Farce

Not funny enough to be Romeo...not yet anyway.

Anyone who thinks women should have to prove their "equivalence' to men, as human beings, shouldn't be taken seriously. And most of our members already know that.

Women don't need to prove anything, they just needed men to get out of their way, so they could actualize their potential in society, and realize their civil rights--and since that's happened, they've been doing fine.

His basic premises are so absurd, this should be a humor thread.

You're right, of coarse. But having been an advocate for women since I was a young man, I don't take too many issues about minorities, gays and lesbians, and women too lightly. I probably have to lighten up! LOL

I like that about you. I can tell you mean what you say....But then--I probably need to lighten up myself.

Naw, he sounds nothing like Romeo.

He sounds exactly like nononono (or Buttermilk, who seems to be another alias)-- he/they are obsessed with feminism and Women's Studies college courses, and nononono already took a swipe at Beyoncé in another thread. This time the approach is to be more deliberately provocative (and insulting) but it's the same crap in slightly different packaging. He's an attention whore.

No, I don't think you should lighten up, I just wouldn't waste too much time on this manipulative clown.

I did not know this. I find this stat very encouraging.


Economic power rivals political power.


But I suspect there is more to be done on this front.


Yes, but there is more to be done here too.

Thanks for this information.

You're welcome, and WELCOME TO A2K.

I thought it was. (It should certainly be treated as such; ehBeth had the right idea right away.)

Maybe that's why it's titled, "Farce' --although I think the humor in that is inadvertent.

I said women are sex toys. You added the rest. Do you not agree with my statement?

Your argument is bit circular, as you state that men need to get out of the way, but than state that women are doing fine. I'm not sure which side of the fence your on? If you could clear that up, I would appreciate it. Having stated the obvious, I will try and respond to your argument.

Actually, proof of an idea is kinda the motivation behind Womens Studies, isn't it? It certainly hasn't made any progress towards this proof, or even built a solid foundation to further its central idea. It's had it's chance, but its still a whirlwind of useless stats that both sides can argue without resolution (again, we come across the good old red headed step-child of mathematics: statistics).

I actually agree with you though (I think, again..see: circular argument). All my life, I've never thought of a woman as less-capable than men. It never even crossed my mind. They were just another human, friend, lover, sibling, mother, sex toy, wife...whatever. I'm not sure why you might have thought otherwise?

You state that women are “doing fine”. With this in mind, perhaps you also see modern feminism as pointless? Do you think that Womens Studies is a discipline worthy of higher education? I sure don't, but you seem to agree with me, so I won't waste too much time.

Please...challenge my ignorance, that's the point here. I see your side and I can relate, but please, also realize that I'm challenging your ignorance. Group mentality is a strong influence, and it may help solidify your BELIEFS, but be careful, as the influences on your knowledge should always be questioned...every step of the way! No doubt, allow yourself to become inspired by others, but look at both sides, and never take their information as fact until you're sure (be careful of the strength of beliefs, and don't let them stray to far inside your brain without proof!).

I agree with firefly that you shouldn't lighten up. Feel passionate about an idea and express your ideas. You appear to be an individual that act's on emotions. My advise to you is the following: feel you emotions (you really have no choice), but, in a situation like this, let those emotions pass, and then develop and formulate your ideas using those former emotions as a guide.

Having said that, I think that we have a lot more in common than you think! You claim that you've dealt with issues about gays and lesbians. Me too! I'll admit that, on the outside, they seem like regular heterosexual people, but I'd like to think that were both clear on the fact that they have flawed brains. Do you agree?

//Not to drive this off-topic, but it may lead to something else I'd like to address!?

The only 'flawed brain' on this thread so far is yours, ben.

Beyonce can call herself anything that she wants, as can any other human in the world. The amount of money one makes doesn't change that!

I think it's important for you to know that the ONLY goal in human life is happiness. Money does not equal longterm happiness, its been shown countless times, and as such it should not be a measure of success. Do you agree? Having said that, Beyonce is in the public light, and she does have power. This power allows her to influence people across the world....but what has she done with it? That's the real question.

The problem I have is that she labels herself with an idea, a so-called discipline, and as such attempts to represent women across the world. She's a goal one may strive to achieve, or in the least, an influence on a pliable mind. However, this power should be used to send an accurate message, and not just one that preys on the weakness prevalent in the foundation of modern feminism.

On one hand, what we do know is that she's uneducated, in both a general sense and seemingly in the subject of Womens Studies. Although, she might not have any say in how she's portrayed to the media. For this reason, I shouldn't be going after Beyonce herself, as I'm sure that theres a large PR team behind her that's using feminism to boost their agenda, and she's just too dumb to realize the message she's sending:

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Message: Bey feminism = Sexuality and empowerment.

