Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming (Part III)
April 7th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: I recently debated Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on her assertion that men are primarily responsible for global warming. Johnsson-Latham authored a 2007 study called Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development.
Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming and Swedish Official on Environmental Problems: 'Women give priority to others – men invest more resources in themselves'.
A few other notes about our debate:
Johnsson-Latham said that in many countries of the world women work 16 hours a day and men only work five or six or eight, and that men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families.
At one point Johnsson-Latham asked, "If you were a woman wouldn't you be part of the women's movement?" I said that was an interesting question, because during the '80s and into the early '90s I was part of the women's movement, even though I was not, as I recollect, a woman. I ended up coming to the same conclusions that Warren Farrell did--the feminists had some legitimate issues, but they are terminally afflicted with a worldview that sexism and gender privilege/disadvantage go only one way.
Johnsson-Latham often talked about male privilege. She said, "Look at this interview two men ganging up on one woman." I laughed, and said, "Yes one woman -- one woman who is doing more talking than the two men combined."
I've seen Gloria Allred do the same shtick -- she'll be debating several men and will say, "Look at all these men against me just one woman" -- ignoring the fact that the host is giving her more talking time than all of the men combined.
Johnsson-Latham apparently believes that men are "privileged" because they're working while their wives are home with their young children, I believe that those women are lucky. Men get cheated out of time with their children when they're young. I was fortunate to be a stay-at-home dad for the first 2 1/2 years of my daughter's life, and it was the best experience I've ever had or ever will have. And the window of time is small. For example, over spring break my son (15) and my daughter (9) spent the week in Sacramento with their cousins. They were having a great time--and neither my wife nor I received a single phone call from either of them for several days.
The commentator asked us about the genders ever coming together on these issues. I said the biggest thing preventing us from coming together is this -- during this conversation, and whenever I'm interviewed, I can and usually do freely admit that men are responsible for some of the problems women and men face, and that men need to change. What I never seem to hear from feminists is that women are responsible for some of these problems, and that women need to change. Until there's reciprocity there, until feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change, I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together.
"));
19 queries. 0.661 seconds.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
This should serve as (yet another) wake-up call. Just that such an absurd statement could be made should tell us (men) that our lack of unity makes us an easy target.
Think about it... if this idea were put forward regarding ANY other group, be it racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, etc. -- or women, for that matter -- the howls of indignation would be deafening.
But men? Blame whatever you want on them... nobody will bat an eyelash. Except Glenn Sacks, that is.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Yep, lets remove al the forms of fossil fuel transportation and see where women and men are when the global economy collapses. Better yes who do you think will have to be carrying those groceries home then? The men of course because they are stronger. How about those washers, dryers, and refrigerators, and all the other household appliances [that can no longer be delivered] that make life easier for the women and men that are say at homes?
Yep those evil transportation devices.
b
April 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
"...men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families"
Thus contributing to Global Warming!
It all makes sense now!
April 7th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
"Johnsson-Latham said that in many countries of the world women work 16 hours a day and men only work five or six or eight, and that men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families."
What...the...hell....
Has Sweden turned overnight into Saudi Arabia, and we haven't noticed? Or is this just complete misandrist B.S.?
April 8th, 2008 at 12:05 am
If this woman does not like or is incapable of caring for or tolerating children, she should at least make that clear. Yes, an unknown proportion of men do like to care for children, and so do an unknown proportion of women. It is surprising that allowing the luxury to watch your children grow is some how drudgery worse than an office job. I could understand that the money aspects could make one person believe so, but caring for children is by no stretch of imagination a drudgery, unless you really are one of 'those' who don't like children around them.
Glenn, I have to disagree on this
"What I never seem to hear from feminists is that women are responsible for some of these problems, and that women need to change."
"Women" are not the problem, neither are "men". I think there are bad apples on both sides. The feminist movement supposedly started to weed out the bad apples from the men's side (if such a side exists). The idea was propelled by chivalrists and now is hijacked by feminists. If I blame anyone its both of these ideologies. People like Gerd are the ones that take the bad apples (only on the male side) and blow them out of proportion, create a hysteria and benefit from the pieces falling out of the system. Its a neat cottage industry that has spawned around these issues. Bet if they were closed some day, none of these people would be able to find jobs elsewhere. Thanks to their awesome qualifications earned on the job
April 8th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Alex, she is not concerned about sweden or saudi arabia (which has a much restrictive female presence laws, I wonder how they would manage to stay at the work site for 16 hours!). In sweden, they have chained the men to the work bench. So she definitely is not talking about sweden. I wonder what authority she has over running of other countries. Also, if the things she is talking about do not occur in Sweden, doesn't that mean there is no need for feminism in Sweden?
Glenn, if you meet this lady, could you ask which country Ms. Gerd mentioned? I HAVE to know it. I am filing for immigration there right away. Please do that for me. Tell her, I will be eternally grateful for that information. Thanks.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:53 am
"Johnsson-Latham said that in many countries of the world women work 16 hours a day and men only work five or six or eight"
Oh really? Could she provide the names of said countries so I could check that out? I would love to visit those countries.
If I had to hazard a guess about where she butchered those statistics from, it's probably a bizarre exaggeration of some extremely underdeveloped countries where unemployment is extremely (30-40%) high. What she probably did was take an average from the yearly amount of employment hours of men (which is minimal because work is often sporadic or highly seasonal in many of these countries) and then compare them to child-rearing/house-work of women (which is all the hours they are awake and brings in only the slightest income). This is the only scenario I see where this is an even remote possibility and even so it is grossly dishonest.
To suggest a country like Sweeden or the US or Canada remotely resembles that statistic is a blatant lie.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Airplane
Car
Boat
Train
Go by Bus
Walk
Stay Where You Are
You forgot:
Sit on the Sofa
Watch Soap Operas
Waddle to the Kitchen
Get more junk food
Talk on the phone endlessly
Switch the channel to another Soap Opera
Paint your nails
Remove your fingernail paint
Complain to your working husband on the phone about everything and nothing
Throw some instant dinners in the microwave
throw them onto some plates.
Say "dinner is served".
Yes, baby, you've come a long way -- from the sofa to the kitchen to the dining table, which is impressive given your frightening level of obesity.
What I don't understand is how anyone can argue that your "Enviornmental" buttprint -- ehr -- footprint -- is smaller than a man's.
Seems to me that you junkfood consumption alone could tilt the international energy and polution credits market.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Glenn said: Until there's reciprocity there, until feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change, I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together.
Well said. You are privileged to be able to debate these "women" in a public forum and give a little back their way. It is unfortunately an individual privilege.
It is however one of the female privileges to deny that they ever do anything wrong or to take responsibility.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
I think that we can all agree that "reason" and "accountability" are glaringly absent from this female's
mind -- at least if her opinions are any indication of what has been taken away from her mind.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:40 am
I can spew nonsense too. Perhaps I should become a politician.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:47 am
This is funny. The more I read the post, the more I think Ms. Gerd is actually trying to be funny. Watch, in a couple of years, she will have her own segment on Comedy Central.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:06 am
@Glenn...
You do, as somebody else mentioned, have the occasional opportunity to speak to these various feminist nag...er...spokespersons.
When confronted with statments such as that refering to time worked in other countries do you ever ask for evidence? Citations? Some proof maybe?
When nobody directly confronts them about their dishonesty is it any wonder feminists believe they can lie with impunity.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:17 am
@Pankaj:
I agree. Her arguments are almost completely nonsensical. Is this 'study' supposed to be a parody of feminist 'research'?
April 8th, 2008 at 3:02 am
(Glenn) -- "I've seen Gloria Allred do the same shtick ..."
I have been mispelling this word (shitck) in my posts and I really appreciate that Glenn got it right.
I also really appreciate Gloria, because she is so easy to hate as a feminist icon.
And her shelf life as a desirable female is over.
So she is kinda angry now on a permanent basis.
Quite a useful exhibit of what feminism produces......
April 8th, 2008 at 6:37 am
"What I never seem to hear from feminists is that women are responsible for some of these problems, and that women need to change. Until there's reciprocity there, until feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change, I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together."
Well said Glenn!
If I understand this looney toon correctly, she contends that women generaly cause less environmental problems because they tend to stay closer to home. I wonder how many of these women would be able to afford to do this if they didn't have a man who was willing to travel and take more job-related risks to finance their lifestyles?
April 8th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Glenn's point about the lack of reciprocity is very important. Women have a lot of misplaced power now and no one gives up power voluntarily. Ironically, women are hurting themselves too with this newfound power. Think Britney Spear's excess and others, maybe not the best example but that's the idea.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:21 am
"Johnsson-Latham said that in many countries of the world women work 16 hours a day and men only work five or six or eight..."
I notice that many feminists, unable to refute the idea that western women are indeed very well off, now go for a world-wide figure which includes numerous third-world countries. They then, of course, lie by omission by neglecting to tell us that by "many countries" they mean a bunch of African or South American backwaters, not the West. Even for such countries i would like to see solid evidence for such disparate figures, figures which i suspect you can only get by including the time women spend watching TV while the pot boils, or reading gossip mags while the washing machine does what their grandmothers used to do by hand.
I must say that it strikes me that with only a handful of exceptions, the feminist movement seems to be composed of a gaggle of rather low level intellects who couldnt think straight if the fate of their would-be matriarchy depended on it. I can only guess that little Gerdie got her job through some kind of affirmative action program for angry white women with intellectual disabilities.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Glenn you say: "I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together." With very good reason. Look what happens to any feminist who dares even insinuate female responsibility for any of the worlds ills or any of their own predicaments. They and their children are threatened with violence and treated as traitors to "the cause".
April 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I heard two different comedians last week joking about how their wives/ girlfriend could do something very bad and end up getting the guy to apologize... Its the truth... truth is stranger than fiction... wake up gentlemen, dont be sorry for someone elses mistakes... its this manipulative behavior that some women possess that allows them to take more than their share and then turn their fingers at men and say ` you could be more giving` ive seen it and heard it word for word that way... i dont want to be unfair to women, but i wont take that wounded bird junk off anybody anymore, hopefully all who reads this has toughened up a little too.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:53 am
...men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families.
What exactly does that have to do with climate change? What working men spend their hard earned money on is no one elses business.
April 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
April 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Stuffed tag...reposting
In those third world countries the common scenario is that the only men in the communities are the ones who cant work. Otherwise they're away working in somebody else's mine or fighting somebody elses fight.
GENDERCIDE WATCH
April 8th, 2008 at 10:04 am
In fact there are cultures in Africa where Gerd's claim of men working merely 5 to 6 hours is correct.
But what moron Gerd seems to miss about those tribal cultures is that it is the males there, who for thousands of years - and definitely still today - have the sole duties of sentry and warrior.
So what does that mean? It means that when neighboring tribes or mauraders attack the village, these men must and do fight to the death to protect their children and their wives, the latter who spend their long days in a smoke-filled hut cooking, or working an outdoor vegetable patch.
What looks to idiot-Gerd's eyes like "standing around" is in fact a many-thousands-of-years-evolved sentry duty, as in "he also serves who only stands and waits".
If twit Gerd ever visited one of these villages, she would, of necessity need to be escorted in and out by some of these men she despises, who would have AK-47s in hand.
As for Gerd's comment on those men spending their money on alcohol and prostitutes, I am reminded of what a funny female professional acquaintance in Moscow once said to me about what she does when she is lonely, and I quote:
"I have sex with my Prada bag"
Surely not literally, but a clear admission of the diection in which some females indulge their fantasies.
Gerd should not be on the Swedish government payroll. She should be on welfare - she woukd do less damage to her country's reputation.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
"Johnsson-Latham apparently believes that men are "privileged" because they're working while their wives are home with their young children, I believe that those women are lucky. "
This is such a strong point.
I never view my parenting time as a chore. That is my male privelege.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:17 am
GS - "Johnsson-Latham apparently believes that men are "privileged" because they're working while their wives are home with their young children, I believe that those women are lucky. Men get cheated out of time with their children when they're young."
Glenn makes an excellent point here, which also relates back to the discussion of "housework" from last week. When my daughters were in high school, and participating in sports, the way our schedules and commutes worked out, it made more sense for me to be the one to pick them up from practices.
Initially, I did see it as an extra "chore", but I came to realize that it was actually a great opportunity and a great pleasure that I had, and which my wife did not – something she still regrets years later.
Not only was I able to attend many of their games, I also had numerous opportunities to stop off for coffee (etc) with them, and plenty of time to talk with them during those all too important teenage years. I often joked at the time that I was the "soccer mom" (actually, there were a good number of other dads who I got to know who were in the same position as I - pseudo-soccer mom; or maybe better - proxy soccer mom), but I've since come to realize that the very close relationships that I enjoy with my adult daughters were forged and strengthen during those times that I got a lot of one-on-one time with them.
Sorry guys, I know that was off-point, but Glenn’s comment really got me thinking about that.
But, on a different note, going back to the first part of Glenn’s debate with Gerd Johnsson-Latham, while travelling this past weekend, I took the time to take note of my fellow travelers. By my count, the flights than I was on were about 40% to 45% women. While this is only anecdotal, I’m guessing my experience is hardly unique. Men may travel more, but it would seem not that much more.
