I agree with celticfox here, and even if someone is trolling if it's a serious matter it is worth discussing i think

Re-read Al's posts with Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday's voice in mind. Then maybe you'll get it. If not, keep on arguing, because I'm very entertained.

Haven't seen that film so I'm afraid I'll have to keep arguing, but as long as your entertained I'm happy :P

Troll or not, the level of discourse he generates is just not worth acknowledging. Don't encourage him.

Aww, damn. I think I just did.

"As a socialist/radical feminist I don't really view obi as a true feminist (no offense intended), but this is in the same sense that as a hardcore communist I don't view most left-leaning people socialist in any sense (those that think of themselves as soft socialists)"

Well, you and Putin should get along well...lol...never mind that extremist attitudes is so often a recipe for disaster and the limitation of rather than liberation of rights and peoples...

"Some radical feminists are great, they say fuck patriarchy, and believe we should have an androgynous society, like indeed we should."

I have to disagree, we should NOT have an androgynous society.
There is a difference between a society where women and men are treated equally...
And an androgynous society.
The former allows both sexes to celebrate their similarities and differences equally...
The latter imposes a forced construct of neutrality upon both sexes and is unfair to either.

In much the same way we cannot and should not have a race-less society, but a society where all races are celebrated and treated as equal, so too should we acknowledge the differences in gender cultures and be able to appreciate men and women alike and treat both sexes with the same amount of dignity rather than make a sexless public sphere.

"P.S. obi's seems to me to be the kind of guy that would be like ooo oprah, obama, racism is dead."

Nooooo...I said PROGRESS is being made, I was very explicit in saying "it's not yet totally a level playing field, but it IS getting better," which is certainly the case.

Racism is not dead, sexism is not dead...

But if you'd told blacks and women in 1962 that in 50 years there would be a black President (and one that won Southern states such as North Carolina and Florida at that) and both a black female billionaire with one of the largest media empires in the world but a white female who's been both Senator and Secretary of State and was just shy of winning the nomination of a major party to run as president, I doubt they'd have believed you.

So like I said, not at all equal or perfect yet, but to deny progress has been made--and considerable progress at that--is simply folly.

Haven't seen the movie. But, normally I just ignore what he says anyways. My previous post was more in response to what some of the talk over what feminism is. Not every women views it the same way. I'm sure some of those die-hard to the bone feminist would be dismayed that I'd be if a woman choose to stay home with kids. And yes I have known women who thought every woman should go out and get a job.

Dear Obi, perhaps we would get on well, perhaps we wouldn't who knows. And look at you tainting all extremists attitudes, this sort of generalisation is unhealthy! And rights may need to be limited in the short run for long term optimisation. But I digress. Gender is a social construct! "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman" after all. And ideally we would have a raceless society. Until we are ready we should embrace race and celebrate them all as equal, but ultimately why pay attention to things that are really insignificant and distinguish person from person? This can only breed problems.

Racism as dead was probably the wrong phrase yet by your general satisfaction and lack of revolutionary passion you show yourself to make do with what amounts to little. And that makes sense, but anecdotal progress does not show real change, and society is still warped. Evolutionary progress is insufficient my friend, we must overthrow the tyrannical system! Disclaimer: not referring to violent revolution in this case or anything, just a change in the general mindset of society.

"....but I've no intention of ironing my own shirt for the simple reason that my woman is too busy "achieving" something."

Gold. Classic. Gold.

I like Al.

He does the same thing I do, but far more eloquently and with the patience to really hook 'em in. I'm more in it for the shock value.

That and cause your unpretentious wine tends to to not impress women anyways.

"Gender is a social construct!"

I'd disagree somewhat and say gender is a biological fact, whereas ORIENTATION and IDENTITY are constructs...ie, whether you're born a boy or girl, your genitals are biological fact, and you are, biologically, a boy or a girl, but insofar as you're gay, straight, bi, lesbian, masculine, feminine, etc. however you want to define your orientation and identity, THAT is a social construct and subjective.

"And ideally we would have a raceless society."

I must ask--why? Why is that your goal, instead of equality between the races?

Think of all the great art and culture inspired by different races and different genders at that...why would you want an androgynous grayness instead of a multi-color multi-cultural display?

