Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

[Bella]

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to add! Kari brought up the point of anti-male sexism (or reverse-sexism) in modern society. While it may seem as though there are ways males have been negatively impacted by women and feminism, in fact almost all of this seeming anti-male sexism is a direct result of prejudice against women.

For instance, so-called "men's rights advocates" point out how men face harassment for wearing women's clothing or acting in a traditionally-feminine manner, while women can often get away with dressing in men's clothing or acting in a traditionally-masculine manner. At first, it seems as though men are being unjustly targeted for failing to conform to masculine gender roles. However, the truth is, society considers masculine things to be the Gold Standard for Being A Human Being - that is to say, male is the default state of humanity, while female is a deviation, an aberration, an inferior state. Women get away with "acting like a guy" because that's considered an ADMIRABLE thing to do - men who choose to "act like a girl" are ridiculed and harassed because they choose to "lower" themselves to the status of women. If feminism succeeds in equalizing the genders, there will be no more prejudice against men who choose to engage in traditionally-feminine activities or take up female gender presentations.

Or to use another example - people point out the fact that there are dozens of birth control options for women, while men only get two choices, condoms and sterilization. Again, this is NOT "female privilege". This is because the medical establishment and society have decided that women should be the ones to carry the burden of birth control in relationships - that men should be spared any inconvenience or discomfort associated with contraception. Male privilege at work again.

In short -

[NejinOniwa]

It's fairly obvious if you just look at the english language, too. MALE, fe-MALE. MAN, wo-MAN. Et cetera.

[Bella]

It's fairly obvious if you just look at the english language, too. MALE, fe-MALE. MAN, wo-MAN. Et cetera.

Oh, it's much worse than this. Etymologically-speaking, "Man" does NOT refer to the male of the species - it simply means "Human being". While "Woman" doesn't translate to female of the species - it's literal origin is "Wife of a man (human being)".

So you have men = Human Beings and women = Wives of said humans. Gross.

All being said, if I had my language 'druthers, the non-gendered pronoun of choice would simply be "man" - in the original sense of the term, as human being.

From what I can gather, "male" and "female" are more true to the subject they represent - male denoting, well, a male person, animal or thing, and female denoting a female person, animal or thing.

[Chocofreak13]

seriously, alex would have a field day in this topic. i think i'll tell him to make an account.

@bella: i still prefer the term "humanist", if only because i don't just want rights for the FEMales, but for everyone. not all men are misogynistic bastards. take a look at nej and calm down.

@leaf: you can't say something that offends so many people and expect us all to drop it just because you changed the topic. it's way too heated now. though i hope we can come back to the topic you suggested, it's an interesting one.

let me give you a little clarification. in terms of Rape, Rape is not about sex, sexual appeal, or provocative dress/behaviour. RAPE IS ABOUT POWER. your garden-variety rapist has an inferiourity complex and feels the need to rape to stroke his ego. those that don't fit this mold either view women as a "lesser" being and think they can take whenever they feel like it, or either ignores or misinterprets signals, meaning he thinks the woman is saying yes, or doesn't care. NONE of these reasons are the fault of the woman, regardless of what she is wearing. dressing how you like doesn't mean you are 'asking for it'. NO ONE asks to be brutalized. the only reason they pick women is either because they're straight, they're trying to prove they're straight (whether or not they actually are isn't the issue), or because they find women to be easy targets. (one thing an actual rapist has said is that he looked for someone with long hair, since they're easy to grab and subdue. whether this applies to males is well is speculation.)

in terms of Sexual Harassment, most Harassment actually occurs in workplaces, schools, or other environments in which the woman is clothed in a more "appropriate" manner. once again, this is NOT the woman's fault, more a product of misogyny and the idea of male superiourity. "Women don't belong in the workplace, they belong in the kitchen!" "She obviously doesn't belong here like i do, who cares if i grope her?" "Women don't know how to do anything work related. they should go back to their sewing circles and baking cookies."
also, Men can be Harassed as well. either by other Men or by Women, but they can be Harassed as well.

you might think that's your opinion, and you might not ask us to call your age into question, but the fact of the matter is that your "opinion" of it all is subject to change and given how young you are, like it or not, you don't have enough world experience to form an opinion on things like that. 13 is too young to be having sex or thinking about such heavy topics. and i certianly don't think anyone is prepared to take your words seriously on such a dark topic.

as some food for thought, try thinking about what it'd be like for you to be raped. or someone you care about to be raped. not sure if you'd have the same stance on all of it then.

