Yesterday, I was with a friend of mine who, despite being an occasional hobbyist, had never heard of TER, and I was showing him around the site.  I told him my Username, and he looked at my reviews and then did a quick search for some of my posts on the discussion board.  He came upon one post in particular from last week about feminism, and he was slightly perturbed at my stance on the subject.  He felt that my position was misogynistic.  Frankly, I was surprised that anyone would take offense at my carefully worded post, let alone a fellow hobbyist (although he does have a young daughter).  So I thought I would reproduce the post here, and ask if it was offensive.  Does anyone agree or disagree with my opinions?  The link below should put the post into context.  This was my post from 9/2/2007:

"You know, Honeywagon, you should stop knocking the "male power dynamic." If we assume that men run the world (which is laughable, because the world runs itself and doesn't need men, women or anyone else to run it, thank you), then surely you must have noticed that there are both positive and negative features of the patriarchy.

Firstly, violence against women in the Western World is thought of as horrific, while violence against men is viewed as almost routine. Why does it matter that the victim is female -- what should matter is that there was a violent crime committed, period.

Also, it is expected that men should pay for women's dining and entertainment, in a romantic context. Terrorists are always asked to release the female hostages first. Divorce and child custody battles almost always favor the wife. Women live longer than men. Women are attending and graduating colleges at higher rates than men. Women in major cities like NYC now earn more than men do. And women have choices -- a married woman can stay home to care for the children, but if a man stays home to take care of his children, he is thought of as lazy and unproductive. The most dangerous and life-threatening jobs are done primarily by men, often for low pay. Women aren't allowed in combat in the military -- consider how many female lives this ludicrous rule probably saved in Iraq alone! What more do you want?!?

Is this skewed and one-sided? Of course it is! But so is traditional feminism. Why don't you push for REAL equality, and take the good with the bad, the way men do?"

Not misogynisitc but miss-informed.

AND

I think we take it just as good as men do.

Remember it was only several decades ago when women suffered.

Ever hear.."You came a LONG way Baby!"

Given TIME..women will be the "White Collars" and the men will be following behind us.

If I were a man....I would find a way to interest more women in sucking cocks..because ONCE women lead the world.....I think quite a few cocks will be very LONELY!!

Me..I am independent. But I love men and cocks. That's what keeps me SEXY!!

And please know this..Women have been in combat positions for quite some time now.

XO

Sexy Carolina

-- Modified on 9/13/2007 2:27:30 PM

If by "suffering," you mean men and women were not treated as equals, then yes, you're right.  But I don't think women were specifically singled out for physical mistreatment at any time in our history.

That's very cute, the thing about sucking cocks, but something tells me that's a personal preference, not a function of power or prestige.  No matter how far women climb, there will always be blowjobs.  Blowjobs are pretty much universal.  I mean, men have climbed pretty far but this hasn't exactly stamped out cunnilingus, has it?  LOL

And you're right, women have been in combat positions for a long time, but not in this country.  They are specifically kept off the front lines.  When women die or are wounded in Iraq it is usually because an insurgent attacked a convoy that the female troops were guarding, etc.  So they are in combat, de facto, but only because there is no front in this war.  Attacks come from all sides, and the army is incapable of completely protecting its support personnel, many of whom are women.  This is a quote from Wikipedia:  

"Although women are recruited to serve in the military in most countries, only a few countries permit women to fill active combat roles. Countries that allow this include Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway and Switzerland. Other nations allow female soldiers to serve in certain Combat Arms positions, such as Israel and Great Britain, which allow women to serve in Artillery roles, while still excluding them from units with a dedicated Infantry role."

Consider this - you are challenged for your views but women are in dangerous positions all over the place and did you know that many men stay at home while the women works and does a good job at it! And consider the number of couple who work/live apart for periods of time. My wife worked in Santa Barbara - came home on weekends - while I raised the children! It is not about men versus women and the perception of the 15th century should not be carried into the 21st century!