Has anyone else noticed this as well? Air travel is far and away the biggest CO2-output per person situation out there. If women travel nearly as much as men, it would seem to singlehandedly knock the legs out from under Gerd Johnsson-Latham’s whole anti-male position.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Querstions of global warming are among the topics of my typically short conversations with my daughter. Ironically, I'm in a long-term process of teaching her and my other school-age children about a process that I believe is called 'critical thinking', since schools are seemingly more than ever involved in overt political indoctrination. I'm aware that some if not most individuals and orgnizations that oppose may indeed take at least some funding from the likes of major oil corporations and the like, but even if that is the case, REAL science doesn't get colored by money. And as many of us are aware, 'global warming' now more often described as 'climate change' in the face of more favorable weather developments over the last couple of years or so at least in the U.S. This is yet another 'reason' why many particularly on the left seek to use ever increasing government and globalism to impose ever more control over individuals, businesses, and nation-states while creating new revenue streams for global-based, mostly U.N. associated agencies.
*** Although I haven't read these sources or documents completely, information contrary to so-called 'mainstream thought' (indoctrination by repetition using preferred fact sets, real and/or distorted is propaganda, and hardly worthy of a serious labeling as 'thought' [better described as almost thoughtless regurgitation in most cases]). Some examples of contrary viewpoints and supporting facts can be found at locations on the web such as: http://www.globalwarming.org/ ; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html ; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/u.s._temperature_rankings_rearranged_problems_and_concerns_with_temperature_data_sets.html ; etc. *** The arguments of the likes of Al Gore and 'friends' on what is now most often referred to as 'climate change' that 'the causes' (and proportions of cause) and the like have been decided by an acclamation of scientists is baloney. Any confirmation of such a concept among our own politicans mostly reflects a need to stay ahead of their 'only superficially knowledgeable' voting base to stay in office and frankly the greed of organizations such as the U.N. to make gains in power and financial resources from developed nation-states such as the U.S. in the form of what can be described as a new tax revenue stream it doesn't have presently. The U.N. record for financial corruption is well-documented, particularly in recent years. Enogh said for now.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Johnsson-Latham said that in many countries of the world women work 16 hours a day and men only work five or six or eight,
I want to know what countries she's talking about very badly.
and that men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families.
She's obviously not talking about the US or if she is she does not know about (or carefully ignores) the fact that women control a majority of the wealth. Oh and she just plainly does not know ANYTHING about the American child support or family court systems.
Dave:
If I understand this looney toon correctly, she contends that women generaly cause less environmental problems because they tend to stay closer to home.
I think you are about mention a paradox. Okay men are causing all of these environmental problems. So according to this woman if women were to take the lead these environmental problems would just magically stop right? Women that decide to go for a career instead of raising a family do not contribute to environmental issues eh? What she fails to realize is that these environmental issues are a side effect of greed. If these companies really cared about the environment do you think they would be willing to destroy irreplacable habitats and kills countless species of life just to add a few extra dollars to the bottom line? And I don't care how you try to twist it greed is NOT a gender issue its a human issue. Ever notice that a man that charges up the corporate ladder and any damage that he does is because of the patriarchy but a woman that does the same thing any damage that she does is because of the patriarchy?
The male Swedish population (especially the young boys) have my condolensces.
This is just more nonsense (because its too silly to be called rhetoric) that is fueling the fire of gender inequality. I suppose next someone will argue that Death itself (notice the capital D) is sexist because he is referred to as a he and he is exercising his male privilege by killing more women every year than men. You know women are the true victims of death right?
April 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am
The questions of how much women work is about as vague as the public testimony offerred to our State's Commission on the Status of Men reportedly offered by our State's alleged 'Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence' or whatever this feminist-dominated calls itself.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I'd also like to see it analysed on the basis of purpose. How many have no choice but to travel and how many are doing so they can dirty up somebody else's air and sewage.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Feminists live in a glass house -- and can't keep from throwing stones ....
April 8th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The malls and markets are filled with women, not men. The products for women vastly outnumber the products for men, especially chemical products such as cosmetics and hair treatments.
My town, and probably yours too, has countless hair and nail salons spewing out toxic waste.
Here is a funny observation I have made : in every mall department store the women's section faces the interior of the mall and is arranged so that you can not walk directly into the store. You will encounter a maze of glass cases and perfume counters to channel you into shopping mode. Usually there are two floors of products for females.
The men's department, on the other hand, is much smaller, and faces the parking lot, so that a man can park his car, walk directly into the men's section, buy his clothing, and walk right out of the store. No confusing maze, just clothing simply and predictably arranged.
The store owners are not stupid, and do this so as not to drive men away, and to pull the women in.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
What working women do to earn money is no one else's business too!
Johnsson-Latham claimed: "...men spend their money on alcohol and prostitutes instead of their families."
Mike Hunter philosophizies: "What exactly does that have to do with climate change? What working men spend their hard earned money on is no one elses business."
PK adds: You all missed something! If men are spending a large segment of their money on prostitutes, as this woman claims, then they are supporting WORKING women! This is a perfect opportunity to point out that this feminist, rather than supporting working women, instead is bashing them for contributing to environmental pollution like men and doing a task (the sex trade) that she views as demeaning.
What working women do to earn money is no one else's business too!
Other commenters have already observed that SOMEONE has to drive the garbage trucks, commute to work, and do other "dirty jobs" that the women who stay safely at home. Isn't it bizarre that this woman is somehow assuming that women are all housewives? And she's from SWEDEN?
April 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Yep. That's the idiocy of it all.
What produces a larger carbon footprint? WORK.
Which gender works more? MEN.
Now if you want to shame men for working and earning so that they can support women (seeing that women control most of the spending).. then fine. Go take care of yourselves. See how big your carbon footprint is once women are doing the work.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Legally Blonde
Metadet observes: "My town, and probably yours too, has countless hair and nail salons spewing out toxic waste."
PK adds: Dry cleaning is apparently one of the most environmentally destructive industries using some kind of toxic chemical to clean clothes without getting them "wet." Another paradox women often face is the cosmetics industry that is continually using different and complex biological compounds needs to engage in continual testing to ensure humans are not harmed by their products forcing them to test on animals.
One of the most insipid movies I've ever seen was "Legally Blonde II, stupid government bureucrat." (OK, I made the latter part up.) But seriously, she hopes to save the mother of her dog from evil cosmetics testers even as she is one of the most prolific users of cosmetic products.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:21 am
So what does that mean? It means that when neighboring tribes or mauraders attack the village, these men must and do fight to the death to protect their children and their wives, the latter who spend their long days in a smoke-filled hut cooking, or working an outdoor vegetable patch.
You're actually a little ahead of the game there AnonymousPamphleteer. Before they can even be called men or warriors a lot of those tribes put their young men (usually early teens if not younger) through rites of passage that alter the course of the rest of that young man's life. Pass and he is acknowledged as a man and own property, marry, and have a voice in tribal matters. Fail and he is labeled a coward, may be exiled from the tribe, may not be able to marry (what woman wants to marry a guy with no status in the tribe?), and in some cases even die (if the test didn't kill him the punishment for failure may be death).
So those "lazy" men sit around and do nothing while the women work hard right? Why doesn't Gerd Johnsson-Latham attack one those villages and see who raises up to fight her off?
And this is off topic but I have to ask. Women and feminists here in the west like to go on and on about how women feel like they have to pretty themselves up in order to attract a man? Look at those tribal societies and 90 times out of 100 its the MEN who have to advertise themselves and prove themselves worthy to the WOMEN in hopes of finding a woman to marry.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
PK adds: You all missed something! If men are spending a large segment of their money on prostitutes, as this woman claims, then they are supporting WORKING women! This is a perfect opportunity to point out that this feminist, rather than supporting working women, instead is bashing them for contributing to environmental pollution like men and doing a task (the sex trade) that she views as demeaning.
Hold on PK. What you're missing is that the reason those prostitutes are in the sex trade is because those innocent women were boxed into a corner by the patriarchy and no other choice but to engage in prostitution. Here goes. According to Gerd women are working harder than men and since there are so many women in the workforce some of them are not able to get jobs (because there are too many women looking for jobs and some of them are bound to get left out) so they have to put that hard working nature to some use. I know you're wondering, "Why the sex trade?" Well that's because the patriarchy allowed all those hard working women to take over the workplace and force the others into the sex trade so that they could sit around and do nothing but pay for prostitutes. So in conclusion:
A. The Patriarchy allows men to dominate the workforce in some countries so that they can control women.
B. The Patriarchy allows women to dominate the workforce in some countries so that men can be lazy.
C. The Patriarchy allows the sex trade to go on so men can have something to do while being lazy in the countries covered by B.
D. The Patriarchy allows the sex trade to go on so men control women in the countries covered by A.
E. The Patriarchy is to blame for all environmental issues.
F. The Patriarchy knows that women know how to end all of these issues but since men don't want to give up our privileges they have to do what they can to keep women down.
In short, when anything fails blame The Patriarchy.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
PK, I considered, but did not verbalize, the facts about prostition. If men spend money on prostitutes, it is providing income to females at the lowest strata of society. In poor countries, these women turn right around and give this money to their extended familes.
As for carbon footprint, per capita chemical load of women far exceeds that of men :
Hair products, nail paints, menstrual products, body hair waxing, perfumes, cosmetics, underwear (yes, it's true! latex and nylon), hosiery, shoes, shoes, shoes....please feel free to add.
I had not considered but you are right : dry cleaning.
As I mentioned on another thread : ecosystem-killing lawn products. What sane male wants to spend his weekend battling hordes of enraged suburbanites at the lawn and garden center if females were not behind this madness? A man's garden consists of a few of his sacred weeds, nothing more.
Men maintain and drive old automobiles. We gather round an old car and get misty-eyed over the fine curves and industrial styling. Women must have new SUVs and have no interest in vintage machinery of any kind.
Feminists positing themselves as nurturing friends of the environment would be laughable if it did not end up in anti-male legislation. We have to fight this and call them on their lies.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Alex, since when do women work more in Saudi Arabia? Just because a woman wears a veil doesn't mean she's automatically oppressed.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Magazines are another indicator of relative environental load.
At any bookstore observe the number of women's magazines vs. men's. Same for the checkout lane of any supermarket (actually, no men's magazines there).
Consider :
Home and garden magazines advertising interior and exterior paints, wood and wood finishing products, carpeting, decorating, bedding, curtains, furniture...
Bridal magazines...
Fashion magazines...
Pop culture, gossip and celebrity magazines...
Baby magazines...
What else am I missing guys?
April 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Guys, guys, guys -- we could go on and on about the fact that most consumer goods are designed and purchased for women, and so on and so forth. No fair-minded person could possibly disagree. The fact of the matter is that women like this believe that men dominate the world and since there is a perceived global warming crisis, men obviously are responsible for it.
OK, I'll concede that men do more of almost EVERYTHING more than women, aside from childcare. That includes crime, rescuing people, manufacturing things, writing songs, philanthropy -- I mean, you could literally spend the rest of your life compiling a list of the things men dominate in. Take her rationale to its logical conclusion and most every bad thing in the world is men's fault, of course. But you would never get her to agree that most every good thing in the world is attributable to men. So, she's dishonest. I hate even wasting time discussing idiots like this.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
You are right Tim.
Men, evil polluters, invented computers, telephones, washing machines, bridges, automobiles, and airplanes, all of which primarily benefit women. Most women would agree. A minority of idiot feminists try to claim men are the benefactors and oppressors.
And I love women. I love the way they adorn themselves, the way they smell, their lingerie, their sweet voices, their wonderful touch. I love to rogure them in their nicely decorated apartments, thrusting vigorously and banging the headboard to eventually knock over shelves of knicknacks and doodads.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
metadet, some sort of poor joke right?
April 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
No, it's not a joke.
I like to walk across their pristine floors in my bare feet, it's almost sexual. I can only do this in my house about twice a year after my bi-annual floor cleaning.
Here's another gag that causes them to scream with laughter : hump one of their large, stuffed animals. Or, (and they love this) put my pecker between the legs of their sock monkey so he looks like a porn star.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
'thrusting vigorously'??
Go away, troll. We're trying to have a serious discussion here.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Tim Murray hits the Bullseye!
Sure, men may be responsible for perpetrating the most evil in the world, but they are also responsible for doing the vast majority of good. Women like Gerd are just too hardcore sexist and mean-spirited to acknowledge that men are good for anything.
I thought that they had laws against hate speech in the EU, so how is it that Gerd gets away with her blatantly misandrist screed anyway?
Oh, and Glenn: Any chance of you being able to ask Gerd for sources for her numbers? I would think she'd be happy to provide us with references if she expects the world to take her seriously. So if so, the first thing she needs to do is back her outlandish claims with verifiable facts, i.e., information from peer-reviewed, legitimate sources, not feminist advocacy garbage.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Sorry to offend you callum.
Women love to laugh. Feminists are humorless.
Reminds me of a cartoon. A guy is in a feminist bookstore and asks the clerk "where's the humor section?"
She angrily replies : "This is a feminist bookstore, there is no humor section."
