|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:18 PM January 18th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
When I was growing up, I had to listen to a lot of women (in my family and otherwise) jabbering about how women were better than men in various ways. Eventually I learned to tune it out. Know how in a Charlie Brown cartoon, any time an adult speaks, it sounds like a muffled trombone? That's pretty much what I hear when women talk about how oppressed they are, and how it isn't fair that there isn't a perfect 50.000000000000000000000% ratio of men to women in every possible field.
The most egregious of these thinly (if at all) veiled put-downs was when I was in 7th grade. I had a girlfriend, and I was visiting her at her house. Her mother sat there on the couch and said, "So, how does it feel to know that from now on, females will be superior to you in every way?"
What a horrible thing to say to a 12-year-old boy who's powerless to say anything back to you. To this day I feel sorry for her sap of a husband. On account of her, and on account of all women who preach bigoted feminist shit to boys, I'd like to say, "Fuck all of you bitches who think you're entitled to a free ride because you're SOOOOOO OPPRESSED."
"Women are still subjwah wah wu wah hwah!"
"It's not fair thwah wah wah wuh-wah-wuh wah-wah!"
"Anything you can do I can hwa huh-hwah wah wah!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 04:27 PM January 18th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous, I'd hardly call that "thinly veiled"! What a horrible thing for a 12-year-old to have to hear.
This president is getting unfair flak -- he never even said that women [i]were[/i] inferior in mathl only that the issue should be [i]studied[/i]. But, as usual, people are projecting their own feelings on to him and then tossing him to the wolves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:40 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice, of course, that when someone says that females may not do as well as males at something everybody goes nuts and start yelling; "Sexism!!!!!!"
But if you say females exeed males in ANYTHING, no one says a peep...!
And we hear how "superior women are to men" ALL THE TIME!
Just let ONE person (especialy a man) suggest otherwise and all hell breaks loose, every single time.
No. No double standards in THIS country. (sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 09:46 PM January 18th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The reason they're SO upset is that it's true, they KNOW it's true, and there's nothing they can actually do to change it AND they want to 'teach' everyone that it's NOT true.
You know the rules: tell a lie frequently enough and say it loud enough and stifle any real, substantive debate on the topic and the lie becomes truth.
That is until reality comes a'calling to make you look silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course.
Truth is the biggest and best weapon we have against feminists.
If not they wouldn't try so hard to squelch it.
Feminists; They're kinda dumb, they're easy to beat, as long as the truth can be shown...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:43 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The President of Harvard used anecdotal evidence to support his position, which was completely flawed. He assumed that boys don't name their toy trucks daddy and baby truck. I'm a man, and I remember as a boy making little families out of the hot-wheels cars I was playing with.
You folks seriously misunderstand the institutional reasons why women don't infiltrate some fields as well as men do. You fall victim to historical myopia because in other societies, the roles of men and women were completely reversed. No really, in ancient egypt men were the childrearers.
I am a geneticist, I'm male, I'm probably more nurturing than most women out there, and yet I'm really into technology and technical details. There's nothing about childrearing and mathematics that makes them exclusive areas of ability, nor assigned to women and men respectively. My sister is a Ph.D. Student in mathematics, by the way.
Live in ignorance, guys. While you continue to do so, women are going to college more than men today. You're making me look bad, CATCH UP!
www.ktkgalaxy.net/forb/mind/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:31 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I am a geneticist, I'm male, I'm probably more nurturing than most women out there, and yet I'm really into technology and technical details.
That's heartwarming. Join fathers-4-justice and start fighting for equal custody rights. And I don't know what you're been reading or what you've been smoking, but there's loads of scientific literature indicating significant differences between typical male and female brains. Of course there's a distribution of characteristics, just like in any population. But there's good evidence that males on average have innately better spatial reasoning and quantitative problem-solving skills. Your argument by personal anecdote to the contrary is no better than your feminist analysis of Summer's remark.
