The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!

Of course not. Its not like they revel in the notion of masculinity, theyrevel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society. That's the dumbest and most childish way of handling an already disparaging problem by fighting fire with fire. But adding black power it doesn't place white power on a level playing field. It just keeps increasing the animosity. Then, normal people who could care less about race get caught in the mix and are lumped together by virtue of association, by what color they are, i.e racism combating racism. This is why affirmative Action doesn't work."You don't feel like you can get a job because of your race. Instead, we'll just give you a job because of your race, not because you're qualified."What?? What a slap in the face. Why would you want to work for a company that you suspected espoused racist ideologies to begin with? Its just silly to me. I guess more information is needed to answer the question with honesty. Did the children work for those apples? If the amount of apples is determined by how hard one worked, the other child needs to understand that working hard has its benefits, or at least for (s)he to be happy with his wage. If the parent or teacher promised both children 4 apples and one had more than the other, then I would say that is not fair. But I'm not sure how this fits into our current discussion. If you haven't noticed nature has made males stronger of the two sexes typically. I mean, you are arguing against nature. Couldn't men be angry, by a similar premise, that they are not looked upon as effective child rearers and that for a parent to choose a female over a male for childcare could be construed as sexist? Does that really seem like a worthy endeavor?Now, lets say I'm in a combat situation. Can I get mad at a woman if she does not have the physical ability to do what I can do? Certainly not. Can I get mad a Washington bureaucrats who, for the sake of being 'fair,' gave women a role that nature never intended for them? Yes, I can! If I'm a male and decided to be a childcaregiver, can I really get mad at the parents who selected a female over me? I could, but I'd be fighting a losing battle with nature. Males and females are different. They are. And its that difference which makes for some interesting relationships. I just don't see why society is trying to eradicate that rich diversity. There is another flipside to that. I have absolutely nothing to do with slavery, yet I'm part caucasian and part hispanic. On both sides of that family tree, somewhere my ancestors probably engaged in slavery. Isn't it racist to assume that I'm a bigot simply because I was born white/hispanic? Doesn't that completely render the complainants whining ineffectual? Obviously. That was just one instance. In that same school district they are making unisex bathrooms and refuse to refer to the children as "Boys or girls." But why pretend that there isn't a difference when there is? That's ridiculous. Here, listen to the transcript , its entitled under "Gender Neutrality." The harm in that is that its intentional confusing children as to who they are. They are making people gay not helping those who are already gay. They don't want to treat homosexuals differently, yet at every turn, they set up speical privaleges for them. That makes no sense. If a kid beats up any one, for any reason, let them get in trouble for their action. Punish the crime not the thought that caused the crime.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Ah, right. It's not that black people are discriminated against; they're just lazy. You know you might have predicated this discussion on race by informing us all that you're a racist, it would have saved a little time.The answer is, btw, "the child with 3 worked for them; the child with 4 was simply given them for doing no work at all." I don't see the relevance. How much heavy lifting do you think is required to be CEO, for instance, or President of the United States? You call them "interesting", the women who escape from them might call them "abusive." More BS, I see. What special privileges? Not being beat up? Yeah, I guess that would be a privilege. I don't see any punishment of thoughts. I see a campaign to convince people that their thoughts may be wrong or unfair.I don't see what possible problem you would have with that, unless you think your views are so amazing that you have an absolute right not to be presented with information that contradicts them. Being not disagreed with, unfortunately, is not a right granted by the First Amendment, or any other.

LOL! Yeah, nice try turning a damn good debate of mine around on me. Anyone that agrees with Affirmative Action must inherently believe that black people are lazy or are incapable of finding employers that aren't racist, not me! I don't treat people according to their race, which is exactly what Affirmative Action does! Don't you see the irony in that? Then I would agree that its unfair.

quote:

---

If you haven't noticed nature has made males stronger of the two sexes typically.

---

If you believe in the evolutionary dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest, then I can scarcely believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about. If a woman works her way up to CEO status or President, good on her. I'm speaking out against Feminism, not females or feminity. I think I've clearly shown the difference.

quote:

---

And its that difference which makes for some interesting relationships.

