The comment you highlighted started out strong - she was right about not getting the day travel assignment, assuming of corse she wasnt dropping hints every five minuets about have to leave ESACTLY at 3 to pick up her baby all the time

Her complaight about not getting big cases is weak as she said she can no longer work late

Her characterizing the comparison between taking time off to raise beets with raising children is just stupid - to your company time off is time off no matter how you use it,m its not like your child is company property and you are woking on their behalf

And I'm sorry but the very fact that you are working part time instead of full time mean you are not as dedicated

I have a question - are women really so stupid as to belive they can have it all?

Men never could, even when we ruled the world, had slaves, had the 'patriarchy', and had 'god on our side'

So why if men couldnt have it all even with our 'privilages', how are women supposed to?

"assuming of corse she wasnt dropping hints every five minuets about have to leave ESACTLY at 3 to pick up her baby all the time"

Yup, I wonder; I regularly work with two women who have infants and both frequently say such things, we often have to cut off or delay work because of it. Another two women friends with babies (one a lawyer, incidentally), both took or are taking at least several months off from work, and one would 'prefer not to go back at all' (finances permitting). I have nothing against that, of course, but none of the ones I know have a bizarre sense that they remain as valuable to their employers as they would be otherwise.

"At what point will our industry recognize that there is value to be assigned to having well rounded happy lawyers working for you?"

Ha ha ha! As an employer, that really made me laugh. Puh-lease, it makes no difference to me if my programmers are "well-rounded and happy", I just need them to bloody *program*. In fact the most dedicated and valuable programmers usually lead somewhat "unbalanced" lives, because becoming a true master at your craft actually (almost by definition) *requires* sacrificing "balance" and the various niceties of family/social that others enjoy, in order to dedicate disproportional amounts of time to becoming better at what you do, shutting out everything else for weeks so that you can focus.

Even myself, there is absolutely no way I would be able to run my business if I also had a baby to worry about (to think otherwise would be sheer delusion), so I choose not to have children yet.

"At what point will we realize that working "part time" as a lawyer doesn't make you any less dedicated to your firm or your clients or less of a lawyer?"

Well pretty much by definition of "dedicated" it does, of course. But purely financially, working part-time quite literally makes you less financially valuable to the company; this is simple economics: Some of the costs to hire you are overhead costs and are fixed, the remainder is a variable cost depending on your hours worked (cost = fixed costs + per hour rate). Depending on various factors, the ratio can be pretty high. This means that the unit cost to the company of you working "one more hour" each day generally brings in more value than the first hour of your day (in fact, depending on the overhead fixed costs and 'how good you are' etc., you may well only start being profitable from the third or fourth hour in the day). The "fixed costs" of hiring one employer bring in *zero* value or income to the company. IOW, generally speaking, it's far better for a company if employees work longer hours. It would be nice to live in a pretend la-la world where economic fact wasn't true and we could all work part-time, but in the real world companies have competition; the choices available to the employer are thus "have my employees work at least full days" or "go out of business". In my team of programmers, I can only think of one that would remain profitable to me if hired on a part-time basis (and only because we've spent years training him and giving him experience), the others would become a loss.

To suggest that a company must hire you even if you're not profitable to them, or prefer you over someone who is more profitable, sounds like some weird commie-speak or something.

It really turns my stomach when feminists promote this wage gap myth.

This is another attempt by feminists to play the imaginary victim card, (hoping they can get enough suckers to believe it)so that they can get more preferential treatment for women.

If any business could hire women at a lower pay rate than men, wouldn't they only be hiring women? That would make sense for a business yeh?

I have worked at 13 different jobs in my life and have never known a woman to get paid less. I have 3-sisters all smart, independent women and I have never heard of one of them mentioning she was payed less at a job.

I, on the other hand, have seen women get preferential treatment so they could get into medical school, law school, get a job on the fire dept., police dept., or a position in the military or civil service.

The feminist arguement makes no sense but they are trying to get as many suckers to believe it as possible.

I have a question - are women really so stupid as to belive they can have it all?

As far as programmer the more balanced they are the lazier and less useful they tend to be. Code gurus are all half nuts and/or badly tweaked at least. That's why I hate asking question on Linux boards and have pretty much dumped the OS for development privately. Commercial use has special paid dev support that don't act like caged monkey before answering a question.

At what point will we realize that working "part time" as a lawyer doesn't make you any less dedicated to your firm or your clients or less of a lawyer?

At what point will our industry recognize that there is value to be assigned to having well rounded happy lawyers working for you?

"At what point will our industry recognize that there is value to be assigned to having well rounded happy lawyers working for you?"

In service firms like law, consulting, accounting, etc., your value = billable hours.

Period. Less billable hours, less value. Apportion your time accordingly, dear. If you care more about your kid than your job, and you should, your billable hours will go down relative to people without that conflict.

Welcome to adulthood. If you seek to change that, start your own firm, and pay everyone equal. Good luck with that one.

/sarcasm

Amy,

Thomas Sowell did a good bit of research on this in the early 1980's. I think he wrote at least one book on it and he was on Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Jr. discussing it a time or two.

This woman is a perfect example of why it can sometimes be hard for a woman of child-bearing age to get any kind of job. Wants it all, wants it handed to her, and wants to engage in this magical thinking where everyone pats her on the back for a simple biological function like she's pulled off the greatest feat in the world.

Having kids is a CHOICE. You CHOSE to have a kid, and of course you're not going to be as focused on your job. You might be able to "have it all", just not all at the same time. I don't think it's fair at all to treat women (or men, for that matter) who take time off work to have kids the same as the people who stayed at work all that time and got the job done, and it annoys the hell out of me that some of them seem to feel entitled to special treatment simply because they managed to replicate their DNA.

Happy to be corrected here, but isn't there an obvious danger using lawyers for this debate?

It's a brainbox job, but with your value calculated by the number of billable hours you can clock up. The lawyer who bills the most hours to the client is not, however, necessarily the most efficient individual.

Actually, the more I look at it, the weirder value-per-lawyer starts to look!

I'm not an attorney, I'm just an office manager... and when we have a baby, I'm leaving my current employer. I will do some part-time work, but I certainly don't expect to pop back into a career in five years and be at exactly the same or higher level. If it were my company, I would try my hardest not to hire people who couldn't be fully dedicated to their jobs. I'm fortunate enough to be in a situation where I don't necessarily have to work "for money," but we did wait to have kids until we could afford it. I do have one female friend who is a lawyer who does some part-time contract work (she has 3 children under the age of 4), but I don't know what her expectations are if she tries to really get back into it.

This is a case of being unable to cope with the fact that some things just aren't fair. It's not fair that women who want families have to sacrfice their education and career in ways that men who want families don't. But that's an inherent biological unfairness that won't be solved by screwing over people who ARE putting in lots of hours at a job.

Lujlp- missing your period?

Let me edit something to make a point you likely did not consider:

"It's not fair that women who want families [get the choice of] sacrfic[ing] their education and career in ways that men who want families don't."

I don't mean to jump on you, but generally speaking, guys do not get a choice to stay home--they are expected to keep working, and often have to work harder than before kids.

Complaining to men that women are unfairly made to choose between work and family will usually cause some male head-shaking after you leave the room. In reality, men simply never get that choice, so men don't have much sympathy.

Men will not say such things, because to do so in the workplace risks being seen as "anti-woman", and saying so at home will bring out a spouse's sullen defensiveness, so guys keep their views to themselves.

She didn't say anything about telling her employers that she is available for the day trips or the long hours. What happens when the child is sick. Does the husband stay home or does she.

It may be biological unfairness in the workplace that men are able to work the long hours and many women have to limit themselves to hours that work around day care. Women tend to be attracted to men that have higher status and earn more than them. That puts the women in the position of having the lesser job and they are the ones that sacrifice for the children.

If a woman wants the high powered, long hour job, she may have to find a man who has a less responsible job and can take the time off when the child is sick.

Oh, I agree that it's a choice. In some ways, having a choice makes it harder. There's no angst for men because staying at home with their children isn't generally an option. I watch so many women making themselves nuts because somewhere along the line, they got the idea that they are supposed to have super-fabulous careers, spend 24 hours a day with their children, make their own baby food and have time for a bubble bath at the end of the day. Generally, men can havre a career and a family without a conflict of interest.

It's not that men can have a career, it's that they have to. If my wife lost all of her cleaning contracts, we would have to cut back a little. If I lose my job, we lose 75% of our income. I'm not denying that trying to be the woman who does everything causes angst, but there is stress for men, too. What about the man who absolutely hates his job, but there is nothing else that he can do that will support his family?

When you hear of someone who lost their job and committed suicide, is it ever a woman?

No, MonicaP, you are still glossing over the issue I am raising: the conflicting priorties are still there for men. Men simply don't get to choose to pursue familial interests over professional concerns unless they are willing to pay a social penalty in excess of what women do make similar choices.

(Oddly, I see few feminist authors complaining about that fact. Go figure)

Your view that men's lack of choice is actually a feature, not a bug, smacks of the sort of patronizing that drove feminist authors up the wall two generations ago: men (and women) who wanted to keep females from true equality argued that restricting women's options actually made women happier. (In fact, antebellum slavery apologists made similar claims, if I recall my American history readings.)

But let's be clear: many, in fact most, working fathers do feel angst about not spending more time with kids. They often don't get a choice, however. Just ask them.

At what point will we realize that working "part time" as a lawyer doesn't make you any less dedicated to your firm or your clients or less of a lawyer?

By definition if you're working "part" time, you're not dedicating as much of your time to your company and your job as a "full" time worker.

You're not less of a lawyer. But you haven't committed all of your time to your firm and therefore are less dedicated than someone who has (even if that person is a less-capable lawyer).

My s-in-law is 33 yrs. old. She's a brilliant engineer with an MBA. When she first started with her company 12 years ago, they were hesitant. Young twentysomething female, who knew? Time passed and they realized that she really meant it when she said she had no intention of having kids. Ever. She's happy borrowing her nieces for a while then returning them thoroughly spoiled. Imagine how her assignments have gone since her employer realized this. She makes great money, has monster responsibility, coordinates overseas projects, etc. By the time she was 30 she had men reporting to her that had as many years experience with the company as she'd been alive (imagine their dismay).

And yes, she works 80-100 hours a week when needed. Can fly to Thailand or Brussels at the drop of a hat without having to coordinate childcare. Can cover third shift when her superintendents are in a jam. She's a Company Man, without the testicles.

I never said that men don't deal with their own challenges in regards to raising a family. That's silly, and if this post had been about the problems men face in childrearing, I would have addressed that. What often happens in these types of debates is that people fall into the trap of "my life is harder than your life, so suck it up, biotch." But people in general (not men or women, but people) can be paralyzed by choice, especially when they're likely to be pissed on socially no matter what they do.

I'm not making a case for women having it harder than men. I'm saying their challenges are different. And treating these problems as if they are ridiculous is not helping these women make rational choices.

Women who are faced with these choices need to be told that they do actually have to make choices and set priorities, and not expect to have it all fall into their lap. That can be done without minimizing their challenges.

Time passed and they realized that she really meant it when she said she had no intention of having kids.

I suggest women who don't want them make this crystal clear to employers. Also, love the bit about "Company Man, without the testicles."

This female lawyer talks about her "first child." Which implies that she'll have more. Linda Hirshman, in her book Get to Work, notes that having more than one child changes a woman's life in terms of the level of complication in a huge way.

This is a case of being unable to cope with the fact that some things just aren't fair. It's not fair that women who want families have to sacrfice their education and career in ways that men who want families don't. But that's an inherent biological unfairness that won't be solved by screwing over people who ARE putting in lots of hours at a job.

People aren't taught that life is tough and doesn't owe you anything...but they really need to be. And the fact of the matter is that women typically choose to stay home with kids, but there is typically little discussion about whether the husband will stay home.

I personally have a househusband. The reasons for this are multiple, but I am able to come home to a clean house with groceries bought and laundry done. It is wonderful. My husband and I made an evaluation of our situation and realized that we would be better off if he stayed home. We work hard to make sure that he has marketable skills should I die and that my life insurance policy is up to date. However, I believe that if women get to decide whether they want to work, so should men. We also understand that he would have to start over with a career should he need to get a job. He won't get credit for the years that he was out of the workforce.

-Julie

Juliana-
I'd call your s-in-law a Company Ma'am.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

MonicaP, respectfully, I was responding to your following views, not saying whose life is harder or some such:

"There's no angst for men because staying at home with their children isn't generally an option."

"Generally, men can havre a career and a family without a conflict of interest."

"It's not fair that women who want families have to sacrfice their education and career in ways that men who want families don't."

I don't think any of those statements are proper summations of the state of things.

I believe there is angst, there is a conflict of interest, and men don't even get the allegedly unfair choice women get.

Spartee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The issues women angst over are very different from the issues men angst over, at least in middle-class to upper-class circles, where the issue of working is even up for debate.

Thanks for making the point, Spartee. Any of the times I have ever brought up this point, women have always looked at me like I am from another planet or something. I will work my whole life for money. The End. I'd love to have stayed home with the kids, but it was never an option...

Some good advice given to me a few years ago.

"You can have anything you want, you just can't have everything you want."

No eric, stupidity just pisses me off. And having nearly died three or four times befor the age of twenty I learned really early that life is too short to deal with other peoples bullshit and stupidity.

Monica women may, or may not angst over different things. But that doesnt mean men have NO angst at all

A few men have mentioned that staying home is not an option for them. If you're wife is a lawyer, then I think it would be an option.

> At what point will our industry
> recognize that there is value to
> be assigned to having well rounded
> happy lawyers working for you?

That will probably happen when it becomes, y'know, true. I think the world "value" has a very specific meaning in the workplace. It describes economic worth. Interpersonal contentment isn't the kind of wealth these enterprises are designed to generate. It's weird to hear rhetoric like that from lawyers, who are so famous for wanting respect for the handling ugliness that others couldn't handle, at least in law school. Anyone remember "Paper Chase" from the early 70's?

I have relatives who are very lefty touchy-feelie and moan about the unfairness of parents not being able to essentially come and go as they please from the workplace, and so on. That companies should be more understanding of the needs of the employees, etc.

They stopped lecturing me when I pointed out that if your company is *obliged* to care about your outside life, then they *get* to care about your outside life.

And that means that if you belong to an organization they disapprove of, or attend a rally they oppose, or support a particular political party - they can *care*, and that's usually not a good thing.

I say your employer essentially owns you for the X hours per week you contract with them for. If you can only do 60% of X, for WHATEVER reason, then you need to renegotiate for a lower salary. Not expect the employer to suck up the costs of YOUR outside life.

It's simply much safer to keep personal and professional lives separate.

Lujlp- I was just kidding. None of your sentences ended with a period, so I figured your keyboard was stuck...

How did you almost die three or four times?

1. Got a bacterial infection from swimming in a canal at age 5, had a temp of 105

2. Got hit by a truck doing 25 thru a parking lot at age 13, thrown over 40ft and rolled into building - luckily I only got a little road rash

3.Nearly froze to death just after I turned fifteen, my body temp dropped so low all my skin had turned purple, people called me barney for 3-6 months, took about 3 days to warm up from purple to mourge gray, and a day or two more to pink, and my body temp has been a flat 96 degrees ever since

4. At 16 I flipped a motercycle doing 40mph, my cousin put the brakes on the wrong sides when he rebuilt it, I was atampting to slow down for a turn and rather than slowing the back wheel, the front one locked up. I ofcourse blacked out about half a second later when I was 90 degrees perpendicular to the road. The next thing I remember I was 100 ft or so past the curve sliding down a dirt road with a motercycle on top of me. Wasnt wearing a helmet, had a seires of godawful brusies all over my body, but luckily didnt brake a single bone.
I can still hear the engine when I think about it - never go anywhere near those death traps anymore

Yikes!

