|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 17, @12:23PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
A much better idea is to give all farmers the freedom to own land and farm their lands and to sell their crops for a good profit. Oftentimes in these third world the countries the problem is that the government steals the harvest or the profit from the harvest, in which case no one wants to grow anything. Why grow something so it can be stolen?
Of course, overpopulation is another huge problem, but such a politically correct conference would never suggest that irrational breeding might be to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem is that many people A) live where FOOD DOESN'T GROW and B) have five children when they can barely feed themselves. Stupid fucks. We need to fly someone down there to teach them about masturbation and oral sex.
Few things piss me off as much as people who have more children than they can afford to maintain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We need to fly someone down there to teach them about masturbation and oral sex."
Just send the UN bitches down there to teach the girls how to masterbate with vegatables.
huh? oh ya my bad.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 17, @12:25PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are not only effective farmers, they are more productive farmers than men, and if you give small credits to women, they pay back," she said."
On what basis is a woman a better farmer?
Sounds like neo-paganism earth mother 'make believe' science to me. Farming is hard backbreaking work for either sex, taking time off to rear and raise children doesn't not factor kindly into this equation...
Also, what's up with insinuating men are 'deadbeats' that do not pay their creditors? If as a man I am "privileged" to have land and not pay my creditors for it - sign me up....!
Is the womyn who said this the head of some organization? She seems a bit sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I have read something similar in an article (don't remember where) about development efforts in the third world. There are help agencies that operate like a small bank and give (very small) credits to farmers in Africa. What these people said was that when they give a man credit, what usually happens is that he gathers his friends and spends the money on a drinking binge, whereas most women do as they are supposed to, spend the money for equipment or seeds, and at least try to pay the credit back.
The article was not specifically about this phenomenon, it was just mentioned. So I guess I can at least give the authors the benefit of the doubt and not assume he/she had some hidden agenda in reporting this.
I'm even inclined to believe that it's true. Many men that I've seen "working" in Tunisia or Morocco rather looked like they were on a perpetual break. When I saw someone working really hard, it was mostly women.
Sad as it is, I'm afraid you can't assume that men are the same everywhere. Of course in the US or Europe, men are certainly no worse at paying back credits than women, but that doesn't mean this is true everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 17, @03:29PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Phil, you are full of it.
I work with a Moroccan Engineer here in the US and I asked who him which gender does the farming there (in Morocco).
He said "the moroccan men do the majority of it (farming), and women help out when the situation calls for such help - travel, sickness, or if times get "really bad"
He said it is an absolute lie to come to any other conclusion, as he has family (men) that work themselves to death trying to maintain profites and keep the family healthy. Very little machinery means much heavy lifting.
He also mentioned, that work days in Africa are shorter than in the US ... So, it depends on what time of day you "observed Moroccan men being lazy" I think you suffer from cultural bias...and the idea that woman are better farmers than men is a myth.
So, your information/posting is highly suspect...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have gotten to the point where I dislike wasting my time replying to feminist rhetoric unless it is in front of a population that is not already aware of their misintrepretation of the facts (if not outright lies) but in I have some spare time on my hands so I will address a few points I find relevant.
>
[Newspaper editorials rarely give references so It is not surprising that there are none listed for this claim so let us take this at face value for the moment and continue with the rest of the article.]
>
[Whoa! maybe this is the problem! women not having land could be THE solution we have been looking for to solve world hunger but lets finish the rest of the article first.]
>
[Ok now I am confused. How is it of women do 80% of the farm work in Africa they are suffering from hunger? If women are "more productive farmers than men" shouldn't producing 80% of the farm goods make up for the 20% loss from men?]
>
[Once again I am confused. I thought that women wanted out of the home to work. Women who work are happier and less depressed than women who stay home. (or does that only apply to western women?)]
>
[I will take for granted that agricultural production has increased in Nicaragua but to relate this dramatic increase in production to the increaser in land titles issued to women is a reach. Correlation between two variables does not mean there is causation between them. I seriously doubt that a 30% increase in production was due to women getting land.)
It seems to me that the major problem in these countries is the lack of education. Their poor sexual practices that place an enourmous burden on the already taxed usuable land plays an enourmous part. Lack of resources, religious values, cultural values, all play an important part in the problems these countries have. To make the hunger issue into a gender issue is a tragic twisting of the truth for political reasons.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists work hard to create privileges for women only and double standards to protect women from responsibility. One of these feminist double standards is the right to suggest with impunity that women are morally and /or intellectually superior to men. I see examples of it all the time in feminist editorials and polemics.
