womyn are tools?

"I skipped over most of what they wrote)" - Which means that your overall conclusion of my arguments is likely to be somewhat inaccurate or incomplete.

"About men inventing weapons and initiating wars, that actually has as much to do with innovativeness as with brutality" - No it doesn't. There is no direct link between creativity/inventiveness and violence. Emotions will obviously play a part in any inventions be they weapon related or otherwise. But your argument implies (and I've heard it used by other males as an excuse) that male creativity/inventiveness naturally leads them to invent weapons. That is idiotic. Male dysfunction leads to the design of weapons to kill men. You might argue that someone who designs weapons might not himself be violent, but people who design weapons to kill other people always rationalise and create excuses to justify their work ('these weapons will save a lot of lives...', 'these bombs will finally stop men killing men...').

It is possible to be inventive and not design a single weapon. But aggression is the driving force behind so much of what we do.

Weapon creation isn't a natural part of inventiveness as your argument implies. It is a natural part of male dysfunction but even that isn't necessarily accurate. Consider the possibility that we humans have been "engineered" to be violent and dysfunctional? (I don't necessarily mean engineered by other humans). Could it be that all human violence and dysfunction is woven into the fabric of reality? Perhaps for the entertainment of some unseen entities?

I no longer make assumptions about anything. I might argue for days on end with irongoth but I am still aware that not everything is necessarily as it seems.

"But for Feathers to continue to insist on the generalization that men are more violent because of biology" - It was one example and the only one I could really think of that was supported by medical science (which itself can never be regarded as an absolute truth).

There may be any number of hidden variables at work to make men more violent (including possibilities extending beneath the surface of our reality).

"While I would agree that men are generally more violent, I have seen such viciousness by women against other women as to really wonder what motivates Feathers, who is not exactly wrong about all of her claims" - This seems to be a recurrent theme... The idea that I have implied that women are non-violent. I have no argument with irongoth when he says that women can be violent or extremely violent. My disagreements are:

A: Citing specific examples of female violence and implying that those specific examples are thus proof that all women are as violent as men or that the female collective history is equally as violent as male history.

B: We ignore the undeniable truth that women are born into a hostile world dominated by men. We cannot ignore this because any women born into such a world are potentially affected in negative ways (by suffering violence or by becoming violent and dysfunctional themselves). On this basis alone it is unfair to consistently seek to blame women for everything when we males are in fact guilty of much greater levels of violence and dysfunction. Not to mention the fact that we males aren't born into a world dominated by the other sex.

Point B clearly means that there will be extreme cases of female violence towards females as well as males since the female is forced to adapt and survive in this hostile male dominated world. Thus her actions behaviour doesnt necessarily represent her true nature. I believe the true nature of women is reflected in their love and compassion. I don't believe that an all female world (for example) would be anger free (that it would be totally peaceful). But I suspect it might be a whole lot more peaceful than the male dominated world we struggle to survive in now.

I am angry (male anger) because in spite of points A and B. There are many males who continue to seek to shift blame onto women for all their problems.

Their arguments are built purely around their own personal experiences/dysfunctions and they consistently show an inability to judge on anything but the most immediate outcome...

Example:

A male who is abused verbally and physically by his mother grows up to hate and resent women (it happens). It wouldn't be uncommon to see the kind of anti-female talk we've seen here from Irongoth for a male who has suffered such abuse. The problem is that as sad as that person's experience is - it does not mean the entire female population should be judged in the same way. There is an even greater consideration as well - The abusive women is herself a victim of the dysfunctional world in which we live. Same applies for a male abuser. A male abuser is himself a victim on more than one level. Our society is dysfunctional in many ways.

I am angry when people make judgements about women in general or collectively when women have it hard right from the start because of point B. Some males believe they don't have to make any allowences for the fact that women suffer in many ways just because they are born into a male dominated world.

Irongoth's whole attitude since his first post in this thread has been one of: 'I am angry with women, how dare they ask for equality, i am the victim, i am a victim of women, I don't have any time for feminists, I am anti-feminist'. This makes me angry in a world where women can't even walk home alone at night. Can't even accept a lift from a man without potentially being raped and murdered. That is my motivation.

Why do you think I'm a woman, LSDSeeker? Because you don't expect any males to have pro-women views?