On another note: The woman above seems to believe other people think as highly of her ability to procreate as she does. What if I think beets are more important than babies?!

"The woman above seems to believe other people think as highly of her ability to procreate as she does." MonicaP

On the upside of this... at least she has a job, and probably makes money and pays taxes. Kid is likely to go to school and so on. It could be worse...

What if I think beets are more important than babies?!

Yes, beets rarely ruin my meals with screaming because the gardener isn't paying them any attention.

I really think that most parents do try, but most don't contemplate their parenthood and how things will change. I see misbehaving kids and I am very thankful I had my tubes tied at 24.

-Julie

Never-married women make more than never-married men.

Married men (especially with children) make more than anyone else.

Married women (especially with children) make the least.

Is any of this surprising? Of course not.

This points out the silliness we are exposed to in the name of "helping" women: the "wage gap" that feminists decry as evidence of a sexist, oppressive Patriarchy is actually a measure of women's greater PRIVILEGE and CHOICE as compared to men when it comes to work. (Don't forget that WOMEN still SPEND the vast majority of all money earned by themselves and men!)

"A woman can do any job a man can do!" Right. So long as they change the job to suit her delicate feminine sensibilities.

If and when the "wage gap" ever shifts so that women make more money, who can doubt that feminists will use THAT as evidence of women's oppression by shiftless men?

"A woman can do any job a man can do!" Right. So long as they change the job to suit her delicate feminine sensibilities.

ROFLOL, If I could even come close to taking that statement seriously, I would be rather pissed, but on to the real topic at hand.

Where did you get your statistics? I would be very interested in reading up on them further.

My solution to the 'wage gap' has always been to know what market price is for my skills and experience, and demand to be paid at least that. I also make a point to talk shop with 'the guys' (I work in IT, so I mostly work with men) and compare salaries. These are things that every person to has to negotiate salary should be doing, whether man or woman. I have personally never been underpaid in comparison to my peers.

-Julie

wait, Julie, didn't you know you were oppressed? ;)

On the other hand I have worked with coders that left at 3pm every afternoon to get their kid, while I picked up their slack. The only way they got caught out for that is when the layoffs came, they lost. They were untouchable before that.

"They stopped lecturing me when I pointed out that if your company is *obliged* to care about your outside life, then they *get* to care about your outside life. "

True dat, Lauren. Case in point is the Army. Your commander is held accountable if you beat your spouse, because it screws up the surrounding families and distracts the soldiers in them, besides showing a lack of personal self-control that will be problematic in other areas. Your commander loses out on the work you need to do if you have a substance abuse problem, so that his/her business too. Running off to the next state to carry on an affair with one of your subordinates has big ramifications when you both come back, so it's hardly a private matter. Having an affair with someone's civilian dependent makes everyone a little less eager to deploy for a year or more on another continent. On and on. Since you can't separate your private life from your life life - and your life life is your military life - they take control over all of it, because it afects hopw well you perform.

"I could give other examples but you get the idea."

Yes, I most certainly do get the idea: You put less effort into your work so you earn fewer rewards.

That's probably not the idea the huffy, victimized-by-the-evil-patriarchy quotation indicates I'm expected to get, is it?

I went to law school, but I never practiced because I didn't want to be one of those half-assed lawyers/half-assed mothers so common in the legal world.

I don't spend a lot of time fantasizing that the evil patriarchy has done me wrong.
I mostly squeeze in a variety of flexible, not-too-demanding-or-high-paying jobs and raise my daughter. It's a great life.

Where did you get your statistics? I would be very interested in reading up on them further.

Look at the phyical readiness requirments for men and women in the armed forces

So it strikes me as odd that I never hear women campaigning to get other women to simply seek out and marry men who wish to be stay at home parents.

Everyone wants a law for this and a commission for that and to have some sort of intervention to help soften the consequences of the down side to every decision they make.

Why don't these career minded women simply leave the child care up to the man in their lives and simply focus on career if they want both?

That's what the men have been doing for the last 50 years.

"Why don't these career minded women simply leave the child care up to the man in their lives and simply focus on career if they want both?"

Excellent question. Is it because hardly any man would want to be a stay-at-home dad, or because hardly any woman would want a man who isn't making money?

I'm guessin #2... Yup 2.

But.

This is not going against the evolutionary pressure that men want healthy fertile women, and women want men who can provide for them and their children. Social constructs run headlong into a wall of genetic wiring. Oh, wait... it's un-pc to say that, right?

" "Why don't these career minded women simply leave the child care up to the man in their lives and simply focus on career if they want both?"

Excellent question. Is it because hardly any man would want to be a stay-at-home dad, or because hardly any woman would want a man who isn't making money?"

There's also significant societal pressure for men to conform to the typical gender role of the breadwinner. It's not that men don't have as many choices as women-there's nothing STOPPING a man from being a stay-at-home dad-just that working mothers have become much more common and socially accepted in the past 50 years, while stay-at-home fathers haven't. And I would venture to say that most of the societal disapproval discouraging men from staying at home is coming not from women, but from other men. Just as working moms face criticism and disapproval from other women, not men. (I doubt you'll hear a man calling someone a "bad mother" for missing a PTA meeting.)

Also, it's worth noting that a two-parent income is a necessity for some families, and that staying home isn't an option for either parent. This is the case with my parents: they both work, make relatively comparable salaries (mom makes slightly more), and couldn't get by on either one of their salaries alone.

Hi...back again.

To answer my own question, I'd have to guess that the reason is that women don't want to marry down. If it was simply that men didn't want to stay home under societal pressure from other men and that women really wanted them to stay home, we'd have seen the flood of media articles and Oprah episodes shaming men for this choice.

But I really haven't seen that.

I understand completely that for many -- if not most -- families two incomes are necessary. But typically there's still a main earner and a secondary earner. Women who want high powered careers can marry men who don't mind putting their careers on the back burner for a few years or who just want to stay in the middling ranks to balance time with their kids.

It seems to me that the major part of women wanting to "have it all" is to also have a husband who does the main earning.

Certain aspects of feminism are now so completely mainstream that they're adopted without much question from both liberals and conservatives.

The essence of that is that the women's movement or feminism or whatever you want to call it is not about equality as much as it is about expanded, socially supported choices. Choice as the mantra of the women's movement is apt.

Women want to choose this or choose that and if there's a downside to a choice, well then we need a law to rectify the downside.

If you disagree with that it means you have a problem with women and there's something wrong with you.

Jay R says "If and when the "wage gap" ever shifts so that women make more money, who can doubt that feminists will use THAT as evidence of women's oppression by shiftless men?"

Actually that is already happening. In debates about issues like "single mothers by choice" and similar that we have had on Glenn Sacks and other sites, many feminist-leaning women have cited the fact that single men are now earning less than single women to support the claim that single men are a bunch of losers, and that we are really flattering ourselves if we think that gold-digging women are going to be after us.

It's a case of: heads I win, tails you lose.

Nick S: "It's a case of: heads I win, tails you lose"

yup

Shannon: "And I would venture to say that most of the societal disapproval discouraging men from staying at home is coming not from women, but from other men"

i have noticed that, generally, people tend to think everyone else thinks and behaves the way they do. crooks think that everybody else is crooked too

it seems to me, reading posts by women, that they believe men would think and react the way they would. This isn't true for the most part

for example: i've noticed that women believe men bash women when we're together and that we discuss intimate details of our sex lives the way they do - when in fact, we don't. Oh sure, some random guy might say "oh yeah, i hit an awesome babe on the weekend" but we won't get any more detail than that

as a man, my experience with other men is that we just don't give a crap how other men live their lives on average and in most cases we give props to men who have the guts to break the mold

Where did you get your statistics? I would be very interested in reading up on them further.

Look at the phyical readiness requirments for men and women in the armed forces

That doesn't answer the question of where the statistics on pay came from. That just confirms that the physical requirements are different for men and women to get into and stay in the military.

-Julie

"And I would venture to say that most of the societal disapproval discouraging men from staying at home is coming not from women, but from other men"

No, that is not how guys approach this very important part of life. Guys could not care less what disapproval comes from other guys when it comes to getting action from the ladies.

Guys simply understand well that they will likely not get laid much if their life goal is to raise kids while the wife works.

Don't believe me? How out this scenario:

Ask a room of 1,000 women in their teens and twenties if they want to have sex with/marry a guy who plans to not work in order to raise kids *and* who expects *her* to continue working. Working hard.

Maybe 4-5 hands goes up, I wager. Maybe none. Guys know this is how women think. (Believe me, we know. We love you still, though.) Because guys want to have sex and marry those women, guys typically don't bother chasing a life that will likely result in few mating options--i.e., no sex/wife.

Sure, there may be that 1 in 200 woman who is actually pleased with a stay at home husband, but at the outset guys will have much better options in mating if they are earning good money. (If your hubby stays home and you have a good marriage, 'gratz. Seriously. But you are not the norm.)

wait, Julie, didn't you know you were oppressed? ;)

On the other hand I have worked with coders that left at 3pm every afternoon to get their kid, while I picked up their slack. The only way they got caught out for that is when the layoffs came, they lost. They were untouchable before that.

I never thought of myself as oppressed, only different. Because I am different I have often had to prove that I am up to the job. However, when I am treated like crap, I assume that my sex is likely not the cause. I have had situations where I have been proven wrong and had to face up to the fact that some people don't want women in technology.

(One while attempting to provide high level phone support for countries in the middle east. Some of the people on the other end of the line wanted to speak with a man. Period. I asked the guys that I worked with if they would take over the call, and they said if they won't talk to you, we aren't going to help them either. :-) I confirmed with my manager and explained to the customer that they didn't get to pick and choose their support professional based upon sex. They hung up. Sorry for the side bar.)

However, most people don't care as long as I do the job, and the ones that do care are usually easy to avoid.

What you are running into is what I call 'breeder entitlement'. It generally has little to do with women these days and everything to do with parents and management believing that people without kids should pick up the slack for parents because their reasons for being out aren't as valid and those of parents. I'm not saying that all parents are this way, but I have run into that same problem with men as much as women.

-Julie

Julie,

"That doesn't answer the question of where the statistics on pay came from. That just confirms that the physical requirements are different for men and women to get into and stay in the military."

I suspect the person you are responding to has had similar experiences to most high-octane guys I know. They worked in highly competitive work environments after attending elite colleges where men and women were told that men had all the societal advantages.

Those workplaces had, over the past few decades, responded to threats of lawsuits and social pressure to reduce male privileges by providing additional support and opportunity for (mostly young) women employees. Older executives saw this as proper (and the fact that they, the older guys, were protected from facing upstart female execs only made the decision easier).

The women would then often undeperform male peers on hard numbers (sales, billed hours, project profitability, actuarial exams passed, etc.), but the women would still obtain promotions and salary increases outstripping their performance had they been men. The reason for treating the underperforming female like a better performing employee was "women have it tougher, so her performance will not be measured against male coworkers/competitors." That was never said aloud, but everyone understood the justification, since they all learned it in college. Women felt entitled, and men felt cowed.

After a decade or two of this sort of stuff, you had coteries of newly-minted executive women advancing into positions of greater influence who did not perform as well as men who got left behind.

The military physical requirements are really a proxy for what is going on many places: in highly bureaucratic environments, there are two sets of performance standards--one for men, one for women. Guys who worked in the military, government, large corporations or big-scale service firms (accounting, law, consulting) understand this is the way of the world right now. If they wish to stay in that world, they keep their mouths shut. Those who think it is bullshit, leave and do something else.

Oddly, many women seem to think this two track system is appropriate and fair. To the point wher you get delusional statements like the one Ms. Alkon cites above.

Guys seriously. This is like someone saying "This is a great meal" and you telling them everything you did to prepare it (including a full reading of the recipe) rather than just saying thank you.

This is what I am responding to:

Never-married women make more than never-married men.

Married men (especially with children) make more than anyone else.

Married women (especially with children) make the least.

I just want to see the statistics that validate this statement and get to evaluate them a little bit before I believe or disbelieve them. Jay R can you please provide me your source?

I think Thomas Sowell was among the first to point this out decades ago, Julie, and it has been found repeatedly since then in follow up studies.

My memory may be failing me, though. Looking up Sowell's books may give you the first such study, and likely provide some follow up references.

Julie,

Why do I have to do your homework for you?

BTW, I was lucky enough to have Thomas Sowell as an economics professor at UCLA in the '70's. He opened my mind as few have ever done.

"Single women who have never married, live alone and have full-time jobs earn more than their male equivalents by 28 cents per hour, according to an analysis of March 2001 Current Population Survey data by the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF). At $17.26 per hour, single women earn 101.6 percent of single men's hourly earnings across the full spectrum of occupations, education levels and age. In the last 20 years, women have made significant progress. In March 1981, single women earned only 93 cents compared to every dollar of hourly wages earned by men."

This took less than 3 minutes to find, Julie. Why didn't you find this yourself?

Did you also know that young women are now out-earning young men in urban areas by 17%? (Probably due to women's increasing monopolization of educational opportunities.)

There is a LOT more information out there for folks who are still on the fence about the truthfulness of our good ol' friend, Feminism. So now the Patriarchy is oppressing women by paying them more, right?

Jay, I feel ya. Sowell and some others of his ilk negated some very commonly clasped myths through their work. People unfamiliar with their analysis and supporting data tend to not believe that such work could possibly be out there, let alone that such work *is* out there--and has not been effectively refuted.

Discovering Sowell's work in grad school, along with the Austrian and Chicago School economists, upeneded my worldview. After that, my liberal friends, who had then and still have no familiarity with such works--by choice, I note--could never fathom why I no longer recited their creed.

Sowell is one of the last century's better minds. He is missing a few beats now in his work, but then, most people never had those beats to begin with.

Ok, here is the information from the department of labor:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2007.pdf

It is primarily looking at women, however it does a comparative analysis of salaries based upon marital status/children, etc. According to this, across all boards men make more. Interestingly, women who are married with a present spouse appear to make more than any other marital status. (The tables start on page 8).

I'm not saying that this is evidence of a male conspiracy to keep women down. What I am saying is that the statements made above are inaccurate or require further explanation.

-Julie

This took less than 3 minutes to find, Julie. Why didn't you find this yourself?

It is not up to me to validate your arguments for you. It is up to you to provide the reader with enough information to either agree or make an educated rebuttal.

-Julie

"I think Thomas Sowell was among the first to point this out decades ago, Julie, and it has been found repeatedly since then in follow up studies".

I want to give your stats and sources credibility, but I find it suspicious that they almost never jive with more neutral sources, like the Dept of Labor, or Dept of Justice.

For all we know, Thomas Sowell is someone who simply has an agenda. If there are indeed follow-up studies from legitimate (not anti-female) sources, then that would certainly make the stats more credible.

On this topic, my cousin and her husband are both lawyers for the Justice Dept, but she has the superior position. They raised 3 boys by each working out their schedules in the way that made the most sense, allowing them to do their work and spend time with the kids. She came in early, like 6 am, before all the other attorneys, got her work done, and left by 3 pm. And he came in later and worked late.

It was a sacrifice, but it can be done. Her work didn't suffer, and in fact, she's been promoted several times. And, while I wouldn't call him a house husband, he was confident enough to acknowledge that her abilities were greater, and allow her career to take precedence over his.

Plus, he really enjoyed being home with his sons. I feel some parents, male and female, use work as an excuse to avoid family life.

