Any woman who has to "strong-arm" her man to get him to buy her an engagement ring already has enough relationship problems without Amy Sohn giving these men carte blanche to cheat and philander...jeez.

Wow, that first "anti-ad" was charming!

yeah, lovely wasn't it? just goes to show you what so many men think of women's intentions in terms of love and marriage.

Hmmmm...never heard the theory of "conspicious consumption", has she? You know, the one where a woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth? A fancy engagement ring is pretty much a way for a man to mark his territory and show off his wealth--it's no coincidence that the popularity of them rose once men started to wear wedding rings. Now that wedding rings symbolize commitment instead of ownership, the engagement ring fills in the old function--a way to mark a woman as property.

The question is: "should women know better than to be convinced to put a price on themselves and their relationships?" A better question would be "should MEN know better than be convinced to put a price on their partner and their relationship?"

I expect to receive an engagement ring from my partner sometime in the near future - and I have agonized over what I can give him that will similarly symbolize my commitment to him. But I'm really bothered by the fact that he sees the engagement ring as not just a symbol of his commitment, but as a symbol of *his* worthiness to marry me. I'm not pressuring him for a fancy ring. He's feeling pressure from outside our relationship to produce one.

Instead of bashing our sisters who wear engagement rings, I think the attention should be on why men feel so much pressure over this issue that they are driven to produce horrible sexist ad parodies and agonize over what should be a private symbol of commitment.

How can we, as feminists, lessen the pressure on the men in our lives? Not just boyfriends and husbands, but brothers, friends, and sons? I'm very interested to see if any of you have any ideas.

To Sara: I've always given my boyfriend positive feedback for doing the little things that don't cost a lot (like today, where he picked me up after class for no reason at all and took me to lunch). I try to show him that I don't give a crap how much money something is worth. As a feminist, I try to a) communicate with him about things other than the stereotypical 'girly' concerns, and b) constantly demonstrate that I'm not an object or a weak little flower.

I'll tell you where the pressure comes from: familial expectations. My family alone, well- I have an aunt and uncle who check my hand for a ring every time they see me, whether or not I have a significant other. They have made it VERY VERY CLEAR that someday I'd better show up with a BIG BIG DIAMOND on that finger, or else my man is not worthy. Period. Nevermind that I don't like diamonds, if I don't show up with a big rock and a man, they will treat the guy like shit.

This is craziness, mind you, but that's what they're like. And it doesn't help either that whenever someone announces an engagement, question #1 is often, "Where's the ring?" and then it's immediately judged by all and sundry. It's a litmus test of how rich the guy is and how valued the girl is by the rich guy. Gag me.

This is getting all too muddled.
I feel that the idea of an engagement ring is disgusting when it goes beyond a gift of love. But I also believe this decision is a personal choice. However I would like to reiterate that word "choice," and reject the entry's classification of the wedding industry being "impossible to escape." Granted, societal pressures are tremendous, and societal conditioning is often subconscious, but women are not powerless. I cite this blog as a perfect example. People have the capacity to take in, analyze, consider, confirm, and reject eveything around them, including the conditioning they've been exposed too. Therefore absolving someone responsibility for demanding to be bought purely because of society is insulting to their intelligence. One is responsible for all of the ramifications and implications of their actions, even if they decide to reject them (which he/she is completely entitled to do). On the same token, this woman is ridiculous to imply that an equal party in the engagement (the man) is entitled to the obstruction of the union.

Maybe you all from the North East see it differently than I do here in the MidWest, because all of the women my age that I know (early 20's) that are engaged have very modest rings. Being college students for starters, and smack dab middle class most guys don't have a hell of a lot of cash to spend and I'm pretty sure the women feel that's ok. If they were trying to be bought off or felt that the fat rock was a status symbol they all fell pretty short of those goals.

Among my friends in the Midwest, antique marriage rings are the newest trend for engagenment rings. They have history and don't cost nearly as much as a new one. Further, I have a problem wearing diamonds and have never owned one. I don't want to support the diamond trade with my greed.

My parents have never worn their wedding rings, partially because they got them for ten bucks apiece at a department store in the 60s. And my very feminist sister never more an engagement rings, though her and her husband have matching jewels - not diamonds - on their wedding rings.

There is a choice in all of this, and keeping with parts of the tradition, it is possible to veer off and make your own new ones.

How can we, as feminists, lessen the pressure on the men in our lives?

Pick men who are capable of resisting peer pressure? My goodness, if your fiancé can't bear to listen to YOUR wishes about a ring YOU would be putting on your finger, what makes you think he's going to deal with other gender-linked expectations positively?

