Dating Macedonian Women

[Karposh]

Starling, lighten up for fuck's sake.

[Risto the Great]

In this case it's more that Vangelovski's constant insults skew the curve and he was the main subject of my response. Not as outstandingly bad in relation to his conduct doesn't really say much and you seem to have missed the part where you're still part of the problem and need to own up to that. If that's the case then why haven't you called him out on his insults?

You wanted me to defend you? Do you need men to protect you?

I told you about men's problems. You have avoided them in quite a feminazi kind of way. As if they never existed. Your avoidance of that discussion is proof you are part of the problem men face. But you are entitled to bat for your team.

While you may have intended it as wanting women to be capable of doing what a mother would, it still speaks of an expectation that women conform to a role that involves being the primary caregivers and child-rearers, especially since this was among the things you were responding to:

Why marry a Macedonian woman if she can't nurture her children and raise them as Macedonians? I know you are defensive about this because it is your own life choices being questioned by others here. If I had it over again, I would AGAIN choose someone who would be a wonderful mother to my children. Am I not allowed this choice? How dare you tell men (on behalf of all women) that this is unacceptable! Are all women NOW so offended by the idea of being mothers to children that they parrot your concept of what a modern woman is?

If a man chooses a women with your beliefs, good luck to him. It does not mean all men will want this and it does not mean all women have your beliefs.

Maybe you are simply not qualified to reply on this thread.

The first part directly addresses the implications of what you said and offers a reminder that those tasks should be distributed evenly between partners and that a healthy relationship requires collaboration. The rest is a response to the thread in general, attempting to address the concerns expressed.

Relationships indeed must be equal. But my penis will always be bigger than my wife's. Luckily she measures up in different ways. DIFFERENT WAYS seems to be a problem for you. You can't accept the fundamental differences between men and women that are immediately obvious to almost everybody.

Contributing the home in the way previous generations have means fulfilling the role of a housewife, basically confirming what I'd been responding to. You equated this to preserving Macedonian culture and declared women unwilling to be treated in that manner as having abandoned it. This kind of thinking tells Macedonian women "be a traditional housewife of you've failed your duties as a Macedonian." It actively pushes them away and demands that Macedonian culture in relation to women can only be this. The women dissatisfied with such a role would then opt not to bother with such men and seek men more respectful of them as spouses instead, regardless of their ethnic background. In your following response to me, you added this:

My mother was working from the age of 14. She never stopped working. Very presumptuous of you to assume she stayed at home in an apron all her married life. Perhaps you should recalibrate your assumptions.

Which equates said Macedonian women as simply American, not real Macedonian women as those are the ones who fill the roll of housewife. You even claim it has nothing to do with the 1950s stereotype when that's exactly what it is. Preserving Macedonian culture doesn't mean keeping it stagnant and unable to adapt and evolve. Things that refuse to adapt to a changing environment die out.

I stand by my point. They will be on the same playing field. Other than DNA, I would question how the modern Macedonian woman you describe would be any different from an American woman. How would living in America and adopting American beliefs be a definition of evolved Macedonism. You are confused about this.

Those deviations don't usually come from blatantly ignoring reminders that you're missing the point of what someone is saying or constantly steering the topic away from it and later claiming the original points you failed to address don't deserve to be until your off-topic demands have been addressed. That kind of thing involves unwillingness to acknowledge that you've been missing the point of what the other person has been saying or blatantly disregarding it even made aware of what you did. And to avoid misunderstandings, this is about how responses to my posts in this thread have gone in general.

In general or from me? Are all men the same in general? I think I have been quite precise and detailed in my responses. I quote your comments and reply. Is it because I don't agree with much of what you say?

Where's all this mysterious talk of women's rights been? People keep dodging my attempts to address that and trying to make it about "human issues" or sexual dimorphism instead, sometimes even belittling the discrimination women face as if "it's all in the past", "it is/was never as bad as X" or making endless ad hominem arguments. Those are fallacious arguments that fall under red herring arguments precisely because they avoid the actual point and steer the topic away from it without addressing it. If you actually address it and we reach a conclusion to this, then we can move on to other things. There's a difference between a forced change of topic born of fallacious statements and refusal to address the original point and a natural change as those things are addressed and focus is shifted to other things.

We went from how to get a Macedonian wife to women's rights. Men's rights are entirely appropriate if that was the direction things were going. You have been pretty much entirely silent on these. Did you read that article? Men should be rioting about the violent and wicked behaviour of women, particularly during divorce. Luckily I have a good one!

Actual misogynist organisations do use that term. I also pointed out the other main group using that term and the one you fell under was the one that only seems to bring it up when making false equivalence arguments that respond to problems affecting women with "but men are abused too!" when that's not the point.

Yes, you hinted I was a misogynist. We agree with your intent.

You also said it in the context of claiming that there was no wage gap and that women weren't still facing discrimination for being women:

A statement I later proved to be false.

No. You didn't prove anything. You didn't disprove my assertion that actors who promote the highest sales should be paid the most. I note Gil Gadot was paid exactly the same as Chris Evans for their first Marvel movies. I am sure she will be paid much more in the future.

You ignored my real world observation of thousands of wage earners here in Australia. I don't know what Canada is like but I am very sure there are many Macedonians on this forum who can tell you about their wife's wages.

You then went on to talk about how offended you were about an article simply explaining societal biases men unknowingly perpetuate:

Yep, it infuriated me. It is nothing like I am and seeks to paint all men with the same brush. As you seem to be doing here.

The very fact that you take such offense to pointing out that you have biases against women make you part of the problem. So don't go misrepresenting what I say and then pretend none of it was warranted.

I love women. The ones that want to be men ... less so. But I am allowed to have an opinion. Why is a woman's opinion worth more than mine?

Also you implied that equal rights for women in China would be bad for its international prosperity.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't need to imply anything. I was very clear. You didn't respond. I will make it easy for you ....
Will increasing wages in China (in this case for women) decrease the attractiveness of China as a manufacturing nation due to increased manufacturing costs?

Why not answer the question instead of pretending I implied something else?

Why not discuss men's rights while you are discussing women't rights?

And RtG, I see you playing along with it like you're not complicit to this.

Oh that was just to get you fired up, as all Macedonian women are capable of.

Are you married Starling?

[Risto the Great]

the best advice I would offer is to actually live with your intended partner for at least a year before making the decision to formally commit to each other. I think by then you should have a proper understanding of each other and whether you are able to make it work.

Tell that to the future fatherinlaw.

[Vangelovski]

Starling, lighten up for fuck's sake.

Not until you cut your nuts off and put a dress on.

[Vangelovski]

Are you married Starling?

Now this is the question I'm sure we'd all like to know the answer to...

[Gocka]

Wouldn't surprise me. I think I'm a bit younger than a lot of you. I live in a pretty liberal state in the USA, close to NYC, I've lived in Hollywood for a while, trust me I've seen it all. Many men are now conditioned from birth to believe that everything that is wrong in the world is their fault, especially white males. Quotas, reverse discrimination, gender fluidity are the future, at least for now.

Now this is the question I'm sure we'd all like to know the answer to...

I see you are back in fine form lmao, scorched earth and all, it reminds me of the good old days, when there was still a glimmer of hope that Macedonia could be saved.

