Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Feminism

abortion feminism. debate

  • Please log in to reply
340 replies to this topic

#26 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:37 AM

Hahaha! Lol, @Sweeney Okay, so you obviously didn't even read the disclaimer at the TOP of my post. This is after all my opinion, you tell me I'm 'wrong', but, no, you are wrong (again, my 'opinion' I hope you understand the concept).

When you post blunt comments that take a jab at a person rather than their argument, it shows.

Yes, I lolled. Firstly, let me state, that I posted my opinion first, BEFORE I read everyone else's as I appreciate a pure opinion, not one swayed by others.

Absolutely, I'm proud about my humility. Totally an oxymoron. It's something that is true, however. I don't gloat about my humility. It's covert, it's something that pervades every aspect of my life. This is the only place that I will acknowledge it. I don't know about you, but I can look at myself in the third-person, I know what I am and who I am. An observation about a certain quality of my personality. That's all. Don't confuse humble with dogmatic (another preconception of yours that you've overlooked).

I'm adamant on my interpretation of the etymology. See my above post. And don't tell me I'm wrong here. I know I'm not. I won't educate you on the English Language, because frankly, I can't be bothered.

I can't even stress how much YOU DO NOT KNOW ME. You don't know how I treat women. So don't make ignorant assumptions.

I'd say around 70% of my close friends are female. I treat them with chivalry. Polite and courteous, as manly men do not. I'm the kind to hold a door open for anyone, but ALWAYS for a female. This does not strip them of their worth, by treating them with manners (sounds a little bit like an oxymoron to me, hey?) you give them respect. Respecting someone with daily kindnesses does not make me a victim of 'nice guy' syndrome.

(Thus, far you have discussed more about ME than the actual ISSUE, lol).

 
Your failure to use quote tags correctly made this post very hard to follow.
 
You can't put a disclaimer about your opinion and expect it to hold water. Your opinion can be wrong. And it is.
 
I'm just not going to touch the part of your post where you talk about how your humility is covert, while simultaneously proclaiming how proud you are of that fact. I think it stands as a monument to absurdity quite well without requiring any input from me whatsoever.
 
It's fun that you're adamant on your interpretation of the etymology. I have quite clearly shown that your interpretation is incorrect, and based on a shallow understanding of the meaning of the suffixes -ism and -ist. I can talk to you about the French root, if you feel that may help you change your mind - in France the suffix "isme" always denotes an ajectival noun (I believe, my knowledge of French is not by any means equivalent to fluency).
 
I don't know about you, but in recent times, I have been led to believe that "chivalry" is actually a form of misogyny. I have been led to believe this by listening to the opinions of women who are alert to this kind of thing. By, in your own words, being the type to hold a door open for anyone, but "ALWAYS for a female" you make an unnecessary distinction. Sure, it's polite to hold the door for people - it's insulting to make the distinction that women "ALWAYS" need to have the door held for them. It's infantilising. It's patronising. So yeah, I don't know you. I only have what the words you write on which to base my opinion (just my opinion ;)), and I'm sorry that you don't like how that behaviour appears.
 
And yes, I have spent the post discussing you. Or, more specifically, how your writing reveals how you believe you're a feminist, but actually, you're probably not.

So, like, when did I ever say this? Deciding that I'm blind doesn't help the issue.

And to clarify, I'm not blind at all hun. I'm not going to talk about how I level with this issue as it's none of your business. You're absolutely right, I don't have the body of a female, I don't know how degrading it is to be groped, victim of sexual abuse etc. But I know what lack of self-worth is and how to attain it. Don't you dare tell me that I fall short in this area, I know how dejection feels, and I don't welcome your assumption that I don't. My experiences qualify me on a level of understanding. Not an exact level, but nonetheless on the same page.

I empathise with everyone who has ever seen a wall in their life. My wall has been exceptionally high. And don't tell me it's not, because you'd be wrong.

I feel strongly about how people treat people - and you've so ignorantly missed this point.

 
I did not say that you said this. I said that it's the kind of thing people like you say. Based on my personal experience of people like you. Or at least, people like the way you've presented yourself.
It's rather hard to discuss the point further when you are "not going to talk about how [you] level with this issue". But I will say that the fact that you have faced some hardship in your life does not qualify you to proclaim on all areas of hardship - especially not something as widespread and institutionalised and internalised as sexism.

