2009 Women's Conference

So a bunch of women gather to swap stories - what is the big fucking deal.  The fact remains Maria is a bitch fucking cunt and has absolutely no relevancy to my existance.  Donate or not my world will continue to spin. 

Jesus fucking christ do you really think these gals are going to present real ideas that will serve a positive lasting benefit to the over all human condition?  No fucking way amigo.

 

SOME women have learned the secrets of how to become a "professional victim". That is what these gender-biased conferences are all about.

 

Here's what real women think.... -

A Woman’s View Of Women’s Policies -  http://wadvpress.org/?p=382

 

 

Pardon me, but you two are idiots for those views. The conference is not about Maria Shriver, it's about women and it's for women. (edited because I'm just not that rude, even though what I'm thinking about you two is no doubt so true.)

Why are we "idiots"? This is a debate that needs to happen. Women have more support and have tipped the scales of balance heavily in their favor. Most of these conferences blame men for their own personal problems.

 

Read the governments own labor report - http://wadvpress.org/?p=173

 

In 1970, about 43 percent of women aged 16 and older were in the labor force; by 2007, over 59 percent were in labor force.

In 1970, only 17.9 percent of women aged 25 and older
had gone to college; by 2000, almost half had gone to college; and by
2006 one-third of the women in the labor force held a college degree.

In 2007, women accounted for 51 percent of all workers
in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations.
They outnumbered men in such occupations as financial managers, human
resource managers, education administrators, medical and health
services managers, and accountants and auditors.

In 1970, the median usual weekly earnings for women
working full-time was only 62.1 percent of those for men; by 2007, the
raw wage gap had shrunk from 37.9 percent to just 21.5 percent

Older white males are the new minority in this country and men in general do not benefit from any genderized support. They are now a forgotten resource, who, incidentally, pays for all of this bullshit.

 

Please show me where I am wrong.

 

So lets continue assuming we are chauvinist sexist pigs - oink oink!  Don't get your panties  or thong all twisted sister!

I was an early adopter of the women's movement - most likely before you were conceived.  Most of my lady friends today would tell you that movement was hi-jacked and that if they had it to do all over their attitudes would be different.  So when I see a gathering of the celebreties to discuss anythng other than their art form I laugh at them. 

I'll et MF address the victim issue - he has a great perspective on that and therefor will default to his expertise.  But I will say women in general have nothing on men when it comes to being victimized!

Right on, Brutha!

 

There is a major difference between feminism and gender-feminism. The latter is what we speak of here. I know how confusing it can be first hand, and so do you. But, therein lies the ugly truth.

 

A Woman’s View Of Women’s Policies -  http://wadvpress.org/?p=382 

There are people living today but there thoughts and ideas are off 1500 or even before that. What the hell you give her freedom or anything else, who gave you right to argue or debate whether they require this or that, or at least the basic fundamental things. I really do not like the male chauvinism of oppressing the fairer sex.

And do you like the oppression of the male sex? That's what today's laws are all about.

 

Me? I don't like ANY oppression of ANY gender.

The only response I am going to give is to say that I stand by my opinion as stated in my post. Feel free to swear, which you sooooo love to do, or whatever because I won't be reading your responses. Truthfully, I didn't read them here, either.

To others, I apologize. I don't normally talk like this on any board, not even a board that encourages 'honest' truths like this one. I'm afraid the disrespect by two members here just pushed my buttons. It won't happen again.

 

Thin skinned are you?  By the way there is no such thing as dirty or nasty words IMO - just people with dirty and nasty minds!  Usage of strong adjectives may offend you simply because you have a dirty mind!  Expressions should be open, honest and candid in nature.  If you don't like using the fuck word then maybe you would be comfortable telling somebody to go intercourse their self - keep in mind a rose by any other name remains a rose!

I used no profanity at all, and I'm actually surprised by the response here. I thought that I made myself perfectly clear when I stated that:

 

I don't like ANY oppression of ANY gender.

