Don't let this happen. Sign the petition and let as many people as you can know:

http://pol.moveon.org/smithbill/splash.html?rc=homepage_splash

Daily show take on the subject:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-2-2011/rape-victim-a...

 

Rape is already one of the least prosecuted crimes- less than 2% of CONVICTED rapists serve time even though most women (1 out of 3 women reports a rape in her lifetime- most scientists believe 70% of rapes aren't reported so just imagine how many women are really being raped and how often and ugh how many men must be rapists.)

 

This is not because we cannot house rapists in prison this is because we do not believe rape is a serious crime as a culture. 8 out 10 black men are in prison for personal marijuana use (even though white males are significantly more likely to use marijuana 8-1 when compared to black men they are not imprisoned for the same crime at comparable rates.)

 

About six month ago a male Californian judge said on HLN we should "legalize rape because it's not a real crime and if we ever want any babies born rape is necessary." I can't believe American is becoming such a misogynist country- things have been getting worse for women over the last 10 years. I truly thought when I was a child I would see legal equality for women in my lifetime now I doubt it will happen in the next 100 years. By legal equality I mean the ERA- full human rights for women- the same ones people of color enjoy. 

 

To not consider rape at least the second worse crime is just a way of creating a way of terrorizing women so they can be controlled and kept in a second class status. Rape isn't in the 10 commandments so it doesn't count. Rape is the only crime where we blame the victim. No one ever asks why a white man wore that expensive suit when he got mugged- no one suggests he was asking for it. In many ways rape is worse than murder (as a behavior) because you can accidentally knock someone over and they could die hitting their head wrong but you can't accidentally have your penis fall into someone vagina. I guess in a strange way that judge was sort of right. How can we ever have consensual sex if the person straight women are having sex with has more legal and human rights? Isn't that then the same as statutory rape? Funny that only 50% of American women will ever experience an orgasm... it couldn't possibly be because most women are being attacked in the vagina!? No it's that women are less sexual than men- um ya. Sorry to digress but the subjects are sort of a mobious strip.

Views: 42

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Anti-feminists backlashers won the first battle against feminists by transforming the movement from feminism to equalism. Once the focus is lost from female oppression, there is absolutely no surprise to me that anti-feminists will continue to destroy the feminist movement. Women are oppressed by patriarchy, and male power is what must be fought. Feminist goals have been losing ground for 2 decades. It's time activists woke up from dreamland and went back to the basics of the fight, for it was never even close to being won to begin with.
There's always a backlash to the backlash to the backlash to the backlash.  It takes at least 100 years to really change anything, particularly with fundamentalist, conservative religions pushing in the opposite direction of any progress.  There would always be assholes opposing cultural progress, but without religion, they couldn't get the grassroots support.
Supposedly atheistic religions/countries such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, are also highly sexist. Chronologically speaking, I have long felt that patriarchy came first, then patriarchy invented religion to control society and its means of production, its main resource, women. Religion is but a piece of a larger puzzle. In pre-agricultural societies, men and women spent little time together, the more muscled members of society were off chasing meat, and warring with rival tribes, while the women were tending to children and gathering. IMO the real beginnings of patriarchy lay in the sedentarisation of humans, when men and women started weekly/daily/hourly coexistence.
Uhh, since when is Hinduism atheistic?
that's why I said 'supposedly' :)

I agree except for what you said about the roles of men in women in prehistory that's some 1950's data there- there's so much new evidence to suggest that females were largely vegetarian supplementing with small game trapped in snares etc and largely in female only groups with a couple of male studs- you know like the rest of how nature largely functions. Certainly the sexually rejected men were off warring etc. but generally males and females don't exist in equal numbers in nature because the male baby is more vulnerable than the female- more prone to death. This is not Noah's ark where we have marched 2 by 2 throughout history. Men have artificially inflated their numbers by bonding together, killing the studs women have chosen, controlling the food supply and replacing nature's bias toward polygamy with monogamy- the only way a man could know it was his offspring, until DNA testing was developed only moments ago in the scheme of human history.