Don't bother trying to suggest I'm anti-male. I have explained enough in this thread that I don't judge all men as bad on the basis of micro-specific events. I am logical and sane enough to understand that looking at the collective history of men verses women is very relevant to understanding and moving beyond stereotypes (including female stereotyping of men).

 

I'm sorry...I'm only on page five and can't stfu till the end....
IronGoth..I am appalled by the comment made that originally started this landslide of bullshit, but I would have been equally appalled if the comment had been directed towards a man. The person that started this thread may also have had that reaction as well, but the fact is, that wasn't the remark they had heard. Had you asked them what their opinion of that remark would have been if it had been directed towards a male it might have ended your antagonistic approach to this thread at the start, but doubtful because it would appear that you just wanna piss in someones wheaties.

You are way off mark about what you seem to think a woman wants, I don't give a crap where you picked up your bullshit little facts. I would have been happy that my children were watched by a parent, mother or father and I worked nights and weekends to that goal. I would not have been happy to relinquish control to some non-parental person raising MY children. Most women don't want housekeepers and nannies.

Most women that I KNOW would be happy if either parent was able to be the housemate while the children are small. Unfortunately men have more opportunities to get better paying jobs. Don't argue that because if you do, you are full of it. Starting salaries and opportunities in many fields are higher for men. Who are they going to hire and train on a construction site for example...hmmmm....

I'm not fond of gender bashing by either men or women and don't believe equality for male, female, ethnicity or age will be reached till we can make a remark and have it stand on its own merit instead of lumping groups together. Annoying, small minded people are found in all those catagories (see mirror) I understand that there is much male bashing and stereotyping as there is for women...all of it is repulsive!

ps. Childhood abuse can be perpetuated by mothers AND fathers.

 

TV does a great disservice in general to keep perpetuating the stereotypes of all groups.

 

I am going to be blunt with you, Feathers. I think you are loopy. You remind me of a female in this forum who responds to every argument with psychosexual theorizing: this forum, being a hippy forum, is going to attract your cranks now and then. Now, I hope I am not being judgmental, and likely I am, but I am afraid that in the real world (I know, it sucks, which is why I took a weekend off to enjoy Bonnaroo with hippies) your stuff wouldn't fly.

I will address some of your arguments, which you can ignore if you wish. To be honest, I don't know why I am even responding to you. Maybe something can come out of it; but more likely, I am simply going to wound your ego in some way.

This is an example of a breakdown in analytical ability on your part, because you don't want to look at the facts and come to a compromise. If you can't acknowledge the genius involved in the building of the atom bomb, what will you acknowledge? Your world is colored by your misandry.

Take for example your use of the word "dysfunction." Males are dysfunctional in what sense? In the sense, to you, that they have unnecessarily committed (what you perceive) evil.

Biologically, males fight all of the time, as do females, though perhaps more frequently. Males fight for many things: for mates, for food, for land, etc. Fighting in itself is therefore not "dysfunctional" in a biological sense: violence and aggression are natural parts of this world. Only recently have humans used their intelligence to control their more primitive instincts.

The true test of biological success, you see, is not whether Feathers is happy, but whether the male replicates his genes (which fighting may or may not accomplish, and which whining in an internet forum may or may not accomplish).

What is your point, Feathers?

Did you know that males and females have the same median IQ scores, but men are more likely to produce both geniuses and idiots? Did it ever occur to you that, just as men have more testosterone, thus making them more violent, they also are perhaps more likely to contribute to the arts and sciences for biological reasons? (I expect a knee-jerk response here). Hey, you introduced the biological determinist argument to the table.

Yes, Feathers, women are generally more in danger because they are in general physically weaker. So what do you propose to do about this? Ranting against men in a forum dominated by kids in their late teens and early twenties won't make women any safer.

I am not sure your views are pro-women. I was just thinking that many women who have sons and husbands they really love would feel insulted by some of your posts, or they would think you were some type of crank. I honestly don't feel most women would agree with your posts.

 

some men get screwed over, some women get screwed over, if there were a matching service to keep either from getting screwed over it'd be nice

women are screwed over more than men, there is little to do about it but fix it.....

 

I'm definetely not a feminist. Some people i know, think i should care more about womens right but i couldn't care less. For me, there are more important matters.