April 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
According to the study, men generally fly for business reasons and women generally fly for vacation reasons.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Where Global Warming Begins
"Just where is all that global warming pollution coming from?"
"The Northeast pumps out an awful lot of carbon dioxide, but the Southeast, Midwest and Southern California are also responsible for voluminous pollution that billows out each day."
"The precise sources of carbon dioxide have now been mapped, with 100-times more detail than was previously available, by Vulcan project researchers at Purdue University."
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/carbon-sources-47040802?kw=ist
http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/index.php
April 8th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
See here's the metadet, you're not at all funny.
People make jokes on here all the time. They don't make poor sexual at some attempt at shock humour.
What you said wasn't funny, it was just stupid.
April 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Glenn said: men need to change. What I never seem to hear from feminists is that women are responsible for some of these problems, and that women need to change. Until there's reciprocity there, until feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change, I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together.
===============
I believe this is why a lot of marriage counseling doesn't work, also. I have heard of many cases where the wife refuses to acknowledge that her behavior causes problems, that her husband has any legitimate issues, or that she needs to change.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
This is due to the biological design of the species (actually, most species, not just humans).
Men are the experiments. Our genetics leads us to great success and great failure. Women are the stable average that allows the society to have a stable base for reproduction.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Different Universes
Metadet says: "PK, I considered, but did not verbalize, the facts about prostition. If men spend money on prostitutes, it is providing income to females at the lowest strata of society. In poor countries, these women turn right around and give this money to their extended familes."
PK responds: The argument against legalized prostitution in the USA is that it's a profession that supposedly causes women to do drugs and to blow all their money out of depression due to working as prostitutes. One could say this about any high income, youth oriented profession though (actors, sports figures, and other young celebrities who got a lot of money with little work also tend to blow their money and crash and burn.)
But you're right: Absent the welfare state in the United States and Western Europe, young, poorer women will do many jobs to help support their extended families including prostituion as well as working in factories, cleaning, etc. In other words, they work for a living. Consequently, this is why many American men now prefer women from foreign countries who view work as what it is: work and NOT as an optional "career" for her to have a good time.
In the states and Sweden as well, of course, women take it for granted that they can live and have a family. They think the world literally owes them a living. That really messes them up. I don't think ANYONE here believes that they can LIVE without working. But for most women, they think someone else has that covered.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
"Men are the experiments."
That one's a gem.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
It's the truth. That's why there are MANY more men at the extremes than women. For just about every physiological feature in humanity, there is much more variance in males than in females. There are FAR more male geniuses than women geniuses... of course there are also more male retards than female retards even tho that goes much more unnoticed (forgive the un-PC term). Men's bell curves are much flatter than women's... we are the experiments so that the men who better survive breed. You don't want that type of experimentation in the gender that germinates and cares for the young children.
Of course, take away humanity and explain it in terms of any animal species, and the above would go unquestioned.
April 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Serenity Now Says: April 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
"Glenn said: men need to change. What I never seem to hear from feminists is that women are responsible for some of these problems, and that women need to change."
This message is common at Willow Creek Community Church - Fathers day serman was about how m. After three years I tired. I miss that church.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
From slwerner:
"Initially, I did see it as an extra "chore", but I came to realize that it was actually a great opportunity and a great pleasure that I had, and which my wife did not – something she still regrets years later. "
"Not only was I able to attend many of their games, I also had numerous opportunities to stop off for coffee (etc) with them, and plenty of time to talk with them during those all too important teenage years. I often joked at the time that I was the "soccer mom" (actually, there were a good number of other dads who I got to know who were in the same position as I - pseudo-soccer mom; or maybe better - proxy soccer mom), but I've since come to realize that the very close relationships that I enjoy with my adult daughters were forged and strengthen during those times that I got a lot of one-on-one time with them."
Parenting time is so important. So important! By wgat excuse can another parent initiate separation and use the force of government to take more than half of our parenting time away from us! It is an outrage. It MUST end.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer 's post with reference to AK-47s above just prompted me to recall a true story, which I probably should not disclose.
When I graduated from university I got a job with the People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada.
(I wanted a tropical adventure and believe me, I got one...)
I was living in a nice house on the east side of the island and my American wife finally agreed to come live there and experience the Revo.
The very first morning after she arrived in darkness after a scary night time plane landing and taxi ride through the Grand Etang mountains, she got up at dawn and the first thing she saw, looking out the kitchen window, was forty revolutionary militia members with AK-47 rifles on a practice exercise, anticipating an American invasion.
She said -- "Honey, who are those men with guns in our backyard?"
The shocked look on her face was priceless.....
I told her, those are my friends.
She left the island not too long after that.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
First of all I guess we should congratulate Ms. Johnnson-Latham for being the first of her sex in admitting that men do indeed have to travel further in order to find work that can support a family. It is almost as if she is simultaneously fessing up that men do indeed get paid more in part because they travel without her actually saying it. That would be asking too much. Ironically, one way for men to travel less is if their female partners travel more in search of work but somehow I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
PK:
"Consequently, this is why many American men now prefer women from foreign countries who view work as what it is: work and NOT as an optional "career" for her to have a good time."
Just how many women do you think work for fun out there? I think very few. Don't you think that's demeaning to the women who struggle to balance family & a job? I hear from so many females who have no choice but to work to contribute to their families' income and they wish they could stay home a little longer with their new babies than just 4 weeks.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
" . . . until feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change, I'm skeptical that the two genders will ever come together."
Will never happen. Sorry.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
jeana:
Don't you think that's demeaning to the women who struggle to balance family & a job? I hear from so many females who have no choice but to work to contribute to their families' income and they wish they could stay home a little longer with their new babies than just 4 weeks.
About as demeaning as acting as if the men that struggle to balance family and a job. For years upon years men have had to work to while sacrificing time with the family only to have women rewrite history into claiming that women have done all the work while men had all the play. And I assume that four weeks comment is about maternity leave right? Let me ask: How much time do dads get for paternity leave? I know at my company the answer is zero.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Feminism is a radical idea that women are "people" AND MEN ARE NOT!
metalman, the solution is not to wait for feminists to change their ideas, but to show every rational mind how hateful their ideology is. Either the feminists will tone down or be isolated from common people.
Jeana, Women did have the luxury of staying home with their new and old babies more than just a few weeks. Unfortunately most of them bought into the feminism crap and now are paying for that mistake. Hell a woman did not even need a job, today its almost a must have. As for spending time with "their" new babies, don't you think men feel the same way? Why is all your sympathy directed towards women only? Is it possible that you do not see men as caring people, but rather ruthless workaholics who would rather earn money than enjoy life?
As for PK's point, yes in a society where women intend to compete on the job with men, they will have to make sacrifices that men make, adopt the pattern of behavior men adopt. But it goes beyond how long you work as opposed to how much of your pay goes towards family expenditure (excluding yourself). As women follow the road to financial freedom, there are new responsibilities that they have implicitly taken on which will force them away from enjoying life. Simple matter of fact that a profit oriented business (aka smart ownership) will foster competition for the best results. If that means maternity leaves have to be cut short - I don't think anyone has a choice in that. If a business makes a consideration for that you end up with higher costs on products (aka, you have to work more to earn a living - enter vicious cycle of cost increases and necessity to work more).
Like Dr. Farrell says, women have been smart about making choices in life. They pick quality over quantity. Interest vs Earnings. Overall they end up with more quality life. And I agree men should imitate women in life choices (if they think its possible - I know it is not, so do most men).
What he does not count for is, who pays the extra cost to pay for "family friendly" workplace and what man can afford to fit the finicky criteria women put on men in the dating world while doing the job that he really likes. As it is, its hard for a decent young man to locate a decent young woman - then to fit into her criterion of dating worth, the man better have every weapon in the arsenal he can afford or else .....
April 9th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Pankaj Says:
"And I agree men should imitate women in life choices (if they think its possible - I know it is not, so do most men)."
Oh, but it is possible. One of the biggest hinderances to men accomplishing this is the fact that many of us do not use the same criteria for selecting a potential spouse as women do. This begins with the dating process. If you are a man and you are dating a female who does not pay her fair share, dump the cheapskate! If you are dating a female who does not have a similar earning potential or work ethic to you, dump the loser! Otherwise, guess who will be sacrificing their life choices to pay for everything?
Think these are harsh words? These are exactly the same terms that females have used for years to describe males who wouldn't pay up. Funny thing is, even with all of this equality the feminists keep talking about, we still hear women using these terms to describe men who have the nerve to expect them to actually spend any of their money on something. There is simply no excuse for this kind of nonsense in this day and age and if a man puts up with this kind of nonsense, then he has no one but himself to blame for what the end result is guaranteed to be. Women want to be equals? Fine, then men should start treating them like equals and expect them to accept equal responsibilies.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Danny,
I was responding to PK's usual comment about how women only work for fun, with the implication that we don't **really** work. I wouldn't say that "women have done all the work while men had all the play" but I would say that women also work, even if they don't hold outside jobs. More than just reading a magazine while the pot boils. Not that there aren't some lazies out there, but it seems to me that even if they don't work, they do contribute by taking care of the house, kids, & volunteering at school.
I do think it's harder for women because usually it is the female who fits her job around her work, and the guy usually fits his family around his work. Before anyone gets riled, this isn't meant to be all-inclusive, but that is what usually happens. Women are usually the ones to arrange to get the kids, to bring them to after-school things, more than men. But it's so much more acceptable for men to do these things now and so many men are so much more involved with their kids than a generation or two before.
And men should have paternity leave. My husband's company gives 2 weeks paid. Still not a ton, but at least it's a start. Men need to keep asking and pressuring to get the rights that they want.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Pankaj, I think you are making fun of my old bumper sticker (and reading more into it than was meant).
You say, "As for spending time with "their" new babies, don't you think men feel the same way? Why is all your sympathy directed towards women only? Is it possible that you do not see men as caring people, but rather ruthless workaholics who would rather earn money than enjoy life?". Actually, Pankaj, I was only addressing females and trying to make a point that they do not choose to work for fun most of the time, especially when they just had a kid. I do not think that men are ruthless workaholics (although they are in comparison with the Europeans). I think men have no choice but to work harder and harder (women too) because of the expense of living in the economy and country that we live in. And I don't think that women are working because feminists told them how great it was; I still think feminists opened the door for females who wanted to work and get out of the house. But working now is mandatory for so many families.
I would blame the assault on unions and "free trade" policies more than feminists.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:04 am
jeana said "And men should have paternity leave. My husband's company gives 2 weeks paid. Still not a ton, but at least it's a start. Men need to keep asking and pressuring to get the rights that they want."
I've made this point many times before. For a long time men have been blamed for allegedly running the world for their own benefit, and selfishly looking after their own interests first. Yet men also get blamed for not doing enough to promote their own interests. Nice contradiction.
According to feminists like you, we men already get paid more than women for doing the same work. Yet apparently we should go to our employers and start demanding even more benefits. Funny stuff.
I look forward to your thoughts on this Jeana.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Dave,
Again with the paying for dates issue. The only thing I agree with is when you say, "One of the biggest hinderances to men accomplishing this is the fact that many of us do not use the same criteria for selecting a potential spouse as women do." There is nothing wrong with looking for someone who won't be a slacker. It doesn't have to be someone who is a millionaire, but it also shouldn't be someone chronically unemployed. You CAN use the same criteria for a female. Why wouldn't you? Everyone's situation is different, though, and you need to decide what you want and then go after it. If you have a ton of money, you probably don't care if your girlfriend doesn't have a job (just that she's young and busty, right?). Everyone else should care. If you want a house, want to live in a good area, etc., then by all means look for someone who will help you achieve those goals. This is NOT the same as only picking someone who will split the bill down the middle at every date. That is being a cheapskate. I would wonder (if a guy did that to me) if he would also expect me to pay exactly half of everything. It's too petty. Early on in my relationship with my husband, I owed him some money and he told me what it was to the penny (like $21.32). I said that I was not paying the tax or whatever because that is too weird. So I gave him a $20. Strangers need to split the bill down the middle. Lovers do not.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:07 am
"I would blame the assault on unions and "free trade" policies more than feminists."
Another typical feminist tactic. If you can't deal with an issue properly, then try to change the subject or offer up some other scapegoat.
This is the PC view of the world. Men are never disadvantaged or unfairly treated relative to women. They are only disadvantaged compared to other more powerful men.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Jeana I'll admit I came on a little strong when I read that. My bad. But:
I do think it's harder for women because usually it is the female who fits her job around her work, and the guy usually fits his family around his work.
I agree that women usually fit work around family and men fit family around work (both are unfair gender expectations if you ask me) but I would not be so quick to say that either one has it harder than the other. There's plenty of stay at home moms out there sacrificing their career goals for the sake to being with the family (and I think some new "reality" show centers around that just started on tv) and there are plenty of working dads sacrificing time with family for the sake of supporting the family. Damn shame that it has to be that way.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Dave its biology and evolution - if you fight it - you loose. But sure as hell, some can try. I won't - not that I did not try. Remember I bought into this feminist garbage for quite some time.
