Radical Feminism

[Borg]

Typical attack the sender. women are not entitled to their own well earned opinions aye. I bet I been around a lot longer than you little boy and have seen a lot more of the world.

margrace - you may read very well, but your comprehension is rather lacking. Perhaps it is your age?

You have managed to miss every point - somehow I believe it to be intentional. Stop playing the "poor little me" girl and join life - it is actually a pretty good gig.

I still say you are all of the things I have stated - you would call it an attack. I would call it simply stating facts. If the truth hurts - do something about it.

Holing up and whimpering does nothing.

Stridently complaining simply drives away those who would be allies - and they will not likely look back.

Perhaps you would care to prove me wrong?

Better yet I am probably wasting my time as well as yours. You keep going on your road and I will keep going on my road.

Let us see who is happier if they stay the course.

Take care my dear.

Borg

[Black Dog]

No! Spare me the angry feminist routine!

[Catchme]

Of couse, some men are going to be happier if the world remains the way it is, with most all things being in favour of patriarchy. Why would they want it to change in fact?

[JerrySeinfeld]

My snickering responses to these retards:

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

Does this mean women can gain from the experience fo being raped, oh wise Ms. Comin?

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." Marilyn French (her emphasis)

Marilyn, were you raised in Afghanistan, by any chance?

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist". Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey (p. 86).

"The institution of Marriage is anti-Male" - anonymous

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

"You're about to get f**cked "Leb-Style" " - Convicted Australian Muslim Gang Rapists

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

Translation: Men don't cry at work.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"

Can you spell: c-o-m-p-l-e-x ?

"The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands..." -Declaration of Feminism

HEAR HEAR - thank god. In this new found "liberation" I presume we won't be seeing any asset-splitting or alimony demands?

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -U.S. National organization for Women Times.

Music to the ears of men everywhere.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor

"I can't come with you to the pub watch the Superbowl - we're picking out curtains and paint tonight" - anonymous oppressed married man.

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan

The gays would be heartbroken...

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

You're right - the ass is the only way to truly please a female....

[Live From China]

By defining feminism as a mere struggle for legal equality, CHS is able to create a strawman of the other side to rail against.

I don't think CHS has anywhere stated or implied that feminism is "a mere struggle for equality."

women are not entitled to their own well earned opinions aye

I don't think anyone here is saying that. YOU ARE, and I'd be the first to step up and defend that right! What we are doing is challenging your views. There's a huge difference.

[Drea]

Quoting nutbar women who practically call for the elimination of the opposite gender...It is like quoting Jerry Falwell and saying ALL christians are nutbar fanatics...

These women DO NOT reflect how most feminists feel.

Get it?

I am sure that if you searched you could find comments from men that say "women should not vote" or "women should not own property or drive" or what ever else SOME men may say.

This DOES NOT mean that ALL men are he-man woman haters DOES IT?

Sheesh!

If I could find these women, I'd bitch slap them myself -- they give the rest of us feminists a bad name.

[Catchme]

Drea, they do not want to hear that, nor do they want others to read that, because they want others to believe that is what feminists think. Of course that is not, but heh, they want to keep status quo, it benefits them.

[geoffrey]

Drea, they do not want to hear that, nor do they want others to read that, because they want others to believe that is what feminists think. Of course that is not, but heh, they want to keep status quo, it benefits them.

The status quo is very anti-male. Most public service positions will hire a woman first... in fact with two equally qualified people it's nearly required to hire the woman in fear of a lawsuit.

There once was a time when this women are persecuted view was accurate, but now, affirmative action has gone too far.

[Catchme]

red herring.

Your example does not prove women have gained equality, nor that we have gone beyond.

There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

[geoffrey]

There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example.

[Catchme]

There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example.

red herring

There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action.

Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please.

All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made.

[blueblood]

There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example.

red herring

There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action.

Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please.

All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made.

RCMP

You can take that pathetic small man argument and stick it up your ass. Geoffery has you hooped on this one. If this isn't affirmative action I don't know what is.

[jbg]

Name calling. Name calling. Name calling. More name calling.

[margrace]

Name calling and telling people where to stick things seems to be a man argument on here. I am wondering about the legalization of prostitution. I is, as Gordon Sinclair used to say, the oldest profession. It is not going to go away. The easy access to drugs has made it a very lucrative business for the criminal element.