In this case it's more that Vangelovski's constant insults skew the curve and he was the main subject of my response. Not as outstandingly bad in relation to his conduct doesn't really say much and you seem to have missed the part where you're still part of the problem and need to own up to that. If that's the case then why haven't you called him out on his insults? Why did you respond jokingly to a sexist joke that belittles what I've said?

I couldn't stop laughing, I hope we can all laugh about those times.

Starling seems to think everything has a deeper meaning, over analyzing every thought. She needs to read through 1000's of posts of us abusing each other. I'm pretty sure I told Vangeloski to commit suicide before, but things cool down, we are all friends in the end, and I think have a lot of respect for each other. Dare I say this is a masculine trait

RTG: the terrible things I've said to Vangeloski

All I can say is that if a toddler who can hardly talk, has enough sense and understanding to pick a gender identity, then we might as well give them a drivers license, a cigarette, and give them a job.

I'm still left dumbfounded how anyone can believe that gender identity is fluid, that any action or trait is not gender specific, and yet still believe that the random actions of a toddler can constitute an affinity to one gender or another? If this is not contradiction then I don't know what is. Toddlers don't understand gender, they don't understand what toys and clothing conform to what gender without someone telling them, they can't possibly make that choice without the guidance of a delusional adult.

For crying out loud, just look at nature. 99.9% has clearly defined males and females, with specific traits and roles. A few asexual creatures exist but they aren't anything you would wish you were. They are all lizards and critters, and they are mostly females who can reproduce without males, they dont imitate males or take on their roles. A few hermaphrodite creatures exist but are even less developed beings than the asexual ones. This idea that sex and gender can be effortlessly separated is insane at best, and why?

All that we are doing is manipulating kids into believing they are of the opposite gender, which is not that hard, then claiming that it is proof that gender is separate from sex. We stop our kids from doing all sorts of silly and dangerous things because we know better than them, we dont give children free reign on almost anything, why would this be any different. Kids dont know what it means to have a ding dong or a hoo hoo, but we do, and it is our responsibility as responsible adults to tell them the truth, just like we dont let them do all sorts of other things.

If a child woke up one day and started barking like a dog and biting people, and said I'm a dog, we would say, sweety your not a dog your a human being. So why the hell can't we tell a boy or girl that they are a boy or girl?

Absolute insanity.

[Pelagonija]

What a farked up thread and fark marxism to death..

In life, whether work, sport, military or family you need structure and roles to be clearly defined. Imagine going to war with everyone thinking they are the captains or having a football team with 11 wingers? It just wouldnt work.

Long live the traditional family, the backbone of a successful society.
Christ is the saviour and long live Macedonia.

Hitlers hatred of Marxism is making more and more sense in these modern times.

[Starling]

You wanted me to defend you? Do you need men to protect you?

No, I need you to hold the peer you claim to go hard on accountable for his inappropriate behaviour instead of brushing off the issue and normalizing it by cracking jokes right alongside him. What you say isn't being reflected by your actions. As I recall I've done that for another forum member when I saw them being patronized by someone else. Given this forum only has one moderator, that's pretty much all the regulation there is unless someone needs banning.

I told you about men's problems. You have avoided them in quite a feminazi kind of way. As if they never existed. Your avoidance of that discussion is proof you are part of the problem men face. But you are entitled to bat for your team.

You made a red herring argument missing my point. I am under no obligation to respond to red herring arguments. If I'm talking about A and you respond with "but what about B?" and I then tell you I was talking about A, you have no right to complain that I'm not talking about B.

Ah, I was wondering how long it'd take for someone to break that one out. You just love being increasingly overt and malicious about your biases don't you? Your veneer is slipping. More detail on that below.

Why marry a Macedonian woman if she can't nurture her children and raise them as Macedonians? I know you are defensive about this because it is your own life choices being questioned by others here. If I had it over again, I would AGAIN choose someone who would be a wonderful mother to my children. Am I not allowed this choice? How dare you tell men (on behalf of all women) that this is unacceptable! Are all women NOW so offended by the idea of being mothers to children that they parrot your concept of what a modern woman is?

I already explained to you that you presented this in the context of expecting women to be the primary caregivers and child-rearers and how those tasks should be divided evenly between partners. If you'll recall those links to Australian stats you probably didn't even click, surveys show that the average Australian woman firmly believes that this should be the case and are dissatisfied with being expected to do most of them rather than having it evenly distributed.

If a man chooses a women with your beliefs, good luck to him. It does not mean all men will want this and it does not mean all women have your beliefs.

Which is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not women should be held to those expectations. And quite frankly, the motives behind what you're claiming here come from a place of entitlement.

Maybe you are simply not qualified to reply on this thread.

Maybe you're not qualified to talk about women.

Relationships indeed must be equal. But my penis will always be bigger than my wife's. Luckily she measures up in different ways. DIFFERENT WAYS seems to be a problem for you. You can't accept the fundamental differences between men and women that are immediately obvious to almost everybody.

So basically "I believe in gender equality but not really because my dick says so." If you really considered women as equals then you wouldn't be relegating them to a specific societal role. And since you didn't get it the numerous times I've said this:

Sex is not gender. Sexual characteristics should not determine the societal expectations you're held to.

My mother was working from the age of 14. She never stopped working. Very presumptuous of you to assume she stayed at home in an apron all her married life. Perhaps you should recalibrate your assumptions.

So did a lot of women in the 50s, since y'know, they finally got the right to during WWII and refused to give that up. Just because the housewife stereotype updated from "must be stay at home mom because no jobs for women" to "must do most household tasks and prioritize role as housewife over job" doesn't mean it isn't still a variation of the same stereotype. Stereotypes tend to evolve over time.

I stand by my point. They will be on the same playing field. Other than DNA, I would question how the modern Macedonian woman you describe would be any different from an American woman. How would living in America and adopting American beliefs be a definition of evolved Macedonism. You are confused about this.

You missed the context in which I was referring to that post. You gave no option between Macedonian women who act as primary caregivers and therefore preserve Macedonian culture vs Macedonian women who've eschewed this expectation and are therefore "Americanized" and should be condemned for abandoning their culture.

I criticized that black and white view of what it means to uphold Macedonian culture and explained that stagnant cultures that fail to adapt to their circumstances die out. If a Macedonian woman is considered to have abandoned her culture simply for not wanting to adhere to those expectations and opting to find someone who won't patronize women for wanting that, then you're telling them that women who want to be treated as equals and have those tasks distributed evenly between them and their spouse aren't welcome in the community and are deemed to have failed to uphold their culture before they've even considered marrying someone. Why should they date people who go on about how real Macedonian women tend to the household and go on to describe your typical working housewife?

That kind of exclusion is going to keep those Macedonians away from the community and condemn it to assimilation as the only true Macedonians become the ones who adhere to notions that perpetuate gender inequality. Stagnation is death. Accept that those gender roles aren't core traits, stop judging women for wanting their husbands to take an equal amount of responsibility for the care of children and household tasks and focus on passing on the songs, dances and history of Macedonians. That's our culture and that's what you should be prioritizing. Cultures need to move forward. Make new things. Add new skills to the Macedonian cultural repertoire. Keep old ones alive. Pass on knowledge and information. Remember that the cultural strength of Macedonians is supposed to come from diversity and acceptance of others. So then why should we restrict ourselves to such a narrow perception of what should or shouldn't be Macedonian culture? In what way does it help us to stifle younger generations and push them to seek more open and accepting environments?

