|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @08:06PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Can we interrupt the regularly scheduled mass-media agonizing over the desperate, starving, wounded female vice-president trying to become CEO? How about asking why 95% of the persons locked up are male? How about asking why so many politicans are pro-choice-only-for-females, asking why this is called "pro-choice", and asking why noone dare speak about being pro-choice-for-men-too. How about asking why only men are still required to register for selective service in the US? How about asking what is being done to address males' six-year lifespace shortfall, male genital mutilation done for no clear reason, and sexism in the family courts?
People concerned about the glass ceiling live in big houses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 26, @09:16PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure there's a glass ceiling. It's on top of the glass cellar which encloses those workers trapped in low paid dangerous degrading debasing jobs. And those workers are (nearly) all male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny. I'm currently taking this online course in clinical trials and I think I today just came across another area of the glass cellar: in the clinical trials process. (Actually, I think "The Myth of Male Power" talks about male prisoners being the ones tested with dangerous new medicines)
Anyway, my course notes say: "Phase 1 studies are primarily concerned with the drug's safety, and are the first time the drug is tested in humans. These studies are typically done in a small number of healthy volunteers (20-100), usually in a hospital setting where they can be closely watched and treated should there be any side effects. These volunteers are usually paid for their participation and for the most part tend to be men approximately 30 years of age on average. (Women and children would be involved only in the latest phases of clinical trials and only if the substance in question is designed to be used in these groups of the population.)"
Of course we wouldn't want these poor women to get hurt the first time drugs are tested on humans now would we. (Before that, the drugs are tested on animals) That's probably the main reason why women are only used in the latest phases of the clinical trials. And even if men's bodies do tend to be more resistant to these toxic drug chemicals, notice how we keep hearing in the media about how women's biology is stronger than men's, e.g. women are biologically programmed to outlive men by 5 or 6 years, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @02:42AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"male prisoners being the ones tested with dangerous new medicines"
One more proof of our societies attitude of disposability towards males. Bad enough men make up approximately 93% of the prison population, with proportionately more programs set up to help women prisoners than men.
Mainline Feminists don't see any male oppression, and love to say that all males are privileged patriarchs, but they are hateful bigots and liars.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was done well in the film "Mrs Evers Boys" by HBO.
The trials were back about (really sketchy memory on this) 40's-60's/70's. Even after the development of antibiotics racist assholes wanted TERMINAL (meaning the patient died) exahaustive tests done. Also, because after a while, admitting we had the drugs to cure them but hadn't for DECADES would have EMBARESSED someone.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've gotten into lots of arguments with MRAs about how much good some of those who appear to be working for "our cause" actually do. In this war between the genders, sound bites are the SCUD missiles, and Farrell has given women and those who would silence men one of the most powerful - "Women cannot hear what men do not say."
Over on MND, even as the meltdown was happening, some guy showed up who posted with the sig line "Women cannot hear what moderators delete."
My experience has been that women WILL not hear what I have kept saying over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. All the tricks that the Lorianne troll pulled are great examples of how women just refuse to hear the point that a man or men are trying to get across. About the only thing missing was the fact that she wasn't physically present and couldn't simply shout us down, or put her hands over her ears and say "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"
Women, chivalrists, and their yipping lap dogs do everything they can to silence us.
To me, most of Farrell's ideas still sound pretty feminist to me, but just applied to men. He seems to be one of the champions of the "new masculinity" and has bought the feminist party line that the old version was inherently flawed. br>
Lots of guys jump to defend him pointing out how he "gave up" being a feminist to write pro-male books. He did write an excellent one back in the early 80s, and "Myth of Male Power" was well-researched. I guess my main problem with it was wondering why in hell it had to be written in the first place.
