REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Are women people?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 16:00
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9467
PAGE 1 of 5

Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


For your consideration:
Quote:

All my adult life, I’ve been pretty sure I’m a sentient, even semi-competent human being. I have a job and an apartment; I know how to read and vote; I make regular, mostly autonomous decisions about what to eat for lunch and which cat videos I will watch whilst eating my lunch. But in the past couple of months, certain powerful figures in media and politics have cracked open that certitude.

You see, like most women, I was born with the chromosome abnormality known as “XX,” a deviation of the normative “XY” pattern. Symptoms of XX, which affects slightly more than half of the American population, include breasts, ovaries, a uterus, a menstrual cycle, and the potential to bear and nurse children. Now, many would argue even today that the lack of a Y chromosome should not affect my ability to make informed choices about what health care options and lunchtime cat videos are right for me. But others have posited, with increasing volume and intensity, that XX is a disability, even a roadblock on the evolutionary highway. This debate has reached critical mass, and leaves me uncertain of my legal and moral status. Am I a person? An object? A ward of the state? A “prostitute”? (And if I’m the last of these, where do I drop off my W-2?)

In the hopes of clarifying these and other issues, below I’ve recapped recent instances of powerful men from the fields of law, politics and literature tackling the question that has captured America’s imagination: Are Women People?

Case No. 1: U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes
The Recap: Following a 10-week maternity leave, a three-year employee of a Houston debt collection agency filed a sex discrimination suit, alleging she was fired for asking permission to bring a breast pump to work. Hughes sided with the company, but added that the truth of the plaintiff’s claim was irrelevant. “Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition,” he ruled in February, paraphrasing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. “She gave birth on Dec. 11, 2009. After that day, she was no longer pregnant and her pregnancy-related conditions ended. Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.”

What We Learned: Possession of naturally functioning secondary sex characteristics is a fireable offense; a woman with a fetus has more rights than a woman with a baby.

So, Are Women People? Only when they’re pregnant.


Case No. 2: Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Alabama State Senator Clay Scofield
The Recap: Both lawmakers pursued—and then backed off from—laws that would require any woman getting an abortion to submit to the invasive procedure known as a transvaginal ultrasound and, in McDonnell’s words, “view her child.” “This was about empowering women with more medical and legal information that previously they were not required to get in order to give informed consent,” McDonnell said on March 2.

What We Learned: Acquiring informed consent isn’t necessarily consensual; having an eight- to ten-inch wand inserted into your vagina against your will is “empowering”; because they lack vaginas, some male politicians seek empowerment in different ways.

So, Are Women People? I’m guessing no, but you should ask Virginia delegate Kathy Byron, the woman who introduced the bill in her state.


Case No. 3: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa
The Recap: The California congressman convened an all-male panel of clergy to discuss the mandate that insurance companies include coverage of birth control pills. He declined to include Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, which oversees some 1200 Catholic health organizations across the U.S., or Georgetown law student and activist Sandra Fluke, whose health plan does not cover contraception. Of the latter woman, Issa stated, “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the [Obama] administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”

What We Learned: Freedom of conscience is not an appropriate topic for women to discuss; freedom from unplanned pregnancy, ovarian cysts, symptoms of endometriosis, irregular periods, migraines, and other health issues are not matters of public conscience; talking about icky body stuff is easier for dudes when ladies aren’t around.

So, Are Women People? If you look at photos of this hearing, you wouldn’t even know that women exist.


Case No. 4: Sad Loud Man in a Small Room Rush Limbaugh
The Recap: “Slut,” “prostitute,” “she wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex,” “we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” etc.

What We Learned: Taxpayers are billed across the board for private insurance plans; women who use birth control pills are not taxpayers; women whose insurance covers birth control pills are sluts and prostitutes; taxpayers enjoy watching movies about sluts and prostitutes.

So, Are Women People? They’re more like really expensive blow-up dolls.


Case No. 5: Novelist Jonathan Franzen
The Recap: His much-discussed recent New Yorker essay argued that novelist Edith Wharton is an unsympathetic figure due to her wealth, conservative political views and the fact that she “wasn’t pretty.” (She “might well be more congenial to us now if, alongside her other advantages, she’d looked like Grace Kelly or Jacqueline Kennedy.”) Her unprettiness, according to Franzen, contributed to the sexual dysfunction of her marriage, while her success as a writer caused her husband’s mental illness and underscored her antipathy toward her own sex—her friendships with writers of similar stature such as Henry James and André Gide, Franzen says, showed that “she wanted to be with the men and to talk about the things men talked about.”

What We Learned: Plain girls aren’t good in bed; female success is a brain-eating virus; a (female) writer forging relationships with other (male) writers is a form of penis envy; Jonathan Franzen might not think you’re pretty.

So, Are Women People? Not quite—they’re objects with certain people-like traits.


Case No. 6: Briefly Viable Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum
The Recap: He calls his wife “the rock which I stand upon.”

What We Learned: That’s apparently a compliment.

So, Are Women People? No, they’re rocks! Finally, a definitive answer. Thanks, Senator Santorum! http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/07/subject-for-debate-are-women-people/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:55 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Having been in many relationships with women, I can confirm that women often feel that men/society treat them as sub-human gratification tools.

Is it true?

Well, when a lot of people tell you they are experiencing something, it's hard to discount it. Certainly men and society are doing things that make women feel like they are being diminished.

On the other hand, I think about some of the things my wife has said about me. She often says that I provide her with the support she needs. I try to imagine how I would feel if we were at an event where she was a speaker, and she said that I was her rock.

I don't think hearing that would bother me. Quite the contrary.

And this makes me think of spiders.