In the Globe and Mail survey yesterday, 65% said is should be legaized. So what exactly are the objections to this. Why do some people object to what would be a good way of stopping the spread of disease, assuring these women of a good income and keeping them off our streets. Just the fact that it is treated the way it is makes one wonder about who controls our legal systems.

So why can't we legaize it. Oh I know there are women against it too but maybe they need to consider their priorities.

[scribblet]

There is NO affirmative action in Canada.

I disagree. There are lower qualifications for status Indians and women in the RCMP for example.

red herring

There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action.

Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please.

All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made.

Employment equity is simply a Canuck euphemism for affirmative action, it is alive and well in Canada, particularly in government. Fortunately Mike Harris in Ontario shot down third reading of emp. equity legislation.

Lower qualification adjustments - now there's a statement, in other words lower the standards. Judge Rosalie Abella now sitting on our Supreme Court was responsible for employment equity, a biased report and judgement from one who is supposed to be the opposite.

There have been threads on here discussing gov't positions advertised for minorities only, whites need not apply. I have a letter at home from the RCMP explaining why my son couldn't be considered at that time as minorities were given preference.

In Kitchener, Ont. years back when EE was in its hay day, requirements were lowered for minority firefighter applicants. This is only one example, I can personally attest to what was done in the name of EE and quotas when I worked for a large org.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_d...ustice/j011.htm

"This will send a clear message to young white men that the standards for them are not the same as the standards for members of the chartered groups. Employment equity programs and fire departments have already shown that standards will sometimes be compromised. This was the case with the Kitchener fire department, which lowered its standards for members of the chartered groups."

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...d7-723991e9d12e

White males need not apply

Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works

A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.

Reverse discrimination is never the answer, merit and qualifications are.

[Live From China]

"This will send a clear message to young white men that the standards for them are not the same as the standards for members of the chartered groups. Employment equity programs and fire departments have already shown that standards will sometimes be compromised. This was the case with the Kitchener fire department, which lowered its standards for members of the chartered groups."

Wow! To find such a statement in a hansard is appalling. If fire departments, as an example, are compromising their standards, they are also compromising lives.

Think about this: things were wrong in the past, so we are going to do wrong to you (which is just revenge), then everything will be equal! In many cases, we are punishing those who had nothing to do with the wrongs in the first place, and rewarding many who were never disadvantaged. Discrimination cuts both ways and it is wrong. Period.

[Drea]

Case in point:

Lumber mill -- never ever hired a woman labourer before -- hired one. One out of 200 employees! ONE!

They were not going to hire her, so she went to labour relations.

The men razzed her like there was no tomorrow, but she has stuck it out and is a great asset to the company. She is as capable of any of the men. She pulls off the green chain, she handles those fir beams just like any "guy".

I met her at hubby's Christmas party and was suprised to see she is about the same size and weight as me -- 120lbs or so... and yet there she is, working in a mill.

You sexist men -- are you surprised? Do you think the mill "lowered" its standard for her? Nope.

Now, women like to earn $21 per hour too, so how come most women (even single income earners) have to settle for working at WalMart for $9 an hour?

Because it is DIFFICULT, even in 2006, for a woman to break into the lucrative labour market.

[Catchme]

There is no affirmative action in Canada, it is a American term and action.

Prove this lower qualitifcations statement please.

All workplace job positions require lower qualifications adjustments. For example, a small man is not allowed to lift what a bigger man can, by law. Should small men be excluded from competing for jobs that require heavier lifting than they are capable of? No, accommodations are made.

RCMP

You can take that pathetic small man argument and stick it up your ass. Geoffery has you hooped on this one. If this isn't affirmative action I don't know what is.

Having looked over the site you linked, I presume you are meaning the lower amounts of push/pull ups and longer running times for females.

That proves absolutely nothing. Men's muscle and bone structure allows them to lift more and do more physically in quicker times. Nothing new there. You appear to be saying women should not be considered along with men because they can only lift 75% of their body weight or take 2 mins linger to run 5km. That is a very illogical position.

There used to be height requirement by the RCMP, that was removed, so by the same token you are saying tall men, because they can lift and do more, should be chosen over short statured men?

Community policing is a very important aspect of policing, what this means is they recruit RCMP or police officers for the types of community policing they need. I.e. First Nations in First Nations communities, Asians in Asian communities, etc. This is very smart and correct policy application.

There are also needs of women policing personal for the very same reasons and because of women officers being required to handle female's breaching justice/law.

If they do not need white male police officers, then they simply don't. It has nothing to do with employment equity per se.