---

What are you talking about? When did I even remotely allude to violence? Men are stronger than women in certain ways. Its a fact of life. Women are stronger than men in certain. Its a fact of life. So why try and pretend that those strengths and weaknesses don't exist when females can be strong where males are weak, and males can be strong where females are weak? Isn't that duality the very thing that makes feminity and masculinity attractive to the opposite sex to begin with? Obviosuly its hardwired in us by God/nature.

quote:

---

In that same school district they are making unisex bathrooms and refuse to refer to the children as "Boys or girls."

---

Its not my rules. That's the convoluted genius of the California school system. So, let me ask you: Do you think that emasculating males is a good idea, if so, why? Do you think that pretending that gender has nothing to do with anything is going to have positive or negative marks on society?

quote:

---

They don't want to treat homosexuals differently, yet at every turn, they set up speical privaleges for them.

---

Yeah, how about no fighting irrespective of the motive.....? If kids were fighting over basketball teams, would it make sense to have "basketball awareness" seminars? No, it wouldn't. So what is the difference in LGBT community? The difference is they are trying to indoctrinate children to make it acceptable. I think that's deceptive and descpicable to do to kids, as if they need to be thinking about any of this at that age to begin with. You don't get it because you don't see it. You see things the way they want you to see it-- seemingly harmless, even beneficial. A few others know exactly what I'm talking about. We are being led down a primrose path slowly but surely. Its kind of like when you see the end of the movie and only then do the actions of the characters in the beginning and middle of the story begin to reveal its own profundity. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

You sure manage to sound like a racist. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to ignorance. No, that is not what affirmative action does.

Treating a certain race special by giving them priorities in the hiring process IS the classic definition of racism-- and since i'm not a racist, I refuse to treat people based on their race, but rather, their performance. Anyone that sees eye-to-eye with AA just placates people and basically treats them as if they were dumb. AA is a policy that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. I recognize that it is trying to do the right thing. But by trying to do the right thing, they end up doing the very thing they intend to abolish, which is racism and special preferences based soley on race and gender. That's reverse discrimination! That's racism/sexism against racism/sexism. You really can't see why that's a problem?

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

You have bought into the right wing mischaracterization of AA.

No. It seems completely obvious to me that, in order to correct an imbalance that way, you have to push a little bit the opposite way.You have a see-saw. On one side is 10 lbs, on the other side is 20 lbs. Obviously the see-saw teeters to the heavy side. Isn't it obvious that the see-saw will never be balanced if the only thing you do is add the same amount of weight to each side? I have no idea what you're talking about. Eating dogs is not required for being CEO (actually, it's a funny phrase - dogs don't eat dogs in the wild.)I would expect that being a good CEO or being President is about being a good manager, getting people to come around to your way of thinking, getting them to perform their best. Being able to communicate effectively, reach people on a personal level, inspire and nurture.Feminine qualities, in other words. I don't see how physical strength is necessary for being a CEO or the President. You still haven't told me. I don't see how aggression succeeds in a marketplace that rewards cooperation; I don't see how mindless brutality finesses the world of Beltway politics.But I think I do see how the qualities of aggression and competition, which you think are the "male" attributes, come into the equation. While those qualities are the worst possible ones to have in order to lead effectively, they're exactly the qualities a poor leader would need to hang on to the power. In other words, it's not that men are typically better leaders - they're just a lot, lot better at making sure women don't lead anything. Which ways? Which ways? Isn't it kind of funny, though, that whenever sexists like you invoke this construction of unspecified strengths and weaknesses, it turns out that men get all the good strengths:*Physical strength
*Intelligence
*Leadership presenceor whatever and women get all the "strengths" that are actually qualifications for being good servants? Like, "being good at knowing what other people want" or "being good at raising my kids for me" or "being skillful sex partners." In other words, the strengths of men are good for getting what men want, and the strengths of women are good for getting men what they want, too. How do homosexuals fit into that, I wonder?Anyway, the answer is "no." The duality that makes males attractive to females and vice-versa is the fact that reproduction requires a sperm and an ovum.Nothing else is really relevant to that because nothing else is reliable. There are relatively few biological differences between men and women that are immutable, and they're all related to reproduction. The stuff you're talking about? It's just cultural. Gender roles that you seem to think are universal, but that nobody actually completely adheres to. It's not anybody's. It's just something you're making up.I'm sorry, didn't you understand? I'm telling you that I don't believe you. Is that clearer? You think that somehow, kids don't know about sex? What, did you forget what it was like to be at that age? Didn't you understand what kind of relationship your parents had? That they loved each other, or did at one point? That they had a relationship that was much less like your relationship with your brother or sister, and more like the relationship you had with that girl or boy you had a crush on?Like, you really think that's something kids don't understand? Maybe you should leave education to the professionals. It seems pretty obvious you have no idea about children. To what, exactly? You're afraid they're gonna catch you and make you gay? Honestly, NJ, do you really believe that there's any force on Earth that could make you want to have sex with a man?No? Me neither. Why do you think it's different from anybody else? Do you really think the reason that you're not interested in fucking guys is because God told you not to? Don't you suspect that, if God told you he'd changed his mind and that it was totally ok, you still probably wouldn't want to do it?There's always been people like you, NJ, convinced that we're headed down the road to perdition's flames. And you've always been wrong. Always. Humanity moves up and out, not downward. All of the dark spots of human history have been the result of intolerance, not tolerance.

