Sexism is a basic disrespect for women as people. You KNOW

[efhmc]

when you are practicing sexism against women. You may try to pretend it is humor, or cover it with phrases such as: or "that's is just the way life is" or "boys will be boys" or "women like things that way" or "God made women to be cared for by men, or the word "hysterics" or "penis envy", or "men are much more ________ than women". (Fill in the blank. Here are a few: brave, logical, calm, intelligent, etc.) Lack of respect swings both ways; but in this universe, it mostly swings over and hits women in the head.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Which is why you never see pharmacists refusing to fill viagara scripts

on religious grounds

[efhmc]

4. I wonder if they ask them if they are "married" before filling those

prescriptions. Of course, that prescription is not preventing PREGNANCY, the scared duty of all women.

[elehhhhna]

6. What about Viagra for a gay man? Uh oh. Can o' worms!

[Logansquare]

38. LOL! good point n/t

[efhmc]

87. Will he be using it for reproductive purposes only?

[Athame]

149. So true..

"the scared duty of all women."

Sorry, couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

[seabeyond]

28. yet our fda doctor tell women, pms.......open the bible

i really want to know if i am soon going to be denied painkillers because i have a disease in my fallopian tubes, because the bible says i have to suffer thru my original sin, (making wussy ole adam do something he really didnt want to do but couldnt stand up to right) and feel the massive pain every 28 days

this one pisses me off, and people dont seems so awfully mad, lol

[TwilightZone]

51. Or refusing to sell condoms.

Isn't it the same basic issue? If filling birth control prescriptions is "evil" because they're birth control, shouldn't they refuse to sell condoms, too?

Edit: elaborated

[seabeyond]

54. i oculd see catholics going after the condom n/t

[Walt Starr]

2. Feminism is the radical notion

that women are people.

[efhmc]

7. I have that bumper sticker. I have never been able to get a cognitive

argument from even the most extreme sexist to disabuse the idea.

[Just Me]

22. I've been called "one of those feminists" like it's an insult or somethin'

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

31. me too..........then they laugh like they were telling a joke

dont break a smile, dont lose the eyes. their (sorry guys) penis shrivels.

this is how i start talking when talking this crap

i have two brothers, a father, a husband, two sons, two nephews................and one niece

i have been wiping boys butts, and holding hands with the afraid men at certain times in their life. i be not afraid with this one

[ComerPerro]

102. LMAO

[ananda]

3. right

When you're right you're right.

Can't argue with the truth..

Sue

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[efhmc]

9. Okaaay. Could you tell who Jessica Alba is and what is HAWT?

Then, maybe I will be better able to keep my place. Thanks.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demit]

17. She's empowered proud meat on a high horse, if I understand the post

correctly. Then again, I might nawt have.

[mongo]

11. Um... maybe feminism is letting a woman work in whatever

field she wants to.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

29. actually porn is one field where women make more than men

and some dancers enjoy it because of the power and control it gives them over men.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. Really..women make more than the men that produce it?

[mongo]

56. women actors make more than men actors

and some of the most succesful producers in the business right now are women.

Jenna Jameson and Jill Kelly both own their own film companies now. Nina Hartley produces her own line of (really good) how-to videos, and a lot of pretty bondage porn with her husband, Ernest Greene.

There are a bunch of others too - but I'm not in the mood to dig up a lot of research at the moment.

Porn is one of the few industries where there is really no glass ceiling for women.

[efhmc]

Interesting, do a search and see how much longer a major male

star gets casts in leading roles as opposed to female stars? Can you even name a woman of the age of Sean Connery who is still seen in good roles? (Although as women gain more clout in Hollywood, this may be changing.)

[mongo]

60. Um, we were talking about porn, not hollywood

And Nina Hartley is in her 50's now and still making porn.

[efhmc]

62. Sorry, way out of the loop on this one. Mea culpa.

[mongo]

73. Hard to follow with all the deleted posts!

And some of them were doozies!

[efhmc]

74. Read the first one or two and then was afraid to come back in.

[ArkDem]

198. The porn industry is a bastion of women's rights! True

Feminists!!!

It infuriates my daughters and I when people say things like, "There will never be a woman in the NFL or NBA". Women can do ANYTHING men can.

[readmoreoften]

91. As a former sex worker AND pornographer AND female

Sometimes the female models make more than the pornographer (AKA adult intellectual property owner), sometimes less, sometimes equal. Sometimes the pornographer is not male.

As far as the actors/models themselves, men don't make much $ in porn.

[efhmc]

93. This really deserves a thread of its own. Are the women, even if they

make good money, treated respectfully. I have never seen any porn and regard it as degrading and destructive to women. Do you have any thoughts that would lead me to think otherwise? Also, are you a female?

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Interesting that among the basic tenets of Fascism, Dominionism, and the

Fundamentalist religions of all types is the subjugation of women.

[efhmc]

12. Argued this once with my mom ( a feminist) and she said that if you

really look at what Christ did and preached (NOT for God's sake, PAUL), then you would see what a radical idea he presented for women's release from enslavement. Of course, the men soon took over and threw that idea OUT!!!

[BrklynLiberal]

23. That was one of Constantine's major bastardizations of Jesus'

original teachings. He destroyed the Gnostic Gospels and banned women from being a part of the church's rites. Up until the Nicaea Council circa 323AD women were allowed to administer the same rites in church as men.

[efhmc]

27. Yes, I know this but try to prove it to a rw religion nut or a Baptist or

Catholic or many other main stream religious folk.

[seabeyond]

40. i always get, if a man does what jesus says..........

then it is a good life an honoring of women. the thing. men dont, cant, cant be done. something is being asked that humanly is not possible for a male while he thinks he is superior, the boss, cause his spirit know, that isnt so. so asking spirit to go along with a lie, and it wont

and history proves out my point, man ever have power over women, they fuck up, they make por decision for women

so i let all males off the hook. i will decide for me.........and you decide for you

[efhmc]

46. I like the part about asking your spirit to go along with a lie. That

could possibly be the answer to all life's problems: not asking your spirit to go along with a lie. Trouble is that most of us are way too deluded to know the truth from a lie.

[seabeyond]

52. the secret i say quietly

spirit always lets us know. just have to be still and quiet enough to hear. or when we hear, acknowledge. i mean we even hear, and we say no no to self because we dont want to do. so we get to own what we create. it is all there for us to do. i just find life sooooooo much easier to just allow spirit

that is why the porno thing does not work. as much as we want to say they have a right, that they get to chose, .......all those things the women say to themselves to get themselves out there to whore themselves

it is lieing to spirit, and spirit wont ever buy it

[mongo]

59. So other women should only be allowed to chose what your

spirit says is OK for YOU?

[seabeyond]

70. nope..........

that isnt what i am saying at all mongo, and truly i have listened to what you say in the past and so cool with it. no i am not saying all need to make my choice. i am saying, we all have free will to make chce and create our world to live. not only do i respect allow and embrace..........but i would have no control in otherwise anyway, so would be a waste of my time to even try. besides i like the diversity in all. i am not living it, so not a single bother to me

besides, we each individually have our lesson to experience we each have our unique journeys to walk. i dont question anothers. they are doing what they need to do at that time

[mongo]

77. Sorry. I can get defensive sometimes.

and your posts can be just a tad obtuse

:hug:

I know you don't care for porn, and there is some porn out there that is not so nice, but I thank the industry as a whole is unfairly portrayed by elements of both the right and left.


and just one more thing from your original post:

that is why the porno thing does not work. as much as we want to say they have a right, that they get to chose, .......all those things the women say to themselves to get themselves out there to whore themselves

I respectfully submit to you that that is a sexist statement.

[seabeyond]

83. i do like talking to you

i just deleted the post here. it goes further, in my beliefs, than i generally bring to this board. not that i would have issue talking about this with you, i just dont feel appropriate for the whole

[Dutch]

64. So women shouldn't star in porn because it's against YOUR religion?

That appears to be what your saying, even if you do replace God with 'spirit' and sinning with 'lieing to spirit'...

[seabeyond]

71. nope that is not what i am saying. n/t

[seabeyond]

35. liberals dont have an issue making women whores n/t

[jpgray]

10. Intellectually I believe both genders have the same ability

But physically and emotionally we are wholly different creatures.

[efhmc]

18. As are all people different as individuals. I can show you tons of

"emotional" men and many "emotionally detached" women and I can show you lots of men that are physically weak and women who are physically strong. Does that make these men women and the women men? Stereotypes hurt all people, particularly children (boys and girls).

[jpgray]

24. The strongest man will be stronger than the strongest woman

A man cannot get pregnant. There are wide genetic differences between men and women that do not exist between men and men or women and women--even people of the same gender from wholly different genetic backgrounds have more in common genetically than two people of different genders from more similar genetic backgrounds.

[efhmc]

32. I am talking against stereotypes, not basic biology and about treating

each person as the individual she/he is. Not making stereotypes based on sex. If a woman is barren does that make her a man? If a man is physically weak does that make him a woman?

[lukasahero]

33. Different doesn't have to mean less than

That's the problem with using the "but women and men are different" argument. It's always the woman who has to prove her differences don't make her less than a man.

And wtf is with the only example anyone can ever think of what a woman can do that a man can't is have a frickin' baby? It always boils down to this argument: men are strong, women have babies.

Is that really what we prize about ourselves? I'm pretty sure there are men out there who a) aren't strong and b) prefer to be respected for things other than their upper body strength as if they might have something more to offer. And I know there are women (because I'm one of them) who don't want and will never have babies. Maybe we would like to think we have something more to offer than that.

Perhaps we can get past the notion that just because we're different we are in no way less.

[efhmc]

36. Well said. Thanks.

[jpgray]

45. But it's all about what our society values

We can't control that, we only can work within to try and change it. Right now our society doesn't value women as much as men. This is not a logical or objective result of our differences, but the result of a subjective bias. What I don't like to see is people who react too far and deny the difference--the difference isn't the problem here, it's the shifting biases of society.

[efhmc]

50. You are wrong. It is always about what we value personally. And each

of us can make that decision as a separate person. Following your logic, means that the followers of the bias of society against Jews in Hitler's Germany just needed to work from within to make that different. Well, that might have worked in time but it didn't before 3 million Jews and others were exterminated.

[jpgray]

55. That post didn't make any sense

Are you saying that a society in the general sense doesn't have subjective tastes?

[efhmc]

57. Sorry if I was not clear. What I wanted to convey is that the bias of

society does not make a thing correct and I used Germany's bias (much too light of a word) against Jews to convey that idea. Take the example of the society of cultural bias against women in Afghanistan. Waiting for change to work its way through that society MIGHT have worked but millions of women's lives and spirits as total humans would have been destroyed along the way.

