Feminism, and Masculinity: How to have a more useful conversation.

There's an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which discusses the issue of how Canada's Prime Minister discusses the above in public; and how the author feels this is, at best, not terribly constructive.

It got me thinking their are many broad areas around feminism, masculinity and male-female relations on which people speak in extreme terms, be it softly or harshly, and tend, as a result, to speak past one another, rather to one another.

A problem not uncommon on this forum on other issues [[but which I will endeavour not to get caught up in again).

But this is a segue to discuss both the particulars in this article and in some others I will cite below, but also the more vexing problem of people talking past each other; instead of listening to someone else's underlying concerns.

****

First, a primer about the above article:

It essentially boils down to comments Justin Trudeau has made in public fora that seem to suggest female-thinking/style is superior [[my paraphrase) to male-style thinking.

The author argue's that kind of speech is no way to help young men find their place in the world. That you need a positive vision of what a man can be, rather than a negative one.

****

I'll throw in this piece from The Atlantic that discusses the male-female wage gap.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...really/576877/

Then this piece on issues around sexual consent

https://mashable.com/article/researc.../#gqRpeNSZxqq3

****

Rather than start off by offering my opinions on the above, I invite others to comment [[respectfully please).

i will say what i think about all this later.

This thread deserves attention. The decline of religion in the western world, the advent of new technologies, and resultant social movements are changing male female relationships. I could even be criticized for even saying male female relationships because, we are now told, there are multiple sexual categories.That's fair enough because things can be infinitely parsed.

Even dictionary definitions are changing making discussion in some ways more difficult. For instance, Websters' 1937 Home, School, and Office dictionary defines marriage as "n. the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock: marriage ceremony" The contemporary online Websters' Dictionary of marriage doesn't even mention men or women although it has a discussion point explaining the controversy and Websters' decision to broaden the term marriage. Changing the definition of marriage has consequent legal repercussions. Generalizing, older people probably tend to think in the English language they grew up with. Younger people use contemporary definitions to make sense of the world. Sometimes we aren't using the same language to have a discussion.

Oladub, I totally agree: language is big part of the problem.

If you're interested, I recommend some readings that illustrate how language itself is a subjective social contruct largely defined by dominant social classes.

A good start, particularly as it pertains to cultural constructions of gender, would be Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality".

Here's a bite-sized summary. Here's a snack-sized summary of volume 1.

You mentioned religion. Whoa, what a role that plays in the words we use and their meanings too. Here's one discussion about it. [[Trigger warning: Marx references.)

BTW, sorry to say, the evidence is impossible to ignore: what hypocrites so many religious leaders have been.

To me it is a sterilization of individualism and everybody must conform to the created mould.

It was prevalent in the women’s movement,those women who did not comply to the narrative were ostracized.

So the question becomes,as an individual why is it required to act as a group but yet a tiny percentage of that group can dictate as how the rest of the group should act and believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

It was prevalent in the women’s movement,those women who did not comply to the narrative were ostracized.

---

There you go again: Flipping it upside down and saying the reverse is true.

Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

This thread deserves attention. The decline of religion in the western world, the advent of new technologies, and resultant social movements are changing male female relationships. I could even be criticized for even saying male female relationships because, we are now told, there are multiple sexual categories.That's fair enough because things can be infinitely parsed.

Even dictionary definitions are changing making discussion in some ways more difficult. For instance, Websters' 1937 Home, School, and Office dictionary defines marriage as "n. the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock: marriage ceremony" The contemporary online Websters' Dictionary of marriage doesn't even mention men or women although it has a discussion point explaining the controversy and Websters' decision to broaden the term marriage. Changing the definition of marriage has consequent legal repercussions. Generalizing, older people probably tend to think in the English language they grew up with. Younger people use contemporary definitions to make sense of the world. Sometimes we aren't using the same language to have a discussion.

---

Ty for picking this up.

For me, this thread is about people, in general talking past each other.

The male-female thing is simply what set me off on this and a good jumping off point for that discussion.

Lets start w/that first article.

If we begin by giving every speaker the benefit of the doubt, which I think everyone should do, until someone has established they don't merit that.......

PM Trudeau was surely not trying to malign men in his remarks, but rather advance the cause of women.

That some hear his remarks, and think only about what they see as negativity towards men is not wrong on their part, but nor does it make the PM's intentions poor or the bulk of what he had to say wrong.

