Support NeoGAF

[Sanky Panky]

I see the two camps as two staunch political parties, where each side is making their demands, but nobody is willing to come to table unless the other side concedes. Feminists will continue to highlight the inequality of women, and MRAs will counter with issues that need to be addressed for men.

Where the negotiations break down is that one side marginalizes the institutional historical and present bias that one side experiences. Instead of empathy, in the form of collective efforts to level the playing field in some of the most basic human wants for security and respect, one side sees it as an attempt to take control. I am indeed biased, and I am claiming that one "political party" has more pressing issues than the other.

I don't think MRAs are in favor of violence against women, for example, but solutions to the structural and institutionalized danger that affects women more than men, gets lost in the strong stance of MRAs that they will not give credence to feminism until their issues are addressed also. I highly doubt MRA blogs are full of proposals on how we should be changing the culture of fratboys and football players, for example, on how they view women as sex objects. That article posted by Mumei states that males down the chain also feel powerless, but the source of their powerlessness comes from a different place than what women are subjected to, but they refuse to recognize this. I think it really comes down to men are judged on what they do, and women historically have been judged on how they look/sexuality. MRAs expect empathy from women, when they don't budge or give credence to the issues of feminism. It's amazing to see that people like that Lopaz guy are out there.

 

[FO-totality]

I was really only saying that calling a movement whose raison d'être is achieving equality for women "feminist" made sense; I was not saying that "men cause most of the problems so gender equality should be identified as a specifically female concept/trait." And since it made sense at the time to call it feminism, and that goal is still not achieved, I think the name still makes sense. But it is also true that I have never seen anyone point out an issue that men face that is not the product of patriarchy, and that insofar as feminism is about the deconstruction of patriarchy, feminism is also concerned with dealing with those issues.

Feminists have long known that feminist ideas would also benefit men. I was watching a lecture by Michael Kimmel with PopGAF a few nights ago, and he closed on a quote by Floyd Dell who begins his essay "Feminism for Men", published in 1914 for the socialist magazine The Masses, "Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free."



Hey, I like that word.

But what happens, in a very future and hypothetical situation, where all inequality towards females is gone and done with, and the minor issues that affect men negatively still exist is some modicum. Assuming feminism even still exists by this time and is working toward total equality, is feminism still an apt term at this point?

I'm not saying I can't see a reason for it now, because I can, but as the span in equality get's closer and closer, I see feminism becoming less and less an apt nomenclature. I don't know when that equivalence point of "equality vs. aptness" will be reached, but I would imagine it would happen sometime, right?

 

[Thug Waffle]

And since it made sense at the time to call it feminism, and that goal is still not achieved, I think the name still makes sense.

To be fair, gender bias will likely never be fully eradicated from our society. If the idea is to hold onto the 'feminist' title until no such bias exists (this even includes stereotypes), that seems a bit futile. Plus, it sort of reinforces a binary gender landscape.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Everyone, because it will allow a more ready acclimation by a larger group, at least in my mind, and it fits the more modern goals better.

The MLK vs Malcolm X argument is an interesting one when it comes to feminism. The flaw I see there is that while MLK bent over backwards to be inclusive, he was the carrot, and the black empowerment groups were the stick in the minds of the white majority. But he never called for radicalism to end wholesale: he was simply always at the inclusive end of the spectrum. And I feel there are plenty of inclusive feminists out there, willing to work hand-in-hand with sincere allies to the cause of gender equality.

 

[Deified Data]

That first tweet is pretty much spot-on, for all intents and purposes. There are one or two men's rights issues that are legitimately deserving of attention, but they seem to get drowned out by petty shit like "why husband so dumb and wife so mean?!"

 

[Biff]

Did dude get banned because he said something a mod didn't like?

I read through his post history, and while I agree he was being rude, he was getting it back as well :S

This probably isn't the right place but there is a real lack of transparency regarding bannings on GAF that most other forums do not share... I really don't think it's thread-worthy, but I'm guessing mods are still watching this thread and hopefully the right person will see this message.

That is all, have a good night everyone

 

[timetokill]

Some good discussion in here. Liked the blockquote that Mumei posted.

I really do think that feminism needs a branding makeover. Feminists will cringe to hear that; I've never met a self-identified feminist who is into marketing. But it's absolutely vital, and if you're interested in shaping public thought and discourse it would do good to accept it as a fact of life.

