I hate men!

[Johnny Mayberry]

(nods, chants, maturely of course)

Uh huh, uh huh...
JM busted the reactionary...
uh huh...

LOL, chica...

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

...or should I say meydele??

 

[catalina_francisco]

I have no idea what that even means ... perhaps it's a tribute to what George Orwell considered reduced expectations of language and the substitution of attitudes and feelings for ideas. "How do you feel" has become a more important question that "What do you know."

One of the great "benefits" of the internet is true democracy, conferring upon everyone with a computer the right to be heard, but there's also the implicit tendency to assume that everyone who has a right to be heard has something worth saying. This turns out to more subversive than supportive of free speech, in the long run.

By equating a defense of the right to speak with a defense of one's position, the end result conditions the right to speak on the perceived value of what is said. Spontaneity can be the enemy of thoughtfulness. Intractivity and untrammelled vibrant debate is invigorating, but it tends to devolve into hyperactivity and a preference for speaking over thinking. Intelligent, rational discourse gives way to testimonials (after all, everyone loves to talk about themselves) and vague, unsubstantiated rants.

Popular feminism today is not interested in equality -- instead, it advocates legal redress for all the "suffering" disenfranchised women who are not able to stand up for themselves. Never mind that the facts show that women of equal experience and equal education get paid the exact same amount as men.

The simple fact is, more men are career-oriented and, thus, tend to make more money on average. Men rarely get the part-time flex-time opportunities that women do. In a recent study published on CNN, men and women were asked what they'd do if they had more time; 70% of men said they'd use it to further their careers, while less than 20% of women said the same. We work 'till we die, ladies, that's what we do, and because you live longer you get to spend our money after we're gone.

The feminist lobby is violently opposed to the Paternity Fraud legislation that's currently pending in many states. More than 30% of men are paying child support for a child that's not theirs. In fact, many social workers and family courts encourage women to identify high-wage earners -- preferably boyfriends or husbands -- as fathers. Even if the woman knowingly lies about who the father is, it's all perfectly legal.

There's no legal redress for the man, either, unless he's smart enough to get a DNA test within a year or two of the child's birth. Here in Washington, it's even worse -- if a man hooks up with a woman who has a child and forms an "emotional bond" with the child (the term is not legally defined, it's up to the family court judge) then he can be on the hook for child support even if he didn't know the woman when the child was born. Who'd want to pay child support on some other guy's bastard until the little brat turns eighteen? No wonder there are more single moms per capita in Washington than any other state.

That's just one example, but it's indicative of the efforts of the feminist lobby today. Hardly sounds like equality to me.

Sorry SZ you had trouble understanding, and I will add it is always better to try and get a global perspective on any subject instead of limiting it to just USA (comes with theWhat you know concept I would think)...it is not the world, nor does it speak for the world, ask any European at the moment....it is 'part' of a much larger world. As to the issue of 'How you feel' as opposed to' What you know'....this is a perfect example of what I was speaking of...the either/or factor. There seems to be a huge thought tank which advocates you have to have one without the other, that two such options cannot co-exist. Is also the argument men have used against women for centuries....women feel, they can't possibly think as well.......got news for you, think most women do both and a whole lot more, and surprise, surprise, all at once without it diminishing any of the abilities, concepts or context.

As to popular feminism, I think here too you have had a limited exposure to a small section of the global feminist lobby. And no, I do not agree women get paid the same salary for the same work. As I stated in a previous post, women in Australian law do not get the same salary as their male counterparts, nor the same opportunities, and it is not reflective of their ability or workload, just reflective of their gender.

As to the male question and what men can do to protect themselves in paternity suits. Well the condom has been around for eons, but men do whine about using it, then whine louder when they find they have created a life. Responsibility goes both ways, as do the consequences, but unfortunately for too long the responsibility of fertility and childraising costs have rested with the woman who bears the child while the male throws his hands up and pleads his case based on why should he pay when he didn't want a child, in other words it cramps his lifestyle, stuff what happens to hers....once again the thought is, she is female, she deserves it. As to involvement with a woman with children at the point of the beginning of a relationship - this I would think is something a man should consider before waltzing into their lives, usually with an air they are rescuing them, then deciding to cut that assumed role when they want a different choice....no-one twists their arm or holds a gun to their head to begin the relationship _ once again an issue of responsibility and thinking before dipping into the honeypot.

