If It isn't done because of a hatred for men why is it done at all?

Im just curious, If I am banned so be it.

quote:

---

Im just curious, If I am banned so be it.

---

Well, as chagrinning as your banning might be (...heh heh) why don't you google the word, read up on the term and inform yourself a bit, instead of trolling, baiting and daring to be banned?

There's a good troll. Who's my troll? Who's my little itty-bitty trolly? Are you my troll? Yes you are!

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

And Skeezer, I thought you wanted to start some discussions about topics that might be of particular interest to men. Y'know, men's health, stuff like that. You changed your mind or something?

Or does spelling "women" with a "y" have some effect on men's health I don't know about?

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]

Because, as anyone with half a clue about feminism knows, there is certainly no uniformity of thought among feminists on this particular subject of spellings, and I thought it was going to be a discussion about that. You know, an interesting subject among feminists and feminist supporters.

Instead, I come to the thread, and discover it's started by an anti-feminist troll with a chip on his shoulder and a snarky tone and attitude. How disappointing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
Why spell women womyn? It would be like me spelling cuacasian cuacashun because I hate asian people. If It isn't done because of a hatred for men why is it done at all? Enlighten me.

---

Of course, there are those who are insecure or who think that a little creativity is all about hate.

If you want to see the real face of gender-based hatred, look here. This is not about tweaking a letter or two.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

michelle, we could certainly take advantage of skeezer's post, and make it more meaningful to us. i think i'll google womyn and see what i can find.

be back in a bit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by obscurantist:
... does spelling "women" with a "y" have some effect on men's health I don't know about?

---

quote:

---

I looked into the origin of the word "woman" -- it originally comes from the term wifmann, meaning basically "wife/female of a human being". It slowly evolved into the words wimman, wumman, and finally woman. So even if you misspell it to remove the male pronoun, it's still a crap word. It just makes you the "wife of a myn" or something. So I looked up "female". Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the word "male". It was misspelled sometime between 1000 and 1500 as "female" to make it look more like the word "male", but it was originally spelled femelle, and descended from the Latin femina, or woman.

---

also, i liked this part:

quote:

---

So, on to my word, girl. It comes directly from the word girle (earlier gurle) which for several centuries (until the 1500s or so) meant a young person of either gender. (It is tentatively assumed, if you want to know, to come from an older word, gyrele, which came from the prehistoric root gher, or small.) Eventually it was only applied to young females until their marriage. (At which time they got to be a woman, the "wife of a human being", oh boy!) "Girl" was originally non-gender specific, carries no history of "womanly occupations", and in fact implies not being an appendage to a man. (i.e., implies independence.) So, I still say I'm a GIRL. I guess this means someday I'll have to be an old girl, but maybe by then we'll think of something even better. And in the meantime I'll be whatever kind of girl I want to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:

Well, perhaps writing womyn or wimmin or femmage instead of hommage is just one way of getting people to think outside the box. Owning a sense of perspective and humour helps. A lot.

Of course, there are those who are insecure or who think that a little creativity is all about hate.

If you want to see the real face of gender-based hatred, look here. This is not about tweaking a letter or two.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

---

I have a sense of humor that’s why I started the thread (mumbles under breath-..Everyone here is sooo sensitive..) So it represents feminism, and taking the men out of womyn is liberating and funny not needless and anti-male. O.K. cool just checking thank you.

It is interesting that violent art against women is taken to court at the amateur level, when violent art against men is a marketing success story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
Interesting reading

http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/womyn.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
okay, i can't find who coined the spelling or when it originated.

but anyway, here's what i always thought: that spelling it womyn was a way for us females to reclaim the word for ourselves in our patriarchal society. there's a greater sense of being human (or should i say humyn?) rather than just being a man's wife, i.e., belonging to a man. perhaps the changed spelling gives greater recognition and respect for being an individual without having to be connected to man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
One fools opinion. Action will achieve liberation not semantics.

---

quote:

---

I have a sense of humor that’s why I started the thread (mumbles under breath-..Everyone here is sooo sensitive..)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

audra(at)rabble(dot)ca.

---

Michelle I have noticed in other threads you are the first to rally a bann for new members that don't see eye to eye with you.

As a newbie, you come along with a chip on your shoulder, and pretty much all of your posts have been bitching and whining about the fact that you don't like it that babble has a space for feminism.

Then you start this thread in the feminist forum with a snarky tone and a disingenuous question. So fine, ephemeral comes along and tries to salvage it by discussing the question seriously, about what the reasoning is behind some feminists using alternate spellings. And then in response to her post, you write back to her,

"One fools opinion. Action will achieve liberation not semantics."

I don't think it should be allowed for people to join up on babble for the sole purpose of starting thread after thread baiting feminists, posing snarky, disingenuous questions, and then call the women who answer it "fools".

As Magoo says:

quote:

---

I think this is the millionth time I've seen this same whine, or one just like it.

"All I wanted to do was be friends... and convince you that feminists stole my testicles... and you have to call me names that make me want to cry (boo-hoo-hoo!)"

"Why must you call me names just for disagreeing with you (rudely)?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
One fools opinion. Action will achieve liberation not semantics.

---

was there a reason to be snide?? i took your question seriously, i didn't assume that you started this thread to suggest that feminists are anti-male, i chose to assume, instead, that perhaps you were really curious about the origin of 'womyn'.

i honestly don't think feminists spent hours, weeks or months deliberating semantics and a different way to spell woman. there were, and still are, several other important issues to focus on. the actions of feminists have certainly achieved much liberation (but not enough), thank you very much for recognizing that. someone probably had a spontaneous idea, that probably took a fraction of a second, to change the spelling. and it's a very natural idea, if you ask me, especially after centuries of being dominated, abused and enslaved by men, women fighting for equal rights as human beings would naturally have a desire to distance themselves from 'man' as far as possible to assert their independence, and their right to independence.

now, if you're gonna be rude to people who take you seriously, and you don't have anything intelligent to offer, or even anything humorous, would you please go jump off a cliff or something?

edited to add commas. spelling, semantics, grammar, punctuation - all so very important in a feminists' world.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

I am a hatfull troll for questioning if the spelling of womyn, I'm worse than hitler, you should burn me alive.

---

the males were no longer wer, the males became man. Women, thanks to the Roman occupancy, became the wives of men. Some say the word "wo" meant SADman, well, there was plenty to mourn.

Skeeter, or skeezix or whatever you're calling yourself these days...you really are a glum wer.

No sense of humour?

quote:

---

Martin, sweetie! You're here! Pick me, pick me!

---

Nice try, Michelle. Martin, what she meant was "pick it, pick it!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Look, I'm all in favour of trees marrying dolphins...but polygamy? That's just sick!

Anyway, I heard recently that Michelle doesn't separate her recyclables. Now, I'd be the last person to suggest she's demonic, but...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
I am a hatfull troll for questioning if the spelling of womyn, I'm worse than hitler, you should burn me alive.

---

BTW, I did read the article and then investigated the company that produces those hateful David & Goliath Tshirts. What confounds me is that the article blames feminism for this particular marketing strategy and yet it appears that the artist who produced these items is a man. And what about the company's name? Two guys from the Old Testament?

See, Skeezer - if you had started this topic with an open question about this website and expressed genuine curiosity as well as sincere willingness to explore why a marketing ploy based on reverse sexism brought these fellows a lot of attention, free publicity and a slew of pricey boutiques in resort towns, the outcome would be quite different.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

He's just trying to drive a wedge between us. Don't let him come between us!

...unless he's claiming that I just throw my recycling into the regular garbage. A vile lie! Don't make me have to tell Martin about your Walmart shopping sprees, Hinterland!

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Don't make me have to tell Martin about your Walmart shopping sprees, Hinterland.

---

Why. You. Bitch!

...fasten your seat-belts boys, it's going to a bumpy ride.

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

I agree - there is an interesting discussion to be had about this, and I should've expected it would evolve as indeed it did, rather than questioning Skeezer's motives for starting it. In fact, I'm not sure how much it matters whether the motive was curiosity or trollery. Skeezer may have some good points to raise, if he can learn to be civil.

I can understand why women would want to come up with a descriptive word that doesn't sound like "man / men" with some kind of a prefix, whatever the prefix may refer to. "Woman" just smacks too much of the Biblical concept of woman as afterthought, woman as a spinoff of man. I also have difficulty with the terms "woman", "lady", and "girl" - the first sounds too rude, the second too much putting-on-a-pedestal, the third too condescending.

But for some reason the derivation "womyn" just bugs me. Hard to articulate why. Too cutesy, too po-mo, too Department of Quoting Sententious Bafflegab At Great Length (I must have spent too much time in the humanities at university). I have a similar problem with all-lower-case typing (I mean, what, are Capital Letters Representative of Patriarchal Hegemony or Something? How So, Exactly?), but I've learned to adjust to that as just a question of style.

Not that I have any better ideas, nor that they would be relevant coming from me. Just that in my gut, every time I see that alternate spelling, I think, "Oh, no, not WOMINE again!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
...I thought it might actually be a thoughtful thread about how this particular phenomenon in feminist history and thought came about, and about feminist thought on the issue of altered spellings such as this one.

Because, as anyone with half a clue about feminism knows, there is certainly no uniformity of thought among feminists on this particular subject of spellings....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

He's just trying to drive a wedge between us. Don't let him come between us!

[ 15 August 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

I probably shouldn't write what I was thinking when I read these sentences...