Just recently Helen Thomas has written an opinion piece about the two female whistle blowers, Coleen Rowley with the FBI's Minneapolis bureau and Sherron Watkins, a vice president at Enron. Thomas begins her piece with the statements "Leave it to women. They may save the country yet." Then at the end of her column she talks about how women are talented enough to break through the "glass ceiling" -- the glass ceiling (another pillar of feminism's double standards). Can you imagine the reaction if some male pundit wrote those initial statements using the word "men" instead of "women"? And then went on to extol the conduct of males compared to females in the context of some notable occurrence.
I'm very suspicious of anything on gender topics that comes out of the U.N. these days. That organization's staunch pro-feminist bias is glaring. And I think the take on African male farmers will vary depending on whom you talk to. Remember, the media tends to follow the feminist example -- idealize women, especially mothers, and denigrate men, especially fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous, there just seems to be a difference between an impression I got while traveling in these countries and what one single guy from Morocco told you (A Tunisian man I know from work told me that there are indeed "a lot of lazy men" there).
Anyway, I didn't say that there aren't any hard-working men in these countries. It's just that you see a lot of men sitting around what seems like the whole day, whereas you don't see many women doing this. As for cultural bias, it's more like observation, although admittedly rather superficial.
No need to get insulting, by the way - I could as well say that YOU'RE full of it. You didn't offer more corroborating evidence for your claims than I did for mine :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've traveled for three weeks in North Africa (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia), albeit in 1972. When I saw people working, very nearly 100% of the time the work was being done by men. Granted, the women may have been inside cooking or caring for children, but from what I saw they weren't out farming.
Then, in 1996, I visited South Africa and Namibia for 15 days. Again, the lion's share of the work that I saw being done was done by men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but that was before westernization taught them to make their women do all the work! kidding, kidding.
Anyway, this might be another case of looking one thing so ignoring the others. If feminists travel to said places, then they'll specifically look for women doing all the work + child care. Whereas I might go in the future and come back and say "I saw plenty of men working!"
And, it's also hard to do a study on an entire continent every day of the year to see whether men or women ALL TOGETHER work more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 18, @01:32AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe Phil even said he was a feminist. Anyone who disagrees with you people seems to be accused of being a feminist from either MsMagazine or NOW. There are other people besides feminists and mens' rights activists you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the original article and other like-minded essays or studies finding women work more than men, not Phil himself. It's a very feminist ideal, sorry if this bothers you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the original article and other like-minded essays or studies finding women work more than men... It's a very feminist ideal
Many studies have shown that, between work outside of the home and work inside the home, men work more than women in the US. Nevertheless, the feminists tell their lies to the contrary. The same may well be true of other nations. People need to travel to form their own opinions. We certainly can't believe what the feminist media and feminist educational institutions tell us about it.
I've traveled the world extensively for decades, and I have never been anywhere that I saw women working more than men. Feminists see whatever suits their agenda, or, more precisely, they claim to see whatever suits their agenda.
Thanks for pointing out this standard piece of feminist dishonesty, crescent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"or, more precisely, they claim to see whatever suits their agenda. "
This is what Im finding.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only comment I have on your impression, phil, is that you need to make sure you know who the photographer, the editor, and the producer of the productions where you saw this. I don't question what you saw, but I DO question whether it was representative.
When I was in college as an Industrial Engineer, we spent a lot of time talking about something called work sampling. You know, where the boss walks through the plant at some time every day and DAMMIT, he caught me on break again!! As a boss, you need to make sure that you have a calibration on your methods, because if you walk through the factory every day at 9:15, you're gonna catch a larger number than normal of people on break. You need to walk through at random times of day to use this method accurately, and you need to do it a large number of times to get a good sample, otherwise your observations are tainted.
Also, when the cameras are around, the men are curious, as men naturally are, about what's going on around them. Women are more concerned with their own needs and are less likely to let such an intrusion distract them. Not that this is a bad thing, or that it means men are more easily distracted overall. Remember that it is a rare woman who can ignore a crying child, while most men I know do that rather easily. Men and women are just distracted by different things, that's all. And in this case, the women are ignoring the camera and the men are not.