[dpt223]

137. Ok

Ok, but physically and emotionally everyone regardless of gender is different.

To me it seems that saying men and women are different is like saying tall people and short people are different.

Physically and emotionally everyone on this planet is different.

[_TJ_]

14. THIS POST IS SATIRE

Well, I'd just like to say as a man - I don't give a shit.
It's a free country and if I want to say that women suck
I'm free to do so.

I've had too many bad experiences with women in my life so
now I feel it is my right, nay my DUTY, to criticise women
in every way, shape or form that I so desire.

Everyone knows ALL women are the same. You've known one,
you've known THEM ALL. I feel perfectly entitled to
tar ALL women with the same brush.

Furthermore, I can't believe how UPTIGHT you are about this.
You expect people on DU to care about your feelings? GET OVER
yourself already. Don't you know? - women are what's wrong
with the world!

THE PREVIOUS POST WAS SATIRE
(and is in no way meant to be analogous to the way religious
people are treated by many on DU. Not ;) )

[efhmc]

20. Satire is often the most revealing tool to a well developed intellect.

Too bad, that it does not reveal itself to all readers.

[Lucky Luciano]

21. Actually, the original post

was kind of suggesting that such satire be banned.

[_TJ_]

25. I think she's against satire that attacks women.

Mine was attacking intolerance.

[seabeyond]

women are what's wrong

you are funny and i especially liked how you tied in the religion part, lol lol

i just called nurse and blamed husband for me complaining about price. she started talking to me like i had a .........clearing throat.........husband that had a say in my decisions. between the laugh, the outrage and the snorts.......lordy. i got worked up

sneered at husband when i got off phone

another day will come

[efhmc]

86. So she thought the husband had a say and you were amused because

you are a separate human being and can conduct your own affairs and therefore he does not. Did I decipher that right?

[seabeyond]

146. my 9 year old understands (he wants to share with you)

so you had a bad experience with females. i dont always agree with females. at school they can be a real pain in the hiney. i also am wondering why kids my age are obsessed with violence. and one kid in my class walks around the classroom hitting and kicking boys, it is a girl. IN CLASS. but i havent all the way gotten along with boys. i am usually trying to think about other peoples experiences.

i understand where you are going on this


if any females are reading this, boys my age can also be a pain in the hiney

[efhmc]

188. I hate the idea that a girl is allowed to hit without repercussions, just

because she is a girl. Learning to get along with others is hard enough without having to put up with violent people.

[seabeyond]

197. a lot today

and my boys so embraces both adn so rejects injustice. why this issue is so forefront, even with my little boys. they see it all. sexism. they talk about it out loud a lot. has been the coolest for me to see the other side too. and bossy and tattle tales. oosssh those girls. no kidding, would eat lunch with oldest, adn all the girls would come along adn spend all lunch telling on edmund. so funny

yup

but......it is all good

[efhmc]

201. It is funny how as the Mom of girls, I really never noticed the little boy

that much. As the gmom of 2 boys, so far I have seen more aggression in the little girls than in the boys. But they are all so little, it is hard to know whether that is a natural thing or a learned thing that is not being corrected. (Three and four year olds) I can tell that many of the things I had to work out with my group of siblings (no hitting, no tattling, etc.) when I was young are no longer being dealt with in the home because there are few or no siblings.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. Fine...but women and men are different

Afterall, I am sure you would disapprove of medicals research not breaking down the results by sex because we do have differences that could make one drug work better on men than women/vice versa.

The average man has significantly more upper body strength than a woman.

I generally agree with you, but there are some situations wehre feminists do go too far.

For example what the hell is it with renaming manhole covers "personhole covers?" That is taking it a little bit too far if you ask me. Another one was complaing about David Letterman - wants it to be Letterperson.

ok - the above is George Carlin...but I do think that unless a woman is a female bodybuilder, they should not be in the fire department. The physical standards and strengths that a man is expected to have in order to be a fireman should be the same for a woman. That is common sense - do not make the test easier just because she is a woman - make it just as hard...and if she passes...then she is in.

There will always be a battle of the sexes. I have seen some really bitter men that have some major issues with feminists. Like the one woman that successfully sued for child support from a guy with whom she had oral sex with - and then, unbeknownst to him, placed his sperm inside of her....The court ruled that the sperm is a gift once given, no matter if he was duped. I don't have much emotion either way about the issue (So if this inspires emotion in you, I amy or may not get involved with replying since it is not a big issue for me - I am just replying to this more as an offhand remark). Basically, the bitter men are angry because of the huge favoritism in divorce settlements....that there is huge favoritism is undeniable. Perhaps, if feminists recognized those inequities, the other inequities that they face could be fixed. :shrug:

[efhmc]

26. Again, you have proven my statement. One knows when he/she is not

respecting another person. Once, I had a preacher say that he felt that women who were asking that the male pronouns be changed in the liturgy, hymns, etc. really had other problems with religion. Well,no DUH!!! Way to make the point without getting it. MAYBE, we were tired of not being treated as full beings, but as less than men.

[Lucky Luciano]

79. "Way to make the point without getting it."

Did you pick up the irony there or do you think we should have a campaign to change David Letterman's name? A lot of the pronoun stuff makes sense, but the manhole cover and Letterman things were jokes!

[efhmc]

81. Got the joke but so often these "jokes" are used to ridicule real

fundamental problems that reveal an underlying resistance to understanding the harm that is done by the ingrained sexism that is part and parcel of our culture.

[efhmc]

82. Interesting about the "sir" names. You know that no woman has her

own last name, unless she legally changes it. How ingrained sexist is that? I am a gmother now but I used to say that if I thought of it I would have give my daughters the last name of Marydaughter to indicate that my existence was important also. (BTW, not my real first name.)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. Not in Minnesota these days

I saw the marriage license when my mother remarried in 1992. There's a space on there for the name by which the woman will be known after marriage. Taking the husband's name is no longer automatic, and I even know a couple who took the wife's name, because the husband had been abused by his parents and wanted to get rid of every bit of identification with them.

[efhmc]

139. So one can insert a completely different last name? I think they just

mean she can put in her so called married name or her maiden name.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. That I don't know

My mom was too traditional to do anything other than take her new husband's name.

[Demit]

30. That "pregnancy from oral sex" was what the man claimed in that case.

The woman claimed they had sex the usual way. The child was proved to be his and he wasn't suing about the child support anyway. What he was suing for was "theft of sperm" and emotional distress. Please try to make sure of your facts.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Well damn those uppity women! FYI, the physical capacities tests

for police and firefighters are the same for men and women. Here's an example of one:
http://www.publicsafetytesting.com/infodoc.cfm?id=9

Like the one woman that successfully sued for child support from a guy with whom she had oral sex with - and then, unbeknownst to him, placed his sperm inside of her....The court ruled that the sperm is a gift once given, no matter if he was duped.

That was ONE case in a million.

). Basically, the bitter men are angry because of the huge favoritism in divorce settlements....that there is huge favoritism is undeniable. Perhaps, if feminists recognized those inequities, the other inequities that they face could be fixed.

Bullshit and propaganda. The statistics reflect to THIS day, that the quality of life for divorced men goes UP following divorce and goes DOWN for women.

I realize you stated you were musing on the subject, but your musings are woefully uninformed...especially in the area of the physical criterea men AND women must meet to be peace officers and firefighters.

[Lucky Luciano]

92. I saw the pohysical skills test

I would score a perfect score on that and then some....
I did not realize that a firefighter does not need to be particularly fit.

I would require that any fireman be able to:

Benchpress 225 6 reps
do 15 pull ups
Be timed while carrying a 150 pound bag of sand around a 400m track -I do not know what a good time would be though - probably 4-5 minutes.


I think those are practical requirements for a firefighter and not that hard to attain - the skills test in your link would suffice for a police officer though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

96. Ok, but your analytical skills are lacking so while you might pass

on physical capacity, you might very well fail other aspects of the requirements to have the public trust in your hands.

[efhmc]

100. Ow, that must have hurt.

[Lucky Luciano]

116. Oh come on efhmc!

My skin is a great deal thicker than that!

:)

[Lucky Luciano]

105. I am probably

5 sigmas to the right of the mean when it comes to analytical skills.

:)

I am not kidding about that...

Try again :)

[efhmc]

123. Is that good?

[Lucky Luciano]

135. lower case sigma

kind of looks like a small letter "o" with a tail that points to the right on the top. It is the universal symbol for standard deviation. So, 5 sigmas to the right is pretty good - actually only 3 out of 10 million people are 5 sigma or better when using a standard normal distribution....So I was exaggerating a bit - 4 sigmas might be very accurate though:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StandardDeviation.html

There is a guy by the name of Vladimir Voevodsky whom I would claim to be a 6 or 7 sigma guy with regard to analytical intelligence - I will even make the claim that he is the smartest person in the world. The stuff he has done to advance algebraic geometry is incredible. My advisor during my PhD program was a very stern Russian mathematician who never smiled or complimented people much. When I proved my result for my dissertation, and I showed him the proof, he said, "very good." Translated, that means, "YAFUCKINGHOOOOOOOOOO!!!" This same advisor, when he speaks of Voevodsky says things like, "Astonishing, amazing, incredible, he has done enough for ten lifetimes of great mathematicians..." In other words - truly brilliant.

A physicist Name Kac had this to say about fellow physicist Richard Feynman:

"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and the 'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre." - Mark Kac

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-bio.html
http://www.amasci.com/feynman.html

The same statement applies to Voevodsky....the depth of the mind that discovered what he did is astonishing - magic. He won the coveted Fields Medal in 2002 for his work.

By the way, a great book for the smart layperson is "Surely You Must be Joking, Mr Feynman!" He has a very good sense of humor!

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that is not why we do it!" - Richard Feynman.

I had to throw that in...I do recommend his book!

Looks like I got carried away....my bad...Total Hijack :(

[efhmc]

136. Okay, I am sort of impressed. If you are really that

smart and can keep the sexism under control, I see hope for you.

[Eloriel]

203. Ah, that would require that he WANT to keep his sexism under

control, and there's no indication of that.

[efhmc]

204. Well, I am the eternal optimist. I even believe that one day democracy

will return to america.

[ProfessorGAC]

181. Then You Should Know. . .

. . .that we don't pluralize sigma. It's 5 sigma to the right of the mean, not 5 sigmaS to the right!

If using the english term of standard deviation, then we add the "s" to pluralize.
The Professor

[efhmc]

190. You can always count on a DUer to make the correction or get you

the information. Thanks.

