The woman power era is coming - The End of Men

if you think about it, it goes both ways.
we are at fault for leaving the seat up, but they arent at fault for not putting it down.is that offense not identical in nature, its not like lifting the seat takes less effort than puttin it down.we arent shirking the rough part (open this jar) to them.not to mention the seat being up is based in a courtasy to woman.im completely content getting a case of the willies while peeing and getting on the seat, but as a courtasy i lift the seat as to avoid it even being an issue.yet its never enough.

i think the toilet seat is the crux of the whole issue.

You have to compare the outcome and the discomfort under both scenarios. Have you ever sat on the toilet when the seat was up? How did that feel? You should try and let us know.

but it doesnt negate the equality of the crime.just as someone commits a crime against another, while the offense doesnt change,wether or not the victim dies changes the charge.so the crime of you not lifting the seat up when done, is as equal offense as us not putting it down when done.but despite that being the case, thier is inequality towards us in charge levied.you are guilty at best of passing the responsability to us, we are guilty for your not looking before sitting.about time a little equality on that one.
marijuana makes you think about wierd shit

if we all just put down the whole lid between usage it would just solve the whole argument there.....

Al thought I appreciate my husband for putting the toilet seat down for me I hardly consider the failure to do so a crime.

you didnt bother cuz reasonable rational thought dictated you ought not to.i really can only take partial credit for that thought as it was brought to you by "marijuana, dont leave home with it".
ill work on that for ya though when im high later.

its not literally, although if i get my wife at like 3am her reaction is as if it were a crime, but i was using its criminality as analogous

or if woman left it up, putting the onus on them as the responsable party.

A man can fall into the toilet too when they use it for that function that requires sitting regardless of gender. Men dont always need the toilet seat up, just for #1 so why would you think its easier to leave it up? It should definitely be left down if you are going to pick a state because this is where men can use it for half their needs, and woman for all.

Brewer sucks.

Can women be extra aggressive to prove something to someone? Absolutely.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/woman_fired_from_citibank_for_being_too...

Women fired for having nice breasts...

i was joking lol

tell me about it me and my tits are unemployed

Women use their looks and sexuality to their advantage but no one is talking about that. Can you imagine this headline... "A woman was hired for having nice breast." I bet you no one would even read that story, it is all about the sensation.

Hahaha!

Real men generally prefer the endearment "pooter".

...only if the smacking right goes both ways.

To be honest, I really don't think that would bother me.. lol

LOL.

Men also harassed at workplace in ways that bothers them also.

that would be so freakin awesome

yeah but its like the teachers sleeping with students, while equally wrong, the male students not as bothered relly by it

Is this your personal experience?

sadly no, i had no game.i was on the wishing and hoping side of the teachers banging students issue.

Then you have no idea the effects of sexual abuse on any men. Some may see it as blessing and others have long term negative effects.

well you go ahead and let me know when you come across that survivors group that serves men who banged thier teachers.im not saying someone by the virtue of being male cant find themselves sexualy exploited, im just saying as the heterosexual mentality go's it often ends up in our conciousness (the effected, and uneffected alike) as a badge of honor more than anything else, as the same persuit of hot ass at 13 is identical in nature at 18, and in many cases forever.

http://www.shatterdmen.com/

this is but one group that covers such situations.....

Be careful you can be incarcerated for that :)

ehhh. i can kill spiders...

I have some special techniques for this problem that I've learned. 1. Hit the jar as many times as necessary with a buttle knife to release the built us pressure. 2. Use a round rubber pad to open jars.

It may be a good idea to start a spider farm.

Love it ... love it ... love it

ive only been married for like 5 yrs or so, but im pretty certain the jars thing is just them fucking with us.im serious, i think my wife does that shit, as a method of passive aggressive needling.cuz the truth is shes stronger than me (nice italian stock) and im a nebishy jew.

hilarious!!! just imagine the "other" uses for that!!! lol

Are you ok with that job?

men are simple, and have simple needs, so yes

"it is not surprising that feminists claim 85% of women will have been sexually harassed in the work force at some point in their lives. It is comparable to replacing speed limits with a law under which one could be fined for driving through a neighbourhood at any speed which made some of its residents uncomfortable."

