A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…FWIW my fiance’s boss has been “coaching” her on how to be a submissive (by that I mean I always get my way) wife and making sure she does all this shit all the time for me because it is a woman’s job.

[/quote]

Be more specific. What shit?[/quote]

Her boss basically supports her family (and her boss WANTS to be a stay at home mom) because her husband has farted around with multiple different jobs and getting away with being shitty because she thinks women should make men happy and he was/is just “finding” himself.

This isn’t that complicated to me. Women need to be paid the same as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone wouldn’t because of genitals for the same job. Women need to have the same political opportunities as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone couldn’t because of genitals. Women shouldn’t have old backwards 1940’s expectations because of genitals. Equality of opportunity and expectations.

At the same time we don’t need to do all this bizarre feminist crap to achieve that. We don’t need every woman having short hair to prove to men something. We don’t need to change terms like manhole or anything else like that because it doesn’t say woman. We don’t need expectations for places to be lowered or changed because of genitals.

We don’t need advice from people trying to say make sure she knows what she should do. That is insulting to her and insulting to me.

I want a teammate, not a slave. The only place she needs to slave away is in the bedroom :wink: I should be working as hard as possible to make her happy and her me and us as a couple. That works for us. It has worked for our whole relationship. It’s healthier.

I guess that’s how I see it. Like I said if a war is going on then I don’t want to be a soldier in it. I have no idea what anyone is fighting for or not for. Nor do I give a shit. I believe the above.

103

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…FWIW my fiance’s boss has been “coaching” her on how to be a submissive (by that I mean I always get my way) wife and making sure she does all this shit all the time for me because it is a woman’s job.

[/quote]

Be more specific. What shit?[/quote]

Her boss basically supports her family (and her boss WANTS to be a stay at home mom) because her husband has farted around with multiple different jobs and getting away with being shitty because she thinks women should make men happy and he was/is just “finding” himself.

This isn’t that complicated to me. Women need to be paid the same as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone wouldn’t because of genitals for the same job. Women need to have the same political opportunities as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone couldn’t because of genitals. Women shouldn’t have old backwards 1940’s expectations because of genitals. Equality of opportunity and expectations.

At the same time we don’t need to do all this bizarre feminist crap to achieve that. We don’t need every woman having short hair to prove to men something. We don’t need to change terms like manhole or anything else like that because it doesn’t say woman. We don’t need expectations for places to be lowered or changed because of genitals.

We don’t need advice from people trying to say make sure she knows what she should do. That is insulting to her and insulting to me.

I want a teammate, not a slave. The only place she needs to slave away is in the bedroom :wink: I should be working as hard as possible to make her happy and her me and us as a couple. That works for us. It has worked for our whole relationship. It’s healthier.

I guess that’s how I see it. Like I said if a war is going on then I don’t want to be a soldier in it. I have no idea what anyone is fighting for or not for. Nor do I give a shit. I believe the above. [/quote]

You didn’t answer my question.
[/quote]

Just the usual housewifey bullshit. I work for a consulting firm but coach two high school sports on the side. She (wife’s boss) thinks it’s awful that she can’t come to all my games because she works. (ironic, yes, but she watched all her husbands high school games). She thinks she should schedule clients around my games schedule (stupid as shit, we need her money and I don’t give a fuck if she watches me coach). She comes to a few games when she cans. Other stuff that boils down to “your the woman so you better make sure X, X, X” happens to keep him happy.

Which again is weird as none of my friends have been giving me advice about all the stuff I need to do to make her happy nor is it really any of my fiances bosses business how we run our relationship compared to her old school let the guy run all over me setup.

I’m sure she would be appalled to find out my sister has a kid and is in med school and her husband does many domestic duties that she cannot do because of time. Which again is pretty offensive to me as a male. He can give her a bottle of breast milk. He can change a diaper. This stuff isn’t rocket science. She works her ass off to be a good mom to a young kid while also getting through school to save lives AND provide for her family. So does her husband (albeit not the med school part, he’s an electrical engineer).

Equal rights, equal expectations, and no fem nazi weirdo stuff or let’s go back to when women didn’t work type lunacy. Pretty much my position and I have no idea why anyone would find it controversial. I don’t see the need for the war. It is THAT simple. At least in my mind. Then again I’m the type of heathen who has LIVED with his fiance for a year. I’m sure that has all the old people up in arms as well :slight_smile:

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
And now I have to wonder why that bothers me. People gotta do their thing, and all that. [/quote]

You really answer yourself here IMO.