I don't know what to believe anymore. I guess nobody's perfect...it's just...the lies...the duplicity...the Wal-mart...

Maybe I should just stay single; it's less complicated that way!

quote:

---

It is interesting that violent art against women is taken to court at the amateur level, when violent art against men is a marketing success story.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Laurie_Couture_Anti_Male_Bias.htm

---

What a load of crapola. I agree that the t-shirts being marketed by the David and Goliath company are offensive, and I suspect so would most babblers. In fact, had you bothered to google this particular company, you would have quickly discovered that its harshest critics are those with a feminist perspective.

But seriously, if you find a distant etymological history reaching over a millennium into the past to be a meaningful basis for choice of modern vocabulary (which I don't, myself), then I suppose there's really no troublesome gender bias to be found at the origin of the word "wifman" in Old English. But I don't see that the ancient origin of a word has much to do with whether it's an ideal term in the present day. I don't think we have to risk traumatising any early medieval anglo-saxons participating in the modern feminist movement, who might consider this an imposition on their linguistic tradition.

On the topic of the word itself, well, the construction "wifman" does not mean "wife of a man", as has been suggested. That meaning would absolutely require that "wifman" be two separate words and that "man" be in either the genitive or dative case (depending on whether 'of' is taken to be possessive or causal). In apposition within a compound, as it is here, the first part of the compound merely functions in an adjectival capacity.

The apposition of nouns with "man" to form compounds describing a particular type of person (or to form a metrically necessary rhythmic construction in Old English poetry) is quite common, and the variations are many. Amongst them, brimman (sea-person), cypman (trade-person), heafodman (head-person), scirman (shire-person) and a hundred others. The initial component syllable, in the alliterative manner of Old English, merely adds to the specificity of the more general meaning lent by the latter portion of the compound. Alone, "wif" is generally translated as "woman" and not as "wife", as it implies nothing regarding the marital status of the individual but generally refers to a female past the age of puberty rather than a female as an abstract or anatomical category, though 'wif' is about as close to 'female' in the abstract as Old English gets (there is no term for 'male' in the abstract or anatomical sense either - virtually all terms for males are interchangeable with 'warrior'). The "man" component in "wifman" or anywhere else is essentially gender neutral in its meaning. Its grammatical gender is beside the point, as grammatical gender has no semantic consequence in Old English ('wifman' is itself masculine in grammatical gender while 'wif' is neuter in grammatical gender). Combine "wif", meaning "adult female" with "man" meaning "human", and you get "adult female human".

But as I say, I don't know why any of that should have bearing on whether someone feels one spelling or another of woman is desirable in the present day.

It seems that a wild fantasy regarding vicious, fire-breathing feminists who are even now brutally imposing a proscriptive system of ideologically-charged language has been built up around the mere existence of the word "womyn" by right wing purveyors in disinformation regarding the left. As is the case with the bra burning myth, there's far more of interest to be found in the story regarding the legend itself and its dissemination than there is of interest to be found in the content of the legend.

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[QB]
"One fools opinion. Action will achieve liberation not semantics."

I don't think it should be allowed for people to join up on babble for the sole purpose of starting thread after thread baiting feminists, posing snarky, disingenuous questions, and then call the women who answer it "fools".

---

I'm not jumping into this beyond saying that people can call themselves whatever the hell they want and spell it anyway they choose to. Why the hell would I care. Oh, I also want to thank the poster that provided the information on the root of the word girl--that was interesting.

That said, I don't think he called "the women who answered" the question fools. He called himself a fool. as in "it's just this fools opinion but..." That's how I read it anyway.

quote:

---

I don't know what to believe anymore. I guess nobody's perfect...it's just...the lies...the duplicity...the Wal-mart...

Maybe I should just stay single; it's less complicated that way!

---

Oh, God...the angst. He's all yours, Michelle.

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

Note that a word like "nigger" transforms into a powerful political tool when left intact, and used the opposite way it was intended. That is a more daring use of language.

I think that's why the word "womyn" never had the political impact perhaps originally expected of it, and why now, many years after its invention, continued use as a political tool despite its obvious weakness seems quaint, and even silly. Its best value these days seem limited to serving as a way for lesbians to identify themselves to one another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

One fools opinion. Action will achieve liberation not semantics.

---

I ment I am the fool in my opinion......

The five of you that spam for you social kicks think you are a laff riot if you notice the other 90% of the board is taking it seriously or at least considering it. Im sorry I'm not more entertianing not evryone uses boards as their sole means of fun.

It's kinda empty for spam artists to call "rule breaker" on me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

I ment I am the fool in my opinion......

---

I once wrote a piece for Canadian Dimension and they misspelled my [real] name. A vowel was replaced with the letter "y". I couldn't figure out if it was a simple error or a way to indicate "feminist friendly" or something. Now I remember...my signature was such a scribble that ....

OK, coffee is needed. The reason I'm up so early is that I'm clearing out my messages so I can send reminders to the babble chess players. An administrators' work is never done...

But I'm glad to be up. Dawn has just spread her finger tips of rose ....[Homer]

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
I ment I am the fool in my opinion......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
Everyone told me I would be free to post in the feminism forum.

I am not trying to be anti feminism just questioning
things that i think may be anti-male. Like taking the men out of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
...just questioning things that i think may be anti-male...

---

Skeezer, I don't know how old you are, but the first year undergraduate students that I was teaching this year (17-20 years old) experienced a similar struggle in understanding feminism. They wholeheartedly believed that for an ideology to be pro-women, it must, by definition, be anti-men. It's not that simple - progress that depends on diminishing others is not progress at all, and diminishing others isn't a part of any feminism that I know.

quote:

---

Skeezer: I honestly have to ask - why does removing the "man" from "woman" strike you as anti-male?

---

This is the kicker for me to. I tune out when people start assuming that my motivations as a feminist are anti-male. My motivations have nothing to do with men, they have to do with women.

Skeezer: Your allowed to post here but you need to follow what the forum is about and that is clearly posted:

quote:

---

Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view.

---

Pro-feminist point of view does not equate to anti-male. Not everything is about men. And other feminists can spell women however they feel like it, I understand and accept their reasons and don’t feel the need to force my choices/preferences on to them.

quote:

---

They wholeheartedly believed that for an ideology to be pro-women, it must, by definition, be anti-men. It's not that simple - progress that depends on diminishing others is not progress at all, and diminishing others isn't a part of any feminism that I know.

---

But besides that, her Encyclopedia and Dictionary are a mish-mash of cultural hodge-podge! She acts as if gods and goddesses from varying cultures are generally interchangeable, offering nothing for the cultural differences which give birth to their own representations of deity. She has butchered myths, made up "alternate versions" which have no founding anywhere except her own imagination, ignored important details of myths which don't mesh with her agenda, and basically perverted the symbols she pretends to represent.

Bad scholarship is bad enough... but her fabrications and invented history and myths are just a disgrace to the pagan community, and, in my opinion, an insult to women and to the goddess and gods which exist without the clap-trap found in this book. It does not present women as strong and/or empowered to rely on revisiont psuedo-history, no matter how good it may sound.

There are many strong female figures out there... many strong goddesses of all ilks. This book does not do them justice.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

27 of 36 people found the following review helpful:

More fantasy than fact, October 23, 2003
Reviewer: D. Norder (Madison, WI United States) - See all my reviews

There are a lot of people who want to believe this book is an accurate source of information about mythology and history. Wishing does not make it so. Some of the reviewers claim that the only reason people say bad things about it is that they are trying to defend Christianity and are closed-minded because of their faith. I am an atheist and mythology scholar who has no faith to defend, and I still think this book is pure nonsense. It appears to me that Walker's supporters are the ones doing it out of faith and dogma and refusing to face facts.

As others have pointed out, all you need to do is follow her footnotes. It may look impressive when she makes three statements in a paragraph and cites three references to back her up, but it's a lot less impressive when you actually have those books and they don't say at all what she claims they do. I've done it (I have a large library of mythology books), but so can you. Go to a library and pick a few to look up. You'll probably be shocked at the differences in what she claims those sources say and what they really do. The only ones that I have found so far that seem to be at all similar are a handful of others also in the neo-pagan movement (Graves, Stone and Gimbutas being the main three).

Here is just the highlights of a few of many errors in just one entry:
"Mara
Exceedingly ancient name of the Goddess-as-Crone"

The first sentence isn't even done yet and already it's got the crone theory that she tries to push on everything (none of the figures of Mara have anything to do with crones) and capitalizes the term for religious purposes. And, to top it off, all but the relatively recent (last 500 years or so) references to characters named Mara say that Mara is a male figure, not female. So this exceedingly ancient name isn't a crone and isn't even a goddess.

Then we have: "The gypsies, with their traditions rooted in Hinduism, knew Mara to be the death goddess who trapped the soul of the Enchanted Huntsman in a mirror and caused his death--" I bought the book she references, guess what... Mara in this relatively recent fairy tale is a gypsy girl, not a goddess. The one doing the magic is the Devil (called as such, the typical Christian male one). Mara loved the huntsman and didn't want him to die. Walker's summary of it doesn't accurately describe the tale at all. Her description of it ends: "a myth that paralleled ancient Pelasgian stories of the death of Dionysus" (in another reference in the book she outright calls Mara's huntsman "Dionysus" and doesn't claim it's a parallel but the exact figure even though it's more than a thousands years later and the wrong country -- the book isn't even internally self-consistent). If you look up the Dionysus myth that she conflates the gypsy folklore with, you'll find that they aren't related at all, except by the loosest of wishful thinking interpretations.

