Freethought & Rationalism Archive

brighid · 07-02-2002, 10:32 AM

Quote:

They're less aggressive, less intelligent, less dominant, less territorial...and they have no desire to be any of these things.

Ahhhh � I cringed when I read that! I do not find men to be less intelligent that is for sure, even though I have found some of them to be more of the Neanderthal class of beings. Men are not wild dogs and the moment I read that I thought of some pack of wild beast defending their territory and their females from other male interlopers. I do not find anything wrong with the traits of aggressiveness (as opposed to violent aggression), dominance (of self, rather then forced dominance of others) or territorial behavior. Me, I am a bit territorial myself and my husband kindly refers to me as �The Alpha� female in the house.

I am not sure if you meant your statement to be degrading, as if a less aggressive, intelligent, more docile, and less territorial male is some how more desirable, but I found it to be ever so slightly degrading to men. I thoroughly enjoy the male species, although some have not evolved much past their non-human animal counterparts and lack certain social skills that make them desirable to a certain segment of females. I am a feminist, but I am not anti-male. I think that is a mistake and I don�t want them to be any less masculine, of somehow subservient to women. I don�t think we are superior or inferior by design. We are different, with different strengths and weaknesses that when respected and embraced compliment each other. I find distinct and unalterable gender roles to be divisive and counter productive to equitable and prosperous relationships between the sexes, whether that be in a personal or professional capacity.

Aggressiveness is not a strictly male trait, it is however encouraged in men and discouraged in women. It is this distinct gender role that is a part of the objectification problem. There is this idea that men cannot or should not express more �feminine� qualities like kindness, compassion, and tolerance or be nurturing to off spring or to others. It goes along with the idea that men aren�t capable of being good fathers in a similar respect as mothers. They are expected to be strong and stoic, rational and rather cold or else they are �weak� and not masculine � somehow a sissy or mamma�s boy. Where as women are expected and encouraged to be more docile, demure, caring, emotive, demonstrative and nurturing and �good� girls aren�t aggressive, demonstrate dominance or leadership and are discouraged from expressing these �male� gender traits. Often times these women are penalized or experience social forms of punishment for being aggressive, driven and competitive. Few things speak to the heart of the matter of the objectification of women then these attitudes and expected gender roles and qualities. These are some of the reasons women have and continue to come up against attitudes and penalties for stepping outside of the traditional roles of homemaker, wife and mother.

Why must a woman be only a mother? Are women automatically better parents or does society discourage balanced male participation in parenting, at least traditionally? I do not think our gender makes one a better or worse parent. I think expected, encouraged and discouraged societal expectations of men and women create knowledge or a lack of knowledge to be better or worse at any given activity that doesn�t require brute strength. Although many women can and do surpass some of their male counterparts in this area if they posses some good genetics in that area. This doesn�t mean men and women can�t or shouldn�t acquire the knowledge and experience to excel in traditionally male or female dominated fields of work, such as parenting.

I think we are in a state of limbo, caught between a generations of men and women who were taught traditional roles and between the men and women who are attempting to break free of those confined spaces. This limbo is a testing ground and a place to grow, but I think with each passing generation and with greater knowledge we will eventually achieve a state of equality without losing respect for our unique differences.

We shouldn't have to confine ourselves to restrictive and oppressive gender roles to be considered worthy, or actual men and women.

Brighid

tronvillain · 07-02-2002, 10:51 AM

snatchbalance:

If the solution to the disparity was simply the increased availibility of child care I wouldn't have a problem with it. Another good step would probably be increasing acceptance of children in the workplace and incorporating day care into more businesses.

snatchbalance · 07-02-2002, 10:55 AM

tron,

Quote:

Another good step would probably be increasing acceptance of children in the workplace and incorporating day care into more businesses.

Could be.

SB

tronvillain · 07-02-2002, 11:03 AM

I think brighid's post deserves some applause.

bonduca · 07-02-2002, 11:15 AM

brighid:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

brighid · 07-02-2002, 11:18 AM

If anyone can tell me how to include a pdf report in this discussion I will post the file I have on the Harvard Business Review article I have and will quote, but there is no URL for it and if you go to the site it seems you have to purchase a copy. Perhaps I missing something and someone more knowledgeable can be off assistance. The article is titled, �The Executive Woman and the Myth of Having it all.� I highly recommend reading it. It is 6 pages (I believe) and is very interesting.