At least you noticed that, including ALL FIELDS, significantly fewer men than women are graduating from college. Now that's a real problem. Why don't you consider the institutional sources of this problem? One source of the problem is undoubtedly the prevalence of people like you "teaching" in colleges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:08 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Live in ignorance, guys. While you continue to do so, women are going to college more than men today. You're making me look bad, CATCH UP!"
So, when men only do better than women in SOME "traditionally male" fields it is because because of "institutional reasons" for women lagging behind.
Women are going to college ITSELF more than men and you tell men that we are making you look bad and we're "living in ignorance"??? And then you tell us to catch up?
how interesting.....
When I read your post my initial thought was that you were stating you were male as though you weren't exactly sure. Could just be my assumption though of course. But it was that last paragraph that really did it to me.
p.george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:38 AM January 25th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"When I read your post my initial thought was that you were stating you were male as though you weren't exactly sure. Could just be my assumption though of course. But it was that last paragraph that really did it to me."
You need to stop attaching your identity, and thus insults on other men's identities, on male-ness or the social construction "man-hood." By your last sentence, are you sure you are even a heterosexual man? Because it sure sounds like something else if my words "did it to you," rather than "did it for you" which is what a more linguistically-trained male should be able to put together. Oh wait, that's something women do better, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greystoke on 04:58 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, men are for some reason overrepresented at the genius end as well as the idiot end of the spectrum. If that is due to innate differences, then the top ranks of academic fields will tend to be mostly male -- as will the population at your local homeless shelter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:16 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
...actualy we don't have to make you look bad, Anon.
You kinda do that pretty well by your self...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and please don't bother to point out that I mis-spelled "actually".
It was a mis-type, nothing more.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 02:23 PM January 20th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose if Leif Ericsson, and all Vikings in general, had to tend to changing nappies they would have been less inclined to explore and slaughter thousands of people. The death and carnage was a little overboard but the results of their conquests had far reaching consequences. Their blood lines are found in many European countries and were exported all over the world. If Egyptian men had spent less time rearing children then perhaps they might have surpassed the age of copper. Vikings, by their cruel and curious nature set human development into fast forward. The Greeks and Romans, war like as they were, also had the same effect. Did they also stay at home and raise junior and juniorette? I doubt it. If these examples aren't enough to plainly show the innate differences between men and women, what more does one need? And don't hand me any crap about Matriarchal societies where men were ruled by women. If they even existed, guess how they became extinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:29 AM January 25th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"I suppose if Leif Ericsson, and all Vikings in general, had to tend to changing nappies they would have been less inclined to explore and slaughter thousands of people."
It is clear here that you are devaluing childrearing. I wish you had more respect for your mother. Or maybe she just did a shitty job raising you to be responsible.
If you want a more thorough answer as to why particular societies have been overrun by others, try reading Guns, Germs, & Steel. Male-ness has nothing to do with it. I suppose you'll say that the Romans fell because they wore skirts to battle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:59 AM January 25th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Well whatever the point is the men who visit this site should not get into an argument but rather try to reason out things.
If one of you doesn't agree with someone's point you don't need to get into confrontary mode.
And over such silly things.
Well let me tell you one thing.
The person here does not seem to devalue mothers or their roles.
He means that when men do women's role the civilization does not make progress.
And that my friend is not wrong at all.
Yes, men can be just as effective as nurturers if not better but they have a lot of other things goiung for them such as creativity,inventiveness,etc. which have led them to create our civilization as it stands today.
But women cannot do this role thats why men are supposed to do it. And women are helpers to men as they help in childrearing.
But they cannot claim to be equal to men.
They simply cannot survive if we men stop protecting and caring for them.The vice versa cannot be claimed unless you can site some evidence .
Respecting mothers is one thing. Valueing motherhood over fatherhood is quite another.
Today's society is doing the latter with greater aplomb and paying the price.
What is exactly the reason mothers should be respected ?
1. She first feeds you in her womb for nine months.
Well millions of women today abort their child.
So there goes respect for such mothers.
Still many smoke and drink and do lots of things which may harm the child inside but do not give a damn.So no respect for them either.
2. She feeds you from her breast when you are an infant .
Well virtually more than 70 to 80 percent do not feed their infants from their breasts for they fear disfiguring of their cleavage and bodies.