 

The overwhelming scenario seen in nature is that each female is a viable sex partner whereas most males die without procreating and need to present elaborate displays of decoration and dance to make themselves sexually attractive- peacocking- yet I can't think of any female who lures the male with decoration other than the human woman- there probably is but it's not the norm. Men inverted the natural shape of reality because nature is sexist to males since sperm is cheap and baby incubation is expensive biologically speaking. Nature gave men a crap deal so now women have to pay for it if they want any sex at all. When those men were in the woods warring someone must have gotten the idea hey why do we all kill each other so that only one male can have access to many females? What if we could all be happy with one woman each then we wouldn't need to compete for sex at all we can just rape our own personal prisoner and deny her access to the world- public life- if she protests. Hence why rape was a property crime for most of human history. 

 

Women have more biological currency (more things to trade biologically as it were- sex, babies, menstrual blood-it's one of the best plant fertilizers and was used in ancient times, milk, etc) so men can only have equality with women if they oppress women or if they demand more of themselves in other ways. So they created religion to keep women in private life so they wouldn't have to compete anymore. A woman always knows 100% if she had a child (barring weird possible movie scenarios of stolen ovum) the only way a primitive caveman can know if it's truly his child is if no other males are able to get to his female- so he has to trap her behind private life and how do you keep her in private life? Fear of rape is a real good one but religion is better because no one can argue against the imaginary and shame of the feminine is the corner stone of patriarchal power. Fear of eternal damnation is a powerful tool. All the things posited as masculine, except rape and the freedom from biology, are all capable for the female- she can hunt (more females hunt for the males in nature than the other way around), she can work, she can even use birth control to also have freedom from her biology and she could use viagra to rape as well. Male strength superiority is directly related to females access to food- prehistoric bodies cannot be defined as female based on size alone since the size difference is negligible proving men couldn't have been purely using strength to oppress women.

 

But no matter what men do they can't make a baby in their own bodies- yet. Humans are unique in that we can ban each other from public life- through prisons, insane asylums, public ridicule, private ownership of nature but all these things currently exist from the origin of religion and patriarchy which is the inversion of the female as the generative force and the re-establishment of the male in this role. God gave birth and he's a man now do what I say bitch and make my dinner or he's gonna punish you.

 

One of the tenets of Buddhism is no woman who has ever menstruated or had a child can achieve nirvana, the whole reason they are a female is proof to previous evil deeds done in another life otherwise she would have been born as part of the privileged class. There is a special hell reserved for women in conservative Buddhism where a woman is doomed to drink menstrual blood to PAY for all the blood she 'inflicted' on the world. I always hate when people say Buddhism is feminist when it's so not- sure western Buddhists who have broken with the past might be more feminist but that's just cause they pick and choose what they want to believe and it no longer resembles the original religion.

 

I think the real reason for female oppression is not a desire to be equal (um ew how could anyone think they deserve otherwise) but rather the fact we are the only oppressed group that HAS to get sex with the oppressor. The black man could go back to the servant quarters after a horrible day of slavery and feel compete and total support in his moment of ecstasy held in the arms of his lover who also has felt his oppression- neither is responsible for the oppression, that is caused by a third party. Certainly white men raped black women but white men weren't the only biological option for sex. The black man could choose to oppress his woman but the racial struggle didn't hinge on her alone so it couldn't stop equality for people of color. They were allowed and forced through segregation to have their own form of public life- churches, restaurants, schools were all places people of color could discuss what their oppressors were doing and how they made them feel. They did not have to prove their worth to the oppressor to even be allowed to share ideas with other black people. This site is a perfect example of how women have NO place where they can discuss things without the oppressor getting to derail the argument by applying his sexist standards (I'm not saying male standards are too high for women I'm saying they are WRONG). As long as men feel that they have a right to weigh in on what feminism should do they are blocking women's ability to decide together and then present a unified concept that males can respond to. Black people were able to do this so they got civil rights women don't even have exclusive public lives together and any attempt to unite is called reverse sexism which would imply a legal body that is largely women who have the goal to control what men can do which of course doesn't exist.