And then later in this entry she references supposed related goddesses like Mari, etc. that *no other source anywhere* (excepting those who borrowed from this book) has any records or even hints at. A lot of the entries are like this, in that they talk about feminine names that were never thought of as goddesses by any source out there, but she assumes they must have been because of her bias and a lot of twisting and misunderstanding of linguistics.

And that's just one entry. Researching the other things she writes about turns up just as many errors and outright distortions. She'll mention a specific moon goddess, reference an obscure 100-year old book in her footnote to support it, but looking it up shows that the original author was talking about a moon god, not a goddess. She'll talk about a trinity of Egyptian goddesses but actual research shows that they weren't thought of as such. It's so bad that I have not yet found a single entry in the entire book that doesn't have at least one major error, and it's usually several per paragraph.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
Everyone told me I would be free to post in the feminism forum.

I am not trying to be anti feminism just questioning
things that i think may be anti-male. Like taking the men out of women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As long as everyone is reclaiming the language and all, would the womyn like to reclaim "womenstruation" too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As long as everyone is reclaiming the language and all, would the womyn like to reclaim "womenstruation" too?

---

They altered with permanent markers a large white Tshirt that had the word WOMAN in large letters. This is what their final deconstruction looked like:

WOMANPERSONDAUGHTER

Yes. WOPERDAUGHTER!!!

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

[ 16 August 2005: Message edited by: Diaspor Lys ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As long as everyone is reclaiming the language and all, would the womyn like to reclaim "womenstruation" too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

Skeezer: I honestly have to ask - why does removing the "man" from "woman" strike you as anti-male? I fail to make the connection. I'm not saying it couldn't be interpreted that way; however, my own interpretation is that the history of woman is in a role subordinate to men, and that some wom(e/y)n are trying to assert their own identity and individuality through new and creative ways. As a male, I don't feel threatened or hated because of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andrean:

Skeezer, I don't know how old you are, but the first year undergraduate students that I was teaching this year (17-20 years old) experienced a similar struggle in understanding feminism. They wholeheartedly believed that for an ideology to be pro-women, it must, by definition, be anti-men. It's not that simple - progress that depends on diminishing others is not progress at all, and diminishing others isn't a part of any feminism that I know.

As for the original question of women/womyn, while I don't go for such cutesy mispleddings myself, I think it's funny which words/spellings bother people and which don't. Remember "freedom fries" from a couple of years ago? Folks were all over that but try to hoist "developmental disability" on them instead of "retarded" and suddenly it's political correctness run amuck! "Family" is fine when it means the two-parent, heterosexual kind but try to fit some queers and their adopted, different race kids in there and it's 1984 in the 21st century.

---

Young men are right to question feminisim because they grew up being equal to women but in school they still teach that women are oppressed.
While ignoring any double standards men face. Both masculism and feminism are needed it's just masculism or male issues are not taught. If you look at the kids in your class just know that for every girl that commits suicide 8 boys will.
I'm not interested in banning feminism with the changing dynamics of equlity we woud do best to commit more study to the status of men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartmyn:
I finally have the answer as to why some people buy Hummers.

---

quote:

---

Well, some myn who buy them are compensating for phallic deficiency, but do tell what this thread says about the question...

---

You talked about "the struggles men have." OK, on some emotional issues, we are still fighting against the notion that we, as men, always have to be tough and stoic,always have to present "strength", can never show vulnerability.
Rather than attack feminism, why not use the opportunity provided by feminism's reexamination of gender roles(sorry if this is beginning to sound like it could have been written in 1974)to struggle for a more open definition of what it is to be a man?

That, my friend, would be a far better use of your time than debating feminist spelling habits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Skeezer, there was one point in your post that may lead you in a more positive direction than you think you now have.

You talked about "the struggles men have." OK, on some emotional issues, we are still fighting against the notion that we, as men, always have to be tough and stoic,always have to present "strength", can never show vulnerability.
Rather than attack feminism, why not use the opportunity provided by feminism's reexamination of gender roles(sorry if this is beginning to sound like it could have been written in 1974)to struggle for a more open definition of what it is to be a man?

That, my friend, would be a far better use of your time than debating feminist spelling habits.

The question of what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman does NOT have to be a zero-sum gain.

---

To question somthing is not to attack it.

Unless your a young man questioning feminism then obviously your a hatfull insucure troll with a small dick that drives a hummer?

You are right, I will try posting some more threads and I wont ever ever mention feminism because to mention feminism means you hate feminisim and to question it means you have a small penis or somthing, I just didn't know before
I posted here. Thanks every one Im sorry to have been so hatefull. I see now that you spelled it out for me useing such good examples, I am worse than hitler and I have a small penis. And here I thought I had a valid point!

quote:

---

uk yuk. Hey, I've got a brand new one from 1985: Why not change "manhole covers" to "personhole covers"! Guffaw. I kill me!

---

Hehe, my favourite has always been one I heard on Duckman (which as I'm sure anybody who's ever watched the show would know, it's a paragon on progressive feminist thought )

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
I'm fond of Pat Paulson's line "There are only two ways we can move on this question. One is neither forward nor back; the other one isn't".

---

Here is a speech from his campaign for the presidency.

Are Present Programs For The Aged Adequate?
December 10, 1967

Today, in America, according to a recent statistic the average couple living on Social Security receives about 1,500 dollars a year. We think this is a disgrace. Why should they get that much?. They don't work - they just sit around doing nothing. If they were thirty years younger, they'd be called bums...

Personally, we think it's high time we stopped kow-towing to that Old Fogey's Lobby. All they do is complain...complain...complain. But I have yet to hear of anyone burying his Social Security card...The more they get the more they want. Nobody bothers to tell you that right now the oldsters get more than just the fifteen hundred dolars a year. They are also entitled to a hundred extra for every child under five... and, you'd be surprised how few are taking advantage of this...

Now let me make this crystal clear. We have nothing against old folks. As the social workers say, plans that is currently helpful in doubt will for the new originating out of a functioning action necessarily generate a domestic discernible pattern of purpose...and keeps the flies off them...Take Gramma Paulsen...90 years old...and no Social Security...but that's fine with us. She's our responsibility and we take care of her. We don't send her away somewhere. We keep her in our backyard...built her a little lean-to out there...and, everything's fine...She's happy and great company for Rover.

In conclusion, we say it's time to re-examine this whole Social Security proram. It all started back in 1932. They said it would take care of the whole old people problem. We've been paying into it all this time...35 years, and what has it done? There are more old people now than when we started. So if we can't be constructive let's forget it...

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

n most languages womyn and men, as two sexes, have two very separate words for each. English is one of the only languages, which has the term for womyn as a derivative of the term "man". The "wo" in women comes from the Greek or Latin meaning "lesser". "Women – woman" is by traditional definition the "wife of man", "woe of man", or "female-man". Many womyn have been empowered by merely altering the spelling of an existing word to reflect womyn’s autonomy. By changing from "women" to "WOMYN," we have created a distinct word for our own sex. The word is still read the same, yet has the power to be much more inclusive and empowering for all womyn.

---

This is the reasoning I have always been given for the different spelling. Is this correct? If so,I agree wholeheartedly.

What is the etymology of woman? Is it related to womb?

Woman is literally a "female person", and no, we're not being flippant. In Old English (prior to 766) a woman was a wifman, that is, a wif "woman" + man "person". Wif is also the source of modern English wife. Wifman, by 1000, had become wimman, by ellision of the f, and before 1200 the word was wumman. By 1250 the word had taken on its present form, woman. Woman is not related to womb. That word developed from Old English wamb "belly, uterus".

The word was frequently pronounced and spelled oman. As late as the 19th century, ooman was considered the upper-class pronunciation but nowadays is only found in dialect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

To question somthing is not to attack it.

Unless your a young man questioning feminism then obviously your a hatfull insucure troll with a small dick that drives a hummer?

You are right, I will try posting some more threads and I wont ever ever mention feminism because to mention feminism means you hate feminisim and to question it means you have a small penis or somthing, I just didn't know before
I posted here. Thanks every one Im sorry to have been so hatefull. I see now that you spelled it out for me useing such good examples, I am worse than hitler and I have a small penis. And here I thought I had a valid point!

But seriously, Good idea, I will try some new threads.

---

I wasn't saying not to question anything. Nor was I making any stereotypical assumptions about the sort of person you were.

Nobody's trying to censor you, Geezer

I was merely suggesting that this particular question, on a minor point of spelling, is not really worth the importance you have placed on it. Do you really find the idea that some people spell "women" as "womyn" that threatening? How in any possible way can it harm you?

This isn't even anywhere near the first tier of feminist issues(it's far less important to the feminists that I know than, say, domestic violence, pay equity, day care access, or many other issues.)

I suppose what I and the others were and are reacting to here(possibly)is what seems to be the excessive importance you place on this question, and your refusal to let it go when you were provided with several valid explanations of the spelling.

Now suppose for a moment that the feminists are successful and 'womyn' becomes accepted as the conventional spelling; Dictionaries are now being published using the new spelling (womyn) instead of the old (women), the new spelling is now routinely used by the Toronto Star, English teachers are teaching that 'womyn' is the correct way to spell the name of the female sex.