Lovelysoul, you raise an interesting point. Your cousin's situation didn't happen by magic. They both had the wisdom to marry people who shared their life vision and worked hard to make it happen. Neither of them fell into the trap of playing victims of the "social order."

People here are very quick to note that women should plan their lives rationally and take responsibility for their decisions, and rightfully so. So why are men playing the victim card and falling all over themselves to chain themselves to women who want to work them to death? I don't understand how people don't talk about this beforehand. Man or woman, if you really want to stay home with your children, it's weak to first bring up the issue when the kids are here.

So why are men playing the victim card and falling all over themselves to chain themselves to women who want to work them to death? I don't understand how people don't talk about this beforehand. Man or woman, if you really want to stay home with your children, it's weak to first bring up the issue when the kids are here.

I agree. I ran a social group for people without children and received an e-mail one day from a married women who disagreed with her husband about whether to have kids. The conflict was ruining her marriage. She wanted me to tell her how to convince him to have kids. (She asked the wrong chick!) I was amazed that in the time they were dating that it never came up. I suspect that one or the other of them lied assuming that they could 'convert' the other. What a fucking mess that could have been resolved with a conversation.

My husband and my situation is somewhat similar to the justice department lawyers only without the kids. I have chronic illness and cannot run double duty with the house and a job. However, I am able to earn a larger paycheck. So, my husband stays home and keeps the house. It works for us, but it required us to decide what was important and be willing to plan to make that happen. My love does feel external pressure at times to get a job and 'be a man'. What people fail to understand is that by keeping the house and taking care of things that I cannot he is the best kind of man. He is my partner and we work through the crap together. That means more than a paycheck. Men should benefit from the options too.

-Julie

Julie, you prove yourself a true feminist, and disappoint me in the process.

Your reference to the DOL report was interesting. You could not say that the report contradicts the data I presented regarding the earnings of never-married men and women, nor the data about the effect of children on earnings by gender. (I do concede that I erred only with respect to married vs. unmarried women's earnings).

Instead, you fall back on the trusty feminist complaint that OVERALL men earn more than women. Well, let's see what the Report actually has to say:

• Among full-time workers, men were more likely than
women to work longer hours per week. In 2007, 27 percent
of men working full time had workweeks of 41 hours
or more, compared with 15 percent of female full-time
workers. Women were 3 times as likely as men to work 35
to 39 hours per week—12 percent as opposed to 4 percent.
A majority of both male and female full-time workers had
a 40-hour workweek. (See table 5.)

• Women are more likely than men to work part time, that is,
fewer than 35 hours per week. Women who worked part time
made up nearly 25 percent of all female wage and salary
workers in 2007. In contrast, only about 10 percent of men
in wage and salary jobs worked part time.

Don't you think that men SHOULD make more for working longer hours (including, obviously, the bulk of the overtime hours)?

• The occupational distributions of male and female full-time
workers differ significantly. Relatively few women work
in construction, production, or transportation occupations,
and women are far more concentrated in administrative
support jobs. (See table 2 and chart 4.)

Don't you think that men SHOULD make more for working the dirty, uncomfortable, dangerous jobs which cause men to account for around 95% of workplace injuries and fatalities?

More to come ....

Julie, more from the DOL Report that you chose to ignore:

• Across the major race and Hispanic ethnicity categories,
women’s inflation-adjusted earnings grew from 1979 to
2007 while those for men were mostly flat or down.

*Women’s long-term earnings growth reflects,
in part, gains in their education levels and their movement
into higher paying occupations over time. Although men’s
educational attainment also has improved since 1979, the
relative gains have not been as great, nor has the occupational
distribution of employed men changed as significantly as it
has for women.

I guess that women like to spend their time trying to get through the "glass ceiling," and not into men's "glass cellar."

• At all levels of education, women have fared better than
men with respect to earnings growth. Although both
women and men with less than a high school diploma have
experienced a decline in infl ation-adjusted earnings since
1979, the drop for women was signifi cantly less than that
for men—9 percent as opposed to 28 percent. Earnings for
women with college degrees have increased by about 33
percent since 1979 on an infl ation-adjusted basis, while
those of male college graduates have risen by 18 percent.
(See table 17 and chart 3.)

More oppression of women from that bad ol' Patriarchy, I see.

And finally,

• Among unmarried workers, women without
children earned 14 percent more than those with children.
The opposite was true among unmarried men: those
with children earned 12 percent more than those with no
children. (See table 8.)

Julie, this is the last time that I will play your "I won't believe it until you've cited all the footnotes" game. Especially since you show that you don't hold yourself to a very high standard of research and rebuttal. You have demonstrated here that it is YOUR arguments and supporting data that must be viewed with suspicion, not mine.

I won't chalk this up to bad faith, however. Your feminism prevents you from absorbing truth even when you stare it in the face. That's the bad news. The good news is that you can get over it. But you will have to do the work to discover the truth on your own -- with your eyes, and mind, open for a change.

You, too, Lovelysoul.

Your reference to the DOL report was interesting. You could not say that the report contradicts the data I presented regarding the earnings of never-married men and women

I assumed that you would read the entire report...my bad. On page 9 half way down, it shows that never married women, on average earn 90% of what never married men earn.

, nor the data about the effect of children on earnings by gender. (I do concede that I erred only with respect to married vs. unmarried women's earnings).

Page 45 shows the effect to children on earnings for full time employees: Women with children (all ages) earn about 80% of men with children (all ages).

Pages 10-35 detail the wages that full time working women earn, the standard of error from the median, and the percentage of a man's salary for the exact same position a women earns. Rather consistently, when an accurate measure can be taken, men earn more than women in each job field when looking at job to job comparisons. There are a couple where women earn more, but most men earn more. This is comparing full time work to full time work in the same occupations. The question is: why is that?

I personally believe that there are alot of reasons for this. Most of which require women to fight for their money. Women don't ask for raises, negotiate salaries, and many women take long breaks from work.

Jay, you are assuming that I am saying that men and women being paid differently for the same job is the result of discrimination. I believe that women have a wide open door these days. They just need to have the determination to walk through it and be willing to make choices. Men and women are paid differently for the same job. The DOL stats show that. However, it is up to each woman to take the bull by the horns and create change for herself. I really don't see anyone stopping her.

-Julie

What? I just said prove your stats, Jay R. That makes me a feminist? I know, for you, that's like calling me a four-letter word, but I don't deserve it. A person should be able to challenge you without being called names. :)

Julie, this is the last time that I will play your "I won't believe it until you've cited all the footnotes" game. Especially since you show that you don't hold yourself to a very high standard of research and rebuttal. You have demonstrated here that it is YOUR arguments and supporting data that must be viewed with suspicion, not mine.

Jay, what you fail to see is that your quotes validate my point. Women's salaries have grown in comparison to men's. Women are earning closer to what men have earned than ever before, however women are not earning what men earn for the same jobs. If you don't want to see it/believe it, that is your decision.

-Julie

What? I just said prove your stats, Jay R. That makes me a feminist? I know, for you, that's like calling me a four-letter word, but I don't deserve it. A person should be able to challenge you without being called names. :)

Apparently we aren't allowed to discuss and question the almighty Jay's statistics or sources. It is funny, if Jay would just read what I am saying, I am in agreement with him on many topics, however he cannot get past the labels or justify his opinions. That is cool. He has that option.

-Julie

I don't see why you bother engaging a blowhard, ladies. Anyhow, simply asking someone to cite their sources shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Very well-explained, Julie. And I agree with your analysis of why women aren't paid as much for the same jobs. But isn't it also that some employers may subconsciously assume that since men are often the primary breadwinners of the family that they need more money?

Or it could be that men themselves feel they need more money - in order to be the breadwinners or attract women - so they are more inclined to ask for raises.

At any rate, it's a remarkable and rapid improvement for women, and these minor disparities can probably be innocently explained.

I'm not crying "patriarchy". Are you?

But isn't it also that some employers may subconsciously assume that since men are often the primary breadwinners of the family that they need more money?

That is possible, of course. However, through negotiation, I have found that I am consistently able to be paid what my peers are paid by asking for it. We as women also have the option of going to another employer should we find someone who is unwilling to pay reasonably. I enjoy leaving managers to live with the people they can afford. Women didn't have that option 50 years ago.

I am certainly not "crying patriarchy". I am the owner of my own destiny. :-)

Lovelysoul wins the most unintentionally funny post by suggesting Thomas Sowell may have an agenda (he does, of course) while the government does not (the people there do, of course).

More seriously, though, the information is out there. Start with Sowell and work forward. If you haven't read him and others who followed in that area, that is a good place to start.

>>Lovelysoul wins the most unintentionally funny post by suggesting Thomas Sowell may have an agenda (he does, of course) while the government does not (the people there do, of course).

Pity about your lumbering explanation for what had you in stitches there Spartee:)
(Just teasing!)

I hadn't heard of Sowell before. Are you saying he's well known for a certain slant in his work?

Julie,

More "apples and oranges" comparisons and sloppy and/or disingenuous analysis, I see.

My position: never-married women make more than never-married men, citing: "Single women who have never married, live alone and have full-time jobs earn more than their male equivalents by 28 cents per hour, according to an analysis of March 2001 Current Population Survey data by the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF). At $17.26 per hour, single women earn 101.6 percent of single men's hourly earnings across the full spectrum of occupations, education levels and age.

Your rebuttal: Table 1 of the DOL Report says that for never-married people working "full time", women make 91% of men's earnings. You also use the data to argue, "Men and women are paid differently for the same job. The DOL stats show that."

Don't you see how you have misconstrued the situation and confused yourself, Julie? As I noted above, the DOL Report says:

• Among full-time workers, men were more likely than
women to work longer hours per week. In 2007, 27 percent
of men working full time had workweeks of 41 hours
or more, compared with 15 percent of female full-time
workers. Women were 3 times as likely as men to work 35
to 39 hours per week—12 percent as opposed to 4 percent. *** (See table 5.)

So, "full time" for women =/= "full time" for men, get it? And if I work 41+ hours per week, and you work 35 hours per week, we aren't working the "same job", wouldn't you agree? Never-married men work harder, and work the bulk of the overtime (at overtime pay). So, it is not surprising that never-married men's OVERALL earnings are still somewhat higher than their female counterparts, even though they make LESS PER HOUR.

Let me add yet another gem from the DOL Report that didn't make your tiara:

• Women are more likely than men to work part time, that is,
fewer than 35 hours per week. *** Median weekly earnings of female part-time workers were
$218, compared with $203 for their male counterparts.

Finally, given not only that men work the bulk of the overtime, but that they still do most of the dirty, lonely, uncomfortable work, and that they are almost 20 times more likely than women to be hurt or killed on the job, I would argue that men are obviously underpaid for their work across the board as compared to women.

Oh, I forgot. It's part of men's PRIVILEGE to risk their lives and work themselves to death to earn money which is mostly spent by or for women. And it always has been. But will it always be? Don't count on it, gals. At least, not without some major, across-the-board attitude adjustment ... . (Take two "anti-fems" and call me in the morning!)

Gee, Jay R, can you be any more sexist and patronizing? "Anti-fem tabs"? I'm surprised you don't just accuse of us being "on the rag".

And you imply that men are purely victims, trudging unwillingly into dangerous jobs at the bequest of women - not because men might actually be drawn to more dangerous and adventurous work.

My boyfriend owns a dive business. Diving is one of the most dangerous professions in the world. Even experienced divers inexplicably drown. In fact, he and I met at a benefit for a drowned diver.

So, he, and the guys who work for him, put themselves at risk every day. And, of course, they do it to make money, but they also do it because it's...well, kinda cool and fun....and dangerous too, which, for guys, makes it even more cool and fun! To them, it's much better than a desk job.

It's true that you won't find many women in these professions, so, of course, we're not as likely to die in work-related accidents. Women are programmed differently. Probably because we're built to carry progeny, we developed a stronger sense of self-preservation. But we could do most of these jobs if we HAD to.

So, going on strike, or whatever you're threatening, would mostly just hurt men. There'd be quite a few who would miss the thrill and adventure. I don't believe for a moment men only choose risky professions for the sake of women.

Re: Julie and Jay R,

I have seen this sort of thing play out in a lot of debates, and I have to say it is pretty tedious and annoys me.

That is, one person will insist that others provide evidence to support everything they say, even when the claims they make should be self-evident to anyone with a reasonable understanding of the issues.

Often this is something of a stalling tactic, or the equivalent of using a filibuster to delay legislation. That is, the person knows they are not on strong ground, but they are going to dig their heels in and not concede anything until the other person has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt, as if it was a damn criminal trial or something.

When I am debating an issue, if someone makes a claim that I am sure is exaggerated or false, I will ask them for evidence to call them out on it. But when someone makes a claim that is close to the truth, it is tedious and childish to demand that everything be footnoted.

To demand that others produce evidence to substantiate claims that should be self-evident to anyone who is familiar with the issues is merely to parade one's own ignorance.

Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Oh sorry. I see what I'm doing. I am asserting things without producing evidence.

In future, I guess I'll have to footnote everything to please the ladies of perpetual pedantry. Sigh!

"But isn't it also that some employers may subconsciously assume that since men are often the primary breadwinners of the family that they need more money?"

Yep. Because all employers are bleeding hearts who couldn't give a damn about their own bottom line. They only care about human needs.

It is funny that the people who make these sorts of arguments are often the very same people who claim that the wicked employers are all hellbent on exporting jobs to third world countries to cut their labour costs. Yet apparently these very same companies are happily paying men more for work that could be done more cheaply by women.

Lovelysoul, I know it's difficult to get through JayR's posts because he's so patronizing, but it's buckets of fun if you turn it into a drinking game.
1. Take a shot if he blames feminism (for anything, really).
2. Take another shot if it's something patently absurd. (It's raining frogs in Moscow! Damn feminists!)

I haven't been sober in weeks. If he ever attributes anything positive to feminism, I'm going to die of alcohol poisoning.

NickS: It's not unreasonable to ask for the the source of a study when the person is citing the results of said study.

Monica, Jay R didn't cite the study to begin with. He merely made some general observations, and then Julie chimed in with 'where are your sources'?

I'm sure the things Jay was talking about initially are not solely dependent on the results of one study.

Patronizing? Thanks, MonicaP! Given the root of that word, you make me proud! I'd rather be right than liked.

Drunk? That WOULD explain many of your posts... .

I'll try to keep you pleasantly wasted. ;)

"I'm sure the things Jay was talking about initially are not solely dependent on the results of one study. "

I'm sorry, Nick S, but you have too much common sense to post here, I'm afraid.

Monica, that's hilarious. I'd be drunk all the time!

Nick S, if you read my comments, I was just trying to explain the gender difference in pay for the same job, rather than attribute it to some conspiratorial male bias.

Fact is, most employers are still male, and it seems likely that they might have a greater empathy for other males. But also, as an employer myself, I find that I often think that way too - automatically assuming that a male employee needs more money than a female employee, especially one who has a husband or boyfriend. It's assumed that the male partner probably makes more than her, which isn't always the case. So, women employers can also function from culturally programmed biases regarding women.

And I do find, as Julie said, that males are more likely to ASK me for additional money. If they need an extra $20 at the end of the day - their kid got into trouble or their phone bill is about to be cut off - they'll come to me, whereas it seems women are more hesitant. I'd give it if they asked, but they usually don't.

Regarding asking for proof on stats, I wish we didn't need to, but too often these guys get their stats from anti-fem places like theyreouttofuckus.com, rather than legitimate sources.

Jay R@ 3:50, you can't justify men making more money than women simply because they work longer hours.

You have to understand that women deserve equal outcomes even if they work less, because women are so much more deserving than men.

"Nick S, if you read my comments, I was just trying to explain the gender difference in pay for the same job, rather than attribute it to some conspiratorial male bias."