Here it is. Now this is where you completely miss what this forum is about. You've just decimated your entire argument and stance on feminism. But hey, I can't help you if you wish to contradict yourself.

Now I stated the tone in my post, so that people who jump the gun like you, don't misunderstand me. I welcomed debate, not an argument, and not an ATTACK.

You have spent your entire post talking about issues that you know nothing about (ie. my life), than the issue at hand. I don't understand how a person can blindly (oh, snap!) fall into such hypocrisy. Your attack on me dilutes and voids your argument.

My opinion. That's all.

I look forward to what you have to rebut. Hopefully, it'll be more about the issue and your own respected opinion, rather than about me.

 
No.
I do not miss what this forum is about. It's a debate forum - you're welcome to post your opinion. But realise that your opinion comes from a position of ignorance, and that before posting, you should read the opinions already posted. It'd only be courteous after all.

Oh, mama, completely missed my point. Anyway.

 
Oh mama. No. Wrong. Again.
Your definition of feminism is wrong. Based on an incorrect interpretation of the etymology of the word.
I think that posting "Wrong" in response to that is precisely on point.

#27 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:37 AM

What I'm getting at here is my preferential treatment for women is a result of circumstance. You cannot blame me for being raised as a stereotypical gentleman. You guys seem to feel that it is anti-feminist to be kind to a woman simply because of their sex. The suffragettes conquered society and did us all a favour, and make us come to our senses. And if I want to return the favour by giving my seat up on the train for a woman, I sure will.

 

I'm not Winnie Mandela, I'm not going to crush all men because they've subjected women. I'll kiss 'em on the cheek and say, thanks for hanging it tough.



#28 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4,616 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:42 AM

Hey Nymh,

 

My friends are mostly female not because they have a vagina :p They're my friends because I enjoy their company, exactly as you've said. Ain't it kind, though, to hold open a door for someone? I think it's respectable. Call it unequal treatment of women (by elevating them) but Chivalry is an old concept. I make a point to hold a door open for a woman, not because I think 'Oh! She's female, poor thing' I hold a door open for a woman, because no one else will. 

 

I'm going to go and help that person, and for some reason I don't know (maybe that experience?) I feel that women are not exempt from a man being a gentleman. Melbourne is quite a respectable city and people genuinely appreciate it.

 

Please don't slam the door on a man who is trying to be kind to a woman. It's a harmless act, and don't be so quick to take offense.

 

I don't take offense, and when men are kind to me I am thankful, just as I am thankful when women are kind to me.  You are not the only person that holds doors open for other people.  Going out of your way to hold doors open for women and putting them on a pedestal (as you have admitted several times)  may make you feel better about yourself, but (I repeat) it is not feminism.

 

 

Walking down a street once, I came across a woman who had been violently abused and raped. No one except me came to help, although there were plenty in the vicinity.

It is an unfortunate phenomenon of sociology that people do not want to get themselves involved when other people are in trouble.  There are dozens of television shows about this subject.  People in general tend to look the other way when things like that happen.  That is why the woman was left alone - not because she was a woman, but because people don't like getting their hands dirty for a stranger and risking getting caught up in a sticky situation.



#29 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,103 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:42 AM

I honestly hate people opening doors for me. I can do it myself. Don't open a door just because I happen to be a woman. It makes me feel like it says that I don't have the ability to open it myself, but that's just me. Basically, I agree with @Sweeney about patronizing women.

As for not helping that woman, it's called the bystander effect. If there are more than 4 people around, they won't help because they think one of the other people around will.

Edited by Satsuki, 11 April 2014 - 06:44 AM.


#30 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:42 AM

What I'm getting at here is my preferential treatment for women is a result of circumstance. You cannot blame me for being raised as a stereotypical gentleman. You guys seem to feel that it is anti-feminist to be kind to a woman simply because of their sex. The suffragettes conquered society and did us all a favour, and make us come to our senses. And if I want to return the favour by giving my seat up on the train for a woman, I sure will.
 
I'm not Winnie Mandela, I'm not going to crush all men because they've subjected women. I'll kiss 'em on the cheek and say, thanks for hanging it tough.