It should be possible to understand a perspective advocated by speaker one.......that might be read as, "There remains an economic gap between men and women, and women remain under-represented at the top of society, particularly in business, I want to do something about that"; and to not think ill of him for that desire.

It should also be possible for a different speaker to say of the PM, perhaps circumstances are changing faster than you realize, and you're in some respects combating a problem of 10 or 20 years ago. Moreover, to the extent a problem remains, perhaps you could advocate for change in a way that doesn't seem to demean male-ness.

But neither side tends to hear the other.

Why can't we have that intelligent conversation where we can agree that women should have equality of opportunity; and that overall that should lead to something that vaguely resembles equality of outcome, in the fullness of time; without suggesting that every profession or business need have an equal breakdown by sex, particularly all at once.

Why can't we say that one sex's thinking-style isn't 'superior' to the other, but rather highlights different attributes. That in most, if not all businesses, [[and government) it would be useful to have both of those sets of attributes represented in senior decision making; something that should occur using a merit-based approach over the fullness of time.

Why can't we also acknowledge that some businesses/institutions resist change, either consciously or subconsciously [[for instance stacking a board of directors with golf buddies is going to underrepresent women, for reasons that aren't sexist per se; but also aren't merit-based either.

People would benefit from admitting when someone they disagree with perceives a problem, that it probably is a problem in some way.

That where this is room for honest disagreement maybe about the scale of the problem, the appropriate solution[[s), and at what speed any resolution should be expected to be implemented.

****

The subsequent articles reveal similar disconnects.

On the wage gap:

Do women, even in developed-world nations, earn, in the aggregate, less than men?

The answer is clearly yes.

But that's too simple.

Women and men of comparable education, in comparable jobs, with comparable experience almost all earn comparable salaries.

That would imply no wage gap at all!

That too, is too simple.

What we see is that differences in total earnings have to do with a few different things.

The first is different professional vocation choices with different earning power associated with them.

Among the highly educated, this might be seen as more women nurses, but more men in STEM fields.

Among the less educated the differences are more stark, because construction, mining, [[heavy labour jobs), but also policing in many areas would be more highly paid; as opposed to say retail, or hospitality, office cleaner which might skew more female.

The reasons are partly market-based; but also have other historic reasons [[mining and construction have a heavy union presence, and male-dominated work places historically were at higher risk of violence by unhappy workers), as such wages tend to be higher than in female-dominated fields.

The wage gap also occurs because many women take time off to have children. This creates a direct gap during any 'leave' period; but also an indirect one as male colleagues not taking time off continue to accumulate experience and may have better access to promotion as a result.

The matter is further complicated by the fact men are less risk averse. Simply put, men are more likely to ask for a raise or even demand one, and more willing to leave a job for higher pay/opportunity.

Not all of that is easily resolvable by law, assuming one wished to do so.

But some of it is.

Can there not be a reasonable conversation on how one might make changes, be they state-based or market-based or likely some combination of the two, that would effectively narrow that gap, but without resorting to quotas, and without exaggerating problems?

****

Finally, a quick look at the issue of sexual consent.

Hopefully, everyone will agree that 'no means no' and that ought to be respected.

However, that is very rarely the issue in matters of consent in this age.

The article discusses whether if a woman feels 'pressured' for sex, that removes 'consent'.

To me this begs the question of what 'pressure' is?

If by pressure we mean a threat of violence or some such thing, then clearly, that is not OK.

But if my pressure we mean a man clearly wanting to have sex, and the woman internalizing pressure on herself to capitulate, even if she is otherwise disinclined, I'm not sure that can be classed as a male problem.

Is the onus on one person to say to the other 'don't feel any pressure to do what I want you to do to make me happy' ?

Here, language itself is key.

The word 'consent' is not about being joyful about something or enthusiastic. Its about a yes or a no without violence or threat of same, or other illegal conduct.

Of course there are men who are jackasses, and whatever we can do as a society to reduce their numbers, good on all of us.

But when the language is altered in such a way to confuse different concepts and conflate one persons regret or tentativeness with another person being criminal, we do everyone a disservice.

It is, however, important to remember how many women do experience abuse, and coercion, and to address that. Its also important to discuss the differences between the sexes and social expectations, such that people are emotionally and otherwise able to handle 'life'.