Straw man. I never suggested that anyone here was claiming there is a vast male conspiracy.

"Fact is, most employers are still male, and it seems likely that they might have a greater empathy for other males."

Wrong. Men are generally socialised to protect women and children. Men don't generally have more empathy for other men.

"And I do find, as Julie said, that males are more likely to ASK me for additional money."

I'm not sure about this specific situation, but I believe in general women are more likely to ask for help and expect sympathy for their plight from others in most situations.

"Regarding asking for proof on stats, I wish we didn't need to, but too often these guys get their stats from anti-fem places like theyreouttofuckus.com, rather than legitimate sources."

No shit. And I thought all you ladies here get your information from Valerie Solanas! I realise there are extremists among the men's rights crowd, but do the likes of Jay and I really need to be lumped in with them?

Nick, the problem is that no one is saying that. I don't believe that women should be paid the same for working less hours, and if that is what explains the disparity, then so be it. We can discuss that logically.

It's often like the guys here are arguing with ghosts. They respond to presumed assertions that no one even made.

I wish we could have reasonable discussions about the differences between men and women without it being so hostile. The hostility comes from the male side, not ours. Probably because most of us women wouldn't be on this site if we were that angry at men. Amy's site is not the place for a feminist ego boost.

Like I said, most males here site stats from biased sources. It would be like us siting Goria Steinam "research" as fact.

But the women here DON'T do that. We'll site the Dept of Labor, Justice Dept, Census, or ABA. Yet, when we do, THOSE sources are roundly criticized as being "virulently feminist".

So, the message that's sent is: You must accept our stats no matter where they come from, but we won't ever accept yours. Either swallow our message whole or don't bother talking to us....because we're right, and you're wrong...so just take some "fem-tabs" and shut up.

And that is no way to have a productive dialogue. I am proud of the women here for keeping their cool (and their sanity), and still trying to have a reasonable, fact-based debate.

"I'm not sure about this specific situation, but I believe in general women are more likely to ask for help and expect sympathy for their plight from others in most situations".

I really don't find that to be true as far as money issues go.

Here's a good example of how men and women differ: I recently had a female landscaper send me an invoice by e-mail. I didn't get it - must've gone to my spam folder.

Then, she waited 3 weeks without saying anything, during which time she wondered if I was "mad" at her, or didn't like the service. When I finally ran into her, she poured all this out, rather emotionally, and I'm like, "Why would I be MAD at you - because you cut the Azaelas too close? If I don't respond to your invoice, assume I didn't get it and mail me another one...or, better yet, call me!"

But many women have a problem with confrontation or demanding money like that. I guarantee this situation would never have happened with a guy. A man would track me down and demand payment right away...not wait 3 weeks wondering if I was "mad" at him.

So, I think Julie could be right that women hesitate to confront employers about raises and equal pay issues. This is how we women hurt ourselves.

"Nick, the problem is that no one is saying that. I don't believe that women should be paid the same for working less hours"

If you go back to what I was referring to (Jay R's 3:50 post), when Jay R went through the stats more thoroughly it appears as though Julie was citing as evidence that women are being paid less than men for the same work statistics which actually showed women getting paid less for working less hours. So I can only assume that Julie believes it is unfair that women earn less than men if they work less.

"I wish we could have reasonable discussions about the differences between men and women without it being so hostile. The hostility comes from the male side, not ours. Probably because most of us women wouldn't be on this site if we were that angry at men."

It is probably true that the women on forums like this are "nicer" in some respects than the men. And I never suggested that the women here are some kind of nasty extreme feminists, at least not in anything other than a facetious manner.

But the thing is that it is easy for women like yourself and Julie to come across as being nice and conciliatory when women have had many more outlets to vent their grievances than men over the years, and women haven't been subjected to an endless stream of phony propaganda blaming their gender for everything the way men have. So it is understandable that some men have more resentment stored up by now.

As the old saying goes: if you have a debate between one group that believes 2 plus 2 equals 4 and another group that believes 2 plus 2 equals 6, then a moderate is someone who believes 2 plus 2 equals 5.

You, Julie and Monica seem to believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and want to be congratulated on how "moderate" you are.

"So it is understandable that some men have more resentment stored up by now."

Nick S, I consider it a public service to let the (mostly reasonable) ladies who post here know how much resentment is out there. My resentment is up-front and out in the open (and so I take the hits). Most men hide their growing hostility and resentment -- and so women have no opportunity to address the problem, even if they are so inclined ...

I know it's hard for some to fathom, but I really am on women's side as much as men's. I am a son, brother, husband and father of females, after all. Just consider it "tough love" for all the entitled queens with "new clothes."

For 40 years, feminists have been "helping" men to be better people by constantly kicking them in the balls. When that stops, I'll have little left to say on the subject.

But, MonicaP wants me to say something positive about feminism. How 'bout this: Feminism has allowed women to finally "be themselves," and in the process has destroyed the myth that women aren't just as big a bunch of shitheads as men. In that, it has truly promoted equality.

I understand you, Jay R. That's why I continue trying to have a dialogue because I suspect that much of your hostility is directed at women on other sites, from other debates you've had, not necessarily us.

I have always been more of a "guy's girl" than a "girl's girl". I was drawn to this site, as I suspect a lot of women here are, because we appreciate the logic and fairminded arguments Amy puts forth. It's not the insipid "girl-think" or "sisterhood" rhetoric.

I am also a firm believer that if you give people the SPACE to agree with you, and you're making sense, they usually will. Yet, if you pepper your points with assaults against our nature, or make comments about "all women", grouping us together, then even the most moderate woman is going to become defensive.

Then, it's harder to concede that your 2+2=4. And I'm sure you feel the same when you sense we are stereotyping men, which you often mistakenly presume.

I don't think you've quite adjusted to the fact that this isn't a feminist site, and you're dealing with more reasonable women here. We WANT to see your side. Give us the space to by treating us with more respect.

"I don't think you've quite adjusted to the fact that this isn't a feminist site, and you're dealing with more reasonable women here. We WANT to see your side. Give us the space to by treating us with more respect."

LS, I post here because I admire and respect The Advice Goddess, and the quality of the comments posted is usually very high. Amy is powerful because she is not limited by outmoded ideology emanating from her girly-bits. She calls it down the middle, takes risks, and earns the respect she gets.

I like you, LS. I also like Julie, ahw, Feebie, and most of the other women who post here. Because this is not a feminist site, the "feminist" views posted, like some of yours, tend to be the most well-reasoned and moderate ... which makes it much more challenging for me! ;) I want to tell you you're mistaken or misguided about certain things, but I have no desire to insult you personally, nor all women, in the process. And if I didn't respect you, I wouldn't make the effort to respond to you. I just honestly think the world will be a better place when the term "feminism" and the things it has come to represent have been discarded. When that happens, something inclusive of both genders, something that more truly embodies what early feminism promised, can emerge, and progress can be made.

I really do make an effort not to make things personal. I try to let "knowledge is power" hold sway. If I have given personal offense to you, Julie, or any of the other posters here, I regret it, as that is not my intent. I also try not to take offense -- at least not too easily! For instance, I like ahw's comments. She called me a "blowhard." On this, my opposition could only be half-hearted at best, I admit!

My only disappointment is when smart, articulate people ONLY call names and throw stones, and don't respond to the issues at hand. I've put in a lot of studied effort over the years to build solid premises for the opinions shared here, but I still have things to learn, and am never offended when someone can show me that I've erred, or have missed a valid perspective. (As the Grandmaster says, "Even monkeys can fall from the tree.") How can you know your information and arguments are solid unless you subject them to opposition?

My intent is to have a dialogue with interesting people -- people who have the potential to EARN respect. (That "give me respect" thing doesn't fly with me!) I don't like to be bored, so I do not shy away from provocation (as you may have noticed). I am often overbearing, I know. I guess I'm a bit like a speaker projecting to the back of the crowd -- it can come over too strongly for those sitting close. ("Try not to get any ON me, dude!!")

What say you keep your mind open, and I'll try not to shout so loud and step down from my soapbox once in while, ok? ("Settle down, and use your INSIDE voice, Jay R!")

Julie wrote "...beets rarely ruin my meals with screaming .."

Have the beets stopped screaming yet, Clarice? Be sure and let me know when they do.

The Silence of the Beets. One damned scary movie. Not to be confused with the documentary on the epidemic of laryngitis in early coffeehouse poets, The Silence Of The Beats. That one just plain sucked.

Too funny, Gog.
Nice post, Jay R. Appreciate it, thanks.

Gee y'all, I spend a weekend in bed sick and see what I come back to on Monday morning? I'm going to attempt to attempt to address each item in kind.

when Jay R went through the stats more thoroughly it appears as though Julie was citing as evidence that women are being paid less than men for the same work statistics which actually showed women getting paid less for working less hours. So I can only assume that Julie believes it is unfair that women earn less than men if they work less.

Jay was cherry picking and not looking at the items that I was referencing. Do I think that it is unfair when women are paid less than men for the same job? Yes I do. However, none of you asked the most important question, and many of you have been beating the most pedantic bushes in an attempt to get me to call 'mercy'.

First off, the DOL stats don't reference hours, but they do reference job descriptions, so even women working in the most risky of jobs along side men are statistically paid less. No one is asking without an agenda: Why are the women paid less? and who is responsible for fixing it?

There are many reasons why a person might be paid less than another: qualifications, years of experience, inability to negotiate salary, unwillingness to demand raises, assumptions by management about willingness to work longer hours or take on larger projects. Any of these reasons, and a million more can cause a person to legitimately earn less than their peers.

I agree that if the person takes on the larger projects, works the longer hours, and has more experience he/she should be paid more. However when a group of people consistently under performs, the situation requires a second look.

I have never seen a glass ceiling. What I have seen is women unwilling to sacrifice an outside life for the benefit of career advancement. That is a fair choice and a fair trade-off. It still isn't as socially acceptable for men to stay home with the kids. If women are going to be able to advance and still have kids, that needs to be a more viable option for men. The damn kids need to be cared for by someone other than the nanny.

I work primarily with men and have for my entire career. I have rarely had problems, and any problems I've had have generally been resolved with a VERY firm discussion. I don't worry about whether people like me, I just do my job well and my work life falls into place.

I firmly believe that women are paid less than men for the same job. The DOL stats document that. However, I also believe that most of the reasons why women are paid less are firmly in the hands of women to change. They need to negotiate, work the hours, ask for raises,produce results, and demand the big projects. If we as women are unwilling to do those things, then they need to quit bitching and also need to understand it isn't a matter of sex, it is now a matter of work.

Jay R, the reason why I ask for your sources isn't because I automatically disagree with them. It is because I want to understand how you came to your conclusions before I formulate my opinion. I have also researched much about these topics, however I understand that I don't know everything. I want my opinions to be right rather than defended to the death even when they are wrong. If you could only get past the labels, you might see that we agree more than you might realize.

-Julie

I just want to add into the mix, that nice little CONSAD report that mysteriously disappeared from the White House website, just before the announcement of the "Department of Women" and their main objective..... the "Wage Gap".

E. Steven, thanks for saving me the trouble!

Julie would be correct if she had said, "Women are paid less than men AT the same jobs." Women can, and do, CHOOSE to make less money than men, and they can be considered privileged to have that choice, as Julie implicitly acknowledged. Is "oppression" of women any part of it? HELL, NO!

Julie, check out the CONSAD report (which has been thoroughly ignored by the "lace curtain" MSM). Discrimination is a non-factor in gender earnings disparities, and the DOL, by posting this report, concluded there was no problem to "fix". So then why does the "wage gap" remain a primary rallying cry for organized feminism? Are they just stupid, or are they opportunistic liars? If truly interested in women's welfare, shouldn't NOW and the Feminist Majority be trumpeting the good news that women are NOT being unfairly treated in the workplace?

When I rail against feminists' dishonesty and corruption, this would be a prime example, as they push Obama ("THIS is what a feminist looks like!") to pass the "Paycheck Fairness Act" to remedy the Patriarchal "injustice" against women. As the leader of the Patriarchy, Obama is falling all over himself trying to oppress women by promising to pass that legislation as soon as possible! (Men's "over-representation" in political office is another of Feminism's favorite grievances, of course. Never mind that women control the electorate and vote for all those guys, who then slavishly pander to the female vote. Why shouldn't women elect leaders who can be manipulated so easily?)

As an intelligent person, Julie, aren't you just livid at being lied to this way, and for so long? Even though your sex is the intended beneficiary of the lies, my hope is that you will start to ask yourself, "What ELSE have they misrepresented in order to advance their ideology?"

Aren't you getting tired of extreme feminists controlling the agenda and "fixing" things for us all? Do you wonder why things aren't getting better between the sexes? Why men are so resentful and angry, or even worse, completely disengaged? Why women report themselves increasingly unhappy, exhausted, and with a sense of loss? Is it a worthwhile endeavor to throw off "false consciousness" only to emerge into a state of perpetual feminist misery?

We can argue about what feminism was SUPPOSED to mean, but feminism has come to represent nothing more than sexist, female chauvinism -- a hate movement which can only hope to generate misogyny and thus justify its continued existence. No amount of lipstick can hide the pig it has become. That is why I cringe when reasonable women still identify as "feminist." That label, and the baggage it now carries, is only an impediment to equity and harmony between the sexes. If equity and harmony between the sexes is ever to be achieved, feminism must cease to exist. (You never did tell me whether or not you think "whiteism", or even "blackism", would be a good term for a philosophy promoting racial harmony ... )

Finally, Julie, I really like your thoughtful contributions, even when I disagree with some aspects of your positions. I do want to get past certain labels -- by leaving their smoking wreckage in my wake! Why don't we join forces? Could be fun!

Thanks for linking that report, E Steven. I think that is really what we've been saying - that there are logical and innocent explanations for the income disparities, not some broad and organized discrimination.

Jay R, to me, feminism is like a bureaucracy now. Their usefulness has long since dissipated, but they are still fighting to justify their existence.

I see it with environmental and land use organizations. Many were set up to be temporary - to oversee specific improvements in specific areas. But, once set up, they never go away! They find more and more "problems" to fix. Any success is downplayed because it invalidates their reason to exist.

So it is with feminism. They're not going to declare success and willingly disband themselves overnight. But I do believe they are becoming increasingly irrelevant...at least to women. You guys seem more aware of feminism than we women are. Maybe because you are just now personally being impacted by some of the changes put in place decades ago. Yet, I feel that things are swinging BACK in the male direction after swinging too far the other way.

And, I can only speak for myself, but I'm not unhappy with my life, exhausted, or discontent with the male/female dynamic. For me, it's better than ever. I certainly value many of the changes that feminism has brought about - such as guys washing dishes, doing laundry, contributing more directly to child care, and caring about my orgasms.

I just feel the movement has run its course, and I don't see that they are attracting much "new blood" these days. I don't have any friends who belong to NOW, and hardly any who call themselves "feminists" anymore. So, to me, your fears of a rising matriarchy are unfounded. Feminism is dying a slow, but inevitable, death.

"Feminism is dying a slow, but inevitable, death."

I'd like to quicken the pace as much as possible. I also wouldn't mind making it as painful as possible for the feminists as they follow the dinosaurs into oblivion.

"You guys seem more aware of feminism than we women are."

Yeah. Of course, in the same vein, slaves were always "more aware" of slavery than were the masters.

I think we're making progress here, LS!

"I also wouldn't mind making it as painful as possible for the feminists as they follow the dinosaurs into oblivion."

