“Them” referring to the two books catsix summarized. The meaning of them said, meaning what the books actually said.
Asked and answered. Just above in fact.
Making a matter of fact statement is quite different from the snotty and snide manners in which you’ve been demanding cites from both of them. In other words, it’s not THAT you’ve gotten after her for her lack of cites, it’s the WAY you’ve gotten after her. Again, no reason to treat her as if she drowns kittens or something. GEESH, it’s just a difference of opinion, not the war for the survival of humanity.
Saying something to the effect of “an actual cite, rather than just hearsay is what is needed here, you can’t use anecdotal evidence if you don’t accept it” so to speak, is a FAR cry from you assholish “No cite yet Andy, Didn’t think so, Man bites dog, Just as I thought” ad nauseum.
And, I notice that despite your resisting my “bitching” at you, you have, in fact, calmed down a bit, in this post.
If you really want to continue the way you have, I have no power over you, knock yourself out.
Of course, if you go into GD or into a real debate with someone whose research and debating skills far exceed my wimpy little tech writer skills, you’ll be eaten alive.
I clarified my supposed “position” on Tom Leykis in the first post in which I quoted him. You just simply didn’t read it. All you saw was “Tom Leykis” and you went off from there.
First of all, Tom Leykis and his Leykis 101 are a RADIO act. Good grief. Have you not seen the man in interviews? Or heard him express this, in his show?
At any rate, I didn’t say that I thought Tom Leykis was any kind of admirable “feminist”. I stated that HE says he’s a feminist.
In answer to andy’s assertion that NO ONE thought of feminists as the dictionary definition of the word, aside from me, and that he wouldn’t believe that anyone did until I provided a publicized source. I did.
A widely circulated radio show, in which Tom Leykis refers to himself as “the original feminist” and then goes on to describe that word as meaning “for equality of women”. He also goes on to say especially where “equal work for equal pay is concerned”.
Which is, btw, something I personally believe in very strongly, having spent the better part of my career in male dominated fields.
Makes me see red to have some wimpy girl come into a job and expect to have her cake and eat it too. If she can’t lift and work to the same capacity as the guys? Get a different job, if you can’t do the work, you don’t deserve the pay. And trying to behave or weasel your way into it otherwise, just makes those women who ARE doing the work, look bad.
catsix, you’ve provided one summary of the works; margin has provided another. Are you posting for the masturbatory pleasure of seeing your words in print, or are you hoping to put forth a persuasive argument here?
If the former, hey, more power to you. But if the latter, you’ve badly failed so far: I don’t trust your summaries (especially since your summary of Susan Faludi, for example, is at odds with my vaguely recalled memories of skimming Backlash a dozen or so years ago).
If you don’t have them in front of you, fine – but don’t expect me to believe your summaries of them. Those summaries carry no rhetorical weight at all.
I think I’ve been reasonable here, given you every chance to provide reasonable arguments against feminism. More and more it’s looking like what you have isn’t so much of a reasoned position as it is a knee-jerk reaction.
That’s your opinion. You’ve gotten pretty impatient with both of them yourself. You’ll have to cope. Andy accuses feminists of desiring the murder of men; he refuses to provide cites, to the point of airily declaring that anybody who demands such a thing has their head up their ass. He tells blatant lies and twists words–and you’ve commented on it—but when I lose my temper over this, you get snippy with me.
I could give a shit what Tom Leykis calls himself, and saying that he’s a feminist where ‘equal pay is concerned’ is a dodge. It’s a radio act? Who cares what he calls himself? He broadcasts bile about women, and then dodges the flack by saying that he’s a feminist where equal pay is concerned. His record and further remarks indicate that he’s profoundly anti-feminist.
And as for your remarks about debating style or whatever, this is the Pit, for fuck’s sake. Andy won’t provide cites, and catsix flings insults around. If they’re going to bash whole groups of people, they should back up what they’re saying. Without it, it’s just bigotry.
Andy deserves to get ‘cite’ tossed at him when he starts a thread whining that I claimed feminist utopian fiction didn’t exist. He tapdances around direct questions, is deliberately obtuse, and lobs insults when he gets backed into a corner. Catsix is little better. You may or may not think he or catsix deserve to get nailed for it. That’s your problem.
Why, thank you, Mommy, how fucking patronizing you are.
And I will.
