Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

Yes, especially what he had to say about disabled persons.

Goofy, do you really believe that women are limited to two options in life; being either a housewife or working in Tesco's?
Or even that housework is solely a woman's job?
You have still a lot to learn young man.

First, turn boys into girls?
Second, that's what they teach you in US schools? Don't blame it on feminism (if that's what it still is about, which I doubt). My teachers rarely promoted violence and war. And no, they didn't teach me how to sew and bake the best cookies either ;)


Each time has its flaws. And you're probably aware that extreme feminism (that's what you guys are blaming, the extremists) is a consequence, not a cause.


Your childhood was that painful? Cuz mine was fine. And I can find a bunch of other people that would say just like me.


It's not 'objective'. That's the problem. Anyway, it's Sunday, Lord's day(!), I don't want to spend all of it debating about this if we already discussed this.


Then do it, Goofy. Nobody will force you to work at Tesco and be shouted at by the nasty boss. And since you'll be home washing the dishes and such, you'll have to find yourself a nice rich wife. So if you want to buy a car or a house, she will gladly pay it for you, and you'll be so happy!

Ah, happy world, where the man decides for everything, and the woman just smiles and shows him all the due respect.

Iron, sometimes you can see a discussion with a certain person on a certain topic is rather pointless.


I think I partly explained already why I think it's not so simple.


Well, they are better fit for physical work because they have different physique than women. It does matter in certain jobs just like in sports. It doesn't mean that women can't do physical work. But they can't grow as much muscles as men. I suppose there are some big, strong women who would be able to perform such work as done usually by men like, I don't know, at construction sites - if yes, then by all means (after all, women in Russia were building railroads and such).

If they'll get hired, that is.
My classmate chose a sculpting specialization when she got to a Fine Art School. School's director was trying to persuade her out of it - he claimed that being a girl she won't manage, it's a work in stone and wood, she wouldn't have the strength to work with a chisel. But she was stubborn and chose the sculpting specialization anyway. There were all boys in the group and they were giving her some hard time, they even gave her once for Saint Nicholas Day a bag full of condoms. She had tears in her eyes.

However, eventually, she was one of the best and most talented sculptors in that group.

Men have much different physique than women, but men's and women's brains aren't that different to claim that they can't do the same jobs (jobs that involve brains), in my opinion. That was my point.


Psyche and priorities can be influenced by society, the way people are brought up, etc. Especially priorities. And what do you mean by approaching problems?

You didn't answer my question - for which jobs women aren't good enough and why?


All my direct bosses in all my jobs were women (and those weren't "meant for women" jobs). In one of my jobs also a boss over my female boss was a woman. Only above that level was when the men were becoming the bosses. Why? I have no idea. Could you explain it to me, perhaps?


What if Polish parents and the society would encourage women to reach higher positions, to believe in themselves and help men understand that "women don't make worse bosses by default" and women would be given a chance? Do you think that "natural selection" would look in a different way then?


No.
They "brainwash" them so they wouldn't think that a man is a better candidate only because he's a man. I hope you understand that?


Iron, there was a time when the convention was that a woman couldn't vote, work in most of jobs and couldn't attend a university. When women writers had to have male name pseudonyms in order to get published and so people would buy and read their books.

For you, it seems, the right convention is - a woman makes a worse boss than a man. Does she also make a worse politician?


I'm not sure what you're talking about, you clearly misunderstood me.


lol
Iron, it's about women because it's the women who still are in need of emancipation around the world.


I used this phrase on purpose - because some men call demanding equal rights for women "whining about discrimination" :)


Me? No, I don't.


Zimmy, relax, I was just kidding :)))
The use of ":) ;)" was the indication that it was a joke.


"Amazing how much you 'feel' you know about me, Do tell me more about myself. Not only are you judging emotionally, but you 'assume' so much without evidence. (feelings are not evidence)"

:)

I am open to arguments and I try not to be fixed in my views. Why don't you wait until I'll write what are my issues with that film, what I agree with and what I disagree with and then we can discuss. You've attacked me even before I've managed to voice my opinion lol

Relax, and turn off that attacking mode a bit, with your attitude you're pushing people into defensive I suspect.
You have to make up your mind what you want to do here - you either want to let out your anger or convince someone. I think to do the latter it would be better to calm down a bit :)

I'll answer all the rest later, probably I'll have to do it in parts over a few days, so be patient, please :P


If it's not so bad then why men don't want to do it? :D


Then why men don't stay home and take care of the housework and kids?