 

No oppression can be over turned if the oppressor is involved in the initial stages of a struggle. Men often don't approach information the same way women do and they will violently rail against her understanding of oppression because it violates the rules of patriarchy- like grammar or the insistence of learning institutions to fight against interdisciplinary approaches and because it makes him the perpetrator. The major tenet of patriarchy is Might Makes Right so under that system all women are liars about oppression because the very thing that makes something morally acceptable is the ability to do it. So there's no way to hold the oppressor responsible hence why black never got 40 acres and a mule even though that was suppose to be the slavery settlement and why women are famously mocked for not being able to 'organize'.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly with those paragraphs. And just to clarify, I don't see your first paragraph potential disagreement as a contradiction at all. I just didn't go into detail on the same points as you. I do agree there were less males around, and about the highly selective pressures creating stud males. :) We can't know that the stud males were around 24/24, but certainly female exercised more sovereignty in regards their interaction with males than today.

 

[...] the fact we are the only oppressed group that HAS to get sex with the oppressor [...]

I had never looked at it from that angle, but it certainly explains all the political lesbianism of past decades, though that seems to be diminishing?

 

thanks for you thoughtful reply :)

In moments like these I've got to think WTF??? Where was I? What was I doing on May 3, 2009, that I missed the death of one of the most important feminist thinkers of all time?????

 

On May 3, 2009, Marilyn French died, one of my heroins.  As I was comparing the impacts of patriarchy versus religions on female oppression, I came upon some old familiar words:

[...] a time came when mother nature seemingly stopped doing her job. Maybe crops withered, or there was a flood, or perhaps a drought. [...] due to the inconsistency of mother nature’s ‘offerings’ [...] mankind began to take matters into their own hands. Through cultivating the soil (perhaps the earliest act of rape?), learning to tell time, gauge days and predict weather, man began to have a bit of power over nature. He could control his own destiny and provide nourishment and protection for himself. [...] slowly, through conquering and learning to manipulate the earth, early man began to have a bit of a ‘God Complex’, no longer worshipping and revering mother nature.
Where do we come in? [...] nature was seen as a life-giver and a provider of sustenance. Through our bearing of children and the act of breast-feeding and child-rearing, we fall into that same category. [...] men of early times came to equate their female partners with mother nature, who they found inconsistent and disappointing. Through these feelings, women began to be viewed as subordinate.
By the time Judaism formed, and then Christianity and Islam, women’s subordination was already in full-swing.
In Memoriam
 Quotes from The War Against Women, 1992.
      - It cannot be an accident that everywhere on the globe one sex harms the other so massively that one questions the sanity of those waging the campaign: can a species survive when half of its systematically preys on the other?" page 18

      -  Men's need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root, and men are making no effort to discover it. " page 19

      - Religions do not require men to support or reward or help women in [...] child-bearing and raising, but they demand that men control it." page 20

      - male violence against women could not flourish as it does without the support or at least tolerance of institutions like the courts and police; and psychological studies show the preponderance of men who rape or commit incest to be within the range of what is considered "normal" for men in American society." page 21

      - If individual violence could not be as widespread and devastating without broad-scale support, neither could global wars against women continue without the support of individual men." page 22

      - If we set out (for a change) to prove men inferior, we could cite the fact that men die at a greater rate than women in every decade of life, that they are emotionally stunted, unable to provide emotional support, cannot have babies or raise them, or even make their own dinners. Subject to hormonal swings that cause them to flare into rages that threaten life (their own and other people's), they are also fascinated by toys and particularly adept at inventing structures that give then the illusion that they are in control. They have certain redeeming features: they are sexually passionate, and their irresponsibility frees them to be playful or brilliant about matters unconnected to the real business of life. Surely, such a species should be set in a playpen to amuse itself while women take the burden of responsibility for managing society, raising children, and cooking dinner. If this were the prevailing ideology, individual acts that challenged the definition could be fit into it, and protests by male groups would be seen as resulting from hormonally caused mood swings." pages 23-24

      - In societies that value primarily money and power, the value of a group is shown by its financial reward." page 39

      - In fact, no religious tenet except male supremacy rests on the Genesis myth." page 60

      - Women, major figures in the founding and spread of Christianity, were very powerful within the Roman church from its early years until the high Middle Ages. But once it had political control of Europe, the church excluded women from any form of power and shut once-active nuns in cloisters." page 86

      - Since the first male leader imagined the first state, men who wanted to dominate- as priests, soldiers, or both- needed war to establish their supremacy. But war requires fighters, and people who have not been indoctrinated into a gender cult, have not been taught that aggression equals identity, do not want to fight. To get men to fight rather than flea, male leaders had to turn them against life, identified with women, sensual pleasure, the growing and eating of food.