In general or from me? Are all men the same in general? I think I have been quite precise and detailed in my responses. I quote your comments and reply. Is it because I don't agree with much of what you say?

If I was talking about you, I would've specified your responses. That was supposed to prevent a misunderstanding because you seem to be so prone to them. I've made similar references in prior posts and yet you still missed the obvious.

We went from how to get a Macedonian wife to women's rights. Men's rights are entirely appropriate if that was the direction things were going. You have been pretty much entirely silent on these. Did you read that article? Men should be rioting about the violent and wicked behaviour of women, particularly during divorce. Luckily I have a good one!

Red Herring. You don't get to claim B is relevant as a response to A instead of addressing A. I am not obligated to respond to red herring arguments. They don't actually address the points I've put forth. I made multiple points in relation to what was discussed at the start of the thread. The specific part relating to discrimination women face is the part that people responded to and led to here.

And there you go giving away your sexism. You aren't actually bringing up men's issues because you care about them (not necessarily that you don't), but rather because you have a bias against women and feel excluded when the topic is specifically about the issues they face. It also seems to be serving as an excuse to make calling women evil and wicked "appropriate" because you're ostensibly referring to the abusers you keep trying to change the topic to, as well as to insult and patronize people who are "ostensibly" obstructing talk of this when quite reasonably insisting that you're forcibly attempting to change the subject without actually addressing their points. Somehow I suspect the omission of "these" to link the women discussed back to the previous sentence about abuse was no accident. While still grammatically correct, this omission in the full context of this response has additional implications, especially since this isn't an isolated incident.

Qualifying a woman as "not like the others/one of the good ones" like you just did with your wife is a red flag for a man women should absolutely stay away from.

Yes, you hinted I was a misogynist. We agree with your intent.

...or people who make fallacious arguments devaluing the need for women's rights.

If you identify more with the former despite my emphasis that I placed you in the latter, then that's on you. And if you see no difference between the two then that's your problem as well.

We live in a society where it's inferred that women are worth less than men. This both creates and is created by biases which carry those implications, such as the one I've said before about the male perspective being treated as the default while the female one is often considered niche or girls only. This is a fact.

I gave you a detailed explanation using racial biases as an example in which you need to admit to yourself that you're racist as a way of owing up to your biases on the matter. In this context, "I'm racist" means "I recognize and acknowledge that society has taught me racial biases, that I benefit from the biases not directed against me and am liable to perpetuating said biases if I refuse to allow the target group to point out when I am. This does not mean that I'm a bad person, but rather that there will always be room for progress." I don't see you complaining that I basically called all of us racist in that context.

No, you don't understand my intent. You're so insecure about the possibility that you're sexist that you don't realize you've confirmed that you are and are being willfully ignorant to that fact.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you were unaware of your biases and would be willing to address them when made aware they existed. You've done everything in your power to assure me that you do know and just don't want to admit it.

In light of the above (previous segment included), you are beginning to exhibit rather overt signs of misogyny you're attempting to disguise with an "appropriate" context. Your conduct however, casts doubt on whether that hate is truly confined to "acceptable" examples.

1. You bring up female abusers so you can have a reason to call women wicked and evil without drawing attention, as they've done terrible things that warrant such terms and are definitely not being applied to other women due to context, yet such terms are not applied to the male abusers. Instead of exhibiting that same degree of vitriol about the abuse women face, you've been trying to make it about the abuse the women who can acceptably be called wicked are perpetuating towards men, and phrase the need to men to hate and riot against women for their wickedness and cruelty in a manner that leaves the one word needed to make it explicitly clear that you're still referring to the female abusers conspicuously absent. That slip does not exist in a vacuum and when taken together with the difference in intensity you express between male abusers and female ones, is very concerning. This is still not the full picture.

2. You're using my refusal to change the subject from the issues women face to the ones men face. You claim that you're doing this because they're relevant in response to issues women are dealing with and accuse me of "not caring about the abuse men suffer from women" despite my acknowledgements that I do care and those issues matter but you're missing my point, which I'd like addressed and if you want to make a discussion focused on other things then you can make a whole thread for it instead of derailing the discussion we're having.

3. A woman citing an article written/published by men about the same issues regarding everyday sexism is met with your anger because she "tars all men with the same brush", and accusation you've made towards me, as well as the accusation that she "has an axe to grind against men", suggesting she made the article as some kind of vendetta. When the cited article and repeated acknowledgements to sexist behaviour perpetuated by women towards men or by people in general, as well as that she was referencing and citing an article made by an organization made by men who advocate those same things, you completely ignored the proof of the baselessness of your accusations, and said you don't like men who pretend to be women.

4. I pointed out that misogynistic organizations use the term men's rights as a cover for hating women and pretending they're advocating for male abuse victims when they're actually just voicing a victim complex, and even everyday casual use sees a high incidence of the term being used by people making false equivalence arguments forgetting that they shouldn't derail a conversation about discrimination women face but rather start another one focusing on men who need support for such things. Despite being placed in the latter category, in which the problem is unknowingly raising the issue of men's rights in a context that makes a red herring argument, you insist that you're in that former group which deliberately uses it as a tactic to invalidate women and justify hatred of them and brought out the term femenazi, a term explicitly coined by such people to invalidate feminists as a whole. You want to take issue with people who claim to be feminists but are just bigots? Try looking up TERF. Here you make it pretty explicit that you're seeking to invalidate women who attempt to discuss discrimination they face or that those problems continue to exist in society.

5. When I pointed out your double standard in brushing off the patronizing behaviour I've been subjected to and how it's antithetical to having a discussion with the insistence that it's normal and that you go hard on the main perpetrator of this, you claim that my demand for basic human decency is a request to be "saved" and "protected".

6. You defined a "real" Macedonian woman who "truly" upholds Macedonian culture as one that fills the role of housewife, whether they work in addition to this or not. You've derided women who don't follow this or get pushed out of the community over the constant expectation of fulfilling an outdated gender role that is not in fact integral to Macedonian culture as lost, entitled princesses who have abandoned their culture. You called your wife a "real" Macedonian woman in this context and "one of the good ones", in a phrasing that's used to exceptionalize the women who fit your narrow criteria of "acceptable womanly behaviour" while implicitly calling the rest terrible or at least not good. This in context with your comments about not liking women who pretend to be men makes it clear you have very specific ideas of what women should or shouldn't be in the societal sense and think ill of the women who don't want to live that way. That's not equality.

7. You repeatedly insist that you love and respect women, treat them better than men and are a fine gentleman that's so great it must be genetic. Given that most of those came up in the context of denying your biases, belittling discrimination women face by claiming it isn't a problem where you are, misinterpreting being less terrible as being better while ignoring the part about you being part of the problem, when joking along with the self-appointed peanut gallery who keeps making childish insults or is accompanied by conditions/exceptions, you fail to live up to those claims. This is "Nice Guy syndrome" if I ever saw it. Your insistence of how "nice" or "gentlemanly" you are in these contexts and the frequency in which you remind everyone of this speaks of someone who's trying to convince other rather than being confident that their actions do it for them. You rely on that positive image to deny the double standards you expressed alongside those affirmations, to deny the biases you're enforcing and because you've built your self-image around it and can't stand having it "ruined" by the implication that you have faults that hurt others.

