Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.

 Alpharius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.

...what?!?

Are you sure you're in college?!?

Must be auto correct.

Feminazis here are usually only encountered at Neo Nazi rallies...

 Xenomancers wrote:

If gold and bills are equal. If you burried an equal value of gold and USD in a time capsule and opened it up 50 years later - you would have the same value of each. This isn't the case though, you'd have significantly more value in your gold. Gold and paper money aren't equal in this respect. You are correct they only have the value we assign to it - exactly what FDR did. Forced everyone to sell their gold to him at his price - then the price of gold sky rocketed because it made artificially scarce and he had all of it. Your argument about gold having no intrinsic value made me think of existentialism - look it up if you want to bore yourself to death.

Not necessarily. If the economy of the US is not based on gold (and it isn't, it's based on financial services) then the gold price could drop (say a large amount of gold was discovered in a new mine) whilst the value of the dollar increases.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.

What the feth are you trying to say.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.

What the feth are you trying to say.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

Exam time, it has melted Hotsauceman's brain

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.

To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If gold and bills are equal.

That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.

For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.

Sweden really is just a happy place isn't it? I'd love to visit sometime. Feminism is definitely a bad word here in the states basically Synonymous with feminazi.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.

What the feth are you trying to say.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

Exam time, it has melted Hotsauceman's brain

Pretty much. I have 3 7 page papers due in the span on a week.
None have been assigned yet.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.

To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If gold and bills are equal.

That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.

For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!

How could that be possible. 1% of a dollar is a penny. Over 50 years this would net you a .50$ profit (obviosuly this would be a little more depending on compounding but it wouldn't be much more.) This wouldn't even come close to the rate of inflation which is an average of about 5% per year. So investing a dollar at 1% interest leaves you with negative return on investment. Gold however is unaffected by inflation. Again - gold wins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Feminazis here are usually only encountered at Neo Nazi rallies...

Really? What are those like? LOL.

The beer's good, but all the goosestepping gets annoying...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.

I wonder then, what you would say to the accomplishments of Eli Whitney's cotton gin??

Education in today's time frame is a bit....weak compare to 80's

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.

To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.

 Xenomancers wrote:

If gold and bills are equal.

That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.

For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!

How could that be possible. 1% of a dollar is a penny. Over 50 years this would net you a .50$ profit (obviosuly this would be a little more depending on compounding but it wouldn't be much more.) This wouldn't even come close to the rate of inflation which is an average of about 5% per year. So investing a dollar at 1% interest leaves you with negative return on investment. Gold however is unaffected by inflation. Again - gold wins.

It's possible because I fethed up and did the interest payments monthly instead of yearly.

If you haven't read the entire thing, awhile back I pointed out that a female marine who is a friend of mine is a Feminist. She gets rather pissed when someone labels a female as feminist when in reality that female is a Feminazi, the difference is that feminists fight for equal rights in all things which is an honorable goal. Feminazi's are all about switching the power rolls so that woman are #1 and men become second class citizens, such as woman were in the early part of the 1900s and before. A case and point of the difference would be a woman who demands equal pay in the work place to her male counter part. While at the same time a Feminazi would demand higher pay or compensation of some sort because she has to work in a male dominated environment and this puts her at a disadvantage (at least in her head).

Just a tip for everyone in this thread: if you use the term "Feminazi" un-ironically, you alienate the undecided readers and cause them to dismiss your point as radicalised nonsense.

Since the intent of debate is not to change the opposition's mind (an impossibly herculean feat), but rather to sway the undecided readers to your side, it behooves the debater to avoid polarising buzzwords like "feminazi" and "mansplaining"

Unless, of course, the intent is not to debate, but rather rant publicly and bitterly about those durn wimmenz ruining your life then go right ahead.

Haven't read the thread but, traditionally, in all but a few cases, US currency has featured US presidents.
Harriet Tubman was never a US president.
Whats the question here?

Don't get me wrong, once a woman is elected and does a good job as president I'm all for seeing her picture on some money.

 snurl wrote:
Haven't read the thread but, traditionally, in all but a few cases, US currency has featured US presidents.

Wikipedia wrote:

Below is a summary of the titles/positions held, at one time or another, by the 53 individuals depicted on United States banknotes from 1861 to the present. The list of positions is not exhaustive, but does address the central elected federal and state officials, members of the President’s cabinet, military figureheads, and several of the founders and framers of the United States government.

Fifty-three people held at least 132 elected and appointed positions for a cumulative total of over 763 years of public service.