As short story...
A few years ago I was working in the satellite business testing satellites before flight. There was a tribe of photographers from Forbes magazine doing a spread on commercial space business. I was at work running some computerized tests on the bird. As the program was running and I was watching the data flow by, this bimbo photographress came up to me and said "Could you look like you're working please for a few shots." Clueless bimbo that she was, she had a hard time explaining exactly what that meant. What she wanted, I guess were some action shots, so I started to play Minefield on the computer and that made her happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"YOU'RE full of it"
It's fairly clear that anyone who thinks casually watching some people whilst on holiday is in anyway an appropriate information gathering exercise is just about as 'full of it' as it is possible to be.
To then use this information to support a point in discussing gender quotas is to demonstrate a level of stupidity unparalleled by even main stream feminism.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil,
I've observed the same in Africa in Egypt, Sudan and Uganda. I very rarely saw men "working" there doing farming, construction etc (other than army patrols) at any time of of the day. I saw lots of men sitting about chatting, drinking tea or walking leisurely about. Maybe there were men farmers somewhere but they did a good job of hiding them if there were.
Most of the people working small farms (I'd call them more large gardens) were women and older children, mostly girls. Women were also selling the produce in markets. Older women watch the young children while younger women worked. I saw many pregnant women working outdoors. Even nuns in a convent worked dawn to dusk in the gardens.
In nomadic areas it was the women and young children who I observed tending the animals being shepherds. Young girls also sold melons and nuts in the markets. After about age 12 I didn't see boys working but rather walking around in groups socializing. There didn't seem to be much "working" (in our sense of the word) going on that I observed.
One group of men in the Mideast who I did see working manual labor were Palestinian men who seem to be the Mexican laborers of the region, which ever region they lived.
I saw the same thing in Nepal with regard to farming, although the men there work hard too mostly as porters carrying loads of stuff from place to place as there are few roads and few people can afford a pack animal. Still the farming I saw in Nepal was almost exclusively women.
I've traveled extensively in the Mideast and I can say one of the most striking thing is seeing so many men sitting around in cafes or socializing leisurely in public spaces. The women may not be out working but wherever they are, they are not sitting in cafes drinking tea and playing card and board games. Rather than a gender thing, it struck me at the time that there must be severe unemployment to have SO MANY people idle. City or countryside you just don't see that many people working at all relative to the number you do see working.
This seems to be a general rule thoughout the tropic regions of the world I've visited, including the South Pacific islands. There just isn't a whole lot of work to be done and people in general seem satisfied with subsistence living and are not particularly driven to work for profit over and above their daily needs.
This "work ethic" seems to be endemic to tropical regions. And I agree with another poster here that it is best not to make a direct correlation to our work ethic. This is an unfair negative correlation.
Neither should the gender thing be applied to our standards or work ethics. I merely made the observation of what I saw. People seemed happy with the situation.
I suggest to those who doubt, take a year off and travel in some of these places mentioned and see for yourself. Then come back and report your observations. Observations themselves do not necessarily imply other truths. However, from the World Bank perspective they might make those mental links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made my earlier post before I had observed Loriannes excellent post. Unsurprised as usual to see her attaching herself to a post which deals with an unsubstantiated anti male argument. I especially like the “what I saw on my holiday” approach to argument generation. You’ve got to laugh when feminists have to resort to observations of wimmin being oppressed whilst on their holiday. (err probably).
I’m gonna have to bring some sanity in here as my colleagues are wondering why I keep giggling. Here’s a link:
http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/WPdirec t/WPre0016.htm
which has a specifically female slant (as its from the UN) so even Lorianne might believe it. It lists Egypt as one of the places in which the producers of the link have done some of their analysis of agriculture. Virtually all of the places it lists claim that men do some jobs and women others. Although the women’s jobs are much less pleasant I’m sure.
You’re so clearly out of your depth in a logical debate Lorianne so I’ll help you along.
If you have a look at the tab for Tanzania you will see:
“….a 1992 labour force survey in Zanzibar showed that women comprise 74% of the labour force in agro enterprises.”
Hey that almost supports the kind of observations you made on your hols.
Of course these are UN figures and can’t really be relied upon. Even the site owners express disbelief of their own stats with this truly laughable statement.
