Sarah Palin and the Sham of Feminism

Blue State (Establishment) Feminism

Establishment Feminism in America today is Blue State Feminism and has such individuals as Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer as it’s represntatives. This is today’s radical feminism and it is part of today’s Establishment Liberalism as represented by the Democratic Party. Establishment Blue State Feminism must not conflict with the wider agenda of Establishment Liberalism.

Palin, to the Blue State Feminists, represents Red State Feminism. She loves her husband, she loves her children and family, she opposes abortion, she loves her country, and does not see herself as being oppressed by men and the so-called “patriarchy”.

Palin is a punch in the face to Establishment Blue State Feminism.

Establishment Blue State Feminism does not truly care about women, otherwise they would be celebrating Palin. But Palin runs counter to the agenda of Blue State Feminism and Establishment Liberalism.

Now I would just as soon get rid of the word feminism,unless of course this country mainstreamed it’s male counterpart: masculinism, men’s rights, or whatever name men wish to come up with. But the political class and the MSM is going to frame every discussion of Palin through a feminist lense.

Now I don’t know if Palin will use her influence to damage men, but from what I see, she loves her husband, children, family, God, and country-and these give hope that Palin can perhaps redefine the national discourse about women and men away from the damaging and dominant influence of Establishment Blue State Feminism. That alone may be reason enough for Blue State Feminists to want to destroy Palin.

Feminism has for generations and decades been fed to the public by a mainstream media and political class that marched in lockstep with radical feminists. Only one POV has been allowed for all this time. Palin’s life story and presence can make a major change in this reality.

Establishment Feminists, Liberals, and Democrats, are facing an existential threat for the very first time.

No wonder their behavior has become unhinged.

Marc Rudov complained of Palin’s reference to a ‘Glass Ceiling’ in his written article on ‘18 Million Cracks’, but then when he appeared on Fox, Rudov chose to gloss over Palin’s use of Victim-feminine terminology. THAT is how hot Sarah Palin is (check Rudov’s website for the video).

And while Palin referred to ‘The Glass Ceiling’ in her speech, every single one of her Repuglican compatriots on stage applauded along vigorously, even though the learned among them KNEW, it was all bullshit.

If Palin herself is learned, and a straight-shooting no bullshit kind of a gal, how comes she allowed her speech writers to give her the glass ceiling line, and how come she delivers the line so convincingly by pumping her fist and almost crying as she goes?

Believable to the plebs – and maybe that’s what a far right wing administration looks for in a VP.

While I enjoy left-liberals writhing in pain over the Palin selection–she’s not their kind of woman, but she threatens to peel away a chunk of the chick vote, so they hate her–I must express my doubts about Palin.

For me, the jury is still out on whether or not Palin represents a new femininity that is amicable and not hostile to men or not. The “glass ceiling” tripe and her membership in Feminists for Life suggests a certain latent feminism that may bode ill for men in general and fathers in particular. That she is willing to support her SAHD husband speaks against a feminist core belief set, but I’m still wary of something that has yet to be sufficiently explored.

“Sarah stands strong against Roe vs Wade, which is the most sexist Supreme Court decision of all time, since it proclaims a right for women to kill the children of men.”

I haven’t seen any evidence for this. She opposes Roe v Wade because it kills little babies. The fact that they are the babies of men is beside the point.

In the end, will Palin support divorce-, family-, reproductive-, and domestic-violence law reform? The Democrat ticket is currently imploding, and I doubt we’ll get answers to these questions before November, so only time will tell. Here’s hoping.

It would be ironic if a woman were to be the catalyst to liberate men from the chains that other men put on them.

Squiggy,

Can you make an argument based on the facts, or is that too ‘idiot’ic a concept for you?

