough to surmise what I've surmised. I stand by my assessment until new evidence presents itself.

[flying]

Right from the playbook. Anytime anyone wants to discuss issues that are important to men, either a) tell them they "hate" women, b) call them an "unhinged" conspiracy theorist, or c) dismiss the issues as unimportant because you, as a woman, haven't directly experienced them.

 

And when women disagree, you say they're "stupid" or easily manipulable.

 

This, too is classic - and by the way, this viewpoint about women - only care about female/child issues, generally ignorant, easily manipulable - is precisely the reason why it took so long for women to get the vote. Just to clear up the fuzzy history. It was indeed about gender - in the sense that a large number of men (and women!) at that time believed that women were less capable of thinking critically and voting intelligently. As you clearly do as well (see my above quotes for evidence).

 

Futhermore, this is yet another example of hyperbole. Please note that no one is saying "men" this that or the other. WE are talking about YOU. And only you. You are the one extrapolating this discussion with specific people into an all-out attack on men, and in response to that fantasy, you're bringing the big guns to attack women as a group. That is why you sound unhinged. Paranoia.

Edited August 4, 2010 by flying

[meerkat stew]

In addition to not knowing the definition of "hatred," Flying, you obviously don't know what "hyperbole" means either. Spend more time with the dictionary, will do you good.

 

My female acquaintances sit around and call men "pigs" and "dogs" with abandon, does that mean they "hate" men? No. They call women "gold-diggers" and every other sort of thing, does that mean they hate women? Actually, maybe. Women do alot more woman-hating and woman-bashing than men do, but conveniently, that fact is often forgotten.

 

When someone mentions the industrial revolution in one sentence, and the assimilation of women in the workplace over the last 50 years, in what bizarro logic world (yours obviously) does that mean they are making the claim that the industrial revolution happened 50 years ago?

 

I own everything I type, why wouldn't I? and what I type is reflective of not only my opinion, but that of many of my male (and female) friends.

[flying]

In addition to not knowing the definition of "hatred," Flying, you obviously don't know what "hyperbole" means either. Spend more time with the dictionary, will do you good.

 

Women do alot more woman-hating and woman-bashing than men do, but conveniently, that fact is often forgotten.

Hyperbole: Extravagant exaggeration (Merriam-Webster). Q.E.D.

 

Haha, "fact."

 

When someone mentions the industrial revolution in one sentence, and the assimilation of women in the workplace over the last 50 years, in what bizarro logic world (yours obviously) does that mean they are making the claim that the industrial revolution happened 50 years ago?

Since I didn't make the statement that you're saying I made, I won't bother defending it. I never said that you said the Industrial Revolution happened 50 years ago.

 

My point was obviously that women were necessary to the workplace more than 50 years ago. For example, see: Industrial Revolution.

 

Ech, this is getting boring. Have fun with your personal war, my friend.

[meerkat stew]

And when women disagree, you say they're "stupid"

 

No see, to repeat yet again, I implied that -you- are stupid for misusing the term "hatred" as so many do today, lots of stupidity out there, but that particular claim of mine has nothing to do with gender, I have no idea of your gender, only of your intellect.

 

or easily manipulable.

 

Yes, I stand by -my- statement that women are indeed more easily politically manipulable than men, fair enough. Could also say that I am against war generally, and that men make more wars than women. By your logic that would mean that I "hate" men. Absurd.

 

Just to clear up the fuzzy history. It was indeed about gender - in the sense that a large number of men (and women!) at that time believed that women were less capable of thinking critically and voting intelligently. As you clearly do as well (see my above quotes for evidence).

 

I've already dealt with the fact that historically, voting restrictions in the U.S. were more about entrenched power, property ownership, i.e. aristocracy, than race or gender specifically. Most -white- men couldn't vote until around 1850, and women's suffrage began coming in a few years after that. Of course, this doesn't jive with "hundreds of years of oppressive patriarchy" does it? So sad when historical fact intrudes on fantasy, isn't it.

 

Fact is, women were pretty much given the right to vote as soon as they asked for it in many states, that the actual Constitutional amendment didn't come in until 1920 is convenient to the "received dogma" but largely irrelevant.

 

WE are talking about YOU. And only you. You are the one extrapolating this discussion with specific people into an all-out attack on men, and in response to that fantasy, you're bringing the big guns to attack women as a group. That is why you sound unhinged. Paranoia.

 

QED of my prior points, anytime -a- man, or a -group- of men, or a -group- of men and women (and it doesn't matter a whit whether it's "just me" or a whole bunch of us, what's your point?) complain about gender injustice that is directed at men in our society:

 

thousands in jail for civil contempt due to inability to pay exorbitant child/spouse support in a country which supposedly abhors debtors prison,

 

hundreds of thousands reamed in the mockery that the domestic courts have become,

 

thousands entrapped and unjustly accused of being perverts and pedophiles,

 

etc.

 

I/we/whomever are told that our issues just don't matter, that we are paranoid, unhinged, whatever you like. It's not -just me- who's fed up.