“According to official statistics, only about 4% of those economically active in agriculture in 1986 were women, and
this rose to about 10% when unpaid family labour was included. However, statistics often do not reflect the true contribution of women…..”
So rely on the stats until they don’t show what you want and then use something else; unsurprisingly the ‘meta-statistics’ approach is never extended to men.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve - Thanks for the post quoted below. I got a hearty belly laugh!
stevenewton said: "I made my earlier post before I had observed Loriannes excellent post. Unsurprised as usual to see her attaching herself to a post which deals with an unsubstantiated anti male argument." Aint it the truth!
stevenewton went on to say: "I especially like the “what I saw on my holiday” approach to argument generation. You’ve got to laugh when feminists have to resort to observations of wimmin being oppressed whilst on their holiday. (err probably)." Yes indeed! Maybe we should all talk about what we saw on our vacations! I bet the fems have special tours of oppressed women around the world.
On my vacation I have seen many who seem like Lorianne. Oh the fems who claim to be pro-woman and probably are, but fail to acknowledge when their own "privilege" usurps the rights of men. Just my personal observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just relating what I observed. And I lived in Africa for a year. I did not make value judgements because our cultures and our work ethics are so different.
If you want to refute direct observation you'll have to go visit these places yourself, otherwise you're left trying to find sources you can "rely on".
I would think banks who are generally known for their conservatisim in loaning money have done some amount of research before doling out money.
Anyway, if its just an experiment to loan women money for farming, I can't see that it would hurt, as I saw my fair share of starvation. I'd be open to many different ideas. One thing that is obvious is the old way of doing things hasn't produced good results.
IF there are good results from giving women farming loans then I'd say stick with this progam. I can't see how anyone could argue with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 18, @04:01PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
IF there are good results from giving women farming loans then I'd say stick with this progam. I can't see how anyone could argue with that.
I can argue with it, especially if such loans involve more government and taxpayer burdens. If women are working the fields more than men, so what? Fuck 'em. Men have been doing all the work for generations upon generations. I think it's time American men sat back and let women have ALL the burden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're not talking about America. We're talking about places where the success of farming each season determines how many people will starve to death or be severely malnourished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We're not talking about America."
Oh! but we are talking about America , Lorianne. It's that "blanket demonization" thingy again. The generalization of men is quite apparent in the article. But thanks for playing.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 19, @01:21PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I still say "fuck 'em." I'm tired to listening to women whine and bitch. They want to take on all the burden and pity themselves about it? Fine. Let 'em do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take no issue with women who want to apply for loans with the intent of buying land for farming but I find it unacceptable and morally repugnant that there should be any form of set-aside for women in farming. It would be just another form of affirmative action, which we've seen over the past three or four decades does very little to help.
But let me ask this in the name of intelligent discourse:
Do we claim here that men are better at everything? I don't, necessarily, and I do think that each gender has its particular talents. I might well be willing to concede (with credible, peer-reviewed research) that women might be better at farming than men, in small plot operation. (Of course, I also contend that men are better hunters and warriors.) But a large farm of the likes that we see in Iowa, I think the situation changes and the advantages that women might have would be nullified.
Also, thinking outside the borders of the U.S. there are countries where only men can own land as a matter of law. Here in the U.S. of course, anyone can own land (even foreign nationals and foreign corporations, which I also find very troublesome). If that's the only point of this article and the UN thrust (and I do NOT believe that it is), then I have a tough time pushing back too hard.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few thoughts, Frank. For one the sign at the loan-bank will read , "males need not apply". So any man up and coming that was interested in this will be denied its office.
More men will want to farm than women, but this bullshit article and it is bullshit tainted and corrupt, leads us to believe that if we just give women the chance all things will be better. Bullshit. What they are suggesting is a shift in power thats all.
They will want to "quota" the whole thing. And again this will take decades to complete, so any man trying to make his way at 18 will be denied this oppurtunity because of sexist bills such as this one.
They should open the doors to women, but not shut the doors to men. If the women are more qualified, then so be it, they of course should get it. Its called good business.
But I've seen this shit a hundred times the sign out front says "men need not apply" well. The quoata system is flawed because if they are going by present standard of all Men having ownership, lets pick a random number like 5000 men own land these men mostly in their thirties. Currently 10% of that number is owned by women meaning in order to get the quota near the equalibrium we need to get 4500 women to buy land.
