Except that this hypothetical example virtually never happens nowadays. Women are encouraged to do anything they want, and being a tomboy is generally seen as a positive. In fact, a macho father like that guy would be the most likely to take his little girl out camping, encourage her to play sports, etc. Ugh, enough about this fictitious modern "patriarchal society" in the US, especially considering the child custody/divorce settlement/criminal laws that blatantly favor women. (In many cases, specifically instructing the judge to presuppose the woman is correct) Or it could suggest that he wanted to appear funny and/or macho to the group, and made a stupid, rude joke. Potaytoe, potahtoe.
From what I've observed, I think it's safe to say that in quite a few Western countries, it's deemed notably more acceptable for a girl to do "manly" things than for a boy to do "feminine" things. Same goes for dress: a woman can wear BDUs, combat boots, and an M65 field jacket but a guy can't wear a skirt without facing a lot of ridicule (unless it's a kilt, in which case women seem to love it).
It's impressive how persistently you argue considering your complete lack of reading comprehension in this matter. I doubt you even read the article before your first reply. Here is a quick rundown; 1. Several people mention how awesome ballet is for boys. 2. I note that while likely true, the boy specifically doesn't want to take ballet. I post a direct quote from the boy in the article. 3. KaTrian, directly responds to my post and the quote from the article, stating that perhaps the reason the kid in the story isn't into ballet is because "Daddy dearest" would kill himself; Who is this "Daddy dearest" and why would his feelings affect what the kid wants? If it's the kid's actual father, then he never appears in the story. If it's the rude father, I also addressed why this makes no sense; Why would his views in any way influence someone else's son?! Especially since the kid said this before his mom's temper tantrum at the baseball game? Before either of them even knew that rude father existed? 4. T. Trian keeps cranking out large replies that totally miss the point. I suggest you calm down and try actually understanding what is being written.
I did, actually, but here's the thing you seem to have difficulties understanding: not everyone comments only on the source material. Instead, sometimes people even bring up new angles to the topic at hand, surprising as it may be. At times these ideas are only borderline on-topic, at times they're even off-topic, but somehow related to the subject matter in a more roundabout way. Another thing you fail to grasp is that just because somebody quotes someone else, it doesn't mean they are discussing only what they are quoting. Sometimes what has been quoted served only to inspire what they write underneath the quoted text. That's the case here. I do understand that it may confuse some people, but what can you do, such is life. While I'm far from innocent when it comes to this, I highly recommend you put in some effort to avoid jumping to conclusions, fun as it may be. Anyway, to put this matter at rest, let me break it down for you. Here's what KaTrian wrote: "So? We don't know these people. Maybe Daddy dearest would kill himself if his son pulled on the tights and did ballet, we don't know what the Justin Timberlake -dancing kid's mom told him." By "we don't know these people," she meant all the people mentioned in the article. We clear on that? Okay, moving on: "Maybe Daddy dearest..." Here it hasn't been specified which daddy is being discussed. It has definitely not been indicated that it's the kid's father, who isn't even mentioned in the article. Rude Dad, however, was mentioned. Regardless, it's clarified in the following: "Maybe Daddy dearest would kill himself if his son pulled on the tights and did ballet..." Now, how many dads mentioned in the article said they'd kill himself if his son took up dancing? I may not have read the article as many times as you have (just once, actually), but as far as I know, the answer is... wait for it... one (1). Is it clear yet which daddy is being discussed? I'd say yes, but it's painfully obvious you still have trouble wrapping your mind around this, so here's one more clarification: "we don't know what the Justin Timberlake -dancing kid's mom told him." Now, who might this 'him' refer to? Timberlake-kid's never mentioned father? No. The dad with whom the kid's mom did talk, i.e. Rude Dad? Are you getting any of this? If not, I'm sorry, but I've done all I can to clarify the issue at hand, although I could try clarifying it some more, but I'd imagine it'd be best done via private messages because this is veering quite far off-topic. If the answer is 'yes,' however, awesome.