And you fell for it. Feminism is useless if it applies only to the professional world, because so much of the bigotry that’s directed at women is seen in intimate relationships. Lots of people say they’re ‘feminists, but—’ Gee, he believes in equal pay. That’s nice. But how do men and women—boys and girls—get to the point of demanding equal pay for work? Do they go to school, perchance, and could sexism be an issue there? I wonder if he’s done any research into the very basis of that ‘equal’ theory----equal to whom? Who sets the standard? Are the standards possible for only one gender to meet? Is there a legitimate reason for those standards? Somebody always winds up getting compared to somebody else, and not favorably. Some people who claim to be for equality use that as a cover for whining against ‘special rights’—but how do you treat, say, a pregnant woman and a man who will never get pregnant equally? Is the woman unequal to the man, or vice versa? Is equality even possible in such a situation? The only way to make them equal is to ignore that pregnancy. Is that fair? Do you in fact ignore that, make them do strictly the same things, or do you treat them * fairly* instead? Some pregnant women find they need to go to the bathroom more often; do you demand that they go no more frequently than a man? Who, needless to say, is not pregnant? Some women breastfeed, and some employers have set up breast feeding stations for them. Do you demand that men have such rooms as well, even though they don’t breast feed? It’s certainly treating them equally, but it illustrates that ‘equality’ is not a standard that’s suited to complex situations. The fact that there are changing rooms in both mens’ and womens’ rooms illustrates, however, the concept of fairness, perfectly.
It’s the essential difference between equality and fairness that makes some people uncomfortable, so they jump on ‘equality’ and hold on desperately. ‘Equality’ looks fair, but it often requires that women meet a standard set up by men for men, or vice versa. Treating women differently, however, makes lots of people uncomfortable because it requires actually judging and thinking rather than rubber-stamping one standard on everybody. After all, it’s the same reason for everybody, right? That’s okay, right?
Carole Tavris, by the way, has written a lot about how equality is just as unfair to men being judged by female standards as vice versa. She talked about how women judge romance by their ‘feminized’ standards—roses, candles, presents----while ignoring that men may in fact have different standards for expressing love, romance, affection, devotion, or something. She gave several examples of men who expressed affection, in the words of one man----‘with their feet’-----by doing everyday things that they knew the woman they loved hated, or that would just save her the trouble of doing it herself, as a considerate gesture. Sometimes, these gestures were rejected as being ‘not romantic’ enough, because they didn’t meet apre-concieved female standard. But the guy was really and truly trying to show his feelings. A fair standard for romance would find both roses and—one example I remember----car-washing as gestures of devotion. Tavris was using the ‘language of romance’ in a tongue-in-cheek way, but it was interesting reading.
Catsix will of course attack this, and I might or might not lose my temper. You will bitch at catsix for doing so, and then you will bitch at me for being sarcastic. Knock yourself out.
I was attempting to be reasonable. It appears now that no matter what I say, you will label it a knee-jerk reaction so that you don’t have to accept that your apparently deeply entrenched beliefs about feminists might ignore the damage they’ve done to some people.
I think, Dorkness, that no matter what I cite, you and margin will shove your heads in the sand and refuse to accept any of it. Instead of refuting it, which you are more than welcome to do, you call me an irrational reactionary.
Attack my position all you want. Use facts and cites to do so. It won’t bother me. Just don’t try to claim that there’s something wrong with my mental state.
You could always get off your ass and read the books yourself rather than accepting or rejecting different opinions of them based on who posted it.
It is hotly debated primarily because its proponents are dishonest. They say it involves equality, but the bottom line is that it involves job discrimination. Proponents say they are fighting job discrimination. Then they practice it. That’s dishonest. What proponents of affirmative action attempt to deny is that it is discriminating against the person who is passed over because he or she is in the “wrong” group. If you’re the type to claim that affirmative action isn’t discrimination, then no amount of hard facts will sway you. If you admit it’s discrimination, then we’re agreed.
It’s intrinsically involved. Feminist organizations advocate affirmative action. They advocate anti-male discrimination. That is part of the feminist movement, which is already rife with anti-male attitudes. Affirmative action is where they put their anti-male philosophies into action. It’s one of the most tangible and immediate effects of feminists playing victim and demonizing men. Affirmative action takes people with a certain characteristic in common an lumps them all together – in this case, all men. That view is directly linked to feminism’s stereotypes of men. One feminist says all men are rapists. Another say all men benefit from patriarchy, so it’s fine to discriminate against men. Both dehumanize men in the process of carrying out an agenda.
If you don’t oppose affirmative action, don’t you dare try to tell me you harbor no anti-male views.