8. That whole dominance thing.

9. Your comments in regards to trans, non binary and intersex people in relation to your narrow views on gender also reflect poorly of your views on women as they overlap both in people who fall under these categories and from the common notions driving discrimination of those respective groups. You'd do well to treat them with the same respect you expect for yourself.

10. Your various comments implying or stating that women are in power or that men are in danger of having their rights taken from them to justify your attempts to force the conversation away from women's rights and make it about men. Instead of honestly and genuinely desiring to help male victims of abuse, you're using them to express a victim complex in which "it's not men who are the problem but those evil and cunning women!" You ave disingenuous motives behind your theoretically well-meaning red herring arguments.

11. The slightest mention of bias towards women make you defensive and verbally aggressive. This suggests you feel on some level that the term describes you which in relation to my analysis of your motives, paints a grim picture. It's not too late to acknowledge this and work towards remedying it. Better than refusing to confront it and being a danger to others the rest of your life.

Conclusion:

You've been using male abuse victims as an excuse to talk about how terrible men have it and how evil and wicked women are instead of genuine concern for the need to raise awareness of the problems they face. You misrepresent any talk about discrimination men perpetuate against women as an attack on all men as evil to justify attacking women in turn, which as a counter to your stated interpretation of "all" men being portrayed as evil, implies you're countering with all women while attempting to mask it as only referring to the female abusers. Otherwise you need to look at the blatant double standard in which you insist that you're only referring to a specific group of women while accusing women who speak of those issue perpetrated by men are always speaking about all men. Not only is your conduct disrespectful to women attempting to discuss the discrimination they face but also to those men you claim to be advocating for as they're just being brought up as a means to an end.

You're basically one giant red flag and need to do something about that. You refuse to afford the same courtesy to women than what you're demanding to have afforded to men and then turn around and say you aren't perpetuating double standards against women and totally aren't sexist or dare I say, a misogynist. You want to be exempt from that label? Take a good long look at yourself, acknowledge your biases and work to better yourself as a person. It's not a given right you're entitled to but something you earn through what you do. You need to prove through your actions that you truly respect women as equals.

No. You didn't prove anything. You didn't disprove my assertion that actors who promote the highest sales should be paid the most. I note Gil Gadot was paid exactly the same as Chris Evans for their first Marvel movies. I am sure she will be paid much more in the future.

I cited goddamned statistics about the wage gap you seem to be pretending don't exist and the Weinstein scandal should tell you a thing or two about Hollywood's double standards.

And what makes you think that discrepancy doesn't come from all that Hollywood bias where most movies have male leads, female actors mostly get relegated to lesser roles an less roles in general through no fault of their own and there's so much working against female led movies that part of the inequality is blatant obstruction of better pay opportunities and roles that'll get better pay rather than women inexplicably under-performing or failing to turn in as much revenue. You're being deliberately obtuse about this.

You ignored my real world observation of thousands of wage earners here in Australia. I don't know what Canada is like but I am very sure there are many Macedonians on this forum who can tell you about their wife's wages.

And you ignored the statistics from from actual study on the subject by human rights groups. They have access to more information than you, you need to actually back your info up on actual statistics I can verify and you've compromised your integrity trying to redefine things you've said or the implications attached to them.

And they'd need to back that up with statistics because their sample pool of however many women are in their general vicinity is insufficient.

Yep, it infuriated me. It is nothing like I am and seeks to paint all men with the same brush. As you seem to be doing here.

Are you blind? Did you not note the sections I highlighted? Have another look at these passages:

EVERYONE is a little bit sexist, just like everyone is a little bit racist. We have stereotypes buried in our psyches from such an early age, it’s impossible for even the most rational mind to entirely get rid of them. But we have to try.

The Author is pointing out that his form exists in everyone, not just men. It's basically my everyone is racist example except right now we're specifically talking about the biases against women.

We have to try to do that through conscious recognition of our biases, and through conscious changing of our environments so each generation is a little less bigoted that the last.

The author is still addressing people in general about how to keep those biases from hurting others.

There has been a fairly horrifying wave of sexual assault stories hitting the media these last couple of weeks.

In the face of these tales of rape, threats, and intimidation, yesterday’s report into everyday sexism might just seem a little... everyday.

The author is referencing the current media coverage of sexual assault and how stuff like that causes people to see casual, everyday instances of sexism as minor and less worth their time to address.

The Male Champions of Change Institute released We Set The Tone: Eliminating Everyday Sexism against a backdrop of far more violent behaviour.

The author is referencing an article written by an organization about men who advocate for a change in those behaviour patterns. Said article is also about the issue of how those everyday, seemingly minor examples of sexism legitimize the attitudes that then go on to motivate the violence and antagonism that leads to things like sexual assault. Her article does not, in fact, exist in a vacuum and male voices were already part of the discussion.

But it is more important than ever that everyday sexism is not dismissed.

You don’t have to be a Hands-on Harvey to be helping support the stereotypes and sick culture that can ultimately lead to rape and sexual assault.

The author is continuing the thought started before referencing the article about how those seemingly minor everyday examples of sexism need to be addressed as they perpetuate the underlying attitude that enables discrimination against women.

That’s not to say that everyone who gives you a wink and calls you “love” will go on to hurt anyone; of course not. But gender inequality is the primary cause of violence against women and everyday sexism helps perpetuate gender inequality.

The author points out that while the people who do non violent sexist things are still perpetuating the inequality that happens to be the primary motive behind most cases of sexual assault towards women.

It’s complicated, true, to know what is sexist. There are different norms in different places, and every relationship has its own complexities to navigate. There are things said in robust workplaces between long-time colleagues that would never be said in other contexts.

The author points out that there's a lot of variation in what is and isn't appropriate in a particular context so what's appropriate in one can be inappropriate in another and people need to pay attention to that.

But to give up on everyday sexism as political correctness gone mad is to be part of the system that produces the Weinsteins of the world. Those who blame PC just want to say whatever they want without retribution.

The author explains that since everyday sexism reinforces the discrimination behind larger, more recognized forms of it, to dismiss the everyday occurrences as unimportant means to be part of the problem. She also points out that the underlying motive against accusations of people who want to address those things in an attempt to dismiss the need to address them comes from just wanting to say such things without being held accountable for it. This is also the motive behind that "femenazi" comment of yours.

And it is hard — sometimes damnably hard — to work out when you’re crossing one of those lines. Luckily, women are totally humans and you can generally ask one about it.

The author acknowledges that it can be difficult to figure out when you accidentally perpetuate those things and that you can ask a woman about how to recognize something as discriminatory towards them if you aren't sure.

You may not get an honest answer if, say, you’re the boss of the corporation and you’re grilling the new recruit. But somewhere in your life there is probably someone who can help guide you through the sexism minefield. Or look it up.

The author points out that a woman in an unequal power dynamic may not feel safe in giving you a direct answer on such things, but there should be a woman in your life who's in a position to talk about it without issue. She also points out that for lack of this you can also look it up, as there's plenty of information available on the subject.