I eventually realized that I grew up in a social backwater where values were probably 10-20 years behind what was happening in the cities, so there was an entire generation of men who had never seen reality and had only been fed feminist bullshit. The notion of women being "oppressed" when it is 90+ degrees outside, and at least 120 in the barn where I'm stacking hay, and the womenfolk are in the shaded house making sandwiches for our lunch, was too stupid to ever give even one second's consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women cannot hear what moderators delete
I glad someone noticed that line. I thought it was funny and made a point. Ironically though, two days later everything was deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ironically though, two days later everything was deleted."
ironically or prophetically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 27, @01:05AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say is an excellent book. It's title means he is challenging men to speak up about their issues. It gets the attention of many who would otherwise not listen, and thereby it breaks new ground. The entire book is introducing men's issues like domestic violence, false accusations, etc., all of the things in The Myth of Male Power, just under a different theme and with updated info and a few chapters relating to communications issues. I'm among those who would defent Farrell. I assist him in his workshops every year and he is very, very true to the men's rights movement. That's why the rad fems have launched a smear campaign against him for years while most of the major media has ignored him. The Myth of Male Power is the bible of the men's rights movement and he still stands by it 100%. You can see footage of him on CNN speaking at an NCFM-LA rally at this link http://www.warrenfarrell.com/gov/index.htm
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree 100% Marc. Warren Farrell has single-handedly brought men's issues to print like no one else. I am in awe of his work and grateful to him for all he has done.
The title "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say" is exactly as you said, it's a challange to men to speak up. We have been "Rip Van Winkled" for far too long. Too many men have trusted our legislators to do the right thing for all people and are now waking up to the fact that they have sold men down the river. It's a great book that outlines and supports men's rights issues and offers plenty of facts to back them up.
He deserves our gratitude and respect.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say is an excellent book. It's title means he is challenging men to speak up about their issues. It gets the attention of many who would otherwise not listen, and thereby it breaks new ground.
I'm not attacking Warren. But I do regard him with a healthy dose of skepticism. My impressions of him were formed before he switched sides of the fence and was arguing against the positions that he now argues for.
You know him personally, Marc. I don't. And his fame may be the key to bringing men's issues to the mainstream.
But, aside from cracking the "glass closed minds", most of the issues he deals with were brought up by other male authors, some of them when he was still on the board of NOW. Herb Goldberg's "Hazards of being male: surviving the myth of masculine privilege" came out in 1976. The very first chapter is titled - "In Harness: the male condition." Another chapter is titled - "Impossible Binds." Norman Mailer's "Prisoner of Sex" came out in 1971. Asa Baber was a tireless advocate for men and critic of feminism, and his column in Playboy began in 1982. His book "Naked at Gender Gap" was one of the best descriptions of the male experience in a male voice that I have ever read.
When I see Farrell bill himself as "founder of the men's rights movement" I think he is taking credit for things he doesn't deserve credit for. He is part of a group of men who contributed to the problems men have today. If he has "seen the light", that is great and more power to him. But, conversely, if he and others of his ilk had never drawn breath, men wouldn't need his services today as much as they do.
Like Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young, and the whole group of fence sitters who can't quite bring themselves to be honest enough to look at feminism for what it REALLY is, and keep trying to salvage its reputation on what it was supposed to be, I don't often actively speak against such people, but I view them with a wary eye and question how much net good they really have done in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 27, @12:03PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Many of us have changed from who and what we were in the 60's & 70's. Feminism has itself changed radically from what it was then. I originally thought feminism was a fair and appropriate idea, but with its changes for the worse, I began to think, "Hey wasn't this supposed to be about "Equality for Men and Women?" It didn't all happen overnight, and few of us moved away from supporting feminism as rapidly as it changed. I for one was not aware of the changes, until the negative impacts were well in place, and then it was too late. It then became a matter of playing catch up, and still is.
I do agree with the view point that feminism is as tainted as a white dress dipped in road tar, and anyone trying to rescue it is engaging in a futile exercise. Better to move away from it with a new term for whatever woman's rights ideologies you still hold. I support the Independent Women's Forum and other women's groups who see that. Christina Hoff-Sommers is a member of that group. They're conservative, not perfect, but they are taking women in a healthy and sane direction unlike: militant feminism, radical feminism, fundamental feminism, gender feminism or whatever new whitewashed term is in vogue this month for the Ms's.