You’re asking me to prove a negative again.
If you think it IS a goal, show me.
You understand wrong. N.Y. Rep Rangel resently proposed bringing the draft back. Men still have to register. And the war in Iraq has more people talking about drafting men.
quote:
So what you’re saying is that being a feminist doesn’t actually have to show up in your life. You can hold a belief, just not act on it.
Yep, pretty much as I though. Being a feminist doesn’t actually have to show up in your life. You just have to believe. And it’s too bad that nasty old life makes it too inconvenient for you to put your beliefs into action.
quote:
Also, I would note that any movement that says “women should be treated equally” is inherently sexists, because if it actually wanted equality, it would say people should be treated equally.
Playing the race card? How shockingly original.
Martin Luther King Jr. made it a point to talk about people being equal. It’s unfortunate that a lot of later leaders like Al Sharpton have proven themselves to be racial partisans.
Sorry, wrong answer. White women had loads of privileges that black men did not have, yet the white feminists turned around and demonized all men. Also, those upper-class, privileged white women who founde the current wave of feminism – the Betty Friedans and Patricia Irelands – came from privileged backgrounds and tried to claim they were oppressed. Maybe there was job discrimination, but those particular feminists were not suffering from it, because they lived in the upper reaches of society. They then proposed that because they were such “victims,” that privileged Ivy League feminists get affirmative-action benefits ahead of men from Appalachia.
You need only look at the wealth of feminist chauvinism to realize they preached “equality” while considering women superior. And going back to our original topic, feminism has never actually striven for equality. In any area where women enjoyed the advantage, feminists have tried to cement their hold on that advantage. Child custody is the classic case. Not many feminists believe in giving men equality.
When feminists wanted the vote, they got the vote.
When feminists wanted jobs, they got jobs.
When feminists wanted to free women from traditional roles and keep men in theirs, that’s exactly what happened.
Feminists have been astoundingly successful in getting what they want.
So maybe in their heart of hearts, they do not want to be in combat. Sure, they demanded military jobs during the long peacetime between gulf wars. But that’s over now. Please cite me any feminist calling for us to draft women and make them serve in combat.
Oh, that’s right – men aren’t letting them into combat. I forgot that.
Of course, men didn’t let them into men’s clubs, but that changed.
I know that you, with your covert anti-male attitudes, are going to blame men for not having women in combat. So in advance, let me add that feminists just aren’t trying very hard to get in, either.
Funny, I thought equality meant sharing the responsibilities instead of just the benefits of our society. I guess “equality” means you just get to pick where you want to be equal.
Rewrite: As to job discrimination, so if men reallllllllly want equality, they’d simply hand over their jobs to the feminists all the time, because that’s what’s equal.
Could you please tell that to feminist organizations? NOW and others have made it a priority to protect women’s advantages in custody cases.
quote:
In other words “regular” feminist does NOT equal Publicized, anti-man bashing crusader.
And so if you benefitted from a movement that demonizes men, you just wash your hands, saying it’s good for you and you don’t care who else gets hurt.
You are very much like the early suffragettes. They demonized minorities in order to advocate the vote for the white women. After these white suffragettes got the vote, they went on enjoying the benefits they had won by demonizing another group. The parrallels to today’s feminists is manifest.
CanvasShoes, if you benefit from it, it doesn’t matter what else the movement does. Your only interests are your own. I say that anyone as selfish and self-centered as this cannot possibly believe in equality.
No, what I’m saying is that anti-male bigotry has free rein in feminism and the alleged feminists who allegedly oppose man-bashing are either toothless or non-existent. In other words, it is entirely justified to view feminism as an anti-male movement, because the only ones being active in it are those who either advocate or tolerate anti-male policies.
Apparently because you don’t think affirmative action is unfair to men.
And yet you believe in "equality.
Oh, what a load of crap, CanvasShoes. Why am I wasting breath on you? This whole fucking thread is full of what they’ve done.
Because, of course, it’s Daniel’s job to do your research for you. Oh, certainly. He has to look for statements that prove you wrong. He has to look for statements that prove you right. ** Of course, this leaves unanswered entirely the question of whether or not you actually read the damned things. **
From CanvasShoes:
Andy’s reply.
CanvasShoes makes a straightforward statement that she has no knowledge of something. And Andy acribes to her an opinion that is simply not visible anywhere in the statement that he quoted. Nope, nothing there about how she thinks about it, merely that she’s not aware that what he’s claiming has in fact come to pass. And he accuses her of something.