      - Sexual harassment of women asserts male solidarity across class lines and divides working-class men from working-lass women and reinforces class domination." pages 175- 176

      - Most infuriating, given women's heartrending guilt after rape- their constant questioning of what they did or wore or where they went or how they acted that could have precipitated this action - is that all the men in this survey, asked why they had chosen a particular woman replied, "It could have been any woman," or "It didn't have to be her, she was just there at the wrong time." page 192

      - Feminist experts on rape like Pauline Bart and Susan Brownmiller agree that rape is "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear." " page 193

      - All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women." page 196

I didn't realize she died. I really loved The Women's Room and The Bleeding Heart.
Wow!
asharu, I do believe there is not a single true statement in your entire blog post!

"Rape is already one of the least prosecuted crimes- less than 2% of CONVICTED rapists serve time ".
Where is your evidence for such a ridiculous claim?

"1 out of 3 women reports a rape in her lifetime"
Another false statement.

"70% of rapes aren't reported"
And another.

"we do not believe rape is a serious crime as a culture."
Ludicrously false.

"About six month ago a male Californian judge said on HLN we should 'legalize rape because it's not a real crime and if we ever want any babies born rape is necessary.'"
Why am I not surprised that a google search on this phrase turns up not a single result?  Please, oh please, tell us the name of this horrible jurist!

"things have been getting worse for women over the last 10 years"
Such as....?

"I truly thought when I was a child I would see legal equality for women in my lifetime now I doubt it will happen in the next 100 years. "
Really?  Name some laws that discriminate against women.  Go ahead.  I assure you, I can list many laws that blatantly discriminate against men.

You should be truly ashamed of yourself for fabricating and perpetuating such obviously false statements regarding such a serious subject.  asharu, if you find yourself having to lie in order to support your opinions, then it is time for you to abandon those opinions.

I assure you I fabricated nothing nor was I claiming there aren't sexist laws against men this is a forum to discuss how WOMEN are oppressed not men. That is a different discussion. Plus women don't enjoy legislative majority like males do so if a man who has your body and your same physical concerns decides to make laws that discriminate against you it doesn't have the same power as someone who will never experience what your body's conditions demand making legal decisions about you. Choosing to oppress your own gender is not the same as oppressing another. Women are not making these oppressive laws concerning men- they can't even if they want to because they do not make up the legislative majority. I support the ERA which would mean the laws that govern men would directly apply to women as well.

 

I'm sorry I thought this was a discussion forum for women who already know these statistics not a place where I need to prove to men what is common feminist knowledge. I would never lie because I do not feel this is a place I need to prove anything I am trying to share with other WOMEN and people interested in promoting feminism not have a debate on whether sexism and rape is real I know it is because I exist in the world as a female. I have also successfully posed as male for extended periods so I at least have a superficial understanding of how much better males can be treated. I'm even autistic so my doctor and family would probably get a huge kick out of the idea of me lying since that's not a gift I really have. Lying is not something I can even really understand so I think you really meant to insult me by calling me stupid.

 

Attacking a women as a liar without verifying or politely asking for where I got my info or even why I might be willing (or foolish if you prefer) to believe suspect sources is not a feminist act and should not be tolerated in this forum. The problem with statistics is each source you go to has different numbers so certainly I can be wrong I'm not claiming to be a statistician. If you have other statistics we'd all love to see them just calling me a liar is not a statistic nor is it a feminist act. So why are you here? Maybe my head is so turned around by hearing so many different statistics that it becomes hard to know what to believe especially since the vast majority of scientists gathering this data have strong biases which make them underplay what gets to be defined as rape since they are largely male and know a patriarchal agenda is best for them personally. Are you an authority on knowing what rape is? If you can call me a liar logic demands you are asserting yourself as an authority on this subject. Whose to say you don't just pick statistics that hold up the view that rape is marginal? What is it about you my male friend that makes your data more true? Do you spend 24/7 researching feminism and gender issues? How many books on feminism have you read and which ones are your favorites? Is it part of your career? If so why did you not make your more 'valid data' a helping hand to my supposed ignorance? Or is it you don't like facing the negative behaviors your gender is responsible for and this is why you resorted to sexist name calling?