I think it bothers you because her just being herself is an otherwise wonderful, yet very un-special, typical thing. And now she is trying to make HER thing, that is special to her, special to everyone. And she is covering all her bases so she can judge those that don’t see her for her specialness, by making her special thing a “cause”. Because anyone who doesn’t fight for a “cause” is able to be judged in our society.

But the cold reality is she is no better than anyone else, an individual in a sea of them, doing their thing.

[/quote]

That’s pretty profound, Beans. I hadn’t even thought of it in those terms.

105

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
And now I have to wonder why that bothers me. People gotta do their thing, and all that. [/quote]

You really answer yourself here IMO.

I think it bothers you because her just being herself is an otherwise wonderful, yet very un-special, typical thing. And now she is trying to make HER thing, that is special to her, special to everyone. And she is covering all her bases so she can judge those that don’t see her for her specialness, by making her special thing a “cause”. Because anyone who doesn’t fight for a “cause” is able to be judged in our society.

But the cold reality is she is no better than anyone else, an individual in a sea of them, doing their thing.

[/quote]

That’s pretty profound, Beans. I hadn’t even thought of it in those terms. [/quote]

I thought it was a neat observation as well.

If we have to fight for a cause my cause is leave me the hell alone :wink:

106

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

It reminded me of women wearing power suits with big shoulder pads back in the 80’s, looking like men - I thought we were past that.

And sometimes a haircut is just a haircut. Who cares, right? Unless it’s a “political statement” and then it just makes me mad. She wrote something earlier last year about how she was no longer going to wear makeup. I guess it’s a form of “selling your soul” to want to be attractive. :slight_smile: In fact, if you aren’t making yourself as unattractive as possible, you probably have a low IQ.

I think you are right about the “shooting themselves in the foot” part. If you want your ideas to appeal to mainstream people, going with a #2 buzz probably isn’t the way to go.

I need to get over it, but it’s a little sad for me. This woman is close friends with my best friend. She’s very smart, and is actually really nice. She has an English degree and was really fun in a book group we had going a couple of years ago, back in her grad school days. I remember when she buzzed her hair. She was single and about 30 at the time, and The Mister and I both agreed it was a little crazy to do that when you are trying to meet someone, because most men would read “lesbian”.

Sigh… Oh, well. Time to shampoo my Victoria’s Secret model hair… LOL!
[/quote]

Nah, I think you’re right to be bugged. If you are objective driven and look at the BIG goals, this is stupid. It has been stupid for a long time. When I see a guy who dresses stylishly, I might go “well I don’t ever want to pay $150 for a damn pair of jeans” but I don’t EVER go, “man he’s making a statement against the status quo of those stupid ass farmer john’s backward ways”. That is ludicrous.

A haircut is always just a haircut to other people looking at you. Unless of course they assume you’re a butch lesbian haha. But they’ll never think “political stand”. EVER.
[/quote]

I’m probably just a judgmental jerk, BUT at least I’m an introspective one. :slight_smile:

Another way to think about this. Some people would really like to blur gender identity, or at least have people not feel restrained that they “should or should not” do certain things because of their gender.

You might encourage your daughter to be an engineer if she has the math chops. Or encourage your son to be a kindergarten teacher. I think most of us have been in this camp for a long time.

The extension of this, for this branch of feminists is to NOT see gender as a binary system - male or female. So, there are quite a few feminists these days who are really into gender bending, gay or straight. They’d like to see these things completely blurred. There’s the rub. I don’t think we need to go there. It leads to a disregard for biology, pendulum swinging too far. Villainization of men. And just people getting caught up in petty stuff that doesn’t matter.

Related, they might be fine with my choice to wear skirts, makeup, have long hair so long as I’m aware that I’m buying into some cultural stuff about what women do. Or, they might assume that ultra fem women are just not very introspective or smart, and don’t realize that they have bought into “the system.” You could look at someone like Dolly Parton who is a caricature of the feminine, but she makes jokes about it and is fully aware that she’s playing with the hyper-feminine image.

107

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

you goin to school with beth?
[/quote]

Nah, that was a couple of years ago. Besides, Beth does have a feminine streak and looks pretty darn good in those stretchy pants.