Here are some of the recommendations it gives (as provided by working women) that would help eliminate some of the penalties mothers experience in the workplace and the same benefits should be given to fathers as well:

1. Time bank of paid parenting leave that can be taken over the course of a 18 years that does not take away from vacation or sick time in order to attend school functions, parent/teacher conferences, for illness such as chicken pox, the flu, etc. doctors, dentist and other appointments, etc.
2. Restructured Retirement plans.
3. Career Breaks such as a leave of absence as modeled after IBM policy of extended leave ( up to 3 years for the care of a child, elderly parent, or ill spouse, as well as the continuation of education) that is not paid but has a continuation of benefits and a job-back guarantee.
4. Reduced hours, flex-time, job sharing and compacted work week.
5. Alumni status for former employees.
6. Telecommuting.
7. Fully paid family leave for 12 weeks for the birth and or adoption of a child, care of sick spouse or parent
And I would recommend adding the following �
1. On site or assistance with day care costs, such as a dependent care spending account that allows a certain amount of money to be taken out pre-tax.

I do not think the complications of motherhood and the constraints it puts on a woman�s job can be fully eliminated. Obviously a woman is the only one who can carry a child to term. Men can�t get pregnant and therefore they suffer no physical obligation in the growth of their off spring. Until we can grow children outside of the womb this will continue to be the burden of women, but this does not mean adequate solutions cannot be achieved that are both good for a company, the economy, mothers and their families. Women and mothers are a vital part of the economy and children are the future of this country and it�s continued growth, or it�s eventual peril. Each person has a vested interest in how all children are raised. Children who grow up in poorly structured homes, with unhappy, over stressed parents grow up to be societies problems. I would personally rather my tax dollars go to social programs that help prevent the development of future criminals then to go to prisons to house them later.

Thankfully, many companies are understanding the need for mothers and fathers to have a balanced work and family life and that employees are more productive and loyal when they work in an environment that supports their ability to be both a productive career and family member.

Women and those women who are also mothers should be supported in their efforts (as well as men and fathers) and should not be penalized because of biology or stereotypical gender roles imposed upon us. Women and men cannot escape their biology but they are not defined only by that biology, except in the ability to bring forth a child. I feel because children are a pivotal factor in the progress, continuation, betterment or destruction of our economy and society that we should seek to support families and their ability to raise happy, healthy, productive citizens that won�t grow up to be our future criminals, but rather our future leaders, doctors, scientists, etc.

B

Katey · 07-02-2002, 12:00 PM

Ahhhh � I cringed when I read that! I do not find men to be less intelligent that is for sure, even though I have found some of them to be more of the Neanderthal class of beings. Men are not wild dogs and the moment I read that I thought of some pack of wild beast defending their territory and their females from other male interlopers. I do not find anything wrong with the traits of aggressiveness (as opposed to violent aggression), dominance (of self, rather then forced dominance of others) or territorial behavior. Me, I am a bit territorial myself and my husband kindly refers to me as �The Alpha� female in the house.

Bwahahah�men are too wild dogs. So are women for that matter. You know�I believe I�ve managed to piss off both the feminists and the men. Cool.

I am not sure if you meant your statement to be degrading, as if a less aggressive, intelligent, more docile, and less territorial male is some how more desirable, but I found it to be ever so slightly degrading to men. I thoroughly enjoy the male species, although some have not evolved much past their non-human animal counterparts and lack certain social skills that make them desirable to a certain segment of females. I am a feminist, but I am not anti-male. I think that is a mistake and I don�t want them to be any less masculine, of somehow subservient to women. I don�t think we are superior or inferior by design. We are different, with different strengths and weaknesses that when respected and embraced compliment each other. I find distinct and unalterable gender roles to be divisive and counter productive to equitable and prosperous relationships between the sexes, whether that be in a personal or professional capacity.

Men are not a different species. They�re a different gender. You see�this is exactly they problem with feminism and the �new man� both. You think that someone like me, who is pointing out a very obvious problem is a �man-hater�. I am not. You see, you can only be disappointed in something when you think it can do better. I think men are behaving in a manner that�s unbefitting and beneath them. You, however say that you�re not anti-male but at the same time �defend� men everywhere in a very sly manner (in order to identify with the more rabid feminists I assume) because, of course, they cannot defend themselves (apparently). Ah�that�s my point. Weak�weak�weak. Men have become pansies.