And here's the part you have even more difficulties with; your wife directly responded to me, so the discussion in question was specifically about the kid not wanting to take ballet. If she didn't want to discuss that, then why quote me, and respond to that precise post? It's truly staggering how you keep arguing so earnestly, while continuing to misunderstand everything. Since you just keep skipping over/ignoring posts, I will just copy and paste, and hope that if you finally decide to settle down and try understanding the discussion, you will finally get it. I even bolded relevant words, to make it extra easy for you; "Who is this "Daddy dearest" and why would his feelings affect what the kid wants? If it's the kid's actual father, then he never appears in the story. If it's the rude father, I also addressed why this makes no sense; Why would his views in any way influence someone else's son?! Especially since the kid said this before his mom's temper tantrum at the baseball game? Before either of them even knew that rude father existed?" On a different note, I agree, although I think this attitude has a basis behind it.
Seems like I, too, need to quote myself: "it'd be best done via private messages because this is veering quite far off-topic." I'll send you my response via PM so we don't fill this thread with irrelevant idiocy.
Why do people stick to such ridiculous stereotypes? Men can't dance. Women can't play football. Women take care of households. Men work. It's ridiculous. My best friend is a guy, and he takes dance lessons. Is that so terrible?
I went to a tiny private high school that was 80% Asian students and played in a really weak athletic conference. We had a girl on the football team who played wide receiver. Didn't turn out well for her.
This is pretty on point. I went to an all boys high school. One of the worst things you could be was a "faggot". You got picked on for doing anything that was remotely outside the traditional confines of masculinity. Gender roles are an extremely asinine construct and, not to mention, harmful to those that are still immature and finding themselves.
I've read some stupid articles before, but this one is definitely in my top 5 most stupid. We don't know exactly what she told the parents or how she told them about her kid doing dancing. Its like the whole article has the whole"My son is amazing, better than all the other kids" annoying vibe. Its pretty safe to assume that the way she told the parents about her son had the same vibe. I don't think the dad was making a joke, I think he was sick of her talking about how amazing her son is. If she talks how great he is in an ARTICLE, then imagine how she must have overdone it in person. I don't blame him. And then how she reacted, oh god. Throwing a scene and going home. I'm so thankful my parents aren't like that.
One example? I just outlined how in every case seen before a judge (child custody/divorce settlement/criminal cases), women have an institutionalized advantage, and you just ignore it and continue on with more meaningless buzzwords. Stunning. Then again, like many modern-day movements, feminism has become its own zealous religion, so logic and facts go out the window.
It's an example of women being overwhelmingly favored, which is inequality in their favor. An actual "patriarchal" society wouldn't do that. Are you suggesting restoring equality in custody disputes, divorce settlements, and criminal cases? That sounds great! I agree. But if you did that, the vast majority of your feminist sisters would come hunting for you with pitchforks and torches. A commonly recited statement, but it's actually false. When studies are standardized for the number of hours worked per week, (let alone danger of specific job within industry, educational background, years worked, etc.) the two genders have virtually identical pay for the same jobs. Total non-sequitur intended to rile up emotions, and prevent further logical discussion.
A well made argument, even if it's not correct. For one, citing a conservative website that relies on the minority of data that supports their argument instead of the majority that is well respected and says the complete opposite, is simply not good evidence. Most studies, including ones done by the government, normalize their data before coming out with stats. Otherwise, the study would not be accepted by their peers. The bias towards giving women custody in court cases is actually very indicative of patriarchal mentality. In most patriarchal societies, the idea that women are more suited to the domestic domain and therefore have the responsibility of caring for children, plays a large part in patriarchal ideals. I think the idea that this is some sort of contest to see which sex is discriminated against the most (Winner gets affirmative action and a lifetime supply of snickers bars!) is ridiculous. Both women and men are discriminated against, but in different ways. You said that if anyone agreed that men are discriminated against, feminist would hunt them down with pitchforks. As a feminist, I have to say, you don't understand what feminists are. Feminism is the idea that men and women should be treated equally. They don't think that women should be treated BETTER, just equally. Pointing to the fringe groups of feminism and saying all feminists dislike men's rights, is like saying that all Islamists are suicide bombers, even though their religion teaches peace. Just because a few whack jobs have perverted public opinion of a good ideal doesn't mean the ideal itself is wrong. In truth, anyone who believes in equal rights is a feminist, even if they don't like the word 'feminist.' And yes, if you believe in equal rights, that would include you.