What do you do, exactly, where you're compelled to hire people based on Affirmative Action programs?No, really. You're talking like this is an issue that you're faced with every day; where you want to hire based on performance, but somebody's breathing down your neck to make you hire the gay black jews. It's the correction of inequality. The way that you correct an inequality is by introducing a complimentary inequality. It's simple logic.

Except that the see-saw analogy bears no relevance to society. If it did we would see some atrocious outcomes. I can assume, based on your analogy, that you advocate racism in order to stop racism? You advocate Palestinian violence to counter Israeli violence? You advocate Iraqi violence to even up American violence? My take on it is you don't use a racist agenda to stop racism. Its an oxymoron. Its counter-intuitive. Its a logical fallacy and it makes no sense.

quote:

---

If you believe in the evolutionary dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest, then I can scarcely believe that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

---

You've never heard of the catch phrase, "dog-eat-dog?" Nothing wrong with that. But allow me to digress here because you keep equating the Feminist Movement with feminity-- something I've expressed isn't homologous. Who said anything about physical strength in the marketplace? I certainly didn't. I said that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Are men typically stronger physically than females? Yes. But where a male might excel in is in analytical thinking on practical matters. But that doesn't mean that a man is neccesarily going to be a better CEO. It also doesn't mean that a female CEO is going to automatically inject emotion into her decisions instead of taking a calculated, practical approach. Actually, I'm not really sure why you keep bringing up irrelevant topics. I have no problem with femininity. In fact, I encourage it. What I have a problem with is Feminism, which I believe, is anti-feminine and seeks not the equality of males but the superiority over males. Where physical attributes would be critical is in a tactical situation where lives are on the line. I would much rather take a man into combat with me than I would a woman for a variety of reasons. You can call that sexist, but funny how if I chose a women to rear children over a man no one would care. Isn't that what we're all trying to stop? the double-standards? So why is one double-standard acceptible while the other is not?Here is a great little essay I found. This basically elucidates how I feel about Feminism:"There is this subconscious envy feminists feel towards men, which they project onto other women. Feminists deceived themselves as well as healthy women when they asserted, at the outset, that men did not value women's roles as wives and mothers. The feminists themselves undervalued women's strengths and admired male attributes. They truly are MASCULINISTS, not feminists. All of their male-feminization programs are aimed at neutralizing their competition so they, the penis enviers, can take up the male niche.