Aggressiveness is not a strictly male trait, it is however encouraged in men and discouraged in women. It is this distinct gender role that is a part of the objectification problem. There is this idea that men cannot or should not express more �feminine� qualities like kindness, compassion, and tolerance or be nurturing to off spring or to others. It goes along with the idea that men aren�t capable of being good fathers in a similar respect as mothers. They are expected to be strong and stoic, rational and rather cold or else they are �weak� and not masculine � somehow a sissy or mamma�s boy. Where as women are expected and encouraged to be more docile, demure, caring, emotive, demonstrative and nurturing and �good� girls aren�t aggressive, demonstrate dominance or leadership and are discouraged from expressing these �male� gender traits. Often times these women are penalized or experience social forms of punishment for being aggressive, driven and competitive. Few things speak to the heart of the matter of the objectification of women then these attitudes and expected gender roles and qualities. These are some of the reasons women have and continue to come up against attitudes and penalties for stepping outside of the traditional roles of homemaker, wife and mother.

Did I express that men cannot be nurturing? Are you putting words in my mouth�or maybe shoving a straw-man in? Hmmmm.

[i]Why must a woman be only a mother? Are women automatically better parents or does society discourage balanced male participation in parenting, at least traditionally? I do not think our gender makes one a better or worse parent. I think expected, encouraged and discouraged societal expectations of men and women create knowledge or a lack of knowledge to be better or worse at any given activity that doesn�t require brute strength. Although many women can and do surpass some of their male counterparts in this area if they posses some good genetics in that area. This doesn�t mean men and women can�t or shouldn�t acquire the knowledge and experience to excel in traditionally male or female dominated fields of work, such as parenting. [I]

Honestly, women don�t have to be only a mother. Someone needs to be one, though. Men aren�t doing it�maybe they can�t maybe they won�t. But it needs to get done. Of course, someone needs to provide financial security for a family, too. Men aren�t providing that either, by and large. You are confusing the word �can� with �is�. Who IS doing? Men? Nope�they�re too busy playing. It�s women, isn�t it?�thus my comments. Men have become weak and are losing their place in the family structure. They�re not in charge of the family or the money. All they have is the government�and we�re creeping in there, too. They�re losing it. Definitely.

I think we are in a state of limbo, caught between a generations of men and women who were taught traditional roles and between the men and women who are attempting to break free of those confined spaces. This limbo is a testing ground and a place to grow, but I think with each passing generation and with greater knowledge we will eventually achieve a state of equality without losing respect for our unique differences.
We shouldn't have to confine ourselves to restrictive and oppressive gender roles to be considered worthy, or actual men and women.

What are you talking about? I swear�you�re one of those posters that grand-stand and meander about on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Straw-man I say again!

brighid · 07-02-2002, 12:41 PM

Katey �

Thank you for pointing out my error in relegated men into their own �species� as they are not of a different species. I misspoke and I appreciate the constructive criticism. Perhaps I elaborated too much on my own position for your tastes, but the comments you have made about men now being pansies seems to speak of what I was attempting to address and what I felt was conveyed in your comments. I am not sure how my attempts at presenting a more balanced view would in any way align me with �rabid feminists�, who in my understanding don�t share the same view I do about men. Nor do I believe I called *you* a �man-hater�, although I can see how my comment about not being anti-male could be misconstrued as such. In the interests of clarification I want to state that I do not know you well enough to determine if you do or do not hate men and in fact I was attempting to distance myself from �rabid feminists� that take a very anti-male/superior female position as I find it hypocritical and as divisive as the anti-female/superior male position of certain men.

Perhaps you can discuss how exactly I was �sly�, especially if you mean that I have some ulterior motive. I would caution against making such statements in regard to my character since you have no actual knowledge of my character and stick to the arguments at hand. I did not state that you made any such comments about the nurturing abilities of men, but I made a correlation about the comments you made relative to the attitude of traditional gender roles and how anything outside of that traditional male role is considered to be emasculating and how society punishes men and women who step out of those traditional and distinctive gender roles. Your comments about their weaknesses and their �pansy� nature simply proved my point very succinctly, especially with how you have chosen to classify my comments as being �rabid�, shoving anything in your mouth and accusing me of �grand standing.�

I found your comment to be degrading to men and I stated thus and I find your further clarification about the �pansy� evolution of the modern male to be equally offensive. I will also caution you that this is not Rants, Raves and Preaching and that the forum rules and please observe the rules of this, a higher forum. We are here to discuss relevant points about the issue(s) at hand and not attack the character of other posters.

