Feminists are ruining men.

[RedRobin]

And as far as the social obligation goes... how the heck do I ever know that I'll see this person again, that I can bake him cookies or give him a gift or whatever? With those examples, you're actually proving that there IS a social obligation to letting him pay: that I see him again. By letting him pay for my dinner ("act like a lady"), I am giving up my free agency to decide if I want to interact with him again.

 

Pick your battles. Not everything that someone else does is a 'statement'.

 

You aren't giving up any 'free agency'. If he chooses to believe you have, then that is his problem.

 

Now, if you'd like to use this as some kind of test for him, then I guess this one is as good as any. I'd ask you to decide what exactly you are 'testing' though.

 

Otherwise, save that discussion for another day. OR... try getting to know the guy to see how he actually treats women. If you get into a fight with him over something as innane as who pays for dinner, you likely won't get that chance.

 

This comes from a woman who has always offered to pay her share. Never took a guy for a ride financially... and has always just been 'myself'.

[Taramere]

Oh, please. The "light of day" is not a bunch of fear mongering blather; not in my world, anyway.

 

Your "professorial" tone is funny. I have quite the mental picture of you behind your imaginary podium as you formulate your bombast.

 

Carry on!

 

http://blogs.whatsontv.co.uk/movietalk/files/2010/06/wicker_man_1.jpg

[Feelsgoodman]

Well, dasein, it's no secret that from my perspective, you have a very ill informed and prejudiced concept of feminism, its history and its role in the world. Your diatribes (which I sometimes read - I did read this one) are not going to convince anyone who is not already embracing the same ignorance and prejudices that you do. You are "preaching to the choir," which evidently is something you love to do.

And you aren't?

[Els]

I don't see "woman" and "lady" as the same.

 

"Woman" is a statement of truth. I am of the female gender. "Lady" has a lot of social and economic implications. One must act a certain way to be considered a "lady." It also has historical overtunes of class.... a lower class woman was not a "lady" due to her lack of proper birth and breeding. Words have power, and "lady" still calls to mind certain behaviors and mindsets.

 

The very idea of "lady" and "gentleman" is still seeped in sexist ideas. (I mean sexist in the strictest sense... that men should act like this, and women should act like that.)

 

I don't want to act like this. I want to act like me. I don't want to be a lady; I want to be myself. Who I am is a woman (because that is my gender), but I don't want it to define me any further than that.

 

If a guy is paying for my dinner BECAUSE I'm a woman, that's a problem. If he's paying for it because he thinks women and men act in a certain way (to be a "gentleman" he should pay, and to be a "lady" I should accept it) that's an even bigger problem, because of all the baggage that comes with the mindset of what being a "gentleman" and a "lady" means.

 

I do not understand why "woman" and "lady" must be connected. That to be seen as a woman, you need to act like a lady. Doesn't that suggest that to be seen as a woman, you have to follow some arbitrary standard of behavior: be this, act like that, don't do this? That is not an attitude I want to encourage.

 

I find the idea that I need to act a certain way to be seen as a woman by men, rather offensive. Whatever happened to "be yourself"? That assertion wipes out decades of progress towards equality; it means that dating-wise, we are still stuck in the 20's.

 

Should I daintily wave my fan, and call for my smelling salts at the faintest provocation as well?

 

Sadly, the bolded is true in society and always has been. I don't necessarily think it's a good thing, but it is something that most of us uphold, often without realizing it. Men and women are usually expected to dress differently, groom themselves differently, talk differently, and conduct themselves differently. Being the one to give in when it comes to two people wanting to pay for a date is only one of the examples.

 

Even the men here taking this entire thing out of context and agreeing with you, will admit to that, if they are honest. If a woman comes to a date dressed in a man's shirt and trousers, with short hair slicked back and wearing a man's cologne, brings flowers and sits with their legs wide open, talks like a man and affects a man's mannerisms, they are likely not to be interested. Why? Because they want to date a woman, not a man. None of the behaviour that I mentioned is innately part of biological gender distinctions. It is all a social construct, all arbitrary standards of behaviour - technically speaking, there should be nothing wrong with a woman doing what I described, but men are unlikely to find such a woman attractive.

