Race and gender rights- let's get a little more specific

Let's inject race into the discussion.  Oh, why not?  It is too much fun not to.

Men, women, abuse, and race.  This must by necessity bring up the topic of Evolution-- intelligence, temperament, and inclination to violence.  There are distinct differences between the races.

Let us start with what is probably the most disgusting, outrageous claim being made -- that murdering baby girls in India is somehow an act of love.  Yes, the men's rights activists really do make this absurd, shocking declaration.

WHATT??!!

what kind of sick, twisted, skwed form of illogic is this vile drivel?!  Man, and I thought women were illogical.  Seriously?!  THis is seriously a claim that mra's make??  They truly seem to think that___ is sprung from love and a sense of protection towards baby girls.

I will borrow a line from the liberals' playbook.  do you actually know any Indians in real life?  have you actually talked to any of them?  I don't mean injuns, I am referring to Indians from back in the old country.  sorry to burst your bubbl,e grisl, but yep.  Idians really genuinely do look into the fac of their baby girls daughets and they geuinley are, in fact, filled with murderous rage.

1)))) rebuttal to completely unfounded and frankly fictitious claims that "men are protective of women."  Mostly utter bsullst in the case of non-white non-western countries.

Compare how middle-class white men in the western world treat women -- to how males in third-world brown-skinned countries treat women.  A male shot a bullet using a gun into the head of a little girl, a thirteen-year-old child.

Honor killings in fundamentalist islamic countries.

Child brides in African countries and in more rural parts of South Asian countries.

Children being forced into peist, or as is more accurately known, rp, in Thailand, parts of India, and parts of Africa.

Fgm.

Contrast this with how well white men treat women in civilized western first-world countries.  A man opens a door for a woman, tryign to be coirteous.  And what is his reward?  The female is foamin at the mouth, complainig that the man is a "mysogynistic," unevoled caveman.

Let us recall that the world is very dangerous, even with the conspicuous absence of wild prehistoric animals running rampant.

Where exactly is this danger coming from?  It's not lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

How have the bad parts of American towns come to exist?  What exactly is bad about those parts of towns?  I am not asking mere rhetorical questions -- I want honest, factual answers that are arrived at logically through observation.  Why exactly is it unsafe for a woman to walk around alone at night?  Is it because a supernatural or extraterrestrial being might abduct her?  Again, these are not rhetorical questions.

No.  It is because a human non-white male___

What exactly is "danger"?  Is it some mysterious force that cannot be pinpointed from on high, originating from a mysterious source that can never be cracked?   the source of which can never be figured out?

Deducing from these facts, an obvious if depressing conclusion emerges.  Yes, it is frightening to finally have to confront the truth.  But you must simply heave a sigh of resignation, and if you truly possess logic, then you must accept what is in front of you.

I have been witness that because of this, middle-class white women are the most ungrateful, unappreciative bitches on the planet.  They are completely obtuse, oblivious to, and ignorant of the fact that they have possibly the best men on the planet.  Yes, they do.  Most white men are quite polite, courteous, gracious, gentlemanly, mannerly.

This is a notion that is defiled and denigrated as being racist, politically incorrect, et cetera et cetera.  But that is only because it is 99.999 percent true.

Middle-class white women complain about maxipad commercials on TV.  As if this is some sort of huge grievance that should strike all of us in our very souls for its lack of empathy and compassion towards humanity.

Middle-class white women complain that if men feel a bit nervous around feminine hygiene products, this indicates these men are "misogynistic."  They attach the moniker of "misogynistic" to this behavior that is honestly no more than a natural emotional reaction that men have towards a topic they are unfamiliar with.  Frankly, I feel that this tiny aspect of men's behavior is too trivial to even mention.  But this often elicits a cat-five temper tantrum from white women.

Women complain that men don't take them seriously in the work force.  Erm, that is not true.  If a woman conducts herself with professionalism, men will treat her with respect.  The only times people do not take a woman seriously in the work force is if she is incompetent and cannot handle her job, which happens an awful lot.  Or if she displays an air of being slutty or airheaded.  I find it ludicrous if a woman wears shorts skirts and low-cut tops to what is supposed to be a professional work environment, and then has the gall to complain that men don’t respect her.

In those instances I have seen that it is not just men who have a hard time taking those women seriously, but also other women don't really have much faith in the unprofessional female's abilities.  I have seen too many instances of this being true to believe it when women complain that men don't take them seriously.

The laughable claim that males are "protective" of females

All we're getting is male hysteria and frantic changing of subject. 

Erm, this is essentially how your logic goes:  You think lack of protection for males somehow demonstrates protection for females.

Look, I know you are trying to downplay the true gruesomeness of misogyny in the world because it is too horrifying to think about.  These crimes are so nauseating that you have a hard time believing anyone could possibly be capable of them.

