Remember, folks: whenever a woman says "die for me because you are a man," just look her in the eye and say "my body, my choice."
Because the default is male. We have rights for humans and rights for women, because the default image of a human has a penis. Heck, all of humanity is summed up as "mankind". Grammatically, if you're addressing a group of children, for example, and tell them each child needs to turn in their own paper, the only time you may say "Each of you needs to turn in her own paper" is if the group is strictly female. If there's even one male, you have to use "Each of you needs to turn in his own paper".Hockey is a male sport, we have gentlemen's clubs, all of these are male by default.It's like when I tell someone that I've started dating."I'm dating someone now! They're really great...I went to watch them perform with the school band (they play clarinet) and then we went out for hot chocolate...it was...oh, it was really wonderful."So this is nearly an exact transcript of what I say to people. Note the use of "they" and lack of gendered pronouns."Oh, he's in the band?""He sounds great!""What's his name?""Are you going out with him again?"These are the responses I get.Because straight is the default. This is why we have gay rights and not straight rights. Because all rights are straight rights. The right to marry, adopt kids, all of those are straight rights, all of those have traditionally been the rights of straight people. We don't have "straight bars", because there is an abundance of straight bars, where men go to pick up women and women go to pick up men. Gay is out of the ordinary. My parents didn't get a straight marriage, they got a marriage, because they are straight. My father doesn't belong to a men's gym, he belongs to a gym. Now, it only has male members, but it's a gym. Not a men's gym.We don't put a big sign up saying "Men's club!" because traditionally, all clubs are men's clubs. Also, that most men wouldn't feel comfortable saying in public that being ogled by women as they work out is not comfortable. Because they're men, they're not 'supposed' to be intimidated by women. Hockey teams are for boys, that's the default, we have to struggle to get a team for girls or allow girls onto the boys team. There was a HUGE hullabaloo when I was in high school and a girl wanted to join the football team (despite being physically fit and capable of the sport). It wasn't as though there was a girl's team, so this wasn't technically a boy's team she was trying out for. It was just the football team. Because the part about boys is implied in the fact that it doesn't say girls.For a stupider example, when's the last time you saw Bic making "Pens for MEN!", or a gun company made a special gun For Men, or a toy company made a different version of a toy For Men? You're right, it's stupid. But the default is male. What we have are rights for men and rights for women, hockey teams for boys and hockey teams for girls, but nobody wants to say so. Guns are for men...the pretty pink one at the edge of the case at the store is for women. The regular toy bow and arrow are for boys, the pink one with the smaller handle and social app is for girls.Anywho, hi!! Thought I'd pop by again and toss out some stuff. I just finished my second semester of classes and I get to spend my summer with my girlfriend!!! I cannot wait. I go back to town in about two weeks, it's...she really is great, and I am so incredibly lucky. How are you doing? I haven't seen any updates about your puppy dogs lately
Hi! Welcome back!As usual, I beg to differ topically. First off, men/women and gay/straight are two very different things, in that gays are not dependent on straights for their survival. Women's survival is literally dependent on men because if they so chose, men could annihilate women. Women could only annihilate men with the assistance of other men (police/military, weapons invented and manufactured by males.)"The default is male," is a classic example of the half-truths and lies perpetrated by feminists. (And there are no longer any "men's" clubs that don't allow women simply because they're female, because it's illegal, yet there are plenty of women's organizations that don't allow men. Even though be the very same standard , it's also illegal.) They tell you about "male dominated" language (which technically is "masculine," not "male") so you'll have that Light Bulb Moment, but then when you start to explore the issue, they guide you away from exploring the WHOLE issue - they tell you what to think about it. The whole truth is that the default is NOMINALLY masculine, and in ways that are entirely meaningless. (And it doesn't apply as well in languages with gendered nouns, does it?)"MANkind's" survival depends on three absolute necessities: safety, food and reproduction. Males have the physical body structure and the mental thought processes to provide two out of three of these necessities with no assistance whatsoever from women. And while women CAN provide these necessities, they can't do it as well or as consistently (and therefore as successfully) as men. Since reproduction is the only thing men MUST have from women, why have men ALWAYS devoted themselves to catering to women's emotional well-being, instead of keeping them naked and minimally sheltered in pens and barns like livestock? They do it because they are deeply emotionally attached to women."MANkind" is actually man/woman/child-kind. If it seems "unfair" that males get credit nominally, that might be because males have the option of rejecting and/or enslaving women, yet males have CHOSEN (individually and collectively) to instead protect women and seek to please women emotionally. Check out a Women's Studies 101 syllabus. Is there a unit, a chapter, or even a paragraph, describing what males VOLUNTARILY (or involuntarily for that matter) have sacrificed for females since before tiny tribes became huge civilizations? Imagine how much easier men's lives would be if they could treat us like livestock: invest in us ONLY what they get back from us materially, or only what we need to survive - whatever food is in season (we could forage for it under the watch of armed guards so men wouldn't have to work as hard to keep us fed) or what food can be efficiently stored for winter, a sturdy barn with straw to sleep in, maybe a blanket to cover ourselves in cold weather, a yearly visit from the vet for preventive vaccines, and again to ensure the safe delivery of future livestock. Has any feminist pointed out that men are physically capable of treating women like this, but that the overwhelming majority of them would never even consider it?I just described slavery, didn't I? Although in reality slaves were usually permitted to have some semblance of personal family structure, probably because it motivated them to be more productive. But if women's productivity is unnecessary beyond an involuntary biological act (think dairy cows) who cares how hard the "work?"