Finally, the comments that were not specifically addressed to your comments were made in regard to the issues that previously discussed and I will do better in the future to segregate my comments so it cannot be misconstrued that I am address any specific poster, unless of course I am. I have no doubt that the male members of this forum are amply able to defend their nature all on their lonesome, but perhaps because of busy work schedules or other obligations they just haven�t gotten to yet, don�t feel the need to defend their good nature, or feel I have done an adequate job and therefore have refrained for commenting. But I cannot really make an accurate judgment on that, but you should not consider the present absence of comment from male posters (all though Tron is a man and has commented) as any sort of weakness, or that a woman �defending� men is some egregious offense deserving of chastisement. If you would like to provide counter arguments and discuss how you feel some men have changed for the �worse� please do so. I am interested in hearing that argument.

Brighid

Katey · 07-02-2002, 12:59 PM

Lady, you talk too much.

BTW...pounding someone over the head with your big "I be moderator" stick because you don't like their views is highly uncool. My advice to you is to loosen up. I'm outta here...go wave that stick somewhere else.

The Other Michael · 07-02-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Katey:
<strong>A good parent is primarily defined by being there. Men without a territorial, or dominant instinct have no reason to stay and raise their children. They just donate and scamper off. Which is happening in greater and greater numbers. However, since you disagree with me, do you honestly think that the "new man" that is less agressive and more sensitive in our society is a better father? Even though he's become the great invisible dad in modern times?</strong>

hello Katey,

Can you back up your statements?

I fail to see where a lack of territoriality would make a man incapable of fulfilling his responsibilities to a child. Perhaps you are confusing a lack of territoriality with immaturity or irresponsability.

If a lack of territoriality entails not sticking around to care for a child, and territoriality seems (as I gather you are stating) a "male" trait, then why aren't all the mothers who are, by their very femaleness, lacking in territoriality, abandoning their children en masse?

And yes, I'd imagine that a father who is less aggressive and more sensitive would probably have a better relationship with children.

cheers,
Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-02-2002, 10:51 AM	#152
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	snatchbalance: If the solution to the disparity was simply the increased availibility of child care I wouldn't have a problem with it. Another good step would probably be increasing acceptance of children in the workplace and incorporating day care into more businesses.

07-02-2002, 11:03 AM	#154
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I think brighid's post deserves some applause.

07-02-2002, 11:15 AM	#155
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	brighid: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

07-02-2002, 11:18 AM	#156
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	If anyone can tell me how to include a pdf report in this discussion I will post the file I have on the Harvard Business Review article I have and will quote, but there is no URL for it and if you go to the site it seems you have to purchase a copy. Perhaps I missing something and someone more knowledgeable can be off assistance. The article is titled, �The Executive Woman and the Myth of Having it all.� I highly recommend reading it. It is 6 pages (I believe) and is very interesting. Here are some of the recommendations it gives (as provided by working women) that would help eliminate some of the penalties mothers experience in the workplace and the same benefits should be given to fathers as well: 1. Time bank of paid parenting leave that can be taken over the course of a 18 years that does not take away from vacation or sick time in order to attend school functions, parent/teacher conferences, for illness such as chicken pox, the flu, etc. doctors, dentist and other appointments, etc. 2. Restructured Retirement plans. 3. Career Breaks such as a leave of absence as modeled after IBM policy of extended leave ( up to 3 years for the care of a child, elderly parent, or ill spouse, as well as the continuation of education) that is not paid but has a continuation of benefits and a job-back guarantee. 4. Reduced hours, flex-time, job sharing and compacted work week. 5. Alumni status for former employees. 6. Telecommuting. 7. Fully paid family leave for 12 weeks for the birth and or adoption of a child, care of sick spouse or parent And I would recommend adding the following � 1. On site or assistance with day care costs, such as a dependent care spending account that allows a certain amount of money to be taken out pre-tax. I do not think the complications of motherhood and the constraints it puts on a woman�s job can be fully eliminated. Obviously a woman is the only one who can carry a child to term. Men can�t get pregnant and therefore they suffer no physical obligation in the growth of their off spring. Until we can grow children outside of the womb this will continue to be the burden of women, but this does not mean adequate solutions cannot be achieved that are both good for a company, the economy, mothers and their families. Women and mothers are a vital part of the economy and children are the future of this country and it�s continued growth, or it�s eventual peril. Each person has a vested interest in how all children are raised. Children who grow up in poorly structured homes, with unhappy, over stressed parents grow up to be societies problems. I would personally rather my tax dollars go to social programs that help prevent the development of future criminals then to go to prisons to house them later. Thankfully, many companies are understanding the need for mothers and fathers to have a balanced work and family life and that employees are more productive and loyal when they work in an environment that supports their ability to be both a productive career and family member. Women and those women who are also mothers should be supported in their efforts (as well as men and fathers) and should not be penalized because of biology or stereotypical gender roles imposed upon us. Women and men cannot escape their biology but they are not defined only by that biology, except in the ability to bring forth a child. I feel because children are a pivotal factor in the progress, continuation, betterment or destruction of our economy and society that we should seek to support families and their ability to raise happy, healthy, productive citizens that won�t grow up to be our future criminals, but rather our future leaders, doctors, scientists, etc. B