You get your own money when you work. When you have your own money you aren't that dependent on your husband and when he starts drinking and beating the crap out of you you can take the kids and move out and make some life for yourself.

A job gives confidence, independence and an opportunity to meet people.
Besides, I can imagine it sucks when you have to ask your husband for money ;P


lol

Your horrific experience skewers your thinking. You have difficulty dealing objectively because of it and it shows in your presentations. Men who have had terrible experiences with women like the man who had acid poured on his face when he was sleeping probably have the same sort of view as you do. But these personal tragedies are anecdotal. They are not the norm.


You still don't get it. I don't claim that feminism is the cause of domestic violence committed by women. It should have been clear by now that I don't like what feminist organizations do with their phony numbers. They count every charge made by a woman as being true. They don't count false accusations which are abundant particularly in divorce cases. They still count false rape accusations as well, even when they've been proven false. Their nonsensical numbers that 1 out of 4 women get raped have been so thoroughly dispelled that even the most ardent feminists have started to back away. The DV industry is huge and many womens organizations profit big time and of course it's also an opportunity to bash men. We've all heard their hate speeches.

As to the number of spousal murders, it is true that since the mid 1970's the ratio of men killing their spouses has increased. Before that, the ratio was about 50-50. So what's changed? As you should know by now I don't accept surface information and (I) dig deeper. I call that process "fuller facts".

There are 2 things I've noticed when doing my research. First, Women have more options. Women's shelters and other facilities have given women an alternative. Many shelters for women have been licensed. Without these, the only way to escape an intolerable situation at home was to get rid of the cause. So that's a good thing, right? Problem is, men don't have those new options. . Women also have other alternatives and programs which can help them, many funded by tax dollars. Once again, men are left out.

The second reason is one of how a spousal murder is recorded. When women hire 'hit men' to alleviate their situation (usually it's for the spouses money) it is not counted officially as a spousal murder.. It is called a team murder and not counted as a wife killing her spouse. Sometimes the murderer is a boyfriend who has an interest in the victim's wife. . More women than men do this since men prefer to 'do the job themselves'.

Additionally, men tend to murder by gun, knife or by brute physical force. Women who do the murder themselves often prefer poisons. For instance, arsenic and other compounds are often used and a man dying of a 'heart attack' is noted as the cause of death. Now and then an autopsy catches this but one has to be requested by a suspicious family member. Dr. Warren Farrell writes extensively on this subject. He was head of the New York chapter of the National Organization of Women but quit after being subjected to their usual hypocrisies. In short, like me, he's an ex feminist.

As a quick aside, and sadly, the number of spousal murders by minorities is significantly higher and tends to skew the national U.S. average; but that's a subject for another forum.


You don't like the fact that this man put a ton of information together and got the result that he did so you call him "scum". because it doesn't jive with your personal experience. Is Erin Pizzey scum too? She substantiates what Feibert did and she lived it more than you. She started out protecting women only but learned the 'fuller facts" the hard way when feminists detonated a bomb near her car (among other things). So you say you like the current DV laws. How nice for you. How awful for men.

In the future I might discuss the discriminatory VAWA laws which invalidate men's issues but support womens'. It's another tax subsidized billion dollar anti-male, pro-female government enterprise. It ain't Orwell's "Big Brother" any more. It's 'Big Sister" government we're getting.


I can't wait, I'm going fishing later today and if they're biting tomorrow too.:)


Nah, those who prefer not to see the damage to relationships caused by feminists are already defensive about it or they just don't care. They've already attempted to defend the indefensible. When feminist leaders address college crowds and say, "I hate men and I'm proud of it" it doesn't phase them. It's acceptable. Of course if some male even attempted that he'd be stoned before he finished his sentence, and you know that. [/quote]

But none of the nasty consequences, only the good stuff?

IHonestly, is that the logic of feminism or just feminists with self-serving agendas?


When she referred to the idea that men ought to be compensated more based on the argument men are expected to be the first to sacrifice their health and safety ahead of anyone else. I think that's worth something and if someone simply dismisses that by calling it stupid without addressing it to be something a "toots" and a "babycakes" would do.

Now seriously, get over it already. That's the equivalent of one man calling another guy, "buddy" or "guy" or "bigshot." Anyone who gets that offended by a comment not even directed towards them really takes themselves and this board too seriously.