Huh? Care to be more specific? I don't understand what you meant with that jumbled phrase. Specifically, what do you find objectionable about the studies he cites? (Oh, and by the way, Bloomberg is hardly a "conservative website", although I don't know what has to do with the validity of the study to begin with) One would think. And yet, they don't even control for the number of hours! Look, I'm a scientist for a living. If you want to show that a single variable, gender, affects income, that means controlling for every single other variable. Industry. Job title. Hours worked per week. Education. Experience. Hazard of the job. Everything relevant except the one variable under discussion, gender. When all of that is done, guess what? Studies find that men and women get paid practically the same. And those are the only studies that are scientifically valid. Great! Let's get rid of it! An awful lot of fathers who never get to see their kids, and are punished/threatened by their in-laws with not seeing their own flesh-and-blood would be on their knees thanking you. (Including my cousin, who lives in Russia) Of course, you will have to contend with an army of feminists that would try to kill you... I understand perfectly well what they are. I also understand that you're purposely misrepresenting this. Another commonly recited phrase, and of course, what Neanderthal idiot could possibly object to something so logical and just? Unfortunately, when the discussion shifts from general, vague considerations to the specifics, we find that feminism is about something different than equality... Really puts things into perspective, huh? See above. These "whack jobs", as you call them, are the leaders of the movement. And none of the so-called "reasonable feminists" ever condemn them.
Then how about engaging on the issue and explaining why, instead of writing such an intellectually lazy response? It's wonderful that you two feminists dislike favoring women in custody battles. Unfortunately, there are millions of feminists that feel the exact opposite way. You are not representative of the whole feminist movement, unfortunately. If you sincerely disagree with that, I urge you to watch the video I posted above, with direct quotes (primary source!) from leading feminists, and ask yourself why those statements have never been condemned? Fantastic. We're in complete agreement about this. Now for the more difficult task of convincing charming ladies like this one about your position; (For the record, I actually agree that "men's right activists" are a bunch of fucking idiots, and I mean that without a trace of sarcasm. It doesn't change that she is a horrible, vile, hateful beast, though...) Blissful ignorance on your part, or deliberate misrepresentation? Hard to tell. Also, reported. Well, that's a far more open-minded response than what NF wrote, and you even mentioned the issue of maternity leave, something a very small fraction of feminists ever do. That being, it's still obfuscating the issue, and refusing to engage on the specifics. There was a detailed, peer-reviewed, published study comparing women's wages against men's wages, and controlling for number of hours worked per week. You dismiss it out of hand by claiming the issue is "complicated". Yes, it is. That's why we have these studies, and try to be scientifically honest. It also has zero relevance to the topic. But since you're so fond of bringing up non-sequiturs about rape for the emotions that it will rile up, I can play this game too; Women jailed after 11 false rape claims is part of a long line...
Awesome. We have a record. Bickering by page 3. Here's the deal. I still see people actually presenting facts, so I'm just going to ask that we please refrain from so many F bomb.
Ha! The funny thing is that feminists, like most liberals seek equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. This is the major flaw in most affirmative action situations. People can sleep at night because your company now has 50 whites, and 50 minorities or 50 men and 50 women. The rub is that they don't care who actually deserved to get the jobs, and if there are more minorities or females, can there be a correction the other way? Nope, that would be sexist or racist. Feminists, racists, liberals, gays and lesbians have all banded together under the umbrella of perpetual victimhood, looking to strong-arm the rest of us into seeing things their way. ...and if you dare disagree with them, you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist.
We could all be female, and our identifying ourselves as male is part of a giant & brilliant prank. You never know.
Well, we have a wolf, a squirrel, a worm and a dancer. Where's the aquatic equality? I demand a fish and/or amphibian as the next moderator!