 

" am going to be blunt with you, Feathers. I think you are loopy. " - That shocks me LSDseeker. I of course accept your judgement without question!"

1: "I think you are loopy" - Your verdict. What value does this have? What are your credentials? It is of course your personal opinion but the problem is there is no guarantee that you are un-loopy.

2: "You remind me of a female in this forum who responds to every argument with psychosexual theorizing" - You have to despise those females who respond with psychosexual theorizing, yes? No man ever responded with "psychosexual theorizing".

3: "this forum, being a hippy forum, is going to attract your cranks now and then" - Again... The JUDGEMENT of LSDseeker but you make the judgement as if it was an absolute truth rather than your own personal view which of course carries no guarantee of sanity or validity.

4: "Now, I hope I am not being judgmental," - False statement. You know the very first words of your biased reply were judgemental.

5: "but I am afraid that in the real world (I know, it sucks, which is why I took a weekend off to enjoy Bonnaroo with hippies) your stuff wouldn't fly." - Again another assuming statement carefully worded as an absolute and universal truth. How much of the real world have you tested to determine how my "stuff" wouldn't be able to leave the ground?

You see the problem is that your judgement is clearly made as a reaction against a male who believes that anti-female stereotypes shouldn't be perpetuated. You ignore all of my points except for one particular quote which then forms the basis of your entire criticism!

"because you don't want to look at the facts and come to a compromise." - Whay facts? What compromise should I reach? About what perticular parts of the arguments? You see there are different arguments and issues contained within the overall issue of sexism. I haven't focused on one specific point so why then would your criticism assume I had?

"If you can't acknowledge the genius involved in the building of the atom bomb, what will you acknowledge? " - You arrogantly decided to jump in and disagree in the belief that you were absolutely correct in your interpretation of my statements. You fail COMPLETELY to understand the underlying message in my statement which in itself is proof enough that your criticism of me is based on your own heavily distorted view.

Let me explain:

"If you can't acknowledge the genius involved in the building of the atom bomb, what will you acknowledge? " - Some men use the excuse that weapon invention is a natural part of inventiveness. It is not. It is a natural part of dysfunction. You want me to define dysfunction?: That which allows a man to invent a machine gun in order to profit (for personal gain). The person is able to disregard the fact that many people willl be killed with his invention. In some cases such an inventor will actually convince himself that he is "saving lives". This I would call a dysfunction. It is a distorted perception (in the case of someone who believes their weapon will saves lives) and in the case of the inventor who cares only about profit/financial security then the possible application of his invention is totally disregarded. You could argue that since violence is a natural part of human design (actually it's engineered into the very fabric of the universe) then weapon invention thus can only be considered as a natural part of human inventiveness.

Unfortunately even though we exist in a largely hostile and predatory universe - that still doesn't guarantee that violence=normal human function=therefore true. Such an assumption would fail to consider why we had been born into such a consistently hostile world? Perhaps as part of some test? Or perhaps through natural evolution alone? I am aware that my words are leading away from the narrow path of observed reality - but I believe it's important to consider some of these larger questions as well in cases where we make assumptions about human nature and it's purpose.

Getting back to your incorrect understanding of my statement about weapon invention:

"If you can't acknowledge the genius involved in the building of the atom bomb, what will you acknowledge? " - My previous post was not about rejecting the genious behind inventing a bomb. It was about the excuse that some males make that creating weapons is a natural part of invention. If you had asked me whether I believed there was genious behind the invention of a bomb - the answer is clearly "yes". The mathematical genious behind the invention of an atomic bomb is no less than that of the person who developed the combustion engine. That was not the issue and yet you clearly misunderstood my overall message from YOUR misunderstanding you went on to criticise me!

"If you can't acknowledge the genius involved in the building of the atom bomb, what will you acknowledge? Your world is colored by your misandry. " - Your criticism based on your misinterpretation of me statements.

To put it in very simple terms to reduce the risk of you missing the point a second time:

My objection in that other thread was about the idea that weapon design is a natural part of inventivess. It thus implies that anyone who is inventive will thus seek to invent weapons at some point in their lives. Weapon invention stems from a dysfunction. That of a lack of moral awareness/responsibility which manifests in the inventor either outright not caring about the possible final outcome or deluding himself that it is ultimately for the good of man-kind.