SAL again:
After a rediculous struggle.
It’s really that simple, folks.
Oh, yes, feminists *want* men to be macho assholes! That works so well! That explains why Susan Faludi wrote a book about American working men.
Oh, wait, that’s right. I’m still waiting for that cite.
Of course, those chicken shit bitches just want the pay, and now they want out! They're peacetime soldiers, only.
I will provide you with cites when you provide me with the one I’ve been asking for eight pages.
Because men have had no effect on gays in the military, either, you know.
I am one of those women, you asshole. Several women from my Reserve Unit are in Iraq right now. They’re going to rotate out, and everybody’s who’s stateside will be rotated in.
The standard debate of the combat issue is that if women get into combat, it’ll be really hard for assholes like you to keep whining about women. We already fight for our country, but if we die for it—like Lori Piestowa did----then our country owes exactly what it owes any other soldier who fought and died.
Are some conservative assholes interested in keeping women out of combat? Oh, hell yeah. Sometimes it’s chivalry used as a conveniant substitute for justice. “Oh, lil lady, I’ll protect you. Coincidentally, I’ll protect myself from examining my notions about women and so on, too.” Some people----coincidentally men, but there are some women, too----just don’t think women can handle it.
Oh, wait, why am I bothering? This is Andy, after all.
I read them. I gave my impression of them. If someone wishes to disprove that, they are welcome to do so. This includes both you and Dorkness.
Feminists would be happy if men acted just like women.
You’ve already been told about mindlessly screaming ‘cite’ by a moderator.
You didn’t learn anything from being warned by a mod, did you?
So then, in the interest of equality, do you believe that all women should be required to register with Selective Service on their eighteenth birthdays also?
Other than your opinion that that’s what “they” are doing. Please provide proof. I did. I gave a government cite that showed that men are well above women in the earnings department. So, while “feminists” may or may not want to “have all men’s jobs”. They’ve not done anything concrete to secure same. Nor have you shown any cites that that is what they are attempting to accomplish.
A half a dozen author’s opinions on the subject doesn’t count as “doing something to make this happen”.
Show us copies of the bills they’ve tried to pass to make this happen, petitions anything. Some hard data. Not just opinion.
quote:
At any rate, again a ridiculous example. The emotional turmoil involved in child custody cases has NOTHING to do with feminism.
Again, do you have hard data to show this? Or just that you have a handful of NOW nutsos opinions? Show us where “they” have petitioned. Show us copies of bills they’ve attempted to have passed to make this happen. I did my homework and showed you actual statistics.
quote:
In other words “regular” feminist does NOT equal Publicized, anti-man bashing crusader.
quote:
… Equality for women, has for the most part, been acheived,
I’m saying that I see no proof that anyone IS getting hurt. You certainly haven’t shown anything to prove to me that “men are being kept in their place” or targetted for unfair treatment.
I keep asking, but all you show is the opinion, as is written in a handful of books. Lots of authors write mean nasty things about another group, either in fiction or in an opinion, this in NO way “proves” that they’ve accomplished anything.
What would, as I’ve said before, and here I have to agree with margin, while I don’t agree with her methods, you’ve shown not one piece of evidence to prove that the things you say are happening, ARE in fact happening.
All you have shown is hearsay. “Oh, I know of this one guy who committed suicide because he was accused of sexual harrassment”. That has the ring of something you heard from a friend of a friend, or else something you saw on “Law and Order”.
Ahhh, now that I’ve brought them up, you suddenly remember “oh, that’s right Gloria and Betty WEREN’T the first”. And again, you know that they did this, this being “demonizing minorities” how?
No, that is not what I said. You’ve a huge problem with reading comprehension. You asked where the “real, the original” feminists were. I said, having achieved for the most part, the goals they set out for, most of them are now simply living life, live and let live.
If there were some sort of huge conspiracy where men were being hurt by this right and left, people, not feminists, but people of BOTH sexes would be up in arms to fight it.
But once again, I don’t believe that this horrible conspiracy against men is happening. And you haven’t shown that it is.
quote:
So basically, what you’re saying is, “here are all these meanies that are forcing unfair treatment and acts upon men, and no one to rescue me, and since they DO exist, it’s up to someone else to rescue me and fight them”?
Again, WHAT are these women accomplishing, other than having incorrect opinions? What, concretely, have they managed to have passed that adversely affects men?