Look, I get it.  I have done the same things when learning of these sick crimes.  These crimes are so nasty, sick, vile, that you are desperately trying to rationalize them.  These crimes are so gruesome that you are having a hard time believing they occurred.  I understand that reaction completely.  It is a human response.

You are trying to downplay the true nature of the crimes.  You are frantically grasping, clamoring for some logic that you hope against hope might be buried within.  You are trying to absolve the perpetrators of their true evil.  But the fact of the matter is__.

Employment and money, that's all you got.  Very little mention of actual crimes against a person's humanity.  Artfully skating over the topic of violence that breaches a person's inner core of being.
Its absence is conspicuous.

Oh, but what about protection from wild mastodons and boars and sabre-toothed tigers, mras would probably screech and scream.  Well, try to exercise your powers of observation and analysis.  If you'll notice, you don't necessarily have to fight an animal with your bare hands.  Where is it written that a human must go and choke off and wrestle an animal with his or her bare hands in order to detain it?  This is why tools and weapons were invented.  So that humans could kill an animal at a safe distance.  This is called evolution, intelligence, working smarter and not merely working harder.

Tools, in other words, technology, innovation, inventions -- these can be used and executed without the use of brute strength.  Intelligence, dexterity, and skill are the other tools required.  In other words, women would be able to hunt and gather just fine without, essentially, being men.

By the way, a little detail tidbit, mastodons and sabre-toothed tigers don't exist anymore.

Yet still the world is dangerous.  Where exactly is the danger coming from?  Is the danger emanating from mystical disembodied forces out in the great cosm of the universe?  Is it due to ghosts?  Werewolves?  Vampires?  Aliens?  I am asking you, dear readers, to be completely honest with yourselves.  I want you to open your eyes, look at the situation with clear fresh eyes, from a reasonable distance.  That means not too close, and not too far.  Do not casually glaze over what is in front of you.  Do not dismiss it with a careless sweeping wave of the hand.  All the danger, harm, violence in the world is caused by men.

any tiem someone mentikns actual violnece against women__ these activists immediately counter wih the asinine argument that there is violence against males also.  Okay, fair enough.  But how exactly is that relevant?  Is it because men are violated against, this somehow makes it morally justified for women to be violated against?  So now apparently being "protective" of women means treating women at the same level of garbage that males treat other males.  -- CNN breaking news:  in other words, males treat everyone like 3ht.  This is not being protective of women.

sigh.  is this supposed to be a demosnt of menss superior logic and intellect over that of women?  Is this a demonst of men's "protectiveness" towards women?"

mm-hmm, mm-hmm.
you do realize you have not been refuting a single thing I;ve stated?
In fact, you are atutally providing supporting [[research,, evidence ]]] in favor of my hypothesis.
yuou claimed that my [[[stments, declrataions __]] were false.  and yet then you immediately listed reasons that they happen. [[you are providing "reasons"//]]]

ia am not quite sure why people thinking this is a good debate stragety. ___  I have seen this type of cognitive processe in a numnbe of different places, mostly on the internet.
well how do you think anything ahappens?/  allll events [[__pohenonmmna']] have a chain of causation.

ohh, and thank you for providing the final nail in the coffin of the notion that men are "logical."

**Or perhaps, just perhaps we should look at a much more accurate and therefore much more politically incorrect explanation.

Perhaps this notion of men being protective of women stems from the fact that white men are chivalrous and protective of their women, whereas men of other races are not chivalrous nor protective of their women.

Yep, I am bringing up the subject of race.  Well, why not?  We are already challenging the subject of sexism-against-women.  We have stated the fact that stating that women are privileged far more than men are.  Hell, we've already offended half the people in the room.  Might as well go for the other half.

Historical battle-of-the-sexes work rebuttal

The notion that men would insist that their women do not work out of some sort of abstract dictate of "female privilege" is laughable and dangerously naive.  You really expect me to believe this is true?

If a woman was able-bodied, could walk and had a pair of hands, you better believe her husband made her work.  And when I say “work,” I don't mean an easy cushy comfy job that is performed sitting in a chair in an air conditioned office and which does not require much thinking.  We know women don't mind doing that kind of work at all.  Here, I am talking about manual labor.

You better believe they sure as hell made her work if they needed the money.  It's just that the woman's parents knew that if they had a daughter, they would lose any sort of future income she could earn to support them. she would of course  go to her husband's parents home, and any money she would make by working would be their property.

This is especially true of the poverty classes throughout history.

In terms of current affairs, how exactly are reporters obtaining their information? I am not being facetious, I really want to know what their sources are. Are they getting their statistics from the respective labor departments of various countries?

