Page 2 of 4

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:59 am
by fable
Originally posted by VoodooDali


Re: Hilary. I always felt that from the get-go, she was unfairly vilified. I think in some way she was the personification of a type of career-minded, ambitious modern woman, and all the resentments that men had been holding were hurled at her. She was iconic, in a way. I don't think anyone saw the real person there for a long time. No one really forgave her for being who she was until Bill humiliated her. I'm not thrilled now, however, with her complete sell-out to pro-Israel interests. She could have been great, but now she's just another politician.
This exactly sums up my opinion of her, as well. Another, similarly villified female personality on the national stage (though to a lesser extent) was Janet Reno. It got so bad, in some quarters, that I recall seeing a Simpsons episode, once, where their conservative church has a notice outside announcing that the Sunday sermon would be on "Female Predators, From Jezebel to Janet Reno." ;)

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:42 am
by Der-draigen
Originally posted by Krusader
-Women think that we don't have any feelings and therefore we canna be hurt emotionally. (My ex-gf thinks so, as a result she's always claiming to be a victim and I got labeled as the predator so to speak).
I'm not looking for an argument here; however:

Many, if not most, women have very good reason to think that way. Women don't just pull these kinds of beliefs and attitudes out of their ears. They come from extremely painful, frequently repeated, experience. Unfortunately, there are far more horror stories out there than there are positive experiences. Many (again, if not most) women have never found a decent guy, who behaved as if he was actually a human being capable of putting his own ego/needs/wants aside for 30 seconds to take her into consideration.

So, don't be surprised when/if a woman displays this kind of belief/thought/attitude. Try to remember -- she got it from somewhere, and she's probably still got the gaping wounds to prove it.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:47 am
by Der-draigen
Originally posted by Sailor Saturn
What's so "advanced" about having a female president? :confused:
IMO it's a matter of national attitude. The presidency may well be a glorified beauty pageant, as fable said; however, in the minds of most Americans is an image of the president as "the one who runs the country." I'm not saying the president really does run the country; I'm saying this is (I think) what most people believe to be true.

That being the case, I think there is an inherent attitude that a woman cannot hold such a high office with so much responsibility -- i.e., a woman cannot "run the country."

When I said "advanced," I meant: The US is quite advanced in technology, etc. etc.; but when it comes to such attitudes as I've described, our society is quite primitive. A female candidate or electee for the presidency would, I think, demonstrate a more "advanced" attitude about women's roles in this country.

Hope that explains it :)

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 11:35 am
by VoodooDali
Originally posted by Der-draigen


IMO it's a matter of national attitude. The presidency may well be a glorified beauty pageant, as fable said; however, in the minds of most Americans is an image of the president as "the one who runs the country." I'm not saying the president really does run the country; I'm saying this is (I think) what most people believe to be true.

That being the case, I think there is an inherent attitude that a woman cannot hold such a high office with so much responsibility -- i.e., a woman cannot "run the country."

When I said "advanced," I meant: The US is quite advanced in technology, etc. etc.; but when it comes to such attitudes as I've described, our society is quite primitive. A female candidate or electee for the presidency would, I think, demonstrate a more "advanced" attitude about women's roles in this country.

Hope that explains it :)
I agree, DD. You'd think people would realize from looking at the history of the UK, that their greatest leaders were women--Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria. Under both of them, the UK was truly a power to be reckoned with. Then again, the education system here only requires American history, so probably the majority of folks don't even know any european history.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 3:51 pm
by Krusader
I suspect the first part of that should be, "some women think that," or better still, "some people of the opposite sex think that..." There are quite a few men who don't give their wives or girlfriends credit enough to change the oil in a car, much less hold down a medical practice or pilot a jet.

You're right, Fable and I admit that I went too far by generalizing. Saying that all women think that way (even in my country) is like saying that all germans are nazis or all muslims are terrorist. I apologize then.
Many, if not most, women have very good reason to think that way. Women don't just pull these kinds of beliefs and attitudes out of their ears. They come from extremely painful, frequently repeated, experience. Unfortunately, there are far more horror stories out there than there are positive experiences. Many (again, if not most) women have never found a decent guy, who behaved as if he was actually a human being capable of putting his own ego/needs/wants aside for 30 seconds to take her into consideration.