The use of false accusations and the law as a weapon is something that I pay particular attention to. If you've actually been to ANY of these conferences, you would immediately see that blaming men for women's issues HAS become a national sport. This must stop.

 

Recently, at at Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV) conferene, one executive made the comment that she "knew several men that sorely needed a beating".

My tax dollars,..... makes me proud.... This is what happens with the gender-feminists, who differ greatly from the good intentions of real feminism before its agenda was hijacked by these extremists.

If women wish to have equality, that would also mean to have and share equal responsibility, would it not? The double-standards that exist out there show just the opposite. Women have tipped the scales of imbalance so much in their favor and they still aren't satisfied. They account for 59% of all high paying corporate jobs and have all sorts of protection while men continue to dominate the dangerous job fields and getting laid off. Men are a forgotten resource while women continue to play that "victim" card.

 

You said its "for women and all about women". I ask you. What about the men?

Again thinking about employment, pay dollar and unemployment. Oh no!!! Just think of one asshole who kept her daughter underground for almost more than 10 years and raped her. Is this the freedom you are taking about - mysandrist fool. Then again if I am not wrong, there was another ass hole from Australia also did the same thing to his daughter. And I read another article about a man raping her own daughter for more than 6 years with the full permission of his wife because of some bloody belief told by a pervert in India.

So, who is exploiting others. Male vs female or Female vs Male. Don't think as a frog in the well and come out and see the world.

 

While I agree with your points, I highly disagree with your sentiment, NL.

 

This does not justify all of the false accusations that have come with this industry.

And what about all of the men who have fought and died in wars all over the world? Where's that outrage? Shit happens to men as well, but somehow they are never viewed as victims as much as they are as a paycheck, are they? Apparently, you think that two assholes justifies the man-hate that happens at all of these conferences.

 

See how easy that was? Now, let's have a real conversation here, and take away the genderized bullshit. I'm for taking on all problems regarldess of gender.

 

Are you?

So aside from hearing all about the swazye greif and Maria's cell phone what of importance WAS discussed on the behalf of women everywhere? Just curious to me that these two points were the two you found most significant Orryman, certainly their had to be more substance worthy for discussion then that.

omg not again: *facepalm*

 

That's a great question, Mockingbird.

 

Here's what one wrote....

 

I left Long Beach, California, with 25,000 women (and a few token men)
feeling the need for a cup of tea, a good, long nap and time to process
what I had experienced -- speakers from around the globe sharing
stories so personal they felt familiar.

That really doesn't tell me much.....

 

Whats up with that Aram? I think my question is a legit one, 25000 women, there has to be more substance then the stuff of tabloids going on. Just interesting where the ground breaking discussions went, did they discuss the health situation or education? We are talking about a section of voting population that far outnumbers men so what was on their minds? Are the soccer moms joiing Lady Obama to mentor young women? Did the Tea party moms rip into the status quo same ole like the suffergettes of lore?  I mean seriously the lack of candid disclosure is a bit of a mystery isn't it?

And what about all of the men who have fought and died in wars all over
the world? Where's that outrage? Shit happens to men as well, but
somehow they are never viewed as victims as much as they are as a
paycheck, are they? Apparently, you think that two assholes justifies
the man-hate that happens at all of these conferences.

So you do want to see fair girls to be in battle front to wade of opponents. First of all, why to think of war. Let's think about domestic issues. Tell me clearly have a view who is having the upperhand. Definitely, you are going to point your finger on the fair sex. Just because they are shoving of your purse, are they oppressing you. Well, I think a coin has two sides, we are on the one side and of course to have the other side too or else no use of having the coin. What's life - give and take policy. I think as simple as that.

So you do want to see fair girls to be in battle front to wade of opponents.

Actually, it is the women who want this. If they wish to be equal, does that not include the service to one's country? Or does this "responsibility" only go so far? You tell me.

