Welcome to Gaia! ::

I completely disagree KP. Except for the gay part, all of that fits me as well, but the only way I am discriminated against is socially.

What I mean by this is, I don't fit the stereotypical description of a "healthy social life," and so people sometimes see me as a loser or a shut-in. But that's the lifestyle I choose, and it's the lifestyle I enjoy. Is it completely healthy? Not really. But then, neither is a lot of the stuff a "healthy lifestyle" entails, such as going to bars and getting drunk on the weekends.

Anyways, on subject, I still disagree. While there are pockets of discrimination, it is my belief that, overall and predominantly, discrimination has all but disappeared. The reason there are fewer women CEOs than male CEOs isn't because women are discriminated against, it is because they -were- discriminated against. Overall, women don't have the same experience as men at that level. This will change, in time, but even then there are likely to be more male CEOs than female CEOs, for some very simple reasons: Something like 33% of Americans still believe in traditional roles to some extent or another. This means that something like 33% of women would rather stay at home and take care of their children than work, if it is possible. This isn't a bad thing, it's actually something I respect. I hate it when kids are only biologically related to their parents, and are predominantly raised by their teachers and day cares.

And this really fits every minority.

Additionally, this list doesn't address the problem of minorities who really suck at their job, but when they are fired they claim that they were discriminated against. And they probably believe it too. Minorities who think along the lines of this checklist, tend to go into a job thinking that they are discriminated against. But you know what? I've worked 6 jobs in my lifetime, and at half of those jobs, they preferred hiring women. Openly. Two of those jobs, I was the only male working there most of the two and a half combined years I worked there. At my current job, my boss is a woman, and her boss is a black woman, the top boss on location is a woman, and the person who directs the organization is a woman. In my training class, I believe there were about five guys out of the twenty students.

All of the jobs I worked at were in conservative states too, which would most likely be considered the places where these problems are most prevalent.

The rest of this, of course, is not directed at you KP, but rather is venting of my frustration against the author of this, as I address specific "points."

16. That's a stereotype of parents. My parents were equally encouraging of all of us. Not to mention that the question ignores the fact that the stereotype is a negative thing for guys; It's a pain in the a** to have parents constantly telling you to get involved in sports, when all you want to do is stay home and read or play video games.

17. Are you kidding me? Have you watched any of those shows with "active, non-stereotyped heroes?" The heroes are almost all buff meatheads! In fact, at least in modern cartoons, I find that the heroines in children's cartoons tend to be more favorable, and non-stereotypical. The women tend to be intelligent and encouraged to engage in "girl-power" type activities, while male heroes are meatheads who have to have the girls save their asses with their intelligence.

19. And you also can't cry about it, or talk about it with friends. You have to "man up" and deal with it. Also, women need not ask if it has sexist overtones either. Life would be so much less traumatic for the feminazis if they just assumed that there was no sexism involved unless the sexism was blatant.

24. I disagree completely. Male sluts disgust me even more than female sluts do. Partially because the stereotypes have been switched the other way by exactly this kind of thinking. In fact, women should take it as a compliment that only those who sleep with a lot of men get called sluts; Men are considered to be sluts by default. And in an extreme twist of irony, those of us who aren't sluts are losers!

25. You're yanking my chain here. Seriously, so many of these apply to both sides; If I wear pink? I absolutely have to worry about what it says about my sexual availability or gender conformity. Specifically that it will label me as gay, regardless of my sexuality.

26. That's mostly an issue of women deciding to wear expensive Gucci clothes and the trends setting the market. There are inexpensive and comfortable clothes for women, they just aren't as popular. I have no idea about tailoring.

31. Wow, so now even the special treatment is a bad thing! Despite the seeming demand for special treatment in every other part of this checklist.

32. Yes, because when I'm talking to someone, I feel comforted by the fact that it is "All men are created equal" rather than "All people." Personally, in the favor of ease of communication, I just prefer "All men" because it sounds better than "All people" or even "All women." It flows better in a poetic way.

34. Traditions. Plenty of men do change their name, and plenty of women keep their old names. However, in defense of the tradition, it is in an effort to connect the two as one. An unfortunate rise in thinking, especially among feminazis, is that the two need to keep their names and lives separate, because otherwise the woman is absorbed into the man. That's not how it is, or should be. In marriage, two becomes one. The man is not there, and the woman is not there. They are now a couple. They each have different first names, but the last names are the same for a reason.

41. You're hilarious. While pornography does tend to be the realm of men, that is largely because women tend to be less interested in it. As for magazines, billboards, television, movies, etc, while there are more scantily clad women, there are plenty of scantily clad men. And this is another case where the supposed slight to women is actually a slight to men. The media advertises scantily clad women because men are more likely to buy the product if it has scantily clad women. Women are less shallow, and to them, what is inside matters more.

45. HA. I can tell you right now, it has been a major problem in my life that people, especially women, tend to interrupt my sentences because theirs are supposedly more important.

