[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Curiousgeorge is going from absurd to absurder. He stopped making sense quite a few posts back.

The absurdity is labeling special treatment as equality. But I suppose there's a political agenda into labeling it that.

It's like me saying I was born poor so I deserve money to make it equal. That's not equality that's someone doing me a favor.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by Clueless To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What I'm denying is that either party can get off "scot-free". To paint either gender with the broad brush by insinuating that there is no underlying guilt, shame, etc is belittling to the character regardless of which direction such opinions are aimed.

Aside from the guilt/shame etc. what the original rebuttal was against was that a poster claimed men should bear ABSOLUTELY NO consequences for an unplanned pregnancy since the child could be borne without his consent.

I simply pointed out that women don't get to to that, so to legislate that men should be able to in no way remedies natural disparities that exist.

It is equally wrong in my view to try and gloss over the fact that biology prevents a truly "fair" solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancy. By affording women the right to choose society necessarily pigeonholes the male involved into accepting the "stereotypical traditional role" of provider, without his expressed consent or at minimum without him having the same opportunity for reconsideration as such a choice provides the female. I'm not against it, there's no better way to do it. But I'm in favor of calling it like it is.

What the man is "pigeonholed" into accepting is a consequence of a decision he made knowing that pregnancy is one of the possible outcomes. That is the choice he is held accountable for. He consented to putting his penis inside a woman depositing his seed all the while knowing this is how children are created. In the event that there is a child, though the choice of whether to have it can be against his wishes, this is not the choice the courts will consider.

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 03:11 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The absurdity is labeling special treatment as equality. But I suppose there's a political agenda into labeling it that. It's like me saying I was born poor so I deserve money to make it equal. That's not equality that's someone doing me a favor.

There are different types of equality. There is equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. The former suggests that each party should come away with exactly the same portion of the pie; equality of opportunity simply attempts to provide equitable access to the means to accumulate a portion of the pie.

In some cases, feminists have called for equality of outcome = pay me as much as you would pay a man for the same job. But mostly they have fought for equality of opportunity = allow me equal access to the same jobs as men.

Explain in excruciating detail what is wrong with that.

That it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to men because they no longer enjoy the advantages they used to? What other response can be given to that other than "tough shit"?

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There are different types of equality. There is equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. The former suggests that each party should come away with exactly the same portion of the pie; equality of opportunity simply attempts to provide equitable access to the means to accumulate a portion of the pie. In some cases, feminists have called for equality of outcome = pay me as much as you would pay a man for the same job. But mostly they have fought for equality of opportunity = allow me equal access to the same jobs as men. Explain in excruciating detail what is wrong with that. That it's uncomfortable or inconvenient to men because they no longer enjoy the advantages they used to? What other response can be given to that other than "tough shit"?

I have no problem with women pursuing the same jobs as men as well as getting equal pay. And I believe for the most part that is taken care of as the gender salary difference I think is now about 5% and some studies show none.


My problem is with calling favoritism equality wherever it exists.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have no problem with women pursuing the same jobs as men as well as getting equal pay. And I believe for the most part that is taken care of as the gender salary difference I think is now about 5% and some studies show none. My problem is with calling favoritism equality wherever it exists.

In order to make two unequal things equal, what needs to happen?

[Zephyranthes]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order to make two unequal things equal, what needs to happen?

He's answered this, women need to become men.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In order to make two unequal things equal, what needs to happen?

You make two of them the same or you accept what it is or you appeal to the better side of people to help instead of demanding it; you don't put the burden on the other party and say this is what I deserve.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You make two of them the same or you accept what it is or you appeal to the better side of people to help instead of demanding it; you don't put the burden on the other party and say this is what I deserve.

How do you make two different things the same?

[zibber]

Feminists don't claim men and women are the same. Our bold claim is that no one is the same. Men aren't all the same. Women aren't all the same.

[Shadizar]

I got two pages to read all of a sudden... I'll get back to that later when I have the time.