So so you stated 'it is expected that men should pay for women's dining and entertainment, in a romantic context. Terrorists are always asked to release the female hostages first. Divorce and child custody battles almost always favor the wife. Women live longer than men. Women are attending and graduating colleges at higher rates than men. Women in major cities like NYC now earn more than men do. And women have choices -- a married woman can stay home to care for the children, but if a man stays home to take care of his children, he is thought of as lazy and unproductive. The most dangerous and life-threatening jobs are done primarily by men, often for low pay. Women aren't allowed in combat in the military"

In my opinion your friend is right - the view is archaic and what I don't get - what is your point? Sorry my friend to be blunt but I didn't get where this is going! We choose different lifestyles and this does not say one is better than the other or one person is better than someone else! Or does it?

Cyclist out!

Ok I'll give it whirl.

Men do have more power in the world as a whole. Especially when it comes to religion and it seems that religion has a pretty strong hold on our governments. Just look at Afganistan and the Middle East. Even in Christianity there is a division of the sexes.

Next we have the violence issue. Yes violence of any sort is bad, however just turn on the TV and see who is committing the most violence against who. And I feel the reason why violence against women is seen as more horrific is because of the size and physical power discrepancy.  I find a man who beats on a woman a total coward. I will use the "pick on your own size" term if you will. It's what we see day in and day out. Now if I saw grown women beating on male "little people" I would call them cowards too.

Ok the date dilems. I can only speak for myself here...I won't let the guy pay to completey remove the seual expectation that men have put on the date game. This expectation is much less today as women are making more money than they were 25 years ago.

Terrorists are asked to release the women first...point taken.

Divorce and child custody is changing but up until 15 years ago you are right. But nowadays if the woman earns more she pays alimony. I will say that you're right when it comes to custody issues, however currently I feel if the mother is deemed unfit and the father can look after the children he gets them  or at least someone other than the mother does. Not too, too common but it is swinging a little more your way these days.

Women live longer...that's  bology and not societal...but some would argue that male stress lessens life expectancy. What does this have  to do with the male power dynamic?

The women who are attending college and graduating are working for it. I can't help it if the guys want to party and flunk out. Women have been encouraged to persue  higher goals than pumping out kids...what's wrong with that? It's not like they're given the positions in college because they're female? It's called GPA.

And it is not a stigma if a guy stays home and looks after the family. Maybe it id=s if you live in a very traditional religious area, but not if you are comfortable in your own skin and don't give a rats ass about what others think.

As for the most dangerous and life-threatening jobs done by men...crab fishing is one I can think of and it's proably the Captains who won't hire women and not that women couldn't do it. Women are pilots, race car drivers and firefighters to name a couple or three off the top of my head.

And women are allowed in combat..not historically but they are now.

I can safely say that I am not a traditional feminist and don't really know much of their ideals and probably wouldn't back them anyway. I am an equalist and a realist. I think women cops and firefighters should have to be a certain height and weight and strength to even get the job. If a lady is a surgeon who cares what her height and strength is...it doesn't take Hercules to wield a scalpel but if I was in danger and needed to be dragged out of somewhere I would certainly want the biggest and strongest fenmle possible to do it...not someone who is 5' 4" and got the job because of a quota.

And finally it's all well and good that you say
"Why don't you push for REAL equality, and take the good with the bad, the way men do?", you've had it on the plus side for eons wher it really matters. You could vote, go to college long before we could. So if paying for dinner is one of your only beefs...I'd change to chicken....

I personally know that women do/have/are serving in combat units.  Women do not hold combat specialties; however, they are in combat support positions.  Sometimes those positions place the women in combat, real combat, not a terrorist or insurgent attack.  There were several women attached to forward units in the initial invasion of Iraq.  Three of them worked for me.  They were in the front lines daily from March through May.  I might add they all did an outstanding job.  

As to the rest of the post - Discrimination is discrimination no matter what the reason.