Or sit down and have a long hard think about it. To get you started, here’s some of the sorts of scenarios where you want to look out for hidden difficulties.

The author points out that a period of self-reflection can help you identify those biases as what they are, putting forth some examples on behaviours to that stem from such biases.

JOKEY INSULTS

The Male Champions report says this is the most common type of everyday sexism. One of the examples they give is: “Make sure you wear your low-cut top to meet with that client!”.

Obviously the first problem with this as a jokey insult is that it in no way can be described as joke. Not even a fall-down drunk Benny Hill fan would get a chuckle out of that one (surely).

Second problem? It’s outright insulting. And closely related to “negging”, which I wrote about briefly last week.

The author points out that discriminatory and insulting comments presented as "jokes" are still discriminatory and insulting. This was cited in the article she referenced. When someone presents those things as "jokes" they're telling people "this is socially acceptable behaviour."

MANSPLAINING

Everyone should be familiar with this old chestnut by now. Mansplaining is when a man takes particular and meticulous care to explain to a woman something she already knows quite a bit about. A related bit of everyday sexism is talking over women in meetings, a common trait of the alpha male. Or, as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop found, applauding a woman’s idea when it comes out of a man’s mouth.

The author brings up mansplaining and how it's specifically when men talk over women or ignore their knowledge and explain things they're already familiar with as if they don't know even the basics. In such circumstances they're talking down to a woman rather than treating her as an equal. She points out another form of this behaviour is when women get interrupted at meetings or have their ideas used by men without credit and said ideas are more appealing when presented by a man. Here, people who do this say "Male input, ideas, and opinions are worth more than women's, who don't really matter then a man thinks he knows better. It doesn't matter if a woman is objectively more qualified in a subject than a man is."

‘COMPLIMENTS’

This is a really tough one for some guys (apparently). There is no blanket rule about complimenting women, but do avoid: leering in the general direction of breasts or buttocks, only ever mentioning how women look/dress/walk, any situation where you might be deemed to be intimidating said woman. If you think you’ve sailed too close to the wind, look out for an eyeroll or an embarrassed look, they’re often giveaways.

The author has been told men have difficulty identifying what is and isn't considered a compliment and may be skeptical of this. She acknowledges that there is not universal rule on the matter, but that things to avoid are staring at sexualized body parts (sexualizing and objectifying, a potential threat should the man in question be inclined to violence), solely complimenting a woman based on her appearance (valuing her based on her looks rather than things like her skills and personality), just generally situations of unequal power dynamics or where the woman is uncomfortable and not receptive to such comments. The author advises that you pay attention to body language for obvious signs of unvoiced exasperation or discomfort. When someone claims there things are compliments, they say "I don't understand how unsolicited, objectifying comments make women uncomfortable/disrespects them and feel they should be grateful for them. I do this out of a sense of entitlement to them or their affections."

THE WHITE KNIGHT

The White Knight can also be a hard one — and they are generally very well-intentioned. They are eager to support women in the workplace, to stand up for them.

Like a noble hero riding in to rescue the poor damsel in distress. Thus making the woman look (and feel) like some hopeless victim who can’t cope on her own.

The author describes the often well intentioned attempts at helping women that fail to consider if they interfered with her agency and caused her to feel helpless. To elaborate on this one, chivalry is inherently sexist as it's solely directed from men to women and assumes the woman is helpless. Historically, it spent a period of time as gestures men used to prove they weren't going to rape women. Instead, just general courtesy applied to everyone rather than singling women out is a more equal dynamic. There's a difference between politely getting the door for someone indiscriminately and singling women out, possibly as they were reaching to do it themselves, then you're implying that they're less capable of those basic tasks and need help not offered to people who aren't women. This one is something a lot of people just misunderstand because it can be broad and vague at times.

Speaking of stereotypes; I’ve used my own here. Of course sexism can go both ways. Men are often picked on as being bumblers about the home, or judged harshly for wanting some work/life balance. And they can be harassed or assaulted, too.

The author acknowledges that there are sexist stereotypes directed at men and that they can be harassed and assaulted as well. Just because it's not the topic of her article doesn't mean she doesn't consider them problems that need to be addressed.

And women can be sexist to other women about how they dress, speak and act. But the fact is most sexism is about power and in most places men still have most power.

The author acknowledges that women can be sexist to other women, but that the form of sexism she's currently addressing is about the power dynamic where men continue to be the ones in power. On a related note, there's internalized discrimination, in which people perpetuate biases directed against their demographic towards themselves or others of their demographic due to being conditioned to value themselves less than others.

You might think everyday sexism is minor, but think about how it piles up through someone’s life; how it normalises the idea of men holding sway over women.

The author asks the reader to consider how those cases of sexism that seem minor in isolation are much larger when taken as a symptom of a problem and added up over time, and how it tells people that men having power over women is socially acceptable. A relevant analogy would be how a glass of water is light and easy to lift but if you have to hold it up indefinitely your arm's going to get tired until lowering it is a relief.

The author repeatedly acknowledged that women can perpetuate discrimination and that men can be victims of it and yet you insist that just because she was covering everyday biases from a system that teaches men to disrespect women in relation to a trend of sexual assault directed at women and an article on the same topic written by men that she "hates men." Explain to me in what way you expect those very real issues to be broached then.

Face the music; you are currently expressing a bias against women.

I love women. The ones that want to be men ... less so.

That right there. Look at it carefully and think about what's wrong with what you just said. See the self-contradiction, the double standards. There should be no condition attached to your alleged love of women. There should be no pause in which "less so" may very well be your attempt at not saying "I don't like" or "I hate" because it'd give away what you really think. You just said that a woman raising awareness about biases that reinforce and perpetuate discrimination against women, in solidarity with a group of men advocating women's rights who said the same thing, is trying to be a man. You just said that you think only a man can speak of those things and that this is why it infuriates you when a woman does. You just confirmed that your complaint that men are being "tarred with the same brush" is rooted in how you feel specifically targeted by the content of that article but remain willfully ignorant to those biases and feel the need to lash out in some form when a woman points it out to you because "it's not her place". You just admitted that you apply those same biases to me as well.

But I am allowed to have an opinion. Why is a woman's opinion worth more than mine?

Entitlement to an opinion is not a valid argument. Saying this here you're attempting to justify pushing forward arguments based on subjective opinion as equivalent to objective observations backed up with studies and well-founded reasoning.

It isn't. You're just failing to back it up with logic. I've made it quite clear that observations and beliefs are insufficient on their own and need to be supported by additional information. How about that article written by men that basically says the same thing as the writer of the article you read was voicing support for it? The closest you've come to acknowledging it is with that comment about not liking women who want to be men.

Did you read what I wrote? I didn't need to imply anything. I was very clear. You didn't respond. I will make it easy for you ....
Will increasing wages in China (in this case for women) decrease the attractiveness of China as a manufacturing nation due to increased manufacturing costs?

The post where you were special pleading the "freaks of nature" away and insisting that a word with the kinds of connotations it has "just" meant unusual? There's a fallacy for that. Quite honestly I was too lenient in damning you with faint praise and letting you get the false impression that you were any better simply for not being the main subject of my response. Just because I called you "less terrible" than the person who's currently making indirect insults at me because he doesn't have a new post addressed to him to respond to and lacks the spine to address me directly if he's so keen on such things doesn't mean that none of it was applicable to you. I only have so many fucks to give at a time.