I mean doesn't matter its your own fucking child and the fact that this could seriously harm the child. How selfish ? So you cannot respect these women either.
3. Lastly ,respect for your father and submission to him.
Well, almost all women do not do this these days.
So i cannot respect such mothers too.
So now give some legitimate reason to respect a mother of today.
NOTE : the roles i mentioned are the primary roles of mother. A woman is not made a leader by God , a man is. So it is a father's job to preach to his children and mother's to follow it along with the children and not dissent.This is not at all SEXIST. Unless you can't figure yourself from the PC bullshit you are enmeshed in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 06:49 PM January 20th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The President of Harvard used anecdotal evidence to support his position, which was completely flawed.
It's ironic that you use anecdotal evidence as a means to criticize Harvard's president for using anecdotal evidence.
While it's undoubtably true that institutional factors play a significant role in determining the career choices people make, you supply no evidence for why women, as an example, are attracted to some scientific fields yet are not attracted to other scientific fields. Women in great numbers enter "soft" technical fields such as biology and medicine, yet do not enter fields such as physics and engineering that are mathematically based. In the Earth Sciences, women enter the more qualitative subfields of geology and environmental science and tend to avoid quantitative subfields like geophysics. In computer science, women gravitate towards database technologies as opposed to algorithmic development. Clearly, there is a lot more going on than "institutional reasons."
There are significant and obvious physical differences between men and women. It is logical to conclude that there are significant mental difference too.
What I think bothers many people here is that it is acceptable to claim that women are better or superior to men in certain ways (e.g., women live longer due to genetic superiority), yet saying the opposite is taboo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:03 AM January 25th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's ironic that you use anecdotal evidence as a means to criticize Harvard's president for using anecdotal evidence."
Obviously some men here aren't trained in logic, either. I was showing how fallacious his reasoning was by using a counter-example. That's something an elementary course in the subject would clarify. I was not asserting that the opposite was true by my anecdote.
It seems from your other posts, that apparently you don't even know what feminism is. It is the viewpoint that women should have equal rights as men. Personally, I feel that it is a poor name, because it is easily demonized by characters like Rush Limbaugh as being anti-male. Conversely, some of your statements could be taken as anti-female. Feminism is not a crime against humanity, you are talking about femi"nazi"ism - the nickname of those who believe that women are superior to men.
In addition, it implies that female rights are the only issue, which is a wedge that drives various movements apart, the idea that they are separate endeavors. That is one reason why I consider myself a humanist - that people should have rights in our society because they are humans, not because they are male, female, or the 1 in 2 million who are born hermaphroditic or sex-nonspecific.
I applaud efforts at trying to increase male involvement in paternity, but while there are males socially belittling each other for wanting to take care of their children, or even not have careers, it is unlikely to happen. Me, I don't care about the social atmosphere. When your boss is a cheuvenist, will you be taking your full paternity leave and risk looking bad for that promotion? In that case, better hope your boss is a woman. Or me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 09:56 PM January 18th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
As a CS student, I can definitely say that there are differences.
Women on average just don't have the same affinity to the technical field as men. In my faculty, they tend to be around because they want a proper job and not because they simply like to play with technology like many men here do.
A lot of guys here started with home computers like the C64 in the 80s, while the women at that time wouldn't touch something as uncool and boring as a computer.
You can also see here what men are worse at: especially the best coders and tech wizards tend to be extremely dyslexic. People like me, who are not, usually don't have the same brilliance in technicals things and need longer for their studies.
From my point of view, people with a very specialized, one-sided kind of ability get a lot of advantages here while the ones with more general interests have problems.
This, of course, means that girls will perform worse on the average with the same amount of work. But not because someone discriminates against them, but because that bunch of dyslexic males that generates program code like you and I talk is just too damned good at what they do.
Their counterpart in the female sex can probably be found in arts and languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 PM January 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This story shows the gross anti-male bias pervasive today. Note the headline to the article: "Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says." That's not what the Harvard president said. He said that innate differences between the sexes could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and math careers. In other words, the Harvard president said that men have more natural ability in these areas than do women. But everything today is just about women. So you see the oneline survey question next to the article, "Do you think Summers' comments about women were offensive?" This narrow-minded bigotry is sickening.
