Is that what I am?.......Cooool

Exactly

No Walken, I was so pleased to hear that women helped during the war, after hearing that they just stayed at home looking after the kids.

I though you were against stereotyping? I thought it was sexist to you. You had a huge go at me for it anyway.

See, that's the fun thing about equality. Women have the right to join the military if they choose to do so. And there aren't as many women joining the military as there are men.

The numbers aren't equal, but the opportunity certainly is.

I'm only commenting on whats being said, I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you as the last thing I want is a flamewar, but some of the things you said sounded like femanist whether they were ment to be or not.





Which I beleived Warden has been arguing, especially when he argued with you that male cnacers should be looked at in the same amnount as female cancers. But you shot him down, I had a right to be concerned.




I don't see anywhere (except that idiot at the begining) anyone saying the opposite of this, the issue is about the rights of men to be treated with the same respect as women.




I disagree, not all areas of the emergancy services require strength. The police for example doien't just involve wresting criminals to the ground, female officers are just as capable of the brain work involved as well. Lets also remember although the average male is larger than the average female, there are cases of heavily built females and scrawny little males.




Not me, I'm stating fact. Off the top of my head I could only name a few groups arging for equal rights for men, like Rights for Fathers. And they are usually labeled as a joke.




Actually, Warden tried arguing that male diseases get the same funding and you shot him down, so technically you did whether you meant to or not.




Can you explain more about what you mean by raising. Are you discussing positive discrimination.




I thank you for holding that view. Its just a pity more don't, male or female.




No, part of it like all bigotry is stupidity, culture, and ignorance.





Our entire system is joke. What was it last month, some ned shot dead a baby and just had the gun conviscated, yet 2 week later a woman threatens to shot a bunch of neds vandilising her car and not only gets fired, but gets 1 year in prison. The lunatics are in charge of the asyulm.








Unfortunetly the same is true of today, most western nations still refuse to pput female soldiers in combat zones, and don't include females in drafts.





They ran a campaign were the victimised any man and the family of any man who wasn't a soldier. The feathers were a label they put on their victims to show 'cowardness'






.... 1. thats sexist 2. the topic is actually about evidence that shows women are paid more than men 3. You are right about why should we pay for everything, see this is why I only date women who will split the bill.

Hey, my wife gets to make all the decisions. I should at least get paid more.LMAO!

The draft laws still only apply to men. Some would argue 'That doesn't matter, there is no draft anymore', but I wonder how long it would take to change the laws if fighting began?



Uh-huh. But if one woman fails to get custordy the feminists are all over it. Check out the latest letter on www.feminist.com. A womans complaining that her cousion didn't get custordy of her child, and that it's sexist and an outrage.



I already discussed this with her. You may be more intrested to know, Talon, that the campagin was lead by feminists, with several of the key-speakers of feminism endorseing it in their speechs across the country.



Same here. Occasionally I'll give my coat to a lady-friend if it's raining, but not because I'm being a 'gentleman' but because she's my friend. Likewise, if someone I didn't like or barely knew asked for my coat on the grounds that I should be a 'gentleman' I'd tell them to drop dead.

I know, thats why I posted, to show what limited equal groups men have compared to women (although I wouldn't classify woman's groups as equality anymore... superiority-complex groups maybe)



Yeah, but thats what femanism is about, its not about equality, its using the word 'sexist' as a label for anything in which they don't get their own way. A femanist would claim its sexist if a man won the lottery and she didn't even though its completely random

This is why I advocate that Femanists, like all fascists, should just be taken out, shot, and fed to the f******* crows.





.... I know.... thats why I posted it because she said she didn't know wwhat you were talking about.