[ProfessorGAC]

193. I'm A Statistics Geek

Every one of my graduate degrees are in fields where statistics and probability are absolutely critical tools.

I once got told to shut it down by an administrator of another site because i got carried away discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the Poisson curve used in public polling. (He said it was far too pedantic and academic.)

But, what the heck.
The Professor

[efhmc]

195. Well, I think those are wonderful qualities, just not my qualities.

[Lucky Luciano]

223. what makes you 100% sure that he is right!?

[ultraist]

206. HAHA!

Well done, Professor.

:yourock:

[Lucky Luciano]

224. You seem to be assuming the professor is correct!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-47,GGLD:en&q=sigmas+%2B+statistics

[Lucky Luciano]

214. Actually, I am not sure you are right

I see you are a stats geek :)

Here is the worst one that I am guilty of when I type too fast:

I will actually type mathematician as "mathemetician." I always have to slow down my typing by 80% for that word or I will definitely mess up! Of all the words to misspell! D'OH!

There are plenty of people that would says "sigmas" in the context I mentioned. If I were to say, "The dinosaurs were wiped out by a 10 sigma event," (Where we consider P(Giant meteor strikes during a given one minute interval)) then I would agree with you. Plenty of people would have no issue with the way I stated this. Of course, it is a very colloquial way of stating things anyway. People usually say "standard deviations" in books and journals for probability. I have not read too many journals on statistics. I must learn some econometrics and some stuff about time series analysis because I want to get in on statistical arbitrage - in 4 or 5 years, you will have > $1M cash in the bank on a good stat arb desk - plus you get to do some good math in the process as an added bonus. I made the egregious blunder of assuming I could waltz right on into finance with a PhD in pure mathematics because it is so much harder than applied math/probability (although I would need more initial training). Boy, was I wrong!!! So in 5 months I gave myself a crash course on Durrett's Probability: Theory and Examples, Steele's Stochastic Calculus for Financial Applications, Several books on Quanititative Finance using Martingale Methods, PDEs, a nice book on Monte Carlo Methods, and C++. Most of this focuses on the idea of pricing options. After all that, the headhunters were willing to speak to me and I landed the job - but it was hell to cram this all down my throat so fast while earning zero :( - I "wanted" it badly though. Therefore, I got it. There is some really cool math there. The way options are priced is brilliant although the model, of course, has flaws. Even if you do not like finance, the math involved for deriving the Black-Scholes formula for pricing options is something you can appreciate. The math is so perfect - too bad the model is flawed! Flawed or not, it was close enough to start a revolution and options trading got really huge. Scholes and Merton won the nobel prize in economics for their paper published in 1973 on the subject (Black had already died). Then they went on to found Long Term Capital Management and that was a famous disaster as they really gmabled too much and the Fed had to bail them out lest the entire US economy get fucked up!! These two Nobel prize winners had a lot of egg in their very red faces!

This was all a far cry from the day when Bachelier and Einstein first investigrated a formalized definition of Brownian motion - not formally proven to exist until Norbert Wiener came along - BTW, Wiener Process is a synonym for Brownian Motion.

Have you studied much about Brownian Motion and Ito integrals (integrals with respect to Brownian Motion)? That is some really cool stuff I must say. Brownian motion is used in finance to help model the movement of securities. The simplest models use a geometric Brownian Motion where over time there is a constant rate of return (drift) as a proportion of the value of the security along with some "noise" - the noise component represents volatility and the volatility is also assumed to be proportional to the value of the security. Consider volatility to be a standard deviation, although it is not really that simple since historical volatility does not represent the actual volatility! If you can model volatility well, then you will be a superstar. In the simplest model, this is assumed to be constant - which is highly flawed, but you have to start somewhere. It turns out that for pricing the option and using the appropriate hedge of your bets (and you use assumptions of the model), a stochastic differential equation (integral equation is more accurate - you can only integrate random variables) can be formed from which we can deduce the Black-Scholes PDE. When the payoff of the option is supplied, along with some boundary conditions, a unique aribtrage free value of the option can be achieved. It is really cool stuff. Anyone who likes probability would like this! That is why I mention this.


Cool things with Ito Integrals that really made me appreciate of them include:

1) Suppose you are tossing a fair coin where wins get a you a buck and losses cost you a buck. Let S_n be the wealth accumulated at time n with S_0 = 0. Suppose you want to calculate the probability that you win $A before losing $B. It turns out that the answer is B/(A+B). If we let T = inf{t : S_t = A or S_t = -B}, then it can also be shown that the expected value of T, E(T) = AB. These two facts can be shown by extremely elementary, but very clever methods (would be a good Putnam Exam question) or one can appeal to discrete martingales (or use continuous martingales by embedding the discrete version into a Brownian Motion path). These are definitely beautiful formulas. Through the use of the Ito calculus and the embedding of the discrete sums into a Brownian Motion path, it can easily be shown that the covariance between T and S_T also has a nice formula (recall E(S_T) = 0):

E(T*S_T) = AB(A-B)/3. It all relies on the idea that an Ito integral is a local martingale, a bounded continuous local martingale is a martingale, and some other stuff I will only type out if you are interested.

2) Recall Harmonic functions are those u(x_1,...x_n) such that the sum of the u_{x_i x_i} = 0 (Those are second partial derivatives). Using Ito's formula and the fact that continuous Ito integrals, when bounded are martingales, one can prove that u(x_1,...x_n) = the average value that u takes on a sphere of radius r (I assume u is defined over the whole ball of radius r) - you can see how probability gets involved because of the "average," but it still blew me away when I got this exercise in my book to use such an entirely different and probabilistic method to prove this extremely useful and well known fact from analysis - though it should not be too surprising that this is the case since probability is just a special case of analysis really - especially when you use measure theory and the Lebesgue integrals. Powerful stuff there. The idea of the proof comes from the fact if you use n independent Brownian motions starting at the initial point and use a stopping time for the Brownian motion to hit the sphere of radius r (And the fact that it will hit the sphere in finite time with P = 1), and the fact that martingales have expected value equal to the value at time zero, we get that the expected value that the Brownian Motion path takes when hitting the sphere is the average of the value of the harmonic function on the sphere - which must equal the value at the beginning of the motion!!!!!!!!! The fact that there is a martingale uses Ito's formula.

3) A Brownian Motion with a drift term is no longer a Martingale, but through a clever trick involving Girsanov theory, the drift can be removed by changing the probability measure. Using this new measure the value of the option can be calucluated as an expected value for a certain martingale, so by evaluating the expected value at the terminal time for the option, which is easier, we get a value for today! This is clever stuff too....and there are so many different kinds of options. You can make any bet you want! Fun Stuff!

Algebraic Geometry seems so long ago, but it has been less than a year! That subject is the far more incredible subject, but I would rather make a good buck and retire at 45. After that I could return to do the truly hardcore math while gallavanting all around the world never knowing which country I am going to live in next! I guarantee to have an excess of fun at all my stops. :)

[efhmc]

99. Thinking of a career change?

[Misunderestimator]

89. I have a female friend who has been a firefighter for 10 years...

you say she should be a "body builder" ... yet she TRAINS other firefighters as well as fighting fires herself, and she is no body builder. Do you even have a clue how sexist your post is?

Women shouldn't work for our own equality because some women have gotten good divorce settlements... :wtf:

Huge favoritism... my ass.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Interesting book:When God Was a Woman, Merlin Stone

Subjugation born of fear...

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html

<snip>
As the advocates of Yahweh destroyed the shrines of the female deity wherever they could, murdering when they could not convert, the Levite priesthood wrote the tale of creation. They announced that male supremacy was not a new idea, but in fact had been divinely decreed by the male deity at the very dawn of existence. The domination of the male over the female, as Hebrew women found themselves without the rights of their neighbors, rights that they too may have once held, was not simply added as another Hebrew law written into the Bible as one of the first major acts and proclamations of the male creator. With blatant disregard for actual history, the Levite leaders announced that woman must be ruled by man, declaring that it was in agreement with the original decree of Yahweh, who, according to these new legends, had first created the world and people. The myth of Adam and Eve, in which male domination was explained and justified, informed women and men alike that male ownership and control of submissively obedient women was to be regarded as the divine and natural state of the human species.

But in order to achieve their position, the priests of the male deity had been forced to convince themselves and to try to convince their congregations that sex, the very means of procreating new life, was immoral, the "original sin." Thus, in the attempt to institute a male kinship system, Judaism, and following it Christianity, developed as religions that regarded the process of conception as somewhat shameful or sinful. They evolved a code of philosophical and theological ideas that inherently espoused discomfort or guilt about being human beings- who do, at least at the present time, conceive new life by the act of sexual intercourse - whether it is considered immoral or not.

This then was the unfortunate, unnatural and uncomfortably trap of its own making into which the patriarchal religion fell. Even today we may read in the Common Prayer Book of Westminister Abbey under the Solemnization of Matrimony, "Secondly, it was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fortification; that such persons that have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body"

The picture takes form before us, each tiny piece falling into place. Without virginity for the unmarried female and strict sexual restraints unmarried women, male ownership of name and property and male control of the divine right to the throne could not exist. Wandering further into the Garden of Eden, where the oracular cobra curled about the sycamore fig, we soon discover that the various events of the Paradise myth, one by one, betray the political intentions of those who first invented the myth."
<snip>

[efhmc]

66. Looks interesting.

[libodem]

84. I love this book

I've long lost my copy, however

[efhmc]

85. Where can I find a copy? Probably not in this rw town's library, right?

[Athame]

151. Great book

It is the first one I recommend when people are serious about investigating the pre-patriarchal cultures.

[Eloriel]

205. Another excellent book, highly recommended

The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler. It's almost life-changing.

[Raksha]

166. Thanks for quoting from the Merlin Stone book.

A very angry, very liberating book! One of my favorites.

[seabeyond]

34. i want to know, when is raping, violating, humiliating, degrading

murdering women no longer entertainment

[efhmc]

39. When we get to that point as a society, I will feel that we are truly non-

sexist. But do not hold your breathe.

[matcom]

37. WWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEE SEXISM THREAD!!!!

:bounce:

:eyes:

[efhmc]

41. Please calm down. That is different from a sex thread.

[seabeyond]

47. bahhhahahaha, said sexism to boys jsut yesterday,

told them, should be genderism

my modest 9 year old liked that better

what are the genders, m/f. not what are the sexes

[efhmc]

53. You know I do agree and tried to convey that idea in the original post.

Although in the true meaning of the word, sexism does mean both genders, not just female.