Anyway, I think first is the name. The etymology of "feminism" is segregational. It says that it's primarily concerned with women, as opposed to with equality. It is hard to get men to identify and rally around this proposition. People are selfish by nature. And where are these thoughts discussed? In classes like "women's studies" which further emphasizes the exclusionary feeling that men feel from feminism.

Furthermore, I think efforts need to be made to be more inclusive towards men as critical parts of the movement. Just as you see that women feel disenfranchised by power structures where men have all the notable positions, the same happens with the feminist movement and how men are often treated. Feminists talk all the time about wanting better role models for young girls; how about positive male role models in the feminist community?

There are many men I would suspect who feel disenfranchised by feminism because they offered a viewpoint or a suggestion and it was either treated with:
a) immediate condescension by vocal feminist leaders, and aggressive retorts
b) acknowledgement and then dismissiveness
c) patriarchal response ("oh the poor widdle man" is the most hypocritical one that I often hear in feminist circles)

None of these responses do anything to help the person feel included in the movement. Additionally, males notice the difference in how new people are treated; women who suggest or ask things that aren't "feminist-friendly" are recommended things to read, questioned, prodded into understanding, etc. Males on the other hand are often met with derision or suspicion. Considering that feminists have developed a language all their own with concepts that are foreign to many people, this treatment of potential newcomers is discouraging. Yes, there are a lot of trolls on the internet. But to basically require new and interested people to have a ton of knowledge into what is often viewed as a "PC minefield" when discussing topics is intimidating to people.

Ultimately men feel left out of the movement and powerless; in an effort to assert some kind of power and have their grievances heard, they form a counter-movement simply so they can find other discouraged, disaffected people who want to discuss issues important to them. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, least of all feminists.

 

[FO-totality]

The MLK vs Malcolm X argument is an interesting one when it comes to feminism. The flaw I see there is that while MLK bent over backwards to be inclusive, he was the carrot, and the black empowerment groups were the stick in the minds of the white majority. But he never called for radicalism to end wholesale: he was simply always at the inclusive end of the spectrum. And I feel there are plenty of inclusive feminists out there, willing to work hand-in-hand with sincere allies to the cause of gender equality.

Perhaps, but then again I don't like feeling that all I could ever be is a "sincere ally" even though I don't like to apply the labels of "feminist" or "male feminist" to myself. I just think there is a term to be made a reached that goes beyond the binary divide.

 

[Mumei]

But what happens, in a very future and hypothetical situation, where all inequality towards females is gone and done with, and the minor issues that affect men negatively still exist is some modicum. Assuming feminism even still exists by this time and is working toward total equality, is feminism still an apt term at this point?

Okay, maybe then it would make less sense - though I don't think this hypothetical is very possible.

But I think you have sort of skipped over a point I was trying to make in my response to you: How do you propose a name change be made now? And how much efficacy do you think this change would when the newly coined equalists would still be making reference to feminist thinkers, feminist writings, feminist terminology, and with the same people who have opposed feminism from the start castigating feminists for this transparent move? How likely are you to get feminists on board with this change in labeling when it seems to implicitly validate the claims of detractors that feminism is not about gender equality but about women having dominance over men? I feel like you recognize that the word "feminism" doesn't necessarily communicate that feminism is beneficial to men as well. Fair enough; I can agree with this. But then you think: "Well, then why not just change the name?" And I feel like you're not really thinking through how efficacious this would actually be in practice.

To be fair, gender bias will likely never be fully eradicated from our society.

I read your previous post, by the way. I'm sorry for not responding to it, but it is 2:30 AM and my brain doesn't seem to be working.

 

[akira28]

Perhaps, but then again I don't like feeling that all I could ever be is a "sincere ally" even though I don't like to apply the labels of "feminist" or "male feminist" to myself. I just think there is a term to be made a reached that goes beyond the binary divide.

Feminists come in all flavors and models, and they infight like any other group with so many different supporters, philosophies and mindsets.

I consider myself a feminist(little f), but I certainly don't agree with everything that carries the Feminism logo.

 

[FO-totality]

Okay, maybe then it would make less sense - though I don't think this hypothetical is very possible.