[scribblet]

Case in point:

Now, women like to earn $21 per hour too, so how come most women (even single income earners) have to settle for working at WalMart for $9 an hour?

Because it is DIFFICULT, even in 2006, for a woman to break into the lucrative labour market.

I don't think anyone here is saying women shouldn't be hired if they can do the job, they should be, but standards should not be lowered. Firefighters in particular are compromising

I knew the Kitchener problem was in Hansard because it was big news at the time, particularly Ontario and I was involved in EE and HR and the time. I saw what went on in the name of EE, I saw how points were assigned and scores changed in order to give a minority more points.

EE or Affirm. action punishes meritorious workers who aren't the right skin colour, and has resulted in reverse discrimination.

David Marshall, the former federal deputy minister of public works actually at one time, issued a memo prohibiting depart. managers from hiring anyone but visible minorities, unless they had written executive permission. He later took it back after it hit the news.

We can try to assure equality of opportunity but some would like to go further with 'mandated outcomes' and that sure makes me nervous, and why not, it is the new racism.

[blueblood]

Having looked over the site you linked, I presume you are meaning the lower amounts of push/pull ups and longer running times for females.

That proves absolutely nothing. Men's muscle and bone structure allows them to lift more and do more physically in quicker times. Nothing new there. You appear to be saying women should not be considered along with men because they can only lift 75% of their body weight or take 2 mins linger to run 5km. That is a very illogical position.

There used to be height requirement by the RCMP, that was removed, so by the same token you are saying tall men, because they can lift and do more, should be chosen over short statured men?

Community policing is a very important aspect of policing, what this means is they recruit RCMP or police officers for the types of community policing they need. I.e. First Nations in First Nations communities, Asians in Asian communities, etc. This is very smart and correct policy application.

There are also needs of women policing personal for the very same reasons and because of women officers being required to handle female's breaching justice/law.

If they do not need white male police officers, then they simply don't. It has nothing to do with employment equity per se.

Well you were saying small males got advantages due to their size and in the RCMP they don't. If a woman has the exact same requirements as the man she should do the job. This is a lifesaving biz, if you can't cut it physically you shouldn't be in it bottom line. If the tall man is more suited to the job, he should be chosen over the short man that's called competition, best person for the job. They still have a height requirement for the musical ride of 5'10, if your not that height man or woman your shit out of luck. Recruiting minorities over more qualified people is ridiculous, one of the pillars of the RCMP is true equality, everyone is the same, it shouldn't matter what color or sex you are it matters on the job you do, your qualifications, and your skill. We should not have a watered down police force just for the sake of pandering to minorities, it holds the country back. We accept minorities in this country, they can expect a well qualified police officer of any color to uphold the law.

Case in point:

Lumber mill -- never ever hired a woman labourer before -- hired one. One out of 200 employees! ONE!

They were not going to hire her, so she went to labour relations.

The men razzed her like there was no tomorrow, but she has stuck it out and is a great asset to the company. She is as capable of any of the men. She pulls off the green chain, she handles those fir beams just like any "guy".

I met her at hubby's Christmas party and was suprised to see she is about the same size and weight as me -- 120lbs or so... and yet there she is, working in a mill.

You sexist men -- are you surprised? Do you think the mill "lowered" its standard for her? Nope.

Now, women like to earn $21 per hour too, so how come most women (even single income earners) have to settle for working at WalMart for $9 an hour?

Because it is DIFFICULT, even in 2006, for a woman to break into the lucrative labour market.

Good for her, if she can work as well as the guys and do the same job as the guys then there's no reason she can't be there. She had better well earn the same pay too.

[Black Dog]

I don't think CHS has anywhere stated or implied that feminism is "a mere struggle for equality."

Sure she did. Hell, she even invented a subgenre of feminism to describe it: "equity feminism". ANd I quote:

"Most American women subscribe philosophically to the older 'First Wave' kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education."

This is the foil to her strawman of "gender feminists".

[Live From China]

QUOTE

"Most American women subscribe philosophically to the older 'First Wave' kind of feminism whose main goal is equity, especially in politics and education."

I would say this is probably true.

But, let's try this (and we have probably all been remiss at asking you this): as a feminist, what is it that you want?

[Live From China]

Now, women like to earn $21 per hour too, so how come most women (even single income earners) have to settle for working at WalMart for $9 an hour?

Because it is DIFFICULT, even in 2006, for a woman to break into the lucrative labour market.