I thought you prided yourself on being able to look at yourself from a third-person perspective. If this is the case, you can't be both analytically aware of the context of your behaviour, and simultaneously blame it on circumstance - if you are aware of it, you can change it.

Because you don't change it, accordingly you must be ok with it.

If you're ok with it, then you cannot lay the blame at the feet of your upbringing. It is yours, and yours alone.

#31 Syntax

Syntax
  • Not an error.

  • 991 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:48 AM

Hey Nymh,

 

My friends are mostly female not because they have a vagina :p They're my friends because I enjoy their company, exactly as you've said. Ain't it kind, though, to hold open a door for someone? I think it's respectable. Call it unequal treatment of women (by elevating them) but Chivalry is an old concept. I make a point to hold a door open for a woman, not because I think 'Oh! She's female, poor thing' I hold a door open for a woman, because no one else will. Walking down a street once, I came across a woman who had been violently abused and raped. No one except me came to help, although there were plenty in the vicinity.

 

I'm going to go and help that person, and for some reason I don't know (maybe that experience?) I feel that women are not exempt from a man being a gentleman. Melbourne is quite a respectable city and people genuinely appreciate it.

 

Please don't slam the door on a man who is trying to be kind to a woman. It's a harmless act, and don't be so quick to take offense.

 

Chivarly comes from the dated idea that women are meant to be "special" because they are women. They're feminine, they're vulnerable, fragile, and therefore, we need to be gentle to them. We need to elevate them. They're different and require our protection. That's not feminism. That's decidedly everything feminism is not.

 

Also note the highlighted words. Why wouldn't anyone else hold a door open for someone else? By stating that people won't hold a door open for a female and you would is essentially saying that you ARE holding a door open for her because she's a female. No one else but me will do it for her. But I'm not doing it cause she's a female, I'm doing it because no one else but me respects females enough to hold open the door for them. I specifically look at the gender before deciding to hold open a door, and if they are female, I make sure I open the door for them. They require this kindness and politeness because it's chivalry. See first point as to why chivalry is dated.

 

Your language is very gendered. Your point of reference is always because she's a woman, and not because she's a human being. It really highlights how you see women, and I believe that's pretty telling in itself.

 

EDIT: Sweeney why are you such a fast typer


Edited by Syntax, 11 April 2014 - 06:51 AM.


#32 Keil

Keil
  • Above Average Mediocrity


  • 6,343 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:57 AM

It's weird for me to talk about feminism because of the environment I'm in. I'm still in school and we don't hold doors exclusively for someone. I open doors for people if they're close enough for me to not wait awkwardly for a while, waiting for them to get to the door. and treat anyone else different just because of physical and identity differences. If I had to hate someone, it's being she's being a dick*, or he's being a cunt*. 

 

 

I thought you prided yourself on being able to look at yourself from a third-person perspective. If this is the case, you can't be both analytically aware of the context of your behaviour, and simultaneously blame it on circumstance - if you are aware of it, you can change it.

Because you don't change it, accordingly you must be ok with it.

If you're ok with it, then you cannot lay the blame at the feet of your upbringing. It is yours, and yours alone.

 

I do think it's possible to both. It's just called being hypocritical. (I'm not calling you, Satsuki, hypocritical, it's just the behavior itself is, sorry if I offended you). While I'm at it, I also find hard to keep people at a standard where logic absolutely exists where a person can be expected to be either one or the other in any category. Humans are rational and obey an example of an exclusive logic but only to a brief point. 



#33 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 06:57 AM

 
Your failure to use quote tags correctly made this post very hard to follow.
 
You can't put a disclaimer about your opinion and expect it to hold water. Your opinion can be wrong. And it is.
 
I'm just not going to touch the part of your post where you talk about how your humility is covert, while simultaneously proclaiming how proud you are of that fact. I think it stands as a monument to absurdity quite well without requiring any input from me whatsoever.
 
It's fun that you're adamant on your interpretation of the etymology. I have quite clearly shown that your interpretation is incorrect, and based on a shallow understanding of the meaning of the suffixes -ism and -ist. I can talk to you about the French root, if you feel that may help you change your mind - in France the suffix "isme" always denotes an ajectival noun (I believe, my knowledge of French is not by any means equivalent to fluency).
 