It's not parity, and it's not equality. The feminists like to tout "releasing women from the dependence of men". Well ok, that sounds pretty good. And then they enact all kinds of laws that shackle men to women, whether said men actually had anything to do with said women is besides the point. Alimony, child support; stuff that men quite often did anyhow; on top of what men typically do anyhow, mow your lawn, paint your house, fix your car/buggy, just cuzz you're my neighbor and make good coffee; nothing's changed in this respect, except now it's state sanctioned terrorism pushed through by the feminists; the women are still dependent on the men now it's by law thanks to feminism. So what's happened here, is with one hand the feminists slapped the man, and with the other hand, they backhanded the woman; strange thing is, the woman thinks it's great, while the man is standing there going "how does this fix anything?"

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you make two different things the same?

In this case, either give men the ability to give birth or take away the ability of women to give birth.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminists don't claim men and women are the same. Our bold claim is that no one is the same. Men aren't all the same. Women aren't all the same.

I don't even know how you can claim what Feminists claim. They can't even agree with each other:

Some branches of feminism closely track the political leanings of the larger society, such as liberalism and conservatism, or focus on the environment. Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society. Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary.[9] Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which it resides. Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from coercive interference.[22] Separatist feminism does not support heterosexual relationships. Lesbian feminism is thus closely related. Other feminists criticize separatist feminism as sexist.[23] Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment; ecofeminism has been criticised for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature.

[SelfMadeBum]

There's a law mandating that men have to mow my lawn, paint my house and fix my car? Aren't I a lucky little feminist.

And how do you think things like child support legislation came about? There were too many men having children and bearing no responsibility for them. Repeatedly with different women. Yes, it's a fair to allow that to continue. Legislators don't just enact laws because some feminist group tells them to. They react to large scale social problems and try to remedy them.

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In this case, either give men the ability to give birth or take away the ability of women to give birth.

Your remedy to social inequities is to make women into men or men into women?

I hope you're currently running for office.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your remedy to social inequities is to make women into men or men into women? I hope you're currently running for office.

I didn't say turn one into the other, I said give the ability to one or take it away. And that wasn't my remedy, that was my response to you asking how do you make something the same so that equality can be made.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why you don't get your tubes tied until you want a baby?

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't want children? Get a vasectomy until you do. Ridiculous suggestion is ridiculous.

I gotta step on this one.

A vasectomy is sometimes reversible. The testicles continually produce sperm; that sperm needs to be ejaculated, if it's not, it stays there and it rots; given enough time, the testicles will essentially give up on producing sperm; end result, you become sterile. The woman on the other hand, has biology in her favor here; she's born with the eggs she needs for life, let me repeat that, FOR LIFE. So while a vasectomy is sometimes reversible, a tying the tubes is certainly reversible; and again, who's the one whining about life stakes?

[hide=Hell, you don't even need to get tied]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/hide]

Let's not forget, it was the feminists who shut down the male pill.

[SelfMadeBum]

	I didn't say turn one into the other, I said give the ability to one or take it away. And that wasn't my remedy, that was my response to you asking how do you make something the same so that equality can be made.

How would you hope to give men the ability to give birth or propose to actualise the sterilisation of all women? Do you hear yourself?

And connect the dots. I asked how you would make two different things the same because making them the same was your answer to how to make two unequal things equal. We established that feminism seeks equity, you said you had no problem with that but you don't like favouritism. What should have been obvious is if you are attempting to put two unequal people on equal footing, one group would require more attention. More attention, and more resources. Not more than the other group is getting, but more than they were getting before.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A vasectomy is sometimes reversible. The testicles continually produce sperm; that sperm needs to be ejaculated, if it's not, it stays there and it rots; given enough time, the testicles will essentially give up on producing sperm; end result, you become sterile. The woman on the other hand, has biology in her favor here; she's born with the eggs she needs for life, let me repeat that, FOR LIFE. So while a vasectomy is sometimes reversible, a tying the tubes is certainly reversible; and again, who's the one whining about life stakes?

Not only that but because women are afraid of the ravages of having a baby and what it'll do to their career, they should get it tied. When you feel in danger, you buy a gun, you don't tell everyone else to go gunless.

I like it how when we talk about real equality/fairness the Feminists balk. On the other hand, if men can pick up the tab to make things fair/worse for them, then it's ok.