I am deathly afraid of spiders. If I have a close encounter with a spider, I often feel like there is one crawling on me. Even when there isn't. I liken it to a kind of post-terror-syndrome, where the fear creates false echoes and impressions for some time after the instigating object of terror has been removed.

And so I wonder, has society so savaged the female psyche that the damage echoes in perceptions of ordinary speech and situations?

And does wondering this mean I am calling women fragile, broken, and delusional creatures?

And isn't that a disservice to them, and representative of the very attitude that diminishes women as human beings?

And so, having said this much, I don't think I've added anything useful to the topic. I can only keep this in mind, and think about the things I say and do, and hope to make myself better.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:08 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Women are more human than men, imo.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:37 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Women are more human than men, imo.


No, absolutely not. I refuse to allow you guys to regurgitate the same old crap that used to be said about women just because the pendulum is on the feminist side now.

I'm calling this nonsense. You guys are not inherently more aggressive, or more slave to your libido, or less wise or less common sensical or ANY of that.

You might have problem groups that deviate slightly from the norm, especially while drunk (and, I add here, "brah"), but so do women.

If all of us are to be responsible for our own destinies then we must acknowledge all of us are equally human.

As for the posted writing, I find it to be full of ridiculous victimhood, where the only valid issue is the transvaginal ultrasound. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THAT ARTICLE ANNOYS ME. Are we empowered? We certainly aren't acting like it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:16 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Women are more human than men, imo.



How about: "Women are more humane than men."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello Pizmo,

Having been emotionally and financially eviscerated by the fairer sex, I'd personally conclude that the potential for evil and good resides in all of us.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Anthony: Yes.

Also, I was harsh about the article, but I'm frustrated, because it seems like feminism has become all about self-pity and asking for pity. It's all about waiting for an invitation to appear on a panel, or hoping the males in congress and state legislature happen to favour your rights slightly more than appeasing their ever vocal constituents. All we've got is a bunch of women standing alone on their own, going home at the end of the day and crying into their internet diary blog: "Dear diary, today a man was mean to me. pouty face. Dear diary, today a man condescended to support feminism! Happiness and joy!"

I'm asking again, where's the spark?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:40 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello Pizmo,

Having been emotionally and financially eviscerated by the fairer sex, I'd personally conclude that the potential for evil and good resides in all of us.



I think that's one case (sorry dude) and a bit different, "love" and all, but if you look at murders the world over, you'd have to concede that the human male is the more accomplished killer. I think you could say that a frightening proportion of men actually like to kill. Some of the barbaric militaristic behavior that has happened between groups over the last couple decades/history- almost all of it by men. In Iran, US Soldiers would comment that the Iranian men were lazy and if it wasn't for the women nothing would get done, that they should be put in charge because they actually did the most for their families.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:48 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Anthony: Yes.

Also, I was harsh about the article, but I'm frustrated, because it seems like feminism has become all about self-pity and asking for pity. It's all about waiting for an invitation to appear on a panel, or hoping the males in congress and state legislature happen to favour your rights slightly more than appeasing their ever vocal constituents. All we've got is a bunch of women standing alone on their own, going home at the end of the day and crying into their internet diary blog: "Dear diary, today a man was mean to me. pouty face. Dear diary, today a man condescended to support feminism! Happiness and joy!"

I'm asking again, where's the spark?




You are refuting your own suggestion, " where's the spark?"
I would be frustrated too - when there was a panel of only men talking about women's reproductive rights, f*ck all, it almost felt like other men were more upset - where was the marching and protest, something? Maybe women have been mollified? When Sarah Palin is one of the most recognized US women world wide - I'd be gobsmacked if I were a women in the US. And no women running for president??!! We're waiting for it, I'm ready to put the old whites dudes in a box and put them on the shelf for a while.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:11 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I guess if murder is the measure of all sin, then women have some catching up to do. They do catch up, though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246802/Record-number-women-ar
rested-violent-crimes.html


Which means it's in them, just as it is in us. It just hasn't always found room for expression in society.

We're all human, and we all wont for humanity at times. When we're free to shine, or cast our shadows, we do so.

The cure isn't in the sex, but in the society, I think. And as Frem often points out, that starts with the children.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:36 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


People are people, that means all people, not just some people.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:59 PM

HKCAVALIER


Anthony,

I think the rock bit, coming as it does, punch-line like, at the end of the article, was meant and is properly understood as a joke of the reductio ad absurdum variety. Of course, someone calls you their "rock" it is meant as a great compliment--I'm sure the author knows this--refering back, as it does, to Jesus' declaration to Peter in the Bible story.

It's only in the context of the egregious misogyny so much on display in the media of late, and the fact that the Grand Poo-Bah of Christo-fascism hisself, Mr. Rick Santorum said it, that leads the writer of the article to imagine, "Y'know, maybe this guy really does think of his wife as a rock."

I know folk will say vile things and then turn round and defend themselves with "hey, I was just kidding," but that doesn't mean that every mean spirited joke begins life as a vicious slur. Some unkind humor begins life as unkind humor.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:31 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I guess if murder is the measure of all sin, then women have some catching up to do. They do catch up, though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246802/Record-number-women-ar
rested-violent-crimes.html


Which means it's in them, just as it is in us. It just hasn't always found room for expression in society.

We're all human, and we all wont for humanity at times. When we're free to shine, or cast our shadows, we do so.

The cure isn't in the sex, but in the society, I think. And as Frem often points out, that starts with the children.