Men can do a lot for themselves, but in my experience, many tend to want to wait for someone else to do it for them, or to do it by unfair, unjust, and shifty means. While at University, women became tired of the male population complaining about the fact the women students had lobbied, raised money, and paid to have a women's room, but had not done the same to give them a men's room. They didn't have a problem with the women having that room, just they did not see why they should do it themselves as the women had if they wanted a room, feeling women should come and do it for them. This tends to be the hangover of the 'mommy' syndrome where mom comes and makes it all better by taking care of every little want in their little boy's life. Every female is expected to carry on that role for these men. Get real.

Catalina

 

[Arden]

One of the great "benefits" of the internet is true democracy, conferring upon everyone with a computer the right to be heard, but there's also the implicit tendency to assume that everyone who has a right to be heard has something worth saying. This turns out to more subversive than supportive of free speech, in the long run.

By equating a defense of the right to speak with a defense of one's position, the end result conditions the right to speak on the perceived value of what is said. Spontaneity can be the enemy of thoughtfulness. Intractivity and untrammelled vibrant debate is invigorating, but it tends to devolve into hyperactivity and a preference for speaking over thinking. Intelligent, rational discourse gives way to testimonials (after all, everyone loves to talk about themselves) and vague, unsubstantiated rants.

I don't hate men, but I do dislike those that are ignorant and self-serving. I have no need to feed the egos of those that I don't care about.

Getting away from the "feminist" and "who is responsible for this child" statements, I think Seattle Zack is right on target in his thoughts about free speech. Unfortunately, there will always be those that LOVE to push other's hot buttons - for nothing more than to further their own image while claiming their right to free speech. The most amazing part is that they buy into their own online personality...

I will say that if someone pushes me hard enough, they may get a negative reaction from me one day. There is a certain point where I draw the line between tolerance and getting so pissed off that I don't care any more. You get what you give.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I don't hate men, but I do dislike those that are ignorant and self-serving. I have no need to feed the egos of those that I don't care about.

Getting away from the "feminist" and "who is responsible for this child" statements, I think Seattle Zack is right on target in his thoughts about free speech. Unfortunately, there will always be those that LOVE to push other's hot buttons - for nothing more than to further their own image while claiming their right to free speech. The most amazing part is that they buy into their own online personality...

I will say that if someone pushes me hard enough, they may get a negative reaction from me one day. There is a certain point where I draw the line between tolerance and getting so pissed off that I don't care any more. You get what you give.

Sorry to say I don't get this venomous type posting at all Arden. I have not seen a lot of 'pushing of hot buttons' on this thread, but have seen discussion opened about a topic that interests some, and there are threads short of discussing anything too in depth at the moment, so for those who like to exercise the brain cells in the interests of evolving I say 'what's the problem'. Not everyone will agree with you, me, their friends, or anyone on this board with every statement made all the time if they are honest, but I rarely see that as trying to further their own image or an issue of online personality fraud as insinuated. Not everyone has an ulterior motive in this world, though if you expect it, eventually that is all you will see whether it is there or not.

You might recall the recent get togethers where people sought to meet others from the board which usually makes it difficult to be something you're not if you attend. I frankly don't know if you are having a bad hair day, but this is the second post I have read today in which you seem to be in full attack mode, come and get it itype nvitations. If you have a problem, talk about it, or don't as the mood may suit, but don't bring it here and try passing it off as other people who are having the problem just because they choose to communicate and rationally discuss topics posted on the board. Hope you feel better tomorrow and are back to posting more in the style we have come to expect and respect from you.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

Don't think Arden was being venemous, I think she has a point. Online lends itself to emotional baiting. Just look at the Jim/Kate thing that existentialluv is talking about of late on Lit. and the well-documented online syndrome of "dying" people, also. We can get emotional headlocks on masses of people simply by writing. Some people live for that kind of thing.

The memoir has peaked, as a medium, and is beginning to downturn. We've read the stories of every conceivable kind of person, every minor celeb with a moment thinks their autobio is worth reading. (and some actually are -- Bruce Campbell's "If Chins Could Kill" is my current bedside read) The whole world has become one big episod of "This American Life" just add a little mopey guitar music and you have depth. Is there a saturation point? Is there a point at which telling is not enough in and of itself?

(This is the part I love about "this American Life, the fact that some analysis, some bigger picture connection is always waiting in the wings, you don't get that with most first person storytelling)

Good, meaty analysis is missing from a lot of autobio. And the result is autobio fatigue.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Maybe so Netzch, but it was the whole tone of the post, especially after reading another similar post which struck me as venomous. Arden often has good things to say, and has not been around of late, then reappears in full attack language mode for seemingly no reason. We all have our days, but perhaps it is better to share then to just attack and expect it to be well recieved. As to the Jim/Kate thing......saw one posting on it and had no idea what was happening and decided it was not worth pursuing. Same goes for autobiographies, people teling their stories online, and sharing of experiences.....it is free speech, but no one forces anyone to read it, nor even to take it all as Gospel.