This would represent an accomplishment for the Feminist Movement. It would demonstrate the movement's ability to alter established conventions and traditions. It would also provide a natural form of publicity for the movement. People would tend to notice the unfamiliar spelling and would be reminded of feminism each time they did so.

The result would be a stronger and more successful feminist movement.

The success of the Feminist Movement in gaining common acceptance of 'womyn' as the correct spelling would represent a defeat to the anti-feminist. He, therefore, resists its acceptance.

As one who uses the "alternative spelling" in my handle, let me explain why I do. I speak my own piece here as Elizabeth Gurley Flynn said. First, I should say that I do not use "womyn" all the time. I use it at times and places where I think it is acceptable or at times and places where I want to make a point. I use it as emphasis: I am a person with my own identity, not dependent upon the male of the species. I use it it to underscore the struggles of my sisters in our mutual battles for justice. I use it to express sisterhood.

If I echo michelle, ephemeral and anne cameron, I am pleased to join their most excellent thinking.

I appreciate the linguistic analysis several people posted. As a professional word monger, I look to improve my vocabulary and my usage. I try to be open to change.

For example, I used to like to use "herstory" but my lover, belva, who is as smart as she is beautiful, explained to me that in Latin, the root word of "history" is a feminine noun. In Greek, the source and inspiration of history is the muse Clio, a female divine being. I think back in March, during womyn's history month, belva posted something about that somewhere, maybe even in "feminism".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

Right but I don't feel the need to remove germany from the map because of the past hatred. To echive equlity men especially young men need to be given a chance. It's the year 2005 and most of us live in canada. We are equal, we both face double standards, How is spelling women womyn going to address that? to me it seems like an inability to let go of the past.

---

Again you use the word "hatred", so again I assert: the majority of feminists DO NOT HATE MEN. My feeling is that you do not agree with this assertion, but I may be wrong.

You state "To echive equlity men especially young men need to be given a chance". Okay, I need you to explain this statement, because I don't understand what this "chance" is that men are not currently being given.

You state that in 2005, men and women are both equal, and both face double standards. So if I'm reading you correctly, you do not feel there is any discrimination against women left (at least not in Canada), and that in fact, there is now as much institiutionalized discrimination against men as there is against women. Is that correct? If I am understanding you correctly, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because in my opinion and experience there is still rampant sexism, misogyny, and discrimination against women, yes even in 2005 and in Canada.

And I find your statement about the "inability to let go of the past" curious. Why would we want to? Even if discrimiation was a thing of the past, let's not forget the old saying about he who fails to learn from history being doomed to relive it.

One of my biggest frustrations about gender issues and gender roles is when the challenges men face are totally defined in relation to the opposite sex rather than on its own merit. Sometimes they are related but for men, mostly they do not at all relate to feminism. That is a connection you are sadly trying to make.

You assume that if women adopt a new spelling for "womyn" it somehow takes something away from you. Changing the spelling of a word could have nothing to do with a feminist's view of men. For some it is a symbol of independence, liberation and automony. That is how I view it. I am not at all offended to see the word "womyn". I don't see it as an attack on me or my gender.

From you posts I would infer that you believe womyn are now completely equal to men in all aspects of society and face no more gender bias or oppression than men and that men are now becoming the oppressed. That is a huge fallacy perpetrated by the most insecure men in our society who fear the loss of their priviledged supremacy in much the same way that the white establishment fought to maintain segregation. Feel free to come back and post your rhetoric when half the CEO's and MP's in Canada are female.

Stop equating male issues to the opposite of female issues. It is not a teeter-totter. Male suicide rates will not decline if women stop spelling the word with a 'y'. The two are not related.

We laugh and don't take you seriously because saying "Young men are right to question feminisim because they grew up being equal to women but in school they still teach that women are oppressed"
is ridiculous as it is completely wrong.

Second, sorry for the drift, yes, males DIE from suicide more often but females attempt suicide 4 to 5 times more.

Lastly, and this is important...linguistically, what is wrong with wymyn (a completely different gender) wanting to have our own identity, one separate from men. That is not feminist and certainly not anti-male. But rather, to suggest that womyn should maintain the masculin aspect of the term is to suggest that wymyn are owned or partly owned or a part of men (I am here basing this on the modern definition of woman/women and man/men). You see, you say wymyn shouldn't mind the original spelling, well, the original spelling, in the modern definition, does imply that wymyn are owned by men, or at the very least, that wymyn do not have an identity without men. So, to insist on that spelling, is in mact patriarchal, dominent and not pro-womyn.

Spelling is obviously not trivial because you were sooo curious about it you felt the need to post. If it's sooo trivial, forget about it. Who cares, go on and spell the words however you like.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
You are boring, tedious and a dolt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MyNameisLeo:
Is this really an issue for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:

well said, leo. my problem with skeezer is that he says he has an interest in promoting men's rights... which i'm all for discussing, but i don't appreciate having to play down women's issues to do that.

---

quote:

---

And you, Stargazer, are a damn fine judge of character!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
i forgot to add in my previous post: skeezer either downplays women's issues or pretends they don't exist. i honestly believe skeezer has some very good points to make, i just think he needs to change his approach a wee little bit, and i would wholeheartedly support a masculism section if it didn't involve putting down women.

---

At times, changing language can influence culture and behaviour. In other instances, it appears perverse and nonsensical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
This thread suggests an interesting, underlying issue - the ability to change reality by changing language.

---

Yabbut -- without getting into a whole discussion of language and its role in culture, words can very much set the tone. We've been very successful at making some words socially unacceptable, which is great, but I find that words that oppress women (and I include referring to adult women as girls, but I feel that's a sisyphian battle) tend to be shrugged off.

An example of how people are referred to, and how that creates a culture: I work at a university, and spend far too much time gently (and sometimes not so gently) chiding others when they call students "kids." Students may be younger, but calling them kids relegates them to the old framework of in loco parentis, which is parochial, patronizing, and which very much excludes them from full membership in the community.

I'm sensitive about language. I personally find the "women/womyn" to be a bit of a disingenuous red herring, but I certainly respect that others do not. And yes, we can get caught up too much on words, to the exclusion of making concrete social change, but I think that our use of words reflects and creates change in itself.

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: Tehanu ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

Okay, there are a lot of assertions in this one paragraph. Let's take them one at a time:
Again you use the word "hatred", so again I assert: the majority of feminists DO NOT HATE MEN. My feeling is that you do not agree with this assertion, but I may be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

You state "To echive equlity men especially young men need to be given a chance". Okay, I need you to explain this statement, because I don't understand what this "chance" is that men are not currently being given.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

You state that in 2005, men and women are both equal, and both face double standards. So if I'm reading you correctly, you do not feel there is any discrimination against women left (at least not in Canada), and that in fact, there is now as much institiutionalized discrimination against men as there is against women. Is that correct? If I am understanding you correctly, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because in my opinion and experience there is still rampant sexism, misogyny, and discrimination against women, yes even in 2005 and in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

And I find your statement about the "inability to let go of the past" curious. Why would we want to? Even if discrimiation was a thing of the past, let's not forget the old saying about he who fails to learn from history being doomed to relive it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weltschmerz:

And really, if a few women/womyn feel empowered, or a sense of sisterhood, or more comfortable, or whatever using the different spelling, what business is it of yours, mine, or anyone elses? As a pale penis person, I say more power to 'em.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
Words are undeniably powerful. "In the beginning was the Word". But so is biology. This may be news to the third or forth or whatever generation of feminists we now see, but there was a time not that long ago, where a core belief of feminism was that men and women are basically identical except for their genitals, and everything else was socially constructed. To thinking people this was arrant nonsense, and now science is demonstrating exactly how nonsensical it was. Men and women differ profoundly, based on biology, neurology, immunology, endocrinology, psychology and numerous other factors. None of this has anything to do with cultural conditioning, nor will it ever be affected by it.

It will be far more productive for feminism and other philosophically allied movements to recognize these facts and factor them into their reasoning than to continue to deny scientific knowledge and age-old wisdom. When I see people think that they can change the relationship between the sexes by simply changing language, I am reminded of the story of the guy who lost his keys, and was looking for them under a street light miles away because "this is where the light is."

---

[ 17 August 2005: Message edited by: Skeezer ]

quote:

---

You are wrong, but I wasn't clear. I feel a minority of feminist's hate men or are at least anti-male.

---

There are alot more men that are anti-women than vice versa. (and loving to look at naked women does not mean you are not anti-women)

quote:

---

Free discussion of their issues. Having a say in the medias representation of them. We are not free to debate feminism in the media. I do realize we have to make it our on thing. It is time we change our image.

..women get the lion’s share of programs and support.

---

Come on, the media is completely controlled by men. Men can control the public agenda all they want. Don't blame women or resent women's programs for the fact that men can't get their shit together.

quote:

---

I think hatred of men is the most trendy and accepted of the hatreds out there.

---

Of course, men (especially white ones) are so oppressed. That is possibly the most ignorant thing you have written here. Stop pretending to be a victim of female domination.

Skeezer, you have been spending way too much time ready about "men's rights". I hope you will spend less time writing and more time reading in this forum. I think there is still a chance for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:
Skeezer, if you feel strongly about a particular issue, such as male suicide rates, then fight for programs that will support at-risk teens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

Remember this as you travel the internet. If someone is fighting for "men's issue" or "men's rights" by contrasting them against the progress of the feminist movement they are women-haters not advocates for positive change. Don't get sucked into it. Remember that men are the majority in virtually every institution of authority in this country (CEO's, judges, MP's, media barons, etc). Men's issues are the construct of men, don't blame women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:
Skeezer, if you feel strongly about a particular issue, such as male suicide rates, then fight for programs that will support at-risk teens. That is how progress is acheived, not by being bitter that womyn have shelters and rape-crisis centres. There is no link between a real or perceived lack of programs for particular male issues and the existance of support for female issues.