But I think you have sort of skipped over a point I was trying to make in my response to you: How do you propose a name change be made now? And how much efficacy do you think this change would when the newly coined equalists would still be making reference to feminist thinkers, feminist writings, feminist terminology, and with the same people who have opposed feminism from the start castigating feminists for this transparent move? How likely are you to get feminists on board with this change in labeling when it seems to implicitly validate the claims of detractors that feminism is not about gender equality but about women having dominance over men? I feel like you recognize that the word "feminism" doesn't necessarily communicate that feminism is beneficial to men as well. Fair enough; I can agree with this. But then you think: "Well, then why not just change the name?" And I feel like you're not really thinking through how efficacious this would actually be in practice.

Did you make this point earlier? I can't tell. Maybe you did, I don't know. I'm notorious for skimming.

I'm not a plumber: I know that the pipes are leaking but the knowledge and skills on how to fix the issue on the rises do not reside within my skull. My guess would be that you have a prominent feminist thinker suggest it, let it be debated in open and in earnest. Will it work? I don't fucking know, I don't think anyone could predict accurately. Nor can anyone force an idea into someone like "Boom. Feminism = Done! Equalism = Start!" but with debate it might come into fruition. That would be my only suggestion, really. But if the problem of inclusiveness does exist in this scenario, I think it's foolish to not attempt it because "probably won't work." Maybe it won't, that's a possibility, but does it hurt to try?

I think this may come down to "the term is broken but it's not that broken" to which I could give them, but in the hope of a better future, I do in my heart of hearts, think that there will come a day when feminism effectively becomes an obsolete term and a concept for the history books in a more equal society. I still feel the term is unsatisfactory in scope and unnecessarily divisive, and for that point, I don't want to call myself a "feminist" or "male feminist" or "pro-feminism". Call me a strong ally if you want, but I'll call my self an Equalist, because that's what I feel I should be called.

 

[Vagabundo]

Hilarious? Those are pretty pathetic. Both sides are. Crazy feminists and crazy MRA's should just be ignored, not hated upon.

They should marry and bring up dysfunctional kids who hate themselves..

 

[Devolution]

It'd make more sense to me to just come up with an advocacy group focused on men's issues when it comes to the patriarchy that doesn't put feminism in its crosshairs. Feminism doesn't have to change its label and it has an ally instead of an antagonistic group to deal with.

 

[cutmeamango]

Choose your gender egality:

Spoiler

Two are subjective due perception!

 

[FO-totality]

It'd make more sense to me to just come up with an advocacy group focused on men's issues when it comes to the patriarchy that doesn't put feminism in its crosshairs. Feminism doesn't have to change its label and it has an ally instead of an antagonistic group to deal with.

If one did and did so in earnest and sincerity, I still think they would be lumped with hateful MRA groups, at least initially.

It does make sense, though, and I would like to see a group like that. I could see an umbrella ideology of equalism arising from the merging or collective work of the two.

 

[Lionheart1337]

If one did and did so in earnest and sincerity, I still think they would be lumped with hateful MRA groups, at least initially.

It does make sense, though, and I would like to see a group like that. I could see an umbrella ideology of equalism arising from the merging or collective work of the two.

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdUsl4Rz-gA

tells me all I need to know about bringing up males' issues as a standalone thing, without the anti feminist undertones.

The problem is that some people don't want to understand that not everyone makes this direct association of feminism and equality. And not everyone thinks that feminism is the end all be all, all-encompassing movement for gender equality, or a device for equality at all in many cases. So being anti-feminist or even non-feminist is seen as the next best thing to being Hitler himself. It is automatically seen as hate. It is too broad an idea and I've seen MRAs do the same thing. "You believe in equality that makes you one of us!". I don't think it works that way and I think both the MRA and feminist ideals are more complicated than that. It requires a bit more than professing something that everyone professes (equality). If that's what we're going by then MRA's are feminists and feminsts are MRA's.

My memory could be a little foggy but afair this thing that was protested is about something along the lines of how to get young boys to stop falling behind in education. Never mind the fact that the guy presenting it has done more for feminism than pretty much anyone there. He's talking about MENS RIGHTS DAMNIT. HE'S ONE OF THEM! Get the guillotine!