This doesnt work when most of them want to brade hair or do housework, or are more conformed to raising children. These fucktards want to dissrupt the natural evolution of the area to instill indoctrination and spread the feminist agenda by claiming victimhood and supiority.
In the meantime victimizing the boys who are aiming at this as a natural livlihood, that has been geared into them since birth.
The article was a blanket demonization of men, with a push towards a quota that will discriminate against an entire birth group as well as purposefully shift the domain of power from men to women, this is not equality in any way shape or form.
If you want to fix it, start at zero and open the doors to the qualified applicants, "people who want to farm and need to farm".
You will have to have an unbiased oppurtunity gender assesment application form , which means we would have to keep the UN out. And design it for free market, not gender quota.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"For one the sign at the loan-bank will read , "males need not apply". So any man up and coming that was interested in this will be denied its office."
The article did not say this. How do you know this is true? The article said:
"Giving women more land and an equal footing with men ...."
and
"If women all over the world had the same opportunities as men..."
The article said nothing about excluding men, it is about including women in opportunities. It is not a zero sum game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Giving women more land ..."
Now, exactly where is this land supposed to come from? Do you propose or endorse taking it from men? Who may also be farming the land to feed thier own, intact families?
I take no issue your individual position on this Lorianne, and I stand by what I suggested above, but I DO agree with Dan that getting the U.N. involved will only lead to discrimination against men. Which gets me back to CEDAW. If CEDAW was written as "the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Based On Gender" I'd more than likely be behind it 100%. But it doesn't, and so I take it that the U.N. supports anything that helps women, ESPECIALLY if it's done at the expense of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the article said the goal was to give women more of the same opportunities as men in land ownership. I did not read that it was advocating giving ALL land and ALL farming loans to women.
According to the article there seems to be some kind of believe that women will be successful farmers if given more OPPORTUNITY ie. more land rights and owndership rights than they currently have.
The idea is to boost food production and this is one strategy (the article did not state it is the ONLY strategy) to achieve that goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We already know the article is bullshit, and that the enactments of these ideals will ultimately discriminate.
These people don't care what happens to men or to the long term effects.
In fact it did mention the need for a quota, and its talk of "percentages" (which by the way seemed to fluxuate) will suggest that very thing, in the end an entire generation of men will be discriminated against.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The idea is to boost food production and this is one strategy (the article did not state it is the ONLY strategy) to achieve that goal. "
Really??
Funny it was the only one they went into detail about, I bet it was also the only one that made men look like dopes too.
There are far more litigating factors involved Lorianne, and none of them have to do with men being lazy or some bullshit that women are better crap, go back to "Womyn's studies" courses and find out where these "reporters" get their real insights and "journalistic integrity". You would have to be a complete moron not to see it. Next please.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the new ploys of feminism is to pretend to be fairminded and then, with a sense of superiority borne of security in one's power, condescendingly tell men the same, tired, old garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I ain't falling for that shit anymore!
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“I'm just relating what I observed. And I lived in Africa for a year. I did not make value judgements because our cultures and our work ethics are so different. “
Oh, my mistake I assumed that you brought up your observations in the middle of the discussion to support an argument. Had I realised that you offered your observation with the addendum that it meant nothing and could offer no support since there was no analysis of the environment in which these uncorroborated observations were made I would not have mentioned it. I thought you were using this to support a point; my mistake.
“If you want to refute direct observation you'll have to go visit these places yourself, otherwise you're left trying to find sources you can "rely on". “
Well, I could mention that I have also travelled extensively throughout Africa myself but that would just be more baseless subjectivity when we have this lovely web site from those nice people in the UN.
“Anyway, if its just an experiment to loan women money for farming, I can't see that it would hurt, as I saw my fair share of starvation. I'd be open to many different ideas. One thing that is obvious is the old way of doing things hasn't produced good results. “
There we have it gentlemen: gender discrimination is quite all right when the state of affairs before its imposition is less than ideal.
I wonder when it’s ok to discriminate against women in the western nations?
“If there are good results from giving women farming loans then I'd say stick with this program. I can't see how anyone could argue with that.”
Well, the reason these loans are being given out is to give people a way of making a living. It’s not as if it’s so they can expand their business and take a second European holiday every year. It’s quite literally so that they can survive.