I don't know about you, but in recent times, I have been led to believe that "chivalry" is actually a form of misogyny. I have been led to believe this by listening to the opinions of women who are alert to this kind of thing. By, in your own words, being the type to hold a door open for anyone, but "ALWAYS for a female" you make an unnecessary distinction. Sure, it's polite to hold the door for people - it's insulting to make the distinction that women "ALWAYS" need to have the door held for them. It's infantilising. It's patronising. So yeah, I don't know you. I only have what the words you write on which to base my opinion (just my opinion ;)), and I'm sorry that you don't like how that behaviour appears.
 
And yes, I have spent the post discussing you. Or, more specifically, how your writing reveals how you believe you're a feminist, but actually, you're probably not.

 
I did not say that you said this. I said that it's the kind of thing people like you say. Based on my personal experience of people like you. Or at least, people like the way you've presented yourself.
It's rather hard to discuss the point further when you are "not going to talk about how [you] level with this issue". But I will say that the fact that you have faced some hardship in your life does not qualify you to proclaim on all areas of hardship - especially not something as widespread and institutionalised and internalised as sexism.

 
No.
I do not miss what this forum is about. It's a debate forum - you're welcome to post your opinion. But realise that your opinion comes from a position of ignorance, and that before posting, you should read the opinions already posted. It'd only be courteous after all.

 
Oh mama. No. Wrong. Again.
Your definition of feminism is wrong. Based on an incorrect interpretation of the etymology of the word.
I think that posting "Wrong" in response to that is precisely on point.

 

 

I know! Sorry for the difficulty :p

 

Okay Sweeney, I'll agree to disagree.

 

I actually feel, that my personal circumstances do qualify me to level with this issue. As I've said I'm not a woman and I don't know what it is exactly like, but I know what it's like to feel.

 

I'm so glad you have an academic background around EL! (And I'm not being sarcastic here) Yes, you are quite right, however, I once read a thesis that noted -ist, while french also had some relations to the Jutes, I don't quite know if that's actually true (food for thought xD), but I digress :p

 

The bottom line is 'feminism' is misunderstood by general society.

 

See, that's very interesting, the topic of chivalry. I don't believe it's misogynistic - I feel it's harmless and insulting. Chivalry is based around kindness etc. specifically towards women. I know that feminism is equal treatment, but this transgresses the bounds of ridiculousness into absurdity. Society at the moment (I haven't studied anthropology, so please correct me if I'm wrong), is overly sensitive in its perception of offense. I don't want to say preferential treatment, as the gravity surrounding the term is too great. But to make it a habit to show small acts of kindness to a woman is very, very far from misogynistic. It's a heavy lexeme, highly serious.

 

I'd never call it patronising either. Would you tell a person who is chivalrous to 'fuck off'? I wouldn't. I'd think 'at least there is one decent bloke in the world'.

 

Now I do believe I'm a feminist. I am far from the 'perfect' feminist, as I said I hold learnt behaviour towards females. But that doesn't discount me as a feminist. I am one to support for the rights of females to vote. For the rights to defy the 'slut' concept. I back women in having equal rights as men.



#34 KyloRen

KyloRen
  • Snoke says I'm special.



  • 5,103 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:00 AM

It's weird for me to talk about feminism because of the environment I'm in. I'm still in school and we don't hold doors exclusively for someone. I open doors for people if they're close enough for me to not wait awkwardly for a while, waiting for them to get to the door. and treat anyone else different just because of physical and identity differences. If I had to hate someone, it's being she's being a dick*, or he's being a cunt*. 
 
 

 
I do think it's possible to both. It's just called being hypocritical. (I'm not calling you, Satsuki, hypocritical, it's just the behavior itself is, sorry if I offended you). While I'm at it, I also find hard to keep people at a standard where logic absolutely exists where a person can be expected to be either one or the other in any category. Humans are rational and obey an example of an exclusive logic but only to a brief point.

I'm not offended at all. I never actually thought of it that way. Thanks for pointing that out, it was really helpful. :)

#35 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:06 AM

Sweeney, I'm not laying the blame at all. I've shared a part of my upbringing, so please don't say I'm blaming it. People are shaped by there surroundings.

 

Here is a conclusion/summary to what I've said many times over, and what has been repeatedly misunderstood:

 

- I am a Man.