There are some really childish arguments here. Can we all just agree there are good feminists and bad feminists? We need to put the light on good feminists and we have to absolutely ridicule the bad radical ones (hopefully with the help of good feminists).

That tells it all, not only in this particular case. In a broader sense, negative personal experience usually colours msot people's thinking. A Ukrainian whose grandfather was killed by a Pole defending his family during WW2, even though the Ukrainians were the anti-Polish aggressors, may later feel a dislike for Poles. And a Pole who had fingernails ripped off by one of Berman's Jewish communist henchmen is not likely to harbour positive feelings towards Jews.

It is extremely difficult to rise above the wrongs and unjustices one or one's loved ones have personally suffered.
So I truly empathise with any woman, any person regardless of gender, who has suffered domestic violence. And for the children that had to witness it!

not per capita

the only countries that receive less per capita than Poland are Romania and Bulgaria

Which is understandable, given the large population of Poland versus many other countries with significantly smaller populations.

Still, in the real world, we count in actual numbers not some vague idea that Poland is worse off because she doesn't get the same amount as others per capita.

If you want a real life example : I got four large boxes and about 100 A0 posters - all teaching materials - from the EU last week. Certainly more than I've ever seen from anyone in Poland.

I don't understand why is it so obvious to you - why not make it all receive the same per capita - the difference is significant as far as I can rembemer like more than 10 per cent

Why not make it the same? Because it would be completely illogical - the system works according to need, not according to population. Don't forget that some large works that Poland can afford easily cannot be so easily afforded by smaller EU countries, hence why the per capita figures tend to be a bit distorted.

Anyway, per capita, Poland is still in the top 4 of beneficiaries. I really don't see much to cry about, unless you want to attack the EU and are using any means possible to do so.

where did you get it from - I have seen official data for the years 2004 - 2010 and it clearly stated that Poland was third lowest per capita beneficiary

The very idea you have no idea how a males should be rised already says a lot.

Look at the conception of the renaissance men, also known as Polymath:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

Drop off? You bet.

Besides, you don't think the image of masculinity has been nearly obliterated in our media? When all our 'tough' guys have been reduced to effeminate pretty boys? When every action movie is meant to gather to women more then men?


So what on Earth IS the cause??

It has nothing to do with the emancipation of women and everything to do with the suppression of patrist values such as truth (it's more important to be politically corrected then to learn facts), authority (discipline is outlawed and considered abusive), respect for tradition (progressive thinking overthrows established logic, avant-garde and the worship of originality destroys art), competition (contact sports frowned upon and sometimes outright banned, cooperation valued more then critical thinking and individuality), idealism and status (materialism takes over the fulfillments of roles. People go to schools not because they want to become doctors, or programmers, they go to schools to get jobs and make money. Greed becomes the only form of fulfillment), and so on and so forth.

Ho, BTW:

cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/01/feminism-destroying-the-planet
LOL


Yes, we already discussed this, and I completly demolished your argument. Your timid withdrawal right now suggests that you remmember is now, no wonder you don't want to go back to it.

Genderism is a load of boll*cks. We are all human being first and foremost, then men or women, Brits or Bolivians, Christians or Buddhists, dentists, farmers, pen-pushers, etc. The genderism shtick is just a clever ploy to tap into funds provided by taxpayers' money. And those holding female masturbation classes can also count on a generous kickback from dildo producers.

Objectively speaking, "tough" guys in film and media being replaced with some weak-sister-friend-zoned limp wrist, should not be a measuring stick for anything other than what is going to make money for the producers. I mean, I don't get the correlation. What's the big deal if some ridiculous caricatures of one kind have been replaced with ridiculous ones of another kind?

Tell me everything, you self-proclaimed enlightened (tough) boy.


What is tough to you? What should a boy/man be to be considered tough, virile?


Extreme feminism is a 'deviance' of feminism. Feminism defends women's rights. Even if women don't have many rights in your world, from what I read. Extreme feminism goes too far tho, as every extremism, and should be fought.


Doctors and programmers are not jobs? Blacksmiths and carpenters used to work only for the sake of passion?


You demolished nothing, you wish you did. You have your theories, good for you, bro, but please, stop with your aggressive, haughty, condescending manners. You won't make any point.

As to the article you linked, you were right, LOL.