And of course that men lack "natural ability" in parenting is accepted as a given in the sexist, anti-male family law that denies men equal child custody opportunities. Being a parent draws on a low wider range of abilities than being a scientist or a mathematician. Women may be better in some aspects of parenting, while men may be better in others. And being a parent is much more important than having a particular type of job. So where's the outrage about the assumption that men lack natural ability to be parents? There isn't any, because too many men are wiling to accept being treated like dogs, and too many women are willing to ignore men's human dignity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:07 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
'Anonymous'.
You should really go check out 'NiceGuy's' site.
He tells it pretty much like it is.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:49 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
The Harvard President has already started his apology campaign, by suggesting that his remarks were deliberately provocative and basically in service to advancing women's greater entry into the hard sciences --
" Dr Summers said in a statement: 'My remarks have been misconstrued as suggesting that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of math and science. I did not say that, nor do I believe it.
I am deeply committed to the advancement of women in science, and all of us have a crucial stake in accelerating progress toward that end.
He added that the 'harder we work to research and understand the situation, the better the prospects for long-term success'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 07:05 PM January 19th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering how long it would take before this guy started caving. When are these men of academia going to grow a pair. Well, never mind academia, how about plain common sense. To the professor that got up because she said she would either black out or throw up, if you pass out - I hope you bang your head on a biology book. Maybe some of it will sink in. If you up-chuck, I hope the part of your brain that has died will spew out along with the feminista bilge water you carry in your sensitive wittle tummy.
I just read this gem of a quote:
In 1870 Queen Victoria of England wrote, “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors …Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”
Full article here...
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/200 5/roberts011905.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Me thinks Queen Vikki was on to something, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bharati on 01:43 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one article critical
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200 501190846.asp
Teh media seems to have recovered somewhat from their baises . I think internet activism and mens activism has made some difference now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:22 AM January 20th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Some difference, yes. Enough difference, absolutely not. This whole "controversy" is sickening in comparison to the serious injustices that males face in education, in family law, in reproductive rights, and in services for victims of domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:43 AM January 21st, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:06 AM January 21st, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
The women at IWF seem to be quite honest.
But they do claim that men and women are equal.
It is WRONG ! WRONG! WRONG!
Men are more logical than women. And this means more intelligent. The IQ tests are rubbish.
Men are even better care-takers of children than women.
Women on a whole seem to live in a utopian land and expect things to be the way they feel not the way it actually is.
Men see things the way it is. Thats why they were heads of the families and not equals with women in earlier societies.
A woman is just not good enough compared to a man when arriving at a rational thought.
Women emotionalise,men rationalise. Hence,in an event where a mother feels emotionally beaten up by her child she might beat up the child ruthlessly while a father is less likely to do so as his emotions do not cloud the fact from him that beating up the child ruthlessly may actually harm the child seriously.
Societies earlier understood this. I have read somewhere that when the US was first formed, in divorce cases,which were very rare then, the child custody was given to the FATHER.
Even today,if you read some stuff you will see that children from single parent-mother households are much much more likely to turn delinquents then children from single parent-father households. And yes the loss of the mother is not much of a deterrent for a child as the difference between children from families where
mother is absent and where she is present is non-existent. This is not degrading women. But this should make mothers a little modest. They shouldn't claim they are more important to a child and that the father is secondary. It is RUBBISH. Mothers are needed as they feed their child in their womb and when still very young from their breasts.This feeding is very important for the healthy growth of the child.
That is the mother's role. The rest of it is the FATHER's role . Unfortunately today's society values motherhood so much more than fatherhood that it inhibits many men from taking their roles as fathers ,their greatest role in life, as passionately as they should . In a society where this happens the new generation will be DUMB.
Thats why you see that the chinese and indian guys are somewhat more intelligent than the average american and the african-americans are the dumbest.
Yes, at all costs please promote fatherhood . It is the foundation of any great culture.