When you post things like this I think you are just playing to the forum, and especially the sensitive, girlie part. There have been some women with bad intentions, of course. But we make movies about them because they are so unique. And compared to Stalin? Hitler? Genghis? Bush? You are in the less than .1% realm. Saying things like, "we're all human," just sounds trite when considering the balance sheet of male violence.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:43 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Pizmo,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Let's start with your premise: Women are inherently humane and nonviolent. Men are inherently inhumane and violent.

(Or at least more prone to either condition.)

If this premise is correct, then there should be no trending for an increase in violence committed by females. Women are always women, and women are all (or mostly) inherently humane and nonviolent. If humaneness is an innate condition to the female, then an increase in female initiated violence isn't possible. You can't buck nature. The percentage of violent females should remain the same throughout history- a tiny aberrant portion of the entire population.

However, let's look at my premise: Women have all the same potentials as men, but they are shaped differently by society.

If my premise is correct, then a trending of increase (or decrease) in either female or male violence is easily explained. There is no inherent biological factor to overcome. As society changes its mold for the population, the population responds.

I consider my premise to be better supported by evidence and reason. You are free to disagree, though preferably without accusing me of 'playing the forum' or referring to the 'sensitive, girly part' of the forum.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:53 PM

BYTEMITE


If you can't find genocidal or war-mongering female leaders in history, you're not looking hard enough, but I'd suggest Bloody Mary for starters.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:31 PM

OONJERAH



I know we had a similar conversation within the last month, but it kinda went to Amazons and whether women
actually have ever been warriors.

      In my opinion, Nature bred us in a practical way: males are more inclined to combat; females in
danger will see to protecting the young. I still believe it.

  For my natural example, I choose the African lion. Far as I know, the only social cat, and therefore, the
most intelligent of cats.
     We all know that the Lionesses hunt while the Lord is napping. They do it in cooperation, without kittens
along. The lionesses make a kill, but then the hyenas show up. Hyenas outnumber the lionesses and they play
divide and conquer. So sometimes, they can steal the kill.
     Once in while, for reasons only He knows, the Lion gets pissed at the hyenas. He sees them down on the
plain, a spread out group. He picks out the matriarch and makes his charge. The hyenas do not group up to
face him; they scatter like seeds on the wind. If he catches the matriarch, she's dead.

     In Nature, males are more prone to combat than females, and they are better at it. We are still primitive,
sort of natural, eventho we broke the law of survival of the fittest centuries ago. Men are more prone to
physical combat than women IMO. When it comes to murder, I suspect that men convicted of it far outnumber
women. When women do murder, they are usually sneaky; maybe they just get away with it oftener than men.

     Are women as vicious as men? Probably. They are highly prone to emotional abuse.
  Are women people? Absolutely.


             

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:56 PM

BYTEMITE


I disagree with all of that except the last part.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 8:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I think the following quotes concur rather exactly with my opinion of the matter.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
If all of us are to be responsible for our own destinies then we must acknowledge all of us are equally human.



Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
People are people, that means all people, not just some people.



That said...
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm asking again, where's the spark?


Spark my ass, where's the BOOT IN SOMEONES ASS which needs to be happenin, is my question.

You have an excellent point about a lot of feminism being victim-sympathy circlejerks in a non-empowering kinda way, and also a lot of them are more about revenge than equality, which so long as they leave me be and it makes em happy I don't care - but I draw the line at enabling victimhood in the former case, and I CERTAINLY draw the line at *being* a victim of the latter, since *I*, personally didn't do a goddamn thing to them and if their only reason for aggressing on me is having a Y chromosone they ain't no better than the thing they claim to be against.

I can be kind of a hardass in that way, I've been thrown out of two disability support groups cause they wanted to cry on each others shoulder and actually resisted and resented my efforts to actually HELP them - not all of em mind you, but enough of em to chase me off as unsympathetic, which given my own issues is kind of laughable, it's just that my "sympathy" manifests in the form of wanting to help them overcome rather than enabling a downward spiral into self-pity, and yanno that applies here too.

When you find yourself in a brawl with an opponent who has no mercy, the worst thing to do is curl up into a ball and whinge and whine - no matter how supposedly outmatched you are, you stand up and hurl defiance to your very last breath, even if it does you no good every moment you take to crush is one more someone else has to put the screws to the bastard who just did for you!

And in a political sense, that's the problem - these jackasses have put women and their personhood on the defensive and kept it pinned there, with this endless assault, and yet I see people giving ground, and that's just bullshit - that's what they WANT, how they intend to WIN, inch by inch.
GIVE THEM NOTHING, make them fight tooth and claw for every millimeter and take it BACK by the fuckin yard.

And normally, like my attitude with Occupy, I'd just leave em to it if they weren't up to the job, but this... this is important to me in a personal-moral-theological way to a degree that I CAN'T just wish them well and walk away, so I mean to stand to, even if that means I stand alone.
BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I have considered for a while that republicans are doing this not to win, but to set so many fires that they can't all be fought, and to slowly make sanity give ground bit by bit.



Just reposting this BECAUSE IT MATTERS -


When you find yourself in a brawl with an opponent who has no mercy, the worst thing to do is curl up into a ball and whinge and whine - no matter how supposedly outmatched you are, you stand up and hurl defiance to your very last breath, even if it does you no good every moment you take to crush is one more someone else has to put the screws to the bastard who just did for you!

And in a political sense, that's the problem - these jackasses have put women and their personhood on the defensive and kept it pinned there, with this endless assault, and yet I see people giving ground, and that's just bullshit - that's what they WANT, how they intend to WIN, inch by inch.
GIVE THEM NOTHING, make them fight tooth and claw for every millimeter and take it BACK by the fuckin yard.