Don't expect to get that much satisfaction, Jay R. Vengeance isn't a healthy motivation. I suspect they will die off naturally - unless a certain mysogynistic backlash springs up. Then, you'll merely give them reason to reorganize and women, who would previously be disinterested in defending "women's causes," would suddenly be energized.

Just try to relax and accept that, along with the bad things, there have also been some positives. Feminists are not evil; they were aggrieved and well-intentioned women who just took some things too far. Blind passion and devotion to a cause tends to do that.

Don't play into their agenda by giving them a new reason to fight. Let it die.

"Feminists are not evil; they were aggrieved and well-intentioned women who just took some things too far. Blind passion and devotion to a cause tends to do that. Don't play into their agenda by giving them a new reason to fight. Let it die."

So we should stop the fight after men were sucker-punched and then kicked in the balls, and are just about to get off the canvas. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. How about a modern German who argues:

"Nazis weren't all evil; they were aggrieved and well-intentioned Germans who just took some things too far. Blind passion and devotion to a cause tends to do that."

Feminists who aren't evil and corrupt are sick in the head and spirit. You can't let rabid dogs just die a natural death, even though they are not "evil" and may even deserve some sympathy. Because of the continuing danger they represent, they must be exterminated. The same must be done to feminism as as social force. It must be dragged, slimy and squirming, into the sunlight, and revealed for the loathsome, family-destroying thing that it is -- so that it can be recognized and avoided in the future. That sunlight will be enough to kill it -- which is why Feminism treats the truth like Kryptonite. Anyone claiming allegiance to it must be shunned and shamed. HIStory will be reclaimed. If things are taken a bit too far as society is cleansed and heals, well, that's understandable and forgivable, right?

Goose meet gander, and he's not in a good mood. Nor should he be.

Feminism is women's greatest shame (as 50,000,000 dead babies since 1973 will testify). By their "choices" we have come to know them. So, what's a decent woman to do to try and undo the harm? How can amends be made? Or will women be content, thanks to their "liberation", to stagger into the future viewed as just as big a bunch of shitheads as are men, feared and loathed by their former helpmates? That WOULD be sad. I hope that it has not become inevitable.

IMHO, smart women should become staunch men's rights activists in a hurry.

Jay R, feminists are not the same as Nazis. Please don't be so extreme.

A lot of what you credit feminism with "doing" is really the result of women having more choices. True. But the end result of people making their OWN choices should not be held against feminism any more than blacks turning to crime, forming gangs, and having kids out of wedlock should be blamed on the civil rights movement.

You are confusing cause and effect. When we give any group of people more freedom, a certain percentage of them will make bad, destructive choices. Divorce is just one - but I can attest that divorce, in every case, is not always bad, and the truth is, that men have an equal responsibility to hold marriages together. They are not "victims" every time a marriage fails, and can't blame feminism solely for the demise of their relationships.

You continue to have this strange idea that men didn't consider women "shitheads" before feminism, but I assure you that men called women all kinds of names, and many considered women stupid and worthless long before feminism. There would've been no NEED for feminism otherwise. Men may feel feel "sucker punched", but they bear a responsibility for how women were treated that led up to this movement.

The abortion issue is another debate. I tend to lean pro-life myself, so I understand where you're coming from, but, once again, feminism didn't single-handedly create that situation. There was vast support for abortion, and still is. But let's not get into that debate on this thread.

"Men may feel feel "sucker punched", but they bear a responsibility for how women were treated that led up to this movement."

Ok, fair enough. Men have since paid a tremendous price for their "transgressions," real and imaginary. So tell me, what responsibility do women now have, and what price should they have to pay for their abuses? Or will men be expected to chivalrously keep picking up the check?

"You continue to have this strange idea that men didn't consider women "shitheads" before feminism"

LS, your view on this has been warped by your "sisters" and their unceasingly negative views of men past and present -- "herstory". You apparently have no idea what women have lost. I do, and it makes me tremendously sad. Men stood when women entered or left a room, tipped their hats, watched their language and behavior, etc. Most importantly, men saw it as their duty to protect and provide for women, laying down their lives if necessary. Hardly indications that they generally viewed women negatively. Fond paternalism is a far cry from today's blatant hostility and contempt. Women have truly earned the misogyny they face today.

Finally, feminism is not the same as National Socialism, it's true. But it's close enough to illustrate the point: Feminism prevailed because decent women, hoping for their share of the "goodies," did nothing. And the female-inflicted holocaust on our nation's unborn babies DWARFS the Nazis' handiwork, and is continuing to this day. When did women lose ANY sense of shame?

Julie would be correct if she had said, "Women are paid less than men AT the same jobs." Women can, and do, CHOOSE to make less money than men, and they can be considered privileged to have that choice, as Julie implicitly acknowledged. Is "oppression" of women any part of it? HELL, NO!

I haven't said once that my pay is the result of oppression. Many of the causes of women's lower salaries are a result of decisions made in each couple's relationship. Who stays home when the kids are sick? Do we want kids, do we want to use daycare? All of these things are the result of personal decisions. I will agree that women's salaries are not likely a form of oppression, but neither is the fact that men don't typically choose to work longer hours at riskier jobs. Men are responsible for their decisions, just like women

As an intelligent person, Julie, aren't you just livid at being lied to this way, and for so long? Even though your sex is the intended beneficiary of the lies, my hope is that you will start to ask yourself, "What ELSE have they misrepresented in order to advance their ideology?"

I view many of these women in the same way I view Jesse Jackson. Most black people that I know view him as someone who is stirring the pot for his own benefit. That is what many of these women are doing. Do I agree with them? Not most of the time. Do I speak out against their bullshit? Yes I do. However, because I do not believe what people in the media tell me as a default, I do not feel taken advantage of. I assume that most media representatives are merely spinning the truth for their own benefit.

You apparently have no idea what women have lost. I do, and it makes me tremendously sad. Men stood when women entered or left a room, tipped their hats, watched their language and behavior, etc. Most importantly, men saw it as their duty to protect and provide for women, laying down their lives if necessary. Hardly indications that they generally viewed women negatively. Fond paternalism is a far cry from today's blatant hostility and contempt. Women have truly earned the misogyny they face today.

I have heard the same justifications used to defend sharecropping: "We took care of them so they should be thankful"

I have no problem with men opening a door for me (and many do, I thank them each time) or tipping their hat. For me that isn't what the movement should be about. It is about my aunt who, despite the fact that she had a good job and could afford it, was denied loans from banks to buy a house because she was a woman. Paternalism is just another form of bigotry: You can't handle the hard stuff, so sit around and look pretty and leave the thinking and planning to us. The good things that women achieved were good for men as well. Men no longer are required to be the primary breadwinners with no hope of assistance. Men can stay at home with the kids, cook, and do many things that were socially unacceptable in years past. Women receiving personal franchise has helped men too. Men carry less of a burden now. Feminism helped you too.

When did women lose ANY sense of shame?

The question is why should women feel shame? What should I be ashamed of? I work for my keep, love my husband with a passion, care for my family and friends and do my best to make the right decisions. I mess up sometimes, but I do my best to make it right when I do. Most women (and men) that I know are doing the same thing. What is the same in living and learning and continuing to put one foot in front of the other?

Julie and Lovelysoul,

Let me once again implore you not to misinterpret my comments (or to forgive me if I have been unclear).

Julie, you had made clear that you did not ascribe to the idea that women are systematically oppressed by men in the workplace. I thought I had acknowledged that. My emphatic conclusion that no oppression exists was partially premised on your concordant comments, and was directed, not to you, but generally to the readers of the post. (I probably should have made that clear, but my posts are verbose enough as it is, fer Chrissake!)

I know that my comments often have an aggressive, and yes, sometimes even hostile, tone. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I FEEL HOSTILE TOWARD YOU!

I am grateful to both of you in particular, not angry with you at all -- even when I strongly disagree with a point you made. You do me a favor by engaging in the discussion. I get to vent my (obvious) frustration at how disastrously things have turned out for men and the American family (ironically, women's greatest treasure) under the feminist regime, and I am able to use our discussion to articulate my positions and arguments to whomever cares enough to read these comment threads. I honestly hope that folks who have never really stopped to think about these issues might benefit from our back-and-forth.

Let me respond to one of the not-so-rhetorical questions I posed earlier to Lovelysoul: "So, what's a decent woman to do to try and undo the harm?"

You both, in my opinion (along with Amy), are helping very much to undo the harm through your reasonable, good-faith engagement here. If the majority of American women focused on these issues and insisted on the truth, things would change for the better very rapidly. One of men's greatest frustrations is that feminists commandeered the language and the entire gender discussion(e.g., "Only men can be sexist"). Men have largely been shamed and/or shouted into silence, and we have had no real voice for almost 40 years, even as we have been expected to support women's causes (and mostly have done so). Here, you respectfully allow a man (now a legally inferior being) to express himself -- and tolerate (so far) a tone that is not exactly deferential. You seem willing to explore the possibility that there is another side to the coin the feminists have been using to mesmerize society, which is positively exhilarating!

So, thanks again.

Final thought: You each have suggested that I blame feminism for things not caused by feminism. Maybe so; we'd have to take it case-by-case to see what factors exist. Meanwhile, I suggest that each of you are guilty of the opposite; ascribing positive developments to feminism for which it can claim no credit. Example: Feminists claim credit for achieving the legal ban of sex discrimination and unequal pay for the same work. In actuality, both of those laws were passed by male legislators years before anything which can be described today as "feminism" existed. I'd say those guys were "equists" (they banned racial discrimination at the same time), as were the women in their lives who influenced them and who they of course wished to please. Equists have continued their efforts DESPITE the subsequent, sustained opposition from the feminist (anti-male, female-supremacist) movement.

I am not a "masculinist." Nor is any sane person an "equalist." As far as I am concerned, Julie and LS, neither of you can be considered "feminists" as that term can be recognized today (as revealed by the content of your posts). You cling to the "feminist" label only because of the lack of a non-sexist, inclusive term encompassing the issues of gender relations.

Abandon "feminism" as Amy has -- it is only a noxious impediment to progress and gender peace at this point. Join us as "equists"! I'd much rather be your ally than your opponent.

I know that my comments often have an aggressive, and yes, sometimes even hostile, tone. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I FEEL HOSTILE TOWARD YOU!

I haven't thought that way. Your language exudes hostility, but I am not Gloria Steinem, and I am confident that you recognize that.

I suggest that each of you are guilty of the opposite; ascribing positive developments to feminism for which it can claim no credit.

And that may be true. I am of an age (34) where I can remember many of the problems but benefited more from the solutions. I just want it to be acknowledged that whomever made the change, many (I won't say all) of the changes have been for the good of all of us. Jay, it often sounds as if you are arguing that women where better off without personal franchise. Considering where we are having this discussion, I strongly believe that isn't your opinion.

I firmly believe that men and women are equal, but mostly in the mathematical sense. This is a very simple example.

(8+8)/2=4*2

Men and women don't bring the same things the the table, but in the end they should have the same VALUE to society. That does not mean that they are completely equal in abilities or function. Having a penis of vagina should not make a person better or worse in the eyes of the law. There are still many places where that is not the case, and those women need a voice that is allowed to speak. Men who are over burdened and fear reprisals also need a voice that refuses to be silenced. I am nothing if not a loud mouth!

I have no issue with you Jay, I enjoy sharpening my mind against someone who is educated on the issues and has no problem calling me on bullshit. At times I have noticed that we spend a great deal of time arguing about minor junk rather than the true issue at hand. That seems to be a wasted effort when we agree on the big picture.

I am your ally on many things Jay. No matter what label I give myself, that doesn't change my character nor does it change my view of things. We are fighting toward the same goal. With that in mind, the labels don't matter much.

Ok, Julie!

See you on the next thread.

Julie,

I have one question in regard to this:

Having a penis of vagina should not make a person better or worse in the eyes of the law. There are still many places where that is not the case, and those women need a voice that is allowed to speak. Men who are over burdened and fear reprisals also need a voice that refuses to be silenced. I am nothing if not a loud mouth!

While I agree that genitalia should not make it better or worse, where, in this country (U.S. - assuming we are both in the States), do women have it worse? Or did you mean globally? If you meant globally, then it's not a fair comparison. Legally speaking, women in this country have it better than anyone else in the world. There is a hierarchy to treatment in legal circles here in the U.S.:

1. White women
2. Hispanic women
3. Black women
4. White men
5. Hispanic men
6. Black men

Family Court is a whole nother ball of wax:

1. Women
2. Women
3. Women
...
1000. Men (ok, that's a little exaggerated, but you get my meaning, I hope)

One example that concerns me, and hopefully concerns everyone, is Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Since men are the recipients of violence at a far greater number than women, why did the Gender Feminist movement (NOW, etc.), push so hard for an act that only protects women? Hell, children have more violence directed at them than women (mostly by women). Yet those same Gender Feminists (I consider you, LS, Amy, and many others to be Egalitarian Feminists - Jay R, feel free to rip my names apart :) ), don't seem to care.

I do disagree with one thing LS said about "Feminism is dying a slow, but inevitable, death". When someone has gained the power and priviledge that they have, they will not quietly or easily let it go and disappear. We will have to fight them tooth and nail to get rid of them. I doubt they will ever completely go away, so we will be fighting with them from this point forward.

I really didn't understand just how bad it was until I got involved in advocacy for those falsely accused of rape. Crid seems to think it makes me wierd/odd, but I feel strongly that those falsely accused of rape need a voice. I got involved because I would like to make a difference. That is my contribution to the fight against Gender Feminism.

This is what really told me what modern feminism was all about:

I made a post on feministing in a thread on how false accusations are rare, and got:

1. screamed and yelled at for being a rape apologist.
2. banned from ever posting there (I used a different name - wolfboy69 - used to use it here and several other sites as well)
3. called some pretty vile names.

That told me everything I needed to know about the modern feminist movement. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about false rape accusations, I just want you to see why I don't like it. The modern feminist movement is a hate movement..... it's just that their target is men, and they dress better than the KKK.

Whoa,

Don't know what happened to the link I inserted, but it was over to my website. Just click on my name to get there.

While I agree that genitalia should not make it better or worse, where, in this country (U.S. - assuming we are both in the States), do women have it worse? Or did you mean globally?

I did mean it globally. I firmly believe that institutionalized bigotry is gone in this country, at least relating to sex and race. Handicap, that is a whole other ball of wax...but anywho, I agree that women have it better here than in any other country in the world. However, women in other countries have much less of a voice and fewer opportunities because of the fact that they are women.

I'm not comparing men's plight to women's plight, only saying that both men and women have it rough in different aspects, and each of those aspects deserve a voice.

-Julie

P.S. I don't think that you are a rape apologist. :-)

E Steven, you have to be careful judging a whole group by those kinds of forums. I could go to a vegan forum and proclaim my love for beef, and they might call me names and ban me. Doesn't mean all vegans are hostile, or that those people speak for the majority of vegans.

You're going to get the extremist fringe on a site like "feministing." I've never been to it, but I can imagine. So, don't judge all feminists, or women, by the type who go to that sort of site. They don't speak for Julie and me, and probably don't even speak for the feminist base. As we've seen here, anonymity and easy access to the internet tends to bring out the crazies within every idealogy.

LS, they only problem is, they are speaking for you. You may not be agreeing with them, but they are the same people who are in charge at NOW, who have the media and governments ear, and are loudly proclaiming that they speak on behalf of women. And people are listening. It's not just on the internet that these people exist. They are directly involved with policy and law. VAWA and IMBRA....direct results of lobbying on the part of NOW and other "feminist" organizations. And each of those at their heart are directed and criminalizing being male. So, as long as they are the ones driving the public discourse, and claiming that they speak on behalf of women, guess what? That is what the majority of people are subject to/aware of.