Men are heads of women ,not their equals. All messengers of God have been MEN. This is a blunt message from God Himself to make us remember our role as leaders of our women and children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:53 AM January 21st, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Men are heads of women ,not their equals.
It seems to me that you're overcompensating for decades of contempt for men. Men and women are both human beings, and that's a biological fact. In Genesis, which is recognized by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, males and females are created in the image of God, not one as inferior to the other. Moreover, it's nonsense to call one person "inferior" to another. On what scale is one person inferior to another? Height? Weight? Ability to do math? Speaking speed? Weightlighting? Ability to bear children? Ability to love truly?
Don't buy into feminist nonsense about labeling one sex inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:19 AM January 21st, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree.
No human being is "superior" to another.
The only people who generaly believe that are the KKK, Nazis and feminists, Just to name a few.
One of the reasons I became a M.R.A. is because it always spoke about TRUE equality. Not the double-speak "equality" that feminists aspouse.
Their version of "equality" is as follows; "Women and men are equal. But women are superior...."
Feminists proudly carry the banner of "eqality" but wear the badge of bigotry.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:44 AM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Well i did not say women are inferior.
I meant to say that in a marriage or in a family the decisions have to be taken by the men.
There should not be a mutual agreement arrived at with women having their way.
In the past this was very clear to people. So men were heads of families.
This does not mean women are inferior.
They are just not logical enough.
And don't try to say that women are actually as logical as men. That is bullshit. And if you believe that,you are more likely buying the feminist bullshit not me.
I am a comp engg. student. i have seen how girls get their grades. Unlike you i am still in the education pipeline so i know what goes on.
It is because educators are stupid people who don't know what education means. I mean people are taught to parrot answers. Girls are not the ones who protest because they lack the intellect to reason. Boys protest but they are not grown ups so when they see adults opposing them they tune out and so fail in engaging in schools.
I mean teachers give students good grades if they have good presentation regardless of the content.
The same way as, an ugly women can be made to look good by tons of make-up but you have to be smart enough to see the real picture.
And yes, when i talk of parroting, what i mean is this. You read some strange topic which you cannot relate to at all. But memorise the whole thing. When the papers come out you are asked the exact same thing. You just have to write down what you've memorised. Where is the education in there ????
Girls follow this faulty method and get grades.Boys spend time to understand the topic .When they don't get it, they cannot answer it in the papers. Even if they get it they will tend to write in their own way not exactly as it is written in the book. The teachers then label boys as stupid because their answers don't match with the written word in the book.
Over time the boys too start feeling that they are dumb for they too have a longing in their heart to follow what their elders say.
But when it comes to actually apply what you have learnt in an application based paper.
For example:: you learn an algorithm and then you are asked to apply it in creating a program.
The girls just don't understand .They come up memorising the whole thing and not understanding.
Boys fare well in such cases because they 'wasted ' their time in understadning the damn thing.
Now this was just a small example to you people who always harp about political correctness but don't see these subtle things which reinforce the PC rubbish.
And yes, it is one of the reaosns why i say men are heads of women ,women need to get permission from their husbands or fathers to understand if something is right or wrong. This is not called inferior.
Being a leader does not mean you are superior to those you lead. It means your job is to lead . Just that.And so if you're a leader you have be more intelligent than those whom you lead.Otherwise you're not a leader. Men have made leaders by GOD. This is not some crap. Think about it.
I sincerely hope you people got what i meant to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:59 AM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men have made leaders by GOD"
or people made god to be leaders?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:40 AM January 22nd, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Well it means men were made by GOD to be leaders.
Yes this seems very absurd.
But i said think about it. For example,in all great literature it is said men do this ,or great men have these habits, and so on.
You hardly find words like people or human beings.
Why is it so ? i wonder.
But the discrimination thing is a hoax as we know.
So don't you think it is worth pondering on ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Mr. Common Sense on 07:47 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Good to hear from IWF. It's really nice to see a womans group out there that uses some logic instead of just wanting to sponge off of government programs and push an illogical agenda. Keep up the good work!
A man feed up with the socialization of America.
The truth will set you free.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