Jeanna, why is it that in your world, most females do pretty much everything? You work more than your husband, your friends earn more than their husbands, they also handle familial tasks more than their husbands. I wonder what your husbands are doing all that time! Its amazing what things you can pull out to self-sympathize when you think in a vacuum. Men do the things they do, because that is the way they are valued. Same thing goes for women. Its amazing how feminists blame men aka "patriarchy" for imposing standards of beauty via motivation and media on young women, but do not return the favor when understanding men's behavior propensities.
Is it possible that men work harder and harder in Americas (note how American women are notorious for their demanding nature, is it a surprise that men have to work more?). Is it possible that men in europe have already lost a lot of their familial rights and responsibilities to the govt, hence the less workaholic attitudes?
Actually I have been told multiple times by women that they work just to prove that they are no less than women. These women usually find someone able to provide for the household and keep their namesake job (which they are bad at.. btw). And no I am not saying that all women that work are bad. In fact the ones that are good at the job actually profess a love for it and are .....guess what - Workaholics!
April 9th, 2008 at 1:16 am
correction
they are no less than women.
was supposed to read
they are no less than men.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Nick,
I do think that business is set up for men and not for women, or to be more correct, not for people with families. Yes. I think the structure benefits the typical working man and not working-person-with-a-family. Usually, but not always, this means the female. However, this doesn't mean that men can't speak up for themselves and demand as many benefits as possible. Women do. We don't have everything we'd like (wouldn't flex time be nice?) but if you don't ask, you won't receive. I don't mean to blame men, but if you think that Big Business is going to hand you extra time off, you are not living in reality. What's wrong with demanding more benefits? If they can get away with making you work harder for less money, why wouldn't they? This is not a feminist thing. This should be a parenting thing.
And I do think that shipping jobs overseas for mere pennies and decreasing labor's clout in the workplace and business-friendly policies such as "Right to work" states where they can fire you at will are horrible for working people, men and women alike. But we live in a country where business interests rule and people's interests do not. I'm not trying to change the subject. This is a very real issue. I think that heaping the blame on feminists for pushing for family-friendly workplace policies is missing the mark.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Danny,
"I would not be so quick to say that either [gender] has it harder than the other. " If I implied this, I didn't mean to. I think there are plenty of guys who would love to work less and be with their kids more or to volunteer at their kids school or to coach a soccer league. But their work responsibilities prevent them from doing it. I think in this case, men are victims of society's expectations of what they are supposed to be and what they're supposed to do. And it's not fair. Men are supposed to put more effort into their work, and if they don't, they look like slackers. Women are supposed to put more effort into their family, and if they don't, they look like rotten mothers.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Jeana,
"There is nothing wrong with looking for someone who won't be a slacker. It doesn't have to be someone who is a millionaire, but it also shouldn't be someone chronically unemployed."
Show me an example of a female doctor or lawyer or corporate executive or any woman making more than $100,000 happily married to a waiter or dishwasher or a minimum wage worker. No matter how hardworking the man is, even if he has held the same job for all his life, there is almost a 100% guarantee that will never happen.
Any guesses why? Next time you go to a fast food joint ask the men working there if they have been asked out by a rich career woman. Also, make sure you don't hurt his fragile male ego. It is amazing how much blindness there is on the female side to the simple and realistic aspects of partner selection based on resources by females.
Here is another bet - find a woman that when asked out - asks the man about his job consistency and his working hours and NOT about how much he earns or what his job is and at the same time not attempt to guess his job based on his appearance. Have you yourself done this ever? If not, what makes you think its NOT the availability or potential to make lots of money BUT the ability and intention to work hard that drew you to a man? If not what do you base your claims on?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Just to be clear, I am not saying its a completely bad idea for females to do that - its evolutionary for them to do that. But the sheer blindness or dishonesty is what has me wondering.. why? why can most young women not see this? Exceptions exist, but they are not the rule.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Pankaj,
"Jeanna, why is it that in your world, most females do pretty much everything? You work more than your husband, your friends earn more than their husbands, they also handle familial tasks more than their husbands. I wonder what your husbands are doing all that time!" Ok, you are piecing together things I have said in previous posts (you have a good memory, I will give you that). I do work more hours than my husband for half the year, but it's a consulting company I have and that's the way it is. (He does make more than me, though. Male patriarchy!!) Some of my friends are lawyers and their husbands are not. Not all of them. And it's doubtful that the lawyer friends do more familial tasks. One has a house-husband, in fact. Actually, I think 2 do. And they take care of the kids. So no, everyone I know isn't a powerful woman who does everything better than every man on Earth. (Just I am.)
And there are women who do get jobs just to get out of the house and to interact with adults. Who can do without the money. Yes, it's true. I just disagree that this is the majority of them.
Last thing, I would blame the media more than "men" for imposing standards of beauty on females (be younger, have bigger breasts, be stick thin). But aren't the media made up mostly of men? But I don't know so no need to cite statistics. But I also have to say that women do that to ourselves. In this way, I have no choice but to agree with what Glenn said about "feminist leaders and women admit that women cause some of the problems and women need to change" (although I think in this case it's not the feminists but rather non-feminist women who push beauty standards and self esteem through plastic surgery ideas).
April 9th, 2008 at 1:46 am
jeana,
you avoid the issue time after time. I make a clear point about some logical flaw or contradiction in your argument, and instead of dealing with the issue you go off on a tangent.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Pankaj,
I don't mean to imply that rich women will marry a dishwasher. You're right; that only happens in movies. But some rich women do marry guys and the guys stay home. But most do have even richer (or similarly rich) spouses. But most people aren't rich. And I do think it's true that people tend to stay within their certain range. I wouldn't expect a waitress to hook up with a doctor.
I agree that for females, the job and $$ are more important than they are to a man. You're right. And while I think that this is short-sided on the one hand since they are probably passing up a lot of great guys, I think females want stability (meaning a more secure financial future) more than guys and see a guy as a means to help them attain it. We're always being told that there's plenty of fish in the sea. I'm not saying it's right. But why don't guys also look for females with earning potential? I think you should.
I think that guys are defined more by their work than females are, although that's changing (I mean that women are also now being judged by their jobs). Maybe that's why men are judged (by other men and society too) by the type of job they have and how much income they earn. It's your traditional role. I didn't make those rules. And I agree with you that if given a choice, all things being equal, probably more females would choose the guy who makes the most money over a guy who's a hard worker. But these aren't hard and fast rules. And this doesn't take falling in love into account. It's just the initial impression.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:52 am
" We don't have everything we'd like (wouldn't flex time be nice?) but if you don't ask, you won't receive. I don't mean to blame men, but if you think that Big Business is going to hand you extra time off, you are not living in reality. What's wrong with demanding more benefits? If they can get away with making you work harder for less money, why wouldn't they? This is not a feminist thing. This should be a parenting thing."
Jeana, where did I say that I expect business to give me anything? WTF? You are putting words in my mouth.
I don't expect businesses to pay for anything, whether a worker is male or female, unless it is worth their while. After all, they are not charities.
As for businesses wanting people to work more for less money, in that case why would any business hire a man if they can get the same work done at a lower cost by hiring a woman? Jeana, please can you address the issue?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:55 am
No Nick,
You said, "Another typical feminist tactic. If you can't deal with an issue properly, then try to change the subject or offer up some other scapegoat." I did not change the subject or bring up another scapegoat. I truly think that it is NOT feminists who are making men's lives hard. I do think it is our uncertain economy, the falling dollar, conservative judges that believe in "tradition" (women stay with kids and men support them) who influence child custody battles, and our government that has completely embraced the notion that we have to do whatever Business wants us to do, regardless of the effect on our lives, our kids lives, our environment, our future. I also think that times are different and men are caught between the traditional "man as provider" and contemporary "man as family guy" role and Business hasn't caught up. You want to blame feminists for everything, and I think that energy is wasted. I am not changing the subject; I am just trying to pinpoint who I see is the real culprit.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:55 am
lol - good sense of humor going on there Jeana. I appreciate it.
"But aren't the media made up mostly of men? " - and you are implying that they are going to be the bad males that they can.. right? How sexist of you! haha;)
The requirement of youth and beauty is less "men" imposed even less "media" imposed, its more an evolutionary tactic, nature has programmed into men. The stick thin figure though is an exception. It is a fashion-ist creation and idea, with hardly any heterosexual men supporting it. In an age of obesity, a normal woman would be considered stick thin too, so I would not argue with those cases - yes a healthy female is actually very desirable to the male sexual being. (and Paris Hilton is NOT healthy - OK?!)
OMG, I wrote the above paragraph and then read your last sentence.. non-feminist women? Its more like women who were not thinking in their right mind. If you want to blame non-feminist women for creating stupid and untrue ideals of beauty, please cite one feminist whose idea of beauty appeals to men - a heterosexual men. Note she should be academically educated feminist and not a namesake feminist.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Jeana! Are you saying "man as provider" is not a family guy? Are you saying that all the generations of our ancestors, men were NOT family guys? What the hell did they work so hard for?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:08 am
"I don't mean to imply that rich women will marry a dishwasher. You're right; that only happens in movies. But some rich women do marry guys and the guys stay home. But most do have even richer (or similarly rich) spouses. But most people aren't rich. And I do think it's true that people tend to stay within their certain range. I wouldn't expect a waitress to hook up with a doctor."
Actually the later is very much possible. Yes a doctor (male) or a 100,000 a year earning marrying a waitress happens a lot of times - these days this is declining due to fear of gold diggers and general perception of that as predatory behavior on part of the man when he seeks that sort of alliance. You keep pointing at the "some" women who marry guys who stay at home - were these guys working as poor waiters or any other minimum wage workers or not working at all before they got married? If not, then these cases are not related to what I am talking about. A share broker/hedge fund manager can retire at 35 and marry and stay home. Doesn't make him poorer than her.
Besides, do you have a standard to be considered "rich"? Is this standard by any means universal or commonly acceptable? I consider being rich or poor as a comparative statement. A lawyer maybe rich compared to than a car mechanic, but a lot poor compared to Bill Gates or Dick Chenney. So what is "rich"? And how is it relevant here? As far as I know this analogy stretches from the bottom most to the top most ranks of society and is not a unique boundary issue.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Nick,
I am not putting anything in your mouth. You said, "According to feminists like you, we men already get paid more than women for doing the same work. Yet apparently we should go to our employers and start demanding even more benefits. "
I responded by saying that you should ask for more benefits and family-friendly policies. You apparently disagree. Well, I understand that businesses are not charities, but they're not prisons either. And if they expect people to spend most of their waking hours there, then they SHOULD make it as pleasant and as family-friendly as possible. But they won't without a fight.
"As for businesses wanting people to work more for less money, in that case why would any business hire a man if they can get the same work done at a lower cost by hiring a woman? Jeana, please can you address the issue?"
You are trying to trick me into saying that there is no wage discrimination between women and men. Nice try. But I think that many people hired are female. Companies don't necessarily discriminate upon hire; I think they do try to get the best qualified person they can, gender notwithstanding. But I think there are patterns of favoritism and wage inequity that occur--and not always against a certain gender. An entry-level female probably costs the same as an entry-level male. Why wouldn't it?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Pankaj,
"If you want to blame non-feminist women for creating stupid and untrue ideals of beauty, please cite one feminist whose idea of beauty appeals to men - a heterosexual men. Note she should be academically educated feminist and not a namesake feminist."
Do you think I am a namesake feminist? Because I would like to say that I agree that Velma from Scooby Doo is not the ideal female in terms of looks. I think that "academically educated feminists" would concentrate more on "inner beauty" and reject the notion that females should dress up, wear makeup, dye & highlight their hair, try to be thin, etc. JUST to please a guy. But I don't think (but am not sure) that they would object to that for all females. I do all those things. It's fun. If some females choose to not shave, ok, that's their choice, but they should understand that others want to do it and not see it as a male plot against females. This probably doesn't answer your question. I personally think that men could use makeup too.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Pankaj,
"Jeana! Are you saying "man as provider" is not a family guy? Are you saying that all the generations of our ancestors, men were NOT family guys? What the hell did they work so hard for?"
NO. I meant to say that men were not seen as having the role as father who wanted to spend time with his kids, play with the baby, help the kids to homework, etc. But now society decided that it is "ok" for that, but hasn't let go of the notion that your role is breadwinner and provider too. I think that men (as portrayed in movies, like in "Mary Poppins", where the banker father wanted to go home and have the kids all ready for bed and pat them on their heads and send them up to bed) were not supposed to be able to feel emotion and love for their kids like women were. It was "weak". By providing for their families, they showed them love.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Jeana,
If you want to argue that businesses or others are really to blame for certain problems, you have a right to hold that view. But that does not justify giving feminists a free pass whenever someone points out flaws in feminist positions. If you want to argue that feminists are not to blame for things, then you need to defend their position when people point out flaws in feminist positions. You can't simply change the subject and say 'oh well, let's not talk abou that. Let's talk about the vile capitalist swine'.
In this second paragraph you can't defend the contradiction in your own position so you talk about my position instead. According to you, men already get a better deal in the workplace. But we should also be demanding even more.