Spoiler

something about straw feminists

 

[Timedog]

Anyone who doesn't like feminism because of the name does not truly give a fuck about the actual issues. If they did, they'd simply call themselves Equaligaliveganissimos or whatever name they think fits better, and educate themselves and fight for the cause under whatever name they think fits. "I don't like the name therefore I'm gonna ignore and or discredit it" makes no sense whatsoever.

Anyone who ignores or discredits a movement solely because of its name--the most superficial aspect possible--was probably never going to give even half a shit regardless of the name, but simply use that as an easy excuse.

 

[Vagabundo]

Anyone who doesn't like feminism because of the name does not truly give a fuck about the actual issues. .

Bollox. Feminism is a pretty toxic word nowadays. IMO mostly due to idiots and loonies labeling themselves Feminists and spouting shite.

Ask most people* if they are for Equal Rights, sure, so are you a feminist, fuck no. Men and women.

*Your country may vary.

 

[Timedog]

Bollox. Feminism is a pretty toxic word nowadays. IMO mostly due to idiots and loonies labeling themselves Feminists and spouting shite.

Ask most people* if they are for Equal Rights, sure, so are you a feminist, fuck no. Men and women.

*Your country may vary.

Yes, the general public thinks feminism equals man hating. I'm not talking about the general public here.

 

[Vagabundo]

Yes, the general public thinks feminism equals man hating. I'm not talking about the general public here.

What's the point of having a great brand in academia?

There are real chances that need to happen on the social front to "raise all boats". In my own country off the top of my head: boys falling far behind girls in secondary schools, more girls getting third level qualifications, male unemployment far greater than female unemployment, zero paternity leave here, unmarried men have zero custody rights, high suicide rates among young men, young men at far higher risk of assault etc.

If your label is hindering you making changes that will really push the equality that your looking for then it's time to ditch the label.

And it is strange to hear that the name shouldn't matter when it is feminists who push the meme that language matters.

 

[Shake Appeal]

GAF on women. The age-old eye-opener.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

It really is the most superficial aspect of debate you could engage feminism with though. Should appeasing male insecurity even be an ancillary concern when there's more urgent priorities?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Hilarious? Those are pretty pathetic. Both sides are. Crazy feminists and crazy MRA's should just be ignored, not hated upon.

bravo

stupid on both sides.

 

[Diffense]

The reason 'masculism' seems weird is because men, in general, have no identity apart from their role as provider, protector, sexual partner, and impregnator of women (unless you're a King or someone important). Masculinity gains its meaning from its relationship to the feminine while femininity has been more than willing to assert its independence from men. I've heard women declare that they don't need men while most men will be happy to emphasize just how much they can't do without women. While feminists seek an identity apart from mother (which thereby diminishes father) or housewife (which diminishes provider) men still yearn to fill these evaporating roles in order to feel like a "real" man.

Taking all mushy talk about 'love' out of the picture the traditional relationships between men and women have evolved as a result of biological reasons. Think back to more rugged times. If a man wants to pass on his genes he must impregnate a woman. While the woman can be sure the child is hers the man cannot be sure unless he gains exclusive access to a woman resulting in the tendency towards monogamy or polygyny. Pregnancy and neonatal care is a significant undertaking for a woman during which she'll find back-breaking work difficult if not impossible. It is therefore important for her to pick the best provider for herself and the baby. She'll readily pick older men who have accumulated more resources while the men gravitate towards younger women who they're sure are fertile and will be able to provide progeny. These tendencies remain.

However, there have been significant changes in the nature of human life since the industrial revolution (in the relevant parts of the world). In its aftermath came the powerful nation-state with its social services, office jobs instead of ploughing the fields and supermarket groceries in lieu of hunting elk in your final trimester. Only in this context is feminism practical and it arrived just on time. With the changed opportunities in the modern age, the traditional arrangements were no longer necessary so they came under inevitable strain. Society is still trying to adjust.

I don't know if this came off as a critique/support of feminism or traditional gender roles but it isn't intended to be. It's just my neutral assessment of why things are the way they are. Self-interest, even if not consciously acknowledged, drives everything. It's human nature and indeed the very nature of nature.

