Did they pull all the mocking, offensive, edgy or whatever you want to call them shifts that relate only to women and leave all the others? Or did they decide to give up on "edgy" humor altogether. Is it possible that the standard for offensiveness would vary depending on who is being talked to or talked about

the rules in a traditional society with the brutalities of secular military dictatorships who comes out worse? It does seem that anyone killed by Saddam who would have acted to uphold the tribal system discribed here shouldn't be considered a victim but a legitimate rarget in a legitimate war. If I were woman I think I'd rather live under Saddam or the Shah or the dictatorship in Algeria than in any of those countries under the conditions that develop when greater public particpation in the govt happens. In the long run though I don't see how these conditions can persist in a society economically and culturally integrated with the rest of the world.

You're using a similiar argument to what the right uses when they say marriages raises incomes for families. Marriage doesn't raise incomes, people with higher incomes get married and fatherhood doesn't raise incomes fathers work more and men who have more money can afford more kids. There is a real question, why do so many women have kids they can't support, especailly since it is so difficult. I really do think that it a man knew he would be dinged for 20 years of child support and could avoid it by going through exactly what a woman goes through to get an abortion, even in a red state 99.9% of men in this position would find a way to make it happen. I think eveyone needs to deal with the fact that not all problems, for anyone or any group, are imposed from outside.

In fact if you don't want to be a real companaion AND sex partner to the person you are married to what would you have to complain about if they looked elsewhere. Of course people have the right to make their own arrangements but I think what it happenning in a a lot of these situations that is making so many of the female posters so happy is that the woman in the "nontradtional" situation is getting away with imposing her own lack of (frequent)interest in sex on the man without having him look elsewhere(supposedly).

they are interested in how easy it is for them to get laid so often with so many different partners for so little effort under any conditions and on their own terms. What they are not interested in is the actual gay relationship. I think if you actually bring yourself to examine this interest honestly you will see that I am right.

Actually it seems to be true that gay men often have an easy trme getting women to take an interest. I've often wondered how much of this ease is due to the fact that women respond well to men who aren't after them and how much, if any, is due to characteristics that make gay men innately more appealing to women.

on behavior that operate in Islamic society, specifically the ones that control the sexual behavior of men. It's probably true that Moslem women, like women everywhere, would like complete freedom for themselves AND complete freedom to prevent men from doing anything they don't like. It would be kind of sick though to respond to this fact by approving of or enjoying the fact that nothing can be done about all kinds of abuse, violence and murder.

Maybe not a circuit but definitely at least one gay rodeo.

Only in right wing fantasyland does any woman "enjoy" getting an abortion, then fundies turn around and "discover" hey it's not as much fun as we always thought and use THAT discovery to argue that the govt. should protect women from choosing to do something that will supposedly make them unhappy (how happy would they be and would OTHERS be if she had to have a kid she wanted to abort). What happened to the conseervative/libertarian principle(hah) that people should make their own decisions and take the consequences without being forced by the govt to do what is "best" for them. There have been studies of children the mothers wanted to abort but couldn't and there were significant negative effects on the children which could be isolated from other factors.

because it discredits and retards a real and rational discussion of gender by subsituting pseudo scientific sounding propaganda in service to an ideology of prudery for the actual substantive science relating to gender and allows people to intentionally pretend that two very different things are one and the same.

Radical femnism's power for women at all costs and above all else mentality has taught men well....

they do matter, they have consequences for relationships, and most other areas of life; in fact a lot of the traditional attitudes about gender are based on real differences between men and women. There is a lot of scientific study of these issues and there would have been a lot more over that last 35 years were it not for the ideology that all people are androgynous/bisexual etc and would be freely expressing this state were it not for malevolent and oppressive forced conformity. BUT when the discussion of gender differences is conducted in a a classroom where someone is promoting some idiotic parody of a real discussion of the real differences between males and females the whole subject is discredited. Better?

and this fact has real consequences for the kids and for everyone else. People are often simply reluctant to give up their kids after they are born and it is completely contrary to all logic and to abundant evidence to claim that adoption in reality or in potentia can be a solution to the problem of kids being (attempting to be)raised by people who aren't up to the job.