[Eloriel]

207. No, that's a lie told by sexists to dilute/distract from the REAL problem

Sexism, like racism, is a system of subjugation, thoroughly inculcated throughout society. Once upon a time, and to a certain extent even now, sexism and racism were enforced by law as well as social custom and were thoroughly agreed to by all members, even those negatively affected. To too great a degree -- and I see far, far too much of it right here at DU -- women agree with and are complicit in their own subjugation.

Men -- and especially white men -- are not, CANNOT be, subjugated or made less than by anything remotely resembling sexism. They are the dominant culture; they own the world and make the rules even now. There are no practices, and can BE no practices, that seriously impact their dominant role in society.

Any "gains" women have made have been just so much -- enough to appease (and shut us up) in a lot of ways but definitely not grant us full equality. This is true where racism is concerned as well.

The WORST that happens in today's world is that some individual male here or there gets inconvenienced, say a slightly less than fully fair divorce settlement (aw, poooor baby) or doesn't get chosen for a promotion while the woman does (the reverse is still the norm on this one), etc.

There is not and may never be wholesale equalization of privilege that men have traditionally enjoyed, so that males do not automatically benefit from slightly to greatly more favorable position, no matter what the situation or subject.

Is there some male bashing that goes on sometimes? Yes, that's one of the few rights and pasttimes oppressed classes enjoy: they get to bitch about their oppressors as a class and about individuals as members of those classes. Poor people get to bitch and moan about the rich; slaves and indentured servants get to hate and despise their masters; women get to bash men. It don't change a damn thing. If it did, it wouldn't be allowed or tolerated, period.

No, there IS no sexism where men are the subject. There IS no racism where whites are concerned. There may be bigotry, but not racism or sexism.

[TomClash]

42. I love and respect women

but that hurts you in the business world. I have tried very hard to be a stupid pig. But I can't help it. Two things got in the way of my efforts to be sexist: my father and my mother.

[seabeyond]

48. my husband isnt. he is a very good man., what a man

arnold would call him a girlie man. i have met a lot of these wonderful girlie men. my sons wont be that is for sure. us women couldnt do it without men

well we could,......loll lol. but really wouldnt be near as fun

[comsymp]

58. While I agree with much of this thread, is your title meant to suggest

that sexism is ONLY practiced by males?

[efhmc]

61. No, but that it is most often practiced "against" women.

[comsymp]

63. In that case,

we're in closer agreement than previously.

ON EDIT: I think a cogent argument could be made, though, that one doesn't always *know* (better word is prolly "realize") when he's being sexist. So much of it is culturally ingrained that it just doesn't occur to us sometimes.

F'rinstance, is it / should it be considered sexist for a man to offer to help a woman with a heavy or bulky object? Some see it as courtesy, although the underlying assumption is that the man can handle the object better. In a similar vein, when shopping at WalMart (another debate for another day), I often hear over the PA system, "I need a male associate to..." Is THAT sexist? (I vote Yes)

[fleabert]

75. I got into an argument with a WalMart manager about that very thing a few

years ago. They thought I was stupid to be bothered by it. My point was, you have 70 and 80ish year old men working here, right? -yes- and if I worked here (late 20's at the time) are you saying that he, because he has a penis, would be better able to lift a heavy item and carry it out? They had no response to that except to say that the older man wouldn't respond to the request. But neither will women I argued! for no good reason except sexism.

so stupid that if it's heavy, only a man can lift it. Fuck off walmart!

[efhmc]

76. And they say we are the illogical ones.

[comsymp]

78. Thanks - I'll take that as validation!

Others to whom I've bitched (oops) about that example, tell me I'm being ridiculous.

[efhmc]

80. Once, in the nineties, my husband and I were buying the house his mom

had been renting forever. When we went to sign the papers, they said my husband name and then mine with an "and wife" next to it. I refused to sign unless they took out the name and/or put an "and husband" next to my husband's name. All, except said husband of 20+ years, were astonished. We need to do this today, it's legalese, doesn't mean anything, it's to protect your rights as an owner in case of a divorce, etc. All the things they say to get one to go along with sexism crapola. Since they could not legally take out the "and wife" (or so they said), they added "and husband". My daughter and her husband bought their house last year with their own names (since she did not take his name) and their legal status was stated as married couple.

[fleabert]

114. me too. I get the 'don't you think you are overreacting' bit.

fuck off, 'overreacting'. too little reacting is what keeps this bullshit going.

[efhmc]

125. I love overreacting. I wish we had so much more in this country. Caring

enough about the horrors of the daily bush life to overreact just might make a new and good american again, but I dream and digress.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. Is it "height-ist" to ask someone tall to reach for something?

Male upper body strength is a secondary sex characteristic. I think women should be expected to lift as much as they reasonably can, especially if it's at their job. The same goes for smaller or older men. But I don't think it's sexist to expect the person who is stronger (most likely the male) to lift something heavier, particularly if the weaker person could actually get hurt doing it.

As someone who has worked for years in male dominated industries, I think manufacturers of equipment have been allowed to design stuff that only muscular young men can work on comfortably for too long. I believe every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that stuff can be worked on by just about anyone. I can do almost anything that guys can do but some things are beyond my physical capability. They are also too hard for the smaller and older guys.

I also hate when packages are so large that only men can lift them. You see it at the home stores, warehouses, and even the supermarket. If I want the really big bag of dog food that costs a lot less, I have to get one of the bagboys to load it in my car and one of my neighbors to help me get it into my house. So most of the time, I buy the more expensive smaller bag to avoid the hassle. And I should tell you that I work out religiously. I've been lifting weights at the gym regularly for over 15 years. I'm about as strong a woman as you're going to see so if this stuff is hard for me I can only imagine how it is for other women.

[efhmc]

115. Yeah, I always laugh when the guys at the grocery store ask to carry

my stuff out to the car. I wonder who they thing is going to bring these things into my house. I am small and have always hated asking others for help. I think that is what is keeping me moving in my old age.

[fleabert]

119. LOL. too funny, I think the same thing.

i like them to come out because the lift gate on my car is broken and won't stay up on it's own. and they can take the cart back with them. I can lift like a mofo, but I am inherently lazy. ;-) and I would let a girl help me as quickly as a boy.

as an aside, I love to hold doors open for people, if I get there first, you will walk thru before me...even if you are a man. I have stood for two minutes holding a door that I opened for a guy and he refused to walk ahead of me. wtf? I got there first, I am being polite, walk thru please!!! It's about being nice! If you get there first and open the door for me, I will walk thru and say thanks, please do the same men! (I stood my ground, btw, and he finally gave up and walked thru.probably thought I was some radical feminist... AND I AM! PROUD TOO!)

[efhmc]

122. In my life as a southern gal I have enjoyed the courtesy of men and

women. As a young woman, I was taught all the same courtesies to the elderly that a man learned toward women. I opened doors for women with children and those who were older or not able. I usually acquiesced to the manners of older men because I knew it would upset those ingrained rules their moms had taught them, (I use to have to sneak in unexpectedly to my 80 year old Dad's house because if I did not bring in my own luggage, he, with his bum leg, would always go out to help me with my luggage. This was a man who loved having a strong daughter but those were the manners he was taught.)To me good manners mean helping, not subjugating people.

[fleabert]

I am southern too. I think it's crap. Whoever gets there first should open

the door. Screw anyone whose 'ingrained rules' and sensibilities are challenged. That's the only way change occurs. I will always help others in need, regardless of gender, and I expect to be helped when I need it, regardless of gender. Fuck manners associated with gender, at least thats my genteel southern opinion.

I am secretly a delicate flower, in need of a mans assitance to get by in this oh-so-rough world of heavy doors and big packages. :sarcasm:

[efhmc]

134. Sweetie, you are younger than I am and all those true gents are long

gone and we are left with the dregs of miscrossed redneck genes. I still enjoy good manners when I come upon them, which is not too often these days. But as someone once told me, good manners mean never making another person feel uncomfortable when they are in your home. Have you heard this? A very rich lady was entertaining and the person she was sharing tea with dropped and broke an expensive cup. The hostess turned and hit her cup dropping it to the floor almost at the same time. She cared about her guest's feelings to that extreme. Seems so silly and archaic but I think there is a lesson there about caring for others. Maybe not.

[fleabert]

147. I can see your point, but still feel that challenging those that can't

bear to let me open a door for them is necessary. I think that some 'manners' are silly and actually hurt women by making them appear inferior. I have a habit that everyone gets called Ma'am and Sir, everyone. It got me a lot of questioning looks and comments in New York (I am not old enough to be called Sir! type comments)so does that mean I should not call everyone I meet Ma'am or Sir, as would dictate in the South, because it offends those in the North?

I think a true gentleman would see that it is important to me to let him pass, and would with a tip of the hat! ;-)

[Misunderestimator]

186. LOL @ the delicate flower!

:rofl: :thumbsup:

[efhmc]

187. If you are talking about me, you most certainly have the wrong person.

I am 5'2", weigh 110, am 62, lift rocks and run a tractor, run a ranch, hike, bike, babysit my 1 and three year old gsons who are never still. I just like good manners and I feel they should, like respect, be spread around to all people.

[Misunderestimator]

191. Um, no... I responded to fleabert who wrote: "I am secretly a delicate...

I am secretly a delicate flower, in need of a mans assitance to get by in this oh-so-rough world of heavy doors and big packages. :sarcasm:"

I was appreciating her sense of humor, being that I am an extremely independent and strong woman myself, and am offended by men who assume that I am too weak to do things that only "men can do."

Sorry if you mistook my response to her as something directed at you. :shrug:

[efhmc]

194. I am really slow this morning. I should be out working and not trying to

defend myself from like minded people. Plus I told everyone my weight and how old I am. Here at DU, they were thinking of me as this long legged young blonde and now the truth is revealed. LOL

[fleabert]

200. I think we agree more than we disagree efhmc!

I think you and I would have a grand old time if we got together. :-) I just get pissed off at Wal-Mart when I imagine being an employee and hearing that stupid call over the loudspeakers 500 times a day. I'm a tough chick and get pissed when men (or corporations) assume I am weak because of my chromosomes!

(and if it makes you feel better about your reveal, I think you sound like a babe! and I'm a girl!)

[efhmc]

202. Thanks, hon. I can outlast my daughters. They will happily tell you so.

Hope it will always be that way. I love hiking and swinging and kicking the balls with my little guys and I want to be able to do that forever (not going to happen but at least for a very LOOONG time.)

[fleabert]

199. :-D I say that to my husband every time I belch.

He loves it, let me tell you. LOL!

[fleabert]

117. if you are lifting properly, you should use your legs.

I can lift anything my husband can. and I am no bodybuilder.