- I volunteered to share my view on feminism.

- I show preferential treatment to women, it's part of my 'genes'

- This is my opinion according to the pain I've suffered in my life and how I view females around me, and how I feel women should be treated (Bottom line: Respect, equality)

- This is NOT how I treat women, rather how the idealistic feminist should (which you guys have also stated).

- Most of you who have posted are females, not males. This opinion of mine is my view on your world, according to my own PERSONAL experiences.

 

But I swear we should all skype each other about this. It's a truely riveting topic!! :D



#36 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:07 AM

I know! Sorry for the difficulty :p
 
Okay Sweeney, I'll agree to disagree.
 
I actually feel, that my personal circumstances do qualify me to level with this issue. As I've said I'm not a woman and I don't know what it is exactly like, but I know what it's like to feel.


Everybody knows what it is like to feel. Everybody has suffered haardship in their lives. You are not a woman, you have not suffered at the hands of sexism, you are not qualified to tell women that your behaviour is not sexist when they are telling you that it is. The job of a male feminist is to listen - in this thread you have done none of that.
 

I'm so glad you have an academic background around EL! (And I'm not being sarcastic here) Yes, you are quite right, however, I once read a thesis that noted -ist, while french also had some relations to the Jutes, I don't quite know if that's actually true (food for thought xD), but I digress :p
 
The bottom line is 'feminism' is misunderstood by general society.


I don't have an academic background in linquistics. That does not change the fact that your interpretation is wrong - and the misperception of the term by the general populace is most certainly not rooted in the words etymology. You are backpedalling in an attempt to save face. Your original few posts clearly indicated that you were using your incorrect reading of the word's origin to define its meaning. Not to make a point about society's misunderstanding of the word.
 

See, that's very interesting, the topic of chivalry. I don't believe it's misogynistic - I feel it's harmless and insulting. Chivalry is based around kindness etc. specifically towards women. I know that feminism is equal treatment, but this transgresses the bounds of ridiculousness into absurdity. Society at the moment (I haven't studied anthropology, so please correct me if I'm wrong), is overly sensitive in its perception of offense. I don't want to say preferential treatment, as the gravity surrounding the term is too great. But to make it a habit to show small acts of kindness to a woman is very, very far from misogynistic. It's a heavy lexeme, highly serious.
 
I'd never call it patronising either. Would you tell a person who is chivalrous to 'fuck off'? I wouldn't. I'd think 'at least there is one decent bloke in the world'.


Ok, that's great. But, um, what about the women who do call it misogynistic? Or patronising? Are you saying that you have a more accurate understanding of a woman's perceived place in the world than actual women? Honestly, look at what you're saying here. You are arguing with women who have been treated by men the same way that you treat women, and they are telling you that they didn't like it. And you are telling them that their dislike is wrong and based on "over-sensitivity"?!
 

Now I do believe I'm a feminist. I am far from the 'perfect' feminist, as I said I hold learnt behaviour towards females. But that doesn't discount me as a feminist. I am one to support for the rights of females to vote. For the rights to defy the 'slut' concept. I back women in having equal rights as men.


You are not a feminist.

#37 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:07 AM

It's weird for me to talk about feminism because of the environment I'm in. I'm still in school and we don't hold doors exclusively for someone. I open doors for people if they're close enough for me to not wait awkwardly for a while, waiting for them to get to the door. and treat anyone else different just because of physical and identity differences. If I had to hate someone, it's being she's being a dick*, or he's being a cunt*. 

 

 

 

I do think it's possible to both. It's just called being hypocritical. (I'm not calling you, Satsuki, hypocritical, it's just the behavior itself is, sorry if I offended you). While I'm at it, I also find hard to keep people at a standard where logic absolutely exists where a person can be expected to be either one or the other in any category. Humans are rational and obey an example of an exclusive logic but only to a brief point. 

 

Serious amount of respect right here.



#38 MissToad

MissToad
  • 302 posts

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:07 AM

Is it a harmless act.  As grows the twigs so grows the tree, if you feel like you must make special consideration for doors then does not your mind learn to make considerations on hiring, academics or sports.  If women must be treated differently on doors then they must also be treated differently on boardroom doors.