You have a point. My ex-gf indeed has been thru a lot of painful situations, like those you mention. Even in her own family she has been discriminated just for being a woman. Hers is a family where men rule and women best shut up and obey. The women in the family look at their brothers and start to think that way. After a not-so-nice talk I had with her sister, I discovered that all women in the family thought that way. She's the youngest sister and was raised in an overwhelming chauvinism. What I didn't like was that she kept thinking that I was just another grunt (so to speak), I admit that I showed chauvinist attitudes from time to time, but most of the time I tried so hard to help her heal her wounds but she was always affraid. I took her into consideration most of the time, I gave her almost everything, I renouced to some of my own activities just to aid her and to be with her, but all was useless: she kept thinking that way. Until I couldn't stand for it anymore, and my rage started bursting.
So, don't be surprised when/if a woman displays this kind of belief/thought/attitude. Try to remember -- she got it from somewhere, and she's probably still got the gaping wounds to prove it.

I understand it very well. And as I told you before, I tried to help her to get over it. But what makes me mad is that it's very unfair that I have to pay for the mistakes of others. If her brothers treated her bad, why must I be the one to pay for it? I tried so hard to help her, but I feel like she bit the hand that fed her.

I ain't looking for an argument either. But I just needed to get that out. Thanks for reading my words and I apologize if I'm looking harsh, that is not my intention.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:02 pm
by Nippy
The one thing I've never understood, and it's already been said, is that it is rarely a woman's fault that a relationship fails. It is nearly always male related faults and due to that, the female 'world' generalises us (males) into a category of 'He-Man womans haters club'. I consider myself to be polite and a gentlemen with women, I always open doors and never think about having my girlfriend buy the dinner or film tickets, I was raised as a considerate human, but the feminists that say we (males) shouldn't buy tickets or food talk bullsh*t in my opinion. From my experience women like to have their films/dinner bought for them because they like a gentlemen. Am I right in saying that the females posting in this thread agree? Do we have any fervent femininsts in here?

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:09 pm
by Krusader
I think that the main fault of feminism is that women wanna be equal to men in every aspect. That is BS, IMHO.

Women and men ain't meant to compete with each other, but to complement each other.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:47 pm
by fable
Originally posted by Krusader
I think that the main fault of feminism is that women wanna be equal to men in every aspect. That is BS, IMHO.

Women and men ain't meant to compete with each other, but to complement each other.
What do you mean, complement one another?

And why shouldn't men and women be equal in all respects? Here's your platform. Jump on it, and start speaking.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:20 pm
by T'lainya
@ Krusader, as Fable said, please elaborate on your statement.
@ Nippy I think most people, male or female, like being treated to a movie or dinner. I certainly appreciate it. I do however feel that One person shouldn't pay all the time. I dated a man for some time who got paid every other week, so did I and our paychecks alternated weeks :D It made it very easy to alternate paying for our dates :) I think it's sad that some common courtesies are seen as condescending. For example if I'm carrying a number of packages or otherwise have my hands full I appreciate someone holdingthe door as opposed to letting it slam on my foot :rolleyes: and I try to return the courtesy to others. I think that equality is treating people with respect no matter their age or gender or race or relligion.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:29 pm
by VoodooDali
Originally posted by Nippy
The one thing I've never understood, and it's already been said, is that it is rarely a woman's fault that a relationship fails. It is nearly always male related faults and due to that, the female 'world' generalises us (males) into a category of 'He-Man womans haters club'. I consider myself to be polite and a gentlemen with women, I always open doors and never think about having my girlfriend buy the dinner or film tickets, I was raised as a considerate human, but the feminists that say we (males) shouldn't buy tickets or food talk bullsh*t in my opinion. From my experience women like to have their films/dinner bought for them because they like a gentlemen. Am I right in saying that the females posting in this thread agree? Do we have any fervent femininsts in here?
Who doesn't like having doors opened or dinner bought for them? In all my relationships, though, whoever was doing better financially shouldered the bills for a while. Seems to work. When one person pays for everything, they are bound to resent the other if the other does not show enough gratitude. I would.