​

Today we have a society that looks down on women who know of the importance of raising their own children. The media term their jobholding sisters "working mothers" rather than "mothers who don't raise their children." The jobholders are treated as "normal" women, rather than those pursuing an "alternative lifestyle." Yes, alternative lifestyle. The "children as pets" trend has been the norm for only a few decades. Day-care and latchkey kids are the lab rats in an experiment with an alternative lifestyle.

​

But the media do not tell us that this experiment has failed miserably, nor that working mothers have turned all of society upside down. Most problems with children today, ranging from emotional to mental to physical health can be explained in one way: Mothers are not raising their children. Fathers are expendable. The vital importance of the woman and family unit is now staring us down, but we as a society are looking away. We won't even entertain the idea because children are no longer a priority, they are window dressing. What do they add to my life? -- that's all we care about."

quote:

---

Men are stronger than women in certain ways. Its a fact of life. Women are stronger than men in certain. Its a fact of life.

---

I thought you'd never ask. Perhaps some armchair pychology will open up the analytical mind a bit. Wow, I sure don't remember tallying up attributes, but you seem to have preconcieved notions about men and women. I object that you feel that motherly instincts are somehow considered ineffectual when its easily the greatest attribute bestowed on mankind; something far greater than what you covet-- intelligence. Yeah, I'm the sexist.

quote:

---

Isn't that duality the very thing that makes feminity and masculinity attractive to the opposite sex to begin with?

---

That's a terrific question. I guess it would depend on which one plays the dominant role and which one plays the submissive role. Interesting that that dynamic duality almost needs to be in place for some naturalistic effect. To quote Crashfrog:"How do you homosexuals fit into that, I wonder." Men and women certainly are very similar, just as all male and females within in a species are compatible with one another. But I think you make light of the chemical and biological differences of men and women. If it were really just culturaly induced, not that I'm suggesting society has no role in it, but why would it be so thorough across all civilizations? Are all civilizations under this illusion of gender roles or are they just adhering to their natural, God-given disposition?

quote:

---

Its not my rules.

---

Yeah, okay. Well, you don't have to believe me. I'm just trying to liberate you from liberal indoctrination. At the age that they are presenting this nonsense, which is at Kindergarten, its wholly inappropriate curriculum at that tender age. What 5 year old needs to be taught about sex, gender roles, gay rights, or anything remotely akin to sex? Upper elementary, middle, and high school is a different matter. Kids are obviously walking hormones at that point. As for my understanding of parents role, it had nothing to do with sex. In fact, most kids are generally horrified that their parents engaged in such activities at first.Anyway, this is all getting off track. The question is why should kids be subjected to gender neutrality? I have two children of my own. I think I understand children just fine. And if we left child rearing to the 'experts' in Oakland, we'd have children all across the world in a state of an identity crisis. Make me gay? No, no fear of that. The problem has less to do with a physical act than it does psychologically. I would say that the LGBT community is in a state of utter ambivalence, not really knowing up from down. But don't misunderstand me to assume that something called 'homophobia.' What a slanderous invasion on reality, that word. Nobody fears homosexuals in a classic sense, except perhaps in a setting where many of them are prone to gang rape. I can only think of prison where such a situation might arise. What they fear is this degeneration of morals. Although some people have taken it to mean a personal attack on the homosexual, it isn't for me. Ita the lifestyle that I object to. And when you stop being intollerant of my views, perhaps we can start a healthy dialogue. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

I wasn't refering to your apology, I was refering to your denial that you had done what he claimed. It was in an earlier post. But we can easily leave him out of it.You made a claim about me, and I am making a claim about you. It appears we are not going to budge on our opinion and so I offered you an "olive branch". This does not mean either of us must apologize nor that we even have to like each other. It is about avoiding destructive behavior toward each other.I assumed you would be interested in this since you claim I distort your arguments. I was looking for a mechanism that would be available to YOU to reduce that ability of mine. Crashfrog, go back to the thread on An Inconvenient Truth. Look at who I posted to. It was RAZD. I didn't even mention your name in my first post. I specifically did so in order to avoid discussing anything with you. I was interested in discussing assertions you had made with RAZD, as well as material he was quoting from.YOU WROTE ME. Only then did I reply to you. The irony being that you claim that I was distorting your position all the time. If I was doing so, why would you have replied to a post to another person, with absolutely no mention of your name, and nothing close to your argument? I didn't deserve that, and its not supposed to be tolerated at EvC anyway. Please keep it civil.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