And normally, like my attitude with Occupy, I'd just leave em to it if they weren't up to the job, but this... this is important to me in a personal-moral-theological way to a degree that I CAN'T just wish them well and walk away, so I mean to stand to, even if that means I stand alone.
BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:41 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello Pizmo,

Having been emotionally and financially eviscerated by the fairer sex, I'd personally conclude that the potential for evil and good resides in all of us.

--Anthony





I agree with you Anthony. I see people of both sexes acting out in terribly ways, they just do it differently.

In my line of work, they both can behave badly. Men use violence more, there is no doubt in my mind about that. But women have a whole host of more subtle means of abuse, withholding children, using the system (which was set up to protect vulnerable women from violence) and a whole host of other ways of doing nasty stuff.

Re wars, I often think that men fight them and women enable them.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:



When you find yourself in a brawl with an opponent who has no mercy, the worst thing to do is curl up into a ball and whinge and whine - no matter how supposedly outmatched you are, you stand up and hurl defiance to your very last breath, even if it does you no good every moment you take to crush is one more someone else has to put the screws to the bastard who just did for you!



Could not agree with you LESS. Retaliation with equal brutality just means they have won the war, they've turned you into THEM.

Behind most acts of violence or brutality is fear and often it is about feeling powerless. The more powerless you feel - the more inclined you are to use force. That goes for people who appear to be without mercy, who would have to be the most fearful person of all.

You never resort to their tactics, otherwise why bother. That doesn't mean you have to be a doormat either, you can stand up for yourself without using such tactics and without being a victim either.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:11 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I had an interesting discussion with a co-worker from Ethiopia the other day. We were talking about republicans. What he said was - people can un-learn civility. We saw it in Rwanda, we saw it in Yugoslavia.

By civility he meant people peaceably living together, without some groups openly victimizing other groups.

MD you still live in a civilized society. You and your society believe that the society exists to benefit ALL its members equally, as an ideal. You may fall short, you may be blind to divots that exist, but it is an ideal you hold.


There are many significant percentages in the US that don't believe that - in fact believe the opposite.

I won't go into how MANY states have voted to restrict abortion choice EVEN IF PRIVATELY PAID FOR, how MANY states are voting to restrict contraception especially the pill and other hormonal birth control, how MANY states are considering vaginal probe ultrasounds which is nothing less that state-mandated rape with an object, how MANY bills to restrict abortions, CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN'S HEALTH FUNDING have been introduced, and worse, PASSED at both the state AND FEDERAL levels.

In the US, civilization has gone and women are in a raw fight for their lives.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I'm asking again, where's the spark?"

Where's YOUR spark?

Are you looking at us - the old, sick, tired and in pain?

I fought battles so that YOU could have YOUR opportunities.

Now it's your turn to fight.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I had an interesting discussion with a co-worker from Ethiopia the other day. We were talking about republicans. What he said was - people can un-learn civility. We saw it in Rwanda, we saw it in Yugoslavia.

By civility he meant people peaceably living together, without some groups openly victimizing other groups.

MD you still live in a civilized society. You and your society believe that the society exists to benefit ALL its members equally, as an ideal. You may fall short, you may be blind to divots that exist, but it is an ideal you hold.


There are many significant percentages in the US that don't believe that - in fact believe the opposite.

I won't go into how MANY states have voted to restrict abortion choice EVEN IF PRIVATELY PAID FOR, how MANY states are voting to restrict contraception especially the pill and other hormonal birth control, how MANY states are considering vaginal probe ultrasounds which is nothing less that state-mandated rape with an object, how MANY bills to restrict abortions, CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN'S HEALTH FUNDING have been introduced, and worse, PASSED at both the state AND FEDERAL levels.

In the US, civilization has gone and women are in a raw fight for their lives.





Don't get me wrong, Ikiki, I think you defend yourself, by all means. Just don't resort to the same tactics. There lies the road to perdition.

And I think curling up in a ball has its place as a tactic.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Then you don't know the nature of ideology in America.

So I'll ask you specifically

- When a woman needs to have an abortion to save her life but it's specifically forbidden by law - how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to save her?

- When a girl is raped by her father and can't get an abortion even when the pregnancy is due to thar rape, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to rescue her?

- When the pill is illegal b/c it violates fertilized egg 'personhood' laws, and any woman can be made liable to being pregnant at the whim of any man who doesn't care to use a condom, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to free her from reproductive slavery?

- When is woman is vaginally raped by a technician at the behest of the state in a procedure done NOT on the advice of a medical doctor with the consent of the woman, but as an ideological exercise of power, how is curling up in a ball and hoping for mercy going to free her from state-mandated rape? A rape, I will add, that she will have to pay for.

THIS is the nature of the laws that are being introduced and passed in the US.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 12:01 AM

OONJERAH



I was a kid in the 50's. Women had the right to vote since 1920. Most people figured this gave married
men two votes, because the wife would agree with her husband's greater political knowledge. We had rights,
but most folks still had old-fashioned attitudes.

One of the olde rights that women had was to act demur, somewhat helpless, and in return, the men would
act chivalrous, assist and protect them. Men who abused women had to hide it because of the serious social
stigma. I think in the 50's, men like Limbaugh would have been tarred and feathered for indecency.

Customs have changed a lot in 60 years. I'm not saying it was better then. Most of us were naive, living in
a fairy tale.

When women's lib came along, of course there had to be an equal and opposite reaction from those who didn't
want a change to a new awareness with new fairness. Many of the opponents of change were women. I wasn't
paying a great deal of attention to it. But I don't recall anything like the maniacal viciousness that I've seen
in just this last week.