Despite your claims I keep you on your toes Squiggy, I patently don’t, because if you were on your toes, you’d be making AN ARGUMENT already, to the issues – and not to the man…

Palin IS very hot, but please guys, try and put your boners away and listen to what she’s actually saying on the issues – I have momentarily! Now you may think we MRAs are all too smart to get fleeced by a woman again, but, PALIN IS REALLY HOT. It’s when the really hot women come along, that men need to be EXTRA vigilant not to lapse into chivalry – our genetic Achilles heel (conservatism and liberalism are also genetic) – if WE can’t break the chivalrous pandering, then what’s the incentives for the politicians to try it?

Palin has played the female victim card ALREADY, despite getting her job last month without really asking and because she is a woman.

Palin wants more war, which means more men dead.

Palin wants more oil, which means more mercenery men on rigs, living in shitholes like Alaska, putting up with mercenery beasties like Palin for a governor, and mercenery beasties for housewives, at home all day on their thrones.

Palin wants less gun control, which means more men shooting each other, and more men shooting themselves.

Palin wants less birth control, which means more unwanted babies, which means more crime, which means more men in prisons, and more single mothers on benefits.

Palin wants lower taxes, which means less state provision for new mothers and fathers IN marriages which means less likelihood of female economic activity – reverting instead back to the male as breadwinner model – which means less improvements to conditions in the increasingly all-male workplaces leading to more male workplace fatalities, which means even more sex segregation in society, which means more brain capacity for aggression and less for empathy, which means more violence and war with associated disease, perpetuating greater sex segregation, violence, war and around we go.

Palin is VERY hot, though.

(Apologies if this message appears more than once. The website is playing up).

Elusive Wapiti,

IF Palin had her way, she’s increase human rights for unborn fetuses no doubt, but only until they make it into the real world, then they’re on their own, and without a gun license.

Palin is the woman that the NOW feminists wish they could be. This the story of Biblical Cain repeated as NOW’s feminist protagonist against Palin, this Abel(Palin) has God’s approval that eats at the heart of NOW’s feminists. May the ending be different. NOw is the reincarnation of evil of jealousy.

“tom”, are you a one-trick pony?

Yes, Sarah pandered one time to Hillary voters. It’s politics, it sucks.

I’m not responding to each and every idiocy you post. I’ll pick at random – Palin wants more oil, which means more mercenery men on rigs, living in shitholes like Alaska

WE want more oil, and I lived in Alaska for two years. Wherever YOU live, it ain’t as good as there.

Palin wants less birth control,

That’s a Catholic Church position, not a Palin position. Do you actually read this stuff on DK or do you make it up yourself?

Palin wants more war, which means more men dead.

I repeat my first deleted post – you’re an idiot.

tom,

As someone who’s lived in Europe for 15 years I can sort of follow your reasoning, but it wouldn’t surprise me if other American’s can’t. The US has not had such a long experience with socialism and most Americans still don’t like to think of the US as being a socialist country. Reduction in government leading to worsening conditions at work? Very little industry in the US is government owned and operated, and private companies are not dependent on government grants for improving conditions.

An increasingly male workforce? I certainly hope so. Through most of US history, every generation has lived better than the last – resulting in economic conditions that allowed a great many households to survive and often enough prosper with only one adult / parent working outside the home. That changed three decades ago when post-60s era socialism began to arrive. The past 30 years have been great for improving opportunities for blacks and women. If only we could now return to the conditions that were with everyone onboard this time – that would be fantastic. More women would actually have the choice to stay at home.

As for Sarah Palin’s speech, I don’t remember it the way you do. Hillary Clinton was the queen of glass ceiling rhetoric. Palin was in it for parody – making Democrats and their world view look foolish. That was part of her job – what is always expected of a VP candidate at a convention.

BTW: I know it’s difficult to have a balanced perspective on American politics from Europe – people here (especially England) – get a one-sided presentation of things and then wonder what American’s are thinking when the Democrat loses. The trick to understand is that they get both sides of the argument.

Roger,

The dangers of an all male workforce outweigh the benefits. All the fascist regimes in history I can think of sent the men out to work primarily (Stalin’s USSR is often cited as an example of a ‘gender egalitarian’ work culture that produced death and destruction, but Stalin did not allow women all the way to the top table, so there was a very real barrier to women’s ultimate progression, and hence a crutch to beat men with).

When men and women work apart, they do not have the opportunities to associate freely, and research shows that the greater sex segregation in 25 primate species, the greater brain capacity has evolved for aggression, with correspondingly, less brain capacity for empathy.

So in the long term, sex segregation breeds aggression (LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST), but even in the short, medium and long term, according to some graphs I saw recently, sex segregated economies are less EFFICIENT than more mixed sex workforces.

Women in the workforce complain more than men about the working conditions, thus improving conditions for all.

It does not take a rocket scientist to work this stuff out though. If a woman is kept safe indoors, protected from the ravages of work, then she will care less about how the rest of humanity fairs out in the big wide world, knowing she’ll never have to join them on the various front lines. She will disconnect, or have a valid excuse to say the social policies that lead to resource shortages and war have nothing to do with little old her, because she’s just a woman.

Of course she may like to claim her sphere is the domestic, but the reality is, the domestic sphere is the political sphere, because it is while safely posited at home, that the average housewife gets to consume all the resources, and the politics, through radio, TV, internet, and papers if she chooses, and even organize regular meetings with other women if she likes – then deciding what’s best, controls her man (the political pawn) accordingly.

Meanwhile, the average man leaves the house for work, but does not enter the political sphere as imagined, instead entering a factory, or a sales office, and so on, where he has a boss breathing down his neck, rendering him too busy to enter any political spheres in any meaningful way, or with sufficient continuity, to make a difference.

Reduced sex segregation is the fundamental reason feminism is a good idea for all.

The problem is, feminist adherents to resistance theory believe women will not rise up, and get a job, unless they believe they are being held back by men, hence women rise up, with the side effect of increased misandry against their mythical oppressors.

Those women who don’t rise up however, still exact misandry against their doofish providers, every morning, when they send him out the door, whilst on the surface, they are congenial and courteous about his contribution, as a real man.

It’s no coincidence, IMO, that Sarah Palin was voted Miss Congeniality by her peers at school. She sent her own boy off to war without a flicker of real emotion, and she’ll do the same with every one else’s boys too, given half the chance.

I believe if we explain the benefits of women entering the workforce and staying there – the benefits for all society – then women will do the right thing – and without the misandry.

tom,

Why would you even be talking about an all male workforce?

Squiggy,

Why do you want oil so much?
The fine particulates in exhaust fumes will get into your lungs and kill you.
Alternative renewable energy sources have not being fully utilized yet in the US, compared to other more developed countries in the world.

Where’s the will?

Roger,

… because you want ‘an increasingly male workforce’.

Roger,

… and because, although Palin has five kids and a job, she will continue to discourage women from the workforce as is the conservative way.

She wouldn’t even abort her downs baby – sending a message that she’s first and formost an automaton of a baby making machine – and when American women get her life narrative, sure, they’ll have some more kids, but will they stay in a job too like Sarah? Nope. They won’t have the energy, ‘cos they don’t have the genes or the fair favour of a beauty queen. They’ll retire, and encourage their girl children to look for a way out also – those girl children that are not aborted, as female children will be seen as a greater financial burden as in other backward countries, leading to an overabundance of men, leading to greater male on male aggression, and so on.

If Palin starts telling women to get off their butts and get a job, like she did, and like men did, then she will be the complete package, but she’s not going to do that, because she is a representative of the conservatives, who want women at home, with the hotter war-readiness this engenders in the men.

tom,

You’re out of control. Are you working on a script for The Daily Show?

Hi Bernard,

Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

Even on the question of whether women should vote!

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.’

The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House — First Lady Edith Wilson.

I’d like to share a women’s history learning opportunity…

“The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to finally win the vote.

It’s a real-life soap opera about the suffragettes! And it’s ALL true!

Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!

Exciting, sequential episodes with lots of historical photos are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

I hope you will subscribe — it’s free at

http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

The suffragettes were politically speaking, pushing at an open door, and so too are pro-feminist men’s rights activists. It’s the anti-feminist men (and women), who want to resist men’s movement into traditional female territories, like child rearing, but there are only a diminishing bunch of diehard conservatives in this category – equally though, there are so few female feminists of the egalitarian variety left however, the majority of organized women’s groups are anti-feminist, like NOW, for objecting to the principle of joint custody for instance.

The suffragettes mobilized women to fight for something they didn’t even know they wanted – responsibilities outside the home.

The pro-equality men’s movement is mobilizing men to fight for something they didn’t even know they wanted – nappy changing duties.

Tom said: “Palin wants more war, which means more men dead.”

More war on terror means more lives saved not lost.

Tom said: “Palin wants less gun control, which means more men shooting each other, and more men shooting themselves.”

Tom, from what I’ve heard, where law-abiding people have guns, crime rates go down, not up, because criminals are no longer the only ones with guns. And if some guy wants to kill himself, he doesn’t need a gun.

Tom said, “… please guys, try and put your boners away … Palin has played the female victim card ALREADY, despite getting her job last month … because she is a woman.”

On that point we agree.

Tom, why are you so down on oil? Until we develop alternatives, we NEED oil, and it’s better to get it from Alaska than our unreliable enemies in the Middle East. So rather than oppose drilling, start a campaign to have people use less.

Virgina, along with the power of the vote comes responsibility. People are supposed to use the vote for the overall good, but women have used it to pamper themselves and extract wealth from men while avoiding their own reponsibilities.

In general, women have shown themselves unworthy of the power invested in them.

Tom said: “… research shows that the greater sex segregation in 25 primate species …”

Tom, do you think we are a bunch of monkeys? Who gives a crap what monkeys do? Get a grip on reality.

Zorik,

Unlike monkeys, we have the ability to stop behaving like monkeys, if we really put our minds to it.

tom,

OK, so – you’re a unisex guy?

To tom of covent garden #12,

I personally don’t think Sarah Palin is a baby machine. Women have babies for another reason too. To keep a man. And I think that is why so many relate to her.

She had a baby late being in her 40s. She wasn’t doing this to increase the family. Oh no sir.

Heaps of women do this to keep their men on a leash. lol

She isn’t there for her husband for she is after her career. She needs him to stay tied down and how better to do it than keep him busy with the kids.

I have seen this time after time after time amongst my parents. It is an English trick I thought.

Also, Zorik, monkeys can’t read New Scientist either. Last week’s edition cited research indicating a four fold increase in male suicide in high gun-owning US states, and an eightfold increase in female suicide, all other things considered.

New Scientist too for the aforementioned studies on 25 primate species brain capacity for aggression depending on levels of sex segregation.

Blasted science!

If you want to stop individual terrorists, don’t blow up their countries, but consider why their young men are so aggressive. Answer: Sexual frustration. Kill sex segregation, and you kill the religion too. Jews and Christians like a bit of sex segregation, but the Muslim tribes are the worst.

The last thing the world’s men need is Repuglican men’s olde rights activists promoting sex segregation.

Julie,

Something tells me Sarah Palin doesn’t need to have more kids to keep her man. She’s HOT – I’m 10 years younger, and I WOULD.

I guess when she got pregnant and they asked her if she wanted the test for downs, she felt obliged to say no, due to her public stance on abortion, or on the presumption that as she’s a beauty queen, the baby would be too, or perhaps, on the principled stance that bringing a seriously handicapped fetus in to the world is morally right and/or politically astute – and that is even more retarded.

Uh, Julie? Would you have a baby to keep a man? You would get pregnant with a guy who wants to leave you? If your mother did that she really messed you up.

Tom, we know what Sarah looks like. We know she’ HOT (as you keep putting it.) Lots of Republican women are hot – that’s just the way it is. It’s not a requirement, nor is it a bad thing. It just is.

No one is voting for Sarah Palin because of what she looks like in a bikini. It may matter to someone as shallow as you, but you and I both know you wouldn’t vote Republican no matter what – what you claim notwithstanding (your words speak much more than the pablum you spout).

To tom of covent garden #24, That’s a silly comment back.

But I will accept it as you are a man. lol You don’t know how women think. I would put money on my theory … seriously. I have been dying to say something but held my tongue because she is a goddess in today’s society. Although it would be interesting what women on the street would have to say about this also.

Yes, she’s hot and you haven’t lived with her all these years in a small town. I hear you!

For Sarah Palin, I guess having to make a choice whether to abort a baby or not is important in some people’s eyes. You know, it was never as celebrated this way until abortion got so out of control. Now heroines are being made out of stuff that was normal for most women.

Life sure is funny these days.

Squiggy and Julie,

I heard this week on BBC Radio 4 I think it was, people are two and a half times more likely to vote for someone if they are attractive. Does this tell you why Palin is on the ticket?

There are LOTS AND LOTS of shallow people in America. Women associate with attractive women, in the hope some of the shine will make their own star rise. I used to bartend in New York, and I was amazed at how women would naturally walk up to attractive women who they didn’t know, saying ‘Hi’, then complimenting their hair, and stroking them a bit, and saying ‘Oh my God, we should hang out, etc.’, and personality had NOTHING to do with it from what I observed. And men of course are even more sycophantic around hot women, and…

Palin is HOT to look at, YES. But as SOON as she speaks…

At least I’m acknowledging Palin is visually appealing, and then moving on to acknowledge she is content-wise, full of shit.

Where is the policy initiative? Her manifesto? ‘Drill for oil’?

You think that’s good enough for your country?

“I guess when she got pregnant and they asked her if she wanted the test for downs, she felt obliged to say no, due to her public stance on abortion, or on the presumption that as she’s a beauty queen, the baby would be too, or perhaps, on the principled stance that bringing a seriously handicapped fetus in to the world is morally right and/or politically astute – and that is even more retarded.”

tom – I find this comment crude and offensive.

It may come as a suprise to you, that there are people in the world that don’t take “mulligans”, or “do overs”.
Women today have legislated every conceivable “out” when it comes to kids. They can abort them, the can give them up for adoption, they can even legally abandon them.

But some people don’t see life that way. They believe that every life is to be cherished. I personally admire that.

That’s because your retarded, Roger!

tom of covent garden: please desist from spamming this thread. Specifically, please do not bait authors or other commenters with emotional flurries and Ad Hominem statements. Also, many of your posts are being automatically held for administrative review. Please do not attempt to repost the same comment over and over again.

Thank you for your cooperation.

-ADMIN

Julie, your theory on why some women have babies in their 40s is interesting. I never would have thought of that.

Even if she is hot, she might have good reasons to keep the man she has.

Tom, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world even though firearm ownership is almost nil.

And if people really want out of life, does the state have the moral right to stop them? That’s a tough one.

Tom, regarding gun control, Wikipedia says, “The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. … a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws … ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

Zorik, “tom” is just a troll. We get hit with them whenever there’s an election coming up. I have to admit – they’re pretty organized. If “tom” is from where he claims, we’ve got European trolls a’plenty ‘roun’ here.

At first I thought Julie was one, but now I’m not so sure. She may have been one at first, but found something worth listening to.

Squiggy #33,

I certainly have found something worth listening to. MEN’s point of view on war. I only had an opinion and made my stand anti war.

But I have come to see it in a completely different light.

When I refer to Roger as retarded, it is because he has retarded Luddite views on bringing retarded fetuses into this world unnecessarily.

I think Roger understands my point, and I think you do too, Admin.

Others make ad hominem attacks in lack of argument, and I refer you to the commenters calling me an idiot or a troll and so on in this very thread.

I didn’t cry about it.

It seems because you don’t like my somewhat informed attacks on regressive conservatism you’re setting the politeness bar a bit higher for me.

Please don’t go through with the personality bypass, admin.
I’m sure Roger would not agree either with you aborting any comment, however retarded it may or might not be.

What’s wrong with baiting the authors?

Seriously.

Suppose I’m a biologist. If I want to understand trout, I don’t study salmon, I study trout. If I want to understand crows I don’t study ostriches. If I want to understand moose, I don’t study horses. So why would I study monkeys to understand people?

If that’s what those guys at New Scientist are doing (and I did not read the article) they are not qualified to be doing science.

Zorik,

There are problems measuring human brain capacity, and there are also problems measuring human aggression levels, where as with monkeys, they live outdoors, in small communities, which can be monitored much more accurately.

Scientists have only just discovered sex segregation levels dictate evolution of increased brain capacity for aggression in 25 species of primate (2007).
If you think humans are uniquely different, and that sex segregation for us has no effect, or actually helps in some way, then I recommend you go and live in a sex segregated community, for peace of mind. Yeh, go on, try Saudi Arabia for instance, where men must sit at the back of the bus, unless a woman needs the seat, in which case, the man must vacate it. Or take a walk past a public park, which is women only, or go to your favourite cafe, which is men only (unless a woman walks in, in which case, all the men must leave). Are you feeling empathetic towards sex segregation now, Zorik?

Tom, what makes you think I’m supporting sex segregation? I am merely questioning the relevance of animal research to humans. If I want to know what people think I talk to them, I don’t look at primates.

And yes I do think humans are unique. For one thing, I don’t believe in evolution. But even if you believe in evolution, using monkeys still makes no sense. If they can’t measure human brain capacity or human aggression levels they should just admit they don’t know. Using monkey data is not the answer. You can’t call that science.

If I can’t find a moose to do research on, I don’t use horse data as a substitute. I just have to admit I don’t know much about moose.

So while we wait for the tests on humans, will you a) take note that sex segregation is bad for aggression levels in all other measured primates to date, and consider this an indication sex segregation may well be a bad idea in humans, or

b) Completely ignore the findings?

Tom, I will ignore the claimed monkey “findings” because applying them to humans is not scientific and because we don’t need them. We can observe human behavior and history and listen to what humans say about themselves and their experiences.

Zorik,

Okay, and what have we found about sex segregation in humans?

Tom, I think your basic point is that sex segregation leads to sexual frustration, which leads to violence. Is that correct?

Zorik,

That is my point. It seems many commentators suspected this already before the monkey evidence came along to support it.

The other thing to be aware of, is that women choose to sex-segregate four times more than men, who show no preference. So when we look to sex segregated societies, it’s evidence of WOMENS power, even if the division is enforced by symbolically patriarchal religions/laws. I see it as power over men only though, as overall, sex segregation holds the men and women back. The most sex-integrated countries are the most rational/least religious, with the broadest economies, the best environmental reforms, the least murders, the least wars, the best prison-systems (also sex-integrated, and with the lowest reoffending rates) and so on.

Palin seems unlikely to encourage the sexes to integrate. I think she will remain ‘nuetral’ on the promotion of women into men’s and men’s into women’s spheres, but in women’s silence, there is that politically unchallenged 4 to 1 preference for sex segregation.

Our left wing UK prime minister’s wife is doing it now. Shlepping round the country in a load of female-only group photo shoots, just as her predecessor, Tony Blair’s wife did.

Also Zorik,

I’ve just been reading Origins of the Social Mind by Bruce J. Ellis David, who in an overview, states sex segregation in humans causes more aggression.

Polygamy worsens aggression too.

Greater sex dimorphism, the average size difference between males and females, is linked to aggression too.

Aggression, polygamy, sex segregation and dimorphism might be coping strategies/effects for when there is a shortage of food, this scientific overview suggests, so it might be hard, I guess, to convince hungrier countries to give up sex segregation, even though the improvement in the diversity and strength of a sex-integrated economy would eventually lead to more food.

For well-fed countries however, there seems to me no short-term state of emergency-type justification for any sex segregation, other than to keep the men directly aggressive (and the women indirectly so).

I get the feeling the conservative elite, Palin one of them, are quite happy with the old boys’ and girls’ clubs, as they would rather have men ticking over a few revs higher than necessary, for the next war.

The liberal elite do sex segregate into feminist groups, but 2nd wavers justified the idea as a temporary measure to organize sufficient strategic frames and mechanisms to propel women into public life – the plebs who make up feminism’s critical mass however, might simply be attracted to feminism as an all girls club for the same instinctive and short-termist motives of typically conservative gender-role divisive women.

Tom, rather than read a lot of books by “experts” who often disagree with each other anyway and who often try to B.S. the people, my approach is to try a little “common sense”.

I can see your point about sex segregation effecting young muslims in Saudi Arabia. There might be something to it, but what about over here?

If a guy is getting regular sex (average seems to be about three times a week) at home I don’t think he’s going to have sexual frustrations that lead to violence. He still sees his woman every night. I don’t think he needs to have women at work. Should he be having sex with the women at work? Can’t he go eight hours without sex? I don’t think we need THAT much integration to solve the problem (assuming one accepts the basic argument in the first place).

Those that don’t have women often resort to pictures, so once again, the tension is released.

Some would argue that the sexual energy can be redirected into work, not necessarily agression. Further, women at work might increase the tension (out of sight out of mind), so I would take the expert opinions with a grain of salt. Sometimes they just prove what they want to prove. Maybe they have a femininst agenda to begin with.

I think tom of covent garden, …. you are an interesting sort because much of what I have thought is what you think. And I hope you can think more because as you say your opinion and listen to others you develop more and a new opinion forms.

I wish you had a website to share your views. That would be fun to read.

Zorik, you are enjoyable to read. I think you have found a confidence to speak your wisdom. This is what I enjoy most about these sites. They can build you up if you give them a chance.

I like your wisdom much. I am glad you are here.

Thanks for the compliment Julie.

Zorik,

You state you would rather trust common sense than expert opinion, but when considering the roles of the sexes, it is well established, COMMON sense is based on common myth, fairy tales, and the common courtesy of ignoring facts whilst chivalrously pandering to women – and therefor usually concludes the opposite of scientific enquiry, whose evidence is neither feminist or otherwise.

So the fairy tail is, one man sleeps with one woman, and we all live happily ever after, whereas the science tells us the top 80% of the women sleep with the top 20% of the men, sharing men if they have to. This dynamic may be more extreme in polygamous societies, where women may sanction such arrangements under the protection of law, thus limiting their availability to unregistered men – the poor ones who can’t afford to court, pay for and marry their sorry fat lazy asses first, even though many mens genes may warrant a pair-bond. In every society therefor, there will always be a large percentage of men, who don’t get any sex. This likelihood for low status men in Muslim countries to get none is turned into certainty, because Muslim women are strict money whores, backed up by their religion/legal system/morality police.

The first thing I noticed when visiting an even moderate Muslim country, Tunisia, is the large amounts of men with zero prospects of finding a wife.
These poor men have so little prospect of getting a Muslim woman, in the Winter, when the western tourists go home, they become homosexual.
Muslim countries are like open prisons for the vast majority of their male ‘citizens’.

Muslim women were nowhere to be seen on the Tunisian streets, because they didn’t have paid jobs (housewhores to either their husbands, or housewhores in waiting, kept by their fathers or brothers), but if the women had a job, then men would have the opportunity to freely associate with them WITHOUT PAYING.

The trouble with common sense, Zorik, is it doesn’t teach anyone anything they didn’t think they already knew. Get some books down you!

Start off with Steve Moxon’s The Women Racket, if you haven’t already, then I would recommend Men and Women in Interaction by Elizebeth Aries, then War and Gender by Goldstein. When you pick up a book on Gender, often its easy to get put off by the author referring to ‘patriarchy’ when you know men don’t really rule ANYWHERE. Don’t throw the book away Zorik, simply understand that ‘patriarchy’ is synonymous with male dominance and female power (Sanday, 1981) – this way, the most insipid, apologetic, politically correct books can still make sense. Check if the author distinguishes between male dominance and male power. If not, they may not be worth reading, unless you’re interested in how modern fairy tales are constructed.
on about male dominance

For what it’s worth, my understanding is that Tom of Convent Garden is quite correct when he says that increased segregation between the sexes increases male aggression.

And if my memory is correct, this has been ‘known’ – particularly by non-PC social psychologists – for at least 5 decades.

Harry,

It seems like a no brainer to me too, that sex segregation causes aggression in humans, but in 2007, New Scientist reported monkeys’ brain capacity for aggression was evolutionarily altered by sex segregation, but resisted making such solid claims about humans.

We’ve known for three decades at least that women are more violent towards men than vice versa, but it hasn’t stopped the ignorance persisting. If Harry is right that we have human experiments finding aggression (and brain capacity changes) from sex segregation, and I’d be keen to read his sources, then maybe society needs to place greater pressure on ending single sex anything – I’m not hearing it much at the moment, certainly not from the main culprits of sex-segregation, women.

Julie, you are sweet.

Tom, your view of common sense is different than mine.

You have also made some unusual assertions with little solid material to back them up.

Just remember that for every “expert” there is another “expert” with the diametrically opposite view.

I do read books by the way. But I’m not impressed by experts. At my last job I worked with a professor who was a big fat liar, so excuse me for being skeptical. And so far EVEYONE at the university seems to want to look the other way rather than confront the fraudster. So much for “science”. The problem goes all the way up the ladder to the president himself. So much for academic freedom (I was fired for giving my contrary expert opinion), and so much for the BS policy statements on their website about fair treatment of employees, etc.

Tom, my main point is that even if segregation can lead to violence, feminism is not the answer. There are better answers (see above).

Tom (#2), I think RUDE-ov is promoting Palin without knowing much about her simply because he knows Biden is very bad news. But it remains to be seen if Palin is much better. My guess is she is, but everyone seems be jumping on the Palin bandwagon before the facts are in.

Zorik,

Sex-integration, free association, feminism, masculinism, call it what you like. Mind you, women currently choose to freely associate with mainly other women, four times more than with other men. It’s women’s free choice, but does that make sex segregation okay? If I chose to do something harmful, I would at least expect a government health warning with it. Maybe the elite think it would be better not to mention the aggression sex segregation can cause in men, so that women won’t deliberately segregate more. I’m an optimist with these things however, and feel the majority of women, given the information, would choose to do the right thing, by integrating with men more often than they currently do.

Also, it’s not just about women being prepared to be around men. It’s about women contributing sufficiently to the conversation. Research shows men divulge information to women, whilst women divulge information to other women also mainly. So, generally, no one is really telling men the kind of hot information and gossip they need.

Women aren’t encouraged to divulge information to other men. It’s seen as uncooth or something. Imagine we didn’t divulge information to Jews or blacks or children or old people – open anathema toward any other group, and we’d be considered socially inept. But to divulge info to men is itself considered socially inept.

Women should be encouraged to hold court with a bit more civility. It’s very easy for a woman to make it clear to a guy, in a civil way, that she’s not interested in him sexually, without physically rejecting him from the conversation loop. But women are not encouraged to do that at all. Of course when a woman settles on a man for a partner, she unloads floods of information she’s been saving up to tell men, and the poor bloke, who isn’t used to being confided in by women, is overwhelmed by the sheer volume of info, and gets berated for not remembering every utterance or detail. And I stress the womens roles in this dynamic, because it is women who sex segregate in the first place, men showing no preference for male or female company. True civility.