But to have these and other intelligent discussion, that by nature will involve nuance; people must be open minded, accepting, patient and willing to listen.

If anyone chooses to just blast an idea or a speaker in a reactive way, it only makes thing worse and reduces mutual understanding rather than alleviating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

There you go again: Flipping it upside down and saying the reverse is true.

Gotcha.

---

There you go again,because you believe different,I should have posted something that you felt more comfortable with.

Gotcha.

I'll grant you this: Some feminists have gone too far in their criticism of women who conform by the expectations set by dominant male culture. But my, oh my, what women suffer if they don't conform to those expectations. That's much worse.

What do you think of women who don't shave their legs and armpits? Would a dancer with stubble have been permitted to work in your club?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

I'll grant you this: Some feminists have gone too far in their criticism of women who conform by the expectations set by dominant male culture. But my, oh my, what women suffer if they don't conform to those expectations. That's much worse.

What do you think of women who don't shave their legs and armpits? Would a dancer with stubble have been permitted to work in your club?

---

Yes,I would have,some guys like that while others do not and in some cultures it is the norm.

If the majority did not like it then her tips would reflect that and she would either adjust or leave.

It goes to what is considered socially exceptable,and as others have posted the generation thing plays a big part in it.

I was raised to respect women as a woman and a gentleman always opened the door for women,pulled her chair out for her in public,helped her with her coat,and would not even think about letting her walk curbside now you get the gauntlet of a simple thank you to,what do you think,as a woman I am to weak to open the door,I am perfectly capable of opening my own door.

Then it goes even deeper,you have groups that want to be treated equally but yet retain the individualism.

So you have women that want to be treated as equals but punch one in the mouth as you would a man and it becomes socially unexceptable.

The LGBT community wants to be treated equally but still retain their individuality as a separate group.

In reality there is no equality when you have individual groups pushing to be equal but yet reserve the right to remain as an independent group.

It was simple,a man was a man and a woman was a woman,the only part that needed work was respecting each person as a fellow human being.

You know,the part about treating others how you like to be treated.

Now days you have to present a 1000 page questionnaire when you first meet somebody on the off chance that they may be offended in some way shape or form depending on their individual thoughts and feelings.

Like it was posted some grew up with the Webster’s dictionary where now there is the Urban dictionary where words have a completely different meaning.

I think that may have been why the standard of what was socially exceptable was set,which is fluid and can now change at any given second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Yes,I would have,some guys like that while others do not and in some cultures it is the norm.

If the majority did not like it then her tips would reflect that and she would either adjust or leave.

---

Let me guess: You opened your club just in time for the 2012 republican convention. Tampa is infamous for strip clubs, especially then. Not surprising at all that an operator there and then would be from St. Pete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

punch one in the mouth as you would a man and it becomes socially unexceptable.

---

If you punched me in the mouth I wouldn't accept it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

Let me guess: You opened your club just in time for the 2012 republican convention. Tampa is infamous for strip clubs, especially then. Not surprising at all that an operator there and then would be from St. Pete.



If you punched me in the mouth I wouldn't accept it either.

---

Tampa has always been infamous for their strip clubs,why are you so against women making a living?

I had one employee that actually did dance her way through collage,3 days,3 four hour shifts $1000 and still have time for study.

When she finished she moved to Detroit as a engineer.

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

As much as you hate religion,it did practice a sense of morality for the majority,something that has disappeared long ago.

Watch the video,to you it is morally correct and exceptable,to me it is discusting and everybody in the club should be charged.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ri3ufgYVPCQ

See how the generations think different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Tampa has always been infamous for their strip clubs,why are you so against women making a living?

I had one employee that actually did dance her way through collage,3 days,3 four hour shifts $1000 and still have time for study.

When she finished she moved to Detroit as a engineer.

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

As much as you hate religion,it did practice a sense of morality for the majority,something that has disappeared long ago.

Watch the video,to you it is morally correct and exceptable,to me it is discusting and everybody in the club should be charged.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ri3ufgYVPCQ

See how the generations think different.

---

Enough! Get off my damned thread!

This is not the subject of this thread.

I don't want people insulting you here, because I don't want you here.

This is a place for adults to have an intelligent, on-point, conversation.

Screw you,it is a thead posted in a public forum and not your personal little chat room,notice you had nothing to say to bust who started the whole thing.