I believe this. If TPTB can strip away women's rights, the men are next. And many of them know it. So one
more time, it's not just women's lib; it's people's lib. Men and women together.



             

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 3:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you can't find genocidal or war-mongering female leaders in history, you're not looking hard enough, but I'd suggest Bloody Mary for starters.



Fine, Bloody Mary, that's one - why don't others roll off anyone's tongue? You aren't being genuine if you really want us to believe there are equal numbers of female genocidal war mongers as men. You can certainly find exceptions - but that certainly doesn't make us equals in that regard. I don't think that's the discussion anyway. It's rather broadly, that women are more humane than men. Maybe it should be: men are capable and have exhibited more inhumanity toward their fellow man than women?




Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 3:49 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Pizmo,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Let's start with your premise: Women are inherently humane and nonviolent. Men are inherently inhumane and violent.



Thanks for stating "my premise" so poorly! Which is actually not my premise.

(Or at least more prone to either condition [as a group] .) <<<< more correct, thx.

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If this premise is correct, then there should be no trending for an increase in violence committed by females. Women are always women, and women are all (or mostly) inherently humane and nonviolent. If humaneness is an innate condition to the female, then an increase in female initiated violence isn't possible. You can't buck nature. The percentage of violent females should remain the same throughout history- a tiny aberrant portion of the entire population.

However, let's look at my premise: Women have all the same potentials as men, but they are shaped differently by society.

If my premise is correct, then a trending of increase (or decrease) in either female or male violence is easily explained. There is no inherent biological factor to overcome. As society changes its mold for the population, the population responds.




I do disagree, but funny enough I think you are explaining it correctly: an increase in societal violence floats all boats. Look at societies that experience a breakdown of social order. Do women form gangs and become the violent law breakers in general? Look to Syria. Are there women in equal numbers on the streets with the army or guerilla fighters gunning down 12 year olds? If you don't like Syria, then Africa, Kosovo, look to the LA riots.

And... gender mutilation & rape... really? Do I have to point these things out to the women posting here??? Pretty much those are male exclusives, right? Humane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_and_crime

In 2004, males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder.

Males are typically more openly aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005), which violent crime statistics support. Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.[2][3] Men do, however, express their aggression with violence more often than women." - end wiki

humane: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I consider my premise to be better supported by evidence and reason.



I think the evidence of history disagrees.

ETA: (and apologies - not sure what it is but I can't seem to post here without sounding like a complete snot - I'll try harder!).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 4:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Fine, Bloody Mary, that's one - why don't others roll off anyone's tongue? You aren't being genuine if you really want us to believe there are equal numbers of female genocidal war mongers as men. You can certainly find exceptions - but that certainly doesn't make us equals in that regard.


Hello,

Given that societies have generally not allowed women into a position to be murdering warmongers, that goes again to support my 'shaped by society and not nature' argument.

The question isn't just 'how many men' vs 'how many women' but 'how many women have we even allowed into the position at all?'

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 4:26 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

humane: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.



Quote:

females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.


Hello,

Here you actually seem to be arguing against female humaneness, unless you think verbal abuse and ostracizing folks doesn't cause suffering or distress.

I believe that in a fully equal society, women and men would have equal potentialities for violence. We just don't have many of those equal societies to look at currently. In societies where women are more equal, you see a larger percentage of females becoming violent.

Even in the article I cited earlier, overall crime was DOWN but the percentage of female violence was UP.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 6:10 AM

BYTEMITE


1kiki: Hey, the previous generations DID fight. Full props to you. But feminism has BECOME completely pathetic since you guys. This lady who wrote the above article is just WHINING. She's a member of my generation, which wouldn't know activism or how to organize if it bit them in the face. Her pointless flailing irritates me.

If she cares this much, maybe she should organize a rally or something, though I doubt that would have any impact. In the meantime, there are bigger social issues out there for me to fry, but you have my full assurance that I have put a boot to the ass of quite a few examples of wrong-headed chivalry. And I didn't do it by ineffectually writing self-pitying garbage to an anonymous audience on the internet.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 6:26 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


And... gender mutilation & rape... really? Do I have to point these things out to the women posting here??? Pretty much those are male exclusives, right?



Of course they're not. I don't know if you're aware, but you've got kind of a thing hanging out in front that's pretty easy to access and responds to stimulation. And you're just as susceptible to drugs as women are.

You want another genocidal madwoman? Really? Look up "Indira Ghandi" (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) sometime.

Of course, her political opponents the Bhuttos from Pakistan were pretty bad themselves. Including our little female puppet dictator.

Perhaps you also don't realize the Dowager Princess behind the Boxer Rebellion ordered a massacre of christian missionaries and converts, though to be fair, Lord Elgin and his French counterpart and their response was just as bad.

Catherine the Great had peasants killed, Elizabeth II encouraged piracy and raids against the Spanish.

Suffice to say, people who want to go after positions of power are going to have some very similar traits whether men or women, and ruthlessness can be part of that.

In any case, you're falling prey to beliefs that set you and all women at a disadvantage. I would like to relieve you of them.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/23/women-leaders-politics-oped-cx_ee_102
4eaves.html


I don't need your pedestal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 7:04 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You aren't being genuine if you really want us to believe there are equal numbers of female genocidal war mongers as men.


Numbers of ruthless female leaders are not equivalent to nor an accurate measure of tendencies.

The only reason there aren't MORE is because female leaders are fairly rare, but that doesn't change that a healthy percent of women who managed to become leaders were just as bad as their male counterparts - quite simply, they HAD to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 7:09 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Males are typically more openly aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005), which violent crime statistics support. Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.[2][3] Men do, however, express their aggression with violence more often than women." - end wiki


Gee, you don't think there isn't any... bias of perspective, do you?