 

I'm so sick of all the women who use to post here not coming here anymore because- and this is what several women have sent me in private messages- they feel threatened by intrusive males who are not interested in feminism and use this forum to discuss 'women's issues' which is not the same discussion as feminism. Some of them have been asking me to post more lately but look what happens. This yet another place for male 'truth' only. 

 

I would rather have positive people who are interested in promoting feminism, not name calling. If you feel I have said something stupid why not try and broach my stupidity with facts instead of sexist assumptions of female duplicity? You must have a lot of hatred and anger toward women if you believe I'm part of some sort of lying conspiracy. I wish this could be a forum where we made each other feel stronger, not more oppressed- we can disagree with civility- try it sometime.

 

This is where I got most of my statistics- I watch CNN and HLN and pause copy the statistics they present onto my phone and send them to my poor partner heh. I want to approach this forum as a place where I am sharing with friends not a place where I need to sway people to the cause of feminism. It's a similar process to how Mary Wollstonecraft gathered info- but since my purpose is for the arts the way I collect data isn't valued by your type of mind. I didn't make anything up and I have directly got the info from CNN, HLN (Jane Velez Mitchell reported statement 1-3 in her war on women segment within the last 6 months and it was again mentioned on CNN- I was surprised by 1 out of 3 women reporting rape since Inga Muscio quoted 1 out of 4 in her book CUNT but since that book is older I figured the data CNN presented would be accurate- I must be a liar cause I believed CNN instead of Fox New right? The story about the California judge was on Jane's show as well. Certainly it was here-say but I didn't realize this was a forum that put women on trial. I thought personal experience was valid to present here but good thing a man let me know that's not how this forum works- funny I thought the Nerd was mod here not you. I was reacting to the intense fear I have been living with every day since I saw that judge's comments, it changed me and made me afraid to leave the house. It's so hard to imagine you can so flippantly dismiss what has held me hostage for 6 months. I can't believe I could have imagined this and punished myself with so much fear over something not real. But men are always telling women it's in their heads right? I know I have trouble seeing things as normal people do but this is real. The very fact that you find it hard to believe shows what you desire to be true holds more power than what is. I have no benefit from believing things that terrorize me. I want to feel judges and police are on my side but I turn on the news and it's just not so. Just because you find it hard to believe it's true doesn't mean it isn't and I'm sure someone else here must watch JVM so maybe eventually they will speak up and clear your slanderous attacks on me. Keep in mind slander is a crime.

 

You're right that there is a lot of inconsistency in data depending on the different sources you investigate based on different definitions of rape but that doesn't mean I'm lying.  According to Natalie Angier most statistics are sexist since it's mostly men getting to define a female condition they do not understand. Please read the book Woman and pay special attention to the part where she discusses the New York Times unwillingness to report the science of the progression of the female athlete. Inga Muscio was another resource I gathered those statistics from her new addition version of the feminist book CUNT which discusses rape in America. I also quoted Natalie Angier's book Woman which certainly was written quite a few years ago so maybe some of the data is outdated though I was under the impression that those statistics would be even worse today not better since population is rising. Read these books and spend time watching the programs I have mentioned and you will see the statistics I have posted here again and again and again. Maybe they are lying and I am a fool and should pick better sources. But what are better sources? How does one know that they cannot trust CNN or a science reporter for the Times? 

 

If you read closely I did not say 70% of rapes aren't reported I said many scientists say they think it could be up to 70% not reported- their conjecture not mine. To me it's more shocking that any human could have the courage to report rape not the other way around. For myself I only know one woman who claims to not have been raped but personal experiences (that's one of the main tenets of feminism- the personal is political) don't count in your patriarchal approach to information.

 

One thing that got worse for women over the last 10 years was the partial birth abortion ban in 2003. This was only used in extreme cases to save the live of the woman or if the child was severely retarded. What this does is put the value of the life of the fetus above that of women. No man legally is forced to face death so someone else can live. There is no draft anymore that would create a mirrored situation for men. There have also been many more waiting periods and red tape added in many midwest states that virtually bans or make abortions difficult to obtain. 