If only you could be this succinct with all your comments.

I accidentally hit the "post message" button.

"The truth won't get you laid"   -   That would go nicely on a throw pillow.

you fill in the rest.

2/3 of all adult poor are women

Nearly 75% of full-time working women make less than $20,000/yr. [nearly double the male rate]

The average female college graduate makes less than the average male college graduate

Nearly 80% of women are still in traditional "female" professional roles: secretaries, sales clerks

Not to mention the ongoing attacks on reproductive rights, that threaten women's autonomy

There are many more points to be made too.

There are areas in life in which women seem to have advantages over men, but the fundamental reins of power are in men's hands.  It's like when a parent says that their lives are run by their children.  They have to ferry them around everywhere, and cater to their various needs...blah blah blah.  This all sounds very cute but we all know who really runs the show.

Power is not about what one does but what one is ABLE to do.

Women have made a lot of advances, especially in the idea that the should be treated with equal regard as men - this is not the same as saying that "men and women are equal" which is pretty vacuous.  However, it is in the interests of male privilege to say that women have achieved all their goals, in order to cover up that women it is hardly true at all.  It is also self-serving to throw up an abstract ideal of "equality" in an arbitrary manner to deny that women need to be taken seriously.

Here's an example.  Say that a short guy like me tries out for the fire department.  Can I carry a 300 lb. body through a burning building?  Of course not, so I cannot be a firefighter.  In that sense I am not "equal" to other firefighters.  But that is an ability-based judgment and a valid one.  However, the judgment is limited to me alone.  Let's say a woman tries out and also fails.  For men, it is not enough to say that this one woman doesn't meet the requirement, but we have to say she proves that ALL WOMEN are unfit for the job.  This is what women mean by inequality.  Not that they want to be "equal" to men, but that they want to be judged by equal impartial standards.  If a man fails badly it is not made to reflect on ALL men, but a woman who screws up is made to represent the entire gender.  Racial discrimination works the same way.

At least in my fair city, the standards for entry into the fire department are different for men and women. They are also different for minorities-- affimative action... May not be the case in all metropolitan areas, but it is in mine.

I have problems with the way affirmative action works because it only takes effect in adult life,  when social inequality begins much earlier, but that's a longer argument.  In the firefighter's case I'm perplexed and I can only hope there is a more rational justification, but I'd rather look it up than speculate.

I'm wary of using "affirmative action" as an argument anyway.  Think about all the incompetent white men you've ever encountered.  Has it ever occurred to you that they might be recipients of this country's historical policy of affirmative action for white males?  Starting with a Constitution that explicitly gave white male landowners legal rights denied to others?  It might no longer be explicit in law, but in culture, it's so "normal" now that it's just taken for granted.  Sort of like why you don't tell a shitty boss to "fuck himself" if you want to keep your job.  No one has to tell you that, it won't be written anywhere, you just know how it is.

Your response is very well put, and I appreciate some genuine feedback.  I have to disagree with you on three points however.  Firstly, the overwhelming majority of violence is committed by men against other men, and it often goes unreported in the media.  It is often too "routine" and "mundane" to be given media attention.  But if a woman disappears (even before foul-play is proven) it frequently becomes a media circus.

Secondly, and I realize this is controversial, but I don't think the "pick on someone your own size" argument is evenly applied.  Men pick on smaller men all the time.  I mean, if two people are in an altercation, one of them HAS to be smaller than the other, right?  When America went to war against Japan, Korea, and Vietnam, our soldiers were fighting undernourished Asian men whose average size and weight was probably about as large as the average healthy American woman.  I don't think our soldiers were necessarily bullies.  

Lastly, the issue of alimony and family court is changing VERY slowly, if at all.  When my uncle got a divorce a couple of years ago, his wife was earning more money than he was, but he still had to pay her an alimony settlement.  Sounds fair, right?  But you still make some interesting points, and I appreciate that you didn't call me a misogynist or a bigot just for having an opinion.