Surely its not possible that women were being treated differently by the justice system in regards to violent crimes? Perhaps less convictions and less harsh punitive measures?

Here's a study looking into juvenile offenders. I think we can easily extrapolate what they have to say to an older population as well.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/highlights/18_0
2_Highlights_08.pdf


The only crimes that women are less likely to commit is homicide and sexual assault, but it doesn't mean they DON'T ever commit them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 8:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

males are more inclined to combat; females in danger will see to protecting the young
That's history, AND genetics. I disagree with a LOT of what Byte said, and believe I see a bit of a bias there. The article, to me, wasn't as much about "are women people" as it was about the ATTITUDE many males have illustrated through the ages, which to me seems to be increasing AGAIN in our country, that women are "lesser".

All you have to do is look at how women are consistently paid less to do the same work.

All you have to do is look at how many more men there are in power in government. Yeah, we're catching up, but we're far from "there" yet.

All the crap happening around women's reproductive rights currently is a perfect example.

And on and on. It's very real, in my opinion, and not a matter of choosing victimhood or whining. Speaking up against something isn't whining, and again, I think the article is being read as something it's not, Byte. I saw the article more as a "snark" than anything else, with a kernel of truth.

There is genetics to take into account, which is very real and has been shown to be. We still carry the traits of our ancestors; men ARE more aggressive and their sex drive IS much higher. That had reason back in the stone age, but no longer has, yet it's still the case.

I use my husband as an example. When he was put on meds for his dysthymia, they reduced his sex drive. He remarked once that it was a relief not to think about sex all the time. That surprised me, and we talked about it. He said it had always been that way for him, and some of his male friends said the same.

Teenage boys consistently use every possible tactic to get girls to "put out"; where are the examples of girls doing the same? There are some, of course, there are exceptions to every generality, but the numbers stack up in every case against men when it comes to aggression and sex.

Then there's pornography. I was incensed when I found a whole drawer full of pornography--and I mean HARD CORE, closeup stuff. He promised to get rid of it...later I found the pornographic video tapes. He promised to get rid of THEM, too...then later when Jo was fixing his computer she found the TONS of pornography on it. Eventually by talking to other women I discovered this is more the rule than the exception, so I just ignore it now. But again, how much pornography out there is directed at men versus at women?

The simple fact is that men ARE more driven to sex than women, it's genetic; they are also generally more aggressive than women, again, genetic holdover from our beginnings as animals. Admittedly, women have their own ways of getting what they want in passive-aggressive ways which are equally bad. That can probably be traced just as far back.

But as to us being "equal", that's a laugh. We've still got an enormously long way to go; we won't get there in my lifetime; we may never get there.

Oh, someone mentioned that men who abuse their wives have to keep it secret. That's a fallacy, to a degree, because I can give myriad examples of friends who lived in small towns who were routinely physically and sexually abused by their husbands where the male police did NOTHING despite knowledge of what was happening, and it having been well known in the community. One can also ask how many women have tracked down husbands who fled from them and killed them, versus how many men have done so.

How many women get into fights at sporting events? What about all the arguments against women in the military? How many women are raped in the military, and the military fights against recognizing it and doing something about it? The mentality is still there and still very strong. The stereotypes are bad for both sexes; how many men have been stripped of their children wrongly by the courts? Rape is both difficult to prove and agonizingly difficult for most women to even try to bring to court; at the same time, accusations of rape can be unfounded and destroy a man's life as a result.

Yes, I'm sure there's bias in the judicial system. But there's an equal bias on the other side, as far as I'm concerned, where some male judges find it easier to disbeliee accusations of rape; the woman's sexual history is flaunted; the defense does everything possible to make her seem to have been "asking for it"; she is treated differently by male police around accusations of rape; and more. The mere argument that her clothing and attitude "caused" the rape is a tacit acceptance that men are more aggressive sexually and should be excused because of it.

As to the uptick in female aggressiveness, it's only natural, in my opinion. One way to be accepted is to behave like men; we've seen this in commerce and government. As we're on the road to more equality, it's only natural some women will mimic male attitudes and actions to be more accepted by men. In our evolution, more women have become aggressive; at the same time, more men have become more sensitive...in general the genetics hold true, but both sexes have been making progress for some time now. Who ever would have imagined men taking over child rearing as much as many do now? It goes both ways.

Unfortunately, what's happening these days is setting "equality" back further, to the point where a woman's life is less important than that of an unborn child, which is insane. That's why it's become such an issue, and if we don't fight back, we WILL go backwards in time and in our efforts toward equality.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:15 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:


And... gender mutilation & rape... really? Do I have to point these things out to the women posting here??? Pretty much those are male exclusives, right?



Of course they're not. I don't know if you're aware, but you've got kind of a thing hanging out in front that's pretty easy to access and responds to stimulation. And you're just as susceptible to drugs as women are.

You want another genocidal madwoman? Really? Look up "Indira Ghandi" (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) sometime.

Of course, her political opponents the Bhuttos from Pakistan were pretty bad themselves. Including our little female puppet dictator.

Perhaps you also don't realize the Dowager Princess behind the Boxer Rebellion ordered a massacre of christian missionaries and converts, though to be fair, Lord Elgin and his French counterpart and their response was just as bad.

Catherine the Great had peasants killed, Elizabeth II encouraged piracy and raids against the Spanish.

Suffice to say, people who want to go after positions of power are going to have some very similar traits whether men or women, and ruthlessness can be part of that.

In any case, you're falling prey to beliefs that set you and all women at a disadvantage. I would like to relieve you of them.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/23/women-leaders-politics-oped-cx_ee_102
4eaves.html


I don't need your pedestal.