That is the link that women-hating men try to make in order to maintain a male dominated world. They are afraid of change because they are insecure and they want to maintain power over women by diminshing their acheivements and suppressing their progress. If it is a male dominated, women hating society that you want then carry on as you were. But I don't think that you are that kind of person. I think you are just misinformed and partially brain washed by those who are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

Let me ask you do you think it is sexist when feminists say that there is a wage gap for women compared to men? I don't then why is it sexist for me to do the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:

Oh good, you're also pointing out that there's a wage gap for women compared to men. Glad we can all agree.

---

I am a firm believer that the majority of "men's issues" can find their foundation in resentment towards feminists and gender equality. Men are angry about giving up the privledge they have enjoyed and are looking for gender issues where they can claim to be the victim. There may facts to back it up but the genesis is hate.

Men are not oppressed or discrimated against based on gender and certainly not by women since men are the establishment. If men are oppressed it is only by other men. Ergo, it is not a gender issue that should concern feminists. So, why are you here.

Let's not lose sight of your original objection here. You objected to feminists changing the spelling of a word. You didn't come in here looking for discussion about male suicide rates or custody laws. You targeted women, feminists in particular, and questioned why they hate men.

I still cannot figure out what you are ultimately trying to say here except that you are bitter that feminists have succeeded in drawing attention to women's issues and have caused change while they ignore men's issues. So what! Feminists have had some success. Good! In the process they have not been concerned about issues specific to men. Who cares. If men are concerned enough about something they should organize for change. Don't blame feminists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

Why is every one acusing me of hating women for bringing up male issues?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

You are not bringing up male issues, you are asking feminists why they hate men.

---

I am not asking why feminists hate men i am bringing
up male issues, round and round we go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:
Skeezer, as in any disproportionate distribution of power, wealth, and influence there has to be targeted initiatives that attempt to bring about equality. Those that possess the power can't be expected to voluntarily relinquish some of it. Hence we have things like pay equity. Since the beginning of time whenever a group tries to gain equality there is a backlash from those that hold the power due to a fear of change and a resentment from the loss of entitlement. Same-sex-marriage is a good recent example.

I am a firm believer that the majority of "men's issues" can find their foundation in resentment towards feminists and gender equality. Men are angry about giving up the privledge they have enjoyed and are looking for gender issues where they can claim to be the victim. There may facts to back it up but the genesis is hate.

Men are not oppressed or discrimated against based on gender and certainly not by women since men are the establishment. If men are oppressed it is only by other men. Ergo, it is not a gender issue that should concern feminists. So, why are you here.

Let's not lose sight of your original objection here. You objected to feminists changing the spelling of a word. You didn't come in here looking for discussion about male suicide rates or custody laws. You targeted women, feminists in particular, and questioned why they hate men.

I still cannot figure out what you are ultimately trying to say here except that you are bitter that feminists have succeeded in drawing attention to women's issues and have caused change while they ignore men's issues. So what! Feminists have had some success. Good! In the process they have not been concerned about issues specific to men. Who cares. If men are concerned enough about something they should organize for change. Don't blame feminists.

If you want to be the crusader for men, do it someplace else. Surely you have realized by now that it is not welcome by anyone here (male or female). You are a lone soldier.

---

quote:

---

Men are not oppressed or discrimated against based on gender and certainly not by women since men are the establishment. If men are oppressed it is only by other men.

---

quote:

---

So what! Feminists have had some success. Good! In the process they have not been concerned about issues specific to men. Who cares. If men are concerned enough about something they should organize for change. Don't blame feminists.

---

I grew up in a single-parent family and I witnessed a lot of the bullshit my mom had to deal with simply because she could not remain in abusive relationships. Why should anyone have to make a decision of having the shit beat out of you or facing dire poverty?

[ 18 August 2005: Message edited by: Cartman ]

skeezer

1. Or: skeeza , in current street, Rap and drug slang, a woman who trades sex for (crack) cocaine. Also spelled, more rarely: skeeger . See playgirl or prostitute for synonyms.

For the last time I never said feminists were to blame for men’s issues. I never claimed men were oppressed certainly not more oppressed than women.
I never attacked feminism. Copy it in context and paste these things I said. Never said them. You raise some good points but I don’t agree they always apply to things I’ve said

I agree feminism has improved the quality of all our lives I just think it cant fully represent men. I have said many times it is up to men to do this. I am more taking a look at feminism to see the improvement it has made in women’s image of role and overall well being and trying to apply that to men. Men have a right to a say in the issues that affect them, if that issue is one of inequality this must be looked at, to look at it is as much an attack on women as feminism is to men. None
And yes men are to blame for the majority of their problems. In fact our “system” (gov media ect…) has been to blame for all our problems currently it is run by a small minority that is mostly made up of men. These men and women don’t represent humanity, that is my view and that includes both genders. It is not right of you to claim hostility, insecurity and hate are the only reasons a man would speak of the things I do, and it is as well hypocritical of feminist to dismiss it that way. This relates to other threads more than this one obviously.

This topic is certainly harmless at least meant to be and my mistake was to argue your claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
Something was bothering me about this word so I googled it. Interesting choice for a moniker.

skeezer

1. Or: skeeza , in current street, Rap and drug slang, a woman who trades sex for (crack) cocaine. Also spelled, more rarely: skeeger . See playgirl or prostitute for synonyms.

http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/skeezer

---

I know there is no way to prove it but I had no idea. LOL I swear I know that when you say I swear it means your guilty but I picked it out of my head I thought it sounded cool. I'm young honky trash I ain't that hip.

One could argue It is an insult to myself.
http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/skeeze
meaning I am a fucker.

I admit I presented my argument poorly read all my threads and posts I dont aggree that everyone here thinks im a troll. Sheeesh, This board is on a troll witchhunt.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Skeezer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

Actually, I think that feminism has had some positive changes for men. I have found it far more enjoyable to be with independent, assertive women than dependent, passive women.

---

I completely agree Cartman. I will add that feminism has fought to end stereotypes. A positive side effect of this has been an attempt to eliminate male stereotypes of stoic machismo.

People like Skeezer complain about men being portrayed as dump idiots on TV (Everyone loves Raymond, King of Queens) and in advertising but he misses the real issue. The issue is stereotyping, not anti-male sentiment. The makers of these shows are exaggerating stereotypes for the same reasons they sexually objectify teenagers, to sell something and make money.

quote:

---

I am not trying to be anti feminism just questioning things that i think may be anti-male. Like taking the men out of women.

---

quote:

---

To echive equlity men especially young men need to be given a chance.

---

quote:

---

We are equal

---

quote:

---

to me it seems like an inability to let go of the past

---

quote:

---

Young men are right to question feminisim because they grew up being equal to women but in school they still teach that women are oppressed.

---

quote:

---

I think that such trivial things as spelling women womyn will only hurt feminisms image in regards to young men.

---

quote:

---

As far as discrimination, I can’t tell you who suffers more

---

quote:

---

I think hatred of men is the most trendy and accepted of the hatreds out there

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

I picked out some of your most offensive comments. I won't waste my time explaining to you why they are so offensive because I have lost hope that you will understand. The tone (and content) of these quotes are clearly those of an anti-feminist who feels men have been wronged. A feminist forum is not the place for such a person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:
I'm sure sane folk would aggree there is nothing hatefull in this. What we have hear is an atempt on your part and others to censor me because my opinion offends you.

---

You remind me of a certain brother of mine who, upon reading about Gay Pride, wanted to know when we were having a heterosexual pride parade, you know, huh? huh? huh?

Although he was (like you) ostensibly just asking an innocent question, what he really was doing was insulting homosexuals and belittling the enormous work that Gay Pride has accomplished over the last decades.

quote:

---

I am not trying to be anti feminism just questioning things that i think may be anti-male. Like taking the men out of women.

---

Only anti-feminists are offended if womyn don't want to be refered to as an extension of men. If you are offended by this desire for independance then you are likely against female-equality.

quote:

---

To echive equlity men especially young men need to be given a chance.

---

You infer that men are trying to achieve equality and just need to be given a chance. Are they are some kind of oppressed minority?? Give me a break, do you really believe that nonsense.

quote:

---

We are equal

---

Uh, no. The Charter says we should all be treated equally but reality is different. To infer that the feminist movement has won and achieved equality shows how misinformed you really are.

quote:

---

to me it seems like an inability to let go of the past

---

Again, you infer the fight has been one. That is very offensive and typical of "men's rights" activists.

quote:

---

Young men are right to question feminisim because they grew up being equal to women but in school they still teach that women are oppressed.

---

Question feminism? Do you mean young men should not accept than women deserve equality.

Women are no longer oppressed? Once again, you feel feminism has achieved its ultimate goal and won the battle.

quote:

---

I think that such trivial things as spelling women womyn will only hurt feminisms image in regards to young men.