Hmm, driving fast is the same as making someone feel sexually uncomfortable?

The example you use is an extreme; as a woman with huge...tracks of land... and with many female friends who have shared their stories, I can tell you that while sexual comments are common, unwanted, discriminatory and humiliating, they are also usually taken in stride. A few examples of people exploiting the law does not mean women haven't been discriminated against, held back, laughed at, exploited, etc. I doubt highly that the message to be learned is that men and women are "the same"- NO ONE is the "same"... But people shouldn't be treated badly because of their differences, that's all. Methinks you have a serious "THING" against feminists as you personally define them!

You have described what well known author Christina Hoff Sommers calles "gender feminism". Christina Hoff Sommersas defines "equity feminism" as the struggle for equal legal and civil rights and many of the original goals of the early feminists, and "gender feminism" is the action of accenting the differences of genders for the purposes of creating privilege for women in academia, government, industry, or advancing personal agendas.

Your comment is right on target but unfortunately even valid criticism of "gender feminism" is shut down as woman hatred.

You are correct equal does not imply the same. We must learn to respect and cherish the differences.

I do have a serious "thing" against feminists, not as I define them, but as they have shown themselves to be. Even then I do not hold contempt for all feminists, for I know that many come bearing respectable wishes of equality in a society that has all too often rejected and demeaned them. I respect my fellow human beings, especially women, if they will respect me in turn, but that is not a constant among feminists. There are obviously those who appear to live for nothing more than to demonize men.

Well, let me say now, I do not hate women, nor have I ever. I was raised in such a way that I was taught to respect women, to be gentlemanly, and to be chivalrous. I plan to teach my young sons, should I have any, just the same.
It feels like those very virtues of chivalry and gentlemanly-ness are vanishing, and soon enough we wont see them anymore. I fear that day.

preface "feminism" with "extreme", and you're spot-on.

I believe I called it "Contemporary Feminism".

How is the white collar world better suited for the disposition of women and gay men? And if this is so, does it mean women or gay men should be favored over men or straight men?

No, no one should be favored for any particular role. Whoever is most qualified, and often most willing to take on a job, should receive it. But in the case of what I've seen at school, it's mostly women and gay men who join the Program Board, run for student government and are a part of the bureaucratic and white-collar-esque roles around school. Meanwhile, straight males more often play video games, get shitfaced at frat parties and try to hook up with girls.

While everyone may be in the same majors and taking the same courses, it seems like women are stepping it up more and getting more involved, increasing their qualifications and experience, which will only continue to benefit them over straight male counterparts. I could be full of observational bullshit, but it's something I noticed upon entering college.

... though it kinda sits in line with what I've read in anthropological anthologies, as well. From elementary school to middle-management offices, spaces of education to business are somewhat feminized, demanding concentration, participation, obedience and formality. Young boys are typically more rowdy, competitive and kinetic learners, which is unfavorable in the educational system, and so boys begin to lag behind their girl peers from the get-go. And as the article discusses, traditional images of masculinity don't mesh with the contemporary white-collar workforce, at which time the problems left unresolved over the years are pretty much set.

By trying to integrate young boys and girls as if they are the same kind of learner is doing a great disservice to males currently. But then young males who don't behave like most other males (as I certainly didn't) would suffer if forced to learn in environments not advantageous to them as well. So basically I feel like this trend is rooted in outdated conceptions of proper gender roles and an educational system that fails to even produce kids with stable identities. But hey what's new.

Some great comments but when you add scholarships for female students only that are developed to increase women student population it becomes absurd because it is in fact boys fall behind at school and male high school students dropout at much larger percentage then females. It is also boys who much more often are treated with strong prescription drugs for ADD/ADHD. And in fact the suiside rates are bigger among boys and men then girls and females.

There are many federal funds available for girls and women yet none are available to address issues boys and men face. Why there is no White House Council on Men and Boys but only White House Council on Women and Girls?

It was not my idea to create special fund for girls only, and it was not my idea to create White House Council on Women and girls. The separation has already occurred. My point has been all along that no group should be singled out for preferential treatment.