And rightfully so

Talon, I just wanted to address a few things that you still seem to be misunderstanding me on. My point on fundings for diseases had nothing to do with a cancer being a male or female-oriented cancer. I didn't "shoot anyone down" on the issue of a gender-specific cancer. Instead, what I said is the severity of the disease should be considered, like my example of leukemia v/s cervical dysplasia- one having a much higher mortality rate deserves more attention. Same reason AIDS is of much more serious concern than herpes, it has nothing to do with what gender it effects. If prostate cancer and breast cancer have similar mortality rates and difficulty of recovery, then they should be alloted the same fundings. I don't think they do, however, I could be wrong. My father discovered he had prostate cancer two years ago, but it was early enough all they had to do was remove the prostate, and he has no chance of relapse.

And my point with law enforcement and such--- I don't disagree with having women involved with any branch, I disagree with the practice of lowering standards so that women can meet a quota. When a firefighters' test is made easier so that women can pass it, that's the problem, and it does happen. If a women is strong enough and has the endurance to pass the regular test, suit her up. But I don't want a person coming to rescue me or my family that has been given an easier go of it, no matter their gender, race or national origin.

On to the final point: what I mean by "raising" has no discriminatroy connotations at all. I will try to explain this again, hopefully more clearly: A group has been the sole recipients of a priviledge (let's say 'voting' in this example), and a group that has been considered inferior in the past (we'll say black people in early American history) is granted this EXACT SAME RIGHTS. When this happens, the group that had been the ones in priveledge then feel like they are losing power. They aren't losing anything except (in this case) the prestige of being the only ones allowed to vote.

White men have historically been the dominant demographic. The shift towards equality is tough on all sides. I'm not saying that now that things are becoming so frightfully politically correct that men are not the victims of some reverse discrimination. In fact, in some cases, I'm sure they are. But change is never easy and there are no pat answers. Extremists on either side of any fence don't help anyone's arguments.

Hardly, did you even read my post? I was trying to very accomidating.




Explain again? You never explained it in the first place, which is why we had this discussion came up in the first place.




Er wrong. Elites are the dominant demographic, the fact most were white men is circumstancial as there were just as many white men at the bottom of the ladder as well.

Well, you seem to still be missing my points and explanantions, Talon. I had read your post and that was what I was answering. I thought I was being pretty clear with my responses, but I guess not. Or maybe you are just not addressing them once you understand what I am saying. Either way, there is no point driving this into the ground.

Hey, play nice Kiddies.

What were we saying to each other that wasn't nice? There wasn't anything angry in the statements, we just don't seem to be communicating very well.

Thats not true. I said quite clearly after your said that you weren't a feminist that maybe you weren't, just your arguements sounded like it.

And I'm not avoiding your points, I was only responding to those I felt most relevent. If your asking me to respond to every last word you say we'd be here forever.

Yes, yes...I know you can't respond to all of my statements. I am neither irrational nor stupid; that would indeed take all day. It's just when I try to clarify ones you have questioned to defend what I have said, you never respond to that. I don't know if that means you now understand what I was saying, just are choosing to overlook it or you have it set in your head that I am a radical feminist (extremely far from the truth). For example, my thoughts on the diseases, women in law enforcement or "posititive discrimination"; you had really taken what I had said the wrong way or I had not been clear at first. Those were important and, I thought, relevant points which I then tried to explain. I am hoping that they have been clarified.

I never said you were



I thought you were when I read your original posts, but then you set it out a bit more and I thought you weren't just had written some feminist stuff that I was concerned about. Now, not so much. I think we're close enough in view on most issues.

Yes, I think so, too.

Oh, and I know you didn't say I was irrational, etc. I was laughing to myself thinking how crazy that would be, if I expected you to answer it all. Sorry. I think I need to utilize these little smiley faces more...

Especially this one:

It's underrated.

Maybe we should all use smilies more. Although to be honest, they should have a better selection, even the ones we have can be dodgy in what they are interpreded as





Its not so much underrated as much as you can only use it when you feel... bouncy... Same as this one When would I use that? When I've said to much technical stuff?

And of course, this one is redundent for 11 months of the years -

But when he's not...