---

What could be more offensive to a movement that wants equality and automony than to say that feminists should consider there image among men. Ladies, don't try to achieve independance if you are going to look bad in the eyes of men. So you are saying that men should decide how feminists should act...and you can't understand why that would be offensive. You are so out to lunch.

quote:

---

As far as discrimination, I can’t tell you who suffers more

---

I don't even know where to start on this one. Do you really think there is as much harmful gender bias against men as there is against women? Do you really think women put men in hospitals as much as vice versa or that women have equal access to all the elite jobs, or that .....?

quote:

---

I think hatred of men is the most trendy and accepted of the hatreds out there

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

Ask yourself this: how many people have agreed with your arguements and how many have been offended by them. The vast majority have been offended and now you are calling us insane. Thanks for that civility.

---

Though Skeezer has not been exceptionally articulate in his attempt to differentiate between egalitarianism, gender particularism, and outright mysandry, I have to say that at no point did he state that men are at a disadvantage vis a vis women or womyn though he did state that it has become societally acceptable to be a mysandryst though not acceptable to be a mysogynist. Forget acceptable it is not even tolerable, yet mysandry is often applauded for its purpose in 'deconstruction of gender roles' or attacking patriarchy. Your response, however seems to contain some rather dubious logic.

Firstly you have reacted with an arguement of gender solidarity. That, if our fellow citizen attacks the most radical strains of particularism, which seeks to assert rights of socio-political equality through a gender collectivity, while maintaining social concessions in formalised education, family law, and the gender bias of the welfare state sans employment supports, that he attacks the gender as a whole and is mysogynistic. One can agree in gender equality and have legitimate disagreements on how to assert that equality or to dispute the relative socio-economic standings and societal powers of both gender collectivities, or whether we should view them as collectivities, without labelling one as a mysogynist or for that matter an anti-feminist. It is like branding Winston Chruchill an anti-nationalist because he opposed facism, which is an extreme ethno-nationalism. Skeezer has questioned the need for gender particularism. To accuse him of veiled gender particularism for questioning your right to subscribe to oppression theory is disingenuous in the extreme.

Secondly, this brings me to your non-explicit declarations of oppression theory. I wouldn't know about the male elite, for though a male, I am centainly not a member of the elite. The Ol' Boys Network plainly exists yes, but the evidence shows it to be a socio-economic and, to a lesser degree, age based clubishness. Belinda Stronach is a member of the OBN due to her education and her wealth. She has connections that you or I could only dream of and will receive opportunities and accolades that are largely out of reach for you or I. I doubt that after my 3 years of economics I will be entrusted with a senior level position on the board of a major corporation. The Rt. Hon. Avril Phaedra (Kim) Campbell, Margaret Thatcher, Sonia Ghandi, Gloria Arroyo, all parlayed thier wealth, connections, and education into far more influence than I, a third-generation Canadian, the most educated in my family, yet without a degree, can hope for. If it's true that Men dominate the institutions, it's more true that middle aged educated people dominate the institutions and that the vast majority of persons over 40 with university degrees are male. It is also true that the substantial majority of university students and currently graduating university students are women. What's more the men 'dominating' institutions are doing an awful job of this whole oppression thing. Think if you will upon family law and alimony, it is the most open secret that custody hearings are biased against fathers, that economic support awarded is one-sided in findings of alimony, and that the under reportage by men of domestic violence due to the social stigma of being a male victim of domestic violence leads to a lack of support for these slient vicitms. As an aside, to declare that men, due to their priviliged status, cannot be victims, is to buy the arguement of the neo-liberal: That the mean is the message, that average incomes represent typical outcomes. This is intellectually short-sighted at best and knowingly hypocritical at worst.

Finally you, in this current post make references to two popular misconceptions of democracy, amusing in their logical discontinuity. By stating that the majority being offended should be an indicator of the inappropriateness of Skeezer's viewpoint, you similtaneously invoke both majority tyrrany and minority veto. The latter is the most disturbing, for it implies that if you offend one with the political status of oppressed with your words that you have no rights to thier utterance, this is a dangerous curb on the limits of free expression and only gives credence to those that would violently establish thier own forms of particularism as they are denied other means of contradiction and adversarialism. The former is also concerning as it assumes that one can put fundamental human rights, such as expression, or to use a more popularised example: Marriage, to a vote. Democracy consists of Majority rule to be true, but that rule is not absoulte. It is tempered by minority rights, yet it would be illogical to assume that tose rights extended to the right to define what is and what isn't a legitimate and consideration worthy political opinion in the non-violent sphere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MyNameisLeo:
Some women spell the word as womyn because they want to. As they (women) are the minority group in question, then they get to choose the word. That's how "blacks" became people of colour. Is this really an issue for you?

---

No more than it is an issue to be called a breeder or to see a button saying "Let's talk about equality after imprisoning all the white straight males." (EGS)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:

Kellis, I would hope that though you may not agree with what Skeezer says you would not vow death to a person's right to say it. (apologies to Voltaire)

---

I am not objecting to his right to have a say. However, the purpose of this forum is to "Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view." It is clear from his posts that he is discussing male issues from an anti-feminist point of view. That said, I object to the disengenuous way in which he speaks from both sides of his mouth. As well, he seems ignorantly incapable of understanding why his comments are offensive. I don't think it is appropriate to enter a feminist forum, unilaterally declare that feminists have won so get over it, and then claim that everyone who disagrees with him (almost everyone) is insane.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
Quoi?

---

Word to the wise tho skeezer, never mention the NAZI's it's the first step to losing an arguement.

i.e. 2008 Made up Presidential Debate:

Sen. Bob Statesman (D): We need to replace our crumbling infrastructure to revitalise our economy.

Rep. Hollingsworth Hound (R): The distinguished gentleman seem to have forgotten that Hitler revitalised the economy of Germany with a Public Works program too. When will we see an American Dachau Fuhrer Bob!?

S. Statesman: Are you high?

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

He is refering to the quotes you are looking for. They are directly above your original post.

---

quote:

---

but I couldn't find the mysoginy in those posts.

---

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]

To say things that are contrary to feminist beliefs is anti-feminist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Wouldn't be the first time a man told a bunch of women they were wrong about misogyny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:
He clearly believes that men and women are now equal and feminists should just put the past in the past and move on. Not only that, but feminists should be careful of their image among young men because young men are now somehow the oppressed. He has essentially said as much and that is offensive.

---

So he believes that gender based politics and social organisation become irrelevant when equality is achieved? And he believes that with differentiation in almost all sectors of society between men and women i.e. disproportionately favourable outcomes for women in the education, familial, media representation (contrast campaign for real beauty with the unrealistic body and social images men are fed)and criminal sectors, and disproportionately unfavourable outcomes in the economic and representative politics sector (though I would mention that to my party's leader Tracy Parsons). That it can be argued that oppression is near defeat and any remaining inequality is economic inertia, understandable, it being less than 40 years since the fight for social rights began in real earnest.

What's anti-feminist about that?

He believes that organised oppression against male youths is occouring? This could be argued given higher failure rates for boys, the fact that there is a substantial outnumbering of males by females in universities (58% in the MD program in Alberta, that's nearly 3-2 in medicine, not nursing)

Also it has become vogue educational policy to segregate the males into a class of thier own. (This was a pilot program in my junior high) Are we failing our young men by providing them only Macho idiots and de-gendered ineffective males as their role models? Katherine Young believes so, as her book Spreading Misandry states.

Being opposed to differentiation and particularism would be better described as anti-misandry instead of anti-feminist.

Finally the 'he states as much' arguement is an old rhetorical trick. It's forcing the card and it didn't work with me when David Frum tried to insinuate that Scott Reid was calling Michelle Jean's detractors racist (he never brought that up at all) and it doesn't work with trying to force a 'feminists should know their place' arguement on Skeezer. He hasn't said as much and you are being disingenuous when stating that he is doing so.

Also by your definition Margaret Atwood is an anti-feminist when she says:

Q: I wasn't arguing for the crushingly boring novel. My question was about victimhood. Does this mean all your books need female victims?

A: Let us change it from victimhood to people in circumstances that put some pressure on them, which is not quite the same thing. Some people tell me that Grace Marks is a victim and I say, "Hey, just hang on a minute. What about Nancy and Thomas? They're the ones who ended up dead in the cellar." I don't think it's quite as simple as "These people over here are always the oppressors, and these people over here are always victims."

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]

quote:

---

Scout, just tell me what is being referred to by Skeezer that is offensive, (Specifically!) Instead of denigrating my voice.

---

quote:

---

It would be like me spelling cuacasian cuacashun because I hate asian people.

If It isn't done because of a hatred for men why is it done at all?

---

So, let's see, he accuses women, who for whatever reason spell women womyn as "hating" men because hatred of men is the only possible answer for that particular spelling.

I mean, he could have entered into a dialogue based on honest curiosity but he instead initiated a harangue marked by anger, fear, and the promotion of misunderstanding and, dare I say it, his own hatred of feminists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
You don't need to be a woman to see the misogyny in skeezer's posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
No more than it is an issue to be called a breeder or to see a button saying "Let's talk about equality after imprisoning all the white straight males." (EGS)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

So, let's see, he accuses women, who for whatever reason spell women womyn as "hating" men because hatred of men is the only possible answer for that particular spelling.

I mean, he could have entered into a dialogue based on honest curiosity but he instead initiated a harangue marked by anger, fear, and the promotion of misunderstanding and, dare I say it, his own hatred of feminists.

So why do you want to defend him?