46. Whereas feminazis have the privilege of being completely aware of their supposed lack of privilege, ignore all their unique privileges, and get to spew hate speech without it being called a crime.

Many of these don't seem to be based on facts, they seem to be based on invisible statistics. For example, 28. That's not something I've ever heard of.

I think that'd be fitting. I shall move it to the SubForum.

Your metaphors obscure your meaning. What it seems But if you're saying what I think you're saying, that, in cases where more women are hired than men, men who do get hired get promoted quickly, then that is completely incorrect. Two of those cases were shops run by women, who hired women because they felt that women worked harder and were better with customers. I don't know of any men who worked there who were considered anything but normal employees, except myself. And even I wasn't paid any more than anyone else, I was just older than the other employees, and I was able to open teh store on school days. The other case is part of the Air Force of the United States of America. Which would be one of the biggest "men's club" organizations in the world, although it's better than the Marines, Navy, or Army. Yet my boss, my boss's boss, my boss's boss's boss, and my boss's boss's boss's boss were all women, half of them also black. After that there's a man, and after that's a black man.

In other words, in the first two, your chances of being promoted if you're a man are only better if you work hard, same as if you're a woman. In the second one, they would be what feminists would call "breaking the glass ceiling," but I don't get the feeling that any of them feel like there is a glass ceiling there at all.

Also, note that, when I worked at shops that hired mostly women, I never felt it was because of some "reverse sexism." It's simply because high-schooled age boys are less reliable than high-school aged girls, and that was the age group most likely to apply. On the other hand, if a feminist comes to an organization that mostly hires men, they jump to the conclusion that it is because of sexism, rather than the possibility that there's another instance, like a lack of eligible women who apply.

I might do that. I don't read a whole lot of non-fiction though, to be honest.


That is only half true. Five, ten years ago, that would be mostly true. But these days, there is a lot more emphasis being put on being faithful, and even five or ten years ago, -most- adult men (Past the college age) would say that men who sleep around with every woman they can get their hands on are disgusting.

It has just been stereotyped in movies that men want to conquest, and it was, for a while there, something that high school through college age boys did.

Additionally, when I hear feminists talk about that, almost invariably they are not complaining that men aren't insulted for being sluts. They are complaining that women -are.- They don't want men to be called out for their irresponsible sex lives, they want to have their own irresponsible sex lives and get away with it.


What feminism (should be) asking for is equal, just treatment. I think interpreting anything as asking for special treatment is misinterpreting the position. That is what it should be, but very frequently, that is not what it is. Women complain that 50% of managers are women, but only 15% of CEOs are. They blame this on sexism, and try to get companies to make women their CEOs.

What they are telling those companies is, "I don't care if the man is legitimately more qualified than the woman, I want you to have a woman CEO. Because that's what's fair."

The same is true of affirmative action. Affirmative action tells universities and jobs that they have to hire so many of each minority, regardless of their qualifications. Because that's what's fair.

These are things which mainstream feminists and other minority activists support, but they aren't about actual equal treatment. They are about special treatment in the form of the token black and token woman.

I consider myself a feminist. Sort of. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, because I'm more of a human-ist. But even that... I think that all humans should be treated equally, and I think that the first step to doing that is to lead by example. Calling yourself a feminist is painting yourself as Pro-Woman before being Pro-Man. Calling yourself a civil rights activist paints you as being Pro-Black before being Pro-White.

I'm Pro-Everyone.

Definitely true. And I haven't seen that billboard! Now I'm scared to.

Oh, hey, and I meant to say, congrats on coming out with the gay thing! Of course I'm sure that happened a while ago, but I think this was your first post in your guild where you explicitly expressed it. I had suspected pretty heavily though.

Pardon me,I'm female!!&& I completely detest feminism,men and women are created equally, that doesn't mean we should be given the same jobs. True, some jobs should be given to men as much as women,but some roles (such as leading a family) are made for men; while others (mothering and housekeeping), are made for women. Why? Man was created my God Himself to be over the woman.Women do housekeeping and mothering because:
1.THEY are the ones who are with child nine months
2.THEY are the ones who breastfeed, hold, bathe, and care for the baby, naturally.
3.Females are generallymore tidy than males (not always!!)
4.A child generally is attached to their mother before their father, whether the child is a boy or girl.
That's why we have sexism.
And I'm pro-life, I believe every human has a right to live in a modest, appropriate, polite, clean, environment. We cannot choose what is right, because it may be wrong to someone else.

Then what does it mean?

No, it's definitely point three, based on a perceived point two.

It's stereotyping at it's best. Highschool aged boys are less likely to be reliable, so they won't even interview most highschool aged boys. You have to be known and suggested by other workers to get hired, as a boy.


I have never heard of Hugh Jackman being considered a "conquestee." Now, sex icons are another issue altogether. But that's like saying that porn is proof that conquest is still an acceptable activity for most men.

As for the pregnancy, that's not something we can help really. You're right, it's easier to prove that women have been promiscuous. But that's no reason to promote female promiscuity. The only answer to it would be allowing abortion and morning after pills, and given both of our positions on that subject...