I agree. If a woman can do a job on the green chain, and provided there is a position available, she should have the job. And at the going rate of pay.

But there is another side to this. I remember when a friend went to the NWT to work in a mine. This was around the time feminism was hitting its stride. The miners made incredible wages, even by today's standards. The all-female secretarial staff at the office in Yellowknife complained that they should get equal wages. The managers stated that miners get paid more because it is a dirty, cold and dangerous job. Notice strength was not mentioned. Anyway, the mine made the clerical staff a deal: because they worked for the company, they were automatically eligible for any entry-level position in the mine. And at the same wages as their male counterparts. Guess what? No takers.

Now I am not sure that the same pattern is in existence elsewhere. And don't get me wrong. It is a job a lot of males will not do (including me). I grew up in mill and logging towns, and at one time females were excluded from the grunt jobs. Now it is not uncommon for you to see females in these occupations. Hell, we had a family friend (female) who worked in the mill in Pt. Alberni. She had been there 30 years. She was rough and tough, but she could do the jobs required of her. I have known female loggers. However, male applicants still outnumber female applicants for these positions. Why is that?

I think in any "grunt" job that requires saving lives the same standard should apply to everyone.

[Catchme]

'blueblood' date='Jan 23 2007, 12:42 PM' Well you were saying small males got advantages due to their size and in the RCMP they don't. If a woman has the exact same requirements as the man she should do the job. This is a lifesaving biz, if you can't cut it physically you shouldn't be in it bottom line. If the tall man is more suited to the job, he should be chosen over the short man that's called competition, best person for the job. They still have a height requirement for the musical ride of 5'10, if your not that height man or woman your shit out of luck. Recruiting minorities over more qualified people is ridiculous, one of the pillars of the RCMP is true equality, everyone is the same, it shouldn't matter what color or sex you are it matters on the job you do, your qualifications, and your skill. We should not have a watered down police force just for the sake of pandering to minorities, it holds the country back. We accept minorities in this country, they can expect a well qualified police officer of any color to uphold the law.

No actually I did not say that small men got advantages, I am saying that small men can lift as much as large men, yet they are accepted by you while women, who also cannot lift as much as large men are not.

I am sayin gthat by WCB laws ALL people have maximums they are legally allowed to lift. Women based upon physical stucture are only allowed to lift x amount, as are men based upon their body structure and weight.

The RCMP is not just about "life saving"! In fact, that would be a minority function in their duties.

Women get arrested, and they get processed by women, thereby x amount of women are always needed, as men are not "qualified" to fit that needed criteria by the RCMP.

Recruiting minorites, to police in their own enclaves, is Community Policing criteria, men who do not fit the criteria needed for community policing spots are not qualified to hold that position plain and simple. And BTW who is saying minorities are NOT qualified to become RCMP, but do anyway? I looked over the RCMP website and I saw nothing to evidence this postualtion of yours. Nor is there evidence to prove that the RCMP is watered down because of minorities joining their ranks.

It appears that you have a personal axe to grind in this regard is that the case?

[blueblood]

No actually I did not say that small men got advantages, I am saying that small men can lift as much as large men, yet they are accepted by you while women, who also cannot lift as much as large men are not.

When a woman's requirements in that example I gave were exactly the same as a man's then she gets accepted, the small man meets them, why can't she.

Women get arrested, and they get processed by women, thereby x amount of women are always needed, as men are not "qualified" to fit that needed criteria by the RCMP.

Women also arrest and process men. Men can arrest and process women just the same. If women can do the job as good as the guy and have the exact same qualifications then she should get the same opportunity. This double standard of yours is mind boggling. What just because your a woman your entitled to everything?

Recruiting minorites, to police in their own enclaves, is Community Policing criteria, men who do not fit the criteria needed for community policing spots are not qualified to hold that position plain and simple. And BTW who is saying minorities are NOT qualified to become RCMP, but do anyway? I looked over the RCMP website and I saw nothing to evidence this postualtion of yours. Nor is there evidence to prove that the RCMP is watered down because of minorities joining their ranks.

My hiring qualifications would be how well they do compared to others in the process, yours is quotas for minorities and women and it doesn't matter if they are less qualified than others in the recruiting process. This attitude is pathetic and is why our country is in the mess its in now. Best person for the job bottom line.

It appears that you have a personal axe to grind in this regard is that the case?

My axe to grind is that why should a minority or a women get a job just because they are a minority or a woman.