You firmly cemented your status as a bigot in relation to people who don't fit your definition of "man" and "woman", calling them "freaks of nature" and then backpedaling when confronted with the offensive meaning of such a sentence, trying to pass if off as "just" referring to them as not normal before settling on "outside the bell curve", ignoring their existence as actual human beings because you can't accept what gender actually means. You made fallacious statement after fallacious statement in callous disregard for their right to be treated as the gender they are and made no attempt to acknowledge the numbers I gave you or what I said about what their existence means in the context of that discussion. And for the record, while some of those third gender identities are broad enough to include men who present themselves in a feminine manner that doesn't erase the trans people within that third gender and the fact that there are societies that were built around the existence of more than 2.

And that has no relevance to whether or not China can be prosperous without resorting to immoral means, nor whether or not changing that will make it less prosperous. Incidentally, you accused me of not getting that you were advocating pay equality. I saw that part and chose to point out the implications of what you said immediately following that part. The sentence where you, intentionally or otherwise, equated women having equality to loss of prosperity for their nation.

You can't just say "women should have equal rights BUT..." and expect what comes after to be anything but implicitly a detrimental effect as a result of women having equal rights, especially when you were talking about a loss of something that involves international prosperity. "But" has negative implications in this context and in your generalization yes, you did imply that giving women equal rights would have detrimental effects on their prosperity regardless of your original intent. Given the other example I just gave about similar attempts you've made to change the interpretation of what you've said, you need to own up to the implications of things you say instead of trying to dodge out of them with misdirection.


You also can't make up your goddamn mind about some things:

I am not sure about the mockery of men in your nation. But not a single television commercial paints men in a masculine role nowadays. They are all shown as dopey sorts who are only fit for lifting things outside.

That's a stereotype, which have a tendency of being patronizing or downright offensive. While there's some truth to certain stereotypes Americans who don't fit them tend to dislike the ones applied to them, for example.

Canadian stereotypes aren't too bad but it likewise gets annoying to only ever see Canadians come up as those weird people from up north who drink maple syrup and speak in some weird accent I've never actually heard anyone use in real life, as well as the constant butchering of simple french words in a context where it's expected to be grammatically correct. Even the one about being polite can be used offensively as I once saw someone make a joke about drunk driving where the punchline is that the dying man who got hit by a car was Canadian and said sorry for being hit. Additionally in my experience the whole "eh" thing is more something you get with french speakers and it's actually an invitation to confirm your interest in the discussion or add to it yourself rather than something that gets randomly tacked on at the end of every other sentence. You also get variation in the exact sound as it's more of an onomatopoeia than and actual word.

Also the inexplicable clumsiness in commercials is partly from a number of advertised products being designed to assist people with disabilities or because advertisers don't know how else to emphasize how convenient their product is. They're pretty far removed from reality in general as most of the food in the food commercials aren't even edible and a hell of a lot of trickery is involved in advertising beauty products. Blatantly photoshopping models to create physically impossible beauty standards marketed as real, shaving hairless legs, removing lipstick to reveal lighter lipstick they pretend is the model's "natural" look, washing off obvious makeup but somehow still wearing makeup, etc.

Basically commercials are extremely manipulative and unrealistic.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the clumsy husband stereotype plays into expectations that the woman has to take care of the household because the man can't, which is an example of how the same standards that harm women harm men too but in different ways. In this case men are infantalized and conditioned to expect to be cared for rather than caring for themselves, which feeds into the stuff causing men to grow up feeling entitled to having women take care of them without any mutual cooperation involved, while women are expected to tend the household first and foremost and provide for others without expecting anything in return.

The solution to this is to expect self-sufficiency and mutual respect from everyone regardless of gender and to try and be aware of your own biases in that regard. Don't file any general life skills like cooking, cleaning and working as being for a particular gender and teach them to all your kids. Cooking in particular is especially relevant due to its cultural value and the importance of family recipes. It's also a pretty good bonding opportunity even if you stick to simple stuff.

Nope. As finely tuned as you are to women's issues, you have missed what is happening with men's issues. It's not about cooking in commercials. It's about men being happy with simple uncomplicated things like being rewarded with a new little toy if they follow their (female) partner's wise demands. Quite common and a recurring theme.

The whole "simple and uncomplicated things" part is kinda vague. I already brought up finding someone you can live with, hobbies, habits and all. You also have to understand that sometimes "simple and uncomplicated" simply isn't an option if it's referring to some necessary part of maintaining a healthy relationship. In that case it's more your unwillingness to do that necessary task than anything your spouse is doing. Mutual respect is a key component. If you feel that way about your spouse, then maybe you shouldn't be in a relationship. Just like you're free to leave a relationship you find unhealthy and unsatisfying, so are they. This also goes for refusing to enter a relationship you can tell lacks the kind of respect required to make it work.

However, you do have to consider whether those "demands" are actually unreasonable or just something you don't want to deal with. I've heard plenty enough patronizing comments about women that treated entirely reasonable requests in that manner, so the perception isn't always reflective of the reality. Relationships don't work without communication and collaboration. You need to talk and listen to each other. If you fail to meet your end of the requirements for maintaining a healthy relationship, that's on you.

Not sure how you managed to completely spin this one around. I was saying men in commercials are portrayed as simple and uncomplicated creatures of no real use other than for manual work (under the watchful eye of women).

You need to stop misrepresenting things I've said. Not only did I already address your claims in that last comment but you're complained about lack of address for something that wasn't even present in what I was responding to. You spun the wheel yourself and then tried to blame me for it. You even forgot what you'd brought that example up for didn't you? It was a red herring argument attempting to use a commercial stereotype whose origins you aren't aware of and that I only addressed because of the assumptions made based on it.

That stereotype was made by people attempting to justify the need to have women fill the role of housewife, primarily seen in older sitcoms that also use abusive behaviour as comedy, which comes packaged with a number of other stereotypes harmful to various members of the family. Women aren't the ones who created it and the ulterior motive was to control women by convincing them they needed to fill that role. Women aren't the ones you should be angry at for this one. And it's still not the point of what you'd originally responded to.

Commercials mostly portray people as artificially clumsy because their product is a basic convenience often created for people with disabilities but the actors lack said disabilities. Those commercials aren't stereotyping men as clumsy but rather exaggerating how much hassle their product saves you as a marketing tactic.

You also tried to paint a false narrative where women are the ones in power and driving men around like slaves. This was a red herring meant to distract from the oppression women have faced, the continued prejudice and double standards directed at them the lack of social equality despite progress having been made in recent years.

Why not answer the question instead of pretending I implied something else?

Why not discuss men's rights while you are discussing women't rights?

Why not stop pretending you're not pretending to imply something else?

Because I was talking about women's rights to begin with and my points are about the issues women deal with. What you're doing is a red herring argument. Here's a link to a definition and examples:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring#null

Oh that was just to get you fired up, as all Macedonian women are capable of.

Making up excuses to deny your accountability. You know what you did and that your behaviour is inappropriate. You just don't care.