As for your last paragraph, I was not trying to trick you into anything. I was simply pointing out an obvious contradiction in your arguments. Apparently it is an underhanded trick to simply expose a logical flaw or tension in your opponent's argument! Well, how dare I!
In previous threads you have said that women are paid less than men who do the same work. Yet now that you can't reconcile this to your other arguments, you are trying to confuse the issue. Nice try.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:32 am
"NO. I meant to say that men were not seen as having the role as father who wanted to spend time with his kids, play with the baby, help the kids to homework, etc. But now society decided that it is "ok" for that, but hasn't let go of the notion that your role is breadwinner and provider too."
Maybe I am hair-splitting here, but how did you deduce the wants of the father? And not just one, but millions of them? You know their wives were not earning money, which puts the responsibility of earning solely on the fathers. If they loose their jobs, the whole family suffers. So, like any responsible person, they did what they had to do - work over time, work in dangerous conditions, work without benefits and what not. If that left them little time to spend with their kids, they must be wanting to have things be that way? A little too presumptuous don't you think? Why do you not extend the same consideration to women who stayed at home to look after the children. Is it possible that they wanted to do that and NOT work? If not, why the double standard or is it - I know it all attitude that feminists tout when they talk about the "silent" history?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:37 am
Nick,
I still don't understand how companies not only employing women means that no wage discrimination exists. And I bet that sometimes, women are hired because they cost less. I also think that younger people are hired to replace older people because they cost less. And I don't think I said that all women make less than all men. But I do think there are disparities. And I think I said that women and men SHOULD get the same money (wage) for doing the exact same job. That's all.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Jeana,
every time someone pins you down on an issue where your position is unsustainable, you basically waffle on or go off on another tangent.
You accuse me of trying to trick you for simply pointing out a flaw in your argument. Ridiculous.
You still haven't addressed the question of why would any sane employer pay a man more to do work if women will do it for less pay? Especially considering that employers are apparently so greedy and don't care any more about men anyway. I've got you nailed on this point Jeena.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Pankaj,
I was talking about the pressures of society's expectations on men. Not that there weren't men who wanted to be with their families, but I think that they weren't supposed to want it as much as females. I didn't mean that they actually DIDN'T want it, but they weren't SUPPOSED to want it. And I do think that women were SUPPOSED to want to stay at home. Some did and some didn't, but the expectation was there and so that's what they did.
Is that a "know it all" attitude? It was only my opinion.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Jeana,
If employers actually hire women over men because they cost less, then one would expect employers to only hire women until pretty well every woman who wants a job has one. Only once all the women had been taken would any employer hire a man. Why doesn't this happen?
"And I don't think I said that all women make less than all men. But I do think there are disparities."
I don't think I said that you believe all women make less than all men. You are inventing arguments and attributing them to me. But this is irrelevant. The point is that if most women are being paid less than most men for the same work, it would still be irrational for those employers to hire men.
"And I think I said that women and men SHOULD get the same money (wage) for doing the exact same job. That's all."
No-one was arguing about what SHOULD happen. We were arguing about how to make sense of what DOES allegedly happen. Once again, you are avoiding the issue by changing the subject.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:50 am
"It was "weak". By providing for their families, they showed them love."
It was weak to show that they cared but yet, they worked for the explicit purpose of providing for themselves and their family... How ironic is that? Sure, their busy and hard labor had nothing to do with this. Do you think it was oppressive of society to suppress a man's emotions by the shaming him for being "weak"? I wonder if this is related to patriarchy or the shaming of the more emotional or risk averse men by the women? Eg. the southern women shaming able bodied southern men who did not fight in the civil war times. The white feather gift concept of the britishers, etc. Or the shaming of Israeli boys who evade the compulsory military service by Israeli girls?
I give you credit for acknowledging that men have had their own problems in those days. The women of that time rarely acknowledged it while claiming victimization of women. Yet you repeat the same pattern denying the men credibility, today when they voice their concerns here. If you are here for the sole purpose of defending feminism, I suggest you understand what feminism is and what it has done from not just a female perspective but from a male perspective as well.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:55 am
If women were being paid less than men for equal work, there is only two rational explanations. Either women are willing to work for less, or employers are deliberately paying women less and men more because they have it in for women.
If women are willing to work for less, then any sane employer would only hire women and avoid hiring men. If employers are deliberately paying men more, then obviously employers are more interested in social engineering than in making profits.
Either way, it is hard to reconcile either view with reality or with your view of greedy capitalists.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Nick,
You do not have me nailed!!!!!!!!!!! I am not avoiding the issue. I don't think it's a valid argument. I don't think that corporations are only trying to find the cheapest workers. In some industries they do. In female-dominated jobs like nursing and teaching, the wages are lower than what you'd find in other, similar industries. I don't have wage information, but I believe that truck drivers (males) make more typically than nurses or teachers, and nursing and teaching I would consider to be more of a skilled job (not that it's easy to drive a truck). I think you have to look at the overall pattern of pay. That being said, a company could very well hire all women if they thought they could get them for cheap. But a normal company isn't going to do that. The people interviewing and hiring workers aren't necessarily the ones who are going to give them raises down the line. People want to hire those with the best talent and abilities they can, but that doesn't mean that down the line the guy's wages don't creep up more than the woman's. I am not a wage gap expert. I only know what I see and experience. I do think that if a company thinks it can get away with paying a female less, then they will. If a guy is more assertive and demands more, then he'll more likely get it. I do not think that people intentionally discriminate. I think there's more to it than that.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:09 am
Folks, I've been thinking about the question of how the Female Environmental Footprint may in fact, in America, be so much larger than anyone has yet realized due to the ever-expanding size of the uppermost quintile (or decile) of American women's BUTTPRINT.
Now you may wonder, how does the size of a "buttprint" impact the environmental footprint of a society?
And, why is this a female issue and not a shared male/female issue?
Well, the answers to these questions are quite simple:
1. Females are on average much more obese than males in America (maybe due to all that heavy physical work males do, which females don't do?)
2. Females, when they are obese, tend to accumulate their excess body weight in their hips, while males accumulate on their abdomen.
In other words, when females are obese -- and they get credit for most of the obesity in America -- their much higher BMI (body mass index) contributes to a much wider "buttprint", whereas males get a larger "gutprint" so to speak, the latter which may make it hard for obese men to see their shoes, due to its location.
OK, but how do women as a group injure the environment through their having a larger average upper percentile buttprint?
The explanation is quite simple.
All manufacturers in America who make anything which enables a person to sit in or on it MUST, under threat of product liability litigation, comfortably accommodate a specific upper percentile -- let's say 90th%ile, but in practice likely higher -- buttprint size.
So what are we talking about here in terms of the American female buttprint impact on manufactured products in America?
We are talking about:
cars, buses, aircraft, subway cars, trains, toilets, office and factory worker seating, stadium seating -- and yes -- even doorways, passageways (and hallways), and much, much more.
Just consider the frightening social impact of the American female megabutts at the margin in terms of extra
raw materials, processed materials, workmanship, manufacturing effort, shipping costs and even real estate occupied unproductively by these super-sized fem-butts.
Sorry Gerd.
Here in America, due in no small part to the epidemic of obesity among American women -- and their resultant massive average and upper percentile "buttprints", it is all but certain that females are absolutely KILLING THE WORLD ENVIRONMENT, while American males are trying desperately to re-engineer everything in America to accommodate the ever-expanding American female ass.
Get it Gerd?
Maybe you should come to America and see the scale of our seating here -- and see whose buttprints are being accommodated by the vast social and private sector investment which has been driven by the American female mega-butt. :):):)
April 9th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Pankaj,
I agree with everything you said in your first paragraph (this must be a first).
"Yet you repeat the same pattern denying the men credibility, today when they voice their concerns here. If you are here for the sole purpose of defending feminism, I suggest you understand what feminism is and what it has done from not just a female perspective but from a male perspective as well."
I don't mean to deny men credibility when you voice your concerns here, and I don't try to be a defender of feminism. Only of females. I do think that feminism has done good things for females and I also think that some females are nut cases.
I try (hard, I really do) not to demean your movement or your concerns, but when you guys go too far, I have to say something. If a crazy Swede says that men cause global warming because women are home raising kids, then I understand you attacking her. I even understand you debating who "works" more (although that would depend upond a definition of work and I don't think that can be decided anyway). But then you guys go and blame women for global warming, even when you don't believe it exists!!! Those are the things that drive me crazy.
I really don't see "radical' feminists as the enemy. I think you give them way too much credit.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:15 am
Jeana,
You are absolutely right that many male-dominated jobs are more highly paid than female-dominated occupations. But this is not really addressing your claim that men and women are paid differently for the same work. So you've changed the argument yet again.
But the fact that male-dominated jobs are more highly paid does not prove that they are simply more valued for being more male. In reality, men are more likely to make more sacrifices in order to get more lucrative jobs because they have more financial responsibilities.
Many male-dominated jobs have higher pay because they are less attractive and so fewer people are willing to do them (supply and demand). A man who works down a dirty mine makes a lot more than a woman who is a secretary or librarian. And rightly so. He has to work in a dangerous and unpleasant environment, while the librarian gets to work in a safe airconditioned building without much that is too physically-taxing.
A couple of other points. If you look at the difference between average male and female earnings, amongst single childless men and women there is hardly any difference. In fact, young single women now make more than young single men in many parts of the US. If employers were paying men more simply for being men, how can this be accounted for?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:17 am
AnonymousPamphleteer, your timing is perfect. I'm going to pretend what you said is a joke. I'm glad that MRAs have a sense of humor.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:22 am
" But then you guys go and blame women for global warming, even when you don't believe it exists!!! Those are the things that drive me crazy."
This is a cheap distortion. We didn't both deny global warming and blame women for it. What many of us said is that the evidence for human-induced global warming is not that strong, but even if it was caused by humans men would not be more to blame than women.
Jeena, name one poster who both argued that global warming is not real and also blamed women for it. Just one.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Nick,
I don't think HR people are huddled in a tiny, smoke-filled room, conniving on how to get more females into their workplace so they can save some money. I think that women were paid less than men deliberately, but I think so much has changed now. I think there are many other factors to consider.
Certainly, people in more dangerous jobs should get paid more. But a male librarian should get paid the same as a female librarian.
I understand what you're saying and the conclusions you are drawing. But I can't answer you. I don't know what to say. Except I think there is a perception that men are more capable and more deserving of more money. But that is my feeling. I know you have to take into consideration other things, like education level, skill level, experience level, etc. and that these things may not be taken into consideration when people talk about wage gaps. But I always remember hearing that a college-educated female will probably make less in her lifetime than a high school-educated male. I wonder if that's still true.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Nick,
"This is a cheap distortion. We didn't both deny global warming and blame women for it. What many of us said is that the evidence for human-induced global warming is not that strong, but even if it was caused by humans men would not be more to blame than women."
I think Pankaj did. But I'm not sure and don't want to be sued for libel. And I think evidence is more than strong. But I will leave it at that. Except to say that I know for a fact that you guys did not say that men should not be more to blame than women; you said we WERE to blame, with our SUVs (apparently only driven by women) and designer sunglasses and out of control spending. Only when a guy interjected that it might be a little much blaming women for global warming did the subject change to whether or not it even existed. And that was what I found so funny--the argument shifted to debating its existance after it was assumed it did exist, only for the fact that women caused it. But maybe that was because of timing--who was posting when.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Good night.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Jeana: "But I always remember hearing that a college-educated female will probably make less in her lifetime than a high school-educated male. I wonder if that's still true."
It is still true, but not because women are getting paid less for the same work. For example, in the UK there are now more women than men in medical school. The problem is, within ten years of graduation about 50% of women doctors have either left the profession or work part time. The ones that stay won't put in extra hours where it's needed, need maternity leave and flexible hours, so either locums have to be hired to cover for the work that a male doctor would have done, or services have to be cut. Female doctors also do less research and training than male doctors, and are less likely to go into the more demanding or cutting edge specialisms. The practical upshot of which is, if a hospital or medical practice takes on a young male doctor, it is much more likely to get a full return on its investment (in pay, training etc) than if it takes on a female doctor. The same applies, to a greater or lesser extent, to a lot of professions. Women are paid the same money for the same job description, but they do less work and the overheads are higher.
I have an uncle who worked in the Inland Revenue (now retired). He tells the story of a time a female employee took maternity leave, and he had to advertise internally for someone to act up into her position temporarily. One of the applicants was seven or eight months pregnant herself and had already applied for her own maternity leave. There were other applicants who could do the job as well as her, but nobody who was obviously better. The personnel department told him he had to give the job to the pregnant woman for fear of a discrimination suit, and then re-run the whole process again a month or two later. He wasn't even allowed to take her ability to fulfil the whole of the temporary contract into consideration, because that would be sex discrimination, apparently.
As Warren Farrell has exhaustively shown, the reason women earn less (in gross terms) is not that they get paid less for the same work, but because they choose jobs that pay less or because they choose to do less work. As I will keep saying until people start taking notice, they are able to make those choices because they can afford to. Women may earn 75% of what men do, but they have four times as much disposable income.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Jeana,
Like I have pointed out before you seem to be confusing females and feminists. There is no reason to defend females - no one is attacking them in the first place. If these females are feminists or chivalrist - then its a different matter. Again, I do not need to specify, I exclude i-feminists when I say feminists. (i-feminists are not really feminists or maybe are more feminist depending on how you define the word).
