Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8.com

My challenge still stands...

Can anyone point me to a prominent feminist person or feminist group that supports both woman's rights (i.e. pay equality and abortion rights) and men's rights (equal custody and incarceration rates)?

It is possible to support both woman's rights and men's rights. But, I don't see any examples of this from people or groups who identify themselves as feminist. On the contrary, many feminist groups are openly hostile to the idea of men's rights.

This is a big part of the reason that I choose not to call myself a feminist. Any group that supports equal rights for both men and women has my heartfelt support.

Your premise is hopelessly flawed.

You sound like a southern gentleman in the early 1800s bemoaning the lack of support of slaves against the abolitionists. Your myopia on this is gobsmacking.

And speaking of challenges it's been six months since I first asked you for a link to that description of feminist ideology site that all feminists adhere to.

I must admit I don't understand this. Who are the slaves in this metaphor?

Same here: I love women, if only for sex... :-))

I respect bishop for her achievements in a male dominated field in a deeply misogynist political party, but I cant respect for rejecting a clearly appropriate label for reasons of political expediency. That you desperately grab at her rejection and dismiss the opinions of the other 88% of the panel speaks volumes about how this is an eemotional issue for you and not an intellectual one.

Who are the slaves in this metaphor? I don't know, let me think about. Who is murdered most often by spouses? Who is raped most often? Who is paid less for the same work? Who owns less property? Who is more likely to have their genitals mutilated? Hmmmm. Let me pull out my applause-worthy google skills and work on that. Should have an answer for you in a week or two.

This comparison is not only excessive, it is a little twisted. Women owned slaves.

During the time of slavery, slaves were bought and sold by women. Slaves lived or died based on the word of women. Women ordered slaves to cook their meals, get their clothes ready and to clean their houses. There is not a single white woman, however bad she thought her lot in life was, that would have considered trading places with a slave even for a second.

Woman's rights have improved quite a bit over the past couple of centuries, and I am very happy for that.

But comparing the "plight" of white women back then to the conditions faced by slaves is completely ridiculous.

Comparing modern Western women to slaves now is perverse.

will try to find a link for you of a recent radio program on the CBC where they interviewed a young man following his return to Quebec. There's been a lot of coverage of this lately given the number of young Canadians travelling to the ME to join ISIL. There is fairly noisy debate in some communities as to whether they should be allowed to return.

Spot on.

I'm the one who misunderstood, . Anyway, I also don't get men wanting to go and fight for IS, not only wanting to create a large islamic state as such, but wanting to be vicious killers. I also gather that the girls moving there enjoy at least reading about all that - or so I've read.

On changing their mind, I've been interested in all the English government/police statements that the girls would be welcome back. I'm not so clear that I would trust them.

I don't think they'd be trusted, but they are British citizens and children. We all did pretty stupid things when we were in our early teens, admittedly joining IS is going a bit far.

If anyone is interested I started this thread a while back. It's an interview with an ex Al Qaida man who ended up spying for MI5. He tells how he became radicalised and how he became disillusioned and decided to spy on them for British Intelligence.

http://able2know.org/topic/269294-1

I can only speak for myself, but my girl pals were similar.
In our marriage, our household roles rested on our capabilities and interests.

He swept the floor, because I had terrific allergies to cat dander and dust mites. I did the upper level cleaning - all the cabinets, window sills, etc., because that could be done with a damp cloth.
He washed Kelly, our irish setter, since I was allergic. He's the one who took Kelly through obedience training, both in classes and in training him across the street where there was a long grassy area, and in taking him for a mile run.

We both liked to cook, and depending on what was going on in our lives, we'd switch off. If he was home writing all day, and I was a work, he'd often but not always do the cooking and I'd do the dishes. When he worked all day at UPS, unloading and lifting heavy furniture for a certain department store, I'd be the cook and wash up too. It took two guys to carry an armoire up, say, 90 steps.
I loved to garden, so I did all that. I liked to decorate, and did that, always asking him his opinion.