[Nichi]

On the subject of anti-male sexism, I was very much a victim of that when I was younger :\

After all, what ultimately killed Sunday school for me was my 5th grade year; when the teachers in my class, who were all women, made no attempt to hide the fact they strongly preferred the girls in the class over the boys. While the girls were treated as equals to the teachers (The teachers addressed them as "Miss [last name]"), the boys were treated like scum (Especially me), plus when we played a game, the teachers rigged it so the girls would always win. Hell, when the other boys started bullying me, the teachers punished me for standing up for myself. It was terrible >_<

I still deal with it to some extent; partially people trying to force "manly" things onto me (Weight lifting being probably the most common one), along with mom ever so often telling me "you're a man; you can lift 100lbs with one hand" >_>;;

[Chocofreak13]

.......that last one is just ridiculous

your body frame alone isn't capable of that. and since you're not on steroids, you're not either. >>;

[Simonorged]

Or to use another example - people point out the fact that there are dozens of birth control options for women, while men only get two choices, condoms and sterilization. Again, this is NOT "female privilege". This is because the medical establishment and society have decided that women should be the ones to carry the burden of birth control in relationships - that men should be spared any inconvenience or discomfort associated with contraception. Male privilege at work again.

You say male privilege, I say not fair. I would love an option that doesn't break or isn't permanent.
The problem is we don't get much of a choice, IN ANYTHING. It would have been the same for women if the science was so far ahead. Not to mention, guys don't get pregnant, we don't get to carry our offspring. While women get to make all choices regarding the child up until birth, and in most cases even after. A guy who makes one mistake gets stuck with a woman who would get pregnant, just for child support and government programs, and don't say that I'm sexist because I've seen it happen, it was my own family. If a guy wants to take care of that kid, he can't. Why, because of the stereo type that a guy can't take care of a kid alone, people will look down on him, and call him a pedo behind his back, because all guys are chauvinist pigs and perverts right? And forget about a reverse situation where the woman pays child support, no it's always the guys fault. Always. No, I'd rather make my kids in a lab, less heartache to worry about. When raising the kids, forget about teaching right and wrong, BECAUSE NOTHING IS WRONG ANY MORE!
Beside's the obvious things, but seriously, how long until those get fucked over too.
The feeling I get from this world is that it's selfish, that the people don't give a flying fuck about any one else, and that this world is not for me, I'd rather not be here. Empathy and chivalry have been fucked over and I'm just honestly waiting for this world to die. For everything to die... This world is painful.

@leaf: I think we already went over that.
Sorry for calling you a kid, again

@everyone else: Lets change the topic now, it seems that you're all so frustrated that you're repeating the same thing over and over again.

Three topics that get my blood boiling:
the mistreatment of kids,
rape of any kind,
bashing of any religion.

[stewartsage]

You say male privilege, I say not fair. I would love an option that doesn't break or isn't permanent.

I'd put it more towards laziness on the part of the reproductive health segment of the medicine.  It's easier to disable or control lady parts because no one's really demanded or even seriously looked at medical male birth control before the 1970s, whereas female birth control has been a focus since the 1800s.  Part of that you could call a 'male domination' I suppose, but it's more of a supply/demand thing really.

While women get to make all choices regarding the child up until birth, and in most cases even after.

Don't know where you get that particular tidbit from.  First, it's a sweeping generalization of society.  Second, it simply isn't true from a legal or a reality standpoint for most couples.  I'd say almost every couple makes decisions related to their unborn child together, even if they aren't in a quote "healthy" relationship for the simple fact that it's kind of hard to have sole control over something like that.  Sure, it happens if you have a particularly dominating lady or an uninterested/absent male; but then reverse it where a man dominates the woman with his opinions (See: Every cult ever, many of the "fundamental" religions).  Neither is right.

A guy who makes one mistake gets stuck with a woman who would get pregnant, just for child support and government programs, and don't say that I'm sexist because I've seen it happen, it was my own family.

If you subscribe to that, don't bang random women you meet.  Get a prenup when or if you marry.  It's cynical as hell, but easy to avoid.  I'd also like to point out that this is a society today where it's difficult to get 'stuck' with a woman you get pregnant.  Child support payment rates are low, evasion is high.  Second, that's not second, that's just ignorant on both parts.  I've seen the same damn thing happen a dozen times, and it isn't because government support actually pays out that way whatever it says on payment.  It's just another sign of the failure of educational systems and society as a whole to provide for the poorest among us.  Or you're just fucking stupid.