I notice that you’ve decided to abandon the “there are NO ‘real’ or ‘old school’ feminists” line of thought since you can’t prove it, and are now in favor of the "well, they MIGHT exist, but they’re cowards because they aren’t out here rescuing poor little old helpless guys who are being persecuted.
quote:
Again, I have no knowledge of these groups having managed to actually put into being any laws, acts or whatever that are in fact “unfair to men”.
How exactly is it unfair to men? And I asked for proof of what NOW had managed to have passed. They didn’t pass the Affirmative Action law.
Again, the pros and cons of affirmative action are a completely different subject for debate. Mixing apples and oranges is in no way “proof” of anything NOW has done.
quote:
You admonished me to write NOW and tell them I disagree with “what they’re doing”. What is it, exactly, that they ARE doing?
No, it’s not. You haven’t provided anything but anecdotal evidence, or opinions written by certain NOW members. Someone’s opinion, however incorrect, isn’t “proof” it’s not a “cite”. All it is is what that particular author thinks.
You haven’t provided proof, by way of hard data (a newspaper report, a law they lobbied into existance which is “against” men) at all.
All I’m asking for is that you show ONE law that NOW has lobbied into existance, that’s purpose was to “eradicate” men, or to make NOW superior to men.
I provided 4 cites in my last post, which I notice you conveniently ignored.
One or two of which showed that there is, in fact a faction out there for the support of battered men. Another of which was for “men’s rights”.
One of the articles I provided, regarding violence toward women by their intimate partners was BY a man!
Those links are what constitutes “hard data”, not your urban legendish “this guy committed suicide because he was accused of sexual harrassment”.
I guess I have to bow to margin’s foreseeing of this. You’re either unable, or unwilling to provide any data to prove your claims.
Without that it’s a question of you bringing in more and more personal, anecdotal, and unproven garbage. To which I have to say “asked and answered”.
Gee, "mindlessly screaming "part was not part of Lynn Bodani’s comments. I wonder where that came from? And thanks for ignoring your own double standards. I"ll provide a cite when Andy does. It’s that simple. As a practical concern, you simply cannot have a debate when the person stateing something fails to back up their opinion. There’s just nothing to argue with.
Exactly. Basic training was one of hte most difficult things I went through, and one of the most benefical. Aside from which, there’s a practical concern. It would require people to do some hard-thinking about sexism.
catsix, bullshit. Your vague recollections simply don’t rise to the standard of an argument. I won’t engage you further unless you can meet minimal standards.
Not true. If you or andy would provide an actual cite for your claims we’d be more than willing to look at them. As it is, neither of you have provided any hard data.
Cutting and pasting excerpts from a handful of authors who are also members of now, is not a “cite”.
I provided several examples of actual cites. Links to the Bureau of Justice showing the ACTUAL crime statistics for violence against women by their intimate partners.
I also provided a link to the US Census, which outlines how men are still at 15.8 % to women’s 5.5 % for making $75,000 or more per year.
A link which completely debunks andy’s claim that affirmative action is a means with which to put men in the less equal position.
A cite from one of you two would be something similar. For instance, a link to a law that NOW had gotten passed that is in effect in order to “keep men in their place”. And so on.
So then, in the interest of equality, do you believe that all women should be required to register with Selective Service on their eighteenth birthdays also?
Hmmmmmmmmm, me too. Which reminds me, aside from your attempts to use this as a red herring, have YOU ever been in the service Andy?
I have. Draft or no draft, I signed up anyway. Have you ever been in the service? I sure hope so, because if you’ve spent the last couple of pages throwing this in the feminazis faces regarding their being “chickenshit” and haven’t served yourself. You’d better be willing to cover all the MEN who never served under that label as well. Including yourself.
A widely circulated radio show, in which Tom Leykis refers to himself as “the original feminist” and then goes on to describe that word as meaning “for equality of women”. He also goes on to say especially where “equal work for equal pay is concerned”.
Apparently you didn’t read the entire thread. Again, Andy’s assertion was that NO ONE but me thought of feminism, insofar as its definition as that of “equality for women,” in its original definition/concept. Andy’s assertion was that everyone except for me, when they think of feminism, they think of NOW, feminazis and the like.
My use of Tom Leykis was an example to show ONLY that the definition and general understanding, as in the “old school” definition, wasn’t limited to just my thoughts on it. But that others had a definition other than andy’s.