To suggest it is saturation is suggesting it should be monitored, stopped, or slowed in some way which smells too much like censorship and something I find abhorrent to free thought and individuality. Our recent trip to the US showed us the things we always loved about the country and people, but also showed how repressed and monitored a society it has become, and reminded me why I am happy in Europe for although they may monitor to an extent, it is open, transparent, and in that honest, and the freedoms abound in comparison.

Catalina

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I don't hate men, but I do dislike those that are ignorant and self-serving. I have no need to feed the egos of those that I don't care about.

Getting away from the "feminist" and "who is responsible for this child" statements, I think Seattle Zack is right on target in his thoughts about free speech. Unfortunately, there will always be those that LOVE to push other's hot buttons - for nothing more than to further their own image while claiming their right to free speech. The most amazing part is that they buy into their own online personality...

I will say that if someone pushes me hard enough, they may get a negative reaction from me one day. There is a certain point where I draw the line between tolerance and getting so pissed off that I don't care any more. You get what you give.

OOooohh, we're so scared!! You might type angrily at us? Get back to being barefoot and pregnant!

(Is that what you meant by pushing hot buttons? Because I can try again, if I didn't get it quite right... )

 

[sweetnpetite]

The difficulty with pursuing the Feminist philosophy is that those who stand to lose, or as they see it lose, do not want to hear or react to the stories oif thoise who have never had. In other words they fall victim to the either/or ideology, This is reflected in our lives everyday in many ways, even on the Lit board where many assume in a discussion that you have to choose to have either one thing or the other in your reality, that to encompass both in a balanced fashion is not possible. It is.

Catalina

I absolutly agree with this. We are taught that relationships are adversarial rather than mutuallly benifical. LIke you said, it happens in so many way. Labor vs Management, Boys vs. Girls, ect. WE go to work, and we think that our boss is the enemy becuase the SOB is trying to work us to death, s/he thinks that we are lazy crooks and he is paying us too much anyway.

With men and women, it's 'he want's my body' and 'she wants my money' Independent women who dont want my money, still want my money cuz now they are competing with me for jobs. (Stripclubs really personify sex rolls and society in general in this regard)

The idea is theres not enough to go around, and he/she is trying to take it from me. Every man for himself.

If the feminists (or any other group) start saying, your hogging all the (jobs, prestigue, power, ect) your evil! Stop being sexist pigs and give us what we want- then then the men are going to see only that they are being attacked and someone is trying to take something away from them. So now we have enemys and war, the BATTLE OF THE SEXES.

LIke you said, either/or thinking takes over and its a constant battle for every little win, becuase niether side will be satisfied.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Popular feminism today is not interested in equality -- instead, it advocates legal redress for all the "suffering" disenfranchised women who are not able to stand up for themselves.

// This seems to be a popular misconception. //

Never mind that the facts show that women of equal experience and equal education get paid the exact same amount as men.

//THat is utterly false. I'd like to see these facts.//

The simple fact is, more men are career-oriented
//and I'm generalizing? //

and, thus, tend to make more money on average. Men rarely get the part-time flex-time opportunities that women do.

//there is no reason men can't work part time or flex time is that is what they want, and can afford.//



The feminist lobby is violently opposed to the Paternity Fraud legislation that's currently pending in many states. More than 30% of men are paying child support for a child that's not theirs. In fact, many social workers and family courts encourage women to identify high-wage earners -- preferably boyfriends or husbands -- as fathers. Even if the woman knowingly lies about who the father is, it's all perfectly legal.

//That is a complete lie. If you are married, your husband is automatically considered the father- you and he have no choice in the matter. If you are not married, the man can not be put on the birth cirtificate until either a DNA test proves him the father or he voluntarily signs paternity papers. You can't just make up a name. It doesnt' work that way. //

There's no legal redress for the man, either, unless he's smart enough to get a DNA test within a year or two of the child's birth.
Here in Washington, it's even worse -- if a man hooks up with a woman who has a child and forms an "emotional bond" with the child (the term is not legally defined, it's up to the family court judge) then he can be on the hook for child support even if he didn't know the woman when the child was born.

//I can't comment on that because this is the first I've heard of it. //

Who'd want to pay child support on some other guy's bastard until the little brat turns eighteen? No wonder there are more single moms per capita in Washington than any other state.