So what is Lorianne proposing. Well, she thinks it’s ok to give this money to women in preference to men. She, and many like her suggest that it is reasonable to suppose that a man may not be trusted with a loan and so refuse him one not based on anything he has done but simply because he is a man. What is to become of these men? Well unless they can find a woman they will be unable to support themselves. Without support these men will quite simply die. What Lorianne is suggesting she can’t see anyone arguing with is, if I may borrow Dan’s phrase, gendercide on a massive scale.
While our governments lobby Afghanistan to allow more women to participate in local government in their country ‘cause it’s nasty and sexist not to, we have people saying its quite reasonable to refuse a starving man a loan simply because he’s a man. What a piece of work you are Lorianne.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are the piece of work. You don't know these programs won't help more food being produced. You don't seem to care. You don't seem to want to people to experiment and see if new stategies work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne - The discussion has been about whether there is sexism involved in this. stevenewton has just argued convincingly that indeed it is sexist to offer land to women based on their simply being women. Now to call him a "piece of work" and claim he doesn't care seems to be a diversion and to show that you can't refute what he has said. Why not admit it? It's sexist. Then move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was parroting him on the "piece of work" phrase.
Also the article states the goal is to give women more opportunities than they presently have to farm; this in the way of loans and land reform giving them legal rights to own land. I fail to see that as somthing "sexist".
The objections I've heard here are as if land rights are a zero sum game and all land that is sold to women is land that is not sold to men. This attitude seems to be pervasive but it is anti-free trade. This is the same attitude that works against "free trade" in the world, that all access to assets and wealth generation has to be restricted. The same concept kept people in fuedal debt servatude for centuries in Europe.
Free trade is not free if one group of people is left out from equal access in order to protect exclusive rights of some other group. This holds true in non-gender situations as well. This is called trade "protectionism".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try a reversal here:
"In child rearing, if men all over the world had the same opportunities as women, then we could get rid of child abuse," Sweden's Child Health Minister Margareta Winberg said.
"Men are not only effective parents, they are more productive parents than women, and if you give small credits to men, they pay back," she said.
Maybe it will be a bit easier for you to see the sexism in that statement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it will be a bit easier for you to see the sexism in that statement?
Tom,
I'm not sure why, but reversing the sexes as an example always seems to bomb. It may be completely different worldviews. When women ask, "How would you like it if strange girls ogled your butt on the street?" my internal reaction is not the repugnance they seem to expect me to feel.
Here's a bit of sexism that may strike more of a chord in this situation:
"Women are far too clever to understand anything they do not like."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When women ask, "How would you like it if strange girls ogled your butt on the street?" my internal reaction is not the repugnance they seem to expect me to feel."
I feel that this is flawed. It is so wrong I don even know where to start. How the hell can women spend so much money and time on their looks and than be pissed about men looking at them???
It makes no sence. If a woman says something like that to you reply with "are you speaking for all women? Or just yourself"
Because if that setiment was true, Versace' would be a begger on the street.
Look away, looking hurts no one, unless you have some prior engagement with god or monkhood realize that women are looking too.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disagree. The absurdity of giving men more opportunities in child care and erasing all child abuse is on an equal footing with giving women land to farm and erasing world hunger. They are both ridiculous. My guess is that our troll will only see one as ridiculous. So be it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“You don't seem to want people to experiment …”
Ok, here’s what I want:
I want an end to any attempt to claim that one group of people are superior to another on the grounds of what TYPE of people they are
I want people to have equal choices whatever TYPE of person they are.
I want people to be given the same access to the protection of law no matter what TYPE of people they are.
What we are facing with this policy is not an attempt to offer equal opportunities, for that we would all support. Instead we are looking at the imposition of quotas.
This is precisely why the feminist hate machine is cranking into top gear. They’ve got to sell it to us!
We have laboured under the misapprehension that discrimination was a bad thing. We have been told that feminism was there to bring freedom to everyone. Now, of course they have a different story for us.
We are now to hear how sometimes it ok to discriminate against people. The unworthy of course. Although in this case the unworthy are defined not by some measure of financial history but by their gender. We are to be told that gendercide (for make no mistake that is what we are looking at) is necessary for a greater good. We are to be told that giving help to men is a waste of resources. We are to be told to let them quietly die for they are bad debtors, bad farmers and bad people simply because they are men.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want an end to any attempt to claim that one group of people are superior to another on the grounds of what TYPE of people they are
And let's see, the article states, "Women are not only effective farmers, they are more productive farmers than men, and if you give small credits to women, they pay back"
What we are facing with this policy is not an attempt to offer equal opportunities, for that we would all support. Instead we are looking at the imposition of quotas.