Equity feminism and ifeminism are getting a lot of undue criticism, just by being associated with those horrible people through the use of the term "feminism," and I wish they would call themselves something else. Personally, I am a big fan of Wendy McElroy, and have found triflingly little to disagree with in anything she says.
As far as Warren considering himself one of the founders of the Men's Rights Movement I do not think that is an erroneous assertion. I consider myself one its founders too, when you consider that the men's rights movement is having so much trouble learning to stand up and walk on its own. It appears to me the men’s rights movement is a movement mired in eternal infancy by the apathetical lack of support that most good men give it. It certainly needs all the support it can get, yours and mine included. Who was the original founder of the men's rights movement? I would say Adam, when he pointed to Eve and told God, "She did it!"
It would be more accurate for Warren to say, "One of the founders," or, "a founder," but if he wants to say, "the founder," he certainly has a right to make that claim in my mind, considering the voluminous effort he has made to call attention to men's rights in the past couple of decades.
I regard Warren Farrell with a healthy dose of "optimism" and "hope," but realize too, that he is still just one man. I look forward to the time when a host of men of the character and intellect of Warren Farrell stand up and point out the abuses that men have had waged against them by a Western society that views them as less equal, less entitled, less valuable, and yes, less human, than women. Go Warren! We’re with you!
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism has itself changed radically from what it was then.(60s&70s)
Oh Really? The SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967. Susan Brownmillers screed that claimed that all men were in collusion to keep women in a state of fear using the mechanism of rape, came out in 1975. Kate Millet's assertions that only lesbians could be true feminists date from the mid-60s on.
Read some of Carey Roberts recent work on the marxist background of Steinem, Friedan, and de Beauvior.
Feminism is a Trojan Horse - always has been. Lots of men (and a few women) are paying the price today for not being able to see that 40 years ago.
I will start taking the "new feminism" apologists a tiny bit seriously if and when they ever start having any real effect. Until then, I'm casting my lot with the Fathers 4 Justice types of guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray: Feminism has itself changed radically from what it was then.(60s&70s)
zenpriest: Oh Really?
I'm with zenpriest on this. From the mid-60s, at least, feminism has been utter poison, despite its endless claims to righteousness. I was there, and it was amazing, to me at least, to encounter the hatred that poured from the eyes and mouths of feminists. One of their most slick and sleazy moves was to exclude men from their meetings, allegedly because men would shout the women down and not let them speak. But in fact they excluded men from their meetings because they would broach no dissent to their hatred and lies. And then they came up with their classic, "Men don't get it, because men don't listen."
Right. The women excluded all men from their discussions, and it was men who didn't listen. If that wasn't typical feminist thinking, I don't know what is.
I would recommend reading some of Erin Pizzey's articles about feminism around 1970. The movement was lunacy, communism, and anti-male hatred.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 27, @10:53PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism has itself changed radically from what it was then.(60s&70s)
Oh Really? The SCUM Manifesto was written in 1967.
Yes, changed for the worse. We're still on the same page, I think. Radical feminism today, that started out fairly decently, progressively, rapidly, turned into the "spawn of hell."
You will only catch me defending fundalmental feminism these days if I am tortured at length, and they don't offer a cyanide cap.
As for as women, there are sisters, mothers, daughters, grandmothers, and 2nd wives of good men whose lives have been destroyed by gender feminists, and are as angry as we are. I know, I set next to a GrandMom at an NCFM picnic and she unloaded on me. Go Granny! "Damn feminists, etc., etc., etc." She didn't seem to be making a distinction, and I think if I had tried to explain she might have told me, "Tell 'em all to shove it."
As for as ifeminists and equity feminists I have suggested before that I wish they'd change their names so if they stick with that name, and get innocently confused with the virulent brand of feminism (militant, gender, fundamental, radical, etc.) because the word feminism is so irretrievably fouled, they certainly shouldn't be too surprised.
