Who is the Real Feminist?
I saw a link on Vox Day's blog to one of those silly quizzes that I often get suckered into taking for no other reason than curiosity or perhaps just procrastination from actual real work I should be doing. The quiz asked the question, "Are You a Feminist?" and if you are interested, here is my score:
I was recently at a get-together of academics and ran into a "feminist professor" who was also a blogger. I guess she had read this blog because she immediately informed me that I was "not a feminist" before I even had a chance to find out what her idea of a feminist was. Apparently, her definition of an anti-feminist was "someone who does not agree with me!" Perhaps I should forward my score to her so I can "prove" I am a feminist, but then, what good would that do?
Equality between men and women is no longer the real issue with many "feminists"--it is more about special rights for women without responsibilities (like trying to get rid of the word bitch but not prick etc.), "empowerment" without the work that comes with actually doing anything, and allowing women to do things to men that if men did to women, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, you know, like shoot them in the back while they sleep. If that is the definition, count me out--that type of feminism sounds more like a Democratic political action committee than a real sense of justice between men and women. The idea of equality is not as simple as this quiz would have us believe, for in order to be truly equal, women must understand that they too, have the responsibility to see that equality extends both ways.
| You Are 91% Feminist |
 You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action. |
I was recently at a get-together of academics and ran into a "feminist professor" who was also a blogger. I guess she had read this blog because she immediately informed me that I was "not a feminist" before I even had a chance to find out what her idea of a feminist was. Apparently, her definition of an anti-feminist was "someone who does not agree with me!" Perhaps I should forward my score to her so I can "prove" I am a feminist, but then, what good would that do?
Equality between men and women is no longer the real issue with many "feminists"--it is more about special rights for women without responsibilities (like trying to get rid of the word bitch but not prick etc.), "empowerment" without the work that comes with actually doing anything, and allowing women to do things to men that if men did to women, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, you know, like shoot them in the back while they sleep. If that is the definition, count me out--that type of feminism sounds more like a Democratic political action committee than a real sense of justice between men and women. The idea of equality is not as simple as this quiz would have us believe, for in order to be truly equal, women must understand that they too, have the responsibility to see that equality extends both ways.
Labels: time wasting quizzes
posted by Helen at 12:14 PM
196 Comments:
100%. Somehow I don't think that the people i work with would agree...
Great post! I'm only 56% feminist, which doesn't surprise me in the least.
"You aren't a total traditionalist when it comes to gender roles. But you're no feminist either.
You generally think that women should be treated as equals, but you're not convinced the world should be gender neutral."
Sounds about right to me.
Apparently, her definition of an anti-feminist was "someone who does not agree with me!"
From my recent conversations with progressives I thought the word for 'someone who does not agree with me' was 'fascist.'
Interesting. By answering only one single question "agree" instead of "strongly agree", I rated %88. How the hell did you get a 91%? Oh yeah, their personal opinions weighted the answers to each question differently.
Well, well. How interesting. After reading megan's quote from their sight, I went back and did it again, answering exactly as before. Now I'm 98%.
Hmm.
Did it again (because I've nothing to do right now), got 98% again. I'll chalk it up to dys.
You'd really have to be a Cro-Magnon type to get a below 50% score. I got a 65% and I'm pretty traditional.
You are certainly a feminist - whether you know it or not.
You believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. You also believe there are a few exceptions.
Here's my question for Dr. Helen. How did you answer this?
There is no such thing as a "man's job." It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren't in that field.
Women linebackers or defensive tackles in the NFL? Right.
One of the questions was
Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are.
Isn't the female/male ratio at colleges approaching 60/40? Does a real feminist really want to detract from female education?
82 percent.
I saw a link on Vox Day's blog to one of those silly quizzes that I often get suckered into taking for no other reason than curiosity or perhaps just procrastination from actual real work I should be doing.
I think they are fun, as long as they are short:
You Are 77% Feminist
You are certainly a feminist - whether you know it or not. You believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. You also believe there are a few exceptions.
I had to laugh at this one:
A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants - including another woman.
I absolutely agree. But I might have used the terminology "raise kids" rather than "have kids".
As for the "man's job" question, I assume the key word is "preference". Any woman can try out for the NFL; the men just don't get a preference.
Finally, I'm not sure how to read the word "judgement" here:
Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well.
Since women can't sleep around with the exact same risks as men, I think there's an argument to say that judgement follows. "That's risky" is a judgement.
93%.
Dix,
A real feminist would be concerned about the lack of males in college and be open to finding out the real reasons that men are not represented equally to women instead of just saying, "good" and giving smug justifications for it.
K t cat,
I answered "not sure" to that question. That is a hard one.
Dr. Helen,
I have book recommendation for you:
Overcoming Procrastination by Albert Ellis and William Knaus
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thor's Dad,
Thanks for the recommendation, that is one of Ellis's books that I have not read.
"Mary," Doyle or whoever:
Given your analogy, perhaps we should be asking Andrea Yates for childcare advice. Please stay off of this blog as you offer nothing but insults, and are not here to engage in discussion but to cause discourse. Not sure what your problem is, but take it elsewhere.
100%, but as the first commenter said, I suspect that many who know me would question that result. I was raised to think that I was able to do anything I set my mind to through hard work. It never really occurred to me that I might be discriminated against, and quite frankly, I don't think I ever have been. I think it's very much a mindset in some cases. Not saying sexism doesn't exist, but I've very rarely encountered it. Then again, I'm not one to look for it, either.
I think that test is skewed somewhat. Question 8, for example, seems to be somewhat outdated. It should read: "Men should be encouraged to pursue education as much as women are."
I would agree with that statement. I can't in good conscience agree with the wording in question 8 as it stands now, given how much encouragement men are given toward getting educated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Helen, my experience in reading your blog has been that you act like you know what feminists think, and often mischaracterize the majority of us. I can understand why that professor might have been a little abrasive towards you as a feminist.
For instance, the banning of the "b-word," feministing actually had a post opposing it: "The idea of fighting sexism by regulating our language seems to me like putting a politically correct band-aid over the larger problem we face--mistreatment and disrespect of women." http://feministing.com/archives/007513.html (Though arguably she disagrees with it for a different reason, not because it is unequal but because it is ineffectual. To your point though, I do think that Bitch is often used as a deragatory term for men as well, implying that they are female, and therefore lesser, another discussion entirely.)
I also find it frustrating that even in this post, where you are discussing feminism it is still about men. I understand that you feel it is important to push for equality and not superiority. (I completely agree.) I guess what I wonder is how can we achieve equality if even in our attempt to achieve that is constantly accomindating men's status? During the civil rights movement, did black people worry about hurting white people's status? Do they still? Do the hispanic workers worry about the white people who are having trouble finding jobs?
Since men are the ones with so much power in so many places, why should we worry about accomidating them? They run most businesses and most of the government, I think they'll manage somehow.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If asked to describe myself, I would identify with the responses that Megan@1:24 PM, August 08, 2007 or k t cat@1:57 PM, August 08, 2007 got. But...
...82%. Heh. To my surprise, I'm rated a feminist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What's with all the shoulds in the test -- women should this, women should that? Who am I to answer such questions for other people? This test is more a test of PC attitudes and of belief in applying PC norms to other people's personal behavior than it is of liberating women.
Here's a should for feminists: Individuals, including female individuals, should be able to make their own decisions and live their lives as they wish, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If a couple agrees on traditional roles, or non-traditional roles, it's not for me to say they should do things differently.
IMO many self-proclaimed feminists are essentially busybodies who are blind to much of the variety and possibility of life and would rather boss other people around in petty ways than try to do something productive.
Jonathan I think you should try talking to some actual feminists.
I got 91% also. Surprise, surprise!
I spot a major flaw in the questions. The questions focus on equality between the sexes, not dominance by women which is what many of today's feminists consider feminism.
Paige, if people present inconsistent ideas of what feminism is, it's not necessarily their problem. It could be that feminism itself is rife with internal inconsistencies, and is so lacking in rigor of any kind that just about anything can be called "feminism" without incurring a conclusive rebuke.
Indeed, I often see feminists using this confusion to their rhetorical advantage. They claim that one can never say anything bad about feminism because there are so many kinds of feminism. Of course, that doesn't stop them from saying all sorts of positive things about feminism. It's simply a tactic, nothing more.
I used to have a client who was a plumber. Trade school, but no college degree. He lived in a fabulous and exclusive community. At the BOTTOM of his driveway, a former US Senator was building an extravagant custom home. The plumber had the better view...I always loved that...
There are valid paths for men (and women) besides college. Some of them, such as plumbing, are wide open to women, but VERY few women walk through the open door. I'm sure that some Professor of Women's Studies could cite all sorts of unfair sociological factors explaining this, but as for me, I'm content with the understanding that, while I am perfectly willing to accept the credibility of a woman plumber (there are a few), in general,"it's a guy thing". Just like "Steel Magnolias" is and always will be a 'chick flick'. I've seen it once, and that was more than enough. My wife and daughter could watch it every other week. It's just a difference and that's OK.
I don't see why so many of them can't get that simple point.
As for the "man's job" question, I assume the key word is "preference". Any woman can try out for the NFL; the men just don't get a preference
This is kind of silly, don't you think? It also gets to the heart of the matter. Any NFL GM who would waste their time trying out a woman for linebacker or DT would be fired immediately and rightfully so. The physiology is just too different and that's a biological fact.
Dr. Helen, I'm disappointed.
answered "not sure" to that question (are there "men's jobs"). That is a hard one.
It's only hard because we've become sensitized to the notion of total equality. This is an NFL linebacker. It's a man's job. Period.
82% here. Considering I call myself a post- or recovered feminist and I disagree with almost everything coming from the feminazis of today, I really wonder what this means. I do know that I believe in equality of opportunity and NOT in equality of results. I also believe most women want equality and equal pay with men on the job and are not willing to put in the hours. Men have to work; this is what they do. Women have a choice, and when choice is involved there is rarely the same commitment. The ones who moan there are only men at the top (certainly not true in the insane household-name acronym that employs me) are the ones who moan about having to work a minute over 40 hours a week.
I don't want to be at the top and I don't want to put in 100 hours a week. There's a lesson here.
As far as sexual equality goes, women want all the perks with none of the responsibilities. Furthermore, why is sluttiness the new feminine ideal? Yes, I'm old enough to still consider some women sluts. And acting like victims all the time has really put the nail in the coffin of the feminist movement.
There's something really sick in this society and it's more on the female than the male side.
Mary: You're quick to chide Dr. Helen for speaking for a bunch of boys...then you go on to do the same thing. Physician, heal thyself.
Paige,
You mischaracterize the majority of men and assume that all of them are heads of businesses or running the government. As Scott Adams says, "No, those are other men." The majority of men are just working joes like everyone else. But somehow, this escapes you. The true definition of feminism should be the equality of men and women, not rights for me, but not for thee. If you and other feminists are only interested in the rights of women and not those of men or other fellow Americans--regardless of race or gender--then count me out--for liberty, freedom and justice trump identity politics, in my book.
Am I less a 'feminist' if I don't believe that lesbians should be allowed to "have" children, but also feel the same way about gay men? I'm not how supporting lesbian rights correlates with believing in a fundamental equality of the sexes.