I don't hate men, and certainly don't think they are to blame for all failed relationships. I've known a lot of women who mistreat people as much as men. The only place where I see a difference is in the area of physical abuse. I'm not saying that women don't start physical fights with men, it's just that the women are the ones most likely to show up in the hospital or dead as a result--and the statistics bear that out. So--women have good reason to be a bit wary of men. My rule has been to look at how they treat their mothers and sisters--if they don't have a good relationship with them, it's unlikely they will with any woman.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 5:33 pm
by Mr Sleep
Well i am always opening doors for people and generally being a gentlemen when possible, it is not because i feel i need to, it is just what i do. I also do it for everyone, not just women.

I have had this dicussion with many different women, the general concensous is that it is not a bad thing to be a gentlemen, just don't take it to extremes, making a great point out of being a gentlemen and belittling women is the thing to avoid.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:50 pm
by Der-draigen
by Krusader: What I didn't like was that she kept thinking that I was just another grunt (so to speak), I admit that I showed chauvinist attitudes from time to time, but most of the time I tried so hard to help her heal her wounds but she was always affraid. I took her into consideration most of the time, I gave her almost everything, I renouced to some of my own activities just to aid her and to be with her, but all was useless: she kept thinking that way.


That is indeed a very sad situation :( Many people just can't get past the fear and the trust issues...Counseling helps though, many times.
what makes me mad is that it's very unfair that I have to pay for the mistakes of others.


Unfortunately, people do tend to lump everyone into a category when the bad experiences are frequent enough. Sometimes the fear is too strong to allow the person to trust that something might be good. They don't want to be hurt again.

Which leads me to a question: Why is it that people think physical self-defense is a great and healthy idea, but emotional self-defense is unhealthy and bad?? I mean, if I leaned up against a hot stove and got severe burns, and I said "I'm never doing that again," people would say I was very smart to stay away from the stove. They would say I was wise to protect myself and avoid the same situation in the future. But, if I got severe emotional burns, and said "I'm never doing that again," people would say, "Oh, you are going to have to get over that bad experience and learn to trust and love again." They would say I was not smart, i.e. that I was bitter and ran a risk of lifelong depression and unfulfillment, if I stayed away from the thing that wounded me so badly in this case. It's like saying "Someday you'll find a stove that doesn't burn." :confused: :confused:

I apologize, that's way off-topic; just something brought up by my train of thought :)
by Nippy: From my experience women like to have their films/dinner bought for them because they like a gentlemen. Am I right in saying that the females posting in this thread agree?


Well, I consider myself a feminist from the point of view that women deserve equal rights, equal pay for equal work, etc. But I wouldn't mind if a guy paid for things. I see that as a gift. Likewise, I would also want to pay for some things, treat him to a night out or give him a gift now and then; just because I like to be generous to people I care about. I consider a guy spending money on me to be the same thing. Or, at least it should be. :) Like the opening doors thing that's been mentioned -- I just see that as a way of caring for the person, showing them in a small way that you want to treat them well and see that they have the best you can give. I would hold a door for a guy too, for the same reasons.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:59 pm
by Georgi
Posted by C Elegans:
Do you think women discriminated in your culture?
Yes, I think most examples have been mentioned already.
Do you have any personal experience of women being discriminated?
Not personally. Though I just thought of this when I was answering the next question... At the farm I worked at, which was a fruit and veg farm, they never had any of the blokes working in the farm shop. And it's not because stronger people were needed in the fields - occasionally it was helpful (for example, moving the irrigation pipes), but generally picking soft fruit isn't any easier for men than women.
Do you have any experience of "reversed racism" regarding women?
Actually yes... When I worked on a farm a few summers ago, there were 3 girls and probably about 10 guys working there, and we were balecarting, and our boss took us aside and asked us if we were ok to do that job, because we could stay and work in the shop if we didn't think we were up to it. And when we did it, we got the better job of packing the bales on the trailer rather than having to toss them up there with pitchforks (but that was because we were less capable of doing that because we weren't as strong as the guy).

Aside from that, consider how people react to each other online. How many of the guys on SYM react to other guys rather competitively, flaming each other (albeit goodnaturedly), while they have a tendency to flirt with the women? ;)
Are there areas where men are discriminated in your culture?
Again, this has been pretty much covered already.
Posted by VoodooDali:
The other thing that bothers me is that in order to climb up the ladder, women have to abandon many of the better feminine qualities. Is it progress to have a high-powered job when you have to act as ruthless as men in those positions? Look at Margaret Thatcher--is she an ideal? I had hoped women would bring changes, but that has not occured except in small ways.
Which is what I was going to point out - one of the things you hear most about Thatcher is how masculine she is... :rolleyes: It's not equality when women have to become "masculine" in order to be accepted by men as equals. Admittedly, it's just as bad that certain traits are considered masculine as feminine... Ideally it would be the case that those traits didn't label a person as one or the other. Surely a woman should be able to be ruthless and still feminine, a man should be able to be masculine and caring.
Posted by Der-Draigen:
Many, if not most, women have very good reason to think that way. Women don't just pull these kinds of beliefs and attitudes out of their ears. They come from extremely painful, frequently repeated, experience. Unfortunately, there are far more horror stories out there than there are positive experiences. Many (again, if not most) women have never found a decent guy, who behaved as if he was actually a human being capable of putting his own ego/needs/wants aside for 30 seconds to take her into consideration.

So, don't be surprised when/if a woman displays this kind of belief/thought/attitude. Try to remember -- she got it from somewhere, and she's probably still got the gaping wounds to prove it.
While this is true... I don't think it applies exclusively to women. People have too much of a tendency to generalise when they have bad relationship experiences, irregardless of gender. There are probably just as many men out there who've had bad relationship experiences with women.
Posted by Nippy:
I consider myself to be polite and a gentlemen with women, I always open doors and never think about having my girlfriend buy the dinner or film tickets, I was raised as a considerate human, but the feminists that say we (males) shouldn't buy tickets or food talk bullsh*t in my opinion. From my experience women like to have their films/dinner bought for them because they like a gentlemen. Am I right in saying that the females posting in this thread agree? Do we have any fervent femininsts in here?
Well, I think my opinion on the subject has been pretty much covered already... One should be polite to people irregardless of their gender. Yes, it's nice to be treated to dinner or a movie or whatever, but I wouldn't expect a man to pay, and I would pay sometimes. The problem that ultra-feminists have with this, I think, is that they feel a man who insists on paying for everything is enforcing some kind of chauvinist agenda. Which is probably misplaced in most cases... most guys are probably just trying to make a good impression ;) As long as a man's paying because he wants to, rather than because he feels that he ought to pay to conform to some masculine stereotype, and doesn't mind it when I pay, then it's fine by me :D

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:34 pm
by Mr Sleep
There are some women out there who actually enjoy being house wives and general house keepers. I think in the rush to feminism it could cause some people whom are happy in their lives to be usurped from a fulfilling life that they enjoy.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:12 pm
by Georgi
Originally posted by Mr Sleep
There are some women out there who actually enjoy being house wives and general house keepers. I think in the rush to feminism it could cause some people whom are happy in their lives to be usurped from a fulfilling life that they enjoy.
True. As an example, a big thing is usually made of the fact that so many women went into employment during the First World War... but the fact is, a lot of them did it because they had little choice, and women flocked back to being housewives when they could. I can't remember the exact statistics, but I believe it was something like a few years after the end of the war, the number of women in employment was actually less than it had been immediately preceding the war. (I thought the statistics I remembered were British, but having thought about it, I think they probably refer to France :o ;) )

I think the point is rather than women should have the choice, and not be forced either to be housewives or alternately, as some people complain is becoming the case, to be working mothers.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 8:59 pm
by Der-draigen
by Georgi: There are probably just as many men out there who've had bad relationship experiences with women.


*cough* doubt it *cough* :p :D

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:19 pm
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by VoodooDali
Re: Hilary. I always felt that from the get-go, she was unfairly vilified. I think in some way she was the personification of a type of career-minded, ambitious modern woman, and all the resentments that men had been holding were hurled at her. She was iconic, in a way. I don't think anyone saw the real person there for a long time. No one really forgave her for being who she was until Bill humiliated her. I'm not thrilled now, however, with her complete sell-out to pro-Israel interests. She could have been great, but now she's just another politician.