...cont.Feminism would have you believe that men have enslaved women, on behalf of MANkind, wouldn't they? Do they mention that the vast majority of real slaves (including conscripted warriors, dying for someone else's rights) have always been men, because men's labor is more valuable and profitable than women's labor? (How many women have been kidnapped off the streets of Europe and America, drugged and carried on to merchant ships, awakening to months of forced labor, with no regard to any "slavery" laws?)Almost everything feminists attribute to "Patriarchy," possibly excluding inconsequential red herrings like "masculine" pronouns, is done on behalf of women, at the behest of women, and very often BY women (women are far and away the the most adamant enforcers of all things "patriarchal") because women benefit far more than men from "Patriarchy." Especially feminists, who could never have accomplished ANYTHING without the consent of the men who CHOOSE to accommodate and enable them. "Patriarchy hurts men too!" If you believe that, you might as well be honest and call it "Matriarchy," enabled by the generosity and nobility of males, and hiding behind the man-blaming name "Patriarchy." "Patriarchy Theory" is utter bullshit because it puts on males, the responsibility for all human behavior, which is deeply rooted in our biology. Both male and female biology. Ironically, men are usually willing to Man Up and accept that responsibility, to placate women. Of course before feminism, men were usually rewarded or at least recognized and respected for CHOOSING to carry the burden of blame (for the behavior of BOTH sexes.) Now thanks to feminism's Perpetual Victim mentality, men get all of the blame and none of the credit.Keep looking at both sides. You'll eventually find that feminism is actively anti-male, but anti-feminism is not anti-female. Indeed it is actively pro-female and pro-male.That said, I'm glad the school year is winding down and I hope you get some goo-off time this summer. By the sound of it you've been working quite a bit harder than many college students and you need a break. I'm glad to see that your relationship with your girlfriend is thriving. Being a genuine statistical minority, if you want a stable relationship, the pool of people you have to "choose from" is frighteningly small. And prone to be severely emotionally damaged due both to internal identity confusion, and to external pressure, up to and including the rejection of your humanity. I may have mentioned I have some long-time friends who are gay. Even in middle age, although many have found their "niches," a few are still struggling with their lives and their identities. I'm not sure I would ever have that kind of courage.(Oh, and Pooka is just fine. My husband simply adores her, and it's fun to watch him treat her almost like a baby. If our son ever has children, WolfAlpha will be the worlds greatest grandpa!)
Blergh, half-asleep so I'll probably hop in later for the actual debating...based on a quick read-through, you've got some good points, so when I'm more functional I'll be able to talk more.Oh, you've no idea how much of a statistical minority and damaged.I've my physical problems...I physically cannot do most of the stuff that people enjoy, especially those my age. I'm 21, and my medications mean that I can't drink. Literally, it's not even an option. I will be walking around the mall and suddenly have to go sit with no warning, or I have to cancel plans.Pretty Girl is 20 in a couple of months. She struggles with depression, anxiety, and an eating disorder. She'll be okay and just...something will trigger her, and she won't be in a place where she can really be social. Going out to eat isn't a thing...being in a place with a bunch of people, where the focus is on eating, is a big problem.Somehow, it's working out. My issues don't trigger her depression and anxiety, her stuff doesn't cause me any problems, and both of us take better care of ourselves on the basis that we have to be healthy enough to take care of the other person. I make her happier, and I can do more, hurt a little less, when we're together.
Jessica never came back...
She'll be back one of these days. She pops in when she has time.
Hi there ! The mental image of women being kept in pens and being treated as cattle has really made me chuckle ! One wonders whether they would be any easier to milk ? Or just imagine the problems of herding them in a group - which shoes to wear ??? Nice blog you have. Regards from the UK !
Solid gold! I suppose that some people would be surprised to learn that there exists a subculture of women who would far rather be kept in pens than to be held responsible for their own actions. It is unfortunate that such women often end up in prisons or otherwise housed at taxpayer expense rather than actually providing anyone some benefit from their existence, which, of course, would be illegal.
These comments are solid gold. I don't suppose it would surprise anyone that there exists a huge subculture of women who would rather be kept in pens and used as sex and breeding slaves than to be held responsible for their own actions. I suppose the concept is so titillating to feminists that they would prefer to persecute the men who care for them and then put these women into homes/prisons/institutions at taxpayer expense where they can rot performing no use to anyone, presuming that sitting on one's ass consuming or breeding fatherless children does not actually serve society. I personally don't believe that the female body was designed exclusively as a billboard for the latest fashions or as a brand-identification icon for a corporation or government. This is not to say that some/many/most women don't appreciate having a brain that they can use for things other than making themselves beautiful or raising children--such as for extending their value beyond their reproductive years--only that it would appear that the female brain is woefully susceptible to propaganda contrary to her own interest.You've come a long way baby.By outlawing some of our traditional bargains we have in fact delegated them to government, corporations, private prisons, schools, the military, etc., rather than eliminated them. We have done this under a supposed squeamishness about sex being degrading. Looks like a nice little sleight of hand to me.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.