President of the United States 13
Vice President 2
Speaker of the House 1
President pro tem 1
Secretary of State 11
Secretary of the Treasury 8
Secretary of War 3
Attorney General 1
United States Senate 20
United States House 17
State Senate 6
State House 11
Governor 15
Delegate, Continental Congress 7
Signer, Declaration of Independence 3
Member, U.S. Constitutional Convention 5
Commanding General 6
Supreme Court 2

So yeah, Presidents aren't even in the top three.

That list is pretty mis informative. Many of the presidents on the currency also held the lesser roles before becoming president.

Poor form.

So it is, I'm on a mistake-making roll at the moment apparently.

Yeah, John Quincy Adams was like 5 of the things on that list.

So, I'm just gonna say straight up what everyone who wants to preserve our nation's history should be saying...

feth no. Simply put.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.

If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.

I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.

I am curious as to where are these non-radical feminists in Sweden? The most offical representation that can be easily observed is the offical party Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?

 Sienisoturi wrote:
. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?

Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?

Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.

That's not exactly a lack of rights. As far as actual rights are concerned, everyone is the same and has been for decades.

What causes the gender pay gap is residual aftershocks of when rights weren't actually the same, and almost certainly a hefty dose of confirmation bias(my pay isn't the same as my colleague, I'm a female and he's a male. It must be because sexism!). Give it another 50 years or so and things should even out. You're not going to change things instantly.

 Sienisoturi wrote:


I am curious as to where are these non-radical feminists in Sweden? The most offical representation that can be easily observed is the offical party Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?

Third Wave feminism. When you run out of issue, you make up your own. Cause drama. You try to draw attention, as much as possible, because you fear being lost in unimportance. Second Wave feminism was the last real feminism wave and there, fortunately, still are women fighting under its flags, including my wife, who take care of actual problems. Women in need of rights. Africa, for example. Forced circumscion of women is a cruel crime that needs to be fought by all possible means. India with countless women getting mutiliated, legally. Turkey. Politcally desired oppression of women.

Meanwhile, while so many women are getting tortured and killed, a lot of them just for saying that whatever happens to them is wrong, we got women talking about "stare rape", complaining there being more streets or thunderstorms named after men than women, traffic light signs showing neutral gender instead of women etc. Women who claim being "feminists". Long story short: those women are disgusting. They tear the good name feminism once had in the mud, they use it to compensate their own personal shortcomings / problems and defame the name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?

Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.

That's not exactly a lack of rights. As far as actual rights are concerned, everyone is the same and has been for decades.

What causes the gender pay gap is residual aftershocks of when rights weren't actually the same, and almost certainly a hefty dose of confirmation bias(my pay isn't the same as my colleague, I'm a female and he's a male. It must be because sexism!). Give it another 50 years or so and things should even out. You're not going to change things instantly.

The Gender Gap is a huge lie. /Actual/ feminists consider the Gender Gap to be almost fully eradicated. Adjusted Gender Gap is what you really want to look at as this takes stuff like hours worked into account. The regular Gender Gap is used by radicals / idelogists who basically claim it's unfair that a man who works more earns more.

Exalted again my friend. You hit every nail on the head. Feminists still exist in the traditional sense, they fight for rights not petty things such as forcing the government to put a woman on the $20 bill.

If it's so petty, shouldn't it be beneath Jackson? What is it with these boards and the rampant sexism? Yeah, I said it, cause its fething true.

if the mods deem fit to censure me which we did, so be it, but damn, somebody's gotta say it. No you really didn't, never break rule 1 even if you disagree with someone, just hit the yellow triangle and we'll handle it, motyak

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
If it's so petty, shouldn't it be beneath Jackson? What is it with these boards and the rampant sexism? Yeah, I said it, cause its fething true.

I actually don't know what your talking about. How can it be beneath jackson since he doesn't get a say in this. This is a "Feminist" group trying to push for a historic and famous US president to be replaced by a woman voted by 200,000ish people to replace him. This has nothing to do with feminism or equal rights and everything to do with sensationalism and show boating. If this does happen it will be a large blow to true feminism and the American Ideal of equality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and furthermore, it is the current trend for it to be almost impossible for a woman to be guilty of sexism. Case and point, new supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was somehow allowed to become a US Supreme court justice even after giving this speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

the key part you need to read would be this

Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

That would be the definition of both racism and sexism in the same instance but somehow she was still allowed to become a supreme court justice.

Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?