Thank you for the feedback, Walt.  Were these women supposed to be in combat, or was it just such a chaotic situation that the brass couldn't enforce the "no-women-in-combat" regulation?  Either way, these women are brave and they deserve to be commended just for being there, same as the men.  Personally, I think women should be allowed to do any military job that men can do, from a cook to an infantryman to a submarine captain; and they should allow them in special forces with no double standards whatsoever.  Since you're a soldier, I'm curious to know your opinion on this issue.

I don't think so...affirmative action starts in  the first grade with bussing kids across town instead of to their neighborhood schools-- all in the name of affirmative action and "diversity." I'm not making a judgement here, although many could certainly argue that this practice has not accomplished it's lofty goals. It has though made the private school and home schooling industry a lot of money.





-- Modified on 9/13/2007 10:46:40 PM

There's no question that all deserve equal opportunity, yet we still define and provide extras based on many variables, generally not the fault of the recipient.  To bore you with an example that comes to mind:

I was in dive school many years ago.  The first morning we head straight for the pool and take the physical fitness test.  As a man failure resulted in dismissal back to the fleet.

Conversely, there was a solitary woman attempting to enter the program (new initiative by the Navy). Unsurprisingly, she didn't have the upper body strength to do the pull-ups.  When I left a few months later she was still in remedial training.  As you might guess she was the subject of much derision, but it really wasn't her fault - it was the establishment.

Like firefighting and similar roles, I think the question to ask isn't whether women (or anyone for that matter) should be in the program, but is the test an accurate reflection of the job requirements?  If so, test to the requirements and attrite the failures.  If not, change the test and attrite the failures.  We aren’t doing any favors letting people in with the nod/wink that they weren’t truly worthy, but we bent the rules anyway.

My analogy is simply this:  Two dimes + a nickel = 25 cents.  So does a quarter.   Equal but different.

I was referring to hiring policies.  

One could argue that busing policies, and affirmative action, wouldn't be necessary if there were a more equitable distribution of educational resources.  When education funding is based on the average income level of a given neighborhood, guess which neighborhoods supply laptops to all their students while others have to use out of date textbooks?  The more privileged always claim that to be successful, wealth is irrelevant, only ability.  Yeah, right.

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 7:32:48 AM

Right on the money! If you can't do the job whether you're a man or a woman, you should not get the position. And women have to realize that there are some things that they just can't do to the set standard simply because they are just not physically strong enough. But having said that if the lady is 6 feet tall and weighs 180 ounds of well tuned muscle and can...she should get hired (that's if the job requires that sort of stature to perform the necessary activities involved). The equality I mentioned  previously was for jobs that don't require brute strength but brains and skill.

This has been a great thread.

Frankly, I think your post is archaic and petty. You choose a few measly points and think it's enough to carry the weight of what you're trying to say? Good grief!

My favorite line is, "What more do you want?" If you have to ask, you really don't have a clue.

Do you also tell black people that they shouldn't have any complaints because slavery has been abolished?  lol  (sorry, couldn't help it)

I'm not sure what your problem is, but I don't want to get into a shouting match with you over this.  How exactly are my points "measly?"  I mean, I realize I don't exactly have a team of researchers compiling statistics to make my arguments, but I also didn't embellish the truth either.  I didn't make anything up.  

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to compare the plight of black people in this country with the Womens' Rights movement.  Women were never kept in chains as chattel, or forced to work against their will, or lynched, or beaten by police officers just for exercising their rights.

Did women suffer at various times throughout history?  Yes, of course.  And so did men.  And there is no way to really remedy this for either side.  The only difference is that men don't complain quite so loudly.  I'm sorry but, as I survey the cultural landscape of modern America, I just fail to see much evidence of womens' "oppression."  Those days are over.  But the complaining lingers on.  

And yes, I do have to ask "what more do you want?".  I guess I'm just another confused man, right?