Like many before have tried to explain to you. If you are defending feminists, you will get a lot of flak. Why? Because that is a hate ideology, and if hate is too strong for you, a blame ideology. No matter what, the existance of both feminist and chivalrist cultures today (and yes you have chivalrist ideas too) has lead to decay and demise of family as we knew it. In the future, expect generations to loose the concept of family and degenerate into animal like society. Thanks to a lot of collectivist ideas gaining ground, I believe it will end up in a non-commital non-civilized and non-caring society. And in that matter I am rooting for both outcomes. Either women and men drop the hate ideas of feminism and degrading ideas of chivalrism and form a balanced society or let civilization perish. Either way, it will eventually fix the situation in the long haul. The tomorrow's generation is going to bear the brunt of the mistakes that yesterday's generation made. We have a chance to fix it, unfortunately any ideas proposed in that direction will only make people like yourself on Red Alert for "woman attack" - when there is no need for it. In case you did not notice Davina seems to hold her own pretty respectably. In fact, if you read and understand her posts, you do not need to read mine. She is usually pretty good at putting things in words.
Or we can just pretend everything is alright, lay back while real world events plant the fear of the opposite sex in the minds of the young generation. Did you know that your son is a rapist? He may not have even hit puberty, but I can tell you now that he is very likely to be labeled a rapist on college campuses and may have to pay for funds like "Retributions for Rape", may need sexual offender status clearance. Alright, I am being extreme, but make no mistake, he will be assumed to be a rapist, molester, batterer and even a deserving victim of an angry woman, quite quickly if we let things continue the way they are. Look up the Mary Winkler and Clara Harris cases. A few decades ago a black man would be lynched on a white woman's say so - now a woman can get away with cold blooded murder with a 72 day hospitalization sentence and maybe a few years of probation. I hope this does not happen to your son, but are you willing to take that chance?
April 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Jeana,
I'm glad some of the points I made are finally getting through. I'm sure there is plenty more we can debate for another day. But for now I may sign off.
Good night
April 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am
jeana Says:
"Again with the paying for dates issue. "
Yes and your own words indicate why this matters:
"But why don't guys also look for females with earning potential? I think you should. "
The dating relationship helps to set the pattern of behavior and expectations that two people have of one another as they begin to develop a more intimate relationship. Do you want to set the expectation that the woman will be a helpless dependent and the man will be the big, strong provider or do you want to set the expectation that the relationship will be a partnership?
jeana, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you stated once before that you are a feminist. As a feminist, do you disagree with the following comment from Karen Decrow (president of NOW from 1974 to 1977)?
From:
http://mysite.verizon.net/jackkammer/decrow3q.htm
"I do a lot of college speaking… I talk about how unfair it is that usually the financial responsibility for dates is on guys… I would think men would object simply on the grounds that it’s unfair; why should they have to pay the bill? Lots of excuses are given. Men make more money, for instance. But college students don’t make very much money whether they’re male or female, and when people of the same gender go out socially, rarely do they prorate the bill to their IRS returns."
April 9th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Balancing life and work. Sleeping in the bed you made.
Jeana asks: Don't you think that's demeaning to the women who struggle to balance family & a job? I hear from so many females who have no choice but to work to contribute to their families' income and they wish they could stay home a little longer with their new babies than just 4 weeks.
Danny steals my thunder (dammit!): About as demeaning as acting as if the men that struggle to balance family and a job. For years upon years men have had to work to while sacrificing time with the family only to have women rewrite history into claiming that women have done all the work while men had all the play. And I assume that four weeks comment is about maternity leave right? Let me ask: How much time do dads get for paternity leave? I know at my company the answer is zero.
PK comments: Danny did a pretty good job, but didn't call Jeana on the fact that these women, and Jeana, think that there's something exceptional about HAVING to work outside of the home. Er, Jeana, that's EQUALITY. Welcome to women having sometimes to earn a living. Men have been doing this for a million years or so which goes a long way towards explaining why we run nearly everything outside of baby making.
Jeana responds to Danny: I was responding to PK's usual comment about how women only work for fun, with the implication that we don't **really** work. I wouldn't say that "women have done all the work while men had all the play" but I would say that women also work, even if they don't hold outside jobs. More than just reading a magazine while the pot boils.
PK responds at this point: Nobody disprespects housewives more than the feminist movement that regarded them as victims of masculine oppression and wasting their lives when they could be doing important work for money. Most women refuse to marry a man who doesn't earn a decent income. If women are challenged at "balancing work and home", it's because they tried to double dip AND LOST. Here's what's funny: These women are THE LUCKY ONES. Many women are unable to find a breadwinner winding up doing EVERYTHING by themselves. "You have to know when to hold, know when to fold, know when to walk away... and know when to run!" Feminism got too greedy and now there's nowhere to go but down.
Jeana continues: Not that there aren't some lazies out there, but it seems to me that even if they don't work, they do contribute by taking care of the house, kids, & volunteering at school.
PK responds: Indeed. Danny gave you an opening (that I'm too experienced to fall for) by implying that employers and government should start giving more goodies for (mostly) women to help them balance work and home: Free daycare, child leave, etc. Indeed, career women are discovering that if they have to pay someone else to do these things, they cost money. Wait? Isn't that what a paycheck is for? To pay for other people's services? Naw! Those are supposed to be free! Er, wait, doesn't this have something to do with me saying that women view their paychecks in a different way than men?
Jeana plays the violin: I do think it's harder for women because usually it is the female who fits her job around her work, and the guy usually fits his family around his work. Before anyone gets riled, this isn't meant to be all-inclusive, but that is what usually happens. Women are usually the ones to arrange to get the kids, to bring them to after-school things, more than men. But it's so much more acceptable for men to do these things now and so many men are so much more involved with their kids than a generation or two before.
PK responds: Boo hoo! If women don't like doing the housework then they can put their affirmative action provided money where their mouth is and SUPPORT men who are more flexible about these roles. It's not magic or "society" that caused these women to have personal problems balancing life. It's their own personal decisions.
Jeana generously throws us a carrot: And men should have paternity leave. My husband's company gives 2 weeks paid. Still not a ton, but at least it's a start. Men need to keep asking and pressuring to get the rights that they want.
PK responds: How generous. Of course, in most countries where such leave is even default the men rarely take it either because they are still held to breadwinner standards by their wife OR they don't have custody of the children anyway. With more than half of children born out of wedlock this is a boon for mostly women which is why Jeana supports it.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
jeana:
"I do think that if a company thinks it can get away with paying a female less, then they will."
A company will get away with paying ANYONE less if they can.
Have you ever actually had a job?
April 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Paying for Dates
Jeana observes: Again with the paying for dates issue.
PK responds: Jeana, it's an issue because nearly all women continue to demonstrate, within moments of meeting men for romantic relationships, that they view him as a breadwinner first and foremost. It explains why men earning more is mostly about men EARNING MORE and not discrimination. When you gals pick up the check, literally, then us men will take feminism seriously.
Yes, that's right: I said men in general. I don't think most men take feminist equality seriously. They just PATRONIZE women and say what they want to hear and foot the bill for nookie privileges. Feminism is just patriarchal western men humoring women. Nothing more.
Jeana continues: The only thing I agree with is when you say, "One of the biggest hinderances to men accomplishing this is the fact that many of us do not use the same criteria for selecting a potential spouse as women do." There is nothing wrong with looking for someone who won't be a slacker. It doesn't have to be someone who is a millionaire, but it also shouldn't be someone chronically unemployed. You CAN use the same criteria for a female. Why wouldn't you?
PK responds: Two reasons. One is that women are cheapskates. A millionaire woman is just as likely (if not moreso) to balk about picking up the check as a one who works checkout at McD's. It doesn't matter. Most women and especially wealthy women view their paycheck as hobby mad-money. Second reason is that even if this was possible, men are more pragmatic than women. I know many high income career women my age who are childless and alone because they wanted good looking AND high income earning men and just got more demanding as they got older. This is like getting more nasty towards as a stripper as you run out of money. Not a good idea.
Jeana obfuscates and throws out some Mindfreak fog for the magic trick: Everyone's situation is different, though, and you need to decide what you want and then go after it. If you have a ton of money, you probably don't care if your girlfriend doesn't have a job (just that she's young and busty, right?). Everyone else should care. If you want a house, want to live in a good area, etc., then by all means look for someone who will help you achieve those goals. This is NOT the same as only picking someone who will split the bill down the middle at every date. That is being a cheapskate. I would wonder (if a guy did that to me) if he would also expect me to pay exactly half of everything. It's too petty. Early on in my relationship with my husband, I owed him some money and he told me what it was to the penny (like $21.32). I said that I was not paying the tax or whatever because that is too weird. So I gave him a $20. Strangers need to split the bill down the middle. Lovers do not.
PK responds: Jeana's logic is incredible. If a man insists a woman pay half her way and he counts it out to the penny, he's being cheap. But women just sticking men with the whole check is not. Yeah, sure... In addition, I don't see how you sticking your husband with $1.32 proves anything other than you being a cheapskate AND a welsher. If you wanted to prove your point that "love" was important to you and not money, "precious" money as gollum would say, you should have given him MORE not less.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
You really have to wonder... if all the talent and intelligence and eloquence that is being devoted to debating the Gender Wars were focused on actually resolving our problems -- what could happen?
(As jeana stated) -- "I am not changing the subject; I am just trying to pinpoint who I see is the real culprit."
A culprit is typically a liar and a thief, right?
So, who IS the cuprit?
April 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Jeana said:
That's probably because high school-educated males have less job options available. Many high school-educated males will do very unappealing jobs, whereas the college-educated females will do more appealing jobs. In general, unappealing jobs, such as collecting garbage, working in a mine, working in the forestry industry etc., pay more than appealing jobs, such as working in an office, being a teacher, working in the marketing industry, etc.
Of course, there are always going to be exceptions. Bill Gates is a multibillionaire despite the fact that he dropped out of Harvard.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
With those two long posts you have taken the thunder back PK (and you can have it, I'm scared if electricity anyway).
PK responds: Indeed. Danny gave you an opening (that I'm too experienced to fall for) by implying that employers and government should start giving more goodies for (mostly) women to help them balance work and home:
I didn't even realize I was implying that.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Bad Danny, Bad!
Danny says: "With those two long posts you have taken the thunder back PK (and you can have it, I'm scared if electricity anyway).
PK responds: Indeed. Danny gave you an opening (that I'm too experienced to fall for) by implying that employers and government should start giving more goodies for (mostly) women to help them balance work and home:
I didn't even realize I was implying that."
PK lashes Danny to teach him a lesson and explains further: Danny, I know you didn't realize it, but you gave her an opening by complaining that men didn't get paternity leave for her to suggest expanding the welfare state's goodies with her knowing that it's mostly women that will take advantage of them. Jeana is smart enough, to her credit, to know when to propose seemingly eglitarian measures which will allow her to gain a net power grab. I've also heard feminists claim that abortion rights allow men "control over their bodies" if they want to get an abortion too. (Of course, they don't see the equality when I reply that men have denied themselves abortion rights for centuries...)
Another subject men need to avoid bringing up casually (which I'm breaking by explaining it. Don't tell anyone about Fight Club!) is the draft. Feminists will quickly claim that they support either eliminating the draft OR opening it up to women knowing that either is unlikely going to happen so they can score some cheap egalitarian points. On the other hand, ask her to pony up $1.32 and she'll suddenly get traditional and "romantic" because that's REAL money. Get it?
April 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
In a target-rich environment, even a pig can miss an acorn...
Jeana claims: "But it's so much more acceptable for men to do these things now and so many men are so much more involved with their kids than a generation or two before."
PK kicking himself responds: I failed to address this before. It's a simply staggering statement of ignorance. Jeana, half of children are raised in fatherless homes! Glenn's personal mission on this forum is about addressing men being denied access to their own children. Have you been paying any attention?
When men ARE given "involvement", it's usually to do the shitwork (sometimes literally) or look after the kids on weekends while the custodial mother goes out and spends her child-support check (and/or paycheck) at the mall. Thanks bunches.
Tell you what: I'll be willing to admit I'm mistaken. Show that men OVERALL are spending more TIME with their children compared to 2 generations ago and I'll admit all the above is wrong and exaggeration.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
You didn't have to lash so hard. But your point is sound.
When it comes to abortions I've concluded that feminsts are not about pro-life vs. pro-choice its "men shouldn't have a say so when it comes to abortion". As in as long as women make all the decisions about abortion they are fine with it. I concluded this from seeing pro-choice feminists specifically target male pro-lifers.
Actually when it comes to the draft the reaction I see from most feminists isn't to support the elimination of it or open it to women. They usually just shrug off draft discussion by going to their trusty, "Its men that kept women out of draft all these years. Its all The Patriarchy's fault!" "argument".
