User talk:Shadow1979

Your edits to Sexism

Please discuss on Talk page before removing big chunks of the article, thanks. Zack Martin  23:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of that stuff on the sexist page, was actually sexist itself.

No, actually, virtually everything you removed was factual. feel free to bring it up, though. I'm sure you can persuade us of how little sexism exists in this country.--GodotIz a sekret Kristian 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Time Magazine link was interesting enough, but what it said wasn't what the sentence referencing it claimed. And, certainly, inserting parentheses-riddled crap is just plain detrimental factual or otherwise. ^theist 23:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because saying women experience the most blatant forms of sexism is not sexist in itself. And saying that women are somehow held from "positions of power such as political office, upper management in corporations, the medical field and academic fields" & "publication, directing television or movies, or being recognized for personal achievements" without proof is not sexist.

Describing the "history of sexism" as "just the way things are" is scientific? Here you focus only on the limits on women's freedoms in " hearth and home", and never consider the millions of men that have died in wars, or have spent their entire lives working to provide for these women at home. Then you liken "conservatism" to men who oppose being sexually discriminated.

Finally in your examples, you only list list illustrations of scenarios in which women are discriminated against. Ignoring male only conscription, or father's paternity rights. Some are not even examples of sexism (Sarah Palin "lipstick on a pitbull"??). The fact that "radical feminist professor Mary Daly canceled her college classes, rather than allowing men to attend" in itself is sexist. Using the term Viagra to define as allowing "older men can still get their penises hard" is vulgar, why don't you say abortion as allowing women to kill a baby inside of them?

Lastly, you list the Men's Rights Movement as a sexist group. [1]. The Men's Rights Movement addresses men's issues the same as Feminism supposedly does with Feminine issues. How can you list the Men's Rights Movement without listing Feminism?^{— Unsigned, by: Shadow1979 / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry, lolwut. Maybe this article should help you understand a little bit. On another note, please sign your posts with 4 tildes like ~~~~ RandonGeneration (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny how the link you sent to this very site, full of counterclaims to the actual subject of Men's Rights, but here on this site Feminism have no contention. Take a look on wikipedia for a real definition of Men's Rights. ^{— Unsigned, by: Shadow1979 / talk / contribs}

abortion is not allowing women to kill a baby, it's allowing women to kill a fetus; more importantly - allowing women to control their reproduction. Is that what viagra is doing? Human history has always been sexist. it's just the way it is. Sexism is par for the course, unless you think women were allowed to vote, have choice in marriage, have the same liberties as men throughout history, yes? What does "hearth and home' and being forced into that position have to do with governments and religions telling men and boys to go to war? and dude, WOMEN DO EXPERIENCE MORE BLATANT SEXISM THEN MEN. I'm not sure if you are from the US, but if you are, take a look at politics. Who's access to birth control and abortion is being used as a political punching bag? How many female judges are in the the federal system? How many women senators are there? How many bills were written THIS YEAR ALONE that criminalize pregnancy and women's attempts to survive pregnancy? How much are women getting paid for doing the same job? How many women come home and ALSO have to do the majority of the house work, care of the kids, and weekend shopping, shutteling etc? These are not just some woman's "feelings", they have been studied and documented. well other then "history is sexism". that's just obvious.GodotIz a sekret Kristian 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Human history has not ALWAYS been sexist, and talking in absolutes may make you look like a fool. At times in history it can be arguable as to certain ACTS by cultures or generations that WERE sexist, but human history has NOT ALWAYS been sexist, and not ALL people have BEEN sexist.

The right to vote was fought for. From the early 1400s until the Reform act of 1832, only the extremely wealthy were allowed to vote. If you were a serf or peasant who protested for the right to vote, you were usually hung or quartered. Still many protested and gave their lives for the 1832 Act which allowed 5% of the population to vote. A 2nd act occurred in 1867, which lead to 6% of the population getting to vote, and finally a 3rd act in 1884, which allowed roughly 24% the right to vote.