Why, because of the stereo type that a guy can't take care of a kid alone, people will look down on him, and call him a pedo behind his back, because all guys are chauvinist pigs and perverts right?

I'd hate to live where you live, because there are plenty of single fathers around here and they tend to get the same treatment as single mothers.  Some say they're trash, irresponsible, and look down on them while others try to support their efforts to raise a child.  It's difficult bringing up a kid alone from a logistics standpoint, let alone having to face detractors in the public (seriously, fuck them) whatever your gender.  All single parents deserve the support of their family whatever the circumstances.  Having family behind you makes a big difference.

It's also worth saying that until the late 1960s, almost every court found in favor of the father in a divorce proceeding.  Part of that was a belief that women were to fragile and emotional, part was the very real inability for a divorced woman to provide for their children on their own because chances were they didn't have a job.  Or make enough money.

no it's always the guys fault. Always.

No it isn't, that's why they invented a thing called no fault divorce.  There's also the inherent societal bias towards men when it comes to things like, say, getting a girl pregnant.  Yes, people'll call for him to 'do the right thing' and marry her.... while they're calling the girl a 'slut' for 'seducing' him. 

TL;DR It sucks for everyone

When raising the kids, forget about teaching right and wrong, BECAUSE NOTHING IS WRONG ANY MORE!

This line isn't old.  It hasn't been used as an excuse or a complaint for 2000+ years rather then doing something more productive about societal issues then whinging on about how no one has morals anymore.  Crime rates are down, poverty is down, mean education and literacy level is rising to the point we have to make up or create issues to be 'problems'.

Beside's the obvious things, but seriously, how long until those get fucked over too.

Like women getting the right to vote!  Let alone the damn negros!  I mean, next thing you know good white girl's will be marrying the brutes.

Seriously, try an argument that's less easy to escalate that far.

The feeling I get from this world is that it's selfish, that the people don't give a flying fuck about any one else

It always has been, they never have.  Welcome to humanity, there's a three drink minimum.

Empathy and chivalry have been fucked over and I'm just honestly waiting for this world to die. For everything to die... This world is painful.

Grow a fucking pair

TL;DR
Nothing new, just rehashing the same arguments trotted out since the last world war ended.

[Simonorged]

Well excuse me for letting my guard down!
I didn't realize I'd be brutally scrutinized for it.
Where I come from, worst case scenarios are common place.
And it's a wonderful idea to verbally attack the depressed, thank-you for making me feel even worse, you're a real pal.

If I'm wrong then the world is better than I thought it was.
Prove me wrong, don't insult me.

[Bella]

I agree with most of Stew said, so I'm not going to reply to his whole post, but there are a couple of points I (in part) object to -

You say male privilege, I say not fair. I would love an option that doesn't break or isn't permanent.

I'd put it more towards laziness on the part of the reproductive health segment of the medicine.  It's easier to disable or control lady parts because no one's really demanded or even seriously looked at medical male birth control before the 1970s, whereas female birth control has been a focus since the 1800s.  Part of that you could call a 'male domination' I suppose, but it's more of a supply/demand thing really.

@Simon - Dude, you didn't understand me. I WAS saying that I think it's unfair that women get 100 forms of birth control and men get either 1 or 2 depending on whether or not you consider sterilization "birth control". But guess what, that ISN'T an example of Female Privilege. Did you know that there have been several trials of male hormonal BC in recent decades? And that it's never gotten very far through testing and approval, because (most) men don't want to use it? Because the (generally mild-to-moderate, comparable with female hormonal BC) side effects were simply too much for their poor masculine bodies to handle. Men would MUCH rather women foot the difficulty of having their hormonal patterns changed (which, again, can be extremely mild or even positive for some women, while others are faced with crippling side effects - it's all a matter of personal body chemistry + types of hormones and doses being used). And then you have various forms of mechanical male BC (there's currently one in trials in India that works as a sort of temporary vasectomy - not to get graphic, but it's an injectable gel that blocks the sperm from traveling where it needs to go) which may or may not pass trials in the West, because again, dudes would much rather women be fitted with painful IUDs or undergo open-abdomen surgery to be sterilized than suffer the horrors of a short, relatively painless and non-invasive surgery themselves.