Are you married Starling?

Red Herring.

First off, I know exactly why you're asking and your motive is disingenuous. You could ask me if I'm a boy or girl right now and I still wouldn't give you a response. I refuse to reward this kind of behaviour.

Second, I'm a private person and generally don't like sharing personal information online. I've only been here 3 months and I've been positively generous in sharing things about my family just recently because this is a community where the history of people and discussion on how life is like in their respective countries is valued and important as a means of keeping a record of our existence. In such contexts, I'm far more willing to share something like that because it means something and matters as a member of the community.

This, however, is a malicious "request" for information you hope will assist in attacking me with. There is no meaning or benevolence to this.


And for posterity as you're likely to enact the routine regardless, here's what it is:

Based on my response, your intent is to either claim my arguments have less value for not being married (which is fallacious) or either appeal to my marital experience/come up with some other fallacious excuse to demean what I say because you don't actually care about my input. You've already made up your mind and intend to default to your preconceived notions out of convenience for my refusal to play along.

This tactic is rude, disrespectful and incredibly underhanded. It confirms that you have no respect for what I've said and are fishing for excuses to justify that behaviour.


Here's an example of a previous encounter I've had with this:

Someone sexually harassed me online. When taking issue with said behaviour, another person asked my age, making patronizing comments about how I was probably a child (despite how fucked up that is in context). Upon refusal to answer, they assumed I was 7 and ignored everything I had to say afterward based on this assumption.

Wouldn't surprise me. I think I'm a bit younger than a lot of you. I live in a pretty liberal state in the USA, close to NYC, I've lived in Hollywood for a while, trust me I've seen it all. Many men are now conditioned from birth to believe that everything that is wrong in the world is their fault, especially white males. Quotas, reverse discrimination, gender fluidity are the future, at least for now.

Or maybe you have a victim complex because you don't actually understand the problem. I've seen how you've misrepresented other issues. Recognizing your biases is simply something people should do. Having biases isn't what makes you a bad person, it's refusing to acknowledge them even when someone explains to you exactly how something you've said or done is harming someone else.

I see you are back in fine form lmao, scorched earth and all, it reminds me of the good old days, when there was still a glimmer of hope that Macedonia could be saved.

Not with this bullshit.

I couldn't stop laughing, I hope we can all laugh about those times.

About mocking people for no good reason based on ad hominem arguments? I don't think so.

Starling seems to think everything has a deeper meaning, over analyzing every thought. She needs to read through 1000's of posts of us abusing each other. I'm pretty sure I told Vangeloski to commit suicide before, but things cool down, we are all friends in the end, and I think have a lot of respect for each other. Dare I say this is a masculine trait

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Those aren't OK either but it doesn't justify continuing to conduct yourselves in this manner, or disregarding what I say and then expecting me to give a damn about your responses. Honestly, if Not All Men are terrible and yet abusing each other in ways that would normally qualify people as terrible is typical behaviour you encourage then that's a cognitive bias and you should stop getting all upset when the problems with normalizing that kind of behaviour are brought up. Or rather a lot of respect for your fellow male Macedonians. Thing is, respect doesn't mean egging each other one against people who are apparently excluded from said camaraderie. And people wonder why women seem to stay away from this place.

All I can say is that if a toddler who can hardly talk, has enough sense and understanding to pick a gender identity, then we might as well give them a drivers license, a cigarette, and give them a job.

Slippery Slope fallacy.

I'm still left dumbfounded how anyone can believe that gender identity is fluid, that any action or trait is not gender specific, and yet still believe that the random actions of a toddler can constitute an affinity to one gender or another? If this is not contradiction then I don't know what is. Toddlers don't understand gender, they don't understand what toys and clothing conform to what gender without someone telling them, they can't possibly make that choice without the guidance of a delusional adult.

Appeal to Ignorance, unfounded assertion based on said fallacy and for the record your sexuality, libido, sexual preferences and so on can change over time. Seems like you don't know what a contradiction is.

Bill Nye explains sex and gender part 1

Bill Nye explains sex and gender part 2

They know because people are so hung up they paint the baby room and buy clothes colour coded as boy or girl and it's all over society. Kids shows are full of boys and girls doing boy and girl things and kissing and occasionally implicitly having offscreen sex and somehow you expect them not to understand what gender is and what society expects them to conform to. All they have to do is say "this is/isn't me" to describe whether or not they identify with a concept. They know when being called/treated like a boy or girl makes them happy or unhappy.

For crying out loud, just look at nature. 99.9% has clearly defined males and females, with specific traits and roles. A few asexual creatures exist but they aren't anything you would wish you were. They are all lizards and critters, and they are mostly females who can reproduce without males, they dont imitate males or take on their roles. A few hermaphrodite creatures exist but are even less developed beings than the asexual ones. This idea that sex and gender can be effortlessly separated is insane at best, and why?

All that we are doing is manipulating kids into believing they are of the opposite gender, which is not that hard, then claiming that it is proof that gender is separate from sex. We stop our kids from doing all sorts of silly and dangerous things because we know better than them, we dont give children free reign on almost anything, why would this be any different. Kids dont know what it means to have a ding dong or a hoo hoo, but we do, and it is our responsibility as responsible adults to tell them the truth, just like we dont let them do all sorts of other things.

I'd call this a case of that Black and White fallacy. You're artificially restricting gender to 2 in order to match your conception of gender as sex. Your claim that those kids are being manipulated into something that allows them to live happy lives feeling comfortable with who they are stems from lack of knowledge or understanding of the concepts involved. Trans and intersex people collectively make up more than that. Their numbers are artificially lower due to frequent murder and being forced to closet themselves for their own safety but I already gave some data about that. You're basically special pleading that their existence doesn't matter. Did you know that having six fingers is a dominant trait? I already addressed most of what you say here erroneously treating sex and gender as the same.

By the way, those lizards still have sex with each other despite the lack of purpose to it and the process is called parthenogenesis.

I can tell you right here and now that many, many parents falsely claim to know better on matters simply because they don't respect their children's capability to make valid arguments or correct them on things. They can't get over their wounded pride to admit when a child makes a good point. Additionally, that kind of reasoning has been used by a lot of parents justifying their abuse of their children over such things. So basically, fallacies and the burden of proof still apply here. I assure you that a child who knows what a dick and a vagina look like can easily figure out the basics of sex and with sufficient context, that this is how babies happen.

I knew what fallacious arguments were long before I had names for them. I even figured out that the continents used to be together just by looking at a map and noticing the matching coastlines of the atlantic. Several people have stories of new things they learned from children or how a child out argued an adult. Give them more credit.

If a child woke up one day and started barking like a dog and biting people, and said I'm a dog, we would say, sweety your not a dog your a human being. So why the hell can't we tell a boy or girl that they are a boy or girl?

False Analogy. Gender Identity is not a physical characteristic. You can't tell people how to describe how they feel as a person.

Absolute insanity.

Appeal to absurdity.

[Vangelovski]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noted that starling is mentally demented?

[Gocka]

If gender doesn't conform to any roles or rules and physical parts can't determine it either, than gender doesn't exist at all., so then what the he'll are we even talking about.

If ding dongs and hoo hoo's, don't mean anything, clothes colors, and toys also mean nothing, societal roles also mean nothing. Then how the he'll can you assign a gender identity to a child who can hardly talk? Why assign one at all seeing as how literally anything can define or not define gender.

This is the liberal equivalent of tin foil hats.

I'm sorry I can't talk about this with a straight face anymore.

Natural selection will eventually take care of this one way or another.

[Starling]

If gender doesn't conform to any roles or rules and physical parts can't determine it either, than gender doesn't exist at all., so then what the he'll are we even talking about.

Then neither do any other non physical concepts such as laws, religion, nationality or emotion. Abstract concepts exist. We have quite a few of them.

If ding dongs and hoo hoo's, don't mean anything, clothes colors, and toys also mean nothing, societal roles also mean nothing. Then how the he'll can you assign a gender identity to a child who can hardly talk? Why assign one at all seeing as how literally anything can define or not define gender.

That's exactly what people when they go it's a boy/girl based on sexual characteristics and get all surprised if the kid then goes on to express that their gender identity is different than the one assumed by others.

At the end of the day, gender is a facet of identity, which means it's something one feels and describes themselves by. That's not something you can decide for others.

This is the liberal equivalent of tin foil hats.

I'm sorry I can't talk about this with a straight face anymore.

Ad hominem and appeal to ignorance/absurdity.

Natural selection will eventually take care of this one way or another.

Natural selection says homosexuality exists in other species and history/archaeology says evidence of trans people exists dating back over a thousand years.

The history and development of societies also says that close-mindedness has quite literally been the death of civilizations and cultures.

[Risto the Great]

Oh dear. You just woMANsplained way too many things here and made some terrible assumptions about me in the process. It's ok, I am man enough to cope with that. I still think you are totally entitled to bat for your team. Well done and I still believe you are great for the forum.

You still felt it was my duty to chastise others on this thread about their comments to you. I'm not always a white knight.

The thread is titled "dating Macedonian women". You kept going on about women's rights on this thread because that would help the original poster attract women more? I would bet a shiny Ferrari would pull far more women than addressing women's rights. I am sure this offends you but I can assure you this also offends me on behalf of my sons. They will be trying to take one of my sports cars to pull a chick.

I can't even remember how transgendered came into this thread, but you did that. That was a blue whale instead of a red herring. You never even replied when I entertained your discussion and noted how many kathoey die early in Thailand and how much the nation embraces these people. Yes, the most embracing society for these people and they either give up their identity or kill themselves. Perhaps if transgendered are more embraced here, then they will kill themselves even more. I hope not. I enjoy talking to them and find them quite courageous in some ways. But you can keep assuming all your other stuff.

Men do have rights. You have never entertained any of them whilst talking about equality and whatever else.

"Sex is not gender"

An abstract academic discussion that keeps sociologists up at night. The rest of the world either doesn't care or agree.

You want to talk about the evolution of women's rights, feel free to start another thread. Why would Macedonians care about women working since ww2? Macedonian women never stopped working.

I am not obligated to respond to red herring arguments. They don't actually address the points I've put forth.

Bolded and underlined again to highlight your petulance. Why are your points better than mine or anyone else? What discussion about finding a Macedonian woman sees men's rights as irrelevant but women's rights as imperative?

Anyway, it was a great article from Bettina Arndt I posted. A pity that so many millions of taxpayer's money is being wasted by people not understanding domestic violence goes both ways in equal proportion. I can only assume there are some very powerful women influencing policy here at the expense of men's rights.

I enjoyed your passion when I mentioned violent and wicked women in the context of that article. I completely accept there are violent and wicked men also. I put it at 50:50. How about you? Throw an old dog a bone .... meet me half way.

I am sorry you don't like the movies being made nowadays. I suspect many women (unlike you) like to see strong men doing things in movies and many men like to imagine they are those strong men. I am very very sure that if movies about women with multiple dicks were guaranteed box office success, they would already be made. Profits will dictate what gets made. I still enjoy my art-house movies though.

Will increasing wages in China (in this case for women) decrease the attractiveness of China as a manufacturing nation due to increased manufacturing costs?

I will answer for you. Yes. It will. You have that much anger deep within you that you simply could not admit this fact. Go on, just say it will .... just for impression's sake so that you don't sound utterly insane.

Nice guy syndrome

I had to Google it. Thanks for that. I will remember to be a an utter cunt to women for the sake of respect and equality. I just Googled Utter Cunt Syndrome and that exists also. There is simply no way to keep people happy nowadays!

First off, I know exactly why you're asking and your motive is disingenuous. You could ask me if I'm a boy or girl right now and I still wouldn't give you a response. I refuse to reward this kind of behaviour.

You are not a boy. Unless you want to be of course. I'll hazard a guess and say you are not married and are either fresh out of university or have been a victim of men in a past life. But it's only a guess. I argued with someone once about Catholic priests (not allowed to be married) giving marriage advice. The response was surgeons don't need to suffer the same illness to fix the problem. So not being married doesn't preclude you from the discussions but it does provide some weight.

Do you wonder what made that terrible man assume you were a 7 year old? I have never achieved much with aggression, perhaps a little bit of honey is a better way to approach discussions.

Anyway, let me teach you a couple of words in Macedonian. They are "domakinka" and "sposobna". They refer to a woman as a "homemaker" and "capable". These words are hallowed in relation to finding a good Macedonian wife. My brother was married to a RoMacedonian girl. She was also a Doctor. Quite capable from a professional perspective but totally shut that house down into a miserable state. She was not a homemaker, quite the opposite and it had nothing to do with her being a terrible cook and unable to do any domestic duties. She did not make a home. So, a domakinka AND a sposobna girl is what a man should want. What women want .... well .... that's another discussion (and thread).

I do wave a red flag, but it has a touch of gold in it also.

[Karposh]

The thread is titled "dating Macedonian women". You kept going on about women's rights on this thread because that would help the original poster attract women more?

I'd say it's a safe bet the poor guy is trying his luck with some Taliban chieftain's daughter even as we speak. Can you blame him?

Hey, all jokes aside, I wonder if the old old maritime code of conduct for abandoning a sinking ship, “women and children first” still applies today. I'm guessing since men and women are all equal these days and women are no longer the fairer sex, it's every man, sorry, gender non-specific human, for him or her self.

[Amphipolis]

Amphipolis, you don't get to just show up here suddenly and make a joke out of what I said. That's both fallacious and just generally rude and disrespectful. You've also demonstrated that women can in fact perpetuate misogyny against other women by using the age old "you talk too much" excuse typically used to silence women. In 2 sentences, you've managed to demonstrate that you're no better. And RtG, I see you playing along with it like you're not complicit to this.

I'm sorry, I'm not a woman! The woman in the avatar is a Greek celebrity who (thinks she) is recognizable. This is a forum mostly about politics and history, that's why there are not many women here. I'd say different colors and new sections like Fashion Tips, Relatioships, Gossip and Celebrities might help expand its' base.

I would really like to contribute in this thread but it's so long I forgot what we're talking about here.

[Karposh]

I'm sorry, I'm not a woman! The woman in the avatar is a Greek celebrity who (thinks she) is recognizable.

What!?...You're a dude? This is just like the Crying Game all over again. I think I'm gonna vomit.