This is precisely why the feminist hate machine is cranking into top gear...
We are to be told that gendercide (for make no mistake that is what we are looking at) is necessary for a greater good. We are to be told that giving help to men is a waste of resources. We are to be told to let them quietly die for they are bad debtors, bad farmers and bad people simply because they are men.
And the article says, "If today children continue to be fed, it is because of women"
Now sit down you silly ignorant little boys and I'll tell you why there's nothing wrong with this.
Women should have the same opportunities as men. Men are not the only ones who should have rights.
I hope that has made it clear to you silly boys. You shouldn't complain when we feminists say that women are superior to men and that women should received better treatment, because we all want equality. That's what feminism is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love it when Lori changes the thread names.
Where are you on the title 9 thread Lori? I've been waiting, and don't forget Im the resident expert on Christine Stolba.
"I hope that has made it clear to you silly boys. You shouldn't complain when we feminists say that women are superior to men and that women should received better treatment, because we all want equality. That's what feminism is all about.""
See thats the sign of a true "bigot," they have no idea of their own bigotry.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never heard so much sexist shite in all my life. I have read a transcript of a speach made by this swedish twat before.
"Women make better farmers". Where did she get this whopper from?
Apologies if I sound as though I have lost it, but things like this really get up my arse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I have just revisited this transcript and it is all there about farmers. She also spews out all the other feminist myths and lies. When will these feminazis give up?
Check it out at www.ukmm.org.uk and look under 'Men's Rights' on the menu bar.
But be warned! Not for the faint-hearted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 17, @04:42PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Blame the idiot misandrist Robert McElvaine for starting this "women invented farming and are better at it" bullshit.
Find the thread at: /articles/01/12/28/2118 217.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article, as I said, doesn't point to any specific evidence that women having land rights will result in less hunger - the country that they mentioned with increased agricultural production due to women having land rights - it didn't follow through and say that they had such and such less starvation/malnuitrition deaths. Or whatever. I think that, of course, they should be able to, great idea, fine. But it seems like they're grasping at straws to prove women deserve such rights while implying that men in all societies don't care for their children.
Did that argument that women need to take care of the land when their husbands die of AIDs in Africa make any sense at all? Wouldn't the wife rather quickly afterward?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are NOT better farmers. If for some reason you insist upon one sex being better at farming, it is men, because men are born with more muscular bodies and the ability to develop the skills needed for farming at faster and better rate than women. But generally, the two genders are fairly equal on this task.
However, the major problem with this article is that women have nothing to do with world hunger. There is world hunger because of only two reasons: the meat (and commercial dairy) industry and generosity. These two reasons support each other and world hunger will not end by fixing one of them, but only by fixing both.
This is a fact that is obvious as occurs to logic, and has been "proven" by statistics which have stood for decades. Some wacky feminist who simply wants better treatment came up with the ploy discussed in the article, and she is using the children adn families affected by starvation that she is pretending to protect. What a sicko.
I am a female and cannot understand why other girls around me are so obsessed with being girls. Instead of always thinking about themselves they should think about equinamity and love for every body, regardless of gender. Is that not originally what feminism was supposed to be about?
Hmmmm...
--Raincloud; female, seventeen, and sick of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a female and cannot understand why other girls around me are so obsessed with being girls. Instead of always thinking about themselves they should think about equinamity and love for every body, regardless of gender. Is that not originally what feminism was supposed to be about?
It's good to read your post, Raincloud. You have a good attitude -- not only your desire for equinamity and love but also your feelings about the clear anti-male sexism behind the article. Unfortunately, feminism was never truly, fully about fairness, love or any other high-minded ideal. Despite what feminists claim to the contrary, feminism has always contained a virulent germ of hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to have your head screwed on right
(apart from that veganism thing -- reminds
me of my sister) but I wonder about:
--Raincloud; female, sixteen, and sick of it
You should learn to enjoy both: you'll be female
for a long time and being sixteen needs to be
enjoyed while it lasts (max: 1 year).