In 1914, at the start of the first world war, men where encouraged to enlist in the war. Women where allowed by "The Order of the White Feather" to place a white plume on any man who "was able to fight but didn't for whatever reason". Women were also encouraged to not form relationships with such cowardly men. Almost 10 million men lost their lives in this war, 21 million where wounded, and 7 million where missing or POWs, but as a reward for their sacrifices, all men over the age of 21 and all women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote. Women received the right to vote at 21, 10 years later in 1928.

The comment of "hearth and home", was used to illustrate that during this time, many women had the luxury of being at home while their husbands, fathers, brothers, sons.. fought and died for them. The order of the White Feather, compelled many young men to throw their lives away to fight a war they didn't belong in, due to shame. It wasn't until the U.S. got involved in the first World War and enlisted 13,000 women in the Navy and Marine Corp., that women first saw combat. Shadow1979

Srsly? You do realize that men instituted the policy of male-only conscription, right? If anything, you've provided a clear example of how patriarchy hurts men. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Selective Service System is the Agency in the U.S. that started drafting on May 18, 1917 during World War 1. All males aged 21 to 30 were required to register for military service, but expanded the age limit from 18 to 45 in 1918 until 1920. Today all men that are U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays.

No where did "Men" institutionalize the policy alone. If a patriarchy truly existed, it would have probably been "Women" that would have been required to fight in wars while the men stayed home.

Now that is a massive leap in logic, when one of the justifications for patriarchy was the fact woman were "the weaker, fairer sex", and that they needed men to lead and protect them. What logic would it make for then turn around and make the woman fight wars? Thats even ignoring the old thoughts of honor, and the glory of war and combat. --Revolverman (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if a Patriarchy did exist, basically a system of male privilege BY males FOR males, would it really matter if females were weaker in order to fight in wars? The mere fact that women ARE considered the fairer sex shows that beauty is based on women and not men. In the world you describe where there is a system out for male advantage alone, why would a man spend his life working a job to provide for his wife and children? Wouldn't he make his wife and children work to provide for him? Why would man march off into wars to defend his family, when he can stay home and send them into war and start another family? --Shadow1979

How are any of these things examples of people not being sexist? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

They ARE sexist, but they dont exist in our society. Men go off to work and fight wars on behalf of their families of their own volition. If they DID exist, they would be examples of your sexist patriarchy, which you believe still exists somehow. ^{— Unsigned, by: Shadow1979 / talk / contribs}

Time to get out of the MRA echo chamber. History: Learn it. Or continue spouting totally ignorant bullshit. That's fine with me too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Further up this page you said that human history has not always been sexist, but you haven't backed it up with anything. Everything you've mentioned since is an example of men & women being treated differently. Do you have any examples of societies or eras in which men & women were treated equally? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To Nebuchadnezzar, Im sorry.. but your belief in a history ruled only through a patriarchy, without any concern for women, did not happen. Sorry that you cant change history to make it true. Must be nice labeling someone as MRA and then ignoring everything they say. In what ways can you prove that this patriarchy exists today?

To Weaseloid, why would I attempt to provide proof for something that I said never existed in the first place? I am not the one who claimed human history ALWAYS being sexist. The burden of proof is on whoever does think that way, to prove that it ALWAYS was this way. Were there times in human history that it may have been sexist toward one side or the other? Yes, of course. But through out most of history, men and women had their own roles, that they CHOSE for themselves.

Were there people that didnt want to conform to these roles, yes. There where men who didnt want to work their lives away or be forced fight in war, and there were women who didnt want to stay at home and be forced to clean and cook. But the majority of men enjoy doing mechanical things, interacting with the outside world, and the majority of women enjoy nurturing things, working with people. [2] --Shadow1979

And Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose. ^narchist 09:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes thank you for trolling and adding nothing to the conversation. Shadow1979 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll troll until you contribute something that isn't blind assertion. ^narchist 09:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing which I have stated so far has been blind assertion. Not more than your assertion that we live in a "Patriarchy". Making one sentence comments that have nothing to do with anything I have said, nor producing any evidence to the contrary, do not debunk anything I have stated so far, other than saying this. Shadow1979 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How to sign your comments

Please type ~~~~ after them. Thanks. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)