[SelfMadeBum]

Originally Posted by Shadizar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I gotta step on this one. A vasectomy is sometimes reversible. The testicles continually produce sperm; that sperm needs to be ejaculated, if it's not, it stays there and it rots; given enough time, the testicles will essentially give up on producing sperm; end result, you become sterile. The woman on the other hand, has biology in her favor here; she's born with the eggs she needs for life, let me repeat that, FOR LIFE. So while a vasectomy is sometimes reversible, a tying the tubes is certainly reversible; and again, who's the one whining about life stakes? [hide=Hell, you don't even need to get tied] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [/hide] Let's not forget, it was the feminists who shut down the male pill.

Untying tubes is not sure to make a woman fertile again either. Surgical scarring will also lower her chances of getting pregnant after two such procedures.

Ridiculous suggestion is still ridiculous.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How would you hope to give men the ability to give birth or propose to actualise the sterilisation of all women? Do you hear yourself? And connect the dots. I asked how you would make two different things the same because making them the same was your answer to how to make two unequal things equal. We established that feminism seeks equity, you said you had no problem with that but you don't like favouritism. What should have been obvious is if you are attempting to put two unequal people on equal footing, one group would require more attention than the other. More attention, and more resources. Not more than the other group is getting, but more than they were getting before.

It's hyperbole. I'm trying to make the point that you can't so only the other two options are available: deal with it, or appeal to the better side of the other party involved.

My point is that we've done everything possible to make things equal and level the playing field. Everything on top of that is favortism. In other words, deal with it. You shouldn't be getting more resources b/c any more would put things on unequal footing ie as soon as you give the woman ability to decide what to do with her body you take away the man's ability to have the child if he wanted it, you give the woman ability to take time off to take care of her baby for 6 months to a year, you take away the man's ability to take off during the same time for NOT having a baby at the same place etc.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not only that but because women are afraid of the ravages of having a baby and what it'll do to their career, they should get it tied. When you feel in danger, you buy a gun, you don't tell everyone else to go gunless. I like it how when we talk about real equality/fairness the Feminists balk. On the other hand, if men can pick up the tab to make things fair/worse for them, then it's ok.

How the fuck is requiring women to have their tubes tied fair? She's risking her future fertility.

Women who do not want to get pregnant should take steps to ensure it won't happen. This in no way requires any kind of sterilisation, temporary or not.

And what exactly are women requiring men to do in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Who are we telling to go gunless?

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And what exactly are women requiring men to do in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Who are we telling to go gunless?

I'm responding to that line when I said if you really don't want it to effect you then get sterilized and someone's response is why don't men get sterilized instead; ie you buy a gun you don't tell everyone else to go gunless.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's hyperbole. I'm trying to make the point that you can't so only the other two options are available: deal with it, or appeal to the better side of the other party involved.

You are wrong (in so many ways) but right now because many aspects of inequality are reversible because many were institutionalised. Which is why we have some of the laws we have now.

Biology is not only to blame for the previous subservient position of women. Misconceptions based on biology were. Women were smaller so it was assumed we were weak and incapable of manual labour. We were emotional so we were thought to be irrational and incapable of intelligent thought. Etc. Etc. Biology was used as an excuse to keep women in powerless positions.

Given the equitable access to education, we have proven that we are as intelligent, as capable. We can lead and lead well. It would not have happened if women, nay feminists, had not fought for it. No one had to grow a penis or lose their ability to have kids. Feminists waged a war on institutionalised sex discrimination and have made great strides in doing so.

So you very much CAN make meaningful changes and effect empowerment to combat inequalities that exist in society. We chose not to just "deal with it" anymore.

	My point is that we've done everything possible to make things equal and level the playing field. Everything on top of that is favortism.

What are we asking for that would constitute favouritism?

	In other words, deal with it. You shouldn't be getting more resources b/c any more would put things on unequal footing ie as soon as you give the woman ability to decide what to do with her body you take away the man's ability to have the child if he wanted it

What is the alternative? Make a woman carry a baby for 40 weeks when she doesn't want to? Does that make sense to you?

	, you give the woman ability to take time off to take care of her baby for 6 months to a year, you take away the man's ability to take off during the same time for NOT having a baby at the same place etc.

Um, what? You want rights parents (not just women) have even where you don't need it? LOL

It just sounds like jealousy now. Daddy won't play with me anymore because there's a new baby in the house. Grow the fuck up.

---------- Post added 06-14-2012 at 05:50 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm responding to that line when I said if you really don't want it to effect you then get sterilized and someone's response is why don't men get sterilized instead; ie you buy a gun you don't tell everyone else to go gunless.