April 9th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Danny,
the draft is where the feminists are unable to beat the "patriarchy" and get a supreme court ruling(sarcastic). I am in a way glad that is the case, because even if women were drafted, they would not be sent head on to become a cannon fodder as men would. Thanks again to "patriarchy" and again feminists are unable to fight this legislation.
The Israelis withdrew their effort to integrate women into front line combat troops due to unusually heavy casualties among such groups. I don't see why they would not. But, if that is the logic to be followed, the Palestinians should withdraw all their male fighters as well or the Russians in ww2 or the Germans towards the end of WW2. The high casualty rate withdrawal is only afforded when first grade humans are involved. The second grade humans can and will be forced to go fight and die, no matter what under false ideas of nationalism and patriotism. While the patriotism of the first grade humans will be limited to voting and demanding rights sans responsibilities. Again this is due to patriarchy ;)
April 9th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I feel it necessary to mention that the Russian women did fight in the war against the Germans. They were very effective snipers, I am told. The Germans however handed their young boys with panzerfursts to stop the Russian armor rolling down the streets in Germany. It MUST have been due to the patriarchy!
I am hungry and its late at night as I write this - Again, this must be due to patriarchy!
April 9th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Dave offers to buy us all dinner...
Dave explains to Jeana: The dating relationship helps to set the pattern of behavior and expectations that two people have of one another as they begin to develop a more intimate relationship. Do you want to set the expectation that the woman will be a helpless dependent and the man will be the big, strong provider or do you want to set the expectation that the relationship will be a partnership?
PK (tries to) explain the workings of Jeana's mind: Dave, you made the mistake of phrasing this as an "or" question. Jeana's has said, literally, that she "wants it all" meaning that includes the appearance (and moral smugness) of proclaiming principles of egalitarianism and anti-sexism and racism while at the same time bashing white men to justify entitlements for herself. Duh!
I'm amazed that she hasn't left after we popped her bubble. Either she's REALLY stubborn and "strong" at denying that her hand is caught in the cookie jar or she can't resist our charming dialogue.
Dave continues: jeana, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you stated once before that you are a feminist. As a feminist, do you disagree with the following comment from Karen Decrow (president of NOW from 1974 to 1977)?
From:
http://mysite.verizon.net/jackkammer/decrow3q.htm
"I do a lot of college speaking… I talk about how unfair it is that usually the financial responsibility for dates is on guys… I would think men would object simply on the grounds that it’s unfair; why should they have to pay the bill? Lots of excuses are given. Men make more money, for instance. But college students don’t make very much money whether they’re male or female, and when people of the same gender go out socially, rarely do they prorate the bill to their IRS returns."
PK responds (in advance): We already know that there are men who objected on the grounds that it's unfair since when Jeana's husband asked her to split the bill, she criticized _him_ for being cheap, and then stiffed him a buck 32 to prove how she's not someone who puts money ahead of love. Get that?
Sheesh! You're thick!
April 10th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Pankaj:
"Like Dr. Farrell says, women have been smart about making choices in life. They pick quality over quantity. Interest vs Earnings. Overall they end up with more quality life. And I agree men should imitate women in life choices (if they think its possible - I know it is not, so do most men)."
Although I usually agree with Dr. Farrell, I think he needs to get out of his office more often and take a look around.
First of all, in order to support a family, a man HAS TO choose quantity over quality. For men to be able to choose quality over quantity, women will have to accept that some men want to be stay at home parents or want to work less. This is a paradigm shift that women will NEVER accept. One only has to look at the amount of relationships that fail where women make far more money than men.
There's no such things as a free lunch. The money to support a family has to come from somehere. Here is where I think Dr. Farrell needs to take an economics class.
Besides, because men are forced to choose quantity over quality, we have roads, bridges, buildings, medicine, schools, corporations, etc. We wouldn't have a civilization if it weren't for men who were willing to sacrifrice their 'quality time' in order ro build the 'quantity' of goods and services that everyone uses.
Like Camille Paglai said: if women ran the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I meant, 'Camille Paglia.'
April 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Thunderdome
Pankaj says: "Like Dr. Farrell says, women have been smart about making choices in life. They pick quality over quantity. Interest vs Earnings. Overall they end up with more quality life. And I agree men should imitate women in life choices (if they think its possible - I know it is not, so do most men)."
Metalman replies: Although I usually agree with Dr. Farrell, I think he needs to get out of his office more often and take a look around.
First of all, in order to support a family, a man HAS TO choose quantity over quality. For men to be able to choose quality over quantity, women will have to accept that some men want to be stay at home parents or want to work less. This is a paradigm shift that women will NEVER accept. One only has to look at the amount of relationships that fail where women make far more money than men.
PK adds: Apparently, Farrell hasn't attended a workplace meeting of women griping about "work-life balance issues" or congressional hearings to create welfare and domestic violence programs to protect women from bad personal choices.
Feminists knew from the beginning that for one gender to "have it all" and pick life's carcass clean then it meant that someone else would have to do without. They didn't think that far ahead though and realize that meant most women would probably get the short end of the stick too. Aside from the double-dippers who probably would have married into wealth in the past anyway, feminism hurt minority women who live in squalor as serfs on welfare to the Democrats, working class women usually HAVE TO work and still struggle to make ends meet (if they're LUCKY enough to find a decent breadwinning husband), and middle and upper class women often wind up alone and childless.
And Farrell is suggesting us men emulate that? I'd rather go on Survivor or Big Brother, thank you.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
PolishKnight:
" . . . working class women usually HAVE TO work and still struggle to make ends meet (if they're LUCKY enough to find a decent breadwinning husband), and middle and upper class women often wind up alone and childless."
This is exactly what I see in my neighborhood. Right on the money.
As far as the middle and upper class women who wind up alone - let them enjoy their cats and their shopping sprees.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Metalman says: "This is exactly what I see in my neighborhood. Right on the money.
As far as the middle and upper class women who wind up alone - let them enjoy their cats and their shopping sprees."
PK responds: I happen to like cats! Actually, I've observed that the high-income spinster usually has DOGS! Perhaps because dogs are a more socialable animal and can be walked around the neighborhood in leau of walking an infant around in a stroller... I remember a cute line from some hollywood pregnant lesbian: "Which carriage goes best with this dress?"
This is another facet to life that the feminists destroyed: In the past, SAH housewives were sociable and volunteered for all the local church events, got neighbors together, etc. and this also helped them save money by pooling babysitting and setting up neighborhood watches. Remember those days?
In many middle class, "diverse" neighborhood todays, people are more like "homeowners" looking to maximize their real estate investment more than live in a community. Women really like communities and the workplace, as you know, is not a place where people can let their hair down like with a neighbor.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Metalman,
I may have touched on it before, but I remember Jeana claiming that feminism benefitted her husband because she "contributed" and allowed them to get a bigger home, more vacations, etc.
My father was a working class Pole living in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania where is was tough to make a living. Nonetheless, he supported a wife who worked part-time for some extra Christmas money, but still we had a 4 bedroom home, 2 car garage (6 car private driveway), went on vacations (maybe not to Europe, but to Orlando, etc.), and as far as I can tell we didn't have things much differently than professionals I know in Northern Virginia. Remember: HE WAS WORKING CLASS!!!
I commonly watch shows on HGTV showing single women buying homes and accepting $2500 mortgage payments for _30_ years. My father signed off on a very light 20 year mortgage and thought he was overextending himself. With the market crashing and burning, can you imagine what the impact will be on young professional women?
Feminism has been a huge waste of time and resources.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
jeana Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 12:58 am
I think men have no choice but to work harder and harder (women too) because of the expense of living in the economy and country that we live in. And I don't think that women are working because feminists told them how great it was; I still think feminists opened the door for females who wanted to work and get out of the house. But working now is mandatory for so many families.
I would blame the assault on unions and "free trade" policies more than feminists.
Nope, It all started BECAUSE more and more women entered the work force. Women saw other women working and affording the things that the other could not. So more women went to work. This caused a supply and demand disparity. This pushed up prices because of the higher demand. this cause more women to go to work which caused more women to go to work and it spiraled upward. The end result now both people in the family have to work and even my children get jobs (paper delivery, local convenience store, babysitting etc.] to buy the things that they want that we can just not afford for them [yet it is the luxury items like more video games, and digital cameras so that they can do things online etc.].
b
April 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
This sounds like to me you are implying that more women have families then men. How does this not affect men with families? I think it is safe to assume that most men who work have families. How is this usually the woman and not the man? I do not think that statement makes any sense and wreaks of feminism doublespeak. Men throughout history are the ones that had time taken away from them en mass from their families and this is a relatively new thing for women and at nearly the same time women entered the workforce en mass they received time to spend with their newborn, men still do not have this . . .
b
April 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
(jeana) -- "I do think that business is set up for men and not for women, or to be more correct, not for people with families."
Let's be clear.
Business is set up for corporate profit. It is gender nuetral in that regard.
We like to refer to this racket as the "free market."
It is not free.
In America today 2% of the rich control 95% of the wealth.
We have a government that is owned by corporations exporting jobs with bank accounts in the offshore Cayman Islands where no oversight is possible.
Americans are being robbed of their futures.
And, it is very difficult to even talk about "class" in America.
Because we're all "equal" --- right? (The American Dream BS?)
There is presently nothing that would lead you to be optimistic about America's future.
Except to recall, we had a revolution once.
And we can make one again.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Statistics
Roy says: "In America today 2% of the rich control 95% of the wealth."
PK responds: What's the source, and backing for this statistic? We criticize feminists for making up outlandish stats (1 woman raped every minute) but stuff like this also is rather incredible.
In theory, if we were to stage a bloshevik revolution, we'd all effectively become millionaires overnight. Hell, if that's true I'm on board. But somehow, I doubt it works out that way. For starters, the total assets of real estate owned by individuals are in the several trillions of dollars. So clearly most of us are not peasants.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
PolishKnight Says:
"Glenn's personal mission on this forum is about addressing men being denied access to their own children. Have you been paying any attention? When men ARE given "involvement", it's usually to do the shitwork (sometimes literally) or look after the kids on weekends while the custodial mother goes out and spends her child-support check (and/or paycheck) at the mall. Thanks bunches. Tell you what: I'll be willing to admit I'm mistaken. Show that men OVERALL are spending more TIME with their children compared to 2 generations ago and I'll admit all the above is wrong and exaggeration."
I am aware of the "fatherhood rights" movement. Thank you for asking. However, maybe you're not aware, but some men with children are actually married to the mother of their children. What about their involvement with their kids while they're still an intact family? That was what I was talking about. I've never met a woman who didn't want her husband to spend time with the kids. It's usually exactly the opposite--they never spend enough time. If they do spend an hour on a weekend, the women are ecstatic.
I think it might help fathers' situations if they had more involvement with their kids while still married so that the mother of their kids could see that they actually want to be with the kids instead of trying to get out of child support payments.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Pk:
"Feminism has been a huge waste of time and resources."
Proof: young career women are buying houses. I don't get the connection.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
PK, you said, "...when Jeana's husband asked her to split the bill, she criticized _him_ for being cheap, and then stiffed him a buck 32 to prove how she's not someone who puts money ahead of love."
You still don't understand that in a relationship, everything does not have to be split exactly evenly. And you never will. Do you submit bills to your wife every month?
April 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Jeana: "I've never met a woman who didn't want her husband to spend time with the kids. It's usually exactly the opposite--they never spend enough time."
Women want the moon on a stick, and then they complain that the stick's not made of gold. When you choose to marry a high-earning man, you choose to marry a man who spends a lot of his life at work and is tired when he comes home. You can complain about that all you like, but it doesn't stop you enjoying the benefit of the money he earns.
I work for a housing authority - basically, a public landlord. I remember the tenant who vehemently complained that we hadn't repainted his ceiling after a leak in the roofspace. "I pay my rent, but you do nothing for me in return." I had to point out that we'd sent out a plumber (in the middle of the night) to repair the leak and a plasterer to replaster the ceiling, all at no cost to him. I looked at his record and saw that we'd carried out a number of repairs over the course of his tenancy, all at no cost to him, because that's what a landlord is required to do in exchange for receiving rent. But all that was invisible to him. All he saw was one thing we wouldn't do, because the terms of his tenancy said he was responsible for his own decoration.
Women tend to think the same way about men. My mum was complaining the other day that, over twenty years ago, my dad had bought her a car that turned out to be rubbish. At the time, she was earning a decent salary as a schoolteacher, but she didn't buy her own car.
"You still don't understand that in a relationship, everything does not have to be split exactly evenly."
Odd that it's only ever uneven in one direction, though.
April 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Patrick,
When women work long hours, they still make time for the kids and house. And not all men make high salaries. Whether high or low, there are some things that need to be done. If a high-earning man was single, would that be an excuse not to see his kids or not to clean his home? Some things have to be done regardless.
And why didn't your mother get a nicer car? I don't know if "rubbish" means it didn't run or it just wasn't good. I bet your mother contributed to the household in other ways that went beyond financial.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Jeana: "I bet your mother contributed to the household in other ways that went beyond financial."
She did. Difference is, what she did was never forgotten or taken for granted like everything my dad did was. That's the issue
April 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
PolishKnight cliff notes, Jeana edition
Jeana cites me: "Feminism has been a huge waste of time and resources."