This is the point that Jay R was trying to make (I think). You may not identify yourself as "that type" of feminist, but when you use the term feminist, it is what the majority of people in this country think. That is going to take a concerted effort on the part of Egalitarian Feminists like you, Julie, Amy and many others to get a voice (loud like Julie :) ) to start telling the Gender Feminists (NOW, etc.) to STFU, and that they DON'T speak for all women.

Not to harp on this, but publick perception is that they do speak for ALL women (At least in the U.S.). Men have been arguing and fighting against this for a while, but all we get is a dismissive attitude, or called women haters. The only problem is, we are the wrong people to lead the fight. Egalitarian Feminists will need to take a much more active role. But be prepared when you do, for the Gender Feminists will not hold back in attacking you with every tool at their disposal.

If both groups, male and female would come together, I think good things could be accomplished. Unfortunately, most people in this country have buried their heads in the sand, and won't get involved until it directly affects them. That is going to be tough to overcome.

Amy,

Exactly right. God forbid you are a woman and don't ascribe to their way of thinking. Make it public that you don't, and watch the backlash. These Gender Feminists are some of the most hypocritical, self-righteous, angry people I've ever had the displeasure to meet.

I fully get why a lot of men are angry, and I appreciate it. What I don't think the GenFem's get, is that when men start getting angry, it can get ugly and violent very quickly. It may take a while to get there, but when we do, best to be careful. When you see more and more stories of how violent women are being as well, it's a recipe for disaster. Regardless if Gender Feminism dies a slow painful death, or a quick painful death (either way it will be painful), they will go down kicking and scratching and clawing the whole way. And I intend to be involved in the fight.

E. Steven, that's what really seems unnecessary. As a woman who's lived through an abusive relationship, that sort of language sets my nerves on end. You are clearly making threats of violence. And, as aggrieved as you and other men may be, that isn't appropriate given the circumstances.

Things may be unbalanced in certain areas, so we all must do our part to address that. Amy has a public forum, so she can call attention to the inequities. I volunteer in the court system, so I can be vigilant and look for biases there. I'm sure Julie does her part to stand up for fairness too.

But threatening violence, or fashioning some sort of gender Armageddon just seems way out of bounds. It makes you seem more like a terrorist than a rational person. I cannot see where anything that feminism has done calls for that sort of response.

We're talking about philosophical and idealogical differences that can be addressed peacefully. When you and Jay R talk about taking vengeance, and having things turn "ugly and violent", you lose me.

"When you and Jay R talk about taking vengeance, and having things turn "ugly and violent", you lose me."

LS, you disappoint and insult me! When did I ever threaten to "take vengeance"? (Also, am I one of the "crazies" to whom you made reference? If so, please give me an example of something I posted which would back that up.)

Predicting generally that violence may occur is hardly the same as "threatening" violence. Saying that you intend to be involved in the "fight" to defeat feminism in no way threatens violence against any person.

I think you are blurring this obvious distinction on purpose -- just to demonize a man into silence?

I'm not trying to demonize you, Jay R, but you have made similar comments in other threads...along the lines of "payback will be hell," or "I can't wait to see the feminists suffer" (I'm paraphrasing, of course).

The idea that these idealogical differences must inevitably lead to violence seems completely off-balance. This is America. Irrespective of the Civil War, we address inequities through law, not violence.

I just don't understand why you are predicting violence, much less why you would want to take part in violence...or at least sound kind of satisfied by its coming.

This reminds me of the organized pro-life movement, which I got tangled up in for awhile. The extremists of that group want to kill doctors, and even women and babies in clinics who get caught in the way, and somehow they make it sound justifiable as a "war" that must be fought to "save" lives.

At a certain point, a rational person pulls away from that kind of extremism. Not only is it a completely hypocritical tactic, given their pro-life philosophy, it's downright scary and not the way to address the problem.

Unfortunately, I sense the same contradiction in your and E Steven's comments. Allowing this to turn into violence against women is precisely the antithesis of the sort of chivalry you claim men are all about. That would defeat the entire purpose and merely PROVE the mysogyny feminists suspect you harbor.

Are you going to stand by while feminists are killed? Do you honestly believe that any dispute you have with them justifies violence?

You ask what we women are doing. Well, I think you need to stand up to those men who talk as if violence is inevitable or justified and promote peaceful action instead.

Irrespective of the Civil War, we address inequities through law, not violence.

I'm sure the founding fathers would disagree.

LS, I didn't threaten violence, or advocate it's use. I just see it coming, and understand that men, when pushed far enough, will push back.

Allowing this to turn into violence against women is precisely the antithesis of the sort of chivalry you claim men are all about.

There is part of the mistake in your thinking. I've never claimed men are chivalrous, and I'm not chivalrous towards anyone other than my loved ones. Feminism doesn't offer that kind of respect, so there is no way they are getting it from me. That's the funny thing about the equality that Gender Feminism has fought so hard for. They still want chivalry from men, but don't want to respond in kind. Those people, pardon my french, can kiss my ass. I treat everyone the same, man or woman. Funny, that the people who have the most problem with it are women.

E Steven, you're right. I was addressing Jay R. He has claimed men act mainly out of chivalry towards women. And, although I think many men fall short of that, it is still a worthy goal. Certainly, it's not being a true man or a gentleman to resort to violence towards a woman.

I do not see where feminists are employing violence against men. They are lobbying for changes in law, which you and I may disagree with, but that is a far cry from using violence. So, a violent response would be very unequal and uncalled for.

Frankly, the pro-lifers have a better justification for using violence because at least they feel they are fighting murder with murder. I disagree that's the way to do it, especially since innocent people may be harmed, but at least their cause - protecting the unborn - is substantial enough to possibly warrant the use of violence. The response (murder) is arguably equal to the crime (murder).

But groups of men pissed off about their child support payments, asset dispersal, a few false rape allegations, and unfair laws on the books just don't have any moral ground to stand on. The use of violence is completely disproportionate to the crimes involved.

Men need to fight feminists using LAW, not violence. Lobby for change. But any violence used is only going to confirm everything negative the feminists are saying about men.

Think about it: You can't claim NOT to be rapists, or DV offenders, then go out and harm women in protest.

The use of violence is completely disproportionate to the crimes involved.

LS, I didn't threaten violence, or advocate it's use. I just see it coming, and understand that men, when pushed far enough, will push back.

E. Steven appears to be saying that he predicts violence, not advocates its use in this current situation.

LS, you appear to be saying that violence should be the last resort when attempts through the legal system have proven completely unfruitful and that violent attacks on the part of men in response to unfair treatment will just provide fodder for the man-haters.

Do I have it about right? Y'all really aren't that far away from each other.

-Julie

Basically, Julie, except I don't really think violence is ever the answer, even when legal measures have been exhausted.

I mean, I hate environmental groups now. I didn't years ago, but they have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending my property rights. They don't care about my rights - they figure however long they can keep me entangled in battle is a victory to them. Their tactics are abhorent.

And I'll admit that there have been times when I wanted to kill some of them...when I've been that angry over the injustice of it all that I could've literally resorted to violence.

But life's not fair, and we all have to realize that almost everyone bears some crosses and suffers some injustice - either over gender or property or love or whatever.

I found the best way is to concentrate on what's still good in your life, and forgive the fallibility of other people.

Someone sent me this quote today:

"Forgiveness is the economy of the heart... Forgiveness saves the expense of anger,the cost of hatred, the waste of spirits."

You can't turn away from injustice. You still need to address it as best you can, but you also can't let it turn you into someone who would physically harm someone else...or stand by and let it happen.

And what bothers me is that I'm not hearing that much repudiation of the violence that they predict is coming. I would hope, even as much as they hate feminists, that they would speak out against it.

And what bothers me is that I'm not hearing that much repudiation of the violence that they predict is coming. I would hope, even as much as they hate feminists, that they would speak out against it.

What I am bothered about is the idea "I'm bigger, so I will force you to share my opinions." If violence occurred in this battle, that is what it would be about. I'm not saying that the men here would degrade themselves by doing this but we should be past the idea (as a society) that kicking the crap out of someone makes you right.

I am a HUGE proponent of property rights. If it is my land, I should be able to do with it what I want. period. No discussion. If it is legal and all people participating consent, then nothing else should matter.

I mean, I hate environmental groups now. I didn't years ago, but they have cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defending my property rights. They don't care about my rights - they figure however long they can keep me entangled in battle is a victory to them. Their tactics are abhorent.

This is how I feel about the Pro-Life movement now. It is no longer about stopping abortions, it is about stopping anything that could keep a woman in charge of her own fertility. Misinformation is rampant and women once again have to worry about whether they will be allowed to make intelligent decisions about when/if they can have children. I sure am glad that I got my tubes tied at 24, but that doesn't alleviate the battle.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/ConscienceClauses.htm

Julie and E. Steven, thanks for trying to inject some perspective on this.

Now, LS, "Are you going to stand by while feminists are killed? Do you honestly believe that any dispute you have with them justifies violence?" cannot go by without comment:

Get a grip! Let me try one more time with an analogy--

A friend (say E. Steven or myself) sees a woman taunting and abusing her guard/hunting dog, and knows this has been occurring for most of the dog's life -- since it was barely out of puppyhood. The friend says, "You know, I hear your dog growling. It's basically a good dog, but if you keep treating it that way, it is liable to eventually lose its head and bite you, and it would be foolish to take that possibility lightly! Why don't you try positive reinforcement instead, so the dog will be happier and you'll end up being safer?" The woman (who shares LS's attitude) then tells her friend, "You bastard! My dog's great-granddaddy bit my grandmother and wouldn't come when it was called, so my dog deserves the treatment it gets. You are trying to encourage my dog to bite me, and you obviously are in favor of dogs attacking their owners!

That line of reasoning doesn't stand up, now does it? You can't believe the friend was making threats or advocating violence, can you? Isn't the friend trying just to give a fair warning so as to PREVENT harm to her that heeds the warning?

Your loaded, inflammatory questions indicate either true hysteria on your part (in which case you really do need to examine your anti-male issues, with all due sympathy for the abuse in your past), or, a cynical yet transparent ploy to see if you can get me to "sign on" to an extremist position, so as later to be able to bludgeon me as that scary man who wants to kill women. Well, I won't rise to the bait. (Although I will say that I feel karmic satisfaction when bad things happen to bad people. I also was quite happy to hear recently that Marilyn French had died, and so her influential legacy of man-hatred was finally complete. I look forward to the happiness the next harpy's demise will bring me!)

"I do not see where feminists are employing violence against men."

Well, LS, as a woman, totally transfixed with the female perspective, that's because you neither see, hear, nor acknowledge evil against men. You may simply be incapable of it. But try telling men that feminism doesn't use violence against them, as, thanks to feminist laws, they are roughly taken from their home, arrested and jailed because the woman was "fearful," or arrested at work and jailed when he's technically behind on his support because the state, enforcing the feminists' laws, says all the checks given directly to the woman were "gifts" which don't count. Try telling that to men who are beaten and assaulted by women who have little to fear -- the bleeding man, as the "dominant aggressor" (thanks to more feminist law) is much more likely to be arrested and jailed if he is stupid enough to call 911, or, heaven forbid, try to defend himself.

If anything is scary around here, it is your apparent lack of empathy and perspective when it comes to men and our issues (which are women's issues in the end, of course). You want men to accept that women have "won," and that now they should just settle down and accept the new order gracefully -- like chivalrous gentlemen.

I will leave you with this (since you feel so free to characterize my posts):

You claim that women had legitimate grievances, that their frustration and anger was therefore valid and needed to be expressed if anything was to get done, that the final results of their anger were both positive and negative, but that overall, women's unfettered freedom to act on their anger has benefited us all. Fair?

Now, why is it so hard to accept that due to decades of injustice resulting from feminism's excesses, "men have legitimate grievances, that their frustration and anger is therefore valid and needs to be expressed if anything is to get done, that the final results of their anger will likely be both positive and negative, but that overall, men's unfettered freedom to act on their anger will benefit us all."

If you can't accept the converse, then what does that say about your supposedly egalitarian gender philosophy and your view of men in general? Why isn't what was good for the goose now, in turn, good for the gander?

From your staunch defense of the past work of feminists, I should think you would be looking FORWARD to men's coming "liberation."

Holy crap Jay R. You get wound up like few people I have ever seen. Are you a Texan?

I don't see LS justifying violence against men. She said repeatedly that she doesn't think violence is EVER justified.

Can you really read the following two quotes and think that LS is wanting all men to become her bitch?

But life's not fair, and we all have to realize that almost everyone bears some crosses and suffers some injustice - either over gender or property or love or whatever.

You can't turn away from injustice. You still need to address it as best you can, but you also can't let it turn you into someone who would physically harm someone else...or stand by and let it happen.

The message that I am getting from her posts is: Don't let injustice turn you into a tool for your enemies.

Am I off base?

Thanks, Julie. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Jay R, men are not dogs. That's kind of a weird analogy - one feminists would probably love. A dog reacts purely on instinct, not reason. If you're going to rile a dog up, then everyone knows the dog has no self-control and will likely bite, but I think even feminists give men more credit for restraint than a dog.

This is a political and idealogical fight, same as what the environmentalists do to me. I may FEEL physically suckerpunched because of laws they have managed to put through that effect my life, threaten my livelihood, and may indeed get me arrested, but I understand that there is a difference from a physical punch and a LAW. I trust you understand that too. You're just being your typically obstinant self. :)

Political battles swing back and forth. Right now, I've accepted that I am on the losing side of public sentiment when it comes to environmental issues. The average citizen isn't bright enough to fully comprehend property rights and the consequences of the laws they support. They vote for sound bites (property owner = bad/environment = good) So, I do what I can to protect myself, and I vote for change, but I realize I'm probably going to lose most political battles right now, so I gracefully wait for the tide to turn.

I also have the perspective and decency to acknowledge that for many years the laws were on the OTHER extreme, allowing people and corporations to rape the land without conscience, and so this process is a rather normal correction...which has unfortunately become an overcorrection.

That's the way I look at the gender issue too. Yes, I can accept the converse, and I imagine the converse is inevitable. Once enough people are negatively effected by biased laws, when it comes to their own personal lives - effecting their husbands, sons, and brothers - the tide will turn back in the male direction.

And, as these things go, MRAs, like feminists, will likely then try to take revenge for their personal grievances and over correct...over punish their adversaries...and then the tide will turn back again.

You have to at least have the grace and decency to acknowledge that laws were in the male favor for HUNDREDS of years before now. So, as personally insulting as you find this modern turn of events, and the bias going in the other direction for a few decades, you must keep it in proper context.

And that context in no way justifies using violence, condoning violence, or applauding violence. As much as it may pain you, you need to speak out against that when you hear other men making threats like that.

Feminists, like environmentalists, are people with families. They are generally well-intentioned but just make awful mistakes because of their blind devotion to an idealogy.

Gee, some around here seem determined to find a "crazy" to throw stones at, even if they have to invent one:

"Holy crap Jay R. You get wound up like few people I have ever seen. Are you a Texan?"

No, Julie, but I'm willing to learn! Thanks for the compliment! ;) (Oh. Is "wound up" a BAD thing?! Vroom, Vrooooom!!)

"I don't see LS justifying violence against men."

Julie, it's easy to counter arguments that were never made. I never said she was justifying it, only that she is blind to it: LS said, "I do not see where feminists are employing violence against men." I then gave her several concrete examples. Of course, ignoring something staring you in the face could be viewed as tolerance, if not "justification."

"Can you really read the following two quotes and think that LS is wanting all men to become her bitch?"