......uummmm wtf does that mean? Has she built something else upon this idea? All women need to get in a thong and bounce your ass for all to see, is that it? Most importantly, does this have anything to do with feminism? Or does this just sound like some PR brainwash bullshit?
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

On the other hand, if Beyonce really thinks she's a feminist, then I would advise her to escape her uneducated back-story, and learn something on the subject. Imagine having an influential individual that's actually educated and sends a realistic message! However, so far the only thing she's done for womens rights is shake her ass in a thong and try to ban words from the English language. She might suggest, this is “her feminism”, which is a confusing, but realistic outcome of a discipline with a weak foundation. However, she is a prime example that making money doesn't make you smarter.

No, gays and lesbians do not have flawed brains. What they do in their love for each other is natural and normal. It's normal human behavior; it's proven by the fact that all races and cultures have homosexuals. It's not something they 'learned,' but came naturally like heterosexuals. Some unfortunately do not feel comfortable in their gender, and they must have a sex change. Nature does that to some people; they have no choice, and for chrisesakes, they didn't learn that - it came naturally.

cicerone

I love you buddy (are you a guy?...Ill just call you buddy anyways, take no offense if it's inaccurate). Think about my other reply...the one suggesting that you step back and evaluate your emotions.

Thanks for answering the question. I really do love your gusto, and I do, in fact, love that you keep things simple. The greatest ideas are built upon simplicity! Math, Physics, and even some of the social sciences!

Gays and lesbian brains are flawed. That's what I stated. Look further down than what you experience in life. Look past what is socially acceptable. They're different than a heterosexual, and I claim that the difference lies in their brain. Our goal in life is happiness, but our biological goal is something different.

Thank you. It is getting late but I've had a difficult time signing off because so many threads were fun. Then I found you and my eyelids got heavy. I'm falling asleep as we spea zzzžzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I said, Women don't need to prove anything, they just needed (past tense) men to get out of their way, so they could actualize their potential in society, and realize their civil rights--and since that's happened, they've been doing fine.

Is that clearer?

When I was in college, women were actively discriminated against and prevented from entering many areas of employment, or quotas exited, or you just didn't see any female role models in certain areas. Female college students were basically expected to marry and become housewives and mothers or were nudged into traditionally female professions--teaching, nursing, speech therapy, etc. The fact that the women's movement overlapped with the civil rights movement in the 60's helped to start to change all that--that's when the men began to get out of the way, because anti-discrimination laws forced them to stop some, but not all, of the blatant discrimination that had been going on. But, once that door opened, much greater opportunities, and equality, for women became possible, and I do feel women have made slow and steady progress ever since. They have a ways to go, but they continue to make progress.

In the U.S., I'm not sure that modern feminism is necessary, as a separate advocacy group, given that the concept of gender equality, and efforts to attain it, are now ingrained into the broader thinking of the general culture, and are generally shared by men as well. That doesn't mean I think it is pointless.
And, on a global level, I do think it is necessary in other parts of the world, where discrimination of various types still exists, and females are deprived of things as basic as an education, which will hold them back, and limit them, their entire lives.

I had to look at the current course listings in the Women's Studies area, at a number of colleges and universities, to be able to answer that question. Unless you're currently a college student, you're really unacquainted with these departments. Given the rants I've heard about such courses, in various A2K threads, I fully expected to find them focused on feminist issues and views. That was definitely not the case.

The departments I looked at were all focused on women, in one way or another, but they offered very little in the way of specific teaching about feminist views or feminism, out of a selection of maybe 25 or 30 courses at some of the schools. Most of them were cross-disciplinary, with faculty drawn from a number of other departments, so that courses in women writers, or the depiction of women in Asian art, or the psychology of women, and similar offerings, far out numbered things like the history of feminism, or anything even specifically connected to feminism. They were simply courses that contained information about women, or women's contributions or influence in various areas, that might not be covered in the regular, traditional courses, that usually implicitly focus on men. I saw absolutely nothing connected to any sort of statistics, and nothing that suggested these departments were intended to indoctrinate students in feminism. On the whole, they seemed designed to highlight the contributions and accomplishments, and influence of women, which might otherwise be overlooked and neglected in general courses.

So, did I think the Women's Studies course offerings I looked at were worthwhile or a discipline worthy of higher education? On the whole, I did. I thought they sounded quite interesting, and, if they had had such courses when I was in college, I would have enjoyed taking some of them. I learned next to nothing about women when I was in college.


Proof of what idea? What "central idea"? I really don't know what you are referring to? You sound like you're referring to some sort of single course on a specific topic, but I really have no idea what you're talking about. How could a diverse, multi-disciplinary area, like Women's Studies, with course offerings and faculty drawn from many areas and departments, be focused on any "central idea"--other than the study of women?

And, as I said, in my previous post, I don't think women, as a whole, have anything they have to prove.

So, why did you say such down right silly things about women in your opening post? Do you really believe the things you said?

Do you really think someone like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is nothing more than a "sex toy" because of her gender?