I still like Wendy McElroy and Christinna Hoff-Sommers (ifeminst, equity feminist at Independent Women's Forum) so we may differ on that. I even like the women at Concerned Women of America - CWA, (a very right wing Christian group of women who fought the NOW to a stand still at the United Nations over CEDAW). All of the aforementioned have stood up for men as much, or more, than most people in this movement, and I admire and respect them.
We certainly need all the good friends we can get, and "underhanded militant feminists" are out there and capable of cruelty, torture, lies, deception, and unimaginable and unspeakable things we have not even seen yet. I'm certainly going to try to remember the kindnesses good people have shown me, more than the cruelties, that evil feminists have shown to me. I don't want to lose my humanity. The evil feminists would get too much satisfaction out of that, and I just don't want to give it to them.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm quite willing to applaud WF for any real good that he actually does accomplish. However, I'm still not going to invest everything in his particular "social mutual fund".
The notion of feminism as a positive social movement gone bad from the presence of a few extremists is a much more important issue to men. I'm glad you brought up Erin Pizzey, Thomas, because she tells it like it was. Feminism was always about hating men and trumping up women's victimhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There may have been some moments in the 60's and 70's when feminism was trying to honestly explore the gender divide and build a bridge instead of setting it on fire.
There was a time when they were exploring the politics of desire between women and men.
Feminism had not yet devolved into its current toxicity of male-hating pathology and bile.
The lesbian faction and fascination with the vagina monologues gained the upper hand at a critical juncture mid-80's, and male-hatred resulted from this tragic departure from earlier concerns.
As a grad student in an artsy-fartsy post-modernist film theory program at a Big Ten university during that era, my thesis committee chair was a radical lesbian feminist. (Hey, she was a "hottie!")
After years of therapy, including repressed memory regression hypnosis, she "discovered" she's not really a lesbian... and today is happily heterosexual and married to an actual man.
Somewhere in her story there's a lesson for feminism that is just too ironic to confront!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 27, @11:02PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
radical lesbian feminist. (Hey, she was a "hottie!")
After years of therapy, including repressed memory regression hypnosis, she "discovered" she's not really a lesbian... and today is happily heterosexual and married to an actual man.
Somewhere in her story there's a lesson for feminism that is just too ironic to confront!
=================================================
Now that's a story I'd love to see get made into a movie.
Hollywood wouldn't touch it. It would definitely have to be an independent film maker, but it's a great story line that hasn't been done before. So much for freedom and creativity in the arts.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Warren is one of today's leaders of the truth and justice movement. He has my respect and support."--Thomas
Same here. Farrell is definitely one of my heroes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, good screenplay concept.
Kinda like "The Crying Game" morphed with "Harry Meets Sally..."
BTW, I never slept with her. (The lesbian "hottie.")
Too much leather in her attire at the time.
Off-putting...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There may have been some moments in the 60's and 70's when feminism was trying to honestly explore the gender divide and build a bridge instead of setting it on fire.
There was a time when they were exploring the politics of desire between women and men.
Feminism had not yet devolved into its current toxicity of male-hating pathology and bile.
I'm not sure where you were in the 60s and 70s, when you encountered this type of feminism. Back on the east coast, though, where I lived (NY and Washington, D.C. areas) the movement was definitely poisonous. There was lots of "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle," and "All men are pigs," and "No woman would ever accuse a man of rape unless he was guilty," and pretty much all the other hatred and lies that we encounter today.
I think feminism may seem more hateful today simply because it has more power and can act on its hatred. In the 60s and early 70s, however, I never heard a dissenting voice from any woman. Fortunately, that is not the case today.
If we are going to respect the likes of Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers as far as their choices of names for the things for which they stand, then they are (i- and equity) feminists. In that case, there is no doubt that feminism has actually gotten better.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @12:31PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure where you were in the 60s and 70s, when you encountered this type of feminism. Back on the east coast, though, where I lived (NY and Washington, D.C. areas) the movement was definitely poisonous.