 

So where do you draw the line? I agree that you should draw it wherever YOU feel comfortable. But just keep in mind, the consequences of doing so. What are you wanting men to see you as, when you said you want them to 'see you as a woman'? Biologically, the only difference between a man and woman is that the woman has a vagina and breasts and uterus, and no penis or testicles. Is that really the only difference you want them to acknowledge?

 

Point to note: I am NOT talking about a woman offering, or even paying. I definitely agree that a woman should offer. I am talking about a woman arguing with a man who insists on paying, rather than just graciously thanking them.

 

And as far as the social obligation goes... how the heck do I ever know that I'll see this person again, that I can bake him cookies or give him a gift or whatever? With those examples, you're actually proving that there IS a social obligation to letting him pay: that I see him again. By letting him pay for my dinner ("act like a lady"), I am giving up my free agency to decide if I want to interact with him again.

 

Oh, I was under the impression that these are men you are actually trying to be in a relationship with. Certainly if you don't want to see them again, it makes no difference whether you argue over the bill or not.

[dasein]

Exposing feminism for what it truly is is like taking a toy from a spoiled child, "NO! Mine! Mine!" Despite that the child can't articulate either the reasons behind its "No!" or any justification for the "Mine!"

 

Lots of screaming and crying is the end result, nothing meaningful in all the blubbering and wailing.

[dasein]

http://blogs.whatsontv.co.uk/movietalk/files/2010/06/wicker_man_1.jpg

 

Interesting you pick "The Wicker Man," a great story, in which an unknowing man is duped into the role of sacrificial lamb by a cult of fanatical, brainwashed zealots.

 

Fits well with my prior long post on "feminazi-nazi" comparison. Thanks.

[Feelsgoodman]

Your "professorial" tone is funny.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of your "vagina monologues" tone and third-rate hairdresser humor.

[Taramere]

Interesting you pick "The Wicker Man," a great story, in which an unknowing man is duped into the role of sacrificial lamb by a cult of fanatical, brainwashed zealots.

 

Isn't it just!

[Mme. Chaucer]

Third-rate hairdresser humor? That's very colorful! Heeee!

[William]

After some cleanup, probably not enough, I'll ask the members to address the topic and avoid calling each other names. It keeps the thread open on the subject and retains poster's privileges of posting. As a reminder, when the name calling starts, please do not discuss it and lob names/insults/attacks back, rather report it to your friendly moderator. We can help keep things on-track and civil. Thanks!

[Mme. Chaucer]

Exposing feminism for what it truly is is like taking a toy from a spoiled child, "NO! Mine! Mine!" Despite that the child can't articulate either the reasons behind its "No!" or any justification for the "Mine!"

 

Lots of screaming and crying is the end result, nothing meaningful in all the blubbering and wailing.

 

It evidently has not occurred to you that people don't engage you with "substantive" responses because your basic premise is so removed from ours (from my point of view, anyway) that it would be a frustrating and fruitless waste of time. Like trying to discuss evolution with a completely committed Creationist. I mean, people can have a very interesting discussion when they completely disagree, but when their basic premises of reality are absolutely divergent, there is no point at all.

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but why you persist in insulting people who evidently are at least as smart, well read, educated and articulate as you are by dismissing their contributions to a discussion as "screeching," "blubbering," etc. is a mystery. All it does is represent you poorly. And again, it completely loses the interest of smart and articulate people.

[udolipixie]

However, there are those women who don't like it when a man holds the door for her. "I can hold it myself". They don't let a man pay on dates "I can pay for myself" among other things.

Those women can like or dislike whatever they wish. They also don't have to be feminists to dislike those things. To me men are mainly ruining themselves.

 

Egh to me it's society's lack of focus on earning respect, giving respect, etiquette, and manners that have breed disrespectful generation that many men don't know how to be gentleman and many women don't know how to be ladies.

 

That's that man's choice to continue or discontinue the behavior.