Why would I offer you or any women a pedestal? You're still human, full of all kinds of potential for failure and disappointment.

I think you hit on the reason that female leaders (when we have them) can be like their male counter parts: they have to be. That's not a judge of their sex, more the position. Even so, with the examples given, I stand by male leaders being more violent than female ones, and when I look around the world - not just at leaders - I say men are more prone to committing human atrocities than women. Sorry if that annoys you - it bugs the hell out of me. Those tendencies seem mindless, like a sad % of males first response is "pick up hammer, smash thing..." instead of using their brains. It makes me want to smack the hell out of them.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:19 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Given that societies have generally not allowed women into a position to be murdering warmongers, that goes again to support my 'shaped by society and not nature' argument.

The question isn't just 'how many men' vs 'how many women' but 'how many women have we even allowed into the position at all?'



When you say "we allowed" I assume you mean MEN have "not allowed women into a position to be murdering warmongers?" How inhumane of us, telling women what they can and can't be.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:25 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

How inhumane of us, telling women what they can and can't be.


Hello,

Indeed. I'm glad I'm not arguing for the humaneness of men.

--Anthony





_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:34 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.


Here you actually seem to be arguing against female humaneness, unless you think verbal abuse and ostracizing folks doesn't cause suffering or distress.



I don't think "verbal abuse and ostracizing folks" is as inhumane as murder, and rape, no.

Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I believe that in a fully equal society, women and men would have equal potentialities for violence. We just don't have many of those equal societies to look at currently. In societies where women are more equal, you see a larger percentage of females becoming violent.




Percentages for women as a group will always go up or down, but as compared to male violent crime world wide, I don't think it's even close. The 10 to 1 murders by men v. women I think would stand easily. You may find an exception, but not around the globe collectively.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:39 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

There is genetics to take into account, which is very real and has been shown to be. We still carry the traits of our ancestors; men ARE more aggressive and their sex drive IS much higher. That had reason back in the stone age, but no longer has, yet it's still the case.



Niki: You're going to talk to me about EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY?! That stuff was discredited in the 70s! All it does is reinforce 1950s gender roles!

That's the very realm of sexism. Variation is more dependent on the individual than it is GENDER! X versus Y chromosomes represent less than 4% of genetic variation!

You're playing right into the hands of people who WANT to regress back to the way things were by supporting outdated theories about human prehistoric social arrangements, because they all like to use the naturalistic fallacy and because all of them were proposed by male psychologists with a cultural bias!

And the article WAS whiny so THERE.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Re: Gender mutilation and rape:
Quote:

Of course they're not. I don't know if you're aware, but you've got kind of a thing hanging out in front that's pretty easy to access and responds to stimulation.
What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean? How many men in the world ever experience gender mutilation, while millions of WOMEN do?? And as to rape, my gawd, the number of women who rape men is MINISCULE!
Quote:

....one in every ten rape victims is male. Recent studies by the Department of Justice and other governmental agencies found that victimized men accounted for 6% (9,040 men) of completed rapes, 9 % (10,270 men) of attempted rapes, and 11% (17,130 men) of completed and attempted sexual assaults reported.
One in ten?? Six percent? How does that even qualify?

I'm afraid your bias is getting out of hand; it seems to me as if you are rationalizng things which don't deserve rationalization, coming up with arguments which don't hold water. I don't know why, but some of the things you're saying are just way, way "out there", in my opinion.

By the way, of COURSE women competing with men get more aggressive. That's the only way to effectively compete; again, the playing field is determined by the males; females follow suit to fight their way to equality.

What royalty did doesn't count; they had virtually unlimited power and weren't for the most part considered "women". That's not true these days, so it's questionable history where the vast majority of women are concerned. And how much more difficult was it in many cases FOR a woman to rule? Remember the battles just the British queens had to fight to be accepted as authority? Check history.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Males are typically more openly aggressive than females (Coie & Dodge 1997, Maccoby & Jacklin 1974, Buss 2005), which violent crime statistics support. Some researchers have suggested that females are not necessarily less aggressive, but that they tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal and relational aggression, such as social rejection.[2][3] Men do, however, express their aggression with violence more often than women." - end wiki


Gee, you don't think there isn't any... bias of perspective, do you?

Surely its not possible that women were being treated differently by the justice system in regards to violent crimes? Perhaps less convictions and less harsh punitive measures?

Here's a study looking into juvenile offenders. I think we can easily extrapolate what they have to say to an older population as well.

http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/highlights/18_0
2_Highlights_08.pdf


The only crimes that women are less likely to commit is homicide and sexual assault, but it doesn't mean they DON'T ever commit them.



I never said "don't." I said women are more humane than men. That could technically be 51% to 49%.

Your article: "In 1980, boys were four times as likely as girls to be arrested for a violent crime; today they are only twice as likely. This is partly explained by the fact that while all violent crime has decreased, the decline for boys has been more dramatic. For example, the female share for violent crimes such as robbery and murder remained relatively stable from 1980 to 2003. Moreover, girls account for a very small proportion of some of the most serious types of crimes—such as homicide and sexual assault."

That still supports my claim. And good news - I'm encouraged that more of my male buds are not problem solving with pitch forks. I have to say, that in looking at articles about this question (male v female) the one thing that has stuck with me is the trending toward less violence overall - yeah us.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:50 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If murder is your singular litmus test for humaneness, it will be a very long time before I am able to test my point- a point contingent on society treating men and women the same. Even in Israel, where women are allowed into combat, and women have led the nation, they aren't regarded the equal of men or raised with the same values as men.