I've felt for a long time that the women's movement failed in many ways. When my mother was young, her career options were: secretary, nurse or teacher. My father did not want her to go to college, so she didn't. She did, however, forge her own career, and I think if she had had the same advantages as my father, she would be a CEO somewhere now. In the seventies, feminists were fighting for women just to have the right to work in untraditional jobs, and to go to college. Now, all women have to work, unless they are rich, and they are still relegated to lower or middle management positions. Pay is still unequal. The other thing that bothers me is that in order to cliimb up the ladder, women have to abandon many of the better feminine qualities. Is it progress to have a high-powered job when you have to act as ruthless as men in those positions? Look at Margaret Thatcher--is she an ideal? I had hoped women would bring changes, but that has not occured except in small ways.

One other thing that really ticks me off is Republican women who are anti-feminist, and claim to be pro-family. People like Elizabeth Dole or Nancy Reagan, for example. These are ambitious women who never spent any time with their children.
While I agree that we should be able to get jobs as easily as men do and get paid as much, I, personally, have complaints about the feminist movement, or whatever you wish to call it. Most, if not all, the guys I know are afraid to hold the door open for a lady, or do some other gentlemanly act, and it's all because of feminists. They never know when they're going to get slapped or yelled at for it. The problem with this is that 1) holding the door open for someone is considerate and polite, and 2)we've "scared" guys into not being gentleman. Sorry to rant, but this is something that annoys me.

Re: Hillary; I never liked Hillary. There's always been something about her that just doesn't sit well with me. After 9-11, I like Bill more than I like Hillary. ¬_¬

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:29 pm
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by Der-draigen


IMO it's a matter of national attitude. The presidency may well be a glorified beauty pageant, as fable said; however, in the minds of most Americans is an image of the president as "the one who runs the country." I'm not saying the president really does run the country; I'm saying this is (I think) what most people believe to be true.

That being the case, I think there is an inherent attitude that a woman cannot hold such a high office with so much responsibility -- i.e., a woman cannot "run the country."

When I said "advanced," I meant: The US is quite advanced in technology, etc. etc.; but when it comes to such attitudes as I've described, our society is quite primitive. A female candidate or electee for the presidency would, I think, demonstrate a more "advanced" attitude about women's roles in this country.

Hope that explains it :)
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure I agree.

The way I see it is that, whether we get gratitude/appreciation or not(that should be unimportant), are we not one of the most necessary things in any civilization? Men can't get pregnant and give birth. Without us, there would be no people to govern. ;)

In my opinion, a country is primitive if it gets hung up on whether or not we're "advanced" enough to have a female president/leader. The idea that, since all the presidents have been male so far, we need to get a female president in there is, imo, rather ridiculous. If a woman runs for president and she happens to be the best choice and is able to convince the people of that then she should be president, but gender should not even considered. We won't be advanced in that matter until we truly don't care whether the president is male, female, both, or neither. :rolleyes:

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 9:36 pm
by Sailor Saturn
Originally posted by Nippy
The one thing I've never understood, and it's already been said, is that it is rarely a woman's fault that a relationship fails. It is nearly always male related faults and due to that, the female 'world' generalises us (males) into a category of 'He-Man womans haters club'. I consider myself to be polite and a gentlemen with women, I always open doors and never think about having my girlfriend buy the dinner or film tickets, I was raised as a considerate human, but the feminists that say we (males) shouldn't buy tickets or food talk bullsh*t in my opinion. From my experience women like to have their films/dinner bought for them because they like a gentlemen. Am I right in saying that the females posting in this thread agree? Do we have any fervent femininsts in here?
Ignoring the fact that I'm pretty much willing to let anyone pay for anything that I'd like to buy ;) , I do prefer polite gentlemen. That's why it upsets me that so many of the men I know are pretty much afraid to be a polite gentlemen cause they're worried they'll insult some feminist.

From what I've seen, this whole thing about equality has been a bit flawed. Demanding equal treatment in all situations. Well, if we're going to do that, then shouldn't we demand that the equality be in the best way possible. i.e., equality in the work place with oppurtunities for advancement and such; yet in the 'social area,' everyone treat each other equally polite. Am I the only one that this makes sense to, or was it just that generation that didn't get this? :confused:

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 10:45 pm
by Krusader
What do you mean, complement one another?

I mean that there are things in life that women do better than men. And there are things that are done better by men.
I agree that women must receive equal pay for equal work, have the right to vote, and the right to be heard as part of society.
But I know several woman who in their fight for independence have become very selfish, and they claim they have no need of men.
Perhaps this example isn't very accurate, but to me men and women are like hardware and software. One isn't possible without the other.