Julie, WTF? Again, I never said, nor implied, that LS wants all men to become her bitch, now did I? Why did you erect this strawman? I said that LS is apparently incapable of empathizing with the male perspective.

LS said, "you need to speak out against that when you hear other men making threats like that."

The thing is, LS, NO ONE HERE HAS MADE ANY THREATS AT ALL, as has been explained to you ad nauseum! I can't even think of one example on this blog, or any serious MRA site, where a man has urged violence against feminists, as opposed to merely pointing out that they act in a manner calculated to provoke anger and outrage, which can lead to violence.

On the other hand, you must admit that violence against men has been expressly urged by influential feminists (extremists who have NOT been shouted down and shamed into silence, much less forced to apologize, by their more "moderate" sisters. Valerie Solanas, anyone? Those who ask if men are necessary and urge the culling of the male population?). BTW, LS, I haven't noticed YOU taking a laboring oar to protest unfair feminist laws and the wholesale denigration and injustice faced by men today. Or is it just up to the men to moderate the behavior of their fellows?

"Men are not dogs." Yes, LS, I understand. Apparently you do not understand "analogy." I guess Aesop's Fables are lost on you. (So a puppy lost a bone in the water because he thought he saw a bigger bone. Puppies aren't people! That's silly! What's the point?) Or is it that you are simply determined to remain obtuse when one of your positions is questioned?

"You have to at least have the grace and decency to acknowledge that laws were in the male favor for HUNDREDS of years before now."

Like HELL I do, LS! That is a purely sexist, ideologically-driven statement. If you had grace and decency, rather than indoctrination, you would admit that the laws worked in favor of the bulk of the society -- both male and female -- in light of the CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME! Your great-grandmother, hearing you describe her as "oppressed" by the laws and customs that served to protect women, children and families, and which put responsibilities on men's shoulders, would think you an ignorant fool who didn't have a CLUE about her life or the society in which she lived. (Example: Both men and women generally favored employment practices that paid men a "family wage" and expected married women to quit, or single women to make less, because the welfare of most women and families depended on a husband's, or father's earnings. Given that there are never an unlimited number of jobs, having both members of a married couple working would combine two livelihoods in one house, and thereby deprive another man, and his WIFE and family, of the benefit of that job and livelihood. This may not fit with our modern circumstances, but it fit very well to look out after MOST of the society's members at the time. Both men and women in that era would have agreed that this practice was reasonable, and that there was nothing unfair about it. Why can't you understand this?)

But, I won't continue to waste my breath on trying to "deprogram" you. You have been raised thoroughly steeped in the "deconstructed," recently-concocted tenets of "herstory," and you just can't feel quite as good about being a woman without your feminist-provided "I'm part of the noble victimhood" security blanket. Nor can you continue to trivialize men's current plight.

What to do with a man who knows when he's being lied to, and who can't shamed into obsequious silence?

"Men are not dogs."

Well, Amy, that's not what I've heard! ;)

I've always been amused by those women who make the "all men are dogs" snipes. After all, if all men are dogs, then by logical inference, all women are bitches, right?

Thus the danger of throwing stones in a glass house ... .

"I do not see where feminists are employing violence against men."

JayR acutally covered this pretty well. It's commonly referred to as "Violence by Proxy".

Let me give a couple of examples:

1. Duke

The "Duke 88", were all clamoring for those young men to be strung up, castrated, beaten, raped (gotta love the irony), etc. And I can't recall hearing a single 'feminist', call them on the violence they were advocating.

Oh, and what did Crystal Mangum get out of it all? College paid for and a book deal.

2. Mary Winkler

She was handed a new house and car for her 'ordeal'. Not a single 'feminist' spoke out against it. Hell, Oprah had her on and touted her as the "victim". Sorry, my understanding of murder is that the dead person is the victim.

The fact is, feminism is supporting and contributing to violent acts against men. And like it or not, those are the mainstream feminists. They are the ones that the majority of people in this country identify with feminism. When you call yourself a feminist, that is what the majority will think.

Feminism, just by the root of the word (Feminine), is not about equality...it never has been. It is for and about women and privilege. LS I would consider you, and Julie and Amy humanists, not feminists. You don't hate enough to be a feminist.

You have to at least have the grace and decency to acknowledge that laws were in the male favor for HUNDREDS of years before now.

What you fail to acknowledge, is that the MAJORITY of men didn't get that favor either. Only the rich and powerful did. At no point in time, did every man, in this country, enjoy the ability to point to a woman and say, she abused/raped me, and automatically be believed, and get her arrested and jailed, like women today can and do to men. NEVER.

What you don't understand, or aren't willing to accept, is that when your enemy fights by no rulebook, you can't limit yourself. You don't have to use all the weapons at your disposal, but you have to be ready to use them if you must.

I have tried, for quite a while to take the high road. And I've been called a rape apologist, and been threatened with violence (and you are getting my full name here, so it isn't that hard to find me) for doing so. But I consider it a worthwhile thing.

So please, don't try to tell me that I HAVE to try the road of peace, when feminism isn't willing to do the same.

I am prepared, if necessary, to be violent. I hope I never have to be, but I am willing to stand up and get just as bloody and nasty as I have to, to keep me and my loved ones safe. And believe it, the military taught me some truly nasty things to do to people.

I guess what it boils down to LS, is that sometimes, violence is necessary. I would bet that 99.99% of the people who make up the FRA/MRM movement, would love to be able to sit back, enjoy a cold beer, and work things out in an amicable way. But modern feminism is hell bent on punishing every man in this, and many other countries, for things that happened in the past that those men had nothing to do with. And the idiots in power, knowing that the majority of voters are women, are helping them do it. I will do everything in my power to resist that.

"What you fail to acknowledge, is that the MAJORITY of men didn't get that favor either. Only the rich and powerful did."

So what? The rich and powerful owned the bulk of property too, but that doesn't change the fact that the laws favored property rights, which was my point. I think it's a lame argument to say laws favored men but most men didn't get to ENJOY them. Please. What kind of argument is that?

Mary Winkler was aquitted by a MULTIGENDERED JURY. This point keeps getting lost, as if you think feminists aquitted her. MEN AND WOMEN together voted to acquit her. A MALE judge approved her acquittal. You may disagree with the verdict, which is your right, but this is still America, and that's the way our legal system works. And when you're aquitted, you can go on Oprah and cry. There's no feminist conspiracy in that.

The Duke case was mainly about a MALE prosecutor who wanted the limelight and seized an opportunity. The fact that feminists - along wth most of the country - initially assumed he must have a case, and therefore those boys should be brought to justice, doesn't make for a feminist conspiracy either.

I love how you guys excuse all the MALES in these scenarios! It's only the evil of women feminists involved. Let's just ignore and excuse any decisions that were made by men. Let's ignore the male prosecutors, male judges, and all the males on juries. They know not what they do. Obviously, they have the freedom to think for themselves, but they don't get to ENJOY it...which must be feminism's fault.

At any rate, even if those cases involved nothing but feminists, they are not evidence of physical violence being used against men. They are cases of law. Are you really so confused that you don't know the difference?

And my great grandmother wouldn't have said any of that, Jay R. It's ridiculous to keep trying to have any sort of reasonable discussion when you persist in this absurd idea that women had it so wonderful in the past, with "chivalrous" men and the cushy benefits of staying at home and dying in childbirth.

All the laws were in the male favor, but that's ok, because none of the men were ENJOYING that fact.

I enjoy debating with people who are intellectually honest, and I've tried repeatedly to give you guys the space and respect to be that...but you consistently refuse.

You refuse to acknowledge the difference between a physical act of violence and a LAW or VERDICT. And you use this denial to promote the idea that women are therefore deserving of acts of direct physical violence that will be "coming" their way.

I cannot have a reasonable debate with people who are this removed from reality...who twist even the most basic facts...deny most of history...and who cannot even be honorable enough to acknowledge any responsibility of their own side to act in a peaceful manner.

"people who are this removed from reality...who twist even the most basic facts...deny most of history...and who cannot even be honorable enough to acknowledge any responsibility of their own side to act in a peaceful manner."

Great description of feminists, LS. Mind if I use it?

"Holy crap Jay R. You get wound up like few people I have ever seen. Are you a Texan?"

No, Julie, but I'm willing to learn! Thanks for the compliment! ;) (Oh. Is "wound up" a BAD thing?! Vroom, Vrooooom!!)

I was actually thinking of my husband when I said it. He can get wound up almost as badly as Rick Flair. From what I have seen living in Texas, it seems to be a Texan trait. Not good or bad, just interesting.

"Can you really read the following two quotes and think that LS is wanting all men to become her bitch?"

Julie, WTF? Again, I never said, nor implied, that LS wants all men to become her bitch, now did I? Why did you erect this strawman? I said that LS is apparently incapable of empathizing with the male perspective.

That was my liberal interpretation. You appear to think that LS is happy with the idea of organized and legislated discrimination. My only point was that I don't get that from her posts.

Your great-grandmother, hearing you describe her as "oppressed" by the laws and customs that served to protect women, children and families, and which put responsibilities on men's shoulders, would think you an ignorant fool who didn't have a CLUE about her life or the society in which she lived.

See, this is where we part ways, and I suspect that we always will. You cannot speak of anyone's feelings but your own. You think that women had it just fine 'back in the good old days'. I see people who were restricted at every corner. I see people unable to get the good paying jobs, not allowed to study certain things in school. Not allowed to voice an opinion different from their husbands. Some households were better than that, but it was up to the men to decide what type of house they wanted. Women I've spoken directly with of my grandparents generation were unable to purchase houses because they were women, even though they were college educated and were self supporting. That is denial of personal franchise. That is discrimination. I can never see that as good when half of society has no hope of making decisions on their own.

You think that I am looking at the past through shit colored glasses, but I have spoken to family directly who fought these types of problems. I've also had to fight to be allowed to do stupid crap like take shop classes in high school. I don't understand how you can think that people having no ability to make decisions for themselves and pay the consequences (good or bad) is ever a good thing.

"You think that women had it just fine 'back in the good old days'."

No, Julie, I don't. What I'm saying is that, whatever the conditions of the time, men had it as bad or worse than women, and neither men nor women would conclude that they were being "oppressed" by the other gender, or by society in general.

You have no perspective. Remember that the law, and society in general, took seriously the "and the two shall become one" language of the (now meaningless) marriage vows. Looking back, you see oppression -- measured against current standards. The people of the day, based on THEIR perspective and circumstances, would completely disagree with you.

And the only point of looking back at the supposed historical "oppression" of women is to justify or minimize concern about current injustice against men, right?

Jay R, I can only assume that you come from a very genteel family, and perhaps your grandmother and other female relatives were, indeed, well-treated by chivalrous men, which is what gives you this nostalgic view of the old days.

But Julie and I are both telling you that we have many female relatives who felt oppressed and often abused by men. My grandmother was spoken to like she was a dog most of the time - ordered around "Get this, woman...get that! Shut up!"

My 90 yr old MIL had 7 children, and let me tell you, her husband did not have it as rough as she. In fact, he came home every afternoon after working a sales job, and she gave him an HOUR LONG back rub, fed him a complete, home-cooked dinner, cleaned up all the dishes, bathed and fed 7 kids, and finally collapsed in bed long after he was snoring. When he decided to buy a hotel, she also added desk clerk, maid, and bookkeeper to her duties.

Did these women stay married? Of course. But my MIL confessed to me that she had such a hard marriage that it was relief when he passed away. She didn't even keep photos of him around after he died - the father of her children. She had few fond memories her married life because she was basically his servant and was afraid of him (he beat the children).

Yet, there are still women who choose these traditional relationships, and may be happy in them. I know women, particularly christians, who are subservient to their husbands because they believe it's "biblical".

But the good thing is that now it is a CHOICE. If a woman wants to live like that, she still can.

However, I would think you might notice that if it was really such a satisfying existence for women, as you contend, we'd all be doing it! Heck, we'd practically be running each other over to move to that religious compound in TX, where we could churn butter, bake bread, have babies, and serve our husbands.

Many of those women do seem to like that life, and I'm not knocking their choice. But it wouldn't be mine. Nor a lot of other women's.

So, you are awfully presumptious to assume that all women were happy being subservient to men in the old days, or that they actually appreciated having their choices and opportunites dictated by men.

Especially when Julie and I can site many examples within our own families, it's amazingly narrow-minded of you to keep insisting that women "didn't feel oppressed". That may be your outside view as a man, formed from your own background, but we are women - and women talk more candidly to each other - so it would be nice if you could at least listen to us and consider the possibility that your view of the old days is more idealistic than true.

"I do think that it is a little ridiculous to compare taking a couple of years to raise a kid and work "part time" should be compared to taking time off to travel or raise beets."

Um . . . yeah, it IS a little ridiculous to compare diapering babies for a couple of years to traveling around the world, learning about different cultures. Doing the latter, you might actually learn stuff (e.g., languages, wine, food, culture) that could be useful in your business career. No question, all my traveling has taught me stuff that comes in handy when hobnobbing with clients.

Sorry to post twice. This topic hits home. When I was a young associate working for a law firm, I got stuck picking up the slack for a Mommy on a regular basis. I ended up working close to twice the hours that she did more often than not. The partner would let her go at 5 pm every day, then dump her cases on my desk and tell me to forget about my dinner date and the theater tickets I'd had for months. Grrrrr. Happened constantly. Constantly. I'm a woman, by the way. But as a single woman, my personal life clearly -- indeed explicitly -- wasn't considered to have any value at all.

I understand why Mommy wants to spend time with her kids. That's fine. But it was bad enough that she got paid exactly what I did for working half the hours. Why on earth should she be considered for partnership on an equal basis with me?

By the way, I got stuck with a lot of Daddy's work as well. Single people often get screwed big time in the corporate world.

Guys, fact is, almost everyone was held down in some form, in the past. Women had it bad in some areas, men in others, and there are areas that they overlap. I could care less if one group had it worse over another.

I'm focused on today and the future. In today's society, it is all but illegal to be a man. And Feminism is at the root cause of it. Feminism is no longer about equality, it is about privilege. If not, they would have pushed for VAPA (Violence against People Act). They would demand that false rape accusers are punished harshly, just as rapists should be, instead of denying that they are a problem in any way. They would admit that women are just as abusive as men, and demand that all abusers be held accountable. They would demand that Family Courts be public, and that 50/50 shared parenting, unless there is a valid reason not to, should be the standard, not the exception. The list could go on and on.

Currently, the biggest thing that feminism is clamoring for? To make any crime against a woman, a hate crime. Why only women? All crimes are hate crimes. They sure as hell aren't committed out of love.

Okay, I'm going to throw my little anecdote out there now:

My grandfather, at the age of 9, had to drop out of school when his dad died, to go to work to support his family (This was during the great depression). There were 8 kids, he was the oldest boy, with 3 older sisters. He did mining, field work, and logging to help his family survive. He lost an eye in a logging accident. During WWII, he joined the army. After he got out, he got married, but his first marriage ended when his wife killed their son and herself. He remarried, my mother and my aunt resulted from that marriage. He worked a farm for most of the rest of his life, where he lost several fingers, and most of one foot.

My grandmother? didn't cook, clean or look after her kids, my grandfather was forced to do most of that, on top of the farm work. When my mom was 7, my grandmother handed her a family cookbook (god knows why she had it, as she never used it) and told her it was now her job to make the meals.

The point to all of this? Crappy lives aren't and weren't confined to women. So, no LS, men weren't exactly privileged. They worked in atrocious conditions, risking their lives every day, so they could provide for their families.

Did the majority of women have it bad? You bet. But so did the majority of men.