Another back slide for women is the movement to segregate public schools based on gender. we cannot consider doing this to people of color because of the 14th amendment but clearly women need their own amendment in the form of the ERA.

There is no better proof that we do not understand the very unique situation of rape than this circumstance:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/accused-rapist-cross-examines-alleged-vict...

I understand we have the right to self representation but this is ridiculous.

 

 

Well I think it all boils down to this statement:

"we do not believe rape is a serious crime as a culture."
Ludicrously false.

 

THIS IS AN OPINION IT CANNOT BE FALSE. I am not alone in feeling rape is diminished in this culture and throughout the world and your assumptions about me is just more proof. If rape is taken seriously then why did NOW have to start a "take rape seriously" campaign? http://www.nownyc.org/women/index.php/issues/ending-violence-agains... Generally if things are taken seriously the major organization that deals with an issue shouldn't have to make a 'take it seriously' campaign lol. You'd think that would be basic logic.

 

Maybe your focus should be on signing that petition but clearly its more important to create a hostile fear-based place, when I truly wrote this blog with good intentions and the conception that my data was sound. Does anyone know of an atheist feminist forum that is productive? Where woman aren't assumed to be evil like you have done. Where data is corrected instead of offering personal slanders? Cause I will gladly go there and leave the angry men to discuss 'feminism'.

 

some laws that discriminate against women are:

-We do not have the right to fight on the front lines- Obama has mentioned possibly fixing this soon- yay.

-because we cannot fight on the front lines a woman has a handicap when it comes to being president- certainly no president actually lead troops into battle anymore but wouldn't it be important for a president to have the right to do this or at least have the option of full service so she can fully understand what troops face?

-we cannot expose our chests in public- men and women have the same amount of mammary gland tissue women just have more fat on average in that region than men- this info came from pulitzer prize winning writer/biologist Natalie Angier's book Woman. Men can lactate when given the right hormones- baby boys exposed to the hormones in their mothers when breastfeeding sometime lactate. Fat men can expose their breasts without being arrested. This might not seem important to you but the shame women develop in relation to the illegal status of our chest creates objectification of the region not to mention we have a biological need to expose our breasts to feed our children. http://www.gotopless.org/

-we do not enjoy the right to try out for male sports teams which clearly earn more money than female teams. Only if you believe women are ALL physically inferior is this acceptable and um that is sexism.

-marriage- until a woman can have a wife there is no equality- and here's where you say men can't have husbands! But men can't have husbands because MEN have decided that puts patriarchy at risk since it can lead to males being sexual targets (like women) which I will discuss sometime in another post- and it does because if a man can take the submissive role it disproves the myth of male dominance. Marriage is also in my OPINION a legal form of slavery. What is the minimum wage for house wives? Who do they get to go to to report poor working conditions etc? Husband in many states have the legal right to control finances. But then again maybe you don't think homemaking is a valid and real career- you know sexism.

-healthcare- I really don't have the four hours it would take to explain the massive amounts of sexism that legally goes on in this department- maybe I will post about it sometime and I will make sure to use footnotes so you can believe there is no female lying conspiracy.

-welfare in many states gives less food stamps to female recipients than to its males without consideration for the needs of individuals. They also do not do a financial allotment for feminine hygiene which costs more than you can imagine- and I experienced this first hand so I know it's true. Perhaps it's changed since I was young but I haven't heard anything about this. 

-domestic violence is the only crime where the perpetrator is allowed to remain in the home and the victim must go to a shelter like she has done something wrong. Do your own investigation into what happens when 2 brothers both own a house and get into physical fights- the one that is the perpetrator goes to jail while the victim stays in the home. I have personally experienced both circumstances through my family members.

-clothing- it is still legal to demand women wear sexist clothing such as bras, panty hose, skirts, etc in both the work place and in certain public schools. A suit and tie is not linked to any negative health ramifications. The suit and tie is man's ultimate form of respectability over women because when a women wears this outfit she is belittled and if she wear any other outfit she is a whore http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1313119/Female-re... 

This next story scares the crap out of me and I wish we could all decide on clothing that both men and women can wear for professional situations- like dark jean and a turtle neck instead of the sexism of suits and dresses. I still don't understand how this outfit is sexy- it is literally the same outfit my 7th grade 300 pound latin teacher wore every week. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2010/02/23/2010-02-23_espn_supsen...