Obviously most people calling themselves feminists would support lesbian rights, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chardin,
I disagree with the variety of ideas and motivations behind feminism being a rhetorical technique. There ARE a lot of different types of feminists, just like there are a lot of different types of Conservatives.
And I think like any political group the voice of feminism (or republicans, or democrats) is often "filtered" by people who disagree. Instead of hearing a reasoned argument for the surge they hear "Follow Dear Leader" or some such nonesense. I think this is a challenge that many groups face. Whether or not it is a rhetorical advantage is up for debate.
Dr. Helen, you are right that most men are working joes. My own explanation for why so many men are heads of businesses and running governments is that more men are willing to work single-mindedly, sacrifice family life, and are more power-driven and able to make hard decisions that make enemies. All of those attributes help get a determined person to the top. Many of those attibutes, the vast of majority of women just plain lack. I don't know one woman in ten willing to make hard, unpopular decisions that create enemies, or who is driven by the quest for power. Wanting lots of $$ is not the same thing. All women want money but many of us are not willing to do the hard work that gets us there -- especially when it is SO easy for women to trade sex for money. Men who are rich and powerful generally get there the hard way. Women *usually* eschew "the hard way." It interferes with what most of us value most in life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Taking a cue from the 60s and 70s, this means we need new unisex words, like "pritch" and "bick".
I'm a uniter, not a divider.
"Mary,"
Please quit acting dense or beef up on your logic skills; to put it more simply for you, I was pointing out that your implying that to speak about the rights of boys or men, one must have sons is equivalent to thinking that Andrea Yates can give good advice on childcare because she had 6 kids. It would not help if I had six sons, that is not the point. I learned what I know of boys and men through treating over 5000 men and boys who have had problems in the areas we are discussing in the course of my career.
There are a very large number of feminist activists and professors who would score badly on that quiz. I mean, really, accepting stay-at-home-mom as a valid career choice? How reactionary!
I do love how paige is focused on group warfare, rather than on the value of each and every individual. The radical, "to the barricades" approach to the challenges in North American society is equally as hilarious. Yes, of course, the US is the most patriarchal society in the world. Those evil conservatives constantly villify the husband of the leading left-wing presidential candidate for not treating her with enough respect. These same people frequently state that while they really, deeply dislike this candidate (and the feeling is more than mutual!), she is the best candidate on the left in terms of demeanor, experience, and maturity. LARRY freaking KUDLOW called her "presidential timber", prefaced before and after with his deep policy disagreements.
But yeah, the US is just sooo misogynistic!
Helen,
Would you apply the same standard to the NAACP? Do you find their work offensive because they work only for the advancement of black people?
Feminists preform a similar service for women. Yet somehow they are expected to protect EVERYONE's rights, not just the rights of the people they are advocating for.
I absolutely think that equal rights for everyone should be the goal, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, eye color, height etc.
What I don't understand is why some groups can push for equality for themselves, and other groups are obligated to push for equality for everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
As a man, I scored 82%
Also as a (happily married) man, I have a question...
When I am asked about things like, "Women should have the right to choose any path in life - from being a stay at home mom to a Fortune 500 CEO" or "Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are", I answer "Strongly Agree". I do strongly agree.
I don't, however, think that eithe men, nor taxpayers, should be expected to foot the bill. I think "education" of many sorts (e.g. an MA in Gender Studies) is overrated and a bad economic choice. Therefore, I think that the individual who wants some sorts of education should pay for it, just like a sports car, a vacation in Europe, or any other luxury. Furthermore, while I think women should have the option to be stay-at-home moms, I don't believe in bilking the working taxpayer to pay for this option.
So, while I strongly agree with the old-school feminists who fought for these options for women, I'd strongly disagree with the newer incarnations of "feminism" that want the costs for women's choices to be borne by others.
I'm not sure what, if anything, I read between the lines in this quiz. Perhaps that's because, in 2007, female CEOs are certainly not unheard-of, nor are stay-at-home moms. The question rings differently now than it would have in, say, 1957 or even 1977.
Hey,
I am merely responding in kind to the consistent treatment of feminists as "them" Feminists think "this" or "that."
We're apparently not individuals fighting for our own equality. We are the feminist borg who want all women to work and climb the corporate ladder and have abortions. So why on earth would anyone else be an individual just trying to find equality in their own life?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Divorce and particularly paternity fraud are where men really get the shaft in America.
If you're not the father, not paying doesn't mean you're a deadbeat.
Paying, on the other hand, means you've bought into the feminist lie that any man of any means who sleeps with a woman who gets into trouble owes her something, even if he's not the father.
Or it means you're a victim of a system skewed so totally in favor of women that even being innocent isn't enough. Shades of Duke Lacrosse ...
96%, I always said I was a feminist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
K T: Any NFL GM who would waste their time trying out a woman for linebacker or DT would be fired immediately and rightfully so. The physiology is just too different and that's a biological fact.
I think you're overthinking the question.
Physiology is a qualification for the job. That doesn't mean women can't try out. All you have to do for a try out is to compete successfully at the major college level.
An applicant to the job of NFL linebacker can be judged on skills, aptitude, and resume, without gender being an issue one way or another.
Despite some loony comments by you-know-who, I still believe Dr. Helen has some of the best commentators on the web, honest insightful, smart, entertaining.
That was reinforced when I saw that Ken Begg left a comment, he is one of my favorite people on the web.
Man, this sock puppet thing is great!
(Only kidding.)
HEH
mary, until you grow a pair of testicles, and live as a man, into todays world .. you will never see the discrimination, you will never know what its like to be a male.
but of course its always the mans fault, never any of the anti male studies, in universities. no man was ever killed by a woman, it must have been self defence, even if he was asleep, and was shot in the back..
mary have you ever been a man, at least dr helen knows men, and understands, unlike you. you fall for the old line, "all men are rapists and deserve all they get." its always a mans fault for everything he does or doesnt do.. women are perfect they cant be evil.
at least dr helen can see the discrimination, and does her best to stop it on forums like this.
unlike you with your head in the clouds, saying everything is ok, when ur would is crumbling. due to rampant anti male bias
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary: You're quick to chide Dr. Helen for speaking for a bunch of boys...then you go on to do the same thing. Physician, heal thyself.
Oh, not at all.
In poker, we call this a "tell". Your airy, disingenuous denial is as transparent as my cat hunching down and skulking towatd the door, tail in the air, as visible as a shark fin. You might as well announce: "I am about to sling some BS!"
I was suggesting some potential answers that helen might hear.
And here's the BS, right on schedule!
You weren't "suggesting" a thing. You were plugging in answers that suited your preconceptions better. And you know it.
Answers that have been given by young men who are choosing not to attend college.
Really? Where are these young men? Are they hiding in the shrubbery? In any case, I strongly doubt that your statistical sample (if it even exists) outweighs Helen's extensive professional experience.
If you don't ask the questions and just assume they're going to drown babies in a bathtub because they don't attend college, I was trying to get her to see other reasons.
This sentence doesn't convey meaning. The participle isn't just dangling, it moved to another state and is living in a trailer park. And where did Helen make this fascinating statement about young men drowning babies in a tub unless they go to college?
How could you read me as speaking for the young men, when my first-point of advice was clearly to ASK THEM. Or did you somehow miss that part, sweetie?
No, honey-pie, I didn't miss a thing. I figured you were being self-contradictory and stupid. And I was right.
You must have gone to the dr.helen school of reading comprehension :)
no i am a dum man an we do not go to skool. we dron babees and play toys. if you some online again lets f***.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paige:
What I don't understand is why some groups can push for equality for themselves, and other groups are obligated to push for equality for everyone.
Like most feminists, you seem unable to understand the simple idea that an equal sign has two sides.
If you want to represent feminism as a goodie-grab for girls, which is exactly what it is, then no problem. You can take your place in line with all the other goodie-grabbing greedy jerks. If you want to get the special sympathy we afford to those who work for justice, however, you're going to have to work for actual justice. That means looking beyond what you selfish sows can grab for yourselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This list of questions is lying by ommission. A great many people would hit "agree" with these because they reflect the feminist self-image.
"Equality" sounds great, but once you get deeper into feminism and take a closer look at the fine print, many of their beliefs are simply not what feminists say they are.
Often, it’s not about equality, but about revenge against the “Patriarchy”, against men, against women who don't toe the line.
As soon as an inequality favors women, these crusaders for "equality" either ignore it or rationalize it. And, when this is pointed-out to them, they deny it.
It's absolute nonsense. I think the reason why more women don't call themselves feminists is because they can see the dishonesty quite clearly and want nothing to do with it.
mary --
If you do, I think you'll find they chose other paths by choice.
Of course, you did the prerequisite asking, right?
henry --
I think you're overthinking the question.
Physiology is a qualification for the job. That doesn't mean women can't try out. All you have to do for a try out is to compete successfully at the major college level.
Um, you're underthinking your answer. Just what do you think would happen if a coach allowed a woman to try out and she was tackled by a 300 pound linebacker?
mary --
Good news if you haven't heard:
The Duke boys got justice! No jail time served. No false convictions. Just a little time, and a few false accusations. Sadly, happens all the time in the justice system. They'll be banking on this victimhood for the rest of their lives, if they so choose.
What a steaming butt-load. Yeah, everyone just forgot all about it once they were proven railroaded. Bullshit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary, it's nothing new for some women to try to shame men into acting against their collective best interest. Whether it's the snotty gift of a white feather to any man who declines to serve in combat (which for you is a birthright), or the crude shaming tactics you're using here on any man who does one-tenth the complaining of your sob-sisters, we've seen your act before. And it sucked the first time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What are your credentials, mary? Or how about some footnotes then, for all the superior understanding and information you come up with.
And without the Wonder Woman deflector / projector rings on.
You have not proven, a single thing you have said. Yet you mock and accuse over and over. Perhaps you need to come over to my house and show me how to google for this info you say exists. Or type in some sites I can go to where all this "manly men who don't want an education" is.
I realize you are thoroughly enjoying the cyber attention. I can't imagine you getting any in real life. You're pretty vicious. Were I unlucky enough to know you, I would definitely turn a 180 if I saw you coming, even if you saw me first. Actually, I'd look you dead in the eye, make a disgusted face, and then turn a 180.
I'm not saying you're not intelligent. As a matter of fact, you seem pretty bright. Too bad you aren't smart enough to know it must be a real drag to actually know you and have to consistently find ways to avoid you.
Who are you mad at, anyway?
Mary,
You're doing an awful lot of typing without saying very much.
Speaking as one of the young men you want to hear from, Helen is right on the money. I think you're more offended that she may have actually spilled the sisterhood's secret because she's honest.
Who would want to attend a college where the constant barrage of "you have a penis so you're a rapist" mentality and the "White males are the most destructive force and at fault for everything" thinking that permeates everything.
Who wants to be shouted down and attacked and stalked when you bring up a counter-point to the garbage being spewed in a feminist class? It would be like talking to you constantly.
I was asked to leave class because of an irrational female screaming at me. I'm going to put myself in massive debt for that?