Ironically, there was a lot of peace and love in the West Coast women of those days (love ins, peace marches, free love, concerts in the park, etc.). Feminism then, was a concept touted to improve women's lives and make them more equal with men, i.e. sexual freedom. Everyone just kind of went along with it in the spirit of the time (enlightenment). Everything was definitely going South by the mid-70's.
Sex is now routinely portrayed as "males oppressing women." Modern women routinely use sex as their ultimate tool to get what they want (power and control over men), their ultimate weapon to screw over men. Women's Studies as a main mouthpiece of radical feminism has become a guide for empowering women at the expense of men, while excusing women of all responsibility and accountability in heterosexual relationships.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism then, was a concept touted to improve women's lives and make them more equal with men
Hello Ray,
Please take this in the spirit of discussion, not as mean-spirited argument.
I do remember feminism being touted as a means to improve women's lives and make them more equal to men. But then the radfems today tout feminism in the same way. Granted, the sugar coating hadn't worn so thin, yet, but not one of the feminists back then, and I met a lot from all over the country during the anti-war demonstrations in D.C., was ever willing to acknowledge the injustices to men. Yes, they claimed they wanted equality (again, just as the radfems do today), but they refused to see that there were aspects of society that were terribly oppressive of men. For that matter, precious few men saw the oppression of men for being male. They just wanted to see the injustices to women and to help women. This is the same today. We often discuss it as one-sided chivalry.
I tried to discuss the oppression of men with a number of these women, and all I got was, "(To an objection to the all-male draft) Well, no one should be drafted. Besides, it's men who create wars," and "(To the aspects of marriage that oppressed men) It's men's choice to get married and have a family. A woman has no choice," and "(To the possibility of false accusations) No woman would accuse a man of rape unless he was guilty."
I don't believe that feminism would have become what is today, if many feminists back in the 60s and 70s had been well-intentioned.
I started to be taken in by the sugar coating, but I always saw the underlying hatred. But you and I were excluded from many (all?) of their meetings because we are male. (That alone is pretty revealing.) For real insight into those gatherings, where the feminists could and would reveal their nature and intentions more freely, we have to trust reports by women like Erin Pizzey. She shows that there weren't just seeds of hatred. The hatred was full-blown, even back then.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's my memory too Thomas. I was in DC and in college during the anti-war years (early 70's) and had a girlfriend who was friends with a feminist group. I found out later that they berated her for dating a guy and did their best to talk her out of being with me. They included her but excluded me from everything except grunt labor like painting and cleaning which I naivley helped them accomplish. I could feel their bristling attitudes towards me but at the time I simply didn't understand what was going on and misinterpreted their coldness and aloofness towards me as being angry about the war etc.
I know better now.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe that feminism would have become what is today, if many feminists back in the 60s and 70s had been well-intentioned.
I started to be taken in by the sugar coating, but I always saw the underlying hatred.
In the fall of 1970, as a college freshman, I committed the unforgivable act of opening a door, as I had been brought up to do, for a female student - who promptly flew into a rage, started screaming at me about how she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself, and kicked me in the knee.
In that one vignette, was a pretty good summary of what feminism was at the time, and was going to be:
1) female rage
2) twisting and distorting the motivations and thinking attributed to males, and
3) female violence.
A year or 2 later, a woman I was dating referred to her feminist "consciousness raising" sessions, as "perfectly satisfying, man-hating" sessions.
On the cover of the copy of "The Feminine Mystique" which I bought in 1967, there is this quote: "Women today are waking up to the fact that they have been sold into virtual slavery, by a lie invented and promoted by men " (emphasis is in the original).
If anyone is aware of ANY publications by any woman who calls herself a "feminist" which do not contain the ideation of universal victimhood of women at the hands of men, other than Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff-Sommers, (both of whom became known in the 90s for writing against feminism as most people saw it) I would be happy to have a look. But, I have never seen any. All of recent feminism is about victimhood, not responsibility or accomplishment.