//Excuse me but what the fuck kind of attitude is that to have toward a child?//

That's just one example, but it's indicative of the efforts of the feminist lobby today. Hardly sounds like equality to me.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think this is a screed to rival the one that started this thread.

What is a screed?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Uhh, wow. I am in awe. Very well put.

Sorry SZ you had trouble understanding, and I will add it is always better to try and get a global perspective on any subject instead of limiting it to just USA (comes with theWhat you know concept I would think)...it is not the world, nor does it speak for the world, ask any European at the moment....it is 'part' of a much larger world. As to the issue of 'How you feel' as opposed to' What you know'....this is a perfect example of what I was speaking of...the either/or factor. There seems to be a huge thought tank which advocates you have to have one without the other, that two such options cannot co-exist. Is also the argument men have used against women for centuries....women feel, they can't possibly think as well.......got news for you, think most women do both and a whole lot more, and surprise, surprise, all at once without it diminishing any of the abilities, concepts or context.

As to popular feminism, I think here too you have had a limited exposure to a small section of the global feminist lobby. And no, I do not agree women get paid the same salary for the same work. As I stated in a previous post, women in Australian law do not get the same salary as their male counterparts, nor the same opportunities, and it is not reflective of their ability or workload, just reflective of their gender.

As to the male question and what men can do to protect themselves in paternity suits. Well the condom has been around for eons, but men do whine about using it, then whine louder when they find they have created a life. Responsibility goes both ways, as do the consequences, but unfortunately for too long the responsibility of fertility and childraising costs have rested with the woman who bears the child while the male throws his hands up and pleads his case based on why should he pay when he didn't want a child, in other words it cramps his lifestyle, stuff what happens to hers....once again the thought is, she is female, she deserves it. As to involvement with a woman with children at the point of the beginning of a relationship - this I would think is something a man should consider before waltzing into their lives, usually with an air they are rescuing them, then deciding to cut that assumed role when they want a different choice....no-one twists their arm or holds a gun to their head to begin the relationship _ once again an issue of responsibility and thinking before dipping into the honeypot.

Men can do a lot for themselves, but in my experience, many tend to want to wait for someone else to do it for them, or to do it by unfair, unjust, and shifty means. While at University, women became tired of the male population complaining about the fact the women students had lobbied, raised money, and paid to have a women's room, but had not done the same to give them a men's room. They didn't have a problem with the women having that room, just they did not see why they should do it themselves as the women had if they wanted a room, feeling women should come and do it for them. This tends to be the hangover of the 'mommy' syndrome where mom comes and makes it all better by taking care of every little want in their little boy's life. Every female is expected to carry on that role for these men. Get real.

Catalina

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sorry to say I don't get this venomous type posting at all Arden. .................


Catalina

I didn't see any venom either. It just seemed like a matter of fact statement. Maybe it just seemed abrupt because it was short and too the point. ??

 

[Netzach]

Spanner was not an American Court case was it? Even the Netherlands, where I'd also pack and move to in a minute, have had some very dark and somewhat shameful political days with people in attics.

But then we have our Bowers v Hardwick.

There's no best country in the world, and most contain first second and third worlds within them in ample examples.

Much as I dislike some of SZ's content, I don't think he was saying "let's censor all these personally revealing sentiment laden testimonials" I think he's saying "let's inject some analysis into things and not get all knee jerk."

(which I don't think he managed to do one bit, irony of ironies)

I find myself completely able to disagree with 90% of what a person's saying but when they have a point, they have a point.

 

[Arden]

OOooohh, we're so scared!! You might type angrily at us? Get back to being barefoot and pregnant!

(Is that what you meant by pushing hot buttons? Because I can try again, if I didn't get it quite right... )

This is what I was speaking of, Catalina. And previous posts. Those lovely four letter words designed to get a reaction. How juvenile.

Frankly, I don't give a damn anymore. Oh, and btw, Mr. Mayberry, I am far beyond the barefoot and pregnant phase. Not that it's any of you business, though. Go play with your legos.

 

[James G 5]

Where does the child care come from? Health care for the family? Why are women practically the only voters panicked about that?

Not panicked enough to have voted against that idiot Bush and his cronies, apparently

 

[James G 5]

(and some actually are -- Bruce Campbell's "If Chins Could Kill" is my current bedside read)

go see him in person if you can, he's a nice guy & a great speaker

 

[Netzach]

Not panicked enough to have voted against that idiot Bush and his cronies, apparently

I KNOW!

We'll have to spank the entire MILF voting block ourselves!!! Line up!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Frankly, I don't give a damn anymore. Oh, and btw, Mr. Mayberry, I am far beyond the barefoot and pregnant phase. Not that it's any of you business, though. Go play with your legos.