 

First of all, why to think of war.

Because all we hear of is the death of women. It is taken for granted that men die in dangerous occupations. Are you stating that I (we) should not consider this and other dangerous jobs that only men do? Are you stating that I (we) should not consider their deaths with the very same status that we do with women's fatality rates? Please enlighten me.

What's life - give and take policy.

 

I agree. But what are the women giving that the men can take? I can state many policies, laws and monetary items that men are giving that the women are taking, legally.

 

 

 

Actually, it is the women who want this. If they wish to be equal,
does that not include the service to one's country? Or does this
"responsibility" only go so far? You tell me.

 

Ok, if it is not their in the constitution, then make it that both sex should be there in warfront waging guns without discrimination to physical movement. I am not joking I don't mind them flying or shooting war enemies, as getting described. Again, this cunning f**es of political spectrum are going to any extent like waging war to keep their head high in bloodshed, making us to believe a war is a must to keep us safe.

Enlightenment got delayed.

So, what is that you want to take from the fairer sex? please come up with that.

I wish to take nothing from them. I wish equality for both genders and have directly stated that.

 

Now, all I'm getting from you is a bunch a garbled and flustered explanations concerning the constitution, which has nothing to do with this. Unless, of course, you ARE speaking of equality. Are you somehow stating that women should have the equality without the responsibility? Then, that's just not equality.

 

A-G-A-I-N, what are the women giving that the men can take?

This sums it up pretty good....

 

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.598

Do
PC feminists really think women are too weak.....or just too special? by darrin
albert (NCFM/MS Psychology)

I was having lunch with a friend one time, a
nice enough guy, and I asked him if it was fair that most of the blue-collar
grunt-laborers seemed to be males wherever you looked. I don't know if this
resonated poorly with any feminist sympathies of his or not, but he told me
something to the effect that "Well, men are bigger and stronger and logically
are more cut out for that sort of thing". I didn't want to keep badgering him
about this issue, but I really wanted to ask him a followup question: If males
are so "big and tough" and well-suited for this kind of dirty grunt-work, why do
men comprise the vast majority of work-related fatalities? I mean, just because
men are "better" suited this does not mean that they ARE suited for a certain
line of work. This all got me thinking further, and I believe there are three
note-worthy societal platitudes that many PC feminists exploit to their
advantage to maintain or increase womens place of privilege. These platitudes
are "winner takes all", "if you give an inch they will take a mile", and "ladies
first".

Winner takes all:

Okay, so let us assume that dangerous
work and war are for "big boys" only. To the untrained eye this might seem
reasonable. However, there is a caveat when it comes to the issue of physical
strength. Hypothetically speaking, let's assume that an average female soldier
has a 25% chance of dying in a war and an average male has a 15% chance of dying
(these are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, and such numbers could also
be generated for "risk of death" in a hazardous job setting). At first glance
this disparity appears to be unfair to women, and it essentially is. But here is
where society starts to exhibit a cognitive bias. Let's assume that there is a
scale or balance represented by "man's likelihood of dying" on the left side and
"woman's likelihood of dying" on the right side. Notice how the "likelihood of
dying" reflects a continuous variable whereas the human states of "life" and
"death" are mutually exclusive (since a person can only be alive or dead, which
is also sometimes called the Law of Excluded Middle). Next, we notice how
society tends to place the 15% chip on the left side of the balance (male's
likelihood of dying) and the 25% chip on the right side of the balance (female's
likelihood of dying). Naturally, the right and female side of the scale tips
downward since there is a greater weight of 10% (25-15). This is where society
tends to take a "winner take all" approach and does massive rounding of numbers.
Just because there is a slightly greater chance of female death, society
extrapolates this to justify keeping women out of war almost altogether (by
using the societal forces of the male-only draft and covert socialization of
males to "take it like a man" by being disposable heroes, protectors, and
breadwinners). By keeping women out of war almost altogether, however, the male
likelihood of death either stays the same (15%) or even increases while the
female chance of death goes from 25% to 0% (since the women who would have
fought are now exempt). So what was hypothetically unfair for women before (10%
higher chance of death) is now extremely unfair for men (15% higher chance of
death). The variable and continuous concepts of "more" or "less" don't mean the
same thing as mutually exclusive concepts like "either" or "or". They should not
be confused with each other. To put things in more simple terms, how is it fair
to men that their general increase in stamina and physical prowess translates
into male disposability? The bottom line is that regardless of strength, males
are dying in tragic numbers. Are women really too weak....or just too special?
Are men really strong....or just disposable?