You're absolutely right. Many women now play the "I'm offended" card. When they don't want to hear something or when they want to be "empowered" (sic), they become the deciders of what men can or cannot say. We've all experienced it. When feminists crashed a tech conference, they placed cards on men's laps which warned them to be nice to women and to not offend them. How can any woman or 'white knight' here support this?


No, the "women's liberation" movement has been led by misandrist females for decades. How many thousands of examples of their excesses and male-hate speeches do female 'fellow-travelers' need - to know this? Those women who still want to believe that it's about "equality" are either naive or just plain ignorant.


Yep I've watched some of these movies that show some 115 pound woman beating up 250 pound men. Yet, not one female has qualified for entry into the Navy Seals (yes, some have been given special permission to try).


I had to laugh when I read about a feminist "Estrogen Fest" in Chicago. It featured women in the arts and of course a heavy dose of feminist politics. These women-only events range from the likes of the Chicago Tribune recognizing 75 "Remarkable Women" who received recognition to the nutty "Vagina Monologues" where women on stage spoke fondly of their vaginas. Audiences, about 80 percent or more female applauded wildly. It's a viral craziness which women themselves don't seem to recognize. I can only imagine the complaints if men did something similar.

My point in all of this is that women have become a 'special class' protected more in law than men and also catered to socially and culturally. Yet, it seems that western women complain more now than ever and they seem to by more unhappy now than ever. Here is the latest attempt at female preference; can you believe it involves immigration? Women leaders have no shame;

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/supporters-of-immigration-bill-offer-amendment-focused-on-women/?_r=1

That seems to be true in some regards but what you quoted also expresses there are good feminists and I tend to agree with that too. Incidentally, you've attributed that to me but I don't recall typing that one out.


While you seem more fervent than I am on the matter, I must, out of objectivity, agree with you.

I dare feminist supporters to listen totally to the following video. Dr. Helen Smith explains why men are turning away from marriage and she explains our current feminized western culture........It's too truthful for some here to dare to listen to it. If you have the courage, explain where you disagree.

youtu.be/3yzUECFwU3U

nobody cares, Zimmy. All the normal people left the thread: it's just you, foreigner, kondzior

Why don't you care about the damage feminism has inflicted on society?
Are you afraid to acknowledge this?

are you referring to the mistakes your mother made raising you? ;)

It's part of the overall tactic. If they can't refute the facts and can't stand the truth or anything that runs coutner to their prejudices, they start hurling labels about and try to intimdate, humiliate or shame their discussion partners. If the partners are imervious to their name-calling and veiled threats, then they will try to find ways to suppress opimionms they disagree with by calling it 'hate speech', saying the topic has been exchausted and no-one is interested, shutting down a thread or otherwise muzzling free speech.

That applies no only to feminism but to all the component parts of the leftist utopianist culture war including attacks on the traditonal family, Church and other cornerstones of a healthy society.

On PF the very same pattern has repeated itself time and again, as anyone willing to scroll back can plainly see.

Well, to be fair and objective while she did the best she could, she, like any person (even you toots) isn't perfect.
So, bearing that in mind, let's say that I entertain your poor excuse for wit with a "yes."
The floor is yours.

I'm sorry, Polonius... I only read about one line from any of your posts.
Let me guess: I'm a conservative guy, and feminism is wrong... how unusual.
All oppressors fought hard: against women vote, against freeing of slaves...
You're on wrong side of history, dinosaurs! Women are equal under the law.

That's precisely the problem: something you disagree with becomes a red rag to a bu--...,,er, um (not to offend your genderist sensitivity) cow and that absolves you in your opinion from answering a question. Slogans, buzzwords and labels are not arguments. They are knee-jerk reactions which do not move the discussion ahead.

If I say, as I have, the we are human beings first and foremost and men or women secodnarily and you disagree, then say why you think gender is so important.

I believe there should be equal pay for equal job performance. But the employer is mainly concerend about output and cost effectvieness. What should he do about maternity leaves and monthly indispositon and PMS which may disorganise the workplace? Who is to pay for the production losses and disorganisation caused by female employees of reproductvie age? Again that's not an attack, those are legitimate questions which should be answered. Why can't they be calmly discussed?

no, I have stated my position numerously, after a while it becomes akin to talking to a wall...

Unfortunately, I don't recall you addressing the maternity, mensrtual and PMS issues which I've only just raised. What form of compensation or incentive could an employer expect for the production losses and disorganisation this could cause? I don't think anyone on PF has raised that question.

Are you freakin serious? Ask your mother about her production losses, she'll explain it to you!