It's the 'male associate to the front for carryout please' instead of 'assistance with heavy carryout needed at the front please' that is sexist. AND for insurance reasons, no employee should be lifting more than 50-75 lbs without a dolly or something anyway, IMO.

[efhmc]

126. The things I need help with are almost always too heavy for anything

but a dolly and I am small and old. Whenever anyone helps me out with things, they use a dolly. The only time this was not the case was when I bought a cast iron stove and that needed 2 people to move. I solved the problem of how to move it around when I was by myself by putting it on towels and pulling them around. Brain over brawn.

[Hello_Kitty]

150. The object will not always be in a position where that is possible

What if it's over your head or you have to reach behind something for it? Ditto if you are using a dolly. You still have to get the object on the dolly. AFIK, if a female associate can do the lifting, fine. But the real question is, what are you doing at Wal-Mart anyway?

[fleabert]

162. agreed...and to answer your other question..

This was several years ago, in KY. Before I hated the Mart. I didn't like it, but it was where I got film developed and bought underwear cheap. I actually stopped going then because of this situation, not political reasons. Now I don't go since I try to buy blue.

My whole argument with the Mart manager was that simply taking 'male associate' out of the equation would make me happy, that way it wouldn't be sexist. Then it would be clear to all -employees and customers- that any associate would do, if they could assist with a heavy item. That's my whole point of contention. It implies that women in general couldn't and can't help, they aren't even welcome to try. I might need assistance with something heavy, I don't care what gender that helper is, as long as they are able to help me.

[lukasahero]

183. Lifting

I used to work at a store that sold grain products in 50 lb bags. I, a slight female of 5'2, 110 lbs, could easily sling a 50 lb bag over my shoulder and carry a 25 lb bag in my other hand out to the customer's car. It's not strength, it's distribution. I may not be big, but I have brains and find they usually get me further.

Your own words demonstrate what is and is not sexist. You "don't think it's sexist to expect the person who is stronger (most likely the male) to lift something heavier," Expecting the person who is stronger to lift something heavier is not sexist. Assuming that person will be "the male" is.

[baba]

65. There are males posting on this thread

These males seem to lack a basic understanding of what feminism is. I find that very concerning, as this is a liberal message board.

I'm going to go so far as to say if you are not a feminist, then you cannot call yourself a liberal. And yes, I am prepared to defend that statement!

[efhmc]

67. God, I so agree.

Edited to add: But you probably already knew that.

[_TJ_]

68. You'll get no argument from me!

A liberal sexist is a contradiction in terms.

[efhmc]

69. The real problem is that they do not see themselves as sexist.

That is what is truly scary.

[seabeyond]

72. yes n/t

[Lucky Luciano]

88. I'll bet that I am on this shitlist,

but I am not a 100% liberal....and I agree with most of the sentiments of feminism, but not the extreme sides of it. I know plenty of very successful women. Most of the ones I know became very successful in law...If you want something, then take it - you will get it, but you have to understand what "want" really means....40 years ago that might have been much harder though. I heard that Sandra Day O'Connor (not your favorite woman probably...but...) graduated as #2 or 3 from Stanford Law (#1 in her year was that Rhenquist bastard) and could only get a job as a legal secretary fresh out of law school! That is definitely injustice...now she ranks higher than the turds that would not give her a real job that she deserved. Depends on your field. I am in quantitative finance now - boy did I ever learn what "want" really means when I was interviewing for those jobs - INCREDIBLY COMPETITIVE!! My Type A++ personality went dormant in grad school, but when I found out how hard those jobs are to get, the switch came on again...adrenaline rush...There were no prisoners....Quantitative Finance is a total meritocracy...So few people have the mathematical skills for this job that once you have joined the club, you have a lot of power - you can always find someone else willing to hire you once you have experience and you have a lot of power with the salary you can demand - male or female.

Some men become skeptical of feminism when after all this time fighting for equality, a woman can make 10 times more than a man and still expect the man to pay for all the dates etc. I was still in my PhD program when some women driving BMWs expected me to take on my gender role at nice restaurants - I usually passed on those women or told them to meet me after dinner at a bar, although I knew I would not date them long term. As long as women still expect a lot of the perks that they did not realize they appreciated so much from the pre-feminist days (like free dinners, gifts etc), it is hard to take their desires of other forms of equality seriously (Maybe men do need to get paid more since they usually spend more money on relationships than women do? I am not really serious about that statement - Just pointing out that a lot of women want BOTH the equal pay and for men to take on their gender roles when it comes to spending money on them!). If a woman wants to be a feminist and demands equal rights, they should be serious about equality and not overstep their bounds into sexism against men - that only adds fuel to the fire and nothing positive gets done.

That said, I have rarely, if ever, encountered an ardent feminist that could be called a man-hater. Most of those successful women I mentioned above could be considered feminists, but they are definitely not man-haters....and they do like for men to take on some of their gender roles during initial stages of courtship (They become a lot more fair later on) - I guess that they got their equal pay, so they are content. I only see the man-haters on message boards (not directing this to anyone above - I was actually thinking of another board)...although I have never been to a feminist rally.

[efhmc]

90. I think having a man automatically pay for a date is sexism. But we

(I hope. I think.) are talking about something that goes much, much deeper here and that is why my original premise is about respect. As you know, the reason that men originally paid for things during a date was that they were the ones who picked and that they were the ones with cash. If you ask someone on a date, expect to pay but go some place and do something you can afford and if your date is not okay with then she/he is not really someone you should want to be spending time with. I think that a caring, kind male (or female) will always be in demand. Being honest and thoughtful works for all genders.

[Lucky Luciano]

97. What I was talking about does have reflections on the "deeper"

issue you were talking about....the reason is that what I mentioned with regard to courtship will make some men hesitant to become feminists on the deeper elvel you suggested. The other issue that makes some men skeptical is the way divorces often pan out. Men usually lose out on their kids more than women...they also lose big on a lot of the assets too. I usually hear a lot more men complaining about the way a divorce settlement went - it is fair to say that in a very statistically significant way, divorces cost more for men.

Also, there is a logical flaw with your courtship recommendation - You are right to suggest that whoever asks the other out should pay for the date, but most women - and feminists included - have not gotten past their gender role that does not allow them to ask men out. Men almost universally have to ask out the women, so they always pay. Most women will never ask out a man on general principle, including the successful women I mentioned above. They feel more attractive when a man asks them out - it flatters them more I guess...I have no problem with that in any serious way since I am a bit on the aggressive side, but some men do!

[ultraist]

104. WTF?

Men usually lose out on their kids more than women...they also lose big on a lot of the assets too. I usually hear a lot more men complaining about the way a divorce settlement went - it is fair to say that in a very statistically significant way, divorces cost more for men. (bold added)

That is a myth. Single mothers are the poorest segment of our society. It is NOT "fair to say that in a very statistically significant way, divorces cost more for men." BS. Back it up with some facts.

They feel more attractive when a man asks them out - it flatters them more I guess

Please, get a clue. Women don't value men "flattering their looks" as much as you seem to think.

[Lucky Luciano]

109. Well, of course if the couple has no assets

then the above does not apply since it would be a vacuous statement, but if the couple has significant assets, then I stand by my statement. Women get the kids more often than not if it goes before a judge.



Hey, when I ask out attractive women I almost never comment on their looks...no reason to state the obvious or what they already know! Duh! The mere act of asking them out is suggestive enough of attraction.

[ultraist]

113. Even when they do have assets, the men do not get screwed

You are spreading myths and have not offered any facts to support your claims.

Have you considered why men earn more in general? Start there and then work your way out to justify your remark, which is false.

Are you familiar with Clinton's Responsible Fatherhood Initiative and why it was enacted?

As far as custody, the courts have traditionally awarded women custody more often than men, because women are expected to be the main caretakers of children. These gender roles are rooted in sexism.

[efhmc]

118. The facts are that divorced women with children are significantly

poorer than divorced men. They earn less and have less assets. Perhaps they do have the upper hand when gaining custody of the children (although that may be changing) but they have far less money to take care of those children.

[ultraist]

130. Sexism doesn't exist within divorce. Women are greedy and selfish.

Come on now, you are not buying into the myth. Women are not discriminated against in the workforce or with child support payments.

Men always pay an adequate amount and pay on time. It doesn't matter that the Child Support Enforcement Office stats show otherwise.

[efhmc]

142. What are you talking about?

Were you being facetious and were you responding to me?

[ultraist]

143. LOL!

I was restating/reframing his claim that men get taken in divorce. That is an old myth and ties into the stereotype women are greedy and selfish bitches.

[Lucky Luciano]

120. ....

"As far as custody, the courts have traditionally awarded women custody more often than men, because women are expected to be the main caretakers of children. These gender roles are rooted in sexism."

True, but I will not hold my breath waiting for you to help fight this inequity!

With regard to those stats, I will search for some if you provide me with your own stats. The stats should also be divided by income as well since low income has no assets really.

[ultraist]

127. According to the US Census Bureau, single mothers are the poorest segment

of our society. What inferences can you logically draw from that stat?

http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol4no1ART5.pdf#search='women%20and%20divorce,%20financial%20status'

A preponderance of evidence shows that following divorce, custodial parents, almost always mothers, suffer considerable decline in economic well being.

Do you have any valid studies or stats to support your assertion that men usually get screwed in divorce?

Do you have any sources that show women have equal earning power compared to men?

[Lucky Luciano]

140. Single mother does not necessarily mean

divorced mother. There are a huge number of extremely irresponsible men in very poor neighborhoods that have fathered kids without any support for the mother - or the kid for that matter. Of course, the mother is irresponsible too because it takes two to tango, but the father should help raise those kids.

I am talking about middle class families or higher where both parents work and then divorce. Or situations where Mr Investment Banker marries Ms Golddigger and he makes a boatload of cash during their marriage. Then Mr IB catches Ms GD (who has no job) with another guy and still has to give her the house and alimony to maintain her lifestyle because she found a clever lawyer.

As I have said, when the families are poor to begin with, there is not much to fight over other than the kids, so we can only base fairness in divorce for poor families by where the kids go.


I made no assertions on earning power of women and men...Anyone who wants something can get it though. Remember though...the definition of "want." It takes extreme competitiveness sometimes. Take it from me. ;)

[ultraist]

144. You still have failed to provide any facts to support your claim

Your analytical skills seem to be on the left side of the curve on this one. ;)

Women's earning power is a variable to be considered in the context of divorce. Her time spent caretaking the children rather than working outside of the home should also be factored in.

It's irrelevant that some single mothers are not divorcees. The numbers still hold.

Most states no longer award alimony.

You have backpeddled on your claim now to state that only upper income men get screwed. Prove it.