I don't know that Amy Sohn *isn't* fucking around. You have to wonder about anyone who encourages married men to "cheat viciously."

wow

I have to whole heartedly agree with Amy Sohn, except her last line quoted there about cheating. Just because a guy marries a gal who's a hypocrit doesn't give him license to cheat. He took a vow etc. etc..

I have a hard time with folks who think diamond's are the bee's knees when if you do any small amount of research, you can find its all a sham by Debeers etc. to sell an overvalued product (often aquired by shady if not heinous means). As for saying folks should be given a pass because of peer pressure (to get rings, fancy weddings etc.)..puhlease. That didn't work as an excuse when I got caught for smoking in jr. high, it shouldn't work now.

"Hmmmm...never heard the theory of "conspicious consumption", has she?"

In other words: When a woman gets free jewlery, she's a victim.

That's quite a stretch.

"In other words: When a woman gets free jewlery, she's a victim."

I think you're distorting what she meant.

But on the other hand, if the custom were reversed and women were expected to buy diamond rings for men, then maybe Amanda would complain that the practice placed an unfair financial burden on women and that men were exploiting women for free jewlery.

Since you think the situation will reverse itself so quickly, then let's just see what I think, then.

Vox, I wouldn't strut around cracking jokes about stuff I don't understand. Perhaps you might be more open to understanding the theory of conspicious consumption if you knew that it was created by a man named Thorstein Veblen. It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory.

And Fred, do you really think people would wear diamonds if there was no one else to see them?

Maybe, in a sense, I'm old-fashioned. I didn't want an engagement ring or wedding ring. I'm married, but I wear neither.

These rings are a symbol of ownership and that's why a lot of men don't wear them. It isn't just about the potential cheating.

A symbol of ownership? A woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth?

I'll make sure to reserve sympathy for Ivana Trump and Marla Maples. Those poor victims. I guess the price of being a man's wealth demonstrator is paid for with a nice, hefty divorce settlement and a free ring to pawn.

Just because something doesn't cost money does *not* mean that it's free.

James and Voxper, you don't even know how stupid you sound, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut.

A symbol of ownership? A woman functions for her man as a way for him to demonstrate his wealth?

Well, yes. And as Ivana and Marla got older or near the point in the marriage where the prenup would have kicked in, he dumped them for a younger model. The more money a man has, the hotter the women he can attract -- and he's certainly not going to be content with his arm candy/trophy wife shopping at Marshall's.

And remember, they had to sleep with THAT HAIR. I think that's worth a couple of mil.

You know, for all that these men's rights activists contend that women are all whores who ask for too much money, I have yet to see one offer to perform these sexual and cleaning services to his brothers at what he considers a reasonable rate.

Always the victims, eh ladies? Even when your choices net your more than you would ever make in your entire life on your own, you're still a victim? Mmmmmkay.

Marla got 10 million dollars. I'd say that's a nice sum for a few years of hard work flying around the world and being Don's sex toy.

As for calling me stupid, that's a nice cop-out from having to actually make the effort to debate a point.

From the way some of you are talking, you seem to think that sex from a woman has a price?

You still haven't explained how much you would charge to suck Donald's dick, James. Since $10 mil was too high, I'm guessing you'd do it for a lower amount?

BTW, you're the one who posited that Marla's $10 million was "earned" for sexual favors. Not us. Men and women do marry for this weird thing called "love" that is outside the range of sexist thought, since it means that women get respect, too.

Amanda, you have been my fucking hero all day long.

I thought that women wanted to wear wedding rings to either demonstrate their value and status to other women (when they show it around), or to simply show that they're taken so men will stop hitting on them.
I don't know one person that sees a woman with a wedding ring on and thinks about what a jerk a man was for making her wear that gaudy thing to demonstrate his value or ownership. Considering that she wears the spoils, and keeps the spoils, it is quite a stretch to try and spin the situation to paint her as a victim. Also considering that she will be the one to get more out of a divorce than he, I'd say ownership belongs to her.
Much more often, people see the size of the ring and think about how "valuable" the woman is to the man. And considering the women make the CHOICE to be with him, I have a hard time seeing them as victims of anything... except perhaps their own choices. So why is it that the man are criticized for the choices that a woman makes?

I do applaud many of you who eschew the old tradition of wedding rings. It's as old and unnecessary as chivalry. I guess if the woman is willing to give a man something of equal value to the ring, then it would be a nice egalitarian exchange, but giving her something so expensive for nothing does make it seem like he's "buying" her.

Nice chip on that shoulder Amanda.

Diamond wedding rings became popular because DeBeers used Hollywood and a nice ad campaign (A diamond is forever) to entice women to demand them. Before the 1940's, diamonds were not the primary wedding ring jewel. Women have control in the sexual marketplace, not men. The demand for wedding rings has been dictated by their demands, not men's. And, by the way, who is it that cares more about what Hollywood stars are wearing? I know that it's obvious that it's women who care, but I feel the need to state it for you Amanda, since facts and logic aren't your forte.

Of course Marla married for love, that's why she had that 10 million dollar "out clause" put into the pre-nuptual agreement. Thank you for helping to prove the point that love does have a cost. I mean if it were all about love, she wouldn't be looking for a payoff, right? She obviously thought that her time and presence had value, and certainly wasn't banking on forever. She's the one that put a price on herself, direct your anger at her.

Anyway, 10 mil to suck Donald off? Yeah, I might do it as long as I didn't have to marry him.

You go into full-on whine mode when a woman cracks a joke and I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder?

Well, at least it's a full carat chip, I suppose.

For all your bitching about reasoned argument, you sure do think that one relationship between exceedingly shallow people somehow works as an argument against all women. Though not all men, for some reason, even though Trump is clearly more shallow than the women he marries.

"...the theory of conspicious consumption ... was created by a man named Thorstein Veblen. It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory."

I don't care whether the theorist was a man or a woman or a dog. Your belief is: the woman gets a ring, she's a subordinate. I find that to be uncompelling because: you'll use ANY excuse to claim that she's a subordinate.

Why do I think this? Because you also think a ring is like a 'dowry'. But a dowry is property given BY a bride TO her husband at marriage, an engagement ring requires the opposite pattern of giving and getting. But that doesn't matter, you'll insist that the woman loses either way.

She GETS gold, she loses. She GIVES gold, she loses. That's the overriding mentality here: pick any situation and portray the woman as the loser and the man as the exploiter no matter who gets what.
In science, starting with a conclusion and twisting your data to support it would get you kicked-out of the academy. But here, it's routine.

Amanda there you go again saying that the men are whining.

Marriage is but a contract, an unjust one at that.

All the wedding stuff is paraded by women, and a majority of women constantly talk about it.

A majority of you that is, I didn't say all. (Put in just so Amandas small mind can comprehend that I was not generalising).

Sex is a two-way street both receive pleasure. Payment is equal :)

logical, oh please, quit the "small mind" comments. That is just such an undignified way of debating. the reason this debate has gone so wrong is that james never really seriously adresses or acknowledges the premise or starting points of the amanda's arguments. Then why be here, if not out of curiosity? What is the fucking point then, of debating?

Please, tell me what the point is of Amanda's argument in the first place? She's all over the road. All I see mostly are personal attacks, (which seem to play well for the sycophants) yet highly lacking in anything substantive.

Anyone with first grade reading comprehension skills can see that I addressed what was somewhat valid, the rest was just too irrational to care about.

As for the rest:

Amanda: "You go into full-on whine mode when a woman cracks a joke and I'm the one with a chip on my shoulder? "

I addressed your joke with a joke, but I guess that went over your head as well.

Amanda: "Well, at least it's a full carat chip, I suppose.
For all your bitching about reasoned argument, you sure do think that one relationship between exceedingly shallow people somehow works as an argument against all women. Though not all men, for some reason, even though Trump is clearly more shallow than the women he marries."

I didn't say that it was all women (you did by using the typical deflective tactic of putting words in my mouth), I just used the Trump wives as an example and YOU were the one who ran with that idea. I just expounded upon your answer and now you want to act like a victim when you're the one backtracking on your point when called on it?

Trump's more shallow than the women he married? Always have to paint the men as worse than the women in any situation, eh? I'm not certain any party in those marriages could be painted as less-shallow. The wives were parasites and Trump was the ugly, awful-haired host. That hair just gives him negative points.

And I like how you gloss over all of the other points I made and dwell on something so insignificant.

Again, in no other venue, other than this board, have I ever seen people comment on a woman's wedding ring and mention the fact that she's demonstrating that she's property, or the awful man is using her as a vehicle for demonstrating his wealth. You know, just as I typed that last sentence, I had to laugh at the ridiculousness of such an idea. No matter what choice a woman makes, she's the victim of male oppression?

Again, I will put it in very simple terms - if most women stopped demanding diamond rings, would the demand for diamonds go down? I mean, if as some here are saying that men use the wedding ring as a signal of ownership (I'm a man and I find that notion ridiculous, I operate on the old male notion of making my woman happy by getting her what she wanted, within reason). So if the majority of women stopped demanding wedding rings, don't you think that maybe, the demand for them would go down? Or does your *snicker* theory of conspicuous consumption take over, whereby men will still get these things despite female disapproval in order to mark their territory... okay, I'm still containing my laughter...

I can't help it anymore. Marriage in America, especially for a guy that can afford a nice diamond, has zero benefit for men. He's taking incredible risks and getting no rewards and has no guarantee that his wife will perform once he signs the dotted line. So again, even if a man benefits from the stupid notion posited earlier that he gets to *oooh* mark his territory, what other benefits, IF ANY, does he gain from putting an expensive ring on that woman's finger...
Okay, since I'm chomping at the bit to give away the answer, and since I have little faith you'll give the right answer, I'll just go ahead and say it:

NONE! NO BENEFIT! ZERO! ZILCH! NADA!

I await something cogent, logical, rational, unemotional and reasonable. *tapping fingers*

As far as I can tell, the only benefit he gets, from showing a bunch of folks who haven't had a reality check in a while, is that he's got some woman to show off as property.
For the other, somewhat more down-to-earth 95% of society, a woman gets to show off a fancy ring to her co-workers (a ring she can later pawn off if the relationship fails) to try to make them jealous, and the man gets a nice, hefty finance bill at the end of month which he'll be paying off for some time.

But oh, he gets that incredible benefit of showing his power (over that woman who can, by the way, screw him in a divorce) that she's his property.

You go guy! Uh-huh! Strut yo' stuff man! You on fire boy! You da' man! I'm scared o' you!

Vox, I wouldn't strut around cracking jokes about stuff I don't understand. Perhaps you might be more open to understanding the theory of Jewish hegemony if you knew that it was created by a man named Adolf Hitler.
It wasn't a woman, so there's no sexist reason to disbelieve the theory.

Eva, he's going to accuse me of being illogical even if I whip out entire historical tomes and create flow-charts and whatnot. I'm a female, and therefore I'm hysterical and cannot think. None of these supposedly brillant debaters can even shake out the differences between the theories that conspicious consumption is working here, as is systematic oppression. Or they pretend that if one is true, then the other can't be. Like saying that if a woman is compelled towards the ring because it gives her status among other women (conspicious consumption), that automatically means that it's not oppressive, even though she is only gaining status amongst second-class people (systematic oppression). It's the house negro argument I'm making here.

James, because your loathing of women outstrips your desire for the benefits of marriage doesn't mean that other men don't want those benefits. Marriage brings stability, health, cleanliness, more regular sex, love, affection, and children. And for some men who adhere to "traditional" marriage, it brings adoration from a subservient wife. There's benefits for women, too. But you treat marriage like a zero-sum game. Or an exchange. It is far more complicated than you'd like to imagine.

When I gave my fiancee a diamond ring, she said: "I can't accept this. It's far too big and fancy."

And I screamed: "Quiet, slave! You'll wear it and show the world that you're my property! You're but a tool for me to advertise my wealth and power! MUHUWAHAHA!"

Am I not deliciously wicked and eeeeeevil??

Marriage in America, especially for a guy that can afford a nice diamond, has zero benefit for men.

If you don't wish to be married, don't be; but you should know that all the evidence is that men, even in America where the fembitches secretly control every aspect of men's lives from their evil headquarters, do (as a group) benefit from marriage.

Unless by 'benefit' you mean 'getting laid,' in which case I agree--for the price of a big engagement ring you can go to Nevada and visit a lot of cathouses.

For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why these men who claim to hate engagement rings and just general female dependence are flooding a blog where the majority of the women are against female dependence and engagement rings. Go pester the women on the TLC boards. If these guys really want women to be less dependent and starry-eyed by romance, they'd be cooperating with feminists.

Amanda: "If these guys really want women to be less dependent and starry-eyed by romance, they'd be cooperating with feminists."

Cooperate with feminists? You evidently don't even understand the tenets of your own group. Feminism is not about equality. It may have been about equality at some point in the past but now it isn't. It's about domination. It is about women blaming the nearest man for her troubles. It is about women financially crippling men for life. It is about the castration of masculinity. The leaders of feminism cry out daily for the extermination of half the species. This is the organization you have pledged your allegiance. You think that any *person* worth his/her salt would join such group?

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in 'The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.'

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

Wow. I'm not even going to touch that one. You better watch out boys, I may try to financially cripple or exterminate you! Hide your sons!

Ryan--I don't mean to be rude, but you are delusional. Feminism, of which, by the way, there are numerous strains, is in no way about "domination", "blaming the nearest man for [our] troubles," "the castration of masculinity", "the extermination of half the species" or any of the other bullshit you just listed. Feminism, at least my brand of feminism, centers on deconstructing gender roles and examining structures that perpetrate inequities between the sexes in order to benefit both men and women. I don't see individual men as oppressors, but I do think the system as it exists can be oppressive to both sexes.

And by the way, if you equate lesbianism with man-hating, you are extremely misguided. I haven't read Atkinson's writing, but I think her statement can be interpreted to mean that feminism is about loving other women, not despising men.

Yep! Pretty much the same ol' same ol'. Exactly what I expected.

I guess that's how you try to win arguments? You deflect, avoid, put words in my mouth, act as if you won, make erroneous assumptions like "marriage provides regular sex" (I'm still laughing at that one), and keep bringing up unproven, rhetorical assertions disguised as facts.
Oh, and marriage provides stability? To whom exactly? The 50% who get divorces, or the 50% who are a signature away from one? ...The men who can be put in jail once wifey decides that she's "bored" with the marriage, (no-fault) divorces him, gets the children and makes him a ward of the state who's one missed child support check away from jail?
You're a hoot! Too cute. I want to live in your deluded fantasy world. It sounds a lot nicer than reality.

As far as women being equated to "house negroes", yeah, I'd like to see an historical example that equates to hundreds of white males voluntarily sinking to their deaths in the freezing North Atlantic in order that a bunch of negroes may get on the lifeboats to live.
Yeah, my great-grandfather used to put me on his knee and relate all the stories about how his grandfather's massa used to jump in front of bullets, fight wars, work his butt off at a thankless job and defend the honor of his negroes.

Negroes around the country are happy to know that feminists would have the incredible audacity to compare women's "struggles" to their own. I could use your debate tactic of incorrectly labeling me as a misogynist by labeling you as a racist, but I just couldn't be that immaturely ignorant.

*still tapping fingers*

See, fellow feminists, the problem is that we keep thinking that as feminists we get to define what feminism is. Clearly the only people who get to define it are a gaggle of sexists.

James, when I said I was using the "house negro" argument, I was talking about a specific psychological process that people go through. When Malcolm X talked about "house negroes", do you think he was suggesting that black people in the 60's were actually slaves? No. It's what is called an analogy.

I can't apologize for your appalling ignorance of things like speeches by Malcolm X, James. But I am amused that you think that I was comparing myself directly to black people and then you turn around and suggest that we are planning to drown you like they did in that movie "Titanic".

Your insufficient sex life between you and whatever wife pissed you off is not our problem and is not going to get anyone to capitulate to your belief that marriage is miserable for all men.

Oooh, a knock on my manhood implying I don't get enough sex. How original! I must be hitting a nerve. My feewings are hurt now. I'm surprised it took you this long.
I would think that an enlightened feminist like yourself would praise a man who doesn't think with his member all the time. Oh well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. We just can't win with you ladies, huh?

I'm glad that at least you aspire to have the same status as us first-class males though. I'm flattered. Keep trying, you may yet achieve your goal.

By the way, regarding your inability to grasp the analogy - in what other society or culture do the first-class citizens sacrifice their lives for the second-class citizens? *tick-tock* *tick-tock* - NONE. But you go on and keep playing the victim, it's just so cute.

And you have the nerve to call us sexists (considering your cute dig at my manhood in light of my abstinence from attacking your womanhood)? Oh, and MY appalling ignorance? Pot, meet kettle.

But please, keep on deflecting away from actually participating in the debate with the usual ad hominem personal attacks, the straw-man arguments, putting words in my mouth, invocation of obscure, anachronistic borderline-communist theories and avoidance of actually addressing your own inability to make a point. I could point out that that's the loser's debate method, but I'm far too classy to do such a thing.

Have a nice day.

Lauren: "Feminism, at least my brand of feminism, centers on deconstructing gender roles and examining structures that perpetrate inequities between the sexes in order to benefit both men and women."

Lauren you don't get to brand feminism. You get to join it. You look at its tenets before you join and then decide if you agree. Not, join then try to twist it about so that you don't look bad. The leaders of feminism hold those ideas. They want test tube babies; remove men from the entire equation. It was up to you to figure that out before you started calling yourself a feminist.

You say that feminism lifts the shackles off of *both* men and women. I don't see anything being lifted off of me. I'm still paying for the dates, I'm still the bread winner. The only difference is that now I have a bug up my ass saying that I'm not paying enough attention to their needs. Liberated men as well? Yeah, right. Feminism has done nothing but shackle men to all its social programs created for the benifit of only women. Feminism is calling the shots and men are paying all the bills.

Well, if you're still paying for dates, etc. you might want to consider dating women who aren't adherents to stratified gender roles. But the trade-off is they expect respect and stuff.

So, anti-feminists get to say what feminism is, and the rest of us must accept that? Sorry if I disagree. Feminists are what feminists say they are. Define any group by its extreme, and then you have to admit that you Ryan are equivalent to the guy who shot all those women in Montreal.

No the leaders of feminism get to say what feminism is and you decided whether or not to adhere to them when you join.

Men have been defined as rapists, abusers, etc. That is defining a group by the extreme don't you think?

The guy who killed those women in Canada was never defined by mainstream media as a member of any kind of men’s movement. However, these women have been defined as leaders of the feminist movement. Denying them is like the Civil Rights movement denying MLK.
--------------------------------
- "The most dangerous situation for a woman is....a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." – Gloria Steinem

- “Andrea Dworkin, a leading feminist speaker on college lectures circuits, makes comments like, "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig" (Dworkin, "Ice and Fire"). Yet Dworkin has been given mainstream credibility by The New York Times and has been praised by leading feminist Gloria Steinem.”

-"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"
Amazon Odyssey (p. 86) - Ti-Grace Atkinson

-"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
- Sheila Jeffrys

-"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
- Andrea Dworkin

-"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French

-"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
(Her emphasis) - Marilyn French

-"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...."
"Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon

-"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan

-"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
- Catherine MacKinnon

-"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."
In "Female Liberation" - Roxanne Dunbarr

------------------------------------------
Replace “men” with “Jews” in some of those, and Hitler would be proud.

"Feminism" never was about "equal rights." The equal rights movement in the States for negroes/blacks/African-Americans was never called "black-ism", it was called "civil rights."

Certainly, a lot of people who got duped into supporting the feminists because they believed the lies. But the two legs on which feminism stands are Marxism and lesbianism. Friedan, Steinem, De Beauvior, and virtually all of the early movers and shakers of feminism were dedicated Marxists. De Beauvior explicitly stated that their intention was to drive women out of the home and into the workforce. They used a slightly more peaceful method than Lenin, or Mao Zedung, or Pol Pot, but the political objective was the same.

MacKinnon and Dworkin built on the work of Kate Millet, the sickest man-hater that ever lived, and Susan Brownmiller. I now understand how someone as insane, sick, and evil as Adolf Hitler could dupe so many people. They are glib, forceful, charismatic in a sick perverse way, and absolutely fanatically convinced of their rightness.

Wow! What a movement. Where do I sign on?

Hey! Look! Trump got the ring for free!

Link:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21204.htm

Alright. I've decided that your leaders are the Montreal killer and OJ Simpson. From here on out, you are murderers. You don't have any right to say otherwise. They stood up against women--they are your leaders. Why are they your leaders? Because I say so.

*sniff* Followers.

Yeesh- Ryan, James please tone-down the hyperbole. K? You're creeping me out.

But on a smilar note: I think it's legitimate to say that when a woman resorts to shaming language (ie: whiner, wimp, loser) to humiliate a man, she is reinforcing 'masculine' stereotypes, yet I do not see the women here advocating that women abstain from this sort of shame-based language.

And a big underlying assumption around here also seems to be that although men are complicit in the construction of women's social role, women are somehow not nearly as complicit in the construction of a man's social role. I don't see how that makes sense. Unless, of course, the doctrine is intended to apportion blame and moral authority rather than make sense.

Two reasons, Vox. 1) Men are more powerful and therefore are better able to construct gender roles than women and 2) The benefits of being male over being female are such that men have more interest in bolstering gender roles.

That being said, I don't think men are well-served by strict gender roles. "Benefits" are nothing more than having what others don't. That doesn't mean they are inherently good.

A lot of frustration I see with the men's rights dudes is just misplaced. They don't like the constraints put on them as men, they blame women and therefore feminists must be to blame. There's no logic there, but certainly gender roles chafe. I write a lot about the damage that gender roles do to men. But feminism is the movement that gave permission to break out of these roles and still find social acceptance.

That men are constrained doesn't mean women aren't worse off. Nor does it mean that men and women are enemies.

"Two reasons, Vox. 1) Men are more powerful and therefore are better able to construct gender roles than women and 2) The benefits of being male over being female are such that men have more interest in bolstering gender roles."

Gee. I guess a mother must be a weak influence on her own kids' psychological development in that case. Oh, Lordy- the rationalizations change back and forth with you, but the answer will always stay perfectly predictable, won't it? It's like watching a Bible-literalist explain-away the existence of dinosaur bones.

The REAL reason I find this perspective of yours to be so viscerally offensive is because it suggests that most females are not very intelligent. They must've been very sheeplike and passive if they've been so easy to exploit and manipulate for so many centuries. They would have to be a bunch of feeble airheads to have let themselves get relentlessly swindled for so many generations. Oh yes, and their every brave attempt to rebel would've gone down in glorious defeat because men had so cleverly rigged the society and women were just too dumb and helpless to figure out what was being done to them.

How condescending that is! No way- I have FAR too much respect for a woman's intelligence to swallow such an idea. Hell, *I* seem to have more faith in a woman's brain than you do!
Give me a freakin' break.

I like your "blame the victim" mentality. It's a lot simpler than any kind of discussion of history, etc. Someone is oppressed! Must be their fault for letting it happen. Springs people of responsibility from everything from commonplace murder (if you didn't want to get murdered, why did you let him murder you?) to slavery (if they didn't want to be slaves, why didn't they fight back?) to actually, men who whine and complain that women oppress them by marrying them and nagging. If you hate women so much, quit being around them. Do everyone a fucking favor.

Ah, if only you understood the concept of irony, you would find great humor in that last post.
Hyperbole comes to mind as well.

Dunno if this thread is still active -- just want to say, if anyone is into big engagement rings because of peer pressure, it is time to get some new peers. Also, people who knuckle under to please their crass and demanding relatives are setting themselves up for a lifetime of misery. What happens when those same relatives start telling you to change your name? Ask where the grandchildren are? Ask where the big house/big car are?
They may never accept you as you are, but that doesn't mean you have to be what they want.

Agreed--I learned a long time ago if you don't knuckle under on the small things, your family will probably give up on you long before they start in on the big things, like how many kids you should have.

This thread rocks. *taps fingers* is my new euphamism for trolls.

Amanda, I'd argue that those "small things" only seem small. (As any general knows, even a small hill can be of enormous strategic importance.) It may seem 'small' to get the big rock or change your name, but as a symbol of capitulation, and of compliance with What Is Expected, it's enormous. If one can't even stick up for oneself on minor matters, what on earth happens when the peer and family pressure comes after one with both barrels?

"This thread rocks" is my new euphemism for skanks.

6741 http://www.i-poker-room.com
play poker

1587 http://www.online-poker-e.com
online poker

8704 betting online
online sports betting
football betting online
online sport betting
online horse betting
online casino betting
online betting site
basketball betting online
online gambling and betting casino
online sports betting site
sport betting online
online betting sport book
poker betting online
betting online wager
nfl betting online
online betting uk
soccer betting online
online baseball betting
online las vegas betting
online sports betting line
college football betting online
online betting sports gambling
online gambling betting
sports betting casino online
online sports book betting
pro football betting online
online american football betting
betting nba online
best online betting sports
football betting line online
betting casino gambling online sport
horse racing betting online
online horse race betting
offshore online betting
online golf betting
betting hockey online
online sports betting football
online sports betting odds
online betting odds
online betting nascar
betting mlb online
online sports betting odds on nba
online betting tip
free online casino betting
online cricket betting
william hill online betting
sport book online sports betting
online betting game
betting online casino game
online sport book betting line
online uk football betting
free online betting
black jack betting online
ncaa betting online
online spread betting
online and sport and betting
betting line online
online betting review
internet betting online
vegas online sports betting
online football betting odds
las vegas sports betting online
online sport betting site
betting online soccer us
online sport betting casino
online betting internet casino
online sports betting odds on nfl
vegas online betting
online sports betting usa
bet online sports betting
online ncaa football betting
online betting boxing
betting online real
betting golf odds online sports
betting nhl online
betting online poker sports
baseball betting odds online
betting hill online sports william
betting horse line online racing
betting legal online sports
online betting pick
betting online review sports
betting exchange online
betting largest online sports
betting guide online
betting horse odds online racing
betting online site sports web
betting casino online sports station
betting line online sport
basketball betting online pro
betting online online
online craps betting
off track betting online
online sport betting uk
betting online roulette
online uk soccer betting
betting online tennis

1779 debt consolidation

406 sports gambling
online sports book gambling
gambling in college sports
gambling information sports
gambling olympic sports
gambling handicapping sports
article gambling sports
book gambling sport sports
fantasy sports gambling
sport book betting sports gambling
baseball sports gambling
college gambling information ncaa sports
gambling information latest sports
gambling game sports
sports gambling guide
gambling las sports vegas
sports gambling uk
betting book gambling gaming sports
sports gambling system
gambling legal sports
gambling sports vegas
book gambling online sport sports
free gambling pick sports
bet gambling sports
betting casino gambling sports uk
online sports gambling odds
gambling professional sports
forum gambling offshore sports
gambling las online sports vegas
atlantic city gambling sports
gambling play sports
gambling sports wagering
gambling proline sports
gambling sports strategy.com
gambling guide.com sports
.com gambling sports
betting gambling range sports wide
online sports gambling line
sports gambling info
gambling legal online sports
gambling pick sports
casino gambling game sports
gambling sites.com sports
bet.com gambling sports
gambling sports wagering.com
american betting gambling major sports
betting betting gambling online online sports sports.com
gambling keyword sports
gambling national sports
gambling online.com sports
bo dog gambling online sports
gambling in legal new sports york
sports gambling review

An analysis of this thread follows...

It started off discussing rings and engagements, soon it predictably moved into feminism overall, with each side supporting their view. It's not possible to change people's perceptions through a thread, yet people try to defend their views. In doing so, each side has insulted the other, either through analogies, direct assaults, or through implicatory remarks. All of these should be ignored as they only show the poster's level of intelect.

Most viewpoints are not backed up through any facts nor primary sources, furthremore this whole thread stinks of opinionism of a teenager rather than of a thoroughly researched adult view point. It is a shame to think that such people may be in positions of power or members of a household as parents, but the reality is constructed of people just like you and I.

Furthremore, this thread didn't achieve anything useful in the end, did it? It was mostly a waste of time in the long run. If all this effort was placed in actually doing something productive for your own lives, it would have probably felt better.

Good luck to both sides. Me? I have no interest in the Men's Movement nor Feminism, any movement based on a gender, or with a gender as part of it's name, is not a movement but a cult. Much like a movement based on someone's skin color is a cult, a racial/sexual provocation. Instead, if you want to belong, join a movement for helping the homeless, helping the abused, helping sick children, helping a group of people regardless of the way they were born. These are real movements, where real honest passion counts.

But I can't tell you what to do. You'll all just continue to write and argue on these threads and get no where. The women will stick to each other, the men will continue to debate. It's a sad cycle and it's one that isn't new. And it can't be broken by me nor you.

Maybe it can collectively though. I mean think about it. You're sitting debating gender issues on the Internet, while there are people who actually need food, support and help. You can't bring yourself to be that human, so you dehumanize it all and hide behind the gaze of men's movements and feminism.

Hey, am I any better? Look, I'm doing the same thing as you are. I'm also stuck in this void! Guess there's no escaping it. So much easier to say you are liberating someone, or that you are being oppressed, then to step outside your own little fortress.

I never strong-armed my fiance into giving me a ring. He surprised me with one. In his mind, it was a gift, not a tool to be used to persuade me to marry him (In my mind, we were already engaged from the moment I met him ;) ). I couldn't object to that. I wear it proudly, and he wears his (yes, I bought him one).

To me, my level of disgust/acceptance of engagement rings depends on two factors: 1) the intention of the person giving, and 2) the intention of the person recieving.

Now, if the intention of the person giving the ring is to show that "this is mine" or to persuade someone to marry them, my level of disgust goes up. If the intention of the giver is to present someone he/she loves with a gift, I tend to be more accepting. The giver gets bonus points if he/she also agrees to wear an engagement ring.

If the intention of the reciever is to have something material to "one-up" his/her friends, or to have the giver "prove" how much he/she loves the reciever by buying an overly expensive ring, my level of disgust goes up.

This was an complicated way of saying I don't disapprove of women (or men) who accept engagement rings because of romantic notions. Nor do I hold it against the giver if his/her intentions are other than branding the intended as "theirs".

To each their own.

if i did not where my wedding ring i would be divorced. This is something you have to wear. It shows the love.

gardening tips
wedding tips
free wedding information
cruises travel information
credit help tips

you have to wear a wedding ring. this shows your love.
cruises travel information
lake wallenpaupack
vacation rentals information
cruising sailing information
world travel videos