Gail,

You are right on that. I'm married, but my wife and I have no kids. I work for a law firm (I'm IT, not a lawyer), but there are 4 of my IT co-workers who have kids. Any time there is a project that demands the late night or overnight work, those with no kids (regardless if they are married or single) are expected to make the sacrifice. However, 1 of those, who's daughter is about to turn 1, makes it a point to be there with us. It's too bad he is in the minority.

We got a little side tracked, as usually happens, but this woman is finally realizing what most people who are thinking adults already know.

You can't have it all.

Steven E, it seems like some sort of ready-made response they must teach you guys on male-rights websites to deny the past oppression of women by saying, "Hey, we all had it bad!" That's a very smooth, equalizing tactic that's obviously meant to blur the disparities of law and opportunities that women were specifically denied.

Both genders had crappy lives. They still do. The main difference now is that, theoretically, we can be anything we want to be. I could ditch my current life and go try to be an astronaut. Not very likely, as I have kids and a business and many other things to consider, and people, like your grandfather, have always made these sorts of practical decisions over pursuing grander dreams. We work on farms, or in factories, to make ends meet, support our families, rather than pursue a real and meaningful change in our life circumstances.

Most of us, both males and females, totally waste the possibility to do anything particularly great with our lives. But, as small a distinction as it may be, the theoretical POSSIBILITY is the essence of freedom. Just knowing I have that possibility makes life a little less oppressive, even when it is, from a practical sense.

I don't even want to be an astronaut, but if you told me that I COULDN'T be one, just because I'm female, I would experience my existence in a much more narrow and confined way. It's the difference between seeing a vast landscape beyond your surroundings or being forced to only stare at 4 walls. I may never choose to wander over the next hill, much less climb the mountains in the distance, but knowing they're there as an option to explore is what separates those who are free from those who are imprisoned or oppressed.

In this country, founded on equalitarian principles, men, at birth, had that expanse laid out before them, whether or not they chose to take it, or got bogged down by practical considerations or crappy life circumstances. Theoretically, men were only limited by their intellectual abilities, imagination, or ambition to do something great with their lives...to dream a bigger dream...and very many of them did, in fact, rise above enormous barriers and poverty to become extremely successful.

But women, at birth, were explicitly prohibited from a host of possibilities and pathways to success purely by gender, and that narrowed our world before we even had a chance to dream anything at all.

It's still that way for women globally. Men and women both have crappy lives, but in many cultures, women are still denied even the PATH to a life change - denied the option of education and self-determination. No one can guarantee where the path leads - to success or failure - but that's not important. All freedom is about is having the chance to try. That's all governments can do - strive to provide their citizens an equal chance to pursue better lives, regardless of race or gender.

Women in this country certainly have that now, but we didn't have it in the past. It's just a fact that shouldn't even require argument, and I find it a very unethical and dishonest to try to gloss over the truth with equalizing tactics. I would no more go speak to a black group, and say, "Hey, you know, we all had it bad back then! Let's just forget about how we denied you equal access to opportunity and justice under the law...that doesn't really matter because we whites had it really tough too!". I would be ashamed to make that kind of argument.

If you don't acknowledge how unequal things were for so long, then you have no perspective on what's occurring today. And I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry about the bias you are experiencing, but I think it tempers the anger somewhat to remember that for generations laws were in your group's favor, at the exclusion of others, and many people suffered because of that too.

Keep your head in the sand, LS. You'll feel MUCH better if you don't see what's coming, and why.

Later, we'll look back at a moment when a "good woman" could have done something, but chose not to.

If you shame them sufficiently, men won't be angry anymore, and will just let it go? Ok ....

No, Jay R, I think men will always find some reason to be angry. You are biologically programmed for anger. That doesn't make you justified.

I know you think, after a few decades of experiencing the sort of bias other groups have experienced for centuries, you are now entitled to fight some sort of weird revolution - maybe even harming or killing women over it.

Even though groups that have experienced far worse discrimination, such as blacks, have chosen peaceful protest and lawful action to address their considerably more justified grievances, you and your like are actually rattling sabres and implying violence will come.

As a good woman, I know I am doing all I can here, in this forum, to tell you that you're off-balance and out of whack. I am doing all I can to advocate peaceful, lawful action.

I don't think most women are even aware of the extreme level of hatred and self-pity that has developed among certain men. I would've never known this had I not visited here and encountered it. But I still think you are in the minority - the Malcolm Xs, the suicide bombers, the Tim McVeighs of the male rights movement.

All of those extremist types can find support on the internet, but in the broader world, not so much.

I honestly have enough faith in the overall decency and clarity of most men to believe they will not support your extremist ideals and plans for revenge.

LS,

Of course. Any man who feels anger at ever-worsening injustice and family destruction (not necessarily personal) is an extremist -- someone who should be muzzled with expanded "hate speech" laws, no doubt. Men should not be angry, and must take care to tell other men that they are scary extremists if they allow themselves to feel, much less express, any anger -- never mind how women have been loudly expressing themselves for decades! But at the same time you aren't trying to silence men. Right. (So women really didn't want us to get in touch with our feelings? I'm SO confused ...)

"Jay R, I can only assume that you come from a very genteel family, and perhaps your grandmother and other female relatives were, indeed, well-treated by chivalrous men, which is what gives you this nostalgic view of the old days. But Julie and I are both telling you that we have many female relatives who felt oppressed and often abused by men."

Oh! I see! Anecdote and personal experience is offered as the conclusive evidence of your "women were always put upon victims" world view. Ok, then! If valid, it should have strong predictive power -- such as your deduction that I must come from a genteel background populated with chivalrous men who lavished candy, flowers and love sonnets on dainty women with soft hands. Quite.

Let's see, now. My dad's mother and father were married in rural Tennessee when she was 16. Her first of 16 children (couple of sets of twins) was born in 1901. They were poor farmers who later moved to central California. They both worked their asses off to make sure that their kids always were clothed, housed and fed, and that they in turn learned the importance of family, and the meaning of hard work, commitment, personal discipline and sacrifice. My grandpa worked himself to death before I had a chance to know him. I was a teenager when my grandma died at the age of 86, in her own home, the matriarch of a large, loving family who missed her patriarch. (But yes, those pregnancies did ruin her girlish figure!)

My dad and mom married at 20 and 17, respectively, while he was still flying fighter-bombers in WWII. Later, he became the first member of his family to attend and graduate from college, while working full-time at night driving trucks to support my mom and my older sisters (he tells me of the pain techniques he had to inflict on himself just to stay awake and not kill himself and/or others).

I am one of 8 kids, 2 of whom did not survive to adulthood. My dad ended up an engineer who helped design some very famous military and civilian aircraft. Their first house he built with his own hands. After nursing my blinded older sister for years before she died, my mom went to college herself and ended up having a career as an ER nurse. My mom and dad are in their 7th decade of marriage, and are the patriarch and matriarch of a large, loving family.

My wife and I are high school sweethearts and will soon enter our 4th decade of marriage.

My grandma was, and mom still is, a strong woman. I mean it. Kick your ass strong. Smart and tough and molded by adversity. But they were/are ladies, and happy to be ladies. And they were happy, indeed demanded, that men be men (responsible, tough, hard-working). They needed "feminism" like a fish needs a bicycle. They were adults who accepted adult responsibilities at a very young age, and who thrived and succeeded. They sometimes complained about their men and their troubles, yes. But they also would admit that their men sometimes had reason to complain about them and had their own troubles! They admired and respected the men who sacrificed so much so that they could have the family and home they wanted -- even if they didn't get a steady supply of flowers, jewels, and tender words. They understood that, in turn, their own hard work and sacrifice was the best way to express that respect and admiration.

My grandma lived through the Spanish American War, WWI and WWII, and she would never have dreamt of denigrating America's heroic men as women's "oppressors." She would have been insulted by the suggestion. Nor did she see my grandpa as an oppressor because he expected dinner to be ready when he came in from the fields, and he expected that he would have clean clothes to wear. After all, earlier in the day she had expected him to go out to work the fields in the heat, and then come back starving with soiled, sweat-stained clothes, hadn't she? Should he see her as oppressing him?

The biggest thing, though, was their (now my) view of marriage as combining a husband and wife literally into one "person" -- a joined union. To them, the idea that within that union one or the other could ever consider themselves less benefited or otherwise oppressed by their respective roles would be completely foreign, if not abhorrent. That idea would imply a level of individualistic competition that would be antithetical to the very meaning of marriage as they saw it.

Were there cowed wives and hen-pecked husbands, tyrants and shrews? Yes, but those were individual situations, and not indicative of systemic disadvantage for either "side." Many of the laws of which feminists like to complain made perfect sense for both men and women viewed in the then-dominant "two shall become one" marriage paradigm.

My female relatives generally view feminism as an embarrassing crutch for weak, envious, or hostile women, and so largely ignore it. Maybe at the end of the day it all comes down to the fact that I have had strong female relatives who generally made good choices, and who didn't complain about every fly that ended up in the soup when they didn't. So, I know women of the past to be strong, capable participants in a system that was largely designed to protect and provide for the vast majority of women, and which allowed them to attend to the important jobs of being mothers and making home life possible for stable families -- the backbone of our society.

That your relatives have led you to have the view that women were weak, powerless victims of bad men and a system designed to keep them "down" makes me quite sad for you, actually. It appears that my view of women is basically positive, while yours is basically negative.

Given my own anecdotes and experience, I have proved my case, right?

Jay R, it's interesting that we are both from rural TN, and you know, I'm the type that cries at The Judds "Grandpa Tell Me About The Good Old Days".

I had two grandmas, obviously. One was mistreated, dominated, and unloved, yet stayed positive until her dying day. So sweet we called her "Dear".

The other was intellectual and bookish, a woman who could've done so much with her mind had she been allowed. She married a sweet soul, my grandpa, who sold cars, and generally didn't understand her angst for more out of life, but loved her.

I think all this demonstrates is what I said before. Some women are happy being only wives. I actually am, truth be told. I love nothing more than making my man happy, tending to my family, and longed to be married, like your grandparents, until death. Just didn't work out that way.

But women are individuals - as different from each other as men are. Some have much bigger dreams and talents, and, as much cultural turmoil as it may have caused, I know it is a good thing that women are free to explore their various dreams.

Give this a little time to settle. It is all relatively new, and I think, in time, things will even out more fairly.

"I know it is a good thing that women are free to explore their various dreams."

Yes, LS, I agree. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. "Freedom isn't free." Everything comes with a trade-off. Women (at feminists' urging) have paid scant attention to what they will, of necessity, have to give up, and to what they have already lost.

Women have also paid scant attention to the fact that so far, men have largely been picking up the "lunch tab" and have been on the losing end of much of the "cultural turmoil" to which you refer -- which I think must come to an end soon if things are to "even out more fairly" without more turmoil from which women will not be so insulated.

Have you noticed how quickly "free to" becomes "has to"? Is "free to explore their dreams" -- just like men, supposedly -- going to end up meaning "obligated to be wage-slaves and more removed from family" -- just like men, actually? For the sake of our children's families, I hope not.

Have you not noticed the feminist attack on the concept of motherhood itself? The message that kids are a hindrance to personal advancement, and that if they are born, they should be raised by others so as not to interfere with "career"?

I do not think I am anti-woman to oppose feminism's continuing influence. I think motherhood is the greatest -- right along with fatherhood (which feminism also opposes, as you may have noticed).

Women got a thrill when Gloria Steinem proclaimed that women needed men like a fish needs a bicycle. Part of that thrill came from knowing that this hurts men at their core. But did they stop to think that this was true only for women who did not want marriage or children? Did they stop to think what their lives could end up being like if men generally came to believe and accept it? If men naturally came to respond, "Well, ok then. We no longer have to care about your welfare, and will focus all of our energy and resources on our own selfish needs. If you are free, then you are on your own, and free to fail without expecting assistance or sympathy"?

Don't you see a lot of that type of callous "immaturity" and "irresponsibility" in men these days? I do, and it pisses me off, because I have a beautiful daughter who is having a hard time finding a guy who, even if he can afford it, has the slightest interest in becoming a "family man." My daughter is paying a heavy price having men consider her their "equal," part of which entails their still expecting casual sex, of course.

LS. I am a romantic. I believe in love and marriage. Family is everything. So it galls me to see men and women being driven apart from each other, with the state eagerly filling the void and steadily infiltrating male/female relationships. With marriage and children paying the price.

At feminism's urging, women have been reckless and irresponsible in pursuit of "freedom," and men have become feckless and irresponsible in their turn.

I wouldn't care so much if this situation didn't threaten the loving, stable families I so much want my kids to be able to have, and that our society so desperately needs. Luckily for them, no village raised my kids. My wife and I did that together.

Except for some meaningless sex (really just mutually-assisted masturbation), women may not need men, and men may not need women. But children need fathers like fish need water.

And marriage needs men, too. (Interesting that feminists are fighting tooth and nail to make that statement no longer true.)

What price do YOU think women should be willing to pay for their "freedom"? Is their freedom worth it if it costs them their families?

It's good to be able to kick these things around with you, LS.

Jay R, I understand where you're coming from, but I believe, as the various anecdotes indicate, that it was always quite hard for a woman to find a "family man" - a decent guy who truly put his family's needs ahead of his own.

Your mom and grandmother were lucky to have that, but my grandmother and MIL didn't, and this had nothing to do with feminism. The only thing that feminism has changed is giving women the freedom to leave such terrible unions, which makes it seem that feminism alone destroyed families. But that removes all accountability from the males involved.

There are great guys out there. I found one, but I think it was only after having a bad one that I could really appreciate what to look for - not money, not status, or "hot" looks. I think part of the problem is that our culture, and our media, glorifies all the shallow, narcissistic qualities. With the development of movies, television and beauty magazines, both men and women began elevating beauty over substance. Feminism hasn't played that big a role there - if anything, they fought against porn, and the sexual objectification of women, which is really a pro-family stance, whether they meant it as one or not.

What needs to happen is better education for our young people about how to choose a compatible mate. We teach auto mechanics, trigonometry, and Shakespeare, but probably the most important decision in life is left to chance.

Had I known what signs to watch out for, I never would've made the poor choice I did the first time around. I hope your daughter takes her time and chooses more wisely too - hopefully with you as a role model she has better instincts. I actually think it is fairly obvious, once you know the signs, to tell which men are not "family" types...which men will cheat or not be involved in childrearing.

Most of the time, men pretty much announce this, if a woman knows what she's hearing. We just tend to excuse questionable behavior, and then excuse it some more. At least women of my era did.

I see a change in my daughter - she looks for boys who genuinely respect her, so I am hopeful that she, and perhaps her generation, will choose more carefully and have longer, happier marriages. Women are never going to stop wanting to find love and have families. For those who enjoy that, it will always be a dream.

But, for some women, marriage is truly oppressive. I think it's good that these women now have other options. And, believe me, if your daughter does make a mistake and marries the wrong kind of man - one who ends up cheating on her or abusing her and/or the kids, you will be grateful, as my traditional southern parents were, that she has the option to get out.

I think it's good that these women now have other options. And, believe me, if your daughter does make a mistake and marries the wrong kind of man - one who ends up cheating on her or abusing her and/or the kids, you will be grateful, as my traditional southern parents were, that she has the option to get out.

And that is the point of all of this. In days past women didn't have other options. They couldn't leave a marriage, they couldn't own property. They couldn't start a business. They couldn't take care of themselves.

Entering into an equal partnership like your grandparents had is always wonderful, no matter what the legal circumstances, and neither of us is saying that fighting for rights justifies the horrible treatment that some men receive. The pendulum shouldn't swing the other way. However, the fact that men had it difficult doesn't negate the fact that women had NO options under the law.

Your family sounds wonderful, it is good to hear those stories. :-)

-Julie