"Women were never kept in chains as chattel, or forced to work against their will, or lynched, or beaten by police officers just for exercising their rights."

Uh, many slaves were women and faced exactly the above scenarios.  On top of that, add legal rape by their white masters.  Ever wonder why so many Black people are named Washington, Jefferson, Smith or Johnson?

For most women, their servitude has historically taken a more official form: marriage.  Why has it been traditional that a woman takes a man's name in marriage?  The fact that marriage is now [theoretically anyway] regarded as a partnership is largely due to feminism, not enlightened men.  But there's still a long way to go.  To this day, over 50% as many women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends than are murdered by strangers.  The fact that women don't kill men in such high numbers is testament to a great deal of restraint on their part.  Only in the last couple of decades has the law even acknowledged that rape could occur within a marriage.  Many men still won't accept that - after all, if a woman marries us, it's automatic consent 24/7, right?

There are a lot of books out there on this stuff, not to mention websites, and there's no need to be a Phd or part of a research team to read this literature.  If you're not interested in looking it up, fine, but speculation and conjecture don't lead to understanding.

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 7:30:39 PM

-- Modified on 9/14/2007 8:04:54 PM

Now this really is getting ridiculous, and you know it.  Yes, there were both male slaves and female slaves.  No shit.  Thank you for pointing that out to me.  What I mean is, women weren't specifically singled out for slavery or mistreatment -- African people were!  So I think it's just inappropriate to compare the "plight" of these two groups.  As I've said, women as a group have suffered in the past (almost EVERYONE suffered in the past) but nowhere near the magnitude of suffering of black people as a group (male and female alike).  And by the way, black people have names like Johnson and Washington as a way for slave-owners to identify property.  A slave purchased by the Johnson family would be given the surname Johnson, and his or her children would subsequently bear that name as well.  This has nothing to do with paternity or rape.

As for marriage, the topic is MUCH more complex than you are portraying it to be.  I frankly don't have the time, space, or energy to delve into it, but ask yourself this one question:  If marriage is the equivalent of slavery for women, why is it that so many women want to be married?  Why is marriage a goal even for most affluent, independent, educated women?  Almost every woman I've ever met has admitted to practically fantasizing about marriage and weddings since childhood.  Since it clearly cuts across economic lines, I'd say money and financial security are not the sole motivators here.

Modern marriage is regarded as a partnership for the same reasons that women have made advances in the workplace:  Technology.  The birth control pill, the automobile, the washing machine, etc.  These are the tools that have enabled women to explore their full potential.  They allow for choices and options that were once not available.  This is not to say that feminism played no role here, but credit should be given where it is due.  

As for women being more likely to be killed by boyfriends or husbands than by strangers, this is because most murder victims are killed by people they know.  Some spouses will always have a motive, and the world is full of crazy people.  As to why women don’t kill their husbands as often as men kill their wives?  How should I know?  Why don’t most women play football or trade futures or become lumberjacks?  There are about a dozen different valid hypotheses, none of which has anything to do with women showing more “restraint” than men.  That you would even bring up some of these arguments is laughable.

And regarding rape in the context of a marriage, I agree that it’s disgusting and repugnant, and it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law… IF it can be proven, which I imagine would be difficult, because of the intimate nature of marriage.  And I agree with you that women shouldn’t take their husbands’ last names.  Unless they want to.  You know, this being a free country and all.  I think it’s a stupid practice, but others may disagree with me, and since they aren’t hurting anyone, who cares?  But as for the other stuff you said, I couldn’t disagree more.  Some of these were really immature arguments on your part.

These "chicken and egg" arguments are complex and can go on forever, so I'm not going to keep the argument going, but I'm going to recommend a book for you to start on.  "Backlash" by Susan Faludi.  It's well-written and well-documented.  

As I've suggested, if you really want to know, do research, just don't rely on friends' opinions or threads on TER.

-- Modified on 9/15/2007 7:39:08 AM