---

He has queried as to what reason other than misandry could be a sufficient impetus to arbitrarily alter the spelling of the feminine noun; the responses have typically been, as a reaction against male misogyny, or, 'you're a misogynist.' Stating that a group carries an inherent prejudice is very much a prejudice in and of itself. He's stated that he feels that misandry is prevalent in a minority of those that consider themselves feminists, not a majority.

Skeezer is, in his own semi-articulate way, attacking gender particularism. Many self-described feminists do, and have done, the same.

I'm not so much defending him, though he's trying to make some cogent points, as I am attacking some serious intellectual laxity. If we could get Skeezer's verbiosity to the level of his Kellis, I am certain we could get Kellis' logic to progress the same distance. I'm trying to lead by example here and be a bit Socratic.

And RB is right, you certainly do not have to be a female to see Skeeter's misogynistic tendancies, and I'd appreciate it Sean, if you didn't try to sugar coat it with the 'I don't see it so it must not exist' crap.

quote:

---

Scout, just tell me what is being referred to by Skeezer that is offensive, (Specifically!) Instead of denigrating my voice.

---

I tried that, I pointed you to some of the examples quoted above by Kellis. You said you didn't see any misogyny. Several of the grrls disagree.

Kellis was specific enough for me, I agree with her. I agree with the others voices as well. In several thread his posts have been deconstucted to show misogyny and a hatred of Feminism.

I also told you that you could look up other threads he has participated in if you needed more information. We grrls aren't gonna do all the work for you. If what your given hasn't been enough, too bad, we'll define misogyny as we see it.

Maybe Skeezer's educatable, maybe he's not but babble isn't a place women have to put up with half the crap he has spread in his quest for male empowerment without losing their tempers.

Kisses R.B.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MyNameisLeo:

What an absurd analogy! It's some women who choose to spell the word womyn. Nobody's being called anything and nobody's advocating imprisonment. It's one vowel!!! If they want to spell their word their way, then what's the big hairy deal?!?

---

None, other than the gender particularism involved in assuming that an ensconced elite has total authority in determining the identity of that group, and of course the fact that when one determines what happens my my society I have, at minimum a right to input, and, at maximum a right to participation.

Now if we want to get our knickers in a knot, let's talk about people who spell "you're" as "your" and "its" as "it's."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Oh yeah!! Yet another one!! (Sean)

And RB is right, you certainly do not have to be a female to see Skeeter's misogynistic tendancies, and I'd appreciate it Sean, if you didn't try to sugar coat it with the 'I don't see it so it must not exist' crap.

Skeeter is obviously a fool, and many people have supplied him with answers, yet he continues to ignore answers and questions he can't answer or which don't fit into his world view.

---

"Are you, or have you ever been, a communist?"
-Joe McCarthy

quote:

---

It's fun to be quasi-pompous

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
You know, by doing a google search I found 261 million references to "women" and 246 thousand to "womyn." I'll wager that in my personal experience I also see "womyn" about 0.1 % of the time. It's really not a big deal, except to the tiny minority of people who choose to use that spelling and the far tinier minority who give a shit how other people spell a word!

Now if we want to get our knickers in a knot, let's talk about people who spell "you're" as "your" and "its" as "it's."

Considering the emotional pain those spellings cause me, can there be any doubt those doing it are deeply homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Quebec and anti-Canadian?

---

quote:

---

Well, that made my day! Kisses to you too Stargazer!

---

Skeezer is trolling without a doubt. He is somewhat smart about insofar as he feigns innocence relatively well by not posting anything immediately outrageous.

Every single issue and post has to do with women/feminists taking power from men and men suffering as a result. Even when people continually point out the flaws with this logic, he continues. As well, he has demonstrated that he is willing to use the exception to prove a rule (i.e. I saw this anti-male t-shirt demonstrating that all men have it tough).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

(i.e. I saw this anti-male t-shirt demonstrating that all men have it tough).

---

quote:

---

Cartman never gets kisses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:

Rather he said that the popularity of said shirt and the lack of accompanying outrage is evidence of the comparative acceptability of misandry over misogyny.

---

So the anectodal example of a single offensive t-shirt company means misandry now exceeds misogyny. Ridiculous. People don't get nearly as outraged about something that is anectodal rather than rampant. If misandry was rampant there would be more outrage, but it simply isn't.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: kellis ]

C'mon, you really think he is legit Sean? If I had a sincere question of etymology (1st post in this thread), I would have posed it much differently. I would not immediately attribute the most likely motive as hatred and ask to be proven wrong. How the hell do you get hatred of men out of "womyn" anyways?

quote:

---

That's becasue your annoying the crap out of me in the Bertuzzi thread.

---

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Cartman ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

So the anectodal example of a single offensive t-shirt company means misandry now exceeds misogyny. Ridiculous. People don't get nearly as outraged about something that is anectodal rather than rampant. If misandry was rampant there would be more outrage, but it simply isn't.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: kellis ]

---

What matters is how the person spelling it feels and how they perceive the intent.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Debra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:
Bottom line to this thread you can spell your name 'houeoiejlknaldnlcn' and pronounce it 'Smith'.

What matters is how the person spelling it feels and how they perceive the intent.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Debra ]

---

quote:

---

What matters is how the person spelling it feels and how they perceive the intent.

---

quote:

---

I thought it might actually be a thoughtful thread about how this particular phenomenon in feminist history and thought came about, and about feminist thought on the issue of altered spellings such as this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:

Ah, so my rights end where your feelings begin? Then they aren't rights anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:

But to immediately assume that the intent is founded within a hatred of men seems acrimonious at best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
Horse Flop. Read Spreading Misandry.

---

I have heard plenty about misandry and am aware of the book. It does not convince me that the prevalence is anywhere near the level of misogyny nor is the resultant damage as hurtful. I am not condoning it, but I'm not as concerned about it.

I have two eyes and two ears. I can see, read, and hear for myself. In the absense of impartial evidence on this topic (which is impossible) I will settle for my own experience. I see misogyny daily that is harmful to women. I occasionally see misandry and it is rarely as damaging. They both exist but to varying degrees and with varying affect, in my opinion (and that is the best opinion I know)

quote:

---

no doubt, however, I have never said nor imagined that is the case.

---

An review of "Spreading Misandry"

quote:

---

Battered by Beavis and Butthead
Reviewed by Melissa Scowcroft

If you thought the cult of victimhood had reached its zenith, you were mistaken. Yet another subsector of society may now be added to the endless list of the persecuted and afflicted: white middle-class men. In Spreading Misandry the authors painstakingly detail the deleterious affects of lowbrow cultural fare on the male psyche. The result reads like a politicized TV Guide - one that is as shallow, overreaching and manipulative as much of the material it attempts to debunk.

It is not the subject here that is objectionable. Today's generation of men is the first to be raised without the expectation of becoming cannon fodder in some glorious cause; the first to forge an identity beyond the primacy of the male breadwinner; and one of the first to contend with the fallout of feminism. As such, male identity in a post-feminist world emerges as a necessary avenue of inquiry. Unfortunately, this inquiry resorts to the very tactics it purports to decry: divisive rhetoric, dualistic thinking, and blame, blame, blame.

---

quote:

---

“The result, Nathanson and Young contend, is a level of anti-male sentiment that justifies comparison to Jewish persecution. By way of evidence, they wade through the cultural detritus of our allegedly "gynocentric" society, lamenting the deep psychic wounds inflicted upon men by such devilish propaganda as Beetle Bailey, Beavis and Butt-Head, and the greeting card industry.”

---

Oh, this book is good for men too…

quote:

---

Spreading Misandry bolsters the opinions of those who already believe. Its most damaging aspect, therefore, is what it says to men of dissenting belief. …Thus, they negate the identity of those who define themselves as caring and involved fathers, companionate husbands and partners, responsible and informed citizens;

---

quote:

---

Well, as one example suggests, repeated mockery of man's inability to pick up his socks has finally taken its toll.

---

What the authors of this fine piece of literature failed to realize is that women got tired of picking up the socks of men for hundreds of years and now men are feeling a little backlash, the backlash is called the “Pick Up Your Own Shit Movement”. Call me when your being forced to pick up a woman’s socks for a couple hundred years and we’ll commiserate. But don’t call me before you have lost the right to vote and aren’t considered persons under the law.

Men don’t have the market on being portrayed negatively in the media.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]

Yet, when skeezer does that we find him excusing the method and defending the nonsensical argument behind it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Debra:

splain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:

Ah, so my rights end where your feelings begin? Then they aren't rights anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kellis:

If I had the patience for it I would start a thread about misangry vs misogyny. We could trade examples of each until we run out. After that, I'll add a few hundred extra examples just to prove the point. But that sounds like more work than this beer drinkin', lazy, dumb, TV watching, ass scratching man can handle. Maybe my assertive, intelligent wife can help. OMG, I should have a sitcom.

---

1. Misangry? Your Freudian slip is showing

2. Name me a sitcom featuring as the primary character, a sexually attractive, intelligent, fully actuallized, effective male.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Don't provoke him. He is yet another recent anti-woman troll destined to be gone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
2. Name me a sitcom featuring as the primary character, a sexually attractive, intelligent, fully actuallized, effective male.

---

Sitcoms, by and large, aren't about fully-actualized effective people. But as for sexually attractive and intelligent, how about:

Will and Grace
Frasier
Two and a Half Men
The Dick Van Dyke Show
Family Ties
Head of the Class
Mad About You
M*A*S*H
Seinfeld
Wings
WKRP in Cincinatti
Who's the Boss
Sports Night
Spin City
My Two Dads
Mr. Ed (I assume he wasn't a gelding)
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

I, as a female, will go and watch a movie like Reservoir Dogs (sorry Anne!!) and love it. Most men would not, however, go see a female dominated movie that didn't involve T & A. If there is no T & A the movie is dismissed as a chick flick and men will tend to stay away.