@Stew: See above. I would actually reckon that it's much easier to temporarily disable a dude's reproductive system than a woman's (since for men you really just have to stop the sperm from getting where they have to go, whereas with women you have to modify their endocrine system to stop ovulation OR change the uterus so it won't allow implantation). But the current state of female BC is "just good enough" and men don't want to experience any sort of inconvenience or discomfort in using birth control (see EVERY DUDEBRO EVER WHO HAS COMPLAINED ABOUT WEARING CONDOMS, even through they are literally the only way to avoid STD's). And the medical community has gotten behind them, probably because the medical community is run by men (like almost everything else on earth).

While women get to make all choices regarding the child up until birth, and in most cases even after.

Don't know where you get that particular tidbit from.  First, it's a sweeping generalization of society.  Second, it simply isn't true from a legal or a reality standpoint for most couples.  I'd say almost every couple makes decisions related to their unborn child together, even if they aren't in a quote "healthy" relationship for the simple fact that it's kind of hard to have sole control over something like that.  Sure, it happens if you have a particularly dominating lady or an uninterested/absent male; but then reverse it where a man dominates the woman with his opinions (See: Every cult ever, many of the "fundamental" religions).  Neither is right.

@Simon AND Stew: When (cisgendered) men gain the ability to become pregnant and give birth, you WILL have the choice to decide what happens to your fetus. Until then - no uterus, no decision.

Though I'll reiterate what Stew said - most couples DO make shared decisions about pregnancy and child-rearing. Unless the father is out of the picture, then why the fuck should it matter if he gets a say in keeping a pregnancy or raising the kid? If he's too disinterested, lazy or responsibility-avoiding to stay with the mom and be a part of her life, he shouldn't expect to be able to dispense advice on what she should do with her pregnancy or child (if carried to term). -_-

[LeaflameSD]

To put it simply (Well, this it what I think):
If you don't want to get anyone pregnant, just don't engage in said activity with them in the first place.


^ This guy says this all the time, it's common sense when ya think about it.


Maybe you guys are right, I should leave this topic alone. This is turning into a war; the blood/sweat/tears (cake) kind, and I started it with the clothing thing.

[Simonorged]

Yes, I realize that, my motto is the safest sex is none at all.
That's not what what I'm getting at.
All I'm saying is that the legal system seems to favor the woman in most cases where there is a divorce or premarital infantry.
Just because the father isn't with the woman who carried his child, doesn't always mean he doesn't want the kid.

Wait... how did it get to this? Now I remember.

Back to the original topic.
While I realize that men have been the nicest people throughout history, doesn't mean we havn't changed, after all it does have a lot to do with how you're raised.

[stewartsage]

I didn't realize I'd be brutally scrutinized for it.

You posted an opinion.  On a public.  Internet forum.  Look back over those components to find where the mistake was made in not being scrutinized.  As for brutality; if you mean the arguments put forward were refuted in a semi-reasonable semi-intelligent manner with a minimum of cursing or personal attacks then yes.  I was brutal as fuck.

TL;DR:

Where I come from, worst case scenarios are common place.

I ain't getting in a 'who came from a poorer area' contest then you.

TL;DR:

And it's a wonderful idea to verbally attack the depressed, thank-you for making me feel even worse, you're a real pal.

Don't even try to get a pity party out of me.  You brought the challenge in a public forum expecting a response; don't play it off as an attack on all you hold dear.  Except for that grow a pair comment.  That was an insult. 

TL;DR


I also ain't your pal, guy.  I'm a stranger on the internet with a low tolerance for hearing the same argument I've heard from old men and women going on a decade now so it's a tad stale to my ears.  Unlike them, my good man, you are in perfect position for sarcastic internet pictures.

TL;DR:

If I'm wrong then the world is better than I thought it was.
Prove me wrong, don't insult me.

Pretty sure I outlined a world worse then you did.  Where no group is treated better then any other and everyone is an asshole to everyone else, instead of there being a favored gender or class.  Of course if that makes you feel a tad like your own issues aren't as important, or maybe even causes you to, dare I suggest (I do), momentarily reconsider sitting back just bitching about life and maybe doing something about it then I'm feeling pretty good for myself.

TL;DR:


As a second point; there is no argument to say the world is abjectly 'better' or 'worse' then a person's opinion, because it is just that.  An opinion.  There is no world measurement of things being 'better' other then what the media trots out as signs of things going downhill, and there certainly is no defined rubric to refute or prove either of our positions.  Therefore, I refuse to rise to your challenge.

TL;DR:

[LeaflameSD]

ANIMAL TESTING. NOW PLEASE... please?
Haven't we all had enough of this sexism bullcrap?

[Simonorged]

up until this topic there wasn't one directed insult.
FINE, yes. Animal testing it is.