This mythology of credibility for what has been a hate movement all along, must be examined carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 28, @06:57PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
You all make good, informed arguements. I confess I'm one of those people who doesn't readily see the apparent bad in people. I have my good hearted Father to blame for that. I will be the first to conceed that the feminism of today is rabid, and I know what rabid is (have seen fully rabid animals - wild and tame).
Feminism today is the scourge of Western civilization. Maybe I was just to preoccupied with my own life in the earlier decades to have fully seen the dangers of feminism. I wasn't ever formally involved in it. I just knew about it being "there" on the periphery of my existence. Today there is no escaping feminism. It invades every male's life with its virulent hate and bigotry.
Good discussion. Thanks for the prespectives.
I must say, looking back on it now, that my lack of experience with feminism in the earlier decades may be the truest example in my life of the old adage. "Ignorance is bliss.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I was just to preoccupied with my own life in the earlier decades to have fully seen the dangers of feminism. I wasn't ever formally involved in it. I just knew about it being "there" on the periphery of my existence. Today there is no escaping feminism. It invades every male's life with its virulent hate and bigotry.
I think most people just expected it to fade away when enough people woke up to how bogus it was. And, I think it probably would have without Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Women were being integrated into the work force, couples were finding new ways to distribute the old roles, people were adjusting to the new ideas and new ways, until Faludi and Wolf found just exactly the right female raw nerves to irritate and cause the uneasy tension to erupt into full blown war.
I had advance warning because I attended an ultra-liberal school in Minnesota - the land of 10 million liberals. The coasts may a bit ahead of most of the country in most areas of social change, but the hotbed of feminist pathology in the 70s & 80s was definitely Minnesota - the home of MacDworkinoid porn ordinances and the Duluth model.
The problem now is that feminidiot ideology has just seeped into the population like minerals in the water supply. Just like your sink gets a buildup of lime deposits, and your toilet gets deposits of rust stains, feminist ideas have petrified in public thinking.
A few years ago, I was having a conversation with a woman in her 20s about her being a "feminist". I asked her to give me an example of how a college-educated woman in a well-paying job could see that she was "oppressed". The answer was terrifying in a mundane sort of way.
The example she used was of a conversation she had with a customer. She worked in technical support and related how she would habitually end phone calls with "thank you". She pointed out that SHE had been the one doing the other person a favor, so the habit of saying "thank you" must have come from her "oppression as a woman."
When someone is that blind and socially inept, where does one even start trying to explain the most basic of social graces? She was talking to a customer who indirectly paid her salary. She was doing them no "favors" but was providing a service for which they paid handsomely. When I finally distilled it down to - "You were not thanking him for that specific interaction, you were being a representative of your employer and thanking him for doing business with the company which allowed that company to give you a job" - she changed the subject.
Over the years, I have identified a peculiar moment-to-moment consciousness amoung women which seems unable to connect the experience of the current moment to anything which came before or to project its effects on anything which might come after. This woman was unable to see her own experience in a larger context which included other people, and was unable to have boundaries between herself and others. Many times I have dealt with women who cannot seem to tell where they leave off and someone else begins.
I believe that in order to fully grasp feminism, that it requires taking a step back and looking at the word in its most literal sense. "Feminine-ISM" is the political form of the old feminine mystique - trading on the mythology of women's supposedly more tender feelings, and fits of emotion.
FEMININE-ism, is the ultimate in female illogic, self-centeredness, and abusiveness toward men, expressed in the political realm - the personal is the political. Angry at one man? Punish them all!!!