See, here's the thing about getting your stats from the official information-gathering body of a country. They can only report wha is reported to them._____

People will find ways to skirt around laws. The wife could work, but the factory owners could write paycheques in the husband's name.  Or the factory owner could pay the wife off the books, thereby not subjecting it to scrutiny from federal prying eyes.

Where exactly are these reporters getting the idea that throughout history women have rarely worked disgusting jobs outside the home?

Now, if these historians/reporters are speaking of professional jobs such as local town council, studying philosophy, and things of that wish-washy nature, I am afraid that is true.  Men have enforced this directive under some misguided notion that reading and thinking would offend women's delicate feminine sensibilities.  This was while conveniently ignoring the fact that women did already work outside the home.  apparently they reached the conclusion th

So. We know that women were not always allowed to work in legitimate, honest jobs such as teacher or medical aide.  But poor poverty stricken families really needed the money.  So this left only the option of illegitimate, dishonest jobs.

The thing about serf drivers, i.e. foremen and people from the lower working classes that direct manual laborers in grueling physical work is the following.  News flash -- they do not give a crap what "polite society" or customs or chivalry dictate.  Do you think they care that it is "ungentlemanly" to make women do backbreaking manual labor?  Working outdoors in the rice paddies under the relentless bakin sun, or later with industrial revolutions in various countries, making women work in factories.  Of course there are always the cleaning and laundry work jobs.

If those societies had no qualms forcing children into child labor, ore mining, etc. -- and they most certainly did not -- then chances are they had no particular moral qualms against women working manual labor jobs, either.

I will probably offend a lot of people with my declaration that poor people are not all noble angelic little angels.  But this is the truth.  They don't care what manly chivalry says they should or should not do.  They are simply grateful for another pair of hands to help do the work.

On the other hand, more sniveling uppity fields are more exclusionary and more prone to following some "protocol."  The point I'm trying to convey is that "proper" jobs that are performed sitting at a chair behind a desk tend to establish and enforce arbitrary rules and regulations.  They are far more likely to_____

Yes, you are correct in one regard-- women do not tend to go for dangerous work such as oil rigs, coal mining, etc.  women have done dirty and disgusting work since time eternal.  but dirty, disgusting, <and>> dangerous?  No.  For the simple reason that dangerous work like that requires far more muscle brawn.  Women are not physically capable of doing work of that magnitude of ((((((physical) demand))).  They know this, the foremen know this, and the other workers know this, so why waste everyone's time?

So, non.  Women have not generally worked in construction throughout human history.

Oh, wait.

Varanasi, India- Source

Nepal- Source

No location specified; probably India- Source

Amritsar, India- Source

India- Source

I'm not trying to say that the men don't also work hard.  They do.  But don't kid yourself into thinking that the women have it easy.

Bangladesh- Source

Bangladesh- Source

Men being objectified

I have made a weird discovery.  Men are in fact as much objectified as women are.

…if not more. 

The actual logistics manifest in different forms, but they are still there, clear as day.
…..
I've made a stunning realization.  Well, actually some guy on an jnternet message forum made the realization for me.  He was talking about some females putting naked pictures of themselves on the jnertt or some crap, and he seemed to be relishing a bittersweet victory.  No, now I remember.  The guy was talking about how the evolutionary psych theory is that middle-aged men desire only young curvy fertile women instead of the old bags that the media keeps pushing on us and insisting they are sexy.

He made a statement that struck me as odd.  He wrote, "Now women will finally be objectified as much as men have always been objectified."

This was a very intriguing remark to make.  My initial reaction was, Huh?  What are you talking about?  Whaddya mean, "men have always been objectified?"  Women are subject to so much sickening, perverted, twisted objectification that permeates all manner of advertising and pop culture.  (Just so we're clear here, we are talking about objectification specifically, not violence or murder.  Lord knows women are subjected to too much of that also, but that is serious enough to be considered an entirely separate topic.)

But then I combed back through my memory, tried to recall all I could concerning not just pop culture, but more importantly [[evidence and snippets__]]] of this in people's everyday lives.
Men are in fact objectified as much as women are objectified.  It appears in a different flavor than the type I see everywhere aimed at women, but it is definitely there.

Women always insist in conversation and in editorial articles that they are not shallow, ___that they are far nicer and more [[benevolent, egalitarian??_]] when choosing a romantic partner.  They say that their__ what drew them to this particular guy is his personality, his "aw, shucks" humility.

But women's actions point to the fact that all of that is claptrap.  __is tall, has washboard abs, and has a huge bank account.  If that's not considered "objectification" by most women, then most women need to take a good, long look in the dictionary.

Now let us talk about the abject, blatant sexual objectification of men.

When menare obj, it is couched in different [[[_portrayal, mood, aura__]]]

Whereas objectification of women depicts women as being needy and subservient.