The above argument has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the question of whether a bomb was designed by a genious!

"Did you know that males and females have the same median IQ scores, but men are more likely to produce both geniuses and idiots? " - Do you know where the IQ test originated and for what purpose?

"I am not sure your views are pro-women. I was just thinking that many women who have sons and husbands they really love would feel insulted by some of your posts, or they would think you were some type of crank. I honestly don't feel most women would agree with your posts" - Again it's the arrogant and assuming statement.

Dissecting the unborn soul:

"I am not sure your views are pro-women" - You are also not sure of the meaning of my statements. You clearly cannot determine the overall message in many instances.

"I was just thinking that many women who have sons and husbands they really love would feel insulted by some of your posts" - Really? You were just thinking were you? And what percentage of women who have sons and husbands were insulted? Did you random thoughts extend to fabricating percentages as well?

"or they would think you were some type of crank" - So the many women that you thought of would then thing I was a crank? What percentage of women was that again? "I was just thinking..." - You need to understand the difference between thought and physical reality but at the end of the day you know the difference between fact and showmanship. You are well aware that even the opening lines of your criticism are about showmanship and convincing everyone here that I am "loop" and someone who's words shouldn't be listened to. That suggests a need for control. It's a tactic that is often used by people when they want to silence someone or in this case - to convince the rest of the forum not to listen.

I would say that your criticism is based purely on your own distorted perception of things which as I have illustrated: cannot even grasp my meaning. You are ignoring the many points I have made throughout this thread and dismissing them all as "loopy". That alone suggests you have a need to control and silence someone and that you are arrogant as well.

You don't like my style of analysing everything? That's tough. It doesn't mean my statements can thus be regarded as "loopy".

You ignore the many points I have made and you misinterpret others and then reach a verdict of "loopy". You then use your showmanship skills to create an image of a number of women with sons feeling insulted by my comments.

Could you ask the next male in line to step forward with his critcisms please...

 

That's interesting. I wonder if you would have cared 50 years ago or 100 years ago?

It's interesting that you can have this "not caring" attitude after so much of the hard work has been done. Your view panders to the anti-feminist male. You seem to believe that being a feminist is a dirty word or a bad thing. This coincidentally is something most of the anti-female males I've spoken to over the past year believe. They will actually use the word "feminist" as an insult.

"You're a feminist..."

It's amazing the power of media conditioning to make us reject something without giving any real thought.

Again I ask the question... Would you have made the same dismissive statement about feminism before so many women stood up and fought for freedom?

Are you even aware what feminism is about? While some males will only have a text-book understanding of the word or worse - an association based on nothing but media stereotyping: Feminism is ultimately about the desire to be free from slavery and oppression. It's not about stealing from men or demanding more rights than the male. The latter interpretation stems from male insecurity and paranoia.

Freedom. The right to walk down the street without being sexually harassed.
The right not to be beaten to death by a violent husband who can then escape prosection because of their religion or customs.
The right to be able to leave the home for more than just a trip to the supermarket.

Also be aware that feminism isn't just something that is relevant to women in the west... There are women all over the world who are still enslaved, tortured and abused.

Declaring yourself "feminism" free doesn't make you smarter or more informed. It might make you a little more popular with arrogant, dysfunctional males (not all males) but it's very sad that you have no respect or acknowledgement for the work of those women who have helped to loosen your chains.

 

Oh please. Get off your high bloody horse you arrogant shit. Who the fuck died and called you the authority.

First: I don't think that feminist is a bad word you dope.

Second: The media has not influenced my view on this topic, i have my own mind.

Third: I know what feminism is about you condescending know all.

Fourth: I never thought for a second that it makes me more smarter, i don't think in terms of what makes me popular with the opposite sex like you obviously do. What's wrong diddums, problems with girls?

Lastly: By saying that i am not a feminist, that doesn't mean i have less respect for those who are fighters in any belief. You may have personal issues which are bloody obvious by your clear overreaction to comments made by a stranger but get over yourself. why don't you get over you ignorance of me and stop being so blindly judgemental

 

Thanks for sharing your personal views.

"First: I don't think that feminist is a bad word you dope."