I suggested something ridiculous because you suggested something ridiculous. It was sarcasm.

[Saggita]

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I suggested something ridiculous because you suggested something ridiculous. It was sarcasm.

Lol, I was actually baffled someone thought I was talking for real. How could someone take "you get your tubes tied" for real when I'm talking to a man?

Eh, go figure. I will go put sarcasm alert from now on. AND the tube tying suggestion is still pretty stupid. There isn't any sarcasm about what I'm going to say right now:

If someone thinks women should get their tubes tied to avoid being pregnant, to avoid men from having any responsibility on pregnancy, we know that we are fucked. Men and women alike can avoid pregnancies and if they do happen, both parties have responsability on the event and men should suffer the consequences as well, as women do.

And women's consequences go way beyond guilt or shame.

Edit: In case someone jumps in and say: so you are saying men should get pregnant too and therefore you're wrong!!11!! I didn't say the same consequences for men and women. Just... FYI.

[gecko]

The only ones who have mentioned anything about men 'thinking with their little heads' are feminists. Women are in fact, more sexual creatures. They have more intense orgasms, they have more desire and deeper emotion, and this manifests in ways such as the need for monogamy in relationships, as well as more feasible emotional attachments.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Feminists don't claim men and women are the same. Our bold claim is that no one is the same. Men aren't all the same. Women aren't all the same.

Feminists prioritize females, being an activist group (for females). Feminism drives feminists. Given the priority on helping women, it is disingenuous to suggest that feminism is actually a new kind of humanism.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Given the equitable access to education, we have proven that we are as intelligent, as capable. We can lead and lead well. It would not have happened if women, nay feminists, had not fought for it. No one had to grow a penis or lose their ability to have kids. Feminists waged a war on institutionalised sex discrimination and have made great strides in doing so. So you very much CAN make meaningful changes and effect empowerment to combat inequalities that exist in society. We chose not to just "deal with it" anymore.

Ok fine, so right now I'm saying things are equal. Actually they're slightly unequal IMO b/c women still have the laws that favor them from before, so it's like 45% men 55% women.

	Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What are we asking for that would constitute favouritism?

There's already favortism. Asking for more makes it even more so.

Favortism is like asking to have the same job promotions after getting back from pregnancy and having to leave early to take care of the child; doing less work and expecting the same rewards. To that, I say deal with it, anytime anyone spends less time at the office they get less including men.

[SelfMadeBum]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok fine, so right now I'm saying things are equal. Actually they're slightly unequal IMO b/c women still have the laws that favor them from before, so it's like 45% men 55% women.

Haha. 45% men 55% women? It's fun guessing what childhood age your mindset is stuck in.

	There's already favortism. Asking for more makes it even more so. Favortism is like asking to have the same job promotions after getting back from pregnancy and having to leave early to take care of the child; doing less work and expecting the same rewards. To that, I say deal with it, anytime anyone spends less time at the office they get less including men.

I've yet to come across a woman who doesn't expect her career to take a hit when she becomes pregnant and her focus is shifted. What I think a lot of women complain about is being discriminated against at work because she may at some future point, become pregnant. Being looked over for promotions, etc. because of the future possibility of pregnancy and missed work. That is unfair and should be prohibited.

Apart from that particular figment of your imagination, what other examples of favouritism can you site?

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by SelfMadeBum To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Haha. 45% men 55% women? It's fun guessing what childhood age your mindset is stuck in. I've yet to come across a woman who doesn't expect her career to take a hit when she becomes pregnant and her focus is shifted. What I think a lot of women complain about is being discriminated against at work because she may at some future point, become pregnant. Being looked over for promotions, etc. because of the future possibility of pregnancy and missed work. That is unfair and should be prohibited. Apart from that particular figment of your imagination, what other examples of favouritism can you site?

Right, it's all imagined unless you're a Feminist.

You can't outlaw who people pick to work for a company. Besides that I've never seen it in person where someone was passed over for a promotion b/c they were women. In fact, where I work and in my circle of friends, all the women here were promoted faster than the men. So I claim it's fair.

I don't have anymore. I've been saying all this time that it's figments of Feminism imagination that they're left behind. The work one keeps coming up is why I'm addressing it.