This is why so called adults do not have these conversations,because as soon as they hear something they do not like they get but hurt.

There is no direct subject to this thread,you can take it into a million different directions.

Maybe you should try growing up before calling yourself an adult.

Some would consider it rude not to reply,he spent time replying so it had to meen something to him or her or they would not have replied in the first place.

I guess I could take the stance of others and say my time and thoughts are more valuable then yours and just ignore those who I do not agree with,but that kinda defeats the whole discussion aspect,

But you just made an example of the subject that you brought up,the world does not revolve around an individual,it is a collective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

I am guessing in this age it would be exceptable for an 11 year old boy to dress up in drag and dance sexually provocative on stage in a strip club in front of a bunch of gay men.

You keep pushing in the morality of the strip clubs,where adults entertain adults but no issues when it comes to the morality of children.

---

Because gays are pedophiles, right Richard?

I find it ironic that you are participating in a thread about language when you can't even type English properly. Your posts more often than not read like some sort of stream of consciousness nonsense written by someone who is functionally illiterate or has a learning disability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Screw you,it is a thead posted in a public forum and not your personal little chat room

---

The distinction between a message board/forum and a chat room is one of technicality as to the speed of read and reply.

The essential substance is identical.

Except that here, this subject, this thread, was started by me. Not you, not a random person, ME.

So yes, as the OP I get to say what's on-topic because its my damned topic.

It does have room for interpretation and points of view. But pedophiles and strip clubs are not even remotely or tangentially on topic.

Quote:

---

notice you had nothing to say to bust who started the whole thing.

---

Bust should not have wandered off from the point of the thread. He started well. You derailed him.

But, at first, I let you both off the hook rather than start something until you went full on insane, offensive and idiotic.

Then I stepped in.

Does the fulsome explanation make you feel better?

Quote:

---

This is why so called adults do not have these conversations,because as soon as they hear something they do not like they get but hurt.

---

Oh FFS.....its butt hurt............

At any rate, I have no difficulty having adult conversations with many here, including those with whom I disagree.

Wesley Mouch and I have traded many messages; while I disagree with Oladub on many things, he can thoughtfully express himself, and do so politely.

You seem quite incapable. You also make the rest of us incapable by stirring the pot non-stop.

And thank you for contributing to a discussion in a adult manner like your buddy.

Gay or not,if you find it appealing to have an 11 year old boy dancing sexualy provocative in front up you,dressed up as a little girl,then yes,you have some serious issues.

It has nothing to do with gay or not,but nice try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

The distinction between a message board/forum and a chat room is one of technicality as to the speed of read and reply.

The essential substance is identical.

Except that here, this subject, this thread, was started by me. Not you, not a random person, ME.

So yes, as the OP I get to say what's on-topic because its my damned topic.

It does have room for interpretation and points of view. But pedophiles and strip clubs are not even remotely or tangentially on topic.



Bust should not have wandered off from the point of the thread. He started well. You derailed him.

But, at first, I let you both off the hook rather than start something until you went full on insane, offensive and idiotic.

Then I stepped in.

Does the fulsome explanation make you feel better?



Oh FFS.....its butt hurt............

At any rate, I have no difficulty having adult conversations with many here, including those with whom I disagree.

Wesley Mouch and I have traded many messages; while I disagree with Oladub on many things, he can thoughtfully express himself, and do so politely.

You seem quite incapable. You also make the rest of us incapable by stirring the pot non-stop.

---

That is what you fail to understand,it is not about you,making it about you takes away from the context.

That is where we are at today,what one finds offensive another may not and as you bolded ME,do you really think the world should be molded after ME.

If you do not take the time to understand where others are coming from then you are not as smart as you think you are.

If you are going to refer to pot stirring,read your posts,out of the gate somebody that you do not agree with you always come out with the superiority card and name calling.

Is that the best you can do?

It is my fault that you cannot control your words and emotions?

Now that is two things related to the topic.

It is all about ME

It is everybody else’s fault for my behavior.

Just to remind everyone:

Richard is a Trumpist former Tampa strip club owner duped by russian propaganda.

His words speak for themselves.

Now let's ignore him.

Actually,Richard was raised to respect everybody and treat others how I wish to be treated,no matter who they were.

Life has taught me to show respect until proven otherwise.

There,that sums up the entire thread in two lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Actually,Richard was raised to respect everybody and treat others how I wish to be treated,no matter who they were.