I agree that there is now too much emphasis on female inclusion and support to the detriment of males all across the educational system. I'm kinda ambivalent and trying to reason how this inequality could be rectified, but I don't want to be too brash and comment that it's a matter of introducing more male-focused programs, or if having attention given regardless of sex.... but hey I'm just a kid making tiny observations so what the heck.

As much as I would ideally like to imagine that scholarships, honors and considerations could be awarded regardless of sex, it seems pretty clear that this isn't a matter of females now being equal to men, but of men experiencing an active neglect, and so deliberate strides to acknowledge and encourage male success and attempts to integrate them would probably be best. Not to suggest that these programs should echo old modes of masculinity and dominance, but how to avoid this I'm not too sure. I also don't want to suggest that support for women should decline, as most social structures still preference males on the whole in terms of normalized dominance and power. I wish this was an easy problem, but even if it was it seems unlikely that there will be needed change in education anytime soon.

giving scolarships based on gender is just as atrtious as giving scholarships based on race... they are in a sense denying anyone else and being discriminatory within the effort to erase the discrimination.....

No we need to stop focusing EXCLUSIVELY of women and girls issues! Men and boys issues are completely and purposely overlooked.

You are a smart "kid" (as you call yourself), and I applaud you for great observations, the depth of understanding and strong desire for real gender equality.

true equality so rare.

equality is something of the heart and mind, its hard to legislate or control such things... obviously in extreme circumstances it does need to be enforced, but not to the point where it dissolves the equality in its own actions.....

Isn't it likely that the educational system has been purposefully geared in such a way as to make it an unfavorable learning environment for boys and a far more favorable environment for females?

Feminism is about gender equality, not women usurping masculinity.

You can't deny that there has been an incredible amount gender inequality since civilization began. Feminism is just an attempt to correct that inequality.

Of course, many movements have what appears to be the best of intentions.Equality. That's something to look up to. That's a good goal. Many can relate because many people want equality.

But, feminism is not accomplishing that end. Far from it. Women and others have been indoctrinated with the view that feminism has brought them great benefits.

It has done no such thing.

Feminism has retarded the progress of both men and women in very many important areas of their lives.

It is science, technology and medicine that have brought western women the freedoms that they currently enjoy.Relatively safe contraceptive devices and abortion methods have saved them from being burdened by unwanted pregnancies and unwanted offspring. Computerized well-funded welfare systems and incredible economic developments have enabled them to survive without the need for men solely dedicated to their well-being. Going out into the world of work is enormously more pleasant, safe and comfortable than it ever was. Communications, transport and security systems are more widespread, more effective and more powerful by a long way than they were, say, even fifty years ago.

They, the Contemporary feminists, always attempt to stir up male hatred whatever the situation. It does not matter who gets paid more or who gets killed more, these nasty 'wimmin' will use any differences to stir up hatred towards men.

Indeed, when a man kills his partner, he is deemed to be a violent thug. But when she kills him, it is still said that this is because he was a violent thug.

And even though women initiate most divorces, the message from the media and the politicians is that men are abandoning their families. But if men initiated most divorces it would again be said that men are abandoning their families.

If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent.

Feminists will always twist the evidence and the facts to demonise men.

And they will do this, basically, for two reasons.

Firstly, most of the leading feminists are severely dysfunctional 'women' and/or they are a particular type of lesbian. (And, in both cases, it is quite clear from their past histories and their rhetoric that they positively hate men - in some cases, perhaps with some justification as a result of experience).

(Please note that I feel no antipathy whatsoever towards lesbians or lesbianism. Au contraire; my personal view is that people being intimate with each other is a good thing and, further, that it is nobody's business what they choose to do.)

Secondly, there are now, literally, billions of dollars, numerous empires, and millions of jobs that depend on the public swallowing the idea that women need to be defended from men in some way or other. And the feminists (together with many others) can only maintain these luxuries by continually stirring up hatred toward - and a fear of - men.

Finally, it is worth emphasising that you can never have 'equality' between two things that are not equal by definition. And so, for example, you can have equality among 'people', but not between 'men' and 'women'.