"Until we are ready we should embrace race and celebrate them all as equal, but ultimately why pay attention to things that are really insignificant and distinguish person from person?"

Pay attention in what way, though?
I mean, sexism and racism are wrong...
But there's nothing wrong with finding beauty in people, so long as we remember it's all in the eye of the beholder...

You say it breeds problems--I say your ideal of an overly-uniform, drab and colorless (and I use the term colloquially rather than racially here) society seems rather undesirable...I must again ask:

WHY desire the removal of sex and race from the human equation rather than to see the sexes and all races be treated equally? It seems you'd rather limit and remove liberties rather than expand them.

"Racism as dead was probably the wrong phrase yet by your general satisfaction and lack of revolutionary passion you show yourself to make do with what amounts to little."

No, it 1. Makes me a realist and 2. Makes me one who is of the opinion that, again, you don't have to take down the establishment when you now have people IN the establishment.

When blacks and women now have more wealth and more power BY FAR than anyone else...why would they want to take down an establishment that's not only including them more and more (to a point where again, there's a black president and female secretary of state, not to mention Pelosi previously being Speaker of the House) but has steadily been improving things for them?

Now, the 1950s, when the government was not only not serving them, but doing them a disservice?

THEN it made sense to have the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s...then it made sense to take on the establishment, then blacks and women were rather totally disenfranchised.

But in the same way it'd be absurd for me to claim that I'm in any way disenfranchised as a Jew because of what happened in the 1930s and 1940s to the Jews (both in the Holocaust as well as just general persecution that was, I might add, not absent from the US either) as, well, 70 years down the line, let's face it, most Jews are doing pretty well for themselves, as am I...

I think it's disingenuous to continue acting like there is a 1960s-level of mistreatment and inequality, when that is clearly NOT the case--times and peoples evolve, and those who do not evolve with it are merely radicals without a legitimate cause.

There ARE still definite problems blacks and women still face, racial profiling and the Glass Ceiling being just two of them.

But these are problems which many now be addressed from within the establishment and with that mindset, rather than with a radical, take-it-all-down ideology.

WHY WOULD blacks and women want to take it all down when "it" is benefiting them more than ever before! Not even just on a "token" level; on average, women and blacks live better and under better conditions BY FAR than in the 1960s.

By contrast, I think groups such as Latino Americans as well as gays DO still face a severe amount of inequality and are to a great extent disenfranchised, and I would therefore save any "revolutionary vigor" I had for those groups, rather than groups that can surely help themselves from within a system that now increasingly includes and recognizes them.

"Evolutionary progress is insufficient my friend, we must overthrow the tyrannical system!"

...

*Can't Tell if Serious or Satirizing a Putinist Mindset*

You say you wanna revolution? ;)

Anyone who hasn't seen Tombstone owes it to themselves and future generations to watch it. You will not only get Al's humor but also be entertained while learning some fictionalized history of the American southwest

There is 'sex', that is the biological difference, gender itself is a social construct.

*Going to adopt your overly paragraphed structure for this response ;)

It's my goal as it's an arbitrary difference and stops people seeing our general common humanity. Yes we are both humans and that's cool, but I'm proud of my black identity so I'ma hang with black people disproportionately (they are proud of the same identity, many cultural similarities), not so much these whites.

This 'grayness' you speak of is really the entire spectrum of light. It lets you see the beauty of all individuals, for who and what they really are, devoid of tainting that by group association.

Like most liberals and conservatives your idea of freedom is very strange to me. You like your legal rights but you don't mind nearly as much people that have various identites imposed upon them by society, you have no problem with an oppressive cultural hegemony, as long as it is not overtly so. I want people to be free of being pigeonholed by group, and to just be an individual, and when you have those groups that people belong to without choice, people will be at least to a degree less free. These groups will unavoidably have ideas associated with them, and since, due to how society works, this group will become a part of the individual's identity, they will predominatly strive to conform with that ideal.

Again you like your few anecdotes of success when although civil rights was 50 years ago blacks are still at the bottom of society, although women's suffrage was what around 90 years ago now women are still treated as the second sex. And people in the establishment does nothing because of some non-existent intrinsic value, Thatcher actually set back the progression of women in the UK for instance.