Do I really need to remind everyone about Hillary Clinton and the 'pants suit' debacle. Funny that we need to qualify a suit on its relation to pants when a women wears one, a way of implying it's inappropriate. Such as who wears the pants in the family! The legal protections surrounding religions protect most of the forms of dresses men wear so a man, if he claims religious freedoms, cannot legally be denied the right to wear dresses- women can be denied the right to wear pants from a legal standpoint since no religion demands pants for women. I live in a muslim part of a west coast city and almost all the men I see on a daily basis wear dresses and go to work in them. Recently on CNN the longest serving female senator discussed how they had to shut down the senate to see if it was legal for a her to wear pants. http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26366839/detail.html

-It is illegal to ban people of color from college clubs but not so to ban women. If you look at the organizations at Harvard for instance many of the clubs are stepping stones toward political careers how can women compete if you say no vaginas allowed? It's even illegal to ban a man from competing in beauty pageants as long as he is willing to follow the rules. Women don't even have the right to create a blog where your sexist slanders cannot be heard. 

-the caucus system- in my state they changed the laws from being able to vote in the primary to the self-described sexist, ageist, racist against non-english speaking minorities. Read this to understand my point. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/women-and-caucuses.html I was called a stupid cunt at my caucus by a white male obama official organizer because my boyfriend had a hillary button on! I hadn't even decided who I was voting for yet but suffice it to say I was too afraid to speak after that not that I had even opened my mouth to begin with- I still don't understand why he didn't attack my boyfriend directly it was like he assumed I control my boyfriend's brain or something- maybe it's part of the female duplicity conspiracy you believe in.

-bathrooms- Louis C. K. discusses in depth how men are free to expose even their penises in public restrooms (I could go to jail if I squatted with the door open in a public bathroom- I don't know any women under 60 who actually sit on the toilet seat so we often stand too in case you didn't know) even though men should be able to bring his children into the rest room. Men want the privilege of more facilities which the peeing in public option gives them (urinals that don't have a door) yet this is at the cost of men being capable fathers- if you don't see marching your daughter (or even a son for that matter) past 10 naked penises as a sexism problem then there's no hope for you. There's not even baby changing table in male bathrooms thus indicating to male that's not a priority for males and that it is indeed 'women's work.' Bathrooms should be unisex. The reason the ERA failed in the 70's was because of the bathroom issue. 

 

I would love to hear how men are legally oppressed but that is a lie because it's not oppression if you are doing it to your own gender- any oppression of the male is done to keep the machine of patriarchy functioning - ie. to keep the male agenda in power and in control of public life. Oppression of women is done by the male legislator to limit the power of the feminine and keep feminine principals trapped powerless in private life. There is no glass ceiling just varying degrees of access to public life which is what women do not fully enjoy when compared to men because we do not have an ERA. 

 

Word to the wise if you are personally attacking a woman without even first giving her a chance to defend herself, if you are focused on her rather than the information then you are a sexist and are abusing the purpose of this forum. Certainly, present your own data, or ask for where I got such 'wrong' ideas- no problem with holding each other accountable- but your assumption that this is from some nefarious motivation is pure misogyny. If you are unwilling to listen to women without personal attacks you have no business here. You can always prove statistics wrong because they are all guesses when it comes to private world of rape. I'm sure you could find a statistic that says no women are raped because they aren't people. Just as one can argue every woman is raped in a country without an ERA. During the 1950's statistics 'proved' a correlation between bra size and IQ- the bigger the boobs the dumber the woman- Is that a statistic you believe? The men who presented the information we're very respected at the time. This whole thing is nothing more than an evil distraction by you to avoid the point of my post. One of the classic sexist techniques- criticize the person instead of the data- it's either my grammar isn't up to snuff or my data is wrong but you don't have to provide the correct data nor do others have to have proper grammar to post here. It's always a higher standard for women when men don't want to face their own guilt. Instilling imaginary shame is a patriarchal game and you play it well. Maybe you should start the Misogynist atheism section.

Here's an article for you Bruce about autism and lying. Please read it so you don't slander others. 

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/106535_when-lying-isnt-a-problem-the...

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service