[Lucky Luciano]

148. no backpeddling

"It's irrelevant that some single mothers are not divorcees. The numbers still hold. "

When discussing the inequities of divorce, it is relevant ;)

"You have backpeddled on your claim now to state that only upper income men get screwed. Prove it."

I did not backpeddle. I said that for poor families, fairness in divorce can be evaluated by who gets the kids more often...we have agreed that it is the mother. With regard to upper income families, I cannot find the proper statistic - to be fair, I cannot find the stats to back up your claim either. Too much crap to wade through on my google searches to find a nice neat box with the numbers we want. For middle class divorcees, I am going by anecdotal evidence of the many fathers that send a huge percentage of their paychecks to their exwives - rarely does it go the other way. You may argue that the reason is because the mother has the kids, but that only reminds us of another inequity...Either way, if it turns out that the estate settles 50-50 for an upper income family where the mother did not work or make nearly as much as the man, it seems a little like theft. He should not send her standard of living down by too much, but to expect the same standard while not married to the same provider is ridiculous....and if alimony is going away, then maybe the inequities are as well. Alimony was important before the time that women started to take on their own careers. Now women are expected to have careers and so alimony disappears. Seems fair enough.

I also tried to search for a table that would give the percentage of men and the percentage of women that are forced into bankruptcy because of divorce. No Luck.

Maybe some of these stats are hard to find because they are not public :shrug:. Lawyers don't like to show settlements all the time.

[ultraist]

158. It seems a little like theft? WTF?

Either way, if it turns out that the estate settles 50-50 for an upper income family where the mother did not work or make nearly as much as the man, it seems a little like theft

Think about that statement a little longer, please. How can it be theft when a woman worked in the home rather than for a paycheck? You seem to lack insight into what a marriage is as well as women's issues.

The stats and the study I provided are evidence that support my claim.

You have only anecdotal evidence because your claim is a myth.

And you did backpeddle. First you said, "(men) also lose big on a lot of assets too" later you narrowed that claim by stating only upper income men.

Men usually lose out on their kids more than women...they also lose big on a lot of the assets too

I detect undercurrents of sexism in many of your statements.

[Eloriel]

210. Who gets the kids -- shame on you!

Kids are neither chattel nor assets, and have NOTHING to do with "fairness" as you describe it in individual divorce settlements.

Men aren't fond of admitting it, but I'll bet 95% or more absolutely do not WANT the kids. Kids are a horrific burden and most men understand that intuitively if not from personal, first-hand experience.

Kids are routinely used to "get back at," punish, harass, or impoverish their soon to be ex-wives by denying them child support. And YOU, with an attitude like that, are keen on continuing that age-old, cherished system of sexism in divorce.

For middle class divorcees, I am going by anecdotal evidence of the many fathers that send a huge percentage of their paychecks to their exwives - rarely does it go the other way. You may argue that the reason is because the mother has the kids, but that only reminds us of another inequity...

Here again, YOUR attitude is that having or not having the kids is an inequity -- once again, children as chattel, something to be "bargained" with perhaps, witb no thought of what is best for the children.

You seem deeply concerned about the "inequities" in divorce, and yet so many of the very attitudes you hold are precisely those that keep those inequities firmly in place.

[Lucky Luciano]

218. Are you generalizing

to suggest that men do not care about their kids? Not having the kids is an inequity. To say otherwise is highly offensive.

I am not emotional about this stuff though as you suggest. I am not "deeply concerned." I made an ad-hoc remark on a subject for which I have zero emotional investment and opened up a hornet's nest. Now, I am just arguing to argue. :)

You seem to be making it clear that what is best for the children is for them to go with the mother by default. I do not think you see your own sexism above by suggesting that men do not care about their kids and that they would only use their kids as a bargaining chip.

Bottom line: In which direction does the cash/assets flow after a divorce on average - towards the man or woman? Toward the women on average. Again, you might say it is because of child support, which brings up the inequity you fail to acknowledge.

I am not saying that women divorce men for the sole purpose of taking their money on average, but they do get the edge when it comes to the direction of the assets afterwards. Now, if these women have not developed their own careers to be independent in the post-mortem of their marriage, then why should that be an ex-husband's problem? It will not be my problem if I get married and then divorce because I am only attracted to very professional, strong, and independent women when it comes to long term relationships - how else would I be properly challenged and have a partner that I can continuosly learn from? That said, one always has to prepare for worst case scenarios. Calculate them and make sure you leave yourself outs in those scenarios.

[Charon]

177. WTF

I agree that single mothers are the porrest segement of society. But what is the split between divorced mothers and mothers that have never been married.

[seabeyond]

94. i always paid my own way

wasnt gonna be beholden and further, there was no way i was going to let a man think of me the way you do, lol lol having to pay my way.

actually i just always appreciated that it was hard work for a man to make money just like me, no reason what so ever for me not to pay my share. i was htere to enjoy the company. i could pay my own way

[efhmc]

95. Well, just reading your responses here, we knew what you would do.

[seabeyond]

124. that obvious

funny, this is such a comfortable and enjoyable thread, not a lot of anger, lol lol and i had such a blast with the old fogey pot smoker thread. just has been a blast, these two threads

on edit, i have to fill my traditional female role and get dinner on the table,. lol lol lol such chuckles

[Lucky Luciano]

101. Actually, if I asked you out, then I would not allow you to pay!

I would feel like a dork since I asked....but if things went well, I would want to see what kind of a giver you would be on the next occassion. The givers are the keepers of course!

[efhmc]

106. You know, I absolutely do agree with you on this point. I think that

generous people, and by that I mean generous in spirit, never lack for dates or friends or happiness, no matter what their gender.

[Lucky Luciano]

110. ...

:)

[seabeyond]

121. it would be one of two, ok three ways

i know cause i did this til i was 32

you pay, then whether we wanted to or not would have to have another date so i would pay

my first choice and what i was most comfortable with and strongly suggested would be we both pay our own way, or you do dinner i do movie

or, we dont go out, lol lol

and with the advantages to women. of course. there are areas women have the advantage. i watched brother fight for 8 years going to court and 150k fighting for his daughter. the judge would conclude and the psychiatrists, the father is good and needs to stay in childs life, regardless how hard the mother made it. he needed to fix all the things the mother did. and the mother wasnt that bad. she wasnt beating and abusing child. finally at 11 the mother kidnapped child and put her in a mental hospital and left her, and the court said enough

on edit: she had free attorney aide all those years, brother paid his.

now this prejudice depends too. if the father has power and money, he has the upper hand, hands down, statistically.

(did research on this over the years)

i am not into excusing women on their behavior, we have to own our issues. nor am i excusing men. they get to own it, lol

i am a firm believer, i do me, you do you. i dont want to do you. i dont know how, i couldnt if i wanted and you can do you so much better. i can do me better than anyone else, i assure you., husband and i trust each other to do ourselves, we dont try to do the other

[efhmc]

129. But, you know this goes to prove the case for sexism. Just because

you have a penis, it does not make you strong and a breadwinner. Just because you have a uterus, it does not make you a nurturer and someone who knows and does best by children.

[seabeyond]

131. yep yep yep it is sexism at its worst, just the other side

yep

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. Wow, for such an analytical mind, you sure rely on the anecdotal

a lot in this debate.

[Lucky Luciano]

155. The hypothesis will most likely be true...

I never hear women crying about sending payments...or that the judge fucked her over and had to send a large chunk of her paycheck to some dude...never! That strongly suggests that the hypothesis has a really good chance of holding up if you know where to find the data. I thought finding such data would be easy with a cursory google search (The maximum effort I am willing to put forth - I do have other fish to fry), but I found none to support either my or her assertions.

We have settled the lower income case that they probably both suffer financially, but the woman gets the kids more often - which makes the woman suffer more financially because the man cannot afford child support probably. Also, if the father was supposed to pay by order of the court and he does not, that is not the system's fault - it is the man's. It could be the system's fault if they are trying to get more than 15% of his wages though.

Consider from now on only middle class and higher divorcees from now on. If women suffer financially from a divorce, then so does a man - simple explanation is that now the two of them are living under two rooves with the same combined income...naturally, that costs more....but it costs them both....If a man suffers financially from a divorce, I will posit that a woman does not necessarily suffer financially. Divorce sucks any way you look at it though and the whole things is quite ugly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

159. Sorry, I'm not going to do your work for you.

You made the claims - you back them up.

You have based a debate on anecdotal claims. For the record, fully 60% of the people living below the poverty line are women and children in a single parent household.

Furthermore, 90% of women HAVE custodial care of the kids even if they were not awarded custody in court (since many men use the court to antagonize NOT because they WANT their children.)

None of your assertions POSITED are defensible. Pure anecdotal crap.

First I nailed you on the physical capacities test, now I am nailing you on this. Sophistry is nice, but a fact or two to back it up isn't a bad thing.

[ultraist]

160. Yep. Sexist comments that he cannot substantiate with facts.

Total BS. Waaaay left of the curve on analytical skills.

[Lucky Luciano]

168. Look, I will get others to back it up

They will feed me the info....I have no emotional interest in this subject which is why I will just mention this to others that do and who will get back to me with plenty of info....that is if they listen - I already bashed them for whining about feminists! LOL...They went into attack mode too. I told them to stop whining and to just take charge and take no prisoners and aggressively get what they want without letting some woman (or man for that matter) get in their way. They did feel defeated though by some woman in their life - that took all their money and their kids. If I do not get the info consider yourself winner of the debate :) I just don't care enough to look around for the data, but it does not reflect on my analytical skills!

The probability that my analytical skills are higher than yours is pretty damn close to 1. Only THE highest of analytical minds could go anywhere near these.

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/K-theory See the bottom

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/K-theory/0639/post_mot.pdf

search voevodsky throughout the page - anywhere you see a paper by him was a new revolution in algebraic geometry - the guy is truly world class.

This paper above is a really revolutionary one - I feel lucky to be able to understand it - to have written it? That takes a magician. The depth of intellect in this area is truly mind blowing and astonishing. There is no other way to put it. Off the charts. I wish I could explain because it really is amazing, but it would take years to explain to a highly talented math whiz who just graduated from college....I have abandoned all this theoretical stuff to be a Wall St whore though - algebraic geometers just don't get paid enough and Wall St loves "Quants." I love gambling too and I love stress and adrenaline....actually it is not gambling when the dice are loaded ;) It is arbitrage!

I want you to imagine something. I want you to imagine how successful you would be if you could channel all that anger into something productive....you might even be successful...you would have the drive evidently and no man would stand in your way. If someone gets in your way, you bring out the steamroller - if that is not your attitude, then do not complain about men getting the high paid positions.