 

[Lionheart1337]

It's pretty much an impossible scenario but I do think a name change (among other things) would make sense if feminism wants to poise itself as THE gender equality movement. It's marketing and maybe in a perfect non superficial world there would be nothing to gain from changing just a name that might have poor connotations. At the very least it would no longer have the female-centric implication. I don't even begrudge feminism being a female-centric movement. But if we're going to act like it's not then it only makes sense to me that some things change in accordance with the aforementioned aspirations. And I've heard it said that the patriarchy leaves men privileged and hurts men as much as women. Which is it folks....

More important than that though, it'd take much more than some of the arguments I've seen in this thread to convince me that men's rights groups are not justified because "feminism has it covered" or something along those lines. Theoretically feminism can be all that with or without the name change but in reality I and I`m sure others out there don't feel as though feminism "covers" it and definitely not to a point that the very existence of men's movements is not justified. And that says nothing about the fact that many including myself don't feel as though the feminist causes, solutions and ideas about gender issues are correct. Such as the wage gap.

 

[pants]

+1 here for renaming feminism to something more like the equality movement.

 

[scar tissue]

One of those is necessary in some measure to pursue equality. The other is more about preserving a status quo that isn't exactly fair.

If feminism is pro equal rights for everyone (i.e. more rights for women here, more rights for men there) it should be called antisexism.
Most feminists I talked to are not exactly pro father's rights, for example. They either don't care or cite made-up (?) statistics where "70% of fathers don't want custody of the kids anyway" and therefore it's only fair that the woman receives custody automatically.

 

[Bossun]

Can I create the "non equalist movement hoping for balanced inequities"?

 

[jon bones]

Tweets made me laugh

Thread made be sad =|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

Should be noted that "unfar maternity leave policies" ARE stuffs like equal maternity leave for both genders

i suppose you're right. unlike men's rights activists i am NOT pro- rape.

 

[The Bookerman]

I actually don't know what half of those guys are trying to say.

ditto. Ughhh...

 

[Ikael]

That would be feminism...

I'm starting to think that the name should be changed for the sake of those who don't know. Plenty of women, even, describe their views, which is essentially the goal of feminism, then say that they aren't feminists. Name doesn't help, I don't think.

The name "feminism" induces confusion, to say the least. Gender equality seems like a far more descriptive and accurate way to potray the ideology of the likes of Mummei.

Also, the whole "bu, but radical feminist do not exist" crew are in a deep state of denial. See also: no presumption of innocence for sexual harrassment accusations, legislation regarding child custody, certain downright harmful "positive discrimination policies" and a long etc. The presumption than our side's inherent moral superiority somehow make us all impervious and invulnerable to prejudice or revanchism is arrogant as fuck.

 

[fanboi]

Isnt the majority of all pop songs from females how much they hate men and how much better they will do without men in their life while guy pop songs is about how much they miss their girls and would buy them sport cars and shit to get them back?

We are so whipped.

 

[Lionheart1337]

i suppose you're right. unlike men's rights activists i am NOT pro- rape.

I've yet to see an MRA that professes rape, I've seen just the opposite actually. On the other hand I have seen plenty of online feminists overtly advocate killing all men, castrating all men or some other craziness. I`m still not entirely convinced that the femitheist (Youtube vlogger) is not just an extremely elaborate troll. But hey, straw feminists.

 

[Famassu]

MRAs basically exist to troll feminism. They're not that bad.

Are you a moron? Feminism is good.

I've yet to see an MRA that professes rape, I've seen just the opposite actually. On the other hand I have seen plenty of online feminists overtly advocate killing all men, castrating all men or some other craziness. I`m still not entirely convinced that the femitheist (Youtube vlogger) is not just an extremely elaborate troll. But hey, straw feminists.

Those are not feminists, if you think so, then WOW are you super-ignorant.

 

[captainnapalm]

Women should put their money where their mouth is. Stop being attracted to money and power and the abusive jerks who chase it. Stop rewarding shitty behaviour in men. Tell me when you were at school, all the jock assholes didn't get all the girls.

Men and women, we created this society together, through a complex series of social interactions that start from a very young age. This idea of society being something that is inflicted upon women by men just doesn't hold any water. Women have all the sexual power and they abuse it constantly.

 

[Dude Abides]

Women should put their money where their mouth is. Stop being attracted to money and power and the abusive jerks who chase it. Stop rewarding shitty behaviour in men. Tell me when you were at school, all the jock assholes didn't get all the girls.