Why on earth would CEOs switch out regularly? This isn't something I've heard of. Most CEOs I know of keep their positions for what seems like forever, or until they die.

Not to mention, ten years is still a long time. Forty years ago female CEOs were unheard of. Now, after only four to five CEO changes on average (By that figure which I don't really agree with), we're up to 15% of CEOs being women. That's damn good if you ask me. Give it another ten years and I'm pretty sure it'll be closer to 30%, which seems reasonable as an upper limit to me; As I said, women are more likely to stay home with their kids than men, as a personal preference rather than by force.


Again, I disagree. We have a lot to show for it. I would say that medicine, education, and art are all areas where women likely flourish as managers. I don't have the stats on me, but given that those are areas where women worked before sexism, it seems to me that those would be areas where women would flourish in the twilight of sexism.


15% of CEOs are women, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that anyone thinks that -no- qualified women have passed through the ranks.


Aww, there's a chick in there too though! Only three of them are dudes, the one lying on top of one and kissing another is clearly a girl.

Still, three half naked men to one half naked girl isn't bad.

Well then, as I think I said, that makes absolutely no sense.


Certainly not verbatum, but she has stated that herself in different terms.

But I think it's funny that you seem to be trying to take her side on this, trying to find any way around it being what it is. I don't even have a problem with it: The stereotypes are accurate, she's completely in her rights, and being reasonable to not even consider most males for employment.


She doesn't even interview them. Why should she, when she has plenty of females applying?

And ironically, you are making my point for me. It's a dog eat dog world out there. What business is going to refuse to hire a perfectly good female who is sitting right in front of them when they are better at the job than the men who have applied? Or replace "female" with "black," "Asian," or "Hispanic," and "men" with "whites" and you have an argument against the idea that racism is prevalent in the workplace.

Any organization which refuses to hire and promote women who are more capable of doing the job than the men they do hire or promote will fail. Any organization which treats men and women equally is far more likely to succeed. But organizations which are forced to hire or promote women despite the fact that there is a more capable male available for the position are being destroyed by the government and popular opinion.


What's interesting is that the exact situation you describe, I see the opposite way. The one who is cooing between ecstasy and agony is enjoying themselves. The "dominant one" is doing most of the work, for less pleasure.

It does give a visual of dominance. But the actuality is that one is working hard, and probably enjoying some feeling of dominance, while the other is enjoying the sexual pleasure. Granted, the sexual pleasure is probably faked in a porno. But still.

And none of that makes a comparison to conquest. Only to male/female gender roles of dominance and subservience. And frankly, in sex, it's hard to really be equals, just because of the way the action works. One or the other is on top, and doing most or all of the work, unless you're in the 69 position, in which case it is at least fairly equal. But you can only do that so often, I suppose.

And this is the strangest place a discussion on male/female equality has ever gone lol


Sitting on our loins sounds extremely uncomfortable.

But I disagree. Not that I think we should sit on our asses, exactly. But only because that gives an image of the job being "done" and we can go back to the way things were before. I don't agree with feminist activism, but of course we all have to treat each other as equals. And the best way to do that is to stop focusing on the bigotry of the past and start living the equality of the present.

Kay


Oh, I agree there. But with the job, why should she waste her time interviewing males when so many females are available to interview?


If people aren't trying for the positions, it sounds to me like that's their faults. Not mine. They should change their view of how things are, I shouldn't be forced to pick someone who is female despite being less qualified than the males just to help the self esteem of a bunch of strangers.


Lung cancer was hardly a bullet in the chest. The tobacco industry survives despite lung cancer for a few reasons: First of all, lung cancer actually is highly overstated. While smoking increases your chance of getting lung cancer by quite a bit, it hardly makes it imminent. Second of all, it's addictive, and people continue to be idiots and start, despite the fact that lung cancer is highly overstated.

I've asked smoking friends about this. I have no idea how they started, when their whole lives the lung cancer and smoking connection has been a well known, big thing that everybody talks about.

But that's neither here nor there, you're comparing apples to oranges. The tobacco companies didn't survive despite hiring less qualified males. They survived because they hired the most capable marketing people on the planet, male or female.


The bottom may be more uncomfortable positioning, maybe, but it's still essentially holding that position for the pleasure. And both parties are supposed to be enjoying it. The bottom is begging for more, as you said.


Ha! Domestic violence is an area where women have the advantage over men. A woman tells someone her husband beats her, her husband's going to be visited by the police, and will likely go to jail. A man tells someone his wife beats him, and he'll be a laughingstock.

As far as being victims of domestic violence, those statistics are difficult to prove because, as seen above, men are less likely to talk about being victims of domestic violence.


More likely because men goof off more than women do. A stereotype, but, in my opinion, a true stereotype. And healthcare, I'm not even sure what you're saying. They don't get as high quality healthcare?


10% is your proof that women are being discriminated against? Please.