And as I explained the last time you asked this, NO, I don’t think of Tom Leykis as being a “good” example of actually BEING A feminist. For the record, his mysognism IS an act for his “Leykis 101” show. You don’t think that John Belushi was Really a samurai baker do you?
Do I think it’s a good show? Absolutely. It’s hilarious how many people take it for real. It’s like WWF for pete’s sake. Tom himself says “…and morei importantly, to teach a woman how men think”. In other words, if a girl uses half a brain she can use what Leykis “advises” all these young players to do, to HER advantage and avoid getting played.
I was speaking of his understanding of the word, and that he broadcasts THAT understanding of the word on many radio networks across the country.
So, despite andy’s incorrect assumptions, I’m not the only one who thinks of feminism in the “old school” meaning of the word.
Yeah, I guess that explains why Leykis is so feminist he was arrested for beating his then-wife. The charges were dropped if he attended anger-management classes, which it doesn’t appear he did.
His understanding of the word ‘feminist’ appears to have stopped at quite a basic level. Leykis is about as much of a feminists as Limbaugh is, and makes excuses in just the same fashion. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
You’re continuing to think I said that he represented an “appropriate” feminist.
Again, I used him as an example that the technical current dictionary meaning of the word “feminist” as I know it, wasn’t my understanding alone. He used the term, on his show in its original meaning. Whether or not he does, or doesn’t support this ideal, and how is another issue. I was talking about his use of the word.
In no way does that mean that I think HE represents the be all and end all of feminism. I’m talking technical defintion. Period.
Again, andy claimed that I’m the only person on the face of the earth that sees the dictionary definition of the word “feminist” as a viable current meaning.
I used Leykis as an example of someone who used the term in its orginal meaning. That’s it. Not “Tom Leykis is a good feminist”. Just “Tom Leykis also uses this term according to the same meaning I do”.
I’m not disagreeing with you on this, other than that you think I’m saying something I’m not. Tom Leykis is an idiot regarding people and human nature PERIOD. Not just women/feminists. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a good vocabulary and isn’t intelligent otherwise.
It also doesn’t mean that people don’t find his show entertaining.
Again, reference my WWF analogy. That’s not real either, yet a hell of a lot of people find it entertaining.
Yeah, I used to have a neighbor who was absolutely convinced that WWF was real. Depressing. For that matter, it’s the people who take Leykis seriously who are really scary. But I see what you’re saying.
We don’t get Leykis anymore, the radio station that carried his show went belly-up or something. But I used to get a big kick out of it.
One nice thing, if any men are stupid enough to fall for his “Leykis 101” advice, any girl with half a brain could pick it out in a heartbeat. (guy takes you out on a first date to a nice restaurant and then says "oh, I’ll just have the dinner salad? PUH lease!!!:D).
It’s kinda nice in a way, he’s made it easy to weed out some of the morons and the players at least!!
I always felt really sorry for the guy (I hadn’t known he’d been charged with beating his wife, I thought he was still single), at any rate, it was always really apparent that he was an unpopular unattractive young man, and that he’d been treated badly by girls in high school.
His extreme bitterness and need for revenge on those “cows” as he called them, was really transparent.
What exactly do you have against reading a book yourself to form your own opinion of it?
The one that doesn’t account for differences in occupation, full or part time status and seniority?
Do you think that women should be paid exactly the same as men when they work less hours, are more often working part-time instead of full-time, and lack the seniority necessary to move into higher positions?
It certainly works against men in college enrollment. Women now make up 57% of those enrolled in college, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics. Nine out of twelve residents working at Bellvue Hospital are women.
And they’re still treated as a disadvantaged minority under AA.
I said that if they wanted to be truly equal under the law then they would support the required registration with selective service for women so long as it applies to men. For the record, I went to the Post Office and registered. Had the man behind the desk tell me I was wasting my time because they would just throw the form away.
There are apparently two of you on earth. You still seem quite a bit outnumbered.
catsix, had I said I had anything against reading a book, you’d have a point. I said nothing of the sort; I simply said that your uncited, unsupported summary of the obok carried no weight at all in this discussion. I’l read the book when and if I get around to it. You’re the one arguing that feminists are manhaters, but it’s becoming clear that you’re not so much arguing it as asserting it.
If someone claims that, for example, Democrats all secretly hate gay people, the onus is on them to prove their point: they can’t shift the responsibility onto me to read a book that they claim, without support, makes their argument for them.
You’re doing essentially the same thing.
And if you don’t understand that by now, I’m afraid I can’t make it clearer to you.