Believe you me I'm most familiar with the problems the jews have faced, the vast majority of my family died in the holocaust, but thanks for the lesson. Jews are doing well, but you can't argue that there is not an anti-jewish current running through many parts even of the western world. Something which whilst not significant now many one day be so.

Now you call my cause illegitimate, thank you. I'm not saying things aren't better, or even much better, but you still need a complete system overhaul because it is still a major problem. And to say things are much better means nothing. You're a philosopher, of sorts, so I hope you get the point my 'crazy' analogy is about to make. There's a girl who gets gangraped 10 times a day. Later it changes to a couple of times, and never by more than 1 person. By your logic, because things are much better, she should be like you know what fair enough, wait this out, things are progressing... and mathematically speaking the treatment of blacks looks like Y=-(1/x)-5 for the domain x>0. I'ld probably want to elongate some of the shit treatment but the point remains. Things were awful and things have improved much. Yet the level of progress is decreasing, the gradient has fallen dramatically, and it is fast approaching 0, whilst there is still a notable distance from hitting 0, are hypothetical mark of equality.

Get rid of race and groups my friend. Also you have loads of famous gays in entertainment so they must have rights. And there are many prominent Latino-American politicians, so you know I'm not bothered. ;)

I do believe it, but I said it in a light-hearted way, thought it would be nice to add that.

No need for a wink there, friend, I do indeed, even though my material quality of life would most assuredly not benefit.

Al is what NigeeBaby and Yellowjacket's love child would look like it. It's obviously a very interesting creature, though he is joking and can be safely ignored for the purpose of serious discussion, as many have pointed out.

M. Socrates,

I thank you again for your response.

Please allow me to address your suggest that women may be safely encouraged to pursue extradomestic ambitions. Even if that were correct, I feel that there were a misunderstanding on your part of a subtle distinction or implication of my writing. What you suggest is that women can be safely encouraged to have ambitions, but what I actually meant to impart is that for women there is no *higher* ambition than domestic servitude. This becomes important. If I'm correct, Martha Stewart becomes the moral equal of Hillary Clinton, and I think you shall find me correct.

The distress to women comes from the suggestion that they need to anything *more* than achieve domestic perfection. This is what post-feminists complain about, is where the feminist movement has disappointed them the most.

But no, to be honest I do not believe that women may be safely encouraged to have any serious ambitions at all.

One of your questions seems to inquire about circumstances related to men who do not have women? The question is surprising given that history is full of such examples. Take for example the situation of military men. By virtue of their job, they are forced to spend long periods of time away from women. But it is not as though these men go without meals, that their barracks are uncleaned and their uniforms unsewn. I'm not sure I understand where this question were going, as I feel that I've answered it and it has no visible implication upon our discussion, unless it be one too subtle for my simple Russian intellect.
Speaking off of the record, I can cook, clean and sew. There is really nothing too it. All of the best cooks and seamsters are men. I can't imagine visiting a female tailor. Moreover, I've had traditionally female jobs, at least once anyway. I was for the period of about a year a receptionist. I found no shame in the work. Despite a certain dullness of intellect, I could be trained to file, take dictation, make coffee, &etc. Can you believe that I was once clocked at typing 74 wpm!!

My particular point is that even if women are to participate in endeavors, for example in cases of necessity, that men must be careful never to praise them for this. Women should earn praise only through domestic servitude, at the risk of confusing them.

You next made a point that seemed to champion individuality, one that I am scarcely prepared to contradict. I think your mistake is assuming me to be an expert on such things. I am writing about strictly practical matters. While I am a large fan of philosophy, most of it escapes me. And certainly, to anything that I write, a measure of common sense must be applied.
For example if you were to fall down a flight of stairs, of course your woman must figure out how to operate a telephone in order to ring for a doctor. Or in my case, the maid has this week off and so just as soon as I finish this writing I must of course tidy up around the laboratory a bit. Nothing that I am writing is mean to imply that good judgement be suspended, that reason be annulled or that common sense be ignored.