[quote]

chicks fantasize about older men. especially the lesbians. more than likely her father wasn’t around much growing up. ask her.

but she’ll try to turn it into you’re a misogynist. tell her you used to be, but then you found out it was just a front for prostitution. [/quote]

There may be a little bit of daddy stuff there but I’m also an uncle to 7 nieces, so she may have just gotten a safe vibe from me. There were tons of younger guys around that seemed entirely vacant to the fact that she was not the least bit interested in their clowning for attention.

108

Anybody remember the Uconn Husky thing? It’s just fatuity. I often suspect that these people actively regret the fact that they no longer have a great weight of oppression to devote their lives to resisting.

Equal pay is real though, insofar as exactly equal work is not compensated equally (which maybe can’t be measured objectively).

109

[quote]H factor wrote:

This isn’t that complicated to me. Women need to be paid the same as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone wouldn’t because of genitals for the same job. Women need to have the same political opportunities as men. It doesn’t make sense that someone couldn’t because of genitals. Women shouldn’t have old backwards 1940’s expectations because of genitals. Equality of opportunity and expectations.
[/quote]

They are and no.

110

[quote]H factor wrote:

Equal rights, equal expectations, and no fem nazi weirdo stuff or let’s go back to when women didn’t work type lunacy. Pretty much my position and I have no idea why anyone would find it controversial. [/quote]

Because its bullshit.

They want the seats on the boards but not equal access to the jobs that lead to 20:1 disparity when it comes to work related deaths.

They dont want to be part of selective service.

They are perfectly fine with man paying around 75% of taxes which is then redistributed to them.

They dont want to change dicorce laws which actually do benefit women and so further and and so on…

That is not equality, that is privilege.

As far as I am concerned they could yell “White Power!” in my face, that is the level they actually are on.

111

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Equal rights, equal expectations, and no fem nazi weirdo stuff or let’s go back to when women didn’t work type lunacy. Pretty much my position and I have no idea why anyone would find it controversial. [/quote]

Because its bullshit.

They want the seats on the boards but not equal access to the jobs that lead to 20:1 disparity when it comes to work related deaths.

They dont want to be part of selective service.

They are perfectly fine with man paying around 75% of taxes which is then redistributed to them.

They dont want to change dicorce laws which actually do benefit women and so further and and so on…

That is not equality, that is privilege.

As far as I am concerned they could yell “White Power!” in my face, that is the level they actually are on.[/quote]

Who is they and why do you hate them? Lol if you want to believe women have these vast privileges it sounds like nothing anyone could say could convince you to the contrary. You sound like an angry old man saying get off my lawn women.

Why would pay for the same job be different because I can pee standing up and my fiance can’t. And the selective service is dumb anyways, the draft is never coming back and is largely pointless in 2014.

You do realize many women pay taxes that are redistributed to men as well right? And where did your 75% taxes number come from? The fact that almost all our super wealthy are male surely accounts for much of that. Not that I think you have an actual source for that.

I can usually tell when someone uses the phrase “they” they really want to lump all of one group with a loud minority of people to make their point.

You got 99 problems and apparently bitches are all of them.

112

I see why the war is happening. We have crazy fem nazis and then dudes like Orion trying to act as if women have all these privileges and men don’t have anything. Which is probably why the vast majority of the super rich are men, the vast majority of political power is men, and…

Ah, fuck it. Why reason with someone who’s mind is made up? I gotta try to get up tomorrow as a white male. I don’t think I even have a chance of making it the deck is so stacked against me. And hell we already let women vote, how come they think they need anything else? Greed I tell ya. I came in figuring I would complain against feminists with weird views and see we have plenty of males still trying to hang onto that I’m better cause I got testicles mindset.

I think both sides are filled with lunacy. Have your fun.

114

I tried in multiple posts to lay out what I felt in reasoned measured terms. The rebuttal I got what ghosts. I can’t argue against ghosts. They, they, they, they, they. These are created positions that lack any sort of reality as they attempt to speak for a gigantic population in simple terms.

If someone wants to rationally discuss issues with what I said in my first few posts then that is fine. If someone wants to create ghost positions I can’t debate that.

115

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Equal rights, equal expectations, and no fem nazi weirdo stuff or let’s go back to when women didn’t work type lunacy. Pretty much my position and I have no idea why anyone would find it controversial. [/quote]

Because its bullshit.

They want the seats on the boards but not equal access to the jobs that lead to 20:1 disparity when it comes to work related deaths.

They dont want to be part of selective service.

They are perfectly fine with man paying around 75% of taxes which is then redistributed to them.