I did most of the grocery shopping, which I enjoy doing, but sometimes we went together.
On shopping for clothes? We sometimes did that together, sometimes not.
On picking movies to see, he probably predominated, but not always.
On buying albums, we each bought what interested us.

When I drew up plans for our house remodel, I drew them at work where I had a drafting table et al, took them home and got his input and made changes based on that.
When we did the remodelling, he and a helper did most of the construction (except for the electrician plumber friend). I was the one to go get stuff at the lumber yard/hardware store.
I'm the one who painted the walls and ceilings, played with color samples, but also asked his take on those.

Later, after the house remod, he got a job about an hour away handling the production of plays and performances at a city cultural center. I wanted to redo the garage as my studio, and was the one to do all of that, including adding new beams (that's tricky, I needed two ladders), replacing two whole walls, adding windows to a third wall, closing off the old door entrance and adding a new one facing in another direction. Also built a new garage door. He 's the one who hung the door when I'd finished putting it together. I didn't do the wiring (our electrician pal did) and the one time I needed to get up on the roof, J. did the for me as I was a scaredy cat.

On driving to his parents place about 2 1/2 hours away by freeway, I would drive there, and he'd drive back, since I'm night blind.

As I said, most of my female pals who married or lived with a guy broke down tasks in similar ways. Those who had children worked out the child-raising as whatever worked best for them in dividing time and care.

So, I don't think of us all doing things because of our gender although some stuff fell along those lines; more that we did things because of our individuality.

See also the excellent work done by Shiraz Maher from King's College, on social media. Nothing NSA-like here: he just looks at publicly available information on Facebook and co. and follows all the jihadists he can find with the goal of starting a discussion with them. Not to monitor them or convince them to go back or anything like that, just to understand how they think and what motivates them.

Maher is an ex-Islamist himself so he understands them better than most.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/21/west-no-avoiding-isis-british-jihadis

Yes, couples find out that some role sharing works better for them than others, pragmatically. Or they don't, like in my case. Lot's of disputes in my couple about this stuff, always, to the point where it's becoming a show stopper. I'm not interested in arguing workloads forever, while apparently she enjoys that a lot.

I'm more interested in sex and seduction, and there are plenty gender roles there. See the bestseller status of "Shades of Grey". Where did that come from?

That comes from human nature. You see similar behavior in non-human primates.

All this shaping of our society to make things equal is fine and good. However, humans evolved with certain traits that operate on a level far more profound than social norms. Our sexual behavior is certainly based on our evolution.

Ah.. we didn't argue about any of that task stuff. It was all 'live and let live'. Saved a lot of angst.

On shades of grey, speaking of movies, I've seen nothing but reviews saying it's awful.

I haven't seen the movie nor read the book. From what I can tell, they are both awful. Really really bad. But that's not the point. The Da Vinci Code was also piss-poor literature, and yet many read it because it tapped into something socially significant. There's a market for everything, including for sophisticated erotic novels à la Anais Nin, and for chick lit.

The point is that suddenly, a whole generation of chick lit readers is rather openly indulging in fantasies of male domination, in total contradiction with the general zeitgeist, as if they suddenly discovered they were missing onto something.

I suppose I'd like Anais Nin now, if I ran across it. Back in the seventies, I worked with a woman who went on and on about its wonderfulness, and she leant me one of the books. It immediately bored me, but I didn't get far into it and gave it back to her. Oddly, sometimes other peoples enthusiasm can be a turn off for my interest. Skiing, for example..

Hated Dan Brown's writing, therefore didn't pick up Da Vinci Code. It also gave a bad time to some italian town, I forget which, one in Tuscany I think (San Gimignano?) with all the Da Vinci Code tourists.

I dunno re chick lit readers, not being one.

I liked San Gimignano. Was it really in dvc? It is tourist bus hell during business hours but wonderful after 5.