BTW, your silly insults are cute. :)

[ultraist]

171. It didn't take much for me to find studies and stats to support my claim

You still have failed to provide any facts to support yours. I don't see evidence of your superior analytical skills here. If you are incapable of deducing that women suffer economically from divorce, you are not employing any semblance of common sense.

Based on all of the facts about single & divorced women, including poverty rates, it's clear, that your claim that women take men to the cleaners via divorce is a false perception.

Your condescending remarks further evidence you lack analytical skills and must resort to ad hominem attacks. "I want you to imagine something..." LMAO!

BTW, I happen to be very successful, including financially. And I am happily married. But your "silly" notions are quite "cute."

Your rude insults here are the biggest load of shit I have read on this board:

I want you to imagine something. I want you to imagine how successful you would be if you could channel all that anger into something productive....you might even be successful...you would have the drive evidently and no man would stand in your way. If someone gets in your way, you bring out the steamroller - if that is not your attitude, then do not complain about men getting the high paid positions.

BTW, your silly insults are cute

:eyes:

[Lucky Luciano]

164. ..

"since many men use the court to antagonize NOT because they WANT their children."

That is crap...prove that one.

Below the poverty line has been settled - women get the kids - the men do not. Perhaps, you would prefer that the man gets the kids? Let's see what happens then. Also, you must subtract all the single mothers who were not married to the father as that is not what the debate is about. Divorce is the debate.

On the middle class and higher side, try talking to all the grumpy men that got fucked over in divorce court....those are some bitter guys and they are pretty vocal about it. I NEVER NEVER hear similar rants from women that got fucked over in divorce court. Incidentally, this debate is not only about divorce, but divorce court....something not too relevant to lower income families that do not have lawyers battling it out.

You want stats? Ok I will put out a message to someone else and have them dig it up for me. One of those grumpy men will find it - eagerly too I mus assume - keep in mind I looked for stats that support your claims as well and did not find them.

.................
On the physical tests, I always remembered firemen having to be able to do running and climbing with heavy weights on their backs (to mimic carrying people).

[ultraist]

170. More factual evidence of divorced women's poor economic status

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_060199.html

Only 5 percent of aged married women are poor; in contrast, 22 percent of divorced, 20 percent of never-married, and 18 percent of widowed women age 65 and older are poor.

http://www.cbpp.org/6-8-01socsec.pdf#search='average%20income%20of%20divorced%20women'
Financial well being varies by gender and markedly by race and marital status. Unmarried women are at greater risk for poverty.

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/labor/bedard.pdf#search='average%20income%20of%20divorced%20women'
A large body of evidence suggests an economic status decline in women who experience marital instablity. Moreover, the decline is long lasting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4847954-103690%2C00.html

Divorced women 'face poverty at 65'
John Carvel, social affairs editor
Friday January 30, 2004

Guardian

The shocking financial plight of divorced women at retirement age was exposed by the Office for National Statistics yesterday in its annual report on social trends.

It said 40% of divorced women over 65 were poor enough to qualify for income support from the state, compared with 1% of married women and 23% of divorced men in the same age group.

The figures appeared to explode perceptions based on the experience of celebrity divorcees living in style after taking husbands to the cleaners in the divorce courts.

http://www.wiser.heinz.org/paycheckpoints.html
Income of Older Women—Impact of Widowhood and Divorce
The Retirement income gap for women is 56 percent.

In 2000, the median personal income for women age 65 years and older was $10,899. For men in the same age group, it was $19,168 (p. 6).
Nearly 60 percent of older women are single compared to only 26 percent of older men. Older women are either widowed (45 percent), divorced (7 percent), separated (1 percent) and never married 3.6 percent (p.12).
Women who live alone and are heads of households are likely to have the lowest incomes. Fewer than 1 in 10 had incomes of $35,000 or more; nearly two-thirds (63 percent) had income under $15,000 (p. 12).
One-third of widowed women become widows by age 50 and nearly 46 percent are widowed before age 65 (p.13).

http://www.abclaw.com/divorcedwomen.htm

According to federal statistics, 22% of divorced female retirees live in poverty vs. 18% of widows and 20% of women who never married. And the situation could get much worse. The number of retirement-age women will increase by 84% in the next 20 years to 9.6 million, according to U.S. Census figures. Meanwhile, the divorce rate remains stuck at about 48%.

"In terms of living standards, it's not the widows who are the worst off," says Martha Ozawa, a social policy professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "It's the women who enter retirement either separated or divorced."

Poorly constructed divorce settlements and short-term thinking — trying to hang onto a dream home that took two incomes to support, for instance — can cripple women's finances. Divorced women also often get shut out of their ex's pension benefits.

As a result, many divorced women are forced to move in with their children, rely on loans from relatives, or seek other sources of outside income. Lee Ann Luttrell, 53, of Las Vegas rented out rooms in her home after her 27-year marriage ended in 1996.

Even in the best of circumstances, many divorced women are forced to work long after the traditional

http://www.planandprovide.net/industry.html

Divorced women who gain custody of their children suffer a 35- 70% decline in their standard of living in the first years after divorce. On the other hand fathers standard of living
increase by 10-15%.

----------

Women are not getting rich off of divorce and screwing men out of their assets as you claim. Moreover, marriage means a 50-50 partnership, thus shared assets regardless of the different contributions of each partner. (Legal and ethical definition).

[Lucky Luciano]

173. hbhk

22% divorced...18% widowed...20% never married live in poverty. So divorce is slightly less well off than the other two. That could probably be attributed to the cost of raising their children earlier and not saving the money they otherwise would have. Again, perhaps these women should give up their children to the husband upon divorcing so that they do not suffer from this....but they fight to the death to keep their kids and they win....but it costs them financially. C'est la vie. You keep bringing up poverty and the lower classes over and over and over, but we have already decided on the reason for that for lower income families - women get the kids and kids cost money. What about the middle and higher classes???

"Divorced women also often get shut out of their ex's pension benefits."

Good.

"Poorly constructed divorce settlements and short-term thinking — trying to hang onto a dream home that took two incomes to support, for instance — can cripple women's finances."

Aha - so they are getting the home! They just fuck it all up! Don't hang onto some dream home because of some emotional attachment. Dump it on the market. Take the money and downsize until you remarry....that should be common economic sense - not the man's fault.

Let's not forget another fundamentally important point here though. You are talking about divorced women older than 65 or 70! These are women that truly lived under the "patriarchy" and did not have much in the way of real jobs - in other words, the women with whom I would agree lived under oppression. Women today, when they reach those ages, will be an entirely different story because they have access to better career paths and have far higher incomes and independence. Even if they do make less money than men for the same work, they will make enough for independence - much different from the senior citizen females of today. Comparing these seniors with the younger women of today is a little bit like confusing your apples and lobsters.


I never said that women from the middle class and higher enjoyed taking advantage of their husbands in divorces, but it is what happens sometimes - the reverse case does not nearly as much. Men want their kids too and you really discount that a lot I might add.

It is the legal definition that all assets should go 50-50, but it is not the ethical one in my opinion. It is unfair if one of the spouses is providing the vast majority of the income and still gets rooked out of half the assets that would never have been there in any capacity otherwise. I see these traders who make big bank, that are married to women that spend all day with their girlfriends....I have not been in the industry long enough to see divorces panning out too much, but I have heard some war stories about women that really took their guys to the cleaners without ever having to work. That is not fair - at all....no way.

[ultraist]

175. Weak and more backpeddling---still NO FACTS to support your claim!

LMAO!!! Total nonsense.

No, not all of my sources referred only to older women.

The figures appeared to explode perceptions based on the experience of celebrity divorcees living in style after taking husbands to the cleaners in the divorce courts.


35-70% of divorced women's income declines significantly while 15% of men's increases.

Backpeddling:
'Men lose big time with assets during divorce'
'Middle and upper income men lose with assets'
"I never said that that women from the middle class and higher enjoyed taking advantage of their husbands in divorces, but it is what happens sometimes - the reverse case does not nearly as much"

Um, yes you did. Read your posts.

More sexist comments:
"I see these traders who make big bank, that are married to women that spend all day with their girlfriends..."

You have no clue as to what a marriage is. Please educate yourself. It is unethical to assume a women's contributions are worth less in a marriage.

I know many women in the higher income brackets and they do not spend all day with their girlfriends. MOST are highly educated professionals. But perhaps you are unaware of the correlation between income and education and the fact that most spouses have comparable educations. Furthermore, most married women have children.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

185. Yes, those are the same grumpy guys that whine about paying taxes

too. Republicans.

I am sure one of your grumpy men will find some stat on a men's right's site no doubt.

Oh and on the physical capcaities test, they do very from state to state. In California, certain peace officers must meet 19 critereon to qualify, be they men or women including dragging a 200 lb body 50 feet. If they are wearing that particular badge, they qualified.

( since my business is disability, I know all about fitness for duty issues)

[baba]

220. Usually, the person who asks pays.

Or you go Dutch. That is how I've always done it.

[entanglement]

153. Please elaborate.

I am a man, certainly not a feminist but I consider myself liberal. Please explain why I'm wrong.

[baba]

219. "Certainly not a feminist"

Why not?

Do you know what a feminist IS?

How can you be a liberal if you deny the full humanity of women?

[HEyHEY]

157. Isn't the argument about sexism or are us "Males" to dumb to grasp

English?

[ultraist]

163. Oh right, it's male bashing.

Obviously you didn't read the OP which discusses cloaking sexist remarks in humor.

Who said anything about males being too dumb to understand English? Why are you mocking the OP this way?

Oh, I know, coming from a person who doesn't believe it's sexist to refuse selling BC to women, this dialog should be shut down and considered ridiculous.

[ultraist]

98. Oh stop overreacting!

Sexism is not a social ill in our society. We can vote, go to college, and join the workforce.

So what if 95+% of the top income jobs are held by white males and that other major discrepancies exist. Quit complaining.

[efhmc]

103. Oh, point so made for sexism! Thanks.

[hfojvt]

107. sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy bit

If yew think .....

yew might be a misogynist

[efhmc]

108. So anyone who thinks hates women?

[hfojvt]

138. no, you are supposed to fill in the blanks

I could not think of a good example. Something like "wives should obey their husbands" or "men should not have to cook, clean, or care for children" or "women do not make effective managers" or "women cannot handle computers, theoretical physics, or math" or "a husband's career should come before his wife's"
I was counting on others to come up with some pithy examples.

[Hosnon]

128. How about this:

Men are much more male than women.

B-)

But in all seriousness - the only equality that is absolute between the sexes for me is political. In reality, there are differences which need to be acknowledged and discussed.