Even slightly nerdy guys are objectified.  Leonard Hofstadter from "The Big Bang Theory" was a boy-toy plaything for that rich lady.  In one episode, the university research scientists all had to go fund-hunting.  Or more accurately, they had to go fund-<procuring,> if you know what I mean, and I think you do.  The wealthy lady did gift enough financial support to Leonard's department at the university, and she managed to extract certain services from Leonard in exchange.  She was also the rich lady from Arrested Development, might I add; good to know that she did come to her morals more or less, and decided to bestow some of her limitless funds to those less fortunate.

On at least one occasion, Leonard has admitted to stripping for Penny using mood music and plenty of glitter.

Amy Farrah Fowler sure as hell objectifies Sheldon, in all sorts of fun ways.  Good times.

Men being referred to as a piece of meat
"beefcake"
3rd rock from the sun, referring to college football players as "steak sandwiches"
referring to a hot guy as "a piece of roast beef"

Feminism has turned into a horrible sewer monster

Feminism in the past was never about forcing everyone/employers/college admissions/etc. into accepting all women that apply for  jobs regardless of whether or not they qualify.

all it meant was that women should not be prevented from competing.  women should not be prevented from reaching their full potential in academic, educational, career circles.  the concept of "affirmative action" also, in my mind meant that qualified people should not be prevented from entering the upper echelons of education and employment simply because they were women and/or minorities.  it did not mean that unqualified people should be allowed in simply because they *were* women or minorities.

it did not mean that unqualified women nor racial minorities should be ushered into jobs for which they are not qualified.
all this meant was that if a woman or racial minority (or both) did in fact have the credentials, training, education, skills for a job, she or he should not be [[[dismissed as a candidate]]]] simply because she or he was not a white male.

All of this has always made sense to me.  This was because I have always understood the concepts of competition and unequal capabilities.  Different people have different natural abilities, skills, and talents that are gifted to them.

as a matter of fact, even thought I always identified as a feminist, the idea of forced equality has always been very distasteful to me.  The thought never even occurred to me, until very recently when on the interblogs people confessed that that is the brand of feminism that had been shoved down their throats.

We all grew up hearing the phrase "everyone is created equal" from the time our infant cognitive abilities first attached meaning to those jumbled sounds that grown-ups make.

Even as a child, to me this never meant that all people are exactly alike with no difference in capabilities.  It simply meant that everyone should be polite and civilized and should be kind to others.

Also as a child, I understood competition.  I understood wanting to be the best.  I wanted to be the best student in the class.  I wanted to be the kid who got the best grades.  I wanted to be the kid who read the most books.  I wanted to be the kid who got the most stars.  Why would anyone want it any other way?  Why would anyone not want to work hard?  Why would anyone not want to strive to achieve and reach their full potential?  Why would anyone not want to accomplish any goals?  Why would anyone not want be awarded for being the best if they truly worked hard and were the best kid in the class?  The best student, the best at math, the best reader, everything.  When I was a little kid, the thought of not making it a priority to be the best -- this didn't even occur to me.

I think children can kinda sorta detect when adults spout empty platitudes out their ass.  I know I certainly understood.  Just like all of you, I too remember always hearing that "everyone is equal."

There are plenty of phrases that make you realize, 'Oh well, people have to say those sort of things in polite society.'  Another classic favorite was, "It doesn't matter whether you win or lose; it's how you play the game."  Again, as a child I remember likening that to rules of all kinds.  there are rules about not talking in class, not being rude to the teacher, don't push and shove, don't cut in line in front of other kids, wait your turn, don't be a tattletale, don't steal other kids' school supplies, don't write in the textbooks.

Those rules were broken all the time, but they were still important.  More to the point, they were a perfect ideal of sorts that everyone should try to aspire to.  The more simple concrete rules -- don't spit, don't push and shove, were easy to follow.  Just don't do it.  However, the abstract bromides quoted above were a little harder.  Even as a child, I understood that those were simply polite sayings that adults liked to quote, but kids could not realistically follow them one hundred percent of the time.

I also remember when I first started hearing about women "suffering" because of society or whatever.  That was when I was about in fourth or fifth grade.  I consciously remember being irritated upon hearing this phrase repeated ad nauseum.

I did not know of the phrase "self-described martyrdom" back then, and up until a moment ago I still didn't because I just made it up.  But it is an accurate descriptive of how I regarded all the tales of "woe is me" about which boys and girls seemed to be in perpetual competition.

Ah, excuse me, but why in the world would anyone want to have led a terrible, long-suffering life?  Why would anyone want to think of themselves as having an awful, difficult, abuse-filled life?  Why would anyone want to think of their life as being miserable, despairing, bleak?  Why would anyone want to have it harder?  How in the world is that a good thing?  Why in the world would you insist that your life is harder than life is for the "other?"