If you give an inch they
will take a mile:

This maxim is generally a translation of Murphy's Law
to some extent, and it basically says to "be cautious". However, PC feminists
who follow the Duluth Model of female victim/male perpetrator (and others who
believe in maintaining restrictive gender roles) seem to use reverse psychology.
In other manner of speaking, if these folks can get chivalrous men to "give an
inch" then maybe with a little arm-twisting they can also get the men to "give a
mile". So here again we see how a slight disparity in physique between men and
women can be used to justify a whole myriad of unreasonable demands on male
beasts of burden. As such, we notice that a SLIGHT disparity in size can lead to
a MAJOR disparity in disposability. When all is said and done, it is the
so-called "big tough" men who comprise the vast majority of the homeless,
suicides, the prison population, victims of prison rape, job fatalities, victims
of the "glass cellar", victims of the female dominated "spending gap", victims
of the scientifically proven "pay gap myth", false allegations, military draft
bias, restrictive "big boys don't cry" brainwashing, domestic violence bias,
sentencing disparity bias, sexist female-only government programs, chivalry
bias, unfair custody/divorce laws, the longevity gap, and victims of violence in
general. Are women really too weak....or just too special? Are men really
strong....or just disposable?

Ladies first (chivalry as female
privilege):

There is an old-fashioned saying "when mama is happy we are
all happy". It guess it is up to the worker bees to make life more comfortable
for the queen and appease her. Unfortunately, just as every rose has a thorn
every cute honey-making bee also has a stinger (bees are not necessarily as
sweet as their honey). And that stinger is chivalry....a politically-correct
term for anti-male sexism. When men are cornered into making stressful and
life-threatening sacrifices for women and children we call it the "gentlemanly"
thing to do. Talk about spin-control. We teach men and boys that it is just as
rewarding for them to "work" and "give" to women pleasantries that these very
same women just as happily "take". I see the ads depicting a "love-struck" man
"happily" spending hard-earned money and buying his true love a "wedding ring",
chocolates, spa packages, or flowers where the woman is just as happy to
"accept" them. I wonder how many women have EVER bought a man an expensive ring
and treated him like the "prize"....or how many working women feel entitled to
the male-dominated professions of the "glass ceiling" as opposed to joining the
equally male-dominated blue-collar underclass of the "glass cellar". After all,
the pay-gap is not only a myth, but the female dominated spending gap is very
real. I recently went into a hard-ware store that was selling T-shirts saying
"The Man's Shopping Mall" on them. Naturally I compared the type of merchandise
in the "man's shopping mall" (hardware store) with the merchandise in the
garden-variety shopping mall. And since the aforementioned T-shirt took the
liberty to separate the stores by gender, I will assume for the sake of argument
that the garden-variety clothing store is generally female terrain (although
technically shopping malls have a myriad of clothing and items for males). The
merchandise in the hardware store generally emphasizes boring and
possibly dangerous work-related productivity that also benefits "women and
children". For example, they had items like toilets, house paint, bug spray,
glue, deck stain, power tools, tool boxes, work clothing, cement mix, WD-40,
tires, grass seed, lawn mowers, and auto-motive parts. The regular shopping mall
has items that allow women to feel special, pampered, healthy, safe, happy,
beautiful, comfortable, relaxed, or to feel like a princess. Common things in
these stores are fashionable clothing, nail salons, massage centers, makeup,
jewelry counters, candy shops, food courts, chic bath and body solutions,
fashionable purses, and hair salons. Obviously, when females do traditional and
"domestic" household chores this is not fun and games either. However, if
housework is as menial as PC feminists would have us believe, why are so few
women willing to marry down or marry a male househusband while she scurries off
to the salt-mines? I am reminded of a "battle of the sexes" board-game I saw
once showing on the cover a "power drill" on the male side and a "diamond ring"
on the female side. How can that box cover even be remotely symbolic of a
"gender battle"? How is a power drill (a boring tool for work) even remotely
comparable to getting a romantic and frivolous diamond (paid for by men)? It
would have been more accurate to call the board game "Unsuccessful Battles of
the Male Underclass". It is funny how many self-professed "progressive" and
avant garde intellectual "feminists" want to retain age-old conservative notions
of chivalry and female materialism. Are women really too weak....or just too
special? Are men really strong....or just disposable?