And there is no scenario that anyone could come up with that would bring about 'equality' between 'men' and 'women' unless no distinction between 'men' and 'women' was actually being made, but since they are distinct by definition it is impossible.

Your argument begin to sound readable.....until you stooped to the traditional "Feminists are all too often men-hating nut jobs."
And it continued in a steep downward slope.

I guess often is the wrong word, but the ones that are often put the ones that aren't to shame. Turning respectable efforts at attaining equality into rhetorical, men-hating, propaganda machines.

Really? I thought it sounded crazy at "It is science, technology and medicine that have brought western women the freedoms that they currently enjoy.Relatively safe contraceptive devices and abortion methods have saved them from being burdened by unwanted pregnancies and unwanted offspring" - as if BABIES were to blame for women's inequality this whole time. Thanks, SCIENCE! Now I can fuck with no consequences, I must be FREE!

SIGH.

Hahaha!

I think the point he's making is that rational feminism has been hijacked by leftist extremism.

Well, science and technology don't stem from abortion. The overarching themes of what TheEmpireGuy is talking about is the conflict between Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism.

Moral Relativism denies any natural order that applies to life, and asserts that morals are a social construct.

Moral Absolutism argues that morals are clear and fixed. All values stem from God and Nature, and no one can question the way things are.

All of either is never a good thing, in my opinion. As for abortion, at a certain point there is more than one person to consider. Eventually, you have a live human being inside of you, and the situation is no longer one woman and her human rights. It's two individuals who happen to share the same bloodstream for a brief period. On the same token, the conservative idea that the "potential for life" is as sacred as life itself seems kind of nebulous.

"Moral Relativism denies any natural order that applies to life, and asserts that morals are a social construct.
Moral Absolutism argues that morals are clear and fixed. All values stem from God and Nature, and no one can question the way things are."

Hrm, perhaps I like to live somewhere in between extremes, where nature does it's thing and humans try to understand it. We make our own value systems, and whether we, god, or nature get the credit is up to personal philosophy I guess!

When it comes to abortion, I think men often dismiss the process the woman goes through during such a decision. Situations like that need to be dealt with on a "case by case" basis; sometimes, the other half of the bloodstream isn't around or interested in being part of the process. Sometimes they are but they never get the chance. Either way, "feminism" and the all too human need to feel valued and equal started long before our modern science and technology...

The pendulum has swung the other extreme.

So right away you are bringing "the natural order" into this? And God? Give me a break. As soon as anyone uses religion to back up their nonsense, their argument is invalid. If you ask a Muslim they will tell you that women are just less than men. Is that ok because it is the "natural order" of Islam? Or are you just right because Christianity is the "one true religion?" Save your fundie rant for church.

Please, name one feminist that has said that she/he "hates men." I want to see if you can back up the antifeminist bullshit you are spewing all over this post.

It was great idea that gone bad because inequality of women was replaced by inequality of men.

the old why is is history and not herstory, or woman with a y WOMYN

i wanna be sexualy exploited too, its all about equality, why do you guys to be objectified, i want some too

Here you go...

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” (Catharine A. MacKinnon)

"Feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men."(Catharine MacKinnon)
"All men are rapists and that's all they are"(Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room”,and advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign)
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."(Catherine MacKinnon)

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."(Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.)

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."(Sharon Stone; Actress)

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
(Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.)

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."(Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.)

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."(Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love)

ancient civilizations actually revered the females, the forced gender division is actually new comparitively to human history.......

Please see to MotherForTruth for that one. I especially don't like the, "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon is the worst of the worst. Who is she to say what me and my spouse or girlfriend do in our private lives?

I believe both will be accomplished. It was just a sad overestimation of the recalcitrance and political grandstanding of congress that caused this delay. DADT is now part of the Defense Authorization Bill and to oppose it the republicans will have to filibuster the entire military budget. Democrats would love to see them try, especially with two thirds of Independents and event half of republicans on the side of open service in the military.

As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to rescind DADT with a simple order.

He does not. He may issue a stop loss order for the duration of military conflict, but that won't end the policy just provide temporary relief.