[seabeyond]

132. Men are much more male than women.......lol lol lol

actually i have met men that are way more female than i, lol

[efhmc]

133. So in what other ways are men and women not equal, since they are only

equal politically? Which by the way may be how you think but really is just not happening in america today. Differences are one thing, equality is a definitely another.

[ultraist]

145. Please elaborate on:

-the only equality that is absolute between the sexes for me is political.

[Hosnon]

213. Sure:

Political equality between the sexes is the only area where I will never argue to the contrary because I believe it is a construct of the legal system and needs to be absolute.

All of the other possible areas (physical, mental, emotional, etc.) are not absolute. They may be close, as I believe general intellect is, but they are not absolute because they are not human creations.

[entanglement]

152. Interesting thread, and one observation

(Many) feminists claim there is only one "pro-woman" point-of-view on a given issue. This is weird, given the fact that women are a very diverse group with interests that sometimes clash with those of other women. If women hold different views than feminists, it is put down to "low self-esteem" or "submitting to the patriarchy" or "self-loathing". In this way, the underlying *causes* of the diverging views are never examined; they are summarily dismissed as not meriting further consideration. Which probably explains why so few women are willing to label themselves feminists, even though they broadly agree with many of the tenets of feminism. I sometimes have serious differences of opinion with others. But I would definitely come up with reasoned arguments rather than put down their views to "self-loathing".

[ultraist]

161. We have offered reasoned arguments

The ones on this thread who are making false claims and have failed to back them up with facts, were not women who claimed to be feminists or "believe in the tenets of feminism" (which is the same thing).

You are making a lot of hostile judgments with no evidence.

The facts on sexism speak for themselves. If people support oppression, they are submitting to the patriarchy.

If you would "definitely come up with some well reasoned arguments," then please do so because thus far, you haven't.

What is your definition of sexism and what are the causes?

[entanglement]

165. I apologize if my post

appeared hostile; that was certainly not my intention. My remarks were made in a broader context (not just about this thread). To put it simply, why do feminists consider dissenting views of other women (not men, women) not as products of a careful thought process but put it down to "self-loathing / delusion" etc. Do they not belittle / demean other women by doing this? For example, this happens to pro-life women all the time. Mind you, this has nothing to do with my views, it just a (provocative?) question about how *representative* feminism really is.

PS: I define sexism as discrimination against people (female or male) based on their gender. I agree women have had it worse than men historically.

[ultraist]

167. As far as pro life women

If a woman is advocating to have women's right to privacy, thus her civil rights curtailed, they are supporting oppression.

Holding a personal or religious view on choice is something altogether different. I respect people's right to choose. But I do not respect the idea that a religious or personal view that limits women's civil liberties should be legislated.

Most feminists respect choice. Choice to work in the home or in the workplace, choice to have or not have an abortion, choice to marry or not marry...etc.

Feminism is not about dictating to a woman what they should or should not do, it's about ensuring legal and equal rights for women. It's also about eliminating sexism through cultural discriminatory practices, such as sexually exploiting women. Empowerment is the operative word.

[entanglement]

169. I'll try to put it another way

I don't consider "equal rights" and conventional feminism as the same. I heartily support the former and am quite skeptical of modern-day feminism.

Here are some quotes from feminists (famous ones, btw), please explain to me how they support a woman's rights to "choose"

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

So all women having sex with men are oppressed?

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" Catherine MacKinnon

Great. All men are rapists.

Can you please explain to me how this kind of vitriol is acceptable? Can we at least agree that there is a certain element of extremism in feminism, which is just as bad as extremism in Islam or Christianity?
Do you then accept that (owing to their extremist views) these feminists cannot claim to speak for all women?

[ultraist]

172. Do you have a link for those quotes?

That does NOT sound like "conventional feminism." Those are extremist remarks.

As a happily married heterosexual feminist, I call BS on that post. First you state "conventional feminism" then you post extremist quotes.

[entanglement]

174. Good. You agree they're extreme.

Both these feminists are quite famous; (as much as Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem). Hardly anyone in Women's Studies can get by without an introduction to their ideas. They're conventional in the sense that they are to feminism what Darwin was to biology, and Freud was to Psychoanalysis. These people helped define the field and it would not be a stretch of the imagination to call them the 'leaders' of the feminist movement. Thus, what's conventional / canonical in feminism is extreme to the rest of us.

[ultraist]

176. So you don't have a link for those quotes?

Are the quotes being taken out of context?

BTW, Dworkin and MacKinnon are considered a RADICAL feminists:

Andrea Dworkin (born 26 September 1946 in Camden, New Jersey) is an American radical feminist and writer.

Dworkin has produced numerous books, articles and speeches. She is known mostly for her work on pornography, prostitution, and male violence against women. More than many other critics of pornography, she links it directly to rape and violence. She is notable in general for linking sexual issues to the larger structures in society. According to her, sexual behavior is a cause of inequality between men and women.

However, she has also written about the class perspective on feminism, in books such as Right-Wing Women.

Dworkin, together with the feminist lawyer Catharine MacKinnon, drafted a proposal for a law that defined pornography as
Catharine MacKinnon (born 7th October 1946) is an American feminist and lawyer. She was educated at Smith College (B.A., 1968), Yale Law School (J.D., 1977) and Yale University Graduate School (Ph.D. in political science, 1987). As of 2004, she is the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and is also a long-term Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Chicago.

A proponent of "feminism unmodified," a form of radical feminism distanced from, for example, Marxist approaches, MacKinnon wrote Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, an attempt to understand the oppression of women and strategies to combat it in terms of states dominated by men.

MacKinnon, in the 1970s, was a pioneer in claiming that sexual harassment could be considered illegal discrimination and fall under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, this premise was not tested in court until the 1980s, in the Jenson v. Eveleth case.

[seabeyond]

179. you arent getting the embracing of individual

yet you speak of it. it works both ways. these comments are used to shame women from feminism. i too thought it was a bad word when i was twenty. then i grew up. these women think individually. they are allowed. as i am allowed to say, k, no f*in for you, go for it, choice, but man i sure do like it. adn they dont speak for me what being empowered is. again i say, it is not another that figures this for me, or does for me. i do. and i do well. they can do there own

so what they said that. tis dismissed, for me anyway. they arent Representative as a whole. no one person could possibly speak for all. just cant be done

on edit reading your next post
the 'leaders'

nah........i am not a follower. what you dont get with women, that we excel at as female, is we are collective. we dont need nor desire, or do hierarchy. that is a male thing

[raccoon]

184. Yeah, the word FEMINIST has been demonized

unfortunately, same as the word LIBERAL has.

[ultraist]

208. I agree, they are being used to demonize feminism

Those quotes were taken out of context and the poster refused to provide a link so we could put them in context, even though, it's standard practice to provide a link with a quote or other cited material.

They may even be misquotes but I'm not in the mood to look them up at the moment!

[seabeyond]

212. steinam really said it

was stupid then adn she owned the stupid of it a handful of years later, as she grew and got married, lol lol. that is cool. no one is perfect. i can certain dismiss the silly and value all she did and all the smart she did say

[ultraist]

215. That poster didn't quote Steinam

He "quoted" Dworkin and MacKinnon.

[seabeyond]

178. readily i say to you, women beat each other up way more

than men ever could

there is a competitiveness. hopefully that will be something the older generation of women, such as myself will be able to help the younger women with today. i know that is forefront in my mind dealing and interacting with the younger generations. man watch out. if us women can get past this, we will rule the world, bah hahahaah bestest witches cackle.

really teasing on the witch though there are days where witch is very near and dear.

[HEyHEY]

156. Sexism is a basic disrespect of a sex based on that sex

[baba]

222. Sexism = Sex Prejudice + Power

Racism = Race Prejudice + Power

Prejudice can go both ways, but when it is paired with Power, that is what makes it an "-ism" theoretically.

Males are the ones who have traditionally held the Power in Western society, therefore, Sexism in its truest sense is male > female.

It may be easier to comprehend when one considers Racism. Caucasians have traditionally held the Power in Western society, therefore, Racism in its truest sense is Caucasian > non-Caucasian.

This theory acknowledges that Prejudice, and actions based upon Prejudice, can occur between any groups of people. It is when Power is paired with Prejudice that Sexism and Racism (as well as other "isms") are created.

[seabeyond]

180. the reality, it is not hard for any of us to know

when someone is being disrespectful to us. even children, little children know. self lets us know. i dont know how many times a male has done something to put me in place. i tell father, you guys just dont get away with it. you think you do, but i assure you, we know.

he was surprised. really. as a male all this time, he thought he could say the things he did to woman, and they wouldnt get he was making them less. etcha he is a bit more afraid to mouth off now

schnorts enhager............talking about him this morning. my niece brings up changing constitution to allow him to run in 2008. i told her i think it is more to allow bush a third term and repugs hiding it behind snortie dude.

but i told all three, two sons clearly.............snortie is a pig. for three decades he was a pig. there isnt a chance in hell, i would in anyway honor that man. i dont care how much his wife "defends" him. i know a pig

and universe says i am correct cause i can change his name to a snort so easily

[efhmc]

182. Who, pray tell is snortie? I tried to puzzle it out and just cannot.

[seabeyond]

189. i am sorry, arnold in calif.

after arnold took over calif, my yuk male father in law put on truth and lies? with jamie lee curtis. i was so disgusted seeing that movie, after i watched armold on oprah, adn all i heard heard about his life, adn grabbing women, and then meeting in energy meeting with all those other pigs, that fucked calif.........

you know arnold, the pig

[efhmc]

192. Now, I get it. That is why they want to change the constitution.

I still cannot believe California. It was always the one place I could totally rely on to be progressive and now they too have backtracked.

[Taverner]

196. Yep

Couldn't have said it better.

I would argue it all seems to stem from:

1 - The impact of religious intolerance in our fundie culture

and

2 - A fundamental misunderstanding between men and women, perpetuated at a young age.

In Europe, little boys and girls are encouraged to play together at a young age, and as a result adult men and adult women maintain friendships unheard of in the US. As a result, sexism is lessened (not nonexistant, but lessened) and is far more pervasive in the US.

[Spinoza]

209. "men are much more (VIOLENT) ________ than women"

At least, on average. Do you disagree?

[efhmc]

211. Not going there. It is too much of a sterotype for me.

[Lucky Luciano]

216. Stereotype or not,

it is true. Men *are* more violent on average. By a million miles.

[ultraist]

217. Males commit 86% of the violent crimes in our country

Dept of Justice Stats

[Swamp Rat]

221. Sexism is irrevelant... you will be assimilated.