By looking at individual merit we can achieve the best things. Also if we put such an importance on groups where would it end? If I found out that people with brown hair tended to be better lawyers than people with black hair, and people with black hair were just about generally happier as plumbers would it mean that only people with brown hair should be lawyers and people with black hair should all be plumbers? If I found that people born in July tended to live longer than people born in April should I as a life insurance company act accordingly? You can think of your own examples too. I'm just trying to say that we lose individual merit by focusing on groups and that also the group distinction itself may not be by a really significant margin.

Much of our differences stems, I think, from a philosophical difference between the important of individual liberty in life. I am of the opinion that duty trumps liberty by a large margin in individual life. I suppose a bit of liberty is not a bad thing, but libertines of any sort live irresponsible lives, deprived of the pleasure and satisfaction that a man enjoys or anyone who has paid strict attention to duty. In the case of women their duty is to the home. While I have no wish to be unkind to women, I state as a point of honesty that the dreams and ambitions of women are no more important than the dreams or ambitions of dogs.

In summary, I must emphasize that men are superior to women, and that women's place is in the home.

This has been posted on another thread, but my opinion on the subject is found in 1 Timothy 2:12

So true.

In any regard, I wish to address the perception that I am trolling, &etc. I believe that people here have trouble taking my view seriously because they are unused to hearing a coherent argument criticizing feminism. I can understand how someone can be challenged by the seemingly contradictory points that:

---I am a normal, sane, polite university-educated man that is of sound and reasonable mind

---I have been exposed to feminist ideas

--I am in many ways decent and forward-thinking

--I regard the intellect of women to be about equal to that of a canine.

--I actually like women. I actually like canines.

I think the reason for the disconnect that some people have, and the difficulty that they have digesting that the above statements are simultaneously true, is that most are not acquainted with the history of feminism. If I can find a moment, I shall try to outline it below as well as provide additional reading material for those interested.

Even many feminists have grown tired of the Feminism and so my belief is that once a significant level of education upon the topic is achieved, a dialog can take place. Once the dialog takes place, then the decision can be made to adjust women's levels of social and political rights to a level more consistent with everyone's well-being.

"I am a normal, sane, polite"

No, you aren't.

"...a coherent argument criticizing feminism..."

Your comments aren't a criticism of feminism, they're an attack on women.

"I regard the intellect of women to be about equal to that of a canine."

See? That statement is offensive to a lot of people who wouldn't define themselves as "feminists".

@ Al: "I regard the intellect of women to be about equal to that of a canine."

Please provide credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence for your absurd claim. Most studies comparing, for example, performance in IQ tests, show there to be little difference. In one significant recent study women scored slightly higher, in general, than their male counterparts.

No response, Al?

Mlle. Jamie,

Given your previous correspondence, I should like it understood that I am not to be tasked with research errands.

I am having a discussion here with my friends and really believe that debate-style language is inappropriate for this format. We are here to exchange ideas, to learn. Attempting to injure or discredit one party is not merely unhelpful, it is altogether unnecessary. Certainly, for purposes of your own credibility I might recommend that you adopt an air of general congeniality if you have something to express.

Might I suggest this: that you yourself collect a body of publishings that you feel supports your points or better, elucidates your ideas. Once accomplished, I in turn shall supplement these materials with information I believe to be helpful. From there we can pour over the facts ourselves, and further establish the truth.

But at the least, I ask that you submit only research from male scientists, because as you must suspect the very idea of a woman researching a scientific topic is altogether laughable.

Al,

Sorry for such a delayed response, I've been rather busy. I saw and got the idea that you did think there can be no higher ambition, but does ambition not differ from each person? They don't NEED to do anything more if that's all they want (and they can find a man/another woman to support them), and I don't think one can argue they NEED to, but that they can if they want to? Totally different ballgame.

Nice typing too. Now the implication of what I was saying with these seemingly mundane tasks is that since men need to be able to do them too, since everyone must be able to do them, there is no need for one group to be able to do the task (housework or whatever) for the other group.

I am no libertarian but I fel the whole gains by not looking just at groups. Moreover surely one has the duty to oneself to find one's true calling? And I do not want this conversation to go in circles but I do not see why women's duty is to the man, to housework etc.