I am a masculist
AND a feminist. I believe that gender roles can restrict us all. I think too
many females are objectified as "sex objects" while too many males are
objectified as disposable and heroic "success/status" objects. As a feminist, I
believe that women are strong, talented, and intellectual. As a masculist, I
believe that men are sensitive, vulnerable, capable of weakness, and emotional.
As a masculist, I believe that men are too often taught to "play the hero" and
take unnecessary risks to "prove" their masculinity. As a feminist, I believe
that women are too often taught to "play the victim" and playing the part of a
"damsel in distress" with "learned helplessness". Males and females alike have a
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This means equal pain AND
equal pampering. So this begs the question: if we as a society like to think of
ourselves as "tolerant", "compassionate," and "non-sexist", then how does it get
away with treating males so badly? I believe the answer involves cognitive
biases like cognitive dissonance (justifying hurtful thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors with guilt-alleviating and ego-preserving intellectual justifications
like the "just world hypothesis"), blind obedience (like the Milgram Shock
Experiment), blind conformity (like the Asch studies on conformity), biased
conceptualizations of "privilege", and self-fulfilling prophecy/role-playing
(like the Zimbardo Prison Study). Few of us want to "admit" to being "sexist",
since this is a "negative label". It is easier to "believe" you are non-sexist
when you can at the same time justify resentment and envy with excuses like the
"Duluth Model" or the male perp/female victim dichotomy. And it is not just PC
feminists. I believe that in general male death, pain, and disposability has
always been secondary to the protection of "women and children". I will close
with a statement that too many men throughout history have always wanted to say:
Why do I always have to be the strong one?

I strongly believe that the upper hand has to be rested with the male chauvinist. I do appreciate your effort to prove your stand of 'given a inch, will lose a mile.' But, I really think that lets take away male or female chauvinism. I would get away from all hype and hoopla about male or female freedom. Just, tell me only one thing that are you ready to or able to carry a baby like a female do in her womb. Straight and face smacking. IF YES IS THE ANSWER, I FEEL WITHDRAW AND REGRET FOR MY COMMENTS.

What does that have to do with anything? That would be like me asking you "Just, tell me only one thing that are you ready to or able to take care of me for the rest of my life, then get tossed to the side because I don't like you anymore.

Straight and face smacking. IF YES
IS THE ANSWER, I FEEL WITHDRAW AND REGRET FOR MY COMMENTS.

 

I did it in your "english" so that you might fully understand here.

Again leave aside the chauvinism. The core of my arguement is to give the just respect of woman, who to me is a creator next only to god. The core is what I want to establish and nothing else. Sorry to say that if 'are you ready to or able to take care of me for the rest of my life,
then get tossed to the side because I don't like you anymore', I am not really ready to do.