However, if you are prepared to accept 'hurting others' as the basis for inhumane behavior, I think you may find that the sexes are much more evenly matched.

When we raise women the way we raise men, indoctrinate them the way we indoctrinate men, then the only difference I expect to find in murder rates is likely to be the differnce caused by a variance of upper-body strength. I do NOT expect a difference of any imagined built-in humaneness of the female heart.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.

Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196

Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:50 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:

How inhumane of us, telling women what they can and can't be.


Hello,

Indeed. I'm glad I'm not arguing for the humaneness of men.




That's an easy one isn't it! Women of planet earth, please listen to Anthony and me: don't try and gain "equality" by being just like men. Be yourselves, your best, badass selves.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Bullshit. I don't know much about "evolutionary psychology", but according to Wikipedia:
Quote:

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic drives regarding aggression and sex, which is what I've addressed, and ONLY what I've addressed.
Quote:

the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—-products of natural selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce.
That.

If you don't believe aggression and sexuality are genetic holdovers from previous evolution, then you'll have to prove why, IN THE MAJORITY, men are more aggressive and sexual than women. It's a very simple matter to just look around you in the world to see that both are true. Sporting events, barrom brawls, fistfights, boxing (actually any form of one-on-one aggressive sport), dog fighting, and so many other things illustrate it. As to sex, advertisers LONG ago realized men can be affected by sexual ads far more than any other...even car ads which aren't overtly sexual or have a sexy woman in them (relatively few) are subtly sexy. I can't believe you are actually trying to prove men and women are THE SAME in these two respects!

I think it's best we agree to disagree and I'll move on to other subjects; for me, your claims are too strange and your mind too set for there to be a debate.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:52 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

How many men in the world ever experience gender mutilation, while millions of WOMEN do?? And as to rape, my gawd, the number of women who rape men is MINISCULE!


I believe it's called circumcision.

And I also believe it is YOUR biases that are getting in the way. I think you are being very hypocritical if you think that women are superior to men while you're crusading for equal gender rights.

The breakdown of who is raped more often will vary depending on which source you use and the population studied. But I never said more women rape men than vice versa. That is something you have falsely attributed to me because you really, REALLY want to refute what I'm saying.

Rape on males IS more often male-on male, however there still is some amount of female on male that occurs. Pizmo suggested it is only a male-perpetrated thing. It is not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 10:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Quote:
Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic drives regarding aggression and sex, which is what I've addressed, and ONLY what I've addressed.



You quote the first goddamn line of wikipedia and act like you've refuted it? The line says "psychological traits such as" not that those are the only traits that it explores. I assure you, they did in fact try to tie sexual dimorphism into all that nonsense.

Here, I'll start you off. Tell me this doesn't sound like something you believe, and I'll apologize.

Quote:

By and large, a male's potential reproductive success is limited by the number of females he mates with, whereas a female's potential reproductive success is limited by how many eggs she can produce. This results in sexual selection, in which males compete with each other, and females become choosy in which males to mate with. As a result of being anisogamous, males are fundamentally promiscuous, and females are fundamentally selective.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle

What you said is TEXTBOOK ideas from Evolutionary Psychology. Read a little further, and take your emotions out of this. You're being extremely defensive, and you're hurting your own causes by continuing to believe this tripe.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Pizmo and Anthony: I in no way believe women are more "humane" than men, I reject that out of hand. My argument is that they are more physically aggressive, as in their lack of humane-ness takes physical form. Just to be clear.

But how exactly do you propose women become equal by not utilizing the same methods as men? I watched, in the corporate world, and yes, while it happens, more often than not women not playing by the rules set by the men who came before them did not advance. Sadly, my observation was that skill almost always played less part in advancement than political maneuverings within the corporation, guys getting together outside the office (women not being invited), and other methods which did not lend themselves to playing fair. I have no doubt it can be done in some case, and hopefully be done more as we continue to get closer to equality (which I hope happens), but in today's world, it just doesn't work.

I have no doubt it's mostly indoctrination, societal conditioning, but I don't believe that accounts for all of it. Especially sexuality. I just don't believe the majority of women have as strong a sex drive as the majority of men.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:07 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If murder is your singular litmus test for humaneness, it will be a very long time before I am able to test my point- a point contingent on society treating men and women the same. Even in Israel, where women are allowed into combat, and women have led the nation, they aren't regarded the equal of men or raised with the same values as men.

However, if you are prepared to accept 'hurting others' as the basis for inhumane behavior, I think you may find that the sexes are much more evenly matched.

When we raise women the way we raise men, indoctrinate them the way we indoctrinate men, then the only difference I expect to find in murder rates is likely to be the differnce caused by a variance of upper-body strength. I do NOT expect a difference of any imagined built-in humaneness of the female heart.



I think murder is a huge litmus test - you don't just erase one person, you destroy families, even nations. I think you are watering down the criteria and throwing the net awfully wide when you say "hurting others" - sure, we can all be shits in varying degrees.



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, March 9, 2012 11:11 AM

OONJERAH



Niki: "Oh, someone mentioned that men who abuse their wives have to keep it secret."

If you are referring to my post:
Oonjerah: "Men who abused women had to hide it because of the serious social stigma." ...
Please don't take me out of context. Most of the post is past tense; "in the 50's" appears twice.
Followed by "Customs have changed a lot in 60 years."

In the 50's, in my neighborhood, there were several men who beat their wives. They were anti-social,
kept a low profile. But we knew.

In the 50's, we had bunches of stigmas for Men And Women. We were Inhibited.
Freedom of Expression may be at an all time high. On the 'Net anyways.


             

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL