What constitutes Misogyny?

[barracuda]

Firstly because women must cease to accept inferior treatment before they become feminists, and secondly because they must kick up a fuss about this treatment if men are to become aware of it, and then to become feminists themselves. This can be attempted through protest and grass-roots action, but a crucial component is simply individual feminists convincing other individuals one by one. This can be done by kicking up a good fuss whenever harassment occurs, showing that it does happen and is not okay.

Great lets take away all that is man and replace us with a bunch of feminists. Keep kicking up a fuss, you sure are doing a number on all of us here.

Now that there is a dick comment. Nowhere in that paragraph was a statement to remove man. Jeesus christ on a pogo stick. I'm out for now, this is ridiculous.

Check my post above, because it sure does.

Being a masculine manly-man and being a feminist are not two mutually exclusive positions. Quite the opposite, I would say. Feminism is not inherently emasculating in any way.

[WakeUpAndLive]

Being a masculine manly-man and being a feminist are not two mutually exclusive positions. Quite the opposite, I would say. Feminism is not inherently emasculating in any way.

Please explain, I just don't see it.

[barracuda]

What exactly do you lose by being fair to people, and by treating all people as equals?

[Peregrine]

So, if a man becomes feminist, that is the removal of anything "man"? Seriously, man?!

[WakeUpAndLive]

So, if a man becomes feminist, that is the removal of anything "man"? Seriously, man?!

Well by roots of the words, yes.

Masculine = pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men

Feminine = pertaining to or characteristic of a woman or girl

So the roots of feminist, of or pertaining to the characteristic of a girl, is not in opposition to masculine? It is a removal of the traits of man, which there are some positive traits (and many negative ones too). Just as women have positive traits which men need to gain. I feel we can learn from each other and arrive at a balance, the opinions of the women in this thread seem biased towards feminism and not balanced. I'm not sure if that adamant action will precipitate a change, but for me I see it as just as unbalanced as our current society.

What exactly do you lose by being fair to people, and by treating all people as equals?

Nothing, this is exactly what I want.

[Canadian_watcher]

Men Doing Feminist Work Friday: Don McPherson

Continuing to note feminist men who make a difference to feminist movement, I was pleased to discover that men like Don McPherson exist. From his wikipedia entry:
Donald G. McPherson (born April 2, 1965 in Brooklyn, New York) was an NFL and CFL quarterback drafted by the Philadelphia Eagles in 1988 after a college career at Syracuse University during which he won the Maxwell Award and finished second in the 1987 Heisman Trophy voting. He also played for the Houston Oilers and for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and Ottawa Rough-Riders.

In some ways I suppose I am a 'typical' touchy-feely, sensitive-guy-type of feminist (hopefully I'm not a Nice Guy, in the negative sense of the term). I'm not a big football-watcher. There is some sport that I like, but I'm more likely to do something locally than watch something globally. I'm more likely to rally around the person playing a pickup game of basketball at the local court than to rally around some national team. And, frankly, part of what turns me off to organized sports is the institutionalized sexism that is often involved in organized sports. Which is why it's such a relief to hear an ex pro football player say things like this:
"Let's look at the semantics of sexism," Don begins, writing on a whiteboard. The Dragons lean forward intently, as if he's a coach outlining strategy for an upcoming game. Then he stands back and reads these words aloud.

Jack beats Jill.

Jill was beaten by Jack.

Jill was beaten.

Jill is a battered woman.

"What's happened here?" Don asks, pointing his marker at the last line. After a few seconds, one of the players speaks up. "Jack's missing?" Don nods. "Jack is out of the picture and Jill is stigmatized. That shows that even our language about sexual violence blames women for the things that men do."

Not only does McPherson do work in places tough spaces (high school, college and pro-sports areas), he does it as a self-proclaimed feminist; not only does he fight violence against women, he does so while acknowledging that the fight is a feminist fight:
“I introduce myself at lectures by saying, ‘I’m Don McPherson. I’m a recent nominee for the College Football Hall of Fame and a long-time feminist.’ I know it probably shakes some people up when I say I’m a feminist, but I am. You can be both. I think we do men a disservice if we tell them you are less of a man if you care about gender issues.” – Don McPherson, former quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles

Furthermore, he sees men's violence against women as both a women's and a men's issue, and also sees the connection between homophobia and violence against women:
"We, as men, have to be involved in the dialogue." Men commit 90 percent of violent acts against women, he said. "This is our issue," McPherson, who called himself a feminist, told the men. "We don't raise boys to be men," he said. "We raise boys not to be women or gay men."

And to top it all off, he understands that one of the best things male feminists can do is take the talk to other men:
By keeping his emotions and experiences inside, Don realized he was helping to perpetuate an image of manhood that was dehumanizing to both sexes. Now, Don works with athletes, students and young men to change the culture that cultivates abuse. "This movement is about challenging what men say to each other in all male environments, how we raise our boys, and how we talk about women which limits who men are." says Don. "Violence against women is a men's issue and men have to confront other men, otherwise, it won't end."

from here: http://feministallies.blogspot.com/

[Project Willow]

I'm not talking about your personal experiences of misogynism, in which you are the ultimate authority of course,

We agree on something in there, just not that first part, because you have been challenging the authority of women to name what are for them, experiences of misogyny.

... but how it is perceived and affected by others, both men and women, for which you can't be the ultimate authority. Do you see the difference?

Apparently I can't, but I'll try not to worry my pretty little head over it. However, if you want to argue again for the centrality of such gymnastics as part of a serious program of combating misogyny, don't let me stop you. I'll just repeat again that I don't agree.

You seem to find most people who disagree with you inferior when my guess is most of them (definitely not all of them) probably are the least misogynistic people you could encounter in real life.

I don't recall saying anyone was inferior to me, but as long as I'm going to be accused regardless, here's some sexism for you: Why don't you grow a pair and man up and consider quietly for a second that if women think you're holding a few misogynistic views, that uh, maybe, we just might have a point?

How kind of you also to center an attack on inferiority when I've stated clearly that having been treated as inferior for most of my life because I am female is what brought me to feminism. Nice move.

Sad, but even more fascinating. Are you sharing PW's take on barrcuda's post about the reality of the ball girl clip?
I honestly didn't infer any negative motivation on his part. Did you? Most of his posts are a deeper follow up on a source.
That makes him an asshole? Even after he apologizes and self flagellates for his supposed misstep?

My reaction to his post wasn't really related to this thread, as should have been obvious by my comment and apology to him above. Let it go.

[brekin]

I don't have time today to go point for point but basically C_W you don't want to be
held to the same standards you propose to hold. Because you believe you are the "bullied" you are
somehow justified in your hostile conduct. I don't doubt you've been mistreated in this thread
or others, but that doesn't give you free rein to do whatever you want.

Review the thread: you've insulted me, name called me, labeled me, accused me
of basically mind crimes against women. Trust me, I've been very forgiving.
I gave the Furnace Man perspective to shed light on what may have been
going on in his side. That was verboten somehow. Remember you weren't sure
if his conduct was misogynistically motivated. That is a serious matter and one I
think demands examination. To do so though is to negate all of women's collective
experience somehow. For some reason you think men in general don't take misogynism
seriously. Trust me, being accused of it is no slight thing! Just as you better be able
to lay out why you think somehow behaved racistly, the same should be said of misogynism.
And not that they just don't agree with you.

C_W wrote:

I'm asking you now if you could be more perceptive about the covert-style anti-social behaviour which is happening right now, under your nose? Do they have to come right out and call me a cunt? Obviously they are playing the game.. Willow and I opted to go for a precise word, and voluntarily took the risk of being called out, but if you like it better when people just dance around it, writing long diatribes and acting superior, I can play it that way.

Again you do something bad, while I'm guilty of thought crime. Your misbehavior is altruistic while you have to heighten and exaggerate what I say to fit me
into the enemy mold. Am I sitting on rhetorical WMD's I'm not aware of? Everything I've wanted to say, I've said.

C_W wrote:

But.. there are others now, not as eager to put down the mantle of 'scorned man.' You are among them. I don't know what your problem is, but I take from your hostility that you cannot STAND (nay!) to have a woman of all things tell you what's what without sugar coating it. Do I need to get out a clean diaper for you? I'm not going to, so you can sit and stink.

My problem is when people are accused of something I feel they, or I, have a right to discuss and examine the matter. To me that is gender blind issue.
For you though it isn't. Because misogynism is systemic you think a woman immediately knows more about the incident. I would assume to. However, a person of color may have more experience with racism but that doesn't mean their infallible in identifying a perceived racist incident. Questioning, or even ultimately disagreeing with the person of color doesn't automatically make you a racist if you question the incident and want to examine it. If you were a black man and the furnace man behaved the same way he could have done so out of racism, or not. Discussing it doesn't mean one isn't against racial equality. In fact one could argue the opposite.

You have a lot of hostility around this and while you irritate me at times I don't want to humiliate you. It's clear you do me:

"Do I need to get out a clean diaper for you? I'm not going to, so you can sit and stink."

I don't think our exchanges are really going to be productive because when I challenge some of your statements it is perceived as
an attack, if I suggest something I believe for your benefit, I'm being paternalistic, etc.

barracuda wrote:

What exactly do you lose by being fair to people, and by treating all people as equals?

Think about it. You lose power. That's why it's easier to call people misogynistic and assume they are ignorant and you are superior.
Once you start labeling people you stop seeing them as equal. Fairness has been very scarce in this thread. And to be fair, it has come
from many sides.

[barracuda]

barracuda wrote:

What exactly do you lose by being fair to people, and by treating all people as equals?

Think about it. You lose power. That's why it's easier to call people misogynistic and assume they are ignorant and you are superior.

No, you don't lose power. The idea that equal rights is somehow diminishing is a vast misnomer encapsulating centuries of propaganda. Everyone gains power, and the entire discourse and culture rises to a higher level.

No one here has expressed a viewpoint specifically regarding the purely moral superiority of a worldview dispossessed of misogyny, but it's certainly the core of the issue. When misogynistic statements are identified by the women here, there is a moral lesson central to their perspective. What moral lessons follow naturally from your adamant questioning of their ability to identify such transgressions?

[Stephen Morgan]

Project Willow wrote:

(brekin...Trotsky? Don't flatter yourself, you're white army, or no, no, let's be up to date, you could be a Promise Keeper.)

Ironic, Project Willow, you have no qualms about negatively labeling others on the board (misogynists, etc talking about board members here not people you've mentioned in your life who are obvious ones), categorizing them into a backwards women experience negating caste and dehumanizing them (assholes) all the while feeling you are the ultimate authority on a subject in which your opinions are absolute. I'm not talking about your personal experiences of misogynism, in which you are the ultimate authority of course, but how it is perceived and affected by others, both men and women, for which you can't be the ultimate authority. Do you see the difference?

You're arguing for an objective standard for appraisal, rather than using women as human barometers of misogyny. What you should be doing is arguing for a better comparison than a Russian White or a Promise Keeper. Nestor Makhno, for example. Brilliant, he was, much better than that pansy Trotsky. Anarchist Army of the Ukraine. Bit of a hero of mine. Very good article about him somewhere on the interweb called Panic at Peregonovka.

I believe it is said that our perception of others reveals much about our own traits.

I think you and C_w are as bad as each other. C_w seems to think you're out to get her, I prefer to think you're just arguing the same point for page after page, as she alleges, because you think you're right. I've certainly done that, for far too many pages.

[brekin]

brekin wrote:
I'm not talking about your personal experiences of misogynism, in which you are the ultimate authority of course,

Project Willow wrote:
We agree on something in there, just not that first part, because you have been challenging the authority of women to name what are for them, experiences of misogyny.

No, I provided my opinion on what I thought may have happened in the situation from the narrative provided by a woman.
She disagreed and you disagreed. I'm sure some women who would (or did) read the same would not come away with
the same opinion.

brekin wrote:
... but how it is perceived and affected by others, both men and women, for which you can't be the ultimate authority. Do you see the difference?

Project Willow wrote:
Apparently I can't, but I'll try not to worry my pretty little head over it. However, if you want to argue again for the centrality of such gymnastics as part of a serious program of combating misogyny, don't let me stop you. I'll just repeat again that I don't agree.

brekin wrote:
You seem to find most people who disagree with you inferior when my guess is most of them (definitely not all of them) probably are the least misogynistic people you could encounter in real life.

Project Willow wrote:
I don't recall saying anyone was inferior to me, but as long as I'm going to be accused regardless, here's some sexism for you: Why don't you grow a pair and man up and consider quietly for a second that if women think you're holding a few misogynistic views, that uh, maybe, we just might have a point?

How kind of you also to center an attack on inferiority when I've stated clearly that having been treated as inferior for most of my life because I am female is what brought me to feminism. Nice move.

Labeling, denouncing and insulting is how you tell people they are inferior to you.
And now you are baiting me with sexist remarks continuing to treat me in an inferior manner.
Every example that has been brought to me as an example of misogynism that I have supposedly perpetuated has
been incredibly laughable. Because those people have been victims of misogynism in the past or continue to be
should not justify them accusing others when they have no evidence.

You seem to think you are not capable of causing suffering to others because you have suffered.
No one is free of that potentiality. Historically quite a few slaves went on to become slave owners.
Many survivors of the Holocaust settling in Israel have caused immense suffering to the Palestinians.

brekin wrote:
Sad, but even more fascinating. Are you sharing PW's take on barrcuda's post about the reality of the ball girl clip?
I honestly didn't infer any negative motivation on his part. Did you? Most of his posts are a deeper follow up on a source.
That makes him an asshole? Even after he apologizes and self flagellates for his supposed misstep?

Project Willow wrote:
My reaction to his post wasn't really related to this thread, as should have been obvious by my comment and apology to him above. Let it go.

I just don't understand. What thread was it related to? I wasn't included in the "Assholes." post then? Who was? In what thread?
Some people thought it precise. It seemed like it missed the thread it was intended and caused a lot of collateral damage.

[brekin]

Quote:

barracuda wrote:

What exactly do you lose by being fair to people, and by treating all people as equals?

brekin wrote:

Think about it. You lose power. That's why it's easier to call people misogynistic and assume they are ignorant and you are superior.

barracuda wrote:

No, you don't lose power. The idea that equal rights is somehow diminishing is a vast misnomer encapsulating centuries of propaganda. Everyone gains power, and the entire discourse and culture rises to a higher level.

There are people who benefit from all types of exploitation and inequalities and so their interest is in maintaining divisions and the status quo.
They definitely lose power when people demand more equality. When power is concentrated their is no way to equalize it without some people
losing their current share. Many people believe they deserve their four cars and three houses.

You know that is why they work very hard in fostering division and seeding the rhetoric that creates inequalities and divisions.
If I allow others to malign me or someone else who I feel is not guilty, even for a good cause, I'm not exercising my equality of expression.
I expect others to respect my equality of expression, even when they disagree strongly with me. If they don't, then I don't see that they see me as an
equal. But as an inferior who must be shunned or indoctrinated.
I expect from an equal to persuade me to their point of view. Not to bully or accuse me if I don't agree or see their point of view.
Possibly their point of view is correct even if they fail to persuade me. But since we are equals, even if I fail, or they do, in agreeing,
nothing is lost as long as we don't then seek to make their failure related to their status.

I agree though that the entire discourse and possibly the culture can rise to a higher level if power is more equally distributed. But it also can
sink if a few people control the discourse and force an equality on others that they don't adhere to and are the sole arbitrators of.

barracuda wrote:

No one here has expressed a viewpoint specifically regarding the purely moral superiority of a worldview dispossessed of misogyny, but it's certainly the core of the issue. When misogynistic statements are identified by the women here, there is a moral lesson central to their perspective. What moral lessons follow naturally from your adamant questioning of their ability to identify such transgressions?

This is such a beautiful on topic idea:

No one here has expressed a viewpoint specifically regarding the purely moral superiority of a worldview dispossessed of misogyny, but it's certainly the core of the issue

that I think should be the focus. But what happens is to not agree with every single statement in this thread makes this discussion impossible. Ironically to disagree is to treat someone as an equal. That's what you do with peers and equals. To order, dictate and conversely to be completely silent or submissive is what you do with superiors and inferiors.

[Stephen Morgan]

Most of them went on their merry ways after that, which was my hope. And after some thought, Stephen Morgan came back (he wasn't a part of the wailing mob I'm referring to) which is good. Even though he and I don't see eye to eye we do manage to have proper and civil discourse.

I seem to recall barracuda getting promoted to mod at the end of a big feminist-related argument with me, so when you got bishoped while we were in the middle of a similar argument I was a bit miffed. I saw the thread title announcing you as the new mod and I thought "Well, that's just great". Coincidence, I expect. But I'm not one to complain.

Anyway, I'm sure you would have been a perfectly good mod. Partly because people who take on an office have a natural tendency to adhere to the pre-existing norms of that office, and partly because barracuda's an entirely adequate mod and he's even more aggravating than you are.

Suffering in Silence
...
Furthermore, my ideas of feminists were of women who thought that they were better than men, or who wanted things both ways: to be considered equal, yet given preferential treatment.

I find this article bizarre. It's like reading something by an evolutionary biologist who walks into a church one day, chats with a priest about how God has influenced his life, and decides he's wasted his life and now wants to be a monk. I mean, I'm like a "Before" picture of this bloke. Except, you know, I don't think I am an idiot, which this bloke definitely is. He doesn't even know which way shutters go.

How can such an absurd view survive? Firstly I believe that this negative stereotype prompts people to filter out evidence that would support feminism. For example, look at almost all prestigious professions (barristers, surgeons, chief executives) and you will see that men are decidedly over-represented. But if you believe that the problems of unequal treatment have been solved, it is very easy to accept that these imbalances will just go away in time, or that women could enter these professions, but simply don’t want to.

Well, they can. Indeed, they are. Most new doctors, surgeons, barristers, are women. So the absurd view survives for the good reason that it is empirically supportable.

It is crucially important that you understand that I was absolutely confident in this statement. To me, women hardly ever got harassed, to the extent that it was not something to worry about, just as you don’t need to worry about plane crashes, lightning strikes, or axe murderers.[/b] Of course, you know, and I soon found out, that this is definitely not the case.

My friend looked right at me and relayed a long list of horrifying personal experiences. Twenty-something total strangers asking her out, persistently, since she was fourteen. A man following her home, so that she had to walk around the block so he wouldn’t know where she lived. Lewd comments. Never knowing whether any of this would progress to something worse, and so always worrying that it might. And all of this happening on a roughly weekly basis.

But presumably it didn't "progress" to anything worse. I don't see these things as being on the same continuum as those things he snidely suggests it could have led to. Of course the whole thing smacks of a belief that things like this that happen to women are anti-women events, whereas things of a similar nature which target mostly men are just bad things that happen, rather than bad things that happen to men as men.

I can honestly tell you that I have never been so shocked, before or since. Because as a male I never see this happening, let alone have I had anything remotely similar happen to me. I can barely even begin to imagine what it must feel like, and I shan’t even try to describe it here. The point is that this experience, which is to me an incontrovertible reason to be a feminist, is not available to any man, unless he is told about it.

Assuming the entire accuracy of the preceding, it's not a reason to be a feminist, let alone an incontrovertible one. But one shouldn't allow one's personal experiences to influence one's political beliefs anyway, certainly not to decide what it is that one believes. Political matters are too important to be treated as merely subjective.

As soon I was told, the shutters came down.

Yes, his brain shut up shop and battened down the hatches, therefore preventing anything else getting in.

Feminism was something that made sense, and that was probably right. I started reading the articles on this site, and slowly I came to grips with the huge array of gender prejudices which subtly hold women back. I was filled with angry questions: Why aren’t their more women MPs? Why are girls given dolls and boys toy swords? Why does my university pool club have a separate women’s competition? Why is so much advertising comprised of soft pornography?

There aren't more female MPs, I abjure your incorrect use of the language, because people don't vote for them, either as party members voting for prospective parliamentary candidates, or as constituents voting for MPs. This is despite the Labour party's women-only short lists (which ensure female candidates stand for Labour in certain constituencies), the Tory party's A-list and the (spit) LibDem's "zip" policy (man-woman-man-woman, like the teeth on a zip) in their preferred party-list system, as seen in the European elections and the devolved legislatures. Girls are given dolls and boys swords because that's what they ask for and constantly pester their parents for until the worn out adults acquiesce in their constant demands. I know, I've sold the things. You university pool club has a women's competition because otherwise women would complain about not being able to play in competition due to not being able to compete with the men. No doubt a legal challenge would be able to ensure women could enter the men's competition if any were gluttons for punishment and felt like entering. A couple of women even got to play in the Crucible, once. Didn't go well. Actually, I seem to remember that they ended up shooting trick shots in American pool halls, which is the snooker equivalent of running away to join the circus.

You know, as you asked.

Oh, I missed the soft porn. Well, I don't watch adverts, but when I did I seem to recall the most beautiful naked(ish) women being in adverts aimed at women, for bras and make-up and various creams, powders, gels and assorted substances of obscure usage. So I assume it's an aspirational thing. Like in car adverts, the aim is to make you think that if you buy the car you'll be like that twat driving the shitting Volvo. But when it's aimed at women they're meant to want to be the tart with the war-paint.

I am sure that this acceptance is something that must be challenged if feminism is to continue to make progress. Firstly because women must cease to accept inferior treatment before they become feminists, and secondly because they must kick up a fuss about this treatment if men are to become aware of it, and then to become feminists themselves. This can be attempted through protest and grass-roots action, but a crucial component is simply individual feminists convincing other individuals one by one. This can be done by kicking up a good fuss whenever harassment occurs, showing that it does happen and is not okay.

This, to my mind, is misogyny. And is the heart of feminism. Women must accept certain facts, which are not facts. They must come to see themselves as a horribly oppressed group, to see themselves as weak and in danger, to see the entire world looming threateningly above them. It's not that "women must cease to accept inferior treatment", but that they must accept that inferior treatment is there. On the other hand anyone kicking up a fuss over injustice is alright. Even if there isn't injustice, I just like to see a fuss being made.

Men Doing Feminist Work Friday: Don McPherson
...
Not only does McPherson do work in places tough spaces (high school, college and pro-sports areas), he does it as a self-proclaimed feminist; not only does he fight violence against women, he does so while acknowledging that the fight is a feminist fight:
“I introduce myself at lectures by saying, ‘I’m Don McPherson. I’m a recent nominee for the College Football Hall of Fame and a long-time feminist.’ I know it probably shakes some people up when I say I’m a feminist, but I am. You can be both. I think we do men a disservice if we tell them you are less of a man if you care about gender issues.” – Don McPherson, former quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles

Caring about gender issues != feminist. But yeah, it's quite brave to go to pro-sportsmen, who disproportionately grow up in poverty, are disproportionately black and who generally have very little education and lecture them about how bad women have got it.

Furthermore, he sees men's violence against women as both a women's and a men's issue, and also sees the connection between homophobia and violence against women:
"We, as men, have to be involved in the dialogue." Men commit 90 percent of violent acts against women, he said. "This is our issue," McPherson, who called himself a feminist, told the men. "We don't raise boys to be men," he said. "We raise boys not to be women or gay men."

Leave it to some mad American meat-head to treat violence against men as if it was totally unimportant, but drag out the tired old saw "men don't hit women". We need to treat men and women the same, and that includes hitting them in the same circumstances. Any attempt to drum into men that they shouldn't hit women and should be polite and deferential and so on is only even close to acceptable if it teaches men to act the same way to other men and teaches women to act the same way too.

[Canadian_watcher]

that I think should be the focus. But what happens is to not agree with every single statement in this thread makes this discussion impossible. Ironically to disagree is to treat someone as an equal. That's what you do with peers and equals. To order, dictate and conversely to be completely silent or submissive is what you do with superiors and inferiors.

I wish someone (maybe Morgan?) would school you here, because disagreement has happened a zillion times in this thread without a problem.

In your case though, you have been running around like a chicken with your head cut off ever since the Furnace Man story. We talked about it like normal people for a LONG time, but you just couldn't let it go. The fact that you are letting it influence the direction of this thread STILL tells me that you are not actually worried about Furnace Man or anyone else except yourself - and your pride - and you are determined to couch this in high-fallutin' language as if you are fighting for abstract justice for all people.

You aren't. You just don't like that you got trounced for not thinking Furnace Man was sexist even though there were people who agreed with you.

[Canadian_watcher]

Quotes are Morgan's:

But one shouldn't allow one's personal experiences to influence one's political beliefs anyway, certainly not to decide what it is that one believes. Political matters are too important to be treated as merely subjective.

bah.. you don't believe this, I know you don't, you've said so! Either that or you believe it but you can't separate the two, which is understandable, since all political belief is based on experience either first or second hand.

Girls are given dolls and boys swords because that's what they ask for and constantly pester their parents for until the worn out adults acquiesce in their constant demands. I know, I've sold the things. You university pool club has a women's competition because otherwise women would complain about not being able to play in competition due to not being able to compete with the men. No doubt a legal challenge would be able to ensure women could enter the men's competition if any were gluttons for punishment and felt like entering

first off, what you're responding to is still from the editorial piece, not my original thoughts.

swords vs dolls = not inherent. IOW these desires are learned. but this is a no-win argument. nature vs nurture could go on (and has) for eons.

shooting pool - I'll have you know I didn't bring more that a dollar + cab fare to the bars when I was 20.. always won my drinks at the table. I felt a little bad beating all the swaggering guys but only because of sexism - not because of finances.