To Everyone: The topic of this thread is use of language. I don't really mind if threads meander here and there in pockets, but it is starting to get well off course and I'd like to at least try and guide it back to focusing on language.Gays and Blacks are fine of course as part of this, but lets concentrate on use of language and not on legal mattersTo (Admin)NWR: I have to admit I was surprised to find this language levelled at me (to a post where I wasn't even criticizing a poster)... ... Not that I care that much, but I want to know if I get to use that kind of language when I feel like "expressing" myself in that way? Not necessarily toward another poster, but in general.Edited by holmes, : nothin'

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hello nemesis-juggernaut: This is just the sort of crap that Crashfrog is talking about. Do you know any college educated women at all? Why do you make the assumption that a man will excel in "analytical thinking on practical matters" but when faced with the same situation a women would probably start to cry? You must have spent you entire life around weak people. So I guess you make your wife wear a French-maid outfit while she does all the cooken and cleanin fer ya. Where do you get this shit? Ok, so your version of the feminist movement means that women secretly want to be men. Most of us here on realityville see it more as a desire for women to be treated equally. You know, like paying a women the same as her male counterparts. I can guarantee you this, nemesis-juggernnaut, if I had to go into a battle and I had to chose between taking either you or my wife...you would be left sitting on the sidelines. Odds are she can shoot better than you, can handle a knife far better than you, and if you piss her off...holy shit...watch out! She can make quick decisions (she does it all the time) and I would trust her with my life. With you, however, based on what I read of yours, if you found out I was all for equal rights, have no problems with Affirmative Action, and think that gays should be allowed to marry, I'm afraid that if push came to shove...I'd be a dead man. Wow! What an unbelievable pile of shit. I'm stunned that you had the guts to show it to us. I mean seriously...holy crap!

Insulting reference to another member. See Message 44, particularly the first paragraph.

---

Although I seem to disagree with most of what you say, you do write well and I like your avatar. I thought I should point that out first since I have never replied to you before.I'm only going to deal with a short bit of your post... I think this is a very real and interesting point regarding some quarters of the feminist movement. Especially those which emphasize semantics, it seems based on a jealousy only possible if one embraces "sexist" stereotypes and desires to take the role of the other, rather than reverse any power imbalance by embracing onesself. I don't think I've seen this going on, and to be truthful it isn't fair to label all mothers who work as inherently not raising their children. Even in your most "domestic" situation a mother's chores throughout the day are NOT focused on raising the children, but rather taking care of household work. There is no reason a woman could hand that off to someone else and still have time to take care of kids... especially once they are going to school.But there is a truth to the idea that women who don't pursue careers are somehow lesser or not following the norm of what they should be doing. Birth, school, career, maybe kids, death. And I think that is sort of sad to subject women who choose not to follow a career, to some form of abuse for their choice. Yeah, that doesn't seem to be very wise. But how is that not equally a man's fault? How has it failed miserably? Based on what vantage point? I was definitely a "latchkey kid" as were many of my peers and none have massive psychological problems. I realize this is totally anecdotal but in truth the people I have met with the biggest psych problems (needing meds and all) have come from traditional families.Anything we can do to steer this back toward language usage would be great. Using language to shape norms about roles seems quite appropriate.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While outrageously stated, especially toward the end, I think there is a grain of truth within jug's post. Some of the feminist movement appears to hold the position suggested. And there is a disdain towards women that choose to have kids and raise a family as if that were somehow not normal, the "normal" role being almost a cardboard cutout of the stereotypical man. Dworkin would be a good example.That of course cannot be used to blacken the eye of the entire feminist movement, and certainly not to draw conclusions about what roles women can fill in addition to being mothers.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)