I feel you have not proved men to be superior, but even if we were to take them as such, where is the inference that women's duty is in the home?

" Attempting to injure or discredit one party is not merely unhelpful, it is altogether unnecessary."

Yet here you are attempting to discredit an entire sex.

"I am not to be tasked with research errands.... Might I suggest this: that you yourself collect a body of publishings that you feel supports your points."

Ok, I will. Evidence for men and women having similar intellectual capacity, whether measured by IQ or other methods, may be found in the following studies:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811904006822
(All male scientists)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691100002X
(Lead author is male)

Now the burden of proof is on you. It is generally accepted that men and women are generally of similar intellect, and as I have shown, this is supported by the available scientific evidence. Your claim that women are only about as intelligent as dogs is a claim that goes against this and it is up to you to provide evidence to support your position.

Bump.

M. Jamie,

If you please, Sir. Surely you must understand that it will require a gentleman of my advanced age some time to digest the considerable information that you supplied, as well as to ruminate the letter from M. Socrates (above).

Patience, my boy! Rome was not built in a day. God willing, I shall respond to everything you wrote. I thank you for taking such an interest in an old man's opinion.

M. Socrates,

Not at all, my dear fellow. Think nothing of it.

Now here is where you have me confused. Your suggestion that women's ambitions be taken into account seems to presuppose that they have opinions. Yet, if we were both honest with each other, aren't women much more charming when they don't have opinions?

At any rate, I shall have to accord you a point. It is not hard to imagine a woman, even a delicate woman, having enough upper body strength to operate a rake, perhaps in loose soil. And I am certainly capable of washing dishes. As such one might imagine a domestic scene in which you and I are in a kitchen drying dishes, whilst our women were outside in the yard attending to farm work, if only perhaps a quarter-acre. It does seem more than a bit silly, but entirely conceivable. Now since you have established that there may not be precisely a *need* for gender-delimited divisions of labor, can't you begin though to see the advantages? Saying there is no need to keep women in the kitchen is much like saying there is no need for beer or video games.

I suppose you have a point. In nomadic cultures where people don't have kitchens per se, one can hardly expect women to be confined to them. Really women would probably still be doing domestic work even in these cultures, but nevermind all that, I will concede that you do have a point.

Let us try looking at the situation a different way. Since women are less socially important than dogs, perhaps a glance at the canine situation might yield insight. And I write this meaning no offense to dogs by comparing them to women.

So what is the work of a dog? To hunt? To pull a dog sled? To protect your hearth? To comfort children? To fetch your slippers, or a news-paper?

Can a dog do any other work? Even if you could train a hound to do accounting, would you really want to go to a canine accountant? If you could train a dog to operate a motorcar, wouldst you really wish to ride in a craft so operated?

Certainly not everything that is possible is advisable.

But yes to be direct, there are specific advantages to confining women to domestic roles. Here is a partial list, and you must remember that upon this subject I am certainly no expert, having never been married and slept with only forty-five women:

1) Proper women like domestic work, and value it above all things. It is the dream of every woman to have and to keep a home.

2) Proper women are offended by dirt, strong language, mathematics, business, heavy-lifting, violence and blisters. Essentially all aspects of the male world are offensive to women, and their practice would confine women to unnecessary stress.

3) Women are never good at these things anyway.

4) Even if they were good, they might accidentally displace men from gainful employment, directly affecting their ability to bring home a pay-check. Directly affecting children.

5) Women who spend too much time outside the home invariably become raped or involved in adultery, the spread of venereal diseases, gambling or other loose behaviors.

6) Women who spend too much time in male company pick up male traits and become less attractive.

7) Women who spend too much time outside of the home will neglect housework. Remember that neither of us wish to wash our own dishes or iron our own shirts.

8) Even if women did find they enjoy life outside of the home attractive, it is nonetheless not their place and their return home would be unwelcome to them.

So all of these measures I suggest are essentially for female protection.

Can you now understand the imperative for women's rights to be adjusted, in a manner that will promote better social values?

Hey Al what's your opinion of men who choose to stay home with the children while their wives bring home the paycheck. I know of at least 3 men who do this. And believe me their wives make very good money.

Femi-boys. Disregard them.