Unfortunately your comment suggests that you were disassociating yourself from it. I'm not going to argue and tell you that you don't understand feminism (how could I since I don't know you?). But nevertheless your statement:

"I'm definetely not a feminist. Some people i know, think i should care more about womens right but i couldn't care less. For me, there are more important matters."

Actually does imply that to be a feminist is not a good thing in your eyes.

"I'm definetely not a feminist" - Is seeking to disassociate or distance you from that word.

"Some people i know, think i should care more about womens right but i couldn't care less" - Which is clearly a further diassociation and rejection.

" For me, there are more important matters." - No one is forcing you to go on marches and it's your choice how you choose to live your life. But your wording is very clearly distancing you as far as possible from that word "feminism".

So why are you angry with me, eh? I didn't force you to word your statement in a way that was negatively biased towards feminism? I'm not going to argue with you and call you an anti-feminist. I'm just reacting to your statement which was very dismissive of feminism to the extent that it becomes a dirty word. You think I'm argumentative? Focusing on trivial points like the structure of a statement or implied meaning? I posted here because of the openly anti-female comments from irongoth. I have a right to post counter-responses to such negativity on a public forum. And if you want to word your statements in such a way that you distance yourself from something then I have a right to analyse and post a counter-response there as well!

If you aren't happy about having your words analysed then keep them private and off a public forum.

With all this anti-female and anti-male argument in this thread - I would like to say that in my opinion both sides should make efforts to stop looking for ways to hate the other. It's perfectly valid and beneficial to consider and learn from the actions of men collectively through history and of women collectively. We can learn from this.

I reckon Jack Straw hit the nail on the head when he said we should stop hating and learn to coexist. The only thing that disappointed me with jack was that he only saw my anger towards anti-feminist males. He overlooked Irongoth's anger towards women which was the reason I posted here in the first place.

It seems that we each regard the other side as different - men regard women as something different and vice versa. We look for ways to shift blame and attack each other.

 

My emphasis is not on disassociating myself from feminism so stop seeing what you want to in my comments.
I meant, my concentration, if i am to choose which i am, is on other things that have more validity in my life. Feminism is not a factor in my life.
I know there are women in this world that are made to be inferior and some might think i'm selfish but i am sorting my needs and my life. I choose at the end of the day to fight for my life and happiness, my peace
of mind. Before we can acknowledge other's and their situation, we have to be at peace within ourselves. Considering this, feminism and consciously or actively supporting this is nowhere to be seen. Stop reading my comments in whatever way you want to therefore have an argument. It's easy to find what bits you want in another's words, to support your sentences however manipulated. It's interesting that bloke your age should give a shit more than most chicks on here. Having a mid-life crisis are you deary? Ah this is fun

 

"My emphasis is not on disassociating myself from feminism " - That's fine. That is your emphasis. That was NOT reflected in your statement which was clearly negative towards the idea of feminism and it was clearly disassociative. I'm not reading anything into your statement. I am reading the statement directly! There is no other way of interpreting your statement unless you choose to fabricate/guess at hidden meaning.

You seem to think I'm calling you an anti-feminist or criticising your life-choice. Nothing to do with that at all. I am reading your very negative statement about your rejection of feminism. I have explained very clearly that your statement was seeking to distance itself from feminism. If you aren't able to understand the clear meaning of your sentences then that is entirely your problem.

I get the strong impression you want me to read your personal views and life experience from a sentence that was very negative towards feminism?

"I'm definetely not a feminist. Some people i know, think i should care more about womens right but i couldn't care less. For me, there are more important matters."

"I'm definetely not a feminist"

"i couldn't care less"

And yet you sit there and call me names and get angry because you want me to look beyond the wording of your sentence and understand that - actually... I'm not like that at all... Duh?

You don't have to be a feminist to realise that:

"I'm definetely not a feminist. Some people i know, think i should care more about womens right but i couldn't care less. For me, there are more important matters."

Is seeking to disassociate from feminism and implying that feminism is a dirty word. It doesn't take a feminist to realise that. Just someone who understands grammar and implied meaning.

As well as getting angry because you cannot understand the implications of your own statement - you then make the following comment:

"It's interesting that bloke your age should give a shit more than most chicks on here. Having a mid-life crisis are you deary? Ah this is fun "

You clearly make a lot of assumptions and yet you get angry at the idea that I might make assumptions about you.