I have a question...why do certain threads attract trolls the way bright lamps attract moths?

The sitcoms featuring as the primary character, a sexually attractive, intelligent, fully actuallized, effective female wouldn't be a much longer list.

Laverne and Shirley
Mary Tyler Moore
Murphy Brown
Veronica's Closet
Just Shoot Me
Sports Night
Commander-in-Chief
WKRP, (C'mon, Lonnie Anderson was so the star of that show)
Bewitched
Friends
Drew Carey (Kate's the only rational one)
Bosom Buddies (All attained the status of honorary women)
Red Green get's hon. mention for not one remotely normal man.
As does:
Men Behaving Badly
The Newsroom
Yes, Dear

And nobody from 1968 onwards could get intellectual credibility for writing the misogynist version of the SCUM Manifesto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

Bad Martin bad!! Stay on topic will ya? Tell us about your oppression in the media. I'll tell you about band camp

---

Oh, yes, that's right; sorry. Oh, boo hoo, I'm so oppressed! Nobody loves me but my mother...and she may be jiving too! We men have it bad, oh fie this life! Being a man is just the worst! Women are taking my jobs and country and chidren away! All television shows make men look bad! Wah wah! And I'm simply helpless to do anything about it! Damn this male cult of domesticity!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
And everyone knows that sitcoms that feature women as the primary character are 'chick flicks'. Ali McBeal was one, now banished due to the media obsession with her so-called anorexia (Just something for the media to do you know. Find some females to dredge into the ground)

I, as a female, will go and watch a movie like Reservoir Dogs (sorry Anne!!) and love it. Most men would not, however, go see a female dominated movie that didn't involve T & A. If there is no T & A the movie is dismissed as a chick flick and men will tend to stay away.

Address this please Sean. Why do you think it is that women in movies are such a no no for most men unless it involves breasts and ass?

---

Sean you articulate so well what has been on my mind so much lately, thank you my free Internet lawyer. I will pick up that book.

kilus, stargazer, and same old crowd:

You have to stop and realize that even though I don't agree with your particular perception of status quos among the sexes, you are still demonstrating a negative view of men by suggesting that since the majority of social ill's happens to women men do not deserve the right to study or even discuss said issues.

This has moved far beyond the original post. I do wonder how old you all are, because I believe our formative years were spent in different eras.
Have you ever wondered why women did not achieve such great strides in equality till the last century, was it as you suggest for men there was no outrage on there part? Or maybe the majority of women accepted it, because there were no vocal role models, they were not happy and were plagued with inequality and were second-class citizens but they had no voice no leaders. I am in no way suggesting men as a whole suffer more, just that we suffer. When you look at health, education, suicide, custody, right now in 2005 these are predominant men’s issues, you suggest that men have no right to examine this and are infact misogynist to even discuss it? Illogical, hypocritical and misandristic.

It is not that I am being hateful that bothers you it is that I have a different opinion.
If I am banned it will be for these same reasons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinArendt:

Oh, yes, that's right; sorry. Oh, boo hoo, I'm so oppressed! Nobody loves me but my mother...and she may be jiving too! We men have it bad, oh fie this life! Being a man is just the worst! Women are taking my jobs and country and chidren away! All television shows make men look bad! Wah wah! And I'm simply helpless to do anything about it! Damn this male cult of domesticity!

All I do every day is lounge about in my salon, wearing corsets, and knitting! And the fainting spells, oh my! Oh, if only I had some power in this female-dominated world! Boo hoo hoo!

---

Things I've seen:

- My Friend booed by a thousand in Winnepeg for trying to ensure that in body reproductive rights of both genders were ensured.
- My father defrosing milk from the freezer in the morning, because mom, who'd left us wouldn't hlep us replace the broken fridge
- A female Prime Minister talking to male homeless
- My father (two years after the first incident) broken down in tears because my mother had threatened to illegally hold us at her house knowing full well that in Canada the odds were with her in a court of law.
- Every 7th man I see, a victim of physical abuse according to Stats Can and every 4th man in an emotionally abusive relationship
- Bernie Mac (star of the critically shat on Mr. 3000) who buried his best friend after an incident of domestic violence
- 6 female university students for every 5 male students.

Why did you not tell me that you would consider picking up any of the literature I recommended? A lot of people have spent a lot of time writing cogent reasons why you might want to be critical of your own perspective on these issues, and you've yet to even consider doing so.

There have been women (and men) fighting for equal rights for centuries before the 1900s.

John Stuart Mill. Mary Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (and her husband, William Godwin). Emma Goldman. Sappho. Henrik Ibsen. Jane Eyre. Anna Jameson, Margaret Fuller, and George Eliot. And that's a super-incomplete list.

I could go on and on and on.

Change has happened, but it has happened extremely slowly. But it's not like after millenia (that means thousands of years) of oppression for women, all of a sudden, everything would be fixed. Perfect equality, all of a sudden. That's crazy and ridiculous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinArendt:
Mmm...Dick Van Dyke...what a hunk!

I have a question...why do certain threads attract trolls the way bright lamps attract moths?

Oh wait, I called people making misogynist comments 'trolls'! Oh no! That must mean I hate men, and am very "hatfull"! I am clearly worse than Hitler! I should be "baned"! I am sooo bad!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:
[QB]

Things I've seen:

- My Friend booed by a thousand in Winnepeg for trying to ensure that in body reproductive rights of both genders were ensured.
- My father defrosing milk from the freezer in the morning, because mom, who'd left us wouldn't hlep us replace the broken fridge
- A female Prime Minister talking to male homeless
- My father (two years after the first incident) broken down in tears because my mother had threatened to illegally hold us at her house knowing full well that in Canada the odds were with her in a court of law.
- Every 7th man I see, a victim of physical abuse according to Stats Can and every 4th man in an emotionally abusive relationship
- Bernie Mac (star of the critically shat on Mr. 3000) who buried his best friend after an incident of domestic violence
- 6 female university students for every 5 male students.
[QB]

---

Ok, that's a fun game. Things I've seen:

- 1 in 2 women have been sexually assaulted in British Columbia (1 in 4 in the rest of Canada), many of them friends of mine who have disclosed to me. In several cases, the disclosures involved brutal violence.

- The only female prime minister ever chastised and attacked in the media. Called fat in the media. Mocked for breaking down.

- 14 women massacred in Montreal by an enraged gunman for no other reason than that they were women in a university program.

- 60 missing (female) sex trade workers in Vancouver's downtown east side. At least 23 of these women were brutally murdered by a man named Picton, and nobody cared for DECADES. In addition, there are many sex trade workers who go missing or are murdered all over the country every year.

- Here are a bunch of sexual assault statistics.

- I see women harassed, physically threatened, and insulted every day. I have had close female friends break down in front of me because they felt powerless or hopeless, because they were assaulted at work, because they were abused in relationships.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MartinArendt:
Skeezer,

Why did you not tell me that you would consider picking up any of the literature I recommended? A lot of people have spent a lot of time writing cogent reasons why you might want to be critical of your own perspective on these issues, and you've yet to even consider doing so.

There have been women (and men) fighting for equal rights for centuries before the 1900s.

John Stuart Mill. Mary Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (and her husband, William Godwin). Emma Goldman. Sappho. Henrik Ibsen. Jane Eyre. Anna Jameson, Margaret Fuller, and George Eliot. And that's a super-incomplete list.

I could go on and on and on.

Change has happened, but it has happened extremely slowly. But it's not like after millenia (that means thousands of years) of oppression for women, all of a sudden, everything would be fixed. Perfect equality, all of a sudden. That's crazy and ridiculous.

I don't think anybody here would say that men aren't faced with all kinds of issues; the problem is that, as I said before, you're missing the biggest piece of the puzzle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean Tisdall:

Those who can't do teach
Those who can't teach criticise
Those who can't criticise quote typos

---

And those who can't do or teach or criticize or quote typos are trolls.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: MartinArendt ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeezer:

Do you or do you not believe men have the right to speak freely of their issues? How is it as you suggest that womens struggles rightfully deny men of the freedom to address there own?

---

You feel I don’t listen to reason. I feel you don’t listen to reason. You say I am a misogynist for wanting to address male issues in contrast to women’s. I say you are misandrists for saying I am misogynist for wanting to address male issues in contrast with women. You feel I am hateful for not hearing your points. I think you are hateful for not hearing my points. Why don’t I try arguing my points without reference to women? Why don't you try arguing your points without reference to misogyny trolling and banning? All this has led to hostility and emotion on both our parts.

Now we can keep going around and around like this or we can agree to disagree.

Wrong Geezer, I have nightmares about meeting men who seem hold such a strong dislike for women. Thankfully I have yet to meet any. Now here you are. You wanted to do something good for the problems effecting men? Well you did nothing but show that some men, such as yourself, are incapable of empathy, have no idea about history, and are demonstrably immune to the real world around them. You Geezer, are an anomaly. Hope that makes you real proud.

quote:

---

All I do every day is lounge about in my salon, wearing corsets, and knitting! And the fainting spells, oh my! Oh, if only I had some power in this female-dominated world! Boo hoo hoo!

---

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]