And claims my position is: Proof: young career women are buying houses. I don't get the connection.
PK explains: Jeana, if I had simply written two sentences you'd have a point. If Shakespeare could be truly condensed into cliff notes, I'm sure he would have written it that way in the first place. (Not to say I'm comparing myself to Shakespeare whom I'm sure was a better oppressor of women than I could ever aspire to be...) (note, that's a joke not a confession or admission of guilt.)
April 10th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Walk a mile in a man's shoes, you'll stumble in his footsteps... -- (paraphrased) Depeche Mode
PK, you said, "...when Jeana's husband asked her to split the bill, she criticized _him_ for being cheap, and then stiffed him a buck 32 to prove how she's not someone who puts money ahead of love."
Jeana explains her position: You still don't understand that in a relationship, everything does not have to be split exactly evenly. And you never will. Do you submit bills to your wife every month?
PK responds: I never said that everything had to be split evenly. This is another red-herring on your part to try to attempt to distract attention away from the fact that you demand sexism in your life when it suits you and expected men to foot the bill. It also undermines your claim that your income is not mere mad money when you showed that you couldn't even foot the bill for your own dinner.
There is another third option, an inconceivable one. You could... drum roll, have offered to pick up BOTH checks and MEANT it. For men, it's not so amazing. Nearly all of us do this ALL THE TIME.
Hey, use whatever excuse you like to pretend like you care about equality rather than just trying to get as much money/power as you can get your hands on. By definition, I view such cognitive dissidence as an indication that you need to engage in such games to live with yourself. I don't. You can have the big(ger) house (which is probably smaller than the one my working class father provided his family) and vacations (once again, which my father also did on a HS diploma). I'll take being able to look in the mirror without having to BS.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
PK,
Dont you get it?.. Its more important for Jeana to watch the feelings of the waiters and waitresses. Make sure their illusion of man pays, woman plays is maintained. Besides there are restaurants which do not accept credit cards or cash from women if they have a man at the table. To get through this, she has to give him her credit card so they can together fool the restaurant behavior police.
Now, Jeana, don't get offended by that, but this is seriously how you come off to me over the "who pays and passing the credit card" issue. Its no surprise that you are vehemently argued with since you seem to come off with examples of female condescension that seem just fine to you, but really are not. How is it that a woman buys stuff when men are not around if there is such a taboo associated with men not paying?
Then you say "Do you submit bills to your wife every month?" - Do you really not see that you are again trying to shame PK for being a man? A lot of women do this every month, so what is the big deal if a man did it too? But you know that if you keep shaming PK he might withdraw into a shell of "man-hood" and man up and stop criticizing a female.. am I right? Or did you really wanted to know what he does with his bills?
April 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
metalman,
Dr. Farrell is an idealist. He thinks that all good things can be achieved with minimal or no price. Now, I don't know if that is possible, because there are examples pro and con to that. But if you really understand his message he is asking men to hold back on working too hard and try enjoying life. What will that do? It will force women to join the workforce more to meet the economic needs OR actually ask men to work more.
The unasked sacrifices made by men are not being appreciated anyway, so in a way that does make sense. What he fails to see is not all men will comply with this ideal at any given point of time. And women (like any other human) will tend to favor them more because the men that break this idealist line and work more will bring home more goodies with lesser effort to the women. Resulting in the men that actually follow Dr. Farrell's advice to be left with little options when it comes to partnering with women in relationships. So yes, from a practical point of view, Dr. Farrell's advice for men is not practical. But I agree with him that just as unasked forgiveness fosters more infractions, unasked sacrifices fosters more exploitation. And yes men need to demand respect for the things they do. Problem is most men are socialized to accept the exploitation of their labor in exchange of female companionship.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Men should be thankful for time to do dirty work after paying support...
PK writes and challenges: "Glenn's personal mission on this forum is about addressing men being denied access to their own children. Have you been paying any attention? When men ARE given "involvement", it's usually to do the shitwork (sometimes literally) or look after the kids on weekends while the custodial mother goes out and spends her child-support check (and/or paycheck) at the mall. Thanks bunches. Tell you what: I'll be willing to admit I'm mistaken. Show that men OVERALL are spending more TIME with their children compared to 2 generations ago and I'll admit all the above is wrong and exaggeration."
Jeana, ever a glutton for punishment (which is pretty neat actually, you're more man than Jamie!) responds: I am aware of the "fatherhood rights" movement. Thank you for asking. However, maybe you're not aware, but some men with children are actually married to the mother of their children. What about their involvement with their kids while they're still an intact family?
PK replies: And this disproves my point, how? MORE men were married with their children before feminism. My father spent plenty of time fishing with us and taking us out for trips and this was all before feminist enlightenment. Amazing, yes! And the house he provided was probably much bigger than the one you and your high income hubby lived in. Try to keep up now. Chop chop!
Jeana continues: That was what I was talking about. I've never met a woman who didn't want her husband to spend time with the kids.
PK retorts: So I guess all the women who deny men access to their children must live on a special island you don't have access to.
Jeana claims: It's usually exactly the opposite--they never spend enough time. If they do spend an hour on a weekend, the women are ecstatic.
PK: Er... wait a minute here. Didn't you just say, blah blah blah, that men were spending MORE time with their kids and not less due to feminism and now you're saying that it's men's fault (as usual) that they aren't? Hmmm, I must have missed something there...
Jeana writes: I think it might help fathers' situations if they had more involvement with their kids while still married so that the mother of their kids could see that they actually want to be with the kids instead of trying to get out of child support payments.
PK observes: Check out Glenn's myths page that claims that women tend to default on child-support more often when they're ordered to pay it. http://www.glennsacks.com/source_page.htm
Indeed, it's funny that you lecture men avoiding paying child-support after their children are taken away from them when most liberated women with a high income can't figure out how to pick up a dinner check. Jeana, we already know what happens when women "avoid" paying child-support: abortion and even infanticide. I guess maybe if men killed as many of their babies as women did then maybe that would change...
April 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Epiphany!
Jeana proclaims and the heralds from the heavens open up and sing: "When women work long hours, they still make time for the kids and house. And not all men make high salaries. Whether high or low, there are some things that need to be done."
PK observes: SEE THAT GUYS! JEANA HAS ADMITTED THAT NOT ALL MEN MAKE HIGH SALARIES! NOT ALL MEN, EVEN WHITE MEN, ARE RICH CEOS!!!
So does that mean that you now don't think the government should discriminate against men based upon race or gender anymore?
April 10th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Oops, I should answer Jeana's question: "Do you submit bills to your wife every month?"
PK responds: No. Actually, SHE wants to see them because she likes to track our spending habits and see where we can pinch a penny here or there.
That's (one reason) why I married her!
Anyways, people shouldn't have to "submit" bills. You should be willing to pick up your share without being asked. That's how men operate. I have women friends who tell me that it's a pain in the butt to go out to dinner in groups with other women since they're such mooches. Hmmm, it's becoming more and more clear why women didn't get equality handed to them sooner...
April 10th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Nice wiggle out PK.. you woman-dominated husband!
Just kidding.. I am envious of you to find a woman that actually wants to save money and track spending habits. But then again, you must be really a handsome man and provide well. Me = neither.
@equality, I am beginning to wonder if it was MEN who tricked women into this equality stuff.. How else would you explain making an entire gender give up their privileges - WILLINGLY? A lot of early feminists were supported by men. Ah! I sense a conspiracy...LOL! Women, fight hard, resist equality and demand the preferential treatment that you deserve.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Pankaj says: Nice wiggle out PK.. you woman-dominated husband!
Just kidding.. I am envious of you to find a woman that actually wants to save money and track spending habits. But then again, you must be really a handsome man and provide well. Me = neither.
PK corrects: I also am neither. I'm 5'6" tall and hardly a wealthy man (especially at the time I met my wife) BUT she chose me over more glamorous (can we use that term in a masculine way?) men because she saw I was loyal, sincere, reliable, and hard working.
If you want to see a film FOR WOMEN that explores these issues and is heartwarming (and also one of the most popular films in Russian history) check out Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. You can even rent it at most places.
Pankaj continues: @equality, I am beginning to wonder if it was MEN who tricked women into this equality stuff.. How else would you explain making an entire gender give up their privileges - WILLINGLY?
PK: I have tried and I think much of it has to do with the sexual revolution. Many 30 something women today gripe in style sections of magazines that men are too demanding sexually of women. Back in the 70's, it was unprecedented to get a blowjob. Now, after the Clinton era, it's more difficult to get them to cook a decent meal. Notice how Jamie's tin-foil-lined-hat friends are targeting pornography and recreational heterosexual sex. Feminists are trying to, er, close that can of worms (hmm, nice visual there)
I also think that men maybe bought into this nonsense because many women did make a pretense of living up to equality and during the 70's many women not only paid their way on dates but even picked up the whole dinner check. Men carried around purses. It was a weird time. Then in the 80's the women realized that these rights were legally and even socially secured and the honeymoon was over.
Pankaj: A lot of early feminists were supported by men. Ah! I sense a conspiracy...LOL! Women, fight hard, resist equality and demand the preferential treatment that you deserve.
PK: 20 years ago someone posted an incredible article to USENET about townie feminists and it was revealing to say the least. The non-campus feminists were basically housewives using men to support their hobby. It just turns out that their hobby was claiming that men who supported them were their oppressors. Anytime they needed something done, they bashed their eyelashes at chivalrous men.
Today, feminism is mostly run by government bureaucrats which is, IMO, the death of it. These people work on SALARY, not heart, and they will push their agenda under the bus to save their paycheck.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Roy says "In America today 2% of the rich control 95% of the wealth."
This is a ridiculous statistic. It is nowhere near close to the truth. If what you are saying is true, I wonder how you can afford a decent computer and internet connection in order to post these comments. I'm assuming that you are one of the 98% of peasants who have barely a cracker to their name. Also, who produces the computers that are used to generate this material? Those evil corporations who are selling everyone out.
As PK says, we criticise feminists for making up bogus victimhood statistics. So we can't very well do the same.
"Let's be clear.
Business is set up for corporate profit. It is gender nuetral in that regard.
We like to refer to this racket as the "free market."
"We have a government that is owned by corporations exporting jobs with bank accounts in the offshore Cayman Islands where no oversight is possible."
If it is true that the one group that has virtually all the power in society (corporations) is gender-neutral, then it is hard to explain how society should favour women so much over men.
As for businesses wanting to make profits, why should this be a dirty word? If you were running a small corner store, would you rather make a profit or a loss? It is not just business that is run for profit. To some extent most human activity is driven by profit, to the extent that people are only likely to do things if there is a net benefit over the costs. For example, if you are offered a job where the pay offered is only enough to cover your work-related expenses and nothing more, would you take it? If not, then it shows that you are only interested in profit. In other words, you are only willing to undertake an activity if there is a net gain to you. Why should businesses be any different?
The argument that businesses should not make profits, but should somehow be run as charities seems bizarre. Why should someone who risks everything they own to build a new enterprise that makes good then expect to recieve nothing in return? Why should people who save money and invest in enterprises and create jobs then expect to receive no return on their investments?
One of the reasons why feminism is such a bankrupt ideology is because it is basically gender Marxism. Because Marxists have exhausted many older divides like class, race and religion, gender is the only form of identity politics that still has currency. Hopefully when feminism is discredited we can finally rid ourselves of the rest of the Marxist intellectual garbage.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:54 am
PK,
"I also think that men maybe bought into this nonsense because many women did make a pretense of living up to equality and during the 70's many women not only paid their way on dates but even picked up the whole dinner check. Men carried around purses. It was a weird time. Then in the 80's the women realized that these rights were legally and even socially secured and the honeymoon was over."
One of the reasons why earlier feminists during the 1970s pretended to be more male-friendly and in favour of genuine equality was because people back then were not quite as conditioned to accept misandry as they are today. So feminists had to be seen to be more reasonable, and tone down the radical male-bashing agenda. Since the 1980s especially, popular culture as well as various academic fields have been flooded with propaganda blaming men for all the world's ills. So people have become a lot more psychologically conditioned to accept male-bashing as fair.
The most prominent feminists like Betty Friedan managed to convince a gullible public that they were reasonable people with moderate demands. They kept hidden the more destructive and objectionable parts of their agenda.
April 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
PK,
Stop bragging! Alright! ;) Hehehe
I will check out that movie sometime(once I learn Russian or I can get a Russian to interpret it all the way), thanks
April 13th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Nick S --
Believe whatever you wish.
Live the American Dream.
On the other hand, there are facts you can explore.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Roy,
The free market economy has delivered a better standard-of-living to a greater percentage of the population than any other system tried.
But because it is not perfect it must be destroyed.
Kind of like men really :-)
April 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
PK:
PK: Er... wait a minute here. Didn't you just say, blah blah blah, that men were spending MORE time with their kids and not less due to feminism and now you're saying that it's men's fault (as usual) that they aren't? Hmmm, I must have missed something there...
I doubt you're missing anything. One thing feminists like to do is take credit for all progression and blame the patriarchy for everything bad.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming (Part I), Part II, and Part III. [...]