Witness the constant denigration of the males from TV (Watch every TV father from commercials to sitcoms be a bumbling never-do-well. AGAIN.) to 90% of the situations involving females in real life is a little tiresome. "All men are little boys, made big." "No man can take care of himself, we need to do it for you." "Aww, now you're a victim, whatsamattah toughguy, can't handle it?" "Men are pigs" (All recent quotes from where I work) Passing out fliers about the lack of male education on putting up a toilet seat is acceptable. Telling a woman she's being an overbearing busybody or even, heaven forbid, a sexist, is not.
Why would we want to deal with it? I'm going to pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to be barraged with crap? You don't want equality, you want supremacy. You don't want discourse, you want to shout it down. See your behavior on this blog.
Applying your logic of the Duke "boys" as being "well compensated" for their victimization (And how does one become well compensated for their life and dignity being robbed? For being falsely accused of gang rape and incarcerated while being judged throughout the world? Are you that mercenary?)
Can we now dismiss all wannabe feminists after they win a suit because they were well compensated, right? Perhaps any of Sharpton's pet causes can be similarly dismissed, right? I just want to play fair, here, after all.
"Victim whiteboy card"? What is that, exactly, other than your own biggoted take on it?
Bah. Good troll, you got me all riled up.
Dr. Helen - thanks for being honest and objective, I enjoy reading your blog because it is such.
ooo look a genu-wine ballcutter! She's good at it too. Too bad she is such an ass. But the two go hand in hand don't they?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Can't take off the deflector / projector rings for one minute, can you? I guess the question should be what are you hiding behind all that anger?
You'd like to run back to Kos with a harrassment threat to laugh about, wouldn't you? Her ass is two words. Your ass probably takes up two seats.
Loosing your cool?
You're a zero, sweetheart.
I'll bet you're easy with a couple beers in you. That, and a good luck bass boat chained around your neck.
Typical liberal feminazi. Can't take what you dish out, so you revert to profanity and put downs.
You aren't "responding" to anything or anyone "egging you on". You walked in here barking and foaming at the mouth and haven't shut up since.
Please leave a suicide note as your next post.
mary
I've got a feeling you're either a very ugly woman or a very pretty monster.
Yeah, I can read without moving my lips too! Pussyboy who's afraid to go to college because the chicks will slice his dick off -- heh! Stay home. helen needs ya
Hey fellas?
This is America. Vote with your fucking feet. Pick em up, put em down. Save up your money and move if it's so bad where you're fucking at.
I'm not sure you can read, actually.
How do you reconcile these two statements? If you vote with your feet, you're afraid. If you stay, you should vote with your feet.
For your information. I didn't quit. I'm sure as hell not going to stop just because some little girls want to throw a temper tantrum and think they're going to intimidate me. But I'm damn sure going to throw it in your face that most self-proclaimed "feminists" are hypocritical, whiney, self-involved twits that lack any true honesty.
Odd thing is - some of what I described was criminal behavior, and what was your response? Pussyboy who's afraid to go to college because the chicks will slice his dick off -- heh!
Fact is, you've been called out and dismissed as easily as I breathe. It's something a 9 year old can pick up on. Why don't you see if you can?
Mary, you might want to get your tuition back from school. Spewing derisive bile is not, despite what you were taught in your gender studies class, a substitute for rational discourse.
Um, you're underthinking your answer. Just what do you think would happen if a coach allowed a woman to try out and she was tackled by a 300 pound linebacker?
You're ignoring the issue of resume. There's no gender qualification for trapeze artist either, but that doesn't mean just anybody gets to try out.
There are girls across the country who play football on boys' team. Holley Mangold, sister of New York Jets center Nick Mangold, plays offensive line for her high school varsity team:
"Like a lot of rock-headed coaches, they tried to run the ball at her twice in a row. They got stonewalled," [her father] Vern said. "They didn't run that way anymore. She makes believers out of folks. Holley just enjoys that cold rush when you smack into somebody. It's hard for me to say about my little buttercup, but it's true."
Holley Mangold will never play for the NFL, but not because she's a girl. It's because of her size and skill.
Yes, size and skill are coorelated to gender, but what is important is that they are easy to evaluate on their own, regardless of gender.
Methinks Mary has a bad case of "I take myself too seriously." It's a rather contagious disease, so stay away from her.
Henry,
An applicant to the job of NFL linebacker can be judged on skills, aptitude, and resume, without gender being an issue one way or another.
But this is just silly. I'm not going to interview a midget for the NBA, I'm not going to ask a man if he'd be willing to be a surrogate mother for an embryo and I'm not going to interview a woman to play defensive tackle.
Deciding to interview everyone for jobs like these forces you to ignore facts that you know for certain. Men can't have babies. You can interview all you want, but they can't do it no matter how much the feminists want to say we're equal. Women don't have the muscle mass to play on the defensive front seven in the NFL. It's just not going to happen. To interview women for these position indicates that you are failing to discriminate based on logic and fact.
Discrimination in and of itself is not immoral. We do it every day when we shop for clothes, choose a spouse or decide on which job ofer to accept. It's all part of having higher order reasoning powers. We've been so sensitized to discrimination that conversations like this one are actually occurring when we all know that there's no way a woman would ever play linebacker. It's crazy.
After all the snarling going on with Mary, I hope I'm not being too harsh. I'm glad to particpate in the conversation. Please take my comments with a smile. In fact, here's one now.
:-)
From Mary - I just hate to see wusses hiding in male bodies.
From NOW: women continue to suffer discrimination in employment, insurance, health care, education, the criminal justice system, social security and pensions, and just about any other area you can name.
What do you think about wusses hiding in female bodies, Mary.
Have you been evaluated for Borderline Personality Disorder?
And it really doesn't help boys to not hold them responsible for the consequences of their choices
Assuming you believe in equality, women should also be held responsible for the consequences of their choices. This means that regretted sex is not rape and that if a woman has sex and conceives a child she should be held responsible for the financial support of that child.
Turns out these real-life young men scoffed at doing busy work, "wasting" (their words) prime years sitting in a classroom where really you don't get much in the way of practical learning.
Or maybe they've been turned off of classroom learning by an educational system designed by women for females. Sitting quietly until called upon, regurgitating facts, and an emphasis on cooperating with the group, all staples of early elementary education, generally favor girls. Boys, for the most part, are rambunctious, like to discover new facts, and are highly competitive.
Add in the fact that most elementary school teachers and administrators are females, many of them feminists interested in promoting the interests of females, and you have a system that is intrinsically biased in favor of females. After spending 13 years in a system that doesn't meet their needs, it shouldn't surprise us that males abandon higher education.
One of the problems of an educational system that favors women is that the bell curves for intelligence of the genders differ. The female bell curve is taller and narrower. There are significantly more men at the extremes of intelligence - there are more profoundly retarded men than women and there are more exceptionally smart men than women.
An educational system that turns males off means that some exceptionally bright men, the ones who disproportionately create new knowledge and technologies, will be discouraged from higher education and all of us will suffer as a result.
Initially I would have responded here with my views of feminists and the opinion that some of what has been accomplished has been good. I had also intended to comment about various feminists whom I believe have made things worse by acting like total lunatics such as those wonderful ladies *cough* who decided to go topless publically in protest of Hillary Clinton for some reason or another. I guess in my own hamfisted manner, I'm trying to say that such lunacy is its own punishment, and serves to drive men away from the likes of such. If you would rather use feminist power in an abusive manner than constructive manner, so be it.
My real reason for responding however, is to point out that a certain individual's behavior in this comments section just goes to prove a point. Adults who perceive a certain behavior as being lacking in maturity, are unable to treat that individual with any level of "equality". It doesn't matter whether you are male or female, whether you are 14 or 40. What matters however, is that if you cannot treat others with respect nor with a certain level of decency - you automatically damage yourself in the eyes of others.
I would suggest, that at least one individual here owes Dr. Helen an apology and that if such an individual cannot realize that their behavior was boorish in the extreme, then said individual is deserving not the treatment of equailty, but the treatment of pity or even of censure because they apparently cannot control themselves enough to act in an adult like manner. On the off chance that the poster to whom I refer is but 10 years of age, that I apologize for expecting more of them than they are capable of.
And what's with the boxing gloves?
Dudes, do you think the wimmins should get jobs of their own, ask you out, pay half (or more) on dates, sleep around like they were dudes, take your place if there's a big war and the draft is reinstated, have easy access to abortifacients so you don't get stuck with child support payments, and stop bitching about alleged wage disparities that are actually the result of wimmin's life choices?
Then congratulations, you're a super-duper feminist! ROCK ON!!
Wow, I almost had to go bust out the popcorn for this thread - thanks for the entertainment.
Anyway, this question on the World's Dumbest Quiz kind of jumped out at me: "Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well." What a childish attitude. "But Jimmy's mom lets him chew on broken glass! Wah!"
Of course, whoever wrote it doesn't seem to grasp that "equal" doesn't mean "same". The fact that men and women are biologically different doesn't seem to matter to the agenda driven. I could argue that using man (he he he) made artificial hormones to suppress ovulation, so that women can have sex without judgement "just like men" and be more readily available to men sexually, is oppressive and anti-female. I think it's at least as valid a viewpoint as "we should have easy access to all forms of birth control," which presumably includes abortion.
My answer to that question would be, why the hell would I want to do that? YAY! I get to sleep around without judgement - just like the rutting pigs we all know men to be! Hooray for birth control! Hooray for equality! What about the choice to not do that? Oh, I know, that would make me an Edwardian prude.
...that would make me an Edwardian prude.
Acknowledging the problem is the first step to recovery. Congrats!
/end snark
Who among you hasn't yet had a go at Fred Hayward's Male Gender Bias Test? It's a classic.
An example item:
A major feminist offensive in 1991 forced the medical field to shift even more of its resources toward women, the group which is already the healthiest. A major complaint was that most experimental testing is done on male subjects. If things were reversed and most experiments were performed on women;
(a) Feminists would complain that women were treated like guinea pigs.
(b) Feminists would complain that women were considered expendable.
(c) Feminists would stop complaining.
Good luck on this quiz.
I must completely agree with dadvocate: Feminism these days is about women's superiority and dominance. Feminism is about promoting hatred of innocent males. If feminism had ANYTHING to do with gender equality I'd support it. I do not support feminism and YET do indeed support gender equality: I always have and always will.
When I see A "feminist" even ONE "feminist", saying that we male survivors need to be treated fairly and without hate, then there will be an opening to talk: I'll probably live another twenty years and no reasonable person would expect I will find that "feminist" in those twenty years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
henry --
You're ignoring the issue of resume.
Actually, I'm not.
That doesn't mean women can't try out.
All you have to do for a try out is to compete successfully at the major college level.
Your subsequent link was for high school. To support your above statement you'd have to provide a link to a woman competing successfully against men at the college level.
Holley Mangold will never play for the NFL, but not because she's a girl. It's because of her size and skill.
Size is determined quite a lot by sex. Especially since NFL tackles are 300+. Those are the guys you have to survive a hit from. You can't reference a top of the curve female without comparing her to a top of the curve male.
Submitting a resume and trying out are two different things. We view the terms differently, I suppose. If you think they may rightfully be screened out at the resume level, I think we agree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Size is determined quite a lot by sex.
The point henry is making...
disqualify based on the size then, not on the gender.
If you disqualify based on gender, you are eliminating a lot of big, strong, ethnic women (some of the farm-raised Minnesota stock is twice as big and strong as some of the weak necked males you're raising in some parts).
So if you have a gender test for heavy-machine operators, or even general laborers, you potentially could eliminate a big woman who could best others with dangling bits.
SO you go by job qualification, period. If the woman is not big and strong enough to do the job, she don't get it. If a man is not big and strong enough to do the job, he don't get it. You might end up with a crew of 10 guys; in some parts you might end up with 9 guys and a woman. Maybe two.
That's legal.
Discriminating on account of gender to protect the weaker, victimized men: that's special treatment for the fellas. That's illegal.
Henry is perfectly correct to say base it on skills, not gender. For some jobs then, you'll never see a woman. That's fair. You'll never see a weak man "victim" either. That must sadden some of you posting here.
Really: go the ladyboy route. Less whining, and I suspect some of you will get what you're really after, since you're so jealous the special treatment men like to give women... Heh!
Oligonicella, look at this another way. In any job that requires physical strength it is possible to set up gender-neutral qualifications.
The NFL is no different than high school football. It is no different than garbage collection.
The only difference is the standard of strength and athleticism required. It is such an extreme standard that no woman is likely to meet it. But almost no men can meet it either.
Remember, the question was whether or not men should be given a preference. The answer is no. The physical requirements of the job defines who participates.
The example of Holley Mangold is pertinent because she is being allowed to pursue the job of NFL linebacker the same as every other young football player -- by playing high school football. To continue she needs to attend football camps, get recruited to play major college football, play extremely well at that level, excel at the NFL's pre-draft combines and get drafted. THEN she gets a tryout.
Until Mangold builds this resume, she can no more expect a tryout with an NFL team than the average man can. It's a fair system.
Mary, it'd be great if you could decide what your position was first instead of just attacking everything that moves as a "ladyboy".
You still haven't explained how you can reconcile both of your statements to me. They don't jive logically.
Tough women, nuts! Bullying behavior is bullying behavior. Period. This is your problem in a nutshell. Equality means it isn't right for anyone to do it. Equality does not mean you should be denegrating and disparaging someone as being a 'fraidy-cat because they point it out.
Bill,
I don't think Mary is able to be logical in the least. She seems to have some serious problems that include trolling blogs of those she does not agree with to name call and try to stir up trouble, not much point in trying to reason with her.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You are a real piece of work, Mary. What this blog started out on was a quiz. But, it really wasn't quiz; it was a subtile piece of propaganda.
I didn't bother to take the quiz, because it was too biased. I don't believe in strict equality. Man and women are too different to be held accountable to the same standard. Should there be equality before the law? Usually, except where special conditions intervene. Do I believe in Marxian "Equality of Results?" No way. I believe in freedom and justice. That meant as long as women were coerced by unjust laws then I was on the Feminist's side. But that was long ago.
What you rail about now, Mary, is that there are physical, emotional and social differences between the sexes. They have different social roles and expectations. You and your fellow leftists want to wipe those out.
You would use the government to set up an unjust society in those few places where the Left still rules: the Media, Hollywood, the bureaucracy and the schools. You are insensitive and unjust. You have no concept of the rule of law.
There are real victims, Mary, not just the professional victims of the left. The Left have created a hostile work area for Men in the places that they influence. Men respond by avoiding those areas. It is not that men are avoiding college, but that they are avoiding the "soft sciences" where the Left and the Feminists rule. There are very few women in Engineering and the "Hard sciences." But, Library Science or Sociology? You bet.
What we are talking about is that there are harmful consequences of Leftist and Feminist dogma. One of the consequences is your inability to place yourself in another's situation-- their shoes. Nor do you have any concept of fairness. No one can have a serious conversation with you because you are not interested in truth-- just in winning.
So, you will use spurious arguments, false and presumptuous assertions as well as out right lies. You mock and denigrate. You are a demagogue, Mary. You are not worth replying to. How did you learn to hate so much?
As requested,
I've removed any comments that would challenge any of the assertions put up in the original thread, or posted by commenters directly quesioning me about contrary views.
You're in a specially protected chamber now. One-sided conversatinos can proceed freely, though perhaps you might consider having a closed discussion board so you'll could discuss issues privacy without any outsiders looking in and asking questions about your basic assumptions.
I apologize, as I do understand that helen needs to create as protective an environment here as possible, for the potential victims.
By my asking questions and challenging "victims" to take back their independence, I understand how that could be working against victim therapy.
Bye Mary,
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
mary, mary, quite contrary
how does your blog site grow?
There are very few women in Engineering and the hard sciences.
Oh dammit, one more response:
Where do you work? My sister's an engineer. My brother too.
Is this a North/South thing? You don't have women in the hard science down there?
I know I said I'd butt out and let your conversation proceed for the victims, but if you really believe "There are very few women in Engineering and the "Hard sciences", then you're kidding yourself. Qualifications fellas, not gender limitations.
>Mary said: there are very few >women in Engineering and the hard >sciences.
>Oh dammit, one more response:
Thanks for showing that you are both a coward ( For pulling the posts that got so many people to wax your man hating sexist ass
so effectively. ) and a child who
possess NO self control.
>Where do you work? My sister's an >engineer. My brother too.
" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT
'citation'. " Plus, " the lurkers
support me in e-mail. "
Or, no proof offered ? Self serving
fact free cowshit claim fails.
See, a person who understood the
principles of science would not be
so addled as to ASSume that an
unverifyable claim about *2 people*
had any meaning with regards to
the population as a whole.
Thats one key problem with Feminists: They ASSume that gossip=
data. They are wrong, every time.
>Is this a North/South thing? You >don't have women in the hard >science down there?
As smart people already know, 'cause they checked, that women do not go into the sciences anywhere
near their share of the soft degrees. Thanks for further proving
that your mouth is not smart.
>I know I said I'd butt out and let >your conversation proceed for the >victims,
Translation: " I said I was outa here. As a Feminist, I lied, because thats all that we can do."
>but if you really believe "There >are very few women in Engineering >and the "Hard sciences", then >you're kidding yourself.
No proof ever offered ? Cowshit
self serving fact free loon claim
always fails.
>Qualifications fellas, not gender >limitations.
Tautology.
Andre
If you look at Bureau of Labor Statistics, you find a lot of "(1)" under the weekly earnings for women in engineering and other technical fields plus construction trades, auto mechanics, and similar trades. The "(1)" means "Data not shown where base is less than 50,000."
When I add up the numbers for Aerospace engineers, Chemical engineers, Civil engineers, Computer hardware engineers, Electrical and electronics engineers, Industrial engineers, including health and safety, and Mechanical engineers, I come up with 1,207,000 men and 147,000 women. That's a pretty big difference.
Since women have been going to college at rates greater than or equal to men for several decades, this can't be explained by lack of opportunity. More women than men are in medical schools and law schools.
It's not a North/South thing. It's women choosing not to go into engineering and other "Hard Sciences", if you look at the numbers.
Heck, I have three sisters and none of them are in Hard Sciences. Does that mean no women are in the Hard Sciences?
It's not that you post contrary ideas here mary, it's that you are an asshole to the point of a boderline narcissist personality disorder case.
Because of your closeminded misandry, you are the poster child for anti-feminism.
Quite frankly, you are a bigot.
Now, if you want to back up your mouth with your ass, let me know so we can arrange a face to face. How's that for some equality?
Do you get it now, bitch?
so mary deleted her comments, so that none of us can see how man hating she is, thats a sure sign of a coward, and someone, who found her argument to be wrong.
Thanks for showing that you are both a coward ( For pulling the posts that got so many people to wax your man hating sexist ass
Boy, you poor man victims just don't know WHAT you want... go away, stay, leave, don't be a cowarde... Are you really missing my Man loving comments so quickly fellas? I LOVE MEN. I don't like little m victim men. I don't like people who want to make victims out of men... or women.
DON'T LET ANYBODY CONVINCE YOU TO BE A VICTIM! (that was the gist of the posts helen wanted deleted. Preaching independence and "get over it and move on" = not something the therapist lady who coddles wants you to hear.
No proof offered?
Do you expect me to fly down there to your doors, hold your hands and introduce you to real-live "lady" engineers? Guess what fellas? Plenty of strong, hard-body female firefighters out there too.
But don't expect me to do your work for you -- go find the "proof" by yourselves. Maybe helen can organize a group field trip where some of you man victims can meet these strong professional women in a groups setting, you know so you won't be so intimidated.
It's women choosing not to go into engineering and other "Hard Sciences", if you look at the numbers.
Check out the Women in Engineering groups. I never said women were a majority in the field. I corrected this bit of prejudice:
there are very few women in Engineering and the hard sciences.
Clearly that's not true at all. Minority does not equal "very few". Wait until you scared white folks become "the minority" here. There'll still be more than a few of you around, that is, if you're not so afraid of women you actually you know reproduce. A daughter here and there because you're too afraid to raise a male in today's times, well that's your choice, eh?
----------
Heck, I have three sisters and none of them are in Hard Sciences. Does that mean no women are in the Hard Sciences?
I think you might want to log off and enroll in a logic class, fella. Maybe you could find one where your female classmates won't be looking to cut off your penis either (the reason given above by one male victim, afraid of attending college these days.)
Mary whined: Bye helen.
>Good luck with your victim club.
>Should be much easier now that >there are no strong women around >to threaten your fellas.
Poor Brain Rotted Feminist Mary;
Deluded that " strong " and
" deliberately sexistly ignorant and obnoxious " are synonyms.
>:)
As well as dishonest. " I hate you,
ha, ha. " How... kindergarten.
Now, as to a topic here, well, the issue of who is a Feminist is easy to address: Watch what they DO, what they support and do NOT support. Feminism, aka WomenFirsterism IS sexism, so any
persons and/or bodies that demand for women, ONLY, are Feminists, as well as are sexists.
To those who would then say to me,
do you view other birth group based bodies such as, say, the NAACP as being biased, I would say, of course they are. But, what makes the bias of the NAACP, or any specific group lobby ( Labour unions are other examples ) is that
such bodies do NOT try to pass themselves off as something other than what they ARE. They make it clear who they are working for.
Its OK to lobby for any group you choose to self identify with. Thats freedom. But, its dishonest to do that, while simultaneously claiming to be " for all people ".
So, when NARAL claims to be for
reproductive rights for all, yet has AbZero about ANY men's issues,
their claim is voided by their actions, and they are exposed as dishonest lobbyists. Jack Abramoff
is skirts.
Andre
sgt ted said:
Do you get it now, bitch?
No. But I hear your daughter is getting plenty. Funny how male victims such as yourself leave your children wanting more, you know, from real men out there...
A lil advice?
Introduce the girls to some strong professional women -- maybe a doctor or engineer -- who can convince her that she is much more than her body or sex appeal.
Something tells me if she keeps up like you report, she's going to be the kind of woman who victimizes a lot of men herself, either through false rape charges because Daddy doesn't want her to have sex, or through paternity costs because when you deny your teen daughters have sexual feelings, they tend to get knocked up pretty easily.
Hope this helps.
Oh, and can I invite all my big male friends for the "showdown" you're inviting me to? They all get a big kick out of little fellas feeling victimized and wanting to fight the "ladies" back. Must be the German in them.
SGT Ted said...
15 year olds aren't equipped to deal with the responsibilities that come along with sex. period. My then 15 YO daughter was wanting all sorts of guys in her pants, so much so that I had to threaten to put a few in jail.
Just because a teenager wants to have sex doesn't mean that they should be allowed, you molesters in training.
6:37 PM, August 08, 2007
Mary, Mary, Mary,
By using anecdotal evidence of your sister you implied there weren't very few women in engineering. Of coure, that depends on what you define as "very few." 12.18% is very few percentage wise in my book. I only used my three sisters as an example of equally poor logic, not as any sort of valid point.
I've already taken logic classes and made a 4.0 in them. The girls in the class had more interesting and more enjoyable ideas of what to do with my private parts. ;-)
BTW - I'm glad you finally took my bait. I was feeling neglected.
You still haven't explained how you can reconcile both of your statements to me. They don't jive logically.
The gist is:
If you're not happy in the situation you're in, don't stay there and be a victim: vote with your feet.
Find a better place where they measure what you can do -- with your brain and your body -- not just sort you by gender. There are plenty of weak males out there, as evidenced by this thread. No special treatment for them. No special victim status, just because a woman has worked her brain and body hard and advanced past you.
If you want to be a victim though (I'm suggesting that what some of your really want is to be a woman, hence the "ladyboy talk), then stay at home.
Make excues for yourself that the women in college are man-haters and the only classes offered are those in gender studies. Funny how I managed to earn myself 2 degrees, yet never once enrolled in a Womens' Studies Class. Just my choice. Those classes are electives, not core requirements for hard science classes (mine is a bachelor of science, not arts degree).
So why are you fellas enrolling in Womens' Studies classes, just to feel victimized and give you a reason to drop out and stay at home? Are you jealous of the mothers raising children who can do this with a male partner's support? Guess what? Some stay-at-home dads are quite happy (read: not victims) with their choice to child raise and take care of the home front while their wife works for the pay.
I don't see us turning the clock back either. If the opportunities are there, some women will still choose to seize them. In some regions, equality is becoming more the norm, and you don't see so many men and women "victims". You see them working alongside each other as co-workers and friends.
Of course, some of you will first have to get past your fears of strong women. You victimize yourselves by dropping out; the presence of women in colleges and the non-traditional labor pool shouldn't frighten you into eliminating your own opportunities. Nothing has been taken away from the men through honest competition, it's just that some of you don't measure up and choose to blame women for that. Up here, we don't. And the men and women seem better off for it.
By using anecdotal evidence of your sister you implied there weren't very few women in engineering. Of coure, that depends on what you define as "very few." 12.18% is very few percentage wise in my book.
Ah, so you didn't buy your faulty logic either. We agree then.
To me, 147,000 women and 12% of the workforce cannot be characterized as "very few". Geez, I wonder what you'd call one or two? very very very very very very very very few :)
See, when I used my sister as an example, she studied and worked alongside women in the sciences and engineering. She is in professional organizations where you see "plenty of" (=more than a very few;) female engineers.
If you visit say Northwestern School of Engineering (in the North) you'll find plenty of women like my sister. Lots of female doctors and scientists too, which is not to say men are in the minority in that field.
It doesn't have to be 50/50 to have equality, you know. Just that you aren't closing doors based on gender, as so many of you seem wont to do.
Go by qualifications, not gender determination. It will make for a more competitive, happy and healthy society, where you don't find "victims" everywhere just because something doesn't measure out to 50/50.
So if women are qualified to be on those college campuses, and the young men are choosing not to compete and apply for whatever reason, this is not discrimination if they have every opportunity to educate themselves.
I think you have to consider the priorities and reasoning of young men who choose to delay or not attend college: not just the ones who are in therapy believing themselves victims of classroom discrimination, or because they'd like to stay home and raise babies themselves and are jealous of those women who are able to choose that path, with the full financial support of their male partners. If the husbands want to support their wives and it's a mutual family choice, why must you portray those women as "bloodsuckers"?
Again, I smell jealousy and perhaps a latent ladyboy syndrome.
My then 15 YO daughter was wanting all sorts of guys in her pants, so much so that I had to threaten to put a few in jail.
When the guys in question were minors did you threaten to put your daughter in jail, or are only men capable of statutory rape?
The way you disparage men and male sexuality ("whiners", "ladyboys", "don't measure up") makes me hope that you didn't have any sons.
While there are some women who are both interested in the hard sciences and capable of doing outstanding work in those disciplines, there are far fewer of them than men. Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
When the guys in question were minors did you threaten to put your daughter in jail, or are only men capable of statutory rape?
Any minor males I dealt with their parents or threatened to, depending on the circumstances. Over 18 YO I threatened to go to the police. I dealt with my daughter at home.
If she had been an adult going after minors I would have referred the matter to the police.
I don't play around when it comes to this. I have seen too many people irrevicably screw up their lives and the lives of children playing with sex, like it's no big deal.
"They're going to do it anyways" is the statement of an immature person who has failed to grasp the seriousness of the consequences, or sometimes it's the statement of a predator who wants to have access to underage persons for sex.
the above is a response to a crossposted question from another topic.
When the guys in question were minors did you threaten to put your daughter in jail, or are only men capable of statutory rape?
Don't ask me.
Ask sgt. ted.
The way you disparage men and male sexuality...
Not all men. Just the whiners. Guess what? Lots of men laugh at the victim-whiners too, those who blame their troubles on sex discrimination instead of taking control of their situations.
dr.helen is running a cottage industry for these victimized boys and men, and she's trying to lump ALL men as being victims of society. Sorry -- they're laughing at you and not buying it.
------------
While there are some women who are both interested in the hard sciences and capable of doing outstanding work in those disciplines, there are far fewer of them than men.
Agree with this statement.
Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
Disagree with this one.
Find it quite sexist, in fact.
See, if you keep women out through blanket discrimination, then men don't have to compete honestly.
Luckily, those days are over. Equal opportunity to all, let the whiners be left in the dust.
Something tells me if she keeps up like you report, she's going to be the kind of woman who victimizes a lot of men herself, either through false rape charges because Daddy doesn't want her to have sex, or through paternity costs because when you deny your teen daughters have sexual feelings, they tend to get knocked up pretty easily.
Hope this helps.
Nope, she is now grown up, on her own with a husband and 3 kids. She has thanked me for preventing her from doing stupid things when she was too young to grasp the significance of it.
You, however, remain an idiot.
Oh, and can I invite all my big male friends for the "showdown" you're inviting me to? They all get a big kick out of little fellas feeling victimized and wanting to fight the "ladies" back. Must be the German in them.
No, you have to back up your mouth on your own.
Or are you one of those shit talking tough grrrl feminists who immediately runs to the first man that can protect her when she is called on her crap by a man?
Mary,
Admit it, you can't stay away...You love us!
Dr. Helen, I have long wanted to ask you, as a forensic psychologist, exactly what is up with the hostile weirdos that you and Althouse seem to attract? It's weird, because she's more left leaning, and you are more right leaning (IMO) yet you both seem to get the same sort of nasty comments that are more personal than substantive. Have you ever considered the issue from a professional perspective?
I just don't understand it, because I don't think you and Althouse are all that similar, but the shrill screeching in comments seems to be the same.
Signed, Curious in California
btw i have saved her comments, incase she deletes them again,
mary your sexist bias is showing. and you make an assumption, that all the people who post on here are from america. and calling me a lady boy, well, that show how mature you really are. admit it that as a woman, you do not know what it is like to be male, you dont understand men at all. you rely on the rhetoric, and things your other witches (no offence to real life pagan witches), 12% of people is a minority, it means 88% are men, now that is very few..
why.. is it because they are being discriminated against, no obviously 12% managed to get the job, is it because of the choice they made.
of course since i am a male i must automatically be a ladyboy or a whiner. but imagine if the positions was reversed.. (if you can), the outcry..
M,
I can only speak for myself, but the main reason is probably because I have fairly open comments. All comment sections generally disintegrate after a while once the trolls hit--and they typically do--as they take over and in response, the good people leave or don't want to comment. If I moderated more heavily, there would be fewer or no trolls--since they would not be allowed on. If you check out most blogs with over--say, 5000 page views daily, you will find that most moderate fairly heavily.
Helen said...
Mary,
Admit it, you can't stay away...You love us!
Well helen, I wouldn't go that far... But your fellas NEED me, I'll agree with that.
They need to see a strong healthy woman who loves men and doesn't want to see them victimized by society or the victim-cottage-industry that wants to suck all of us in.
Now how you comin' on organizing that field trip? The one to get them out of momma's basement, hold their hands and have them meet some real-live lady engineers and scientists, who can try to convince them to go back to school because the Northern colleges at least offer a lot more than Womens' Studies Classes, if they'd just hop off the victim path and choose to apply themselves.
I'd love to put you out of a job helen. You know, make men and women, boys and girls, healthy enough to compete fairly without all the whining and complaints of discrimination. Insta-lub could always support you, right? :)
Just curious mercurior:
If you're not a submissive,
why do you choose to type in lowercase?
Things that make you go "hmmmm..."
Of coures Mary loves us. This is probably the most attention she's had from males in years.
a strong healthy woman who loves men
This should have been included in the post on self-delustions.
Oh, and can I invite all my big male friends for the "showdown" you're inviting me to? They all get a big kick out of little fellas feeling victimized and wanting to fight the "ladies" back.
No, you have to back up your mouth on your own.
Oh absolutely, hon. (I keep forgetting you male victims who do so poorly in school have reading comp issues.)
My friends just want to watch and get a good laugh at you physically taking on a woman, "sgt.ted".
Then being good guys -- Real Men you know-- they might even offer to help you back to your car. Don't expect any dates though -- they're not much into ladyboy-victims like you.
Oh and I'm not referring to gay men as ladyboys here, nope you fellas who are so jealous of women you secretly wish you were one... you're in a very special category all your own. :)
This is probably the most attention she's had from males in years.
Don't you mean victimized shemales?
Yep, that's accurate then.
I heard helen's treated over 5000 though so you're in good company with your "advocating", "dad". Don't let The Man get you down. :)
why are you an idiot mary?
i type in lower case because i can and i do, does it really matter why. or are you so anally retentive that typing is lower case means i am submissive?
if you look at your log on details on these posts.. you will see your name is lowercase..
wow, what an stupendous idea, you can tell if someone is submissive by them typing in lower case.. wow.. have you patented this..
she does probably love men, but they either run screaming from her sexist comments, or they are masochists, or have been brain washed by women like her and are waiting to be castrated..
now comes the insults, well, what do you expect.. she cant argue, she has no evidence for her arguments, she deleted her prior comments, so no one would know.. and she is back, i wonder how long it will take to delete these new comments.
there are non as blind as those who dont want to see.. and to me and the rest of the people on here, you are blind.
admit it that as a woman, you do not know what it is like to be male, you dont understand men at all. you rely on the rhetoric, and things your other witches (no offence to real life pagan witches), 12% of people is a minority, it means 88% are men, now that is very few..
It's so cute. They're riled up enough to shadowbox with themselves now. This has got to be a good step forward in demonstrating aggressiveness.
Then you offer to fight women, then finally, maybe some of you will be able to get along withe the non-whining Real Men out there -- you know, the good majority that doesn't consider themselves victims of capable competitive women.
Please reread what I wrote upthread about the difference between "very few" and being in a "minority".
You're almost there. C'mon man, fight throught the pain... you can do it! (I heard you victims perform better with some extra special encouraging! Go boy!)
Just an observation:
this one too uses an awful lot of lowercase lettters where they properly should be capped. Could we be onto something here -- a similar trait in submissives?
Say, do any of you guys pay a Domanatrix for your own pleasures? I've heard that's pretty popular amongst a certain subgroup of victimized men. You know, they actually wallow in their victimhood. You don't wear black leather for these therapy session, do ya helen? Oh, I'm starting to think some of you boys have problems well beyond me...
Bravo, Dr.Helen
now comes the insults, well, what do you expect.. she cant argue, she has no evidence for her arguments, she deleted her prior comments, so no one would know.. and she is back, i wonder how long it will take to delete these new comments.
there are non as blind as those who dont want to see.. and to me and the rest of the people on here, you are blind.
Really, try a good Capital Letter every now and then, fella. It might boost your self esteem, and you're worth it, no? You don't tie up your um naughty bits too, do ya?
you are truly strange mary. But typical of gender feminists in that you want the "equality" of being able to shit talk like a guy, but you need other men to back you up. Or you rely on a perverted sort of chivalry that sneers at the man that calls you out on your crap.
Calling other men "ladyboys" usually results in an asskicking when a man does it. Which is why men usually don't, even on blogs. But, you feel free to trot it out, because you know that your "extra priviledge" sort of feminism permits it.
So, much for your commitment to equality.
If you don't want to be treated like loudmouth guys are treated, don't act like one, mary.
if you look at your log on details on these posts.. you will see your name is lowercase..
See that's a problem with the default. But if you notice, I don't write or refer to myself in the lower cases intentionally.
Really, look into it. If there are other, um, symptoms like the tying and tuck question asked above, well... you really do seem to be enjoying being verbally beaten by a strong woman.
I'm sure there are websites out there that could better help fulfill your secret submissive desires. I bet you're really a pretty lady under all those horrible masculine things required by the Real World, like traditionally capping your letters instead of presenting yourself so submissively for punishment.
Don't ask me to do your homework for you though. You've got to find those outlets on your own, lil fella.
mary, some of Us Are just taunting yu. we"re just havIng a liTTle fun. butt you can sea write threw me. o, Well.
Calling other men "ladyboys" usually results in an asskicking
That usually only applies to Real Men though, not lil whiny ladyboys like you see on display in this thread who are building up their courage to take on... a woman!
Remember the guy above who's afraid his classmates all want to cut off his penis, so that's his discrimination excuse?
Well, you're one step better. Tell me, are you one of those fellas with karate training too cuz we'd love it if you showed your prowess with num-chucks.
Don't back out now -- these guys are saying they're willing to pay an admission charge to have ya come up for this "rumble". Don't bother to dress pretty; again, they're not into that. You'll have better luck with some of those on this thread I suspect -- try little mecurior, he's very small and helpless. No strength even to punch the CAPS LOCK button. Maybe he'll even fight or wrestle ya too. Exciting! You could probably even market the video -- sounds like the club's growing every day...
mary, mary, mary, you dont know who i am do you. i could be anyone, i could be a serial killer or a policeman, it is you who has the problem, look at the way you focus on capital letters, rather than the topic itself.
so tell you what i will do I WILL TYPE IN CAPITALS, DOES THIS MAKE ME DOMINANT, IF IT DOES GO AND LICK YOUR CAR CLEAN.
or doesnt it matter.. ah mary, your so much fun... i cant even be annoyed at you, you have been the greatest fun today, you cant upset me, i know exactly what you are. (i just have to tell my friends that u think i am submissive, because of my capital letters).
i know your trying to anger me but it will not work..
dadvocate said...
mary, some of Us Are just taunting yu. we"re just havIng a liTTle fun.
So you're saying, it's good for you dad? You like to see a strong woman verbally beat down the lil boys?
Really, check out some of those websites. Maybe there's a special victim-men-forever! group, right in your area. Maybe ask helen for a referral, and some tips on how to dress? :)
so tell you what i will do I WILL TYPE IN CAPITALS, DOES THIS MAKE ME DOMINANT, IF IT DOES GO AND LICK YOUR CAR CLEAN.
No, that's not normal punctuation for a real life man either. That looks like a submissive who's been called on it, AND IS TRYING TO OVERCOMPENSATE.
You never did answer that tie-and-tuck question, I note. ;-)
I see that your first instinct to my calling you out was to run to your male co-workers and play it up for sympathy. Real Men and women for that matter, handle their shit without involving their "posse" or whatever group of pussywhipped men she can con into taking her side on the crap she brought onto herself.
It takes no courage to call you out on your phoney "tough grrrl" feminism. You seem pretty pathetic that your only instinct is to call male victims of crime "ladyboys" and transvestites.
i am afraid my wife to be wouldnt be happy, and she likes me how i am.. and before you once again call me submissive, you cannot be more mistaken..
why should i comment about the idea you have about castrating me and mutilating me. you are the one with that idea and obsession, about turning all men into ladyboys.
i dont have to justify myself to you, i only have to justify myself to myself capitals or not.
i do think mary you need therapy, all the obsession about transvestites, and mutilation. i am comfortable enough in myself to be me, and not what people like you try to turn men into, which is the ladyboys you are so fascinated about.
oh mary, your so funny.. you have quite made my day, made me glad to not be on the same continent as you.
I see that your first instinct to my calling you out was to run to your male co-workers and play it up for sympathy.
Not co-workers.
My friend was hanging out with his buddies and they asked what I was laughing about. They scrolled through reading the good parts out loud, and are very eager to meet you. We don't get many of your types up here. I'm selling tickets, in fact.
Anybody know a good male-crisis support hotline that needs a sizeable donation? Funny thing, we don't have those up here either. Maybe it's something in the water...
i am afraid my wife to be wouldnt be happy
lol. Lots of submissive men are married. (Is this Glenn??)
And I think you just confirmed the diagnoses with that opening statement
Anybody know a good male-crisis support hotline that needs a sizeable donation? Funny thing, we don't have those up here either. Maybe it's something in the water...
Shutup woman and go fetch me a sammich.
so lots of married men are submissive are they.. and because i am about to be married i must automatically be submissive..
ah mary, mary , mary.. your just too funny.. i do think you have a problem mary, obsessing about submissive ladyboys.. not a good sign.. and somehow you seem to be obsessed about the men on this board..
why do you think that is.. are the only people "man" enough to cope with her are submissive ladyboys. or do you dream about them, in the darkness of your nights. do you fantacise about all these real shemales.
Jesus H Christ Mary, give it a rest. Not all relationships are about dominance and submission, ya know. Seems the only way to be a "real man" in your reality is to club you over the head and rape you while you're unconscious. Anything less is "submissive" and weak, which you equate with being female and children ("ladyboys"). Speaking of things that make you go hmmm....
I notice your blog has the comments turned off. Is that part of your insecurity masquerading as dominance and strength? Or is it part of your propensity for monologues? Funny, didn't you say something about one-sided conversations?
Gee, who knew a silly little quiz post could turn into such a train wreck.
Gee, who knew a silly little quiz post could turn into such a train wreck.
It's kinda more fun and the comment thread tends to go on longer when you have call-response -- you know a more balanced conversation, where people actually call the commenters on stuff like this:
Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
helen usually nods her head and agrees brilliance like that; remember she has a vested interest in convincing men who are frightened by women that they are being discriminated against and are victims of society. I tend to call her on it when she lumps ALL men/boys into her victim category.
Again, I suspect it's something about the water down there, or the circles she hangs in thinking all men are as victimized as those she "treats".
----------------
so lots of married men are submissive are they.. and because i am about to be married i must automatically be submissive..
Oh, poor logic again.
I don't think you're submissive because you're about to be married.
I think you're submissive because of the small caps, because "i am afraid my wife will not be happy", and because you seem to be avoiding the tie-and-tuck question.
if you had read what i said, i said "i am afraid my wife to be wouldnt be happy, and she likes me how i am.. and before you once again call me submissive, you cannot be more mistaken..
why should i comment about the idea you have about castrating me and mutilating me. you are the one with that idea and obsession, about turning all men into ladyboys"
why are so so obsessed about tie and tuck. please read what i said or are you too moronic. if i was tied and tucked turned into your idea of a ladyboy, she wouldnt be happy, as she loves me as a man.
god you take so much out of context.. so you like and fantacise about men tying themselves up.
mary mary mary, once again you make me happy i am not on the same continent as you.
you are a sick person, wanting to have me tie themselves up and tuck it in ands turn men into ladyboys.
"I think you're submissive because of the small caps, because "i am afraid my wife will not be happy", and because you seem to be avoiding the tie-and-tuck question", capitals makest the man eh.. you are the one obsessing about tie and tuck question. but then again you are an idiot.
And you sir are submissive.
But it's ok. Your wife seems to like you that way.
As Dear Abby used to say, it's really a good thing you two found each other!
Mary,
Go on home, it's getting to be dinner time---I'm glad you are fixated with this blog rather than out in the world causing trouble, but give it a rest.
Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
I admit I missed that one (rather a lot of comments, so some get skimmed), and if someone said that, well, it's hardly worth dignifying with a response is it. I haven't seen Helen nod in agreement with such nonsense either, though.
I notice you carefully avoided the rest of my comment. Hmmm...., once again. Personally, I find a call and response more fun when there's a bit more logic and real attempt at understanding involved. If you want to make a point, try not resorting to name-calling and baiting. The idea that someone who uses lower case is submissive is more than a bit silly. Moreover, so what if he is submissive? You seem to like to pick on those you see as weak though, which makes you not a strong woman as you assert, but a bully.
Not that you care what I think, but perhaps you should take a good look at the contradictions you present and try to work those out, then you might be more able to present a coherent argument without appearing such a hypocrite or so muddled. That would be so much more sporting.
paige: Would you apply the same standard to the NAACP? Do you find their work offensive because they work only for the advancement of black people?
It is fine to try and advance a particular group as long as you are not a bigot. The SCLC was going to give Michael Vick (dog-killer) an award based solely on the color of his skin. Luckily, public pressure stopped them. If you think a certain race should get special treatment or you hate someone based on their race then you deserve to be ridiculed.
The same thing applies to feminists. If you are a misandrist bigot, you should be called on it. Don't tear men down, build women up. And realize the consequences and responsibilites that are inherit with power. If you are in a race club, don't tear someone down for their skin color, help minorities overcome poverty.
rightactions,
You know interactive quizzes are funner! I couldn't decide between b & c, but I liked this line at the end: Score one point for every (c) answer. If you have any points at all, you have a very unrealistic view of feminist politics. (end) ... Shouldn't "misandrist" be spelled "MsAndrist?"
Thanks helen.
I've already eaten. Best to get your big meal of the day in around noon. Then you have proper digestion time before bedtime.
Of course, I know some of your commenters on the other thread just prefer to blame their genetics. Victim-think, like that.
Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
admit I missed that one (rather a lot of comments, so some get skimmed), and if someone said that, well, it's hardly worth dignifying with a response is it.
That's cool. Your preference.
Personally, I think you have to call them on those kinda statements, not let them pass. Because not so long ago, those kind of statements like to real-life discrimination where opportunities to women were shut from the get-go because "of course women can't do that job."
Qualification, not gender limitations. Seems to me that's been the meat of what's being debated on this thread. Some of these victim-men just don't understand that kind of equality in society, it seems, and most of helen's posts do nothing to challenge or disabuse them of the notion that societial discrimination in the past against women is NOT what they are experiencing now by not working for the opportunities available to them out there.
If my pointing out the illogic of their comments here makes them call me names, and they want to think I'm a man-hating bitch for defending hard-working smart women, then they've absolutely got that right.
Even in New York still, eh helen? ;-)
Oligonicella: Interesting. By answering only one single question "agree" instead of "strongly agree", I rated %88. How the hell did you get a 91%? Oh yeah, their personal opinions weighted the answers to each question differently.
Actually, if you do a little reverse engineering, it appears that each question is worth the same: 0% for strongly disagree, 3% for disagree, 5% for not sure, 8% for agree, and 10% for strongly agree.
Helen could get a 91% by answering "strongly agree" to 7 questions, "agree" to 2, and "not sure" to 1.
I'm wondering why you never speak about yourself. Like I said, the Wonder Woman deflector / projector rings.
So what do you do? I'm asking you directly. Do you go to school? Do you have a job? We know your sister and brother are both engineers. You said so. I've got a standing bet with a friend that says you won't answer that question, either. You will bounce it off in some direction, and throw something back at me to take the light off of you because you know there is nothing there. Now, so does everyone. I like the way you said you were removing your previous comments with all the profanity in them because you were "asked" to do so.
So for all your friends in bib overalls and thick glasses with hair that looks like an explosion in a mattress factory - I want them to know that is also untrue. Like everyone else does.
I kinda need your response quickly.
The bet is big enough that I'll get in the ten o'clock movie for free, pay for drinks and snacks, as well as cover the gas.
If antifeminist is defined as The Taliban, then most people who can acknowledge a woman without killing her or spraying acid on her face are feminists.
"...my pointing out the illogic of their comments here..."
As for mary's sharp ability to spot "illogic", has she ever attempted to apply it to her own words?
No need for anyone to answer that, is there?
I have never much seen the use for feminism; I find one of its most specious foundational myths is that everyone with a uterus has a common interest and solidarity not shared by non-uterine humans.
Many would cite as the genesis of political feminism a book based upon the opinions of two hundred self-selected, white, protestant, upper-class college women from New England – and therein you see the fatal flaw – a movement based entirely upon the idea that it is very important to turn the world on its ear in order to ameliorate the picayune complaints of a very few people born into a world in which they would never know a single day’s physical labor. Only among a rarified class in which “work” means doing something comparatively interesting, safe, respectable, well compensated, and under comfortable conditions would the clamoring to be free from the benefits of the traditional married paradigm resonate. What feminism has accomplished for the majority of women is to turn them out into menial jobs under the supervision and control of men with no vested interest in their welfare or that of their children, depressing wages of men, and making the choice of a domestic life economically impossible. The irony is that the same class of privileged women constitute the “opting out” phenomenon, wholly unaware that their forebears have made this lifestyle available only to those with considerable financial means.
In my family, I see absolutely no evidence for the Friedan propaganda that women of that earlier age were hopelessly depressed and “unfulfilled.” (As an aside, only a perpetual juvenile believes that anyone is entitled to an endlessly, blissfully “fulfilling” life.) Much to the contrary, they loved and revered their husbands long after they were dead. But then again, the women in my family were not raised in comfort, with the expectation that life should follow the arc of some kind of adventure serial – something that was pretty “equal” between men and women of that age and class.
I believe that the true test of feminism is the fact that these “elite” young women – those that Hirschman and Steinem beg not to “opt out” - will not settle for anyone other than the hot-shot investment banker, partner-track lawyer, or surgeon as long-term relationship material. It seems that even they reinforce the notion that a man’s career status is a non-negotiable requisite for marriage and relationship suitability – and that men do not have the option but to devote themselves to career lest they become social undesirables and undermining result-oriented inequality critiques.
DLJessup --
Read my following post. The one immediately below my first. I admitted it was probably a misread.
>Excelling in the hard sciences needs considerable intelligence and there are significantly fewer brilliant women than men.
Disagree with this one.
Find it quite sexist, in fact.
See, if you keep women out through blanket discrimination, then men don't have to compete honestly.
Do you "disagree" with the force of gravity? Do you find it sexist to say that women are more likely get pregnant than men? For the matter, do you find it sexist when woman, as a group, are described as more nurturing than men?
It's an empirical fact that women have a taller and narrower bell curve for intelligence than men. While average intelligence for the sexes is roughly equal, and obviously one cannot make predictions about individuals (my ex and older daughter both scored over 1400 on the SAT), the fact remains that men and women have different distributions on the intelligence curve. There are fewer men of average intelligence than women and significantly more at the extremes. Thus there are many more retarded men than women. There are also significantly more men than women at the upper end of intelligence. You may disagree and think it's sexist, but it's the empirical truth. Because there are so few exceptionally bright people, increases at the upper end of the scale result in disproportions. For example, Ashkenazi Jews are about 1 standard deviation smarter than average, resulting in an average AJ IQ of about 110. This shift in the bell curve means that at the high end, let's say IQs of 140 or higher, a greater percentage of AJs are exceptionally brilliant than in the general population, perhaps 4 to 5 times the percentage.
I'm not saying that there aren't brilliant women. I've been fortunate to have been related to, taught by, and worked with a number of exceptionally smart females. However, if you interview brilliant women you will find that they often express regret that they have few peers.
I'm quite sure, Mary, that you think you are smart, and you probably have some intellectual horsepower, but true geniuses are exceptionally smarter than your average honors student. The difference between 99th percentile and 99.5th percentile is exponential.
Mary,
How do you feel about the term "macho chick"?
Is it more offensive than "ladyboy"?
But your fellas NEED me, I'll agree with that.
No narcissism here. No, none at all.
I had a real low score. In an attempt to improve things, went to Victoria's Secret, bought a see thru bra and sexy thong panties. Shaved my legs and put on some lip gloss and eye make up. You know, trying to get feminine feeling in an effort to raise my score.
Went to take the test again. Right in the middle of it all, my son and daughter came home from clothes shopping early. They looked at me and screamed, heading back out the door. That was last night around 9:00.
I still don't know where they are.
The one to get them out of momma's basement, hold their hands and have them meet some real-live lady engineers and scientists, who can try to convince them to go back to school because the Northern colleges at least offer a lot more than Womens' Studies Classes, if they'd just hop off the victim path and choose to apply themselves.
Your anti-southern bias is not well founded. Georgia Tech is the fourth highest ranked engineering school on US News' rankings (behind MIT, Stanford and UC at Berkeley - two of which are "western", not "northern"). Also in the top 15 were UofTexas at Austin and Texas A&M, far ahead of such prestigious "northern" schools like Harvard and Yale. BTW, I've lived in Michigan my entire life so I'm not a southern chauvinist.
As for exposure to women engineers, I worked in a DuPont paint lab for 21 years and I've known quite a few capable, even brilliant, female scientists and engineers. The fact remains that they are a distinct minority, not because of bias (DuPont is as PC a company as there exists when it comes to diversity and affirmative action), but because of interests and abilities.
Since you're so concerned with people embracing victimhood, perhaps you can reflect on the victimhood mentality in the feminist movement as well as in the African American community. Or, are only males your object of scorn?
BTW, Mary, without using search engines, could you tell us who Grace Hopper was?
Grace Hopper! I ain't telling who she is but she gave the best explanation of the difference between a nano-second and a milli-second I've ever seen.
“So you're saying, it's good for you dad? You like to see a strong woman verbally beat down the lil boys?”
Tell me, Mary, when is she due to arrive in this thread?
I’d surely like to tussle with her when she does.
She did it with rope. Great explanation.
Just took the quiz for real, answering as honestly as possible. 71%
I guess that's what happens to a single dad raising two daughters and a son.
Personally, I got a 50%. I am kind of misogynistic. (It is a side effect of being misanthropic.) I also just don't buy into the social agenda at all. Not only do I not think that it should be (in other words, think that we should pass laws or create policies to promote it), but I just don't even think it is anything like natural or what women want or good for women or anyone else for that matter. I think most women are better off being economically dependent on a man, for instance. The women are, the men are, the families are and society is. Female sexuality should not match that of men. It is better for women to be pursued and for men to be the pursuers. Modesty is more important for women than men. And so on. Basically, I think women probably have as much right to vote as anybody, but that's about it.
So, if a male chauvinist pig like me scores 50%, I can't imagine the sort of guy or gal that would score lower. But, then again, maybe I am just not reading it like everyone else. You know when they say something like "Women ought to be socially and economically independent of men," they mean that you think the government ought to take measures to ensure that if necessary -- that if it is not the case, then somethig's wrong.
I think, adrian, in my mind I was substituting "woman" for "person" or perhaps "anyone". I think everyone should be able to be socially and economically independent of anyone else, for instance. And as long as true equal opportunity is there, it should be able to occur, although on various levels. Regardless of sex, color, etc., some are better than others at particular skills or natural abilities(duh-huh). I can imagine the expense of gold medals at the Olympics if equal outcome were the goal. If everyone got a gold medal, they wouldn't be worth a plug nickel. Talk about dumbing down. All mankind would suffer.
I have met and worked with quite a few female mechanical engineers in my line of work. Some of them were darned good. Funny thing. The better ones had no long fingernails or any make up on. The ones who perhaps should have chosen another engineering field looked like they should have been in an office. You can't crawl around a continuous caster in a steel mill looking for root cause to a premature failure, or a thousand other similar scenarios, and worry about breaking a nail or getting dirty. Especially if the mill is loosing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour during this time. Not getting nasty, but industry doesn't need a trophy engineer. Some people are great at book learning, but have no idea what they are looking at, or doing, when the books are finally closed, and the sleeves get rolled up.
That's not sexist, because again, it happens to either sex, any color.
One of my daughters is pursuing her PhD in plant bio-technology, bio-chemisty, bio-engineering. She will be in school for seven more years to complete what she wishes to attain, before post doc. It is her passion. She looses me in seconds when she takes off talking about it.
Perhaps, to be a feminist, you can be male. If a man believes in equal opportunity for women, does he not have to believe in it for everyone?
And if a hard core feminist is so anti-male, is it not about power and greed more than equality?
Wait a minute, I think I can fit altruism in here somewhere, adrian - but I'm struggling with serial sperm donor. Let me think about it while I'm waxing the car this afternoon. There's something to the "wax on, wax off" thing.
"Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are."
Have the authors of the quiz or members of the feminist vanguard bothered to actually look and observe at a college campus? A quick perusal of the names of the graduates would bring the idea that women are not encouraged into serious doubt. But, then again there are fewer women engineers so is at work.
As a male, I scored 80%, but will admit to a bit of fudging. I do know that I was marked down by not agreeing that a pair of Lesbians should have an equal priority for raising kids together. That isn't a question of feminism to me, but rather of homosexuality. All things equal, kids do better with a parent of both sexes present. Pretending that it is feminism issue ignore this reality.
I also failed on the question of birth control. I agree it should be available, but freely available including the Morning After pill? In short, rights without responsibilities. So, I came in neutral on that one.
Another place though where I ran into problems was with the double standard for sexual conduct. The feminist argument ignores the reality that the double standard is there because it helps to make sure that there is a male around to raise the kids. Without tying down a male as a constant mate and husband through loyalty, how do the feminists expect to support the kids that they claim the right to have?
That is often the ultimate issue, and it drives a lot of other debates. Should society pay, allowing women to have sex with whomever they want? Should non-sperm donors be stuck with the bill? It happens routinely, all in the name of the "good of the children", but in reality, for the freedom of women to screw whomever they want, whenever they want, without personally having to pay the consequences.
I am all for women having the right to equal education and equal pay for equal education AND WORK. For equal opportunities in the work force, given truly equal qualifications.
But I am not in favor of women having equal rights when it involves either society paying for their misdeeds, or some hapless male who did not father their children.
Interesting that someone like Dr. Helen seems to attract a fair number of masculinists (or whatever you want to call us), who are all for providing women equal rights, as long as they take equal responsibility, but who oppose giving them special rights at the expense of society and the males who did not biologically father their children.
Except for picking a male as her mate, Dr. Helen would almost seem an exemplary feminist. And yet, she continues to spout heresy, and doesn't even have the excuse of having a son.
How do you feel about the term "macho chick"?
Works for me!
>How do you feel about the term "macho chick"?
Works for me!
It's not a compliment, analogous to ladyboy.
Mary, I wish you had addressed even one of my points. Let me repeat them.
1. There are fundamental differences between the sexes that cause real world problems. The problems that boys experience in dealing with female dominated schools is one.
2. That you and your fellow leftists want to paper over those sexual differences. You can't succeed because the normal brains of men and women are organized differently.
3. That you Leftists attempt to use the government to create an unjust society.
4. That you are insensitive and mocking toward the victims of this injustice.
5. That the representation by sex in the colleges is uneven. Women, demonstrably are over represented in the "soft sciences" and under represented in the "Hard." This might be from female choice or male avoidance of a hostile area.
6. That your behavior on this web-page is an exemplar of what is wrong with feminism. You make no attempt to debate fairly. You act as a demagogue.
Your final point was to ignored my issues in order to nitpick. You wanted to pull a "Clinton" and discuss the meaning of "is." You wanted to quibble about the meaning of "very few."
Over sixty percent of college students are women and about one in eight are in the "Hard Sciences." That means seven of eight are in the Soft Sciences. I'd suggest that Very Few is an apt statement. If the sexes were interchangeable you would expect half, not one in eight.
louis, you wont get a reply, she isnt interesting the the facts, or proof, she just wants to denegrate all men, as submissives, or lady boys, because we dare say its not fair, how men are treated..
a hundred years ago, if she was a man, she would probably be wanting women to be barefoot and pregnant, with no education. same thing, sexual discrimination. just todays is predominantly anti male.
but these new "feminists" wont or cant see that, their way is always right, if a man objects to preferential treatment to women, he is part of the oppressing group, if a man complains that it isnt fair for a man, serves him right for being part of the oppressive regime. its damned if you do and damned if you dont.
show a little respect to your wife, and men are "submissive", be a little authoritative, and you are a "bully". mary is the problem, she makes every other woman less in mens eyes.
As demonstrated over the last few days, there may be a connection between extreme feminism and mental illness. At least in some individuals. Pea picking ideas and statements out of context in an attempt to support a rather weird view of things. Never answering direct questions about yourself when asked, etc. We have no idea where she gets her info from. She just spews she isn't going to do the "work" for you, adding a few curse words thinking people will back off. However, her brother and sister are both engineers. Oh, yeah, she's getting married soon. Probably to a porpoise. Were a man that way to another man, on a sidewalk instead of a blog, he would quickly be in need an excellent dental surgeon and facial re-construction surgeon. And rightly so. I would venture she knows that, too.
I haven't read through all these, but did anyone purposely answer to try to get a low rating? I did and here's the response:
No one would consider you a feminist. You believe women should hold on to traditional gender roles. Well, that's not the world we're living in anymore. Time to wake up to the 21st century!
I feel so.... 20th century
Never occurred to me to try that, knoxwhirled. I'm surprised it didn't say you must be a man.
That's an expected response though, eh? You have been "shamed" into embracing feminism. I suppose you'll run right out now and burn a couple bras as your new starting point, for being a non-fem (or was that already a footnote in the response?). I mean, it IS the 21st century and all.
Nice blog. I run a conservative blog myself. Check it out if you have the time.
http://hostilethoughts.blogspot.com/
Jean Deaux,
That's real intellectual goldmine you have there...
Just have to keep proving it over and over, don't they.
I guess that's another blog I can safely scratch off my list as one with any redeeming qualities.
Um, that was my poor attempt at humor, knoxwhirled. Did not mean it as an offense. Hope it was not perceived as such.
That quiz seems to be set up to make everyone more feminist than they would ever have expected. Like a mild shock or something.
Hey Helen,
91%? How did you answer the q's about "man's job" and "marry another woman"
i extremely love your idea..!! good post.
Um, that was my poor attempt at humor, knoxwhirled. Did not mean it as an offense
oops I already went out and burned my bras! Just kidding, no offense taken.
Dadvocate wrote:
Have you been evaluated for Borderline Personality Disorder?
And I'm sure someone else has wondered, "Borderline? Where you getting borderline from? She can't see the line from where she is!
Yo, Adrian! I beat you. I don't even think of myself as an MCP. I scored 48%. "You aren't a total traditionalist when it comes to gender roles. But you're no feminist either. You generally think that women should be treated as equals, but you're not convinced the world should be gender neutral."
That's about right.
I believe in equal dignity and equitable treatment. Pregnancy and childbearing and childrearing do create some differences in men and women who have children, that are just basic realities; hence, reality itself is not gender neutral. I am pro-choice before the act and pro-life afterwards. Women should know how their bodies work and at least make informed decisions about sexuality during their fertile time. Men should realize that they are fertile all the time so they should only have sex with women they want to either marry or pay child support to; if they don't want to have kids, the only way to be absolutely in charge of the situation is to have a vasectomy or embrace celibacy. (Johnny Appleseeds don't get the right to complain about that one night stand they knocked up. It was a voluntary tour of duty.)
I believe that men and women should have the freedom and self-determination to pursue the opportunities they value (that are legal and moral and reasonable)--I explain my qualifications as no drug dealers, prostitutes, or lady NFL linebackers. I believe men and women are fully capable of making informed decisions about paying the price for pursuing their chosen path. Including the sacrifices.
I don't believe in unjust discrimination against men or women based on gender.
I believe in a firm grip on reality.
So, apparently, that makes me NOT a feminist.
On another note, I came late to the party and missed a lot of the comments the troll deleted. Too bad. It apparently had some entertainment value. I pity her husband.
I never expected Mary to do anything but "cut and Run" in the face of real opposition. That is what most Liberals do when I post. I really would like for one of them to stay and duke it out.
Mary wanted everything her own way. She wanted the respect that a man should pay to a "Lady" without acting like a lady. The major thing about a Lady is self restraint and self respect as expressed in honestly, courtesy and cordiality-- fellow feeling. A Lady should not exault herself-- or be so nakedly selfish.
Mary wanted to play Hardball, to get down into the gutter and sling mud. That was what equality meant to her. Then, she was offended when men believed that she belonged in the gutter.
Equality, to me, is that we should respect other people's differences, so long as they respect ours.
I actually rated out at 91% myself but I don't go in for "-isms." Except one: egalitarianism...within practical limits. And what this means in different places can be very different. I've suffered from discriminatory practices in my area of expertise before I got cancer & had to bail--but believe, women are over-represented at the upper managerial ranks in journalism. On the news side. And you know what else? Most of the best reporters I knew, male or female, were herded by the Nannycrats into obedient silence.
Men don't help their own cause much, either. Unless we're off blowing up some distant country together we are not, shall we say, very good at cooperating in constructive ways.
Men are as contemptuous of the guy who finishes second as women are indifferent. One of the reasons why so many women's organizations have become so effective is because they do work together. This has it's downside as well. Excessive reliance on cooperation can lead to groupthink. This is not good.
So men need to learn to play in the sandbox together and women need to learn to hit each other over the heads with plastic shovels.
I mean in a more direct way.
But seriously, looking at women's movements over the past 30-40 years and comparing them to the more egalitarian-oriented men's movements (the right-wing theocracy is not my idea of egalitarianism) I have to say that the reason women are winning is they cooperate.
Men aren't. And many men are so contemptuous, or so willing to beat down the opposition, or they just like to rant (Mr. Sacks, calling Mr. Sacks) that they don't accomplish much at all.
Resources for men (especially single men) in need in America suck. Resources for single women in need over the age of 40 or so in America also suck.
This isn't a demand for charity kids. It's a request for a remount.
--94% of workplace fatalities are male.
--Men work about 10 more hours a week then women.
--80% of America's homeless population is male & 80% of this group is under age 45. 61% are single men (41% of this demographic are white men, 40% black men & notably, 8% are American-Indian men).
--American men die by suicide 4 times as often as women with the highest numbers in the 15-34 & 65+ brackets. White men predominate, largely, I suspect, by the idiot John Wayne Standard we're expected to live by. And yeah, that's partly our fault. But isolation & economic deprivation (loss of opportunity) have long been recognized as suicide markers. America-Indians rate higher by percentage of population.
--Men in America die by murder 4-5 times as frequently as women. Black men lead the pack, which must surprise a lot of people. White men take the silver.
--21 of the 25 worst jobs according to the Jobs Rated Index (probably 22, but one gig lacked data) are overwhelmingly male-dominated. Not always the poorest paying jobs, but the most dangerous, the most stressful, the most lonely--the most lethal.
--Women comprise nearly 60% of college students: a nice deal, seemingly, when you're a young man in college (odds favor male hormones), but then, most college kids are pretty stupid. They get it from their professors, I guess.
And you know what? There are still a lot of women getting screwed as well. Maybe they didn't have the right pedigree or got heavy with child too young. Maybe they're older. Maybe they're older, single & have a PhD in English & have to take up waitressing. Maybe they never had the looks.
Yeah, men can be piggy. Same way women dig for gold.
Maybe this species just blows big donkey balls.
But I still believe in egalitarianism (though I plead for no more idiotic football analogies from anyone). That's not what it means. It means that two people in the same situation with the same qualities deserve the same shot. And the loser doesn't deserve to rot. Give 'em chance to learn from the loss and get back off the canvas, or back up on the balance beam. Ever tried to do a round-off dismount from a 4" wide beam when you where a size 12 wide? Men's. Why I got into basketball.
But hey, beam was good for my balance...
Anyway, that's what I'm talking about and that's the way it's going to be. Equal pokes for equal folks. And always another chance as long as you're willing to get back up again.
-Graham
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
Post a Comment
<< Home