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am a female and cannot understand why other girls around me are so obsessed with being girls. Instead of always thinking about themselves they should think about equinamity and love for every body, regardless of gender. Is that not originally what feminism was supposed to be about?
Hmmmm...
--Raincloud; female, sixteen, and sick of it "
Don't be ashamed of what you are, you're a good person who is considerate of others, remember your not rejecting a "gender" your rejecting an "'ideology" based on hatred comptemt and falsehoods. Don't let the femifrauds make you hate yourself because of what they are doing. If that happens we are lost. Love yourself, love your neighbor. If its time to challenge the status quo do so with your head held high.
"Is this a private fight or can anyone join?" and old Irish saying. btw I choose to join.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It can be very difficult to see discrimination from a position of privilege. As a man I have had to look beyond the blinkers in certain areas and as a woman you will have to also. (Although 16 seems like a young age to be taking on too much of a burden.) When I come across people like yourself I often tell a story that explains what I felt were the decisions I faced when a child, even younger than you are now. Though I’m no great writer I’ll include it below:
One of the earliest media images of discrimination and persecution I saw was not one of gender discrimination but of race. That now famous image of Elizabeth Echford being taunted by Hazel Bryon whilst she walked to school in Little Rock, Arkansas on September 4th in 1957. A very powerful image. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/l ittlerock/little-rock.2.jpg.html
When I first saw this picture my immediate feelings where ones of disgust and incomprehension. I wondered what could cause such a reaction in a person, what had Elizabeth Echford done to Hazel Bryon? As my father explained to me that the environment, in which the young Hazel Bryon lived, was dominated by intolerance and fear of change, I began to be afraid. My fear was not for the possibility of facing similar persecution myself but instead I was seeing for the first time that our beliefs are not solely guided by an internal compass which can point to the right thing to do but are left for us to infer from our environment as well. In short I could be a party to the same kind of hate that consumed Hazel that day whilst everything and everyone around me supported me.
In the years that passed I have striven to base my value system not on the calls of the mob but on what I could ultimately justify. I watched and supported the development of movements for women’s rights, for the disabled, for people of different sexualities and religions and ‘race’ and I have not deviated from my principle. Still, however, I feel that I am unable to judge my own value system for in all that I have mentioned I have never been there at the start. In each case I had been surrounded by 'older and wiser' people who had already analysed the situations and were happy to tell me the ‘just’ position.
It is very easy to move with a herd, the individual is supported by those all around them. Their actions are reinforced by those with whom they ‘run’. Now, another cause, and again I am denied a point of reference from which to measure my own value system, not because society has already demonstrated the moral path for me, because this time it has not.
Indeed, popular opinion still seeks to persecute those I would support. Society fails to even recognise the myriad forms of institutionalised discrimination that these people face daily, and even when on occasion it does it says, ‘they deserve it.’ So, why can I not judge my value system for supporting these people when society turns it’s head? Because as a man I am within this group of persecuted people so my thoughts can not be considered to be entirely without bias.
The people presented with the best chance to define themselves, to truly test their own value system, in resisting discrimination against men are women. There are many who will miss this opportunity and fail their own test, but there are many more who will not.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 20, @10:05PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I love your email address "Raincloud".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the feminists have fully grasped what they're advocating here. If they're so concerned about females OWNING land, then they're actually advocating private property. (As long as it isn't forcibly taken from someone else and given to them, which is what I suspect they're after.)
In one sense, I would agree with them, that being that privately owned farmland will invariably be managed better, more efficient, and greater producing. But then, that's the essense of capitalism: private ownership. What strikes me as ironic is that I've never encountered any "flavor" of feminism which truly advocates private ownership of property. (Land and/or business.) There's always gotta be massive government regulation and redistribution involved, if not blatant public ownership.
Where these feminists err is the idea that women will be better managers than men. That's absurd. If the farm is privately owned and run FOR PROFIT, I suspect a man will make just as good a farmer as a woman.
But if someone were to press the issue, my guess would be that these feminists don't actually want women to OWN the farm. They want it publicly owned, under the management of a woman. There's a whole world of difference between the two concepts.
Personally, I think that the farm should be privately owned, be it by a man or a woman.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the feminists have fully grasped what they're advocating here. If they're so concerned about females OWNING land, then they're actually advocating private property.
The mainstream feminist plan is for the government to own everything and for the feminists to be the government.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
