WestCoastRunner

It's disguist in the way he has reached out to female members of this site, while being a married man. For me, that presents a problem. I have also had wonderful experiences with wonderful people, but I do not seek out men while in a marriage to ask questions of whether they like anal sex.

Um, If I enjoyed lubricant, it wouldn't be with you.

Whatever.

This thread addresses women's issues, not men's issues. I have no problem discussing men's issues and I welcome the topic when it is introduced, so please do so. The original post did not ask why people are choosing not to identify as feminists.

Are you getting excited?

I am humouring Kimmy and Ash, not you. Seriously, If this forum accepts topics on sex, than that's ok. I am a bit perturbed that this topic was included with gender issues. The very fact that it was, lessens the importance of gender issues and the shuffling of important gender issues.

You sound like a robot. Did you meet this woman in person? Did the investigation involve spying then a warning? It sounds so suspect.

There are too many issues related to equality issues. They cannot possibly be covered in one thread topic. It's best to break it up into smaller topics.

And lubricant.

Good grief. Sadly, you have denigrated this thread already. A male member asking a female member this question is disguisting. This was my primary concern of including 'sex' with 'gender issues'. I knew this was going nowhere good.

What puzzles me is why gender topics are lumped in with sex topics? Not that I have anything against sex by why not 'Federal Politics and Sex' or 'US Politics and Sex' or ......

This thread is not about male gender issues. Start a new one.

His issues relate to men's issues, not issues facing women. You contributed to this thread so how is that stopping the conversation?

You don't have the time to start a topic on men's issues but you have the time to hijack this thread? Quite simply, you don't have the balls to start your own thread on men's issues.

This thread is about discrimination against women. Again, I ask, start a topic about men. What's your problem?

[quote name="-1=e^ipi" post="1043707" timestamp= Well some feminists hate men. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. And the perception that myself and others have is that male gender issues are being ignored by society. Again then you should start a thread about male gender issues being ignored by society. We only have one topic in this category of gender issues. Why won't you start one for men? Would that make it seem to feminine?

You suspended a teacher because of body odour due to smoking? Must be a private Christian school. Did she do an effective job teaching? Did she instill other values and was her overall teaching ability considered or was the suspension based purely on her smoking habits? I find it incredulous that a teacher could be suspended for this reason alone. There must be other mitigating factors that aren't being brought forth. Maybe she was a single parent? Single woman? We have all heard your opinions on single parenthood.

These drop down lists for visible minorities that include 'female' are alive and thriving on u.s. Applications as well. When I was considering relocating to the U.S. I came across this on plenty of applications.

I didn't ask why anyone is uncomfortable labelling themselves a feminist. It doesn't matter to me as long as they support equal rights for women. Feminists supporting women's rights doesn't require them to ignore men's rights. Next you will be saying feminists hate men.

Is this a trick question? You are welcome to start a thread on men's issues.

Have you ever filled out an online employment application. I have, plenty of them in the IT industry and the one question 'are you a member of a visible minority', has a dropdown that does contain 'female'. I don't need an employment law to tell me that women are a visible minority in some sectors of the workforce.

Charles Barkley made a great statement the other day while discussing discrimination. He said that when he walks into a corporate meeting he knows he will be the only black man, there will be one woman present and the rest will be white men. The point I am trying to make is that until women are hired and promoted to upper management positions that 4% will increase very slowly if at all. Now some of you don't seem to have a problem with this. That's fair enough. But I certainly do and I will do whatever I can to increase the numbers even if it means hiring qualified women when they are available. You can call me sexist. I call it offering opportunities to minorities in the workplace.

If a department has a ratio of 4 men to 1 woman wouldn't that be considered sexist hiring. If bringing in 3 women to cover 3 vacancies offers some form of balance is that sexist? Part of the problem of the 4% of CEOs filled by women is because men are not hiring women. Providing more opportunities to women is not sexist at all. Of course I don't represent all women but neither do you and your daughter and wife.

I need to call you out on your pedistal white man espousing on women's rights. First of all, you have no idea what women go through being exposed to sexism and discrimination in the workforce. A solution is to have women who are in the workforce to pressure 'men' to take another look at resumes that are submitted from women. I work in the IT industry and we get 3 resumes from women for every 7 resumes that are submitted by men. I encourage my superiors to look at the female resumes. When we have equal qualifications, and I suggest we hire the 3 women, am I wrong?