They dont want to change dicorce laws which actually do benefit women and so further and and so on…

That is not equality, that is privilege.

As far as I am concerned they could yell “White Power!” in my face, that is the level they actually are on.[/quote]
They, are you.

116

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Equal pay is real though, insofar as exactly equal work is not compensated equally (which maybe can’t be measured objectively).[/quote]

Interesting the Daily Beast of all sources ran this article written by a woman.

117

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
And now I have to wonder why that bothers me. People gotta do their thing, and all that. [/quote]

You really answer yourself here IMO.

I think it bothers you because her just being herself is an otherwise wonderful, yet very un-special, typical thing. And now she is trying to make HER thing, that is special to her, special to everyone. And she is covering all her bases so she can judge those that don’t see her for her specialness, by making her special thing a “cause”. Because anyone who doesn’t fight for a “cause” is able to be judged in our society.

But the cold reality is she is no better than anyone else, an individual in a sea of them, doing their thing.

[/quote]

That’s pretty profound, Beans. I hadn’t even thought of it in those terms. [/quote]

I thought it was a neat observation as well.
[/quote]

Yeah I mean, the concept really hit me after my daughter was born. Someone at work asked me why I didn’t talk about it a lot (I do, just only to certain people) and why I didn’t bring her in to meet everyone.

And the reason is, she is very special to me (and others obvi) but to someone outside the family, she is just another kid, another person in the vast sea of people. No one really cares, and no one really has to care.

We are all just cogs in the wheel and life will go on without each and everyone of us. If someone is super special, the entire world might cry when they pass, but nothing stops, nothing ends, and even the slow down only happens for a short while. The individual is the basis and life blood of a healthy society, yet totally insignificant at the same time.

It is very liberating, but until you really understand how meaningless you really are, you’ll never be able to be meaningful, to anyone or than yourself. And once you really see how you are meaningless, you can actually be yourself, which in and of itself is a meaningful contribution to society.

eh… Maybe I’m wrong, but it lets me sleep at night.

118

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Equal pay is real though, insofar as exactly equal work is not compensated equally (which maybe can’t be measured objectively).[/quote]

Interesting the Daily Beast of all sources ran this article written by a woman.
[/quote]

Yeah I have known the 70-something cent thing is bullshit for a long time. If more women are majoring in education and more men are majoring in finance, there you have it.

Truth be told, though, there are studies that suggest that women do make less than men for the exact same work, particularly mid-and-late career work. But, like I said, these things are close to impossible to measure without bias.

119

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Equal pay is real though, insofar as exactly equal work is not compensated equally (which maybe can’t be measured objectively).[/quote]

Interesting the Daily Beast of all sources ran this article written by a woman.
[/quote]

Yeah I have known the 70-something cent thing is bullshit for a long time. If more women are majoring in education and more men are majoring in finance, there you have it.

Truth be told, though, there are studies that suggest that women do make less than men for the exact same work, particularly mid-and-late career work. But, like I said, these things are close to impossible to measure without bias.[/quote]

True.

Sowell goes into this a lot in Economic Facts and Fallacy. He pretty much concludes that it is life choices (namely women are more likely to sacrifice their career for a period of time to head the family head role, which in turn allows their partner to maximize their earning potential. So in essence the woman is investing in her partner’s career more than her own.) Because when he looked at data sets that compared “never married” women with men and “never married” men, the income disparity all but disappeared.

120

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Equal pay is real though, insofar as exactly equal work is not compensated equally (which maybe can’t be measured objectively).[/quote]

Interesting the Daily Beast of all sources ran this article written by a woman.
[/quote]

Yeah I have known the 70-something cent thing is bullshit for a long time. If more women are majoring in education and more men are majoring in finance, there you have it.

Truth be told, though, there are studies that suggest that women do make less than men for the exact same work, particularly mid-and-late career work. But, like I said, these things are close to impossible to measure without bias.[/quote]

True.

Sowell goes into this a lot in Economic Facts and Fallacy. He pretty much concludes that it is life choices (namely women are more likely to sacrifice their career for a period of time to head the family head role, which in turn allows their partner to maximize their earning potential. So in essence the woman is investing in her partner’s career more than her own.) Because when he looked at data sets that compared “never married” women with men and “never married” men, the income disparity all but disappeared. [/quote]

I hadn’t heard this. Will look into it. If biology is to blame, then it isn’t a problem at all. Either way the number certainly didn’t belong in the SOTU.