Life has taught me to show respect until proven otherwise.

There,that sums up the entire thread in two lines.

---

Richard wishes to be treated like a stripper servicing the republican convention.

That sums you up in one.

Sometimes I don't think there's a true desire for honest dialog or conversation re. feminism and or vs. masculinity.

Nope. It's becoming a tower of Babel. Discord and disparagement is the preferred offering to the emerging god[[dess) of intersectionality.

Obey. Take yo' assigned number and assume your place in the line per todays importance or most maligned.

To those of you who think it is off topic to point out the inversion of reality by a commenter on this thread about feminism, or that he also happens to be the former owner of one or more strip clubs, I beg to differ.

Maybe also pointing out his logic-addled distribution of russian propaganda and hyper-partisanship was too much -- but I don't think so. One of the ways the russians have tried to divide us has been through anti-feminist propaganda. The topic seems to resonate with him. And the party he dances for is on the wrong side of so many gender issues.

I look forward to a much more elevated discussion. I'll try to do my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

Just to remind everyone:

Richard is a Trumpist former Tampa strip club owner duped by russian propaganda.

His words speak for themselves.

Now let's ignore him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

Richard wishes to be treated like a stripper servicing the republican convention.

That sums you up in one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

To those of you who think it is off topic to point out the inversion of reality by a commenter on this thread about feminism, or that he also happens to be the former owner of one or more strip clubs, I beg to differ.

Maybe also pointing out his logic-addled distribution of russian propaganda and hyper-partisanship was too much -- but I don't think so. One of the ways the russians have tried to divide us has been through anti-feminist propaganda. The topic seems to resonate with him. And the party he dances for is on the wrong side of so many gender issues.

I look forward to a much more elevated discussion. I'll try to do my part.

---

You apparently are doing your part by following the antifa/socialist playbook of Name and Shame,maybe try coming down to reality before trying to elevate anything.

You create a response in another thread about doing research in order to get your own facts,but yet provide links based on somebodies opinion without linking to the actual facts or originating source.

You have made accusations against me but have yet to provide your facts in order to back that up.

You posted "Now let's ignore him" but yet continued your agenda.

You embedded links like a professional.

Last but not least you are posting on a public forum under an alias or fake name.

So I really have to ask,what is your agenda,outside of trying to discredit anybody that disagrees with you?

I said STOP!

That applies to both of you!

This back and forth has nothing to do with the thread in any way shape or form!

It makes the entire forum a waste!

On topic of Get the F off my thread!

I'm ok with points of view on this topic ranging from interviews of pimps, to Bible thumpers, to promoters of misandry to gay and other voices offering unique insights. Anecdotes are great too.

_____________________

I'm want to touch on one incident that has bothered me. Scandinavia includes countries leading the way in offering economic and social equality for women to the point of requiring set percentages of women on boards and in governments. The assumption is that women are equal to the point that divorces are usually simple matters equally splitting property and parenting time 50/50 without any alimony. The thought regarding alimony might be that if women have the same educational opportunities in e.g. Norway as men, why then should there still be alimony; a throwback an era when women didn't have abortion services and job opportunities.

The incident I wanted to mention was the sinking of the Estonia. Most of the passengers were Swedish. The crew was Estonian."When the Estonia passenger ferry headed from Tallinn to Stockholm suddenly sank in the middle of the icy Baltic sea in 1994, 852 of the 989 people onboard perished, with only 5.4 percent of women surviving, compared to 22 percent for men."

The Swedish authors of this study suggest that was the norm, that mostly male crew members always have a survival edge, but even their own statistics show the ratio was twice the statistical male advantage rate as was the norm. I remember accounts at the time remarking on how men showed no chivalry. Gone was the precept of women and children first. It was 'every man for himself' and women didn't do nearly as well. If there is a relationship between sexual equality movement in the west and the loss of chivalry, I don't have enough information to say there is, it is not generally discussed as offsetting the many benefits of social and economic opportunities to women.

I have no problem with that,just as long as you remember your words here when it applies to other posters threads and you start with the whole name calling and discrediting through intimidation.

Otherwise it appears as a,do what I say and not what I do scenario.

Fair enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

I'm ok with points of view on this topic ranging from interviews of pimps, to Bible thumpers, to promoters of misandry to gay and other voices offering unique insights. Anecdotes are great too.

_____________________

I'm want to touch on one incident that has bothered me. Scandinavia includes countries leading the way in offering economic and social equality for women to the point of requiring set percentages of women on boards and in governments. The assumption is that women are equal to the point that divorces are usually simple matters equally splitting property and parenting time 50/50 without any alimony. The thought regarding alimony might be that if women have the same educational opportunities in e.g. Norway as men, why then should there still be alimony; a throwback an era when women didn't have abortion services and job opportunities.

The incident I wanted to mention was the sinking of the Estonia. Most of the passengers were Swedish. The crew was Estonian."When the Estonia passenger ferry headed from Tallinn to Stockholm suddenly sank in the middle of the icy Baltic sea in 1994, 852 of the 989 people onboard perished, with only 5.4 percent of women surviving, compared to 22 percent for men."

The Swedish authors of this study suggest that was the norm, that mostly male crew members always have a survival edge, but even their own statistics show the ratio was twice the statistical male advantage rate as was the norm. I remember accounts at the time remarking on how men showed no chivalry. Gone was the precept of women and children first. It was 'every man for himself' and women didn't do nearly as well. If there is a relationship between sexual equality movement in the west and the loss of chivalry, I don't have enough information to say there is, it is not generally discussed as offsetting the many benefits of social and economic opportunities to women.

---

Interesting enough the Girl Scouts have issued a warning to parents about having their child hugging relatives when greeting them.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/the...yre-wrong.html

That's an opinion but there are other sources out there.

But yet in many cultures a hug and kiss on the cheek is an acceptable from of greeting just like in the past where we greeted with a handshake.

With men you were judged on a firm and strong handshake where as with women more so just a lite shake.

So were we taught that women were the weaker sex and should be treated differently then their male counter parts?

Laws and morals were geared towards that,bluntly you could punch a man but never even think about hitting a woman,it just was not done.

There are distinct differences between males and females,if the goal is to remove those differences, so everybody is equal,then you would have to remove everything gender related out of the equation.

In the example of Estonia it would have never been mentioned the differences,it would have just been reported as 852 perished as the distinction between the sexes would not exist.

But it goes back to what I was already chastised for posting,in order to create equality,you have to remove individualism and treat everybody on a set rule base.

Which in itself creates problems,if a woman likes to be treated like a woman,is it disrespectful to actually do that,one may find it as a sign of disrespect where another may not.

I know women that enjoy being able to stay home to raise the children,which used to be the norm,but yet they get guff from counter parts and are viewed as weak by not standing up for themselves and entering the workforce.

Outside of equality in the workforce etc. unless you can actually clone everybody as a robot in order to remove the personal aspect out of it,you have to remove the human aspect out of the equation.

But you do see the push to remove the gender aspect out of the equation,if I am not mistaken Sweden is also pushing the removal of a gender being placed on a birth certificate until the person decides what gender they wish to be.

Which kinda defeats the whole purpose of being gender neutral,the end result is what we are seeing now,I want to be treated like a man but still be a woman and retain certain aspects of that,I do not think it is really a card that can be pulled out when convenient.

Maybe that is why in Japan the push is in creating synthetic partners where emotions are removed,both male and female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

I said STOP!

That applies to both of you!

This back and forth has nothing to do with the thread in any way shape or form!

It makes the entire forum a waste!

On topic of Get the F off my thread!

---

I'll agree with Richard on this: it's funny you say that when on another thread you took it so far off topic you bragged your insults are the best.

We all make mistakes.

It's usually good advice: take a deep breath; exhale slowly. Another...

We all can learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bust

I'll agree with Richard on this: it's funny you say that when on another thread you took it so far off topic you bragged your insults are the best.

We all make mistakes.

It's usually good advice: take a deep breath; exhale slowly. Another...

We all can learn.

---

I agree I went off track in that other thread. Though I wasn't arguing with myself.

I was the only one to apologize for participating.

I also took the route first of reporting posts.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Lowell maintains a very low level of moderation here.

But it is his board.

I did lose my patience, completely.

And to avoid the risk of that happening again.

I would like people to stop running subjects completely off the rails.

I don't care what anyone's line of employment is or was.

I don't care what anyone's academic credentials are, unless its pertinent to their argument.

I don't care whether I find someone likeable or whether they like me.

All other things being equal its nice to be liked, but not essential.

What is essential to me is that this