Quite interesting that there are plenty of things men get yelled at and rejected for but seems like the chivalrous actions are the ones they stop doing.

 

Egh whoever is to blame I give them a big thank you for the death of chivalry.

 

To me chivalry is men being nice to women because he has a stick and she has a hole. I'd rather human decency where people treat others nice because they are human not because of their genitals.

 

As well as to me chivalry was men being nice for a reward and I'd rather human decency where people are nice and treat others decently because they want to not because they want to be rewarded for it.

[joystickd]

Chris Rock says it best about why men offered to do things for women. I know not all have this reason but needed to inject some humor in here

Chris Rock Offer dick - YouTube

[dasein]

It evidently has not occurred to you that people don't engage you with "substantive" responses because your basic premise is so removed from ours (from my point of view, anyway) that it would be a frustrating and fruitless waste of time. Like trying to discuss evolution with a completely committed Creationist. I mean, people can have a very interesting discussion when they completely disagree, but when their basic premises of reality are absolutely divergent, there is no point at all.

 

We aren't discussing metaphysical imponderables, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here, creationism v evolution, but rather dating, social and public policy realities in plain sight every day that affect us all. By your logic, people don't have the responsibility to support their POV in the process of discussion provided the disagreement is strenous enough. That makes no sense to me at all, and moreover, you don't hesitate to support your POV, just do it by tossing potshots. Is it truly that my premise is so far removed? or simply that you are more interested in Springer style potshot slinging than anything resembling a rational, adult discussion on this issue, shouting down via insult and dismissal?

 

why you persist in insulting people who evidently are at least as smart, well read, educated and articulate as you are by dismissing their contributions to a discussion as "screeching," "blubbering," etc. is a mystery. All it does is represent you poorly. And again, it completely loses the interest of smart and articulate people.

 

Whenever I make -any- post on feminism, the response, with a few exceptions, is potshots and insults, lots from you and certain other usual suspects, certainly not amounting to "contributions to a discussion." In light of that, how is it unreasonable to compare exposing feminism to taking a toy away from a spoiled child? If responses mostly amount to meaningless noise, "blubbering and wailing," by calling me an "idiot" or "ignorant," or whatever the insult du jour is, in lieu of any reasoned response or engagement, then it is what it is. Readers can certainly decide for themselves who is being represented poorly here.

[brokenTom]

I consider myself a feminist and have noticed I've practically "ruined" some men, so I guess it's true to some extent.

 

IMHO: A man doesn't blame shifting social norms for his inability to be himself. Same goes for women. Some folks simply appreciate old fashion gestures more then others and some find it annoying. Find someone who likes you for you. Easier said then done? Don't be so hard on yourself maybe.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Whenever I make -any- post on feminism, the response, with a few exceptions, is potshots and insults, lots from you and certain other usual suspects, certainly not amounting to "contributions to a discussion."

 

It's a predictable response when your posts about feminism are insulting and incendiary pontifications, and reliably include historical misinformation presented by you as "incontrovertible fact." Frequently, also, they're punctuated with admonitions that a person who wants to learn about feminism needs to avoid reading any literature written by either those formally educated about it, those who were instrumental in its development, or anyone at all who does not hate it.

 

Not to mention your redundant use of accusing people who disagree with you of "straw man," "ad hominem," screeching, "placard waving" and blubbering.

 

Not much room for a discussion there. You'll have your dismissers, and your handful of high - fiving followers.

 

Just like trying to have a talk about Darwin's theory of evolution with a person who does not believe that evolution exists, plotting a course for sailing around the world with a person who does not believe the Earth is spherical, or about the benefits of different medical treatments with a person who is ideologically opposed to medical intervention for sick people, and in fact believes that such intervention is "of Satan. "

[William]

This point in the discussion would be a great place to insert my 'style' of moderation regarding such contentious subjects as being discussed here...

 

When members disagree, I like to see the style of:

 

'I disagree with you on this <topic, nuance, opinion, etc> and here is my perspective and/or reasons'. Nowhere in those reasons/perspective is that the other member's opinions/perspective are <negative 'names'> but rather that they own their opinion and perspective, it's valid and here is mine. It's valid and healthy that we do not apparently agree. If we can find middle ground, great. If not, we can agree to disagree.