07-02-2002, 12:00 PM	#157
Katey Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Uhhhh. Posts: 15	Ahhhh � I cringed when I read that! I do not find men to be less intelligent that is for sure, even though I have found some of them to be more of the Neanderthal class of beings. Men are not wild dogs and the moment I read that I thought of some pack of wild beast defending their territory and their females from other male interlopers. I do not find anything wrong with the traits of aggressiveness (as opposed to violent aggression), dominance (of self, rather then forced dominance of others) or territorial behavior. Me, I am a bit territorial myself and my husband kindly refers to me as �The Alpha� female in the house. Bwahahah�men are too wild dogs. So are women for that matter. You know�I believe I�ve managed to piss off both the feminists and the men. Cool. I am not sure if you meant your statement to be degrading, as if a less aggressive, intelligent, more docile, and less territorial male is some how more desirable, but I found it to be ever so slightly degrading to men. I thoroughly enjoy the male species, although some have not evolved much past their non-human animal counterparts and lack certain social skills that make them desirable to a certain segment of females. I am a feminist, but I am not anti-male. I think that is a mistake and I don�t want them to be any less masculine, of somehow subservient to women. I don�t think we are superior or inferior by design. We are different, with different strengths and weaknesses that when respected and embraced compliment each other. I find distinct and unalterable gender roles to be divisive and counter productive to equitable and prosperous relationships between the sexes, whether that be in a personal or professional capacity. Men are not a different species. They�re a different gender. You see�this is exactly they problem with feminism and the �new man� both. You think that someone like me, who is pointing out a very obvious problem is a �man-hater�. I am not. You see, you can only be disappointed in something when you think it can do better. I think men are behaving in a manner that�s unbefitting and beneath them. You, however say that you�re not anti-male but at the same time �defend� men everywhere in a very sly manner (in order to identify with the more rabid feminists I assume) because, of course, they cannot defend themselves (apparently). Ah�that�s my point. Weak�weak�weak. Men have become pansies. Aggressiveness is not a strictly male trait, it is however encouraged in men and discouraged in women. It is this distinct gender role that is a part of the objectification problem. There is this idea that men cannot or should not express more �feminine� qualities like kindness, compassion, and tolerance or be nurturing to off spring or to others. It goes along with the idea that men aren�t capable of being good fathers in a similar respect as mothers. They are expected to be strong and stoic, rational and rather cold or else they are �weak� and not masculine � somehow a sissy or mamma�s boy. Where as women are expected and encouraged to be more docile, demure, caring, emotive, demonstrative and nurturing and �good� girls aren�t aggressive, demonstrate dominance or leadership and are discouraged from expressing these �male� gender traits. Often times these women are penalized or experience social forms of punishment for being aggressive, driven and competitive. Few things speak to the heart of the matter of the objectification of women then these attitudes and expected gender roles and qualities. These are some of the reasons women have and continue to come up against attitudes and penalties for stepping outside of the traditional roles of homemaker, wife and mother. Did I express that men cannot be nurturing? Are you putting words in my mouth�or maybe shoving a straw-man in? Hmmmm. [i]Why must a woman be only a mother? Are women automatically better parents or does society discourage balanced male participation in parenting, at least traditionally? I do not think our gender makes one a better or worse parent. I think expected, encouraged and discouraged societal expectations of men and women create knowledge or a lack of knowledge to be better or worse at any given activity that doesn�t require brute strength. Although many women can and do surpass some of their male counterparts in this area if they posses some good genetics in that area. This doesn�t mean men and women can�t or shouldn�t acquire the knowledge and experience to excel in traditionally male or female dominated fields of work, such as parenting. [I] Honestly, women don�t have to be only a mother. Someone needs to be one, though. Men aren�t doing it�maybe they can�t maybe they won�t. But it needs to get done. Of course, someone needs to provide financial security for a family, too. Men aren�t providing that either, by and large. You are confusing the word �can� with �is�. Who IS doing? Men? Nope�they�re too busy playing. It�s women, isn�t it?�thus my comments. Men have become weak and are losing their place in the family structure. They�re not in charge of the family or the money. All they have is the government�and we�re creeping in there, too. They�re losing it. Definitely. I think we are in a state of limbo, caught between a generations of men and women who were taught traditional roles and between the men and women who are attempting to break free of those confined spaces. This limbo is a testing ground and a place to grow, but I think with each passing generation and with greater knowledge we will eventually achieve a state of equality without losing respect for our unique differences. We shouldn't have to confine ourselves to restrictive and oppressive gender roles to be considered worthy, or actual men and women. What are you talking about? I swear�you�re one of those posters that grand-stand and meander about on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Straw-man I say again!