 

There was a great article on NPR yesterday, talking about how men are promoted on promise and women are promoted based on production.   Therefore, women must take the years to prove their worth while men get the early promotions and raises.   Also a single greasy side up wreck for a woman means the end of her career while men are given the benefit of the doubt.    

 

Well as my mother says that which can not be conquored must be endured. 



#39 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:08 AM


I do think it's possible to both. It's just called being hypocritical.


Sorry, yes. I meant that it isn't possible to be both with any logical consistency.

#40 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:19 AM

Everybody knows what it is like to feel. Everybody has suffered haardship in their lives. You are not a woman, you have not suffered at the hands of sexism, you are not qualified to tell women that your behaviour is not sexist when they are telling you that it is. The job of a male feminist is to listen - in this thread you have done none of that.

 

(I give up on quotes :p)

 

See this is actually very offensive. Now you have discounted my support merely to a gender-related role. That doesn't sound feminist at all! Men are not here to listen. This is a window into two different worlds. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm male, this is my VIEW on the issue. I speak objectively here - as I see it. It's not how you see it, disagree as you like, but you are not male and you do not have the right (as a female) to tell me I'm wrong.



#41 Syntax

Syntax
  • Not an error.

  • 991 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:23 AM

Sweeney is male. I'm fairly certain he identifies as male.


Edited by Syntax, 11 April 2014 - 07:23 AM.


#42 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:23 AM

See this is actually very offensive. Now you have discounted my support merely to a gender-related role. That doesn't sound feminist at all! Men are not here to listen. This is a window into two different worlds. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I'm male, this is my VIEW on the issue. I speak objectively here - as I see it. It's not how you see it, disagree as you like, but you are not male and you do not have the right (as a female) to tell me I'm wrong.


I am a man.

#43 Nymh

Nymh
  • Keeper of Secrets

  • 4,616 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:24 AM

Sweeney has a penis.

 

He does?



#44 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:24 AM

But you see Sweeney, there are two sides here. I could discuss the issues that men face. It's getting quite heated in here so I'm going to drop it after this, and while I believe my behaviour is feminist, I believe that your vehemence towards me isn't. And yes, I am a feminist (just not a perfect one (but then who is?)) so don't tell me I'm not (for the 100th time).



#45 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:25 AM

But you see Sweeney, there are two sides here. I could discuss the issues that men face. It's getting quite heated in here so I'm going to drop it after this, and while I believe my behaviour is feminist, I believe that your vehemence towards me isn't. And yes, I am a feminist (just not a perfect one (but then who is?)) so don't tell me I'm not (for the 100th time).


No, go on. What issues do men face?

(And I'm not getting heated... are you feeling heated?)

#46 Magical

Magical
  • Banned from trading - Do not trade with this member!

  • 801 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:26 AM

I am a man.

 

Oh really? Sorry!! *facepalm* But honestly, how can you be so adverse to chivalry and voice such a gender-biased opinion (and not as a man, but as a feminist).



#47 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:28 AM

Oh really? Sorry!! *facepalm* But honestly, how can you be so adverse to chivalry and voice such a gender-biased opinion (and not as a man, but as a feminist).


Because I listen.

#48 Speedracer

Speedracer
  • The Triforce of Herp

  • 771 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:32 AM

This is why I prefer the term humanist, much less stereotypes and what not associated with it. I think its a fairly simple concept to just agree that all people should be treated equally regardless of gender, race or creed.

 

No, go on. What issues do men face?

I hope you aren't implying that men don't face discrimination



#49 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:34 AM

I hope you aren't implying that men don't face discrimination


Not at all.

#50 Jess

Jess
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴



  • 9,203 posts


Users Awards

Posted 11 April 2014 - 07:35 AM

What? In what states is Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis covered by Medicaid? Birth control is most definitely covered by Medicaid (in the state of Texas for sure... TEXAS... which is notorious for it's ignorance when it comes to reproduction issues) AND Medicare (which is nationwide) AND all private insurance. It is now the law (THANKS OBAMA) for birth control to be covered.

The states that used to not cover oral birth control with Medicaid were Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas. But as you pointed out, it's now illegal to do that.

I'm not up-and-up on ED, but if I remember right, there was a scandal a few years ago that involved sexual disfunction being covered under Medicaid due to a computer error. (A 3 mil+ computer error)


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users