 

Are some opinions and perspectives extreme? Sure.

 

When in doubt, let this section of the Community Guidelines help:

Personal attacks against other participants will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We define personal attacks as posted comments which are intended to provoke, demean, or ridicule another participant. It is inevitable that members will sometimes disagree in their responses to any given problem, and LoveShack.org encourages healthy debate comprised of constructive questions and criticisms, so long as they pertain to the post and thread at hand. Personal dislike of another member has no place in any post, on any thread.

 

We expect that all participants will respond to posts in their specific context, not to the person who has posted. While opinions may be formed of various members based on what they have posted in the past, any response to any particular submission should be grounded in what has been posted in that thread. Past disagreements should not be resurrected in new threads. It is important that criticism be directed at what is stated in a post ("I don't like your idea") rather than at the individual making the statement ("I don't like you").

 

I've noted my interpretation of this guideline for moderation purposes and will confer with the other moderators as they come on-board as to what the agreed-upon interpretation shall be and will advise so members are aware of current policy is and can make choices accordingly.

 

OK, back to the discussion.

[Feelsgoodman]

Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but why you persist in insulting people who evidently are at least as smart, well read, educated and articulate as you are by dismissing their contributions to a discussion as "screeching," "blubbering," etc. is a mystery. All it does is represent you poorly. And again, it completely loses the interest of smart and articulate people.

I don't recall dasein accusing anyone of screeching or blubbering (although most pro-feminist arguments made in this thread can easily be dismissed as such). He was quite respectful...and you attempted to mock him for his "professional" tone. And now you are trying to insult him by saying that everyone who has a pro-feminist view is automatically at least as intelligent as dasein, which implies that an opponent of feminism cannot be more intelligent than its proponent by definition. As if anything could be further from the truth

 

This is the reason why feminists as so despised. You claim that feminism is a "positive" and "uplifting" ideology but your passive-aggressive stance betrays bitterness and lack of respect towards opposing viewpoints. That doesn't strike me as either positive or uplifting...Add to that a sense of humor that is about as dry as Hillary Clinton's tampon tunnel (and which you unfortunately attempt to display at every opportunity) and you can see why your posts come across as particularly grating.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Women fought for the right to be treated as equals, but now dislike it when they are treated as equals.

 

I will remember that next time my future boyfriend enjoys a home cooked meal with desert I made him and when I get on my knees to service him! I will tell him, "remember now, women fought to be treated as equals, and because of this, women don't deserve any kind of feminine dating nicities anymore. We woman deserve to be treated like your male friend with a vagina! And because of that, I won't be doing any stereotypical gender niceities for you either. Home cooked meal? Make yourself! You want me to make you feel and treat you like a man? Forget it! We are equals!" Tell me how that works out for you.

 

Being equals does not mean you take away the things that make women feel like women and men feel like men within romantic relationships.

[verhrzn]

I will remember that next time my future boyfriend enjoys a home cooked meal with desert I made him and when I get on my knees to service him! I will tell him, "remember now, women fought to be treated as equals, and because of this, women don't deserve any kind of feminine dating nicities anymore. We woman deserve to be treated like your male friend with a vagina! And because of that, I won't be doing any stereotypical gender niceities for you either. Home cooked meal? Make yourself! You want me to make you feel and treat you like a man? Forget it! We are equals!" Tell me how that works out for you.

 

Being equals does not mean you take away the things that make women feel like women and men feel like men within romantic relationships.

 

Why does it have to be an issue of gender at all? Why can't you just make him a home cooked meal because that's the kind of person you are? Why does it have to be a "woman" thing?

 

Maybe I just like paying for my dates meals; why does that make me less of a lady, or more of a dude? Why does behavior have to be regulated to gender; why can't it just be a matter of "this is what I, as an individual, like to do for my romantic partner"?

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Why does it have to be an issue of gender at all? Why can't you just make him a home cooked meal because that's the kind of person you are? Why does it have to be a "woman" thing?