Feminism is the Feminine Mystaque.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just pronounce it -
Mystique, mystaque
mis-teek, mis-take - mistake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the play on words was intentional, my mind works like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 03, @06:46PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
I've managed stores for over 20 yrs. and have had precisely the same anecdote, from several female cashiers. They weren't able to grasp any organisation or system larger than a one-to-one social interaction. I've never had that problem with a male, even one's on the lower end of the intelligence or cooperation spectrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 27, @12:12AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
There is stong evidence to refute the glass ceiling myth. If Warren is only refuting one facet of feminist fallacy (the glass ceiling), that is still one less myth they have to wave in our faces. It is one more lie they get caught in.
Warren has the name recognition so whatever he says, he's going to take a lot more heat from mainstream feminism, than if you or I said it. Considering that I believe Warren did his research well on this (at least I hope he did), I look forward to bringing this up on college campuses where feminists have had a field day shooting their big mouths off about the glass ceiling.
I hope Warren follows this up by publishing something on the glass ceiling myth.
Maybe it's time we picketed a few college campuses. We can't get on the college campus if we're not enrolled. It's too disruptive to the educational process, but colleges love to have a big sign with their name on it right out front. That's a good place.
COLLEGE CAMPUSES BATTER MALE STUDENTS WITH WOMEN'S STUDIES LIES
THE GLASS CEILING EXISTS ONLY IN THE LIES OF WOMEN'S STUDIES PROPAGANDA
WHERE IS TITLE IX WHEN MEN ARE NOT EVEN HALF THE ENROLLMENT?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I have confidence that Warren has researched this well, as he's always been very good about that in the past. I'll be listening to the show tommorow, ready to do some web research in case he gets stuck so I can call in and help him out. I might try to call in anyway with either some anecdotes to counter the anecdotes women who feel they've been discriminated against at work might tell, or to try and get the word out about men's issues more broadly, or both depending on how the show is going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure it was worth listening to an hour of NPR to hear a little bit of Warren Farrell. At least he didn't get cut off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a set up that program was.
The announcer in the beginning set the stage by saying:
"Why don't women get the top jobs? Some say that progress is blocked by a persistent glass ceiling, others say that sexism is just part of the reason."
So you see the program was framed not in terms of whether discrimination or a glass ceiling exist but framed in terms of assuming these exist and focusing on how bad these two things are for women. Chivalry in action. Women have choices, men have responsibility. same old shit.
Warren did a good job in re-framing the conversation to one which acknowledged that the corporate climate was also injurious to men and that the major difference was that men were harnessed by old sex roles that only allowed them to work, and work, and work while the women had choices based on their VALUES and preferences and these choices were all about creating a life that suited them.
We have an uphill battle.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I kept trying to get through to the show but never got past the busy signals. I had it all diagrammed out too. :(
First I was going to plug Farrell's Myth of Male Power and Mensactivism.org, then I was going to point out that the issues they kept mentioning as being hard on men were issues that the executives I've worked with, both male and female, give women much more leeway on, "I'm late because my kids were sick and I had to drive them to school" never is as easily forgiven when a man says it as a woman. From here I was going to talk about how businesses treat women better overall, act happier that they are they, give them much more freedom of dress, and bosses almost always show much more interest in women as people than they do in men. "If Donald Trump tried treating men like he does women, he'd lose all illusions men are poor employees" - (referring to a quote which opened the show).
Finally I was going to point out that the comment about women being paid less was "misleading, deceptive, and for all practical purposes a lie" and mention the reality that men do almost all the dangerous and physically strenous work out there, work more hours, and end up giving the money to women in the form of all-his-money laws, *cough* child *cough, cough* support, and in the end women spend 80% of all the consumer dollars while men make up 95% of the workplace deaths.
Instead of worrying about these women who already live in big houses having trouble with a very questionable glass ceiling, why not do a show about men getting twice the average sentence as women regardless of the severity of the crime, male only selective service, all the politicians who are pro-choice only for women, or that men kill themselves 5 times as often as women do yet depression is considered something which effects primarily women.
Don't know how far I'd have gotten, but I wrote it all down before I tried calling in so that I'd be prepared, and I had tabs in my browser already opened to pages confirming every claim I made. :(
Oh well, maybe next time.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