There is no chauvinism in my approach, just equality. Might I suggest you are the chauvinist for placing and keeping women up on a pedestal?

 

While I agree with much of that approach, and have done that in the past, I disagree with creating laws around that, giving women much more than just equality. Wait until you become married, only to be taken for granted, tossed out of your home, and have your life savings stripped away from you in court. It is only then you will realize what a disgrace to your gender you really are by supporting gender-feminism.

 

Here is what some of your fellow compatriots in India think of DV month in India: - http://dvawareness-india.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-release-hyderabad.html

Women are reated next to "god"???

 

Puh-leaze!!!

Keep in mind nothing would grow in the womb were it not fertilized properly by a man's penis being inserted!  Well okay we have the tech to artifically accomplish this but it still requires a males sperm.  naturlover you may prefer jerking off into a test tube but I for one still prefer the vaginal approach and besides I love to put a smile on my partners face in the process.  When you grow up and become a man someday you might be able to relate!

 

Just from the first post, I like women's conferences for inspiration, and hearing inspirational stories of people that have made it through the other side of whatever issue/problem/condition.  I don't care so much for celebrity names attached, that wouldn't drive me to go.  I like hearing from normal, not high profile people.  On the other hand, I could remove the word "women" from women's conference and be just as inspired. 

 

Men and women both garner inspiration, ideas, and help from people within their own gender moreso typically than across the lines, but not always the case.  I am not into bra-burning (sorry guys, it would be ugly) feminism, so I'd never show up to one of those events.  Inspiration, plain and simple.  And not an event that is emploring the attendees to sign up for mandatory volunteerism either. 

 

I am sure you can guess that I get leery over some of these events.  Hey MF, you going to join the Million Man March?  oh... I crack me up

dangit... I wonder why my smilies sometimes don't show up...

Oh it's due to the WYSIWYA editor I have installed throws in some extra characters if you type after a "smiley", just one of the "quirks" I have yet to work out.  Yeah this board is a work in progress, I'm trying to do what I can in between making a living

Solje!

 

Nope, no million man marches for this guy. I'm currently working in the trenches on multiple issues nationwide. We're giviing Obama's policy maker (Jennifer Kaplan), office of the OVW, DOJ some well deserved grief over what happened in WV lately: -

A Letter To Jennifer Kaplan -

http://wadvpress.org/?p=407

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/11/04/a-letter-to-jennifer-kaplan-of-the-office-on-violence-against-women/

 

That's right. I'm contribute to Men's News daily now and actually get paid for some of the material I write!

 

Peace from me and my kitties!

MSF wrote:

"While I agree with much of that approach, and have done that in the past, I disagree with creating laws around that, giving women much more than just equality. Wait until you become married, only to be taken for granted, tossed out of your home, and have your life savings stripped away from you in court. It is only then you will realize what a disgrace to your gender you really are by supporting gender-feminism."

 

Well I have been married for the past eight years and leading a normal peaceful life. here below have a great example of male chauvinism in ao:

Keep in mind nothing would grow in the womb were it not fertilized properly by a man's penis being inserted!  Well okay we have the tech to artifically accomplish this but it still requires a males sperm.  naturlover you may prefer jerking off into a test tube but I for one still prefer the vaginal approach and besides I love to put a smile on my partners face in the process.  When you grow up and become a man someday you might be able to relate!

This is what I mean about the herd mentality, NL. You completely ignore the laws that I have brought forth and even the Indian men's group, instead choosing to rest your case on your own personal experience. It doesn't take much to think outside the box, especially when it is widely know that over 50% of all marriages wind up either in failure or divorce.

Your basis continues to be one liners that have more in common with the herd, while my basis is the multitude of factoids that I have brought forward.

So, you continue to hold women in regard as being "next to god" and let them manipulate you and your life until your testicles fall off, if they haven't already. Men also have a right to be men, and not just what women desire them to be. That, is where you get lost in the herd.

 

You are completely whipped.