 

Maybe I just like paying for my dates meals; why does that make me less of a lady, or more of a dude? Why does behavior have to be regulated to gender; why can't it just be a matter of "this is what I, as an individual, like to do for my romantic partner"?

 

Because I personally do enjoy the fact that men and women are different and that men and women CAN fit into many different roles. It is partically waht makes things exciting. I do not want to move in to a unic-society where gender is completely obliterated and everything becomes "person", completely overriding the fact that men and women are different genders for a reason.

 

And it does not make you less of a lady or dude to pay for meals or cook them. Men can be awesome masculine cooks. But I do like gender lines as long as they are respectful.

[dasein]

It's a predictable response when your posts about feminism are insulting and incendiary pontifications, and reliably include historical misinformation presented by you as "incontrovertible fact."

 

Political and sociocultural opinions are usually believed to be true, regardless of who holds them, and often rise to the level of "incendiary." I've had to listen to "incendiary" factually unfounded feminist positions and bogus statistics my whole adult life. I find them intellectually insulting, but not personally insulting. "Feminism" is not "women," as much as you and some others seem to want it to be. If you take my posts about feminism as inherently personally insulting to you, despite them containing no insult directed -at- you, on an anonymous internet forum, that's your problem, not mine.

 

Frequently, also, they're punctuated with admonitions that a person who wants to learn about feminism needs to avoid reading any literature written by either those formally educated about it, those who were instrumental in its development, or anyone at all who does not hate it.

 

Yet recently, I suggested a poster read Faludi's "Backlash," at the same time as Hoff Sommers' "Who Stole Feminism?" BOTH from self-identified feminists, one doctrinaire, the other anti gender feminist. Suggested that readers make up their own minds, in a thread you were actively participating in. Could cite many other examples proving the above quote of yours patently false. But admittedly, I do post that one should avoid women's studies professors generally like the plague in trying to form a reasoned opinion, as their perspective is so biased as to be worthless, just as one should avoid taking used car advice from used car salesmen and insurance advice from insurance salesmen. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have.

 

Not to mention your redundant use of accusing people who disagree with you of "straw man," "ad hominem," screeching, "placard waving" and blubbering.

 

Two different categories, one, ad hominem and strawman, very basic logical fallacies used for shorthand when posters so distort what others post or dismiss their opinions with insults to the degree of starting flame wars. The other, epithets and snide retorts, NOT proactively used by me until I've had enough of flamey, insulting potshot replies. Yeah, sure, if someone calls me an idiot or ignorant enough times, I will respond in kind while trying to avoid direct personal insults in the process, I'm no less human than anyone else here.

 

Just like trying to have a talk about Darwin's theory of evolution with a person who does not believe that evolution exists, plotting a course for sailing around the world with a person who does not believe the Earth is spherical, or about the benefits of different medical treatments with a person who is ideologically opposed to medical intervention for sick people, and in fact believes that such intervention is "of Satan. "

 

The truth or falsity of claims made about such issues are or were not easily observable, not so the thread topic. But the comparison by implication of anyone who disagrees with feminism being effectively a flat earth, creationist religious zealot is noted.

Edited April 3, 2012 by dasein

[Disenchantedly Yours]

P.S. Openning doors for women is completely Free.

[brokenTom]

But I do like gender lines as long as they are respectful.

I personally couldn't give too ****s about gender lines. Some studies show women are better at multitasking and men are better at focusing on one thing at a time... screw that, the difference isn't that great to really matter. The lines are blurrying all around us, women testing higher then men in things traditionally men test higher in, and vice-versa... it's all kinda meaningless. We are all practically the same, it's just culture that is playing catch up. I for one am excited more women are in higher power positions and wouldn't be surprised if they take over at some point leaving the guys whining about how they don't have the same amounts of rights or respect. It goes back and forth like this throughout history, look back to when Gods were characterized as women, and how that changed to gods being men. It's rather silly IMO

[brokenTom]

Here's a book that some might find interesting:

Amazon.com: The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image (Compass) (9780140196016): Leonard Shlain: Books