Men and women, we created this society together, through a complex series of social interactions that start from a very young age. This idea of society being something that is inflicted upon women by men just doesn't hold any water. Women have all the sexual power and they abuse it constantly.

I give this post four fedoras out of five.

 

[akira28]

Those are not feminists, if you think so, then WOW are you super-ignorant.

They might not be good feminists, but they may certainly claim the title. I've seen some pretty violent stuff on the comment sections of other websites too. It's just as gross to suggest castration as it is to suggest mutilating women. But read the comment section of an article about rape or domestic violence, and you'll see women posting about cutting off his balls, sometimes with a modest apology.

So...it's out there.

I give this post four fedoras out of five.

he might have had something debatable, up until that last line.

 

[captainnapalm]

I give this post four fedoras out of five.

I've already hit 30. I'd be one sad hipster.

 

[firehawk12]

I give this post four fedoras out of five.

Damn.

 

[akira28]

I've already hit 30. I'd be one sad hipster.

I want to see a female version of that post.

 

[Xzeon]

i guess they need a new term, maybe Equalism.

the terms Feminism and Masculism make it seem like theres a war between genders and that doesnt really help anything.

you get crazy idiots in any group, and usually those are the ones that are the loudest.

so it ends up, 'all men are evil' vs 'all women are crazy' and its dumb and nothing is accomplished. the idiots poison the whole movement and the entire thing is written off like a joke.

i know there cant be complete equality cuz that would be ignoring the fact that we do have differences, but we can try to strive for better equality than what we have now.

we need common sense and a focus on the real issues using real facts, instead of just trying to 1up the other side or trying to 'win' the war.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

MRAs basically exist to troll feminism. They're not that bad.

They are, feminism isn't troll worthy.
Extreme feminism is, but it's hard to troll extreme feminism without trolling the rational feminism.

 

[Lionheart1337]

I just realized one of the tweeters is Jamie Kilstein. That dude was on Joe Rogan making a damn fool of himself over the Tosh.0 rape joke controversy.

 

[Sanky Panky]

It's ok re-brand feminism to "equality movement" but the FOR WOMEN needs to be in the title, and needs to be equally supported by all men. You can't force a still subjugated group surrender the "for women" specific movement, because some men feel insecure about it.

Feeling powerless for men comes from personal insecurity (except for obvious concerns about rape, unjust court decisions, etc, which should be concerns for all of us). If we go by that Warren Farrell guy alone, the spiteful shit he says is full of insecurity. In the same sentence he talks about violence against women, he compares how playing football, or according to him "violence against men", is celebrated. If that is not trivializing the issues, I don't know what is.

 

[Xun]

Oh boy another one of these threads.

It's ok re-brand feminism to "equality movement" but the FOR WOMEN needs to be in the title, and needs to be equally supported by all men.

The hell?

This isn't going to help anything.

 

[Sanky Panky]

Oh boy another one of these threads.

The hell?

This isn't going to help anything.

Same as trivializing women's issues won't help anything.

 

[Vagabundo]

Feeling powerless for men comes from personal insecurity (except for obvious concerns about rape, unjust court decisions, etc, which should be concerns for all of us).

Men should just man up, get over it? IT's all in our head?

 

[Sanky Panky]

Men should just man up, get over it? IT's all in our head?

We can all be victims of violence and unfairness, so I'm not saying that men should just man up in the face of those. However, all one has to do is read what Warren Farrell says to see the dwarfed view on what is "unfair" for men. It mostly stems from insecurity, and tries really hard to equate women issues with those of men.

To expand on my point, feminism needs a more centralized message/leadership, and further education on the issues endorsed by both sides. It doesn't need a new name.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I don't get this whole Men's Rights thing. Everyone pretty much understands, for example, why it's wrong to have White Rights groups, or why affirmative action is NOT unfair discrimination against whites. It's because of the historical context of white vs. minority relations and how society was shaped around those relations.

Why can't people understand it when it comes to women? This is a class of people that have been historically, and I'm talking since the Bible days, treated as property, as "less than" in all aspects of life. You want to ignore hundreds of thousands of years of that, as well as the fact that women are still not accepted in many roles today, and complain about being expected to pay for dinner?

I usually pride myself on my empathetic ability, but this is just one group of people I can't wrap my head around.

 

[Christine]

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal... If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.