I pushed the hot buttons...hooray!!

Don't act all pissy, btw...there are enough legos to go around. You want the lego girl with the bicycle, or one of the ninjas on the boat?

 

[Netzach]

Pfft. Fuck legos. I'm spanking republicans.

Line up, republicans.

 

[catalina_francisco]

There's no best country in the world, and most contain first second and third worlds within them in ample examples.

I agree, as there is no perfect person, there is no perfect country...all have their good and bad. I am finding I am having to examine what it is that is most important to me to decide if this is where I am happy to remain geographically, and I have managed to surprise myself. While I miss so many things from home that I find nowhere else and miss like my right arm, and I love things in the US with all my heart, I am coming to appreciate the openness and honesty about life here. I also love that it is an everyday event to see older couples openly displaying their love in an affectionate manner from quick kisses to deep, passionate kissing and holding of hands in public places where in the US or Oz our repressed society would frown upon such behaviour. Add to that the freedom for homosexuality to be expressed just as openly and freely as hetero relationships, and it is a nice place to be and I don't have to go to Sydney!!

C

 

[yessmiss]

i'd just like to add a small parenthesis to the child support disc.

Sweden, right now. Supreme Court.

Two lesbian women living together wanted to have children but for some reason, (can't remember what, perhaps they just didn't want to wait) couldn't do it through the regular donor system. They asked a male friend, who agreed to impregnate one of the women. Eventually, she bore 3 (three) kids by his sperm. He signed the paternity papers for all three kids, although they were living with and were raised by the couple. There was a divorce (they had a legally registered partnership, i.e. gay marriage), kids stayed with their mother, and guy is paying child support for three children.

This is a very extreme case and has actually nothing to do with the vivid discussion on this thread, mostly pertaining to generalities.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm thinking that he shouldn't have signed the paternity papers, and the two women should have been legally considered the childs parents (or gardians or whatever) since they agreed to raise the children together. But on the other hand, they are still *his* kids.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm thinking that he shouldn't have signed the paternity papers, and the two women should have been legally considered the childs parents (or gardians or whatever) since they agreed to raise the children together. But on the other hand, they are still *his* kids.

Would have to agree with you Sweet. I think it is wonderful to be willing to help another by donating eggs or sperm, but the bottom line is it too comes with a responsibility, often unexpected. It is not a thing you just wake up one day and decide to do without weighing up the pros and cons and thinking of protecting yourself. For one thing, if one of the chidren had been born disabled or deformed, would the women then have wanted to hand it back, and would he have wanted that responsibility or the knowledge of the child being institutionalised. Is great that people want to elp others, but it has to be done in a way which accepts the worst case scenarios and does not just look at the happy warm feelings expected in a perfect world.

Catalina

 

[yessmiss]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
I'm thinking that he shouldn't have signed the paternity papers, and the two women should have been legally considered the childs parents (or gardians or whatever) since they agreed to raise the children together. But on the other hand, they are still *his* kids.

Ehhmm, yes off course, his mistake was signing binding documents. If i'm not mistaken, he also signed a no-visiting rights docu. Although, it would not matter whether he signed or not, as there must be a registered father and i supposed he signed so as not to have to go through the DNA hassle. Of course, the woman bearing the children could have stated "father unknown"... Allthesame, he was used and then betrayed by friends... Sad, but all too common.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This has been a very interesting thread to read, with perspectives ranging from global, national, local to individual. i admire people who, when faced with injustice, on whatever level are prepared to commit and dedicate themselves to fighting that injustice with all their heart and conviction. Work on each level is as important as on another, although difficult to aknowledge when "stuck" at your own.

Not being familiar with the work of the organisations mentioned earlier, i would suggest that analizing the impact of the media and advertising industries on culture; that is the cultivation of our values and outlook on the world, is of utmost importance, as it holds the power to shape and mold the same without us being able to fend ourselves of its influence.

What's with this idea of making presidents, governors and mayors out of moviestars? i'm not suggesting that actors make poorer politicians, but Arnold?!
C'mon, why not lobby for... hmmm, i don't know... Shirley McLaine? Or Jessica Lange? i would suggest work on raising the voting participation as one of the feminist movement's primary goals. It is scary to find out that groups who would benefit from a new direction in U.S. domestic affairs; if at all voting, votes contrary to their own advantage, stuck in the traditional family values that your country values so highly, perpetuated by the media as being the only just way of life.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On a less serious note, you might want to check out http://www.ihatemen.com/