07-02-2002, 12:41 PM	#158
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Katey � Thank you for pointing out my error in relegated men into their own �species� as they are not of a different species. I misspoke and I appreciate the constructive criticism. Perhaps I elaborated too much on my own position for your tastes, but the comments you have made about men now being pansies seems to speak of what I was attempting to address and what I felt was conveyed in your comments. I am not sure how my attempts at presenting a more balanced view would in any way align me with �rabid feminists�, who in my understanding don�t share the same view I do about men. Nor do I believe I called you a �man-hater�, although I can see how my comment about not being anti-male could be misconstrued as such. In the interests of clarification I want to state that I do not know you well enough to determine if you do or do not hate men and in fact I was attempting to distance myself from �rabid feminists� that take a very anti-male/superior female position as I find it hypocritical and as divisive as the anti-female/superior male position of certain men. Perhaps you can discuss how exactly I was �sly�, especially if you mean that I have some ulterior motive. I would caution against making such statements in regard to my character since you have no actual knowledge of my character and stick to the arguments at hand. I did not state that you made any such comments about the nurturing abilities of men, but I made a correlation about the comments you made relative to the attitude of traditional gender roles and how anything outside of that traditional male role is considered to be emasculating and how society punishes men and women who step out of those traditional and distinctive gender roles. Your comments about their weaknesses and their �pansy� nature simply proved my point very succinctly, especially with how you have chosen to classify my comments as being �rabid�, shoving anything in your mouth and accusing me of �grand standing.� I found your comment to be degrading to men and I stated thus and I find your further clarification about the �pansy� evolution of the modern male to be equally offensive. I will also caution you that this is not Rants, Raves and Preaching and that the forum rules and please observe the rules of this, a higher forum. We are here to discuss relevant points about the issue(s) at hand and not attack the character of other posters. Finally, the comments that were not specifically addressed to your comments were made in regard to the issues that previously discussed and I will do better in the future to segregate my comments so it cannot be misconstrued that I am address any specific poster, unless of course I am. I have no doubt that the male members of this forum are amply able to defend their nature all on their lonesome, but perhaps because of busy work schedules or other obligations they just haven�t gotten to yet, don�t feel the need to defend their good nature, or feel I have done an adequate job and therefore have refrained for commenting. But I cannot really make an accurate judgment on that, but you should not consider the present absence of comment from male posters (all though Tron is a man and has commented) as any sort of weakness, or that a woman �defending� men is some egregious offense deserving of chastisement. If you would like to provide counter arguments and discuss how you feel some men have changed for the �worse� please do so. I am interested in hearing that argument. Brighid

07-02-2002, 12:59 PM	#159
Katey Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Uhhhh. Posts: 15	Lady, you talk too much. BTW...pounding someone over the head with your big "I be moderator" stick because you don't like their views is highly uncool. My advice to you is to loosen up. I'm outta here...go wave that stick somewhere else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.