"Ah this is fun " - It's nice that you can reject feminism in a single negative statement and then spend your time ridiculing me. A perfect example of how lack of education and awareness leads to distorted values.

Again and in very simple terms that you might conceivably understand:

Your statement was negative and dismissive of feminism. It sought to distance itself as far as possible. That is not my interpretation. It is the direct meaning of the statement. That is a separate issue from whether or not you are anti-feminist. Your statement WAS anti-feminist.

 

Decifer what you like about what i said, it's semantics.

Ah you're funny, you didn't want me to take your thoughts about my comments seriously did you? I'm not angry, simply amused.

 

This seems to be a recurring theme in this thread: Feathers is being overly sensitive to women's issues to be (more) popular with women. This is beyond the scope of the debate, though, because it's not always easy to know someone's motivations.

I guess what upset me about this thread was Feathers's self-righteousness: "I am pro-women, and all who disagree with me hate women."

I think Feathers is acting very immature for a 41-year-old, and I wonder if Feathers might be some bored teenager or college student purposely making illogical and seemingly drunken posts. Because if Feathers really is a 41-year-old male and is completely sincere in what he believes (which he is entitled to) I am afraid that the petty arguments he has in this forum are the least of his problems. A person his age should be able to reason with others a little better. His reasoning is at the level of an angry little teenager. If I were Feathers and really did want to improve the situation women face, I'd probably change screennames and come out again a little more reasonable toward others, in the hopes of convincing them of my point of view, rather than further tarnishing the image of feminism as an ideology for misfits and the socially dysfunctional.

I tend to see men and women as united and extensions of each other, whereas Feathers sees men and women in an unresolved social war. To me, a woman who is happily married with kids has a family that is an extension of herself: an organic biological unit. Her loyalties should obviously go to her kids (whether male or female) rather than to an angry stranger claiming to represent her interests. Biologically this is so. This is not to say that women as a group do not have legitimate grievances. I for one am glad women have made progress in the last few decades in gaining new rights.

 

I think his main problem is that he's a 41 year old man calling himself Feathers

 

Facile.

"This seems to be a recurring theme in this thread: Feathers is being overly sensitive to women's issues to be (more) popular with women. This is beyond the scope of the debate, though, because it's not always easy to know someone's motivations." - "to be (more) popular with women" - Presumption.

"not always easy to know someone's motivations." - So why do you guess at only one possible motivation. You are making assumptions in order to persuade the forum that actually we should disregard feather's views. You acknowledge that to make such an assumption about someone's motivations is "beyond the scope of this debate" (this is an attempt to shield yourself from possible criticism for the assumption you have already stated).

"A person his age should be able to reason with others a little better. His reasoning is at the level of an angry little teenager" - An absolute judgement representing an absolute truth, yes? Which implies that we dare not question your level of reasoning or intellect.

I don't see any willingness from you to express your views on this whole issue of sexism. What I see are facile attempts by you to persuade the forum to disregard all my statements and views. In other words - you seek to suppress someone's views because you disagree with them. If you were genuinely interested in the subject matter then you would be arguing your views rather than being entirely focused on one person you happen to resent. I know that does not compute with you because I have seen this type of thing from other males. It's a standard technique they use. They invariably show an inability to discuss the issue at hand. They are only concerned with silencing someone else.

You will note that for all the disagreements between myself and irongoth... We still managed to express our views and counter-arguments. Very different from your total obsession and focus on me rather than the issue at large.

Comprendez?

You know absolutely nothing about me. Apart from the fact that I have the capacity to debate at some length on an issue I care about. Your only contribution is to seek to suppress the output of someone who you resent for speaking their mind. You arrogant idiot.

 

Supposed to be funny?

Explain why a male may not use the name "feathers"?

Your arguments are becoming more and more mature, no?

 

God it was just a joke, get over yourself

 

Once again and for the record:

"Feathers is being overly sensitive to women's issues to be (more) popular with women. " - Facile and idiotic assumption. And you then go on to explain how my arguments are "immature".

You are someone who is incapable of looking at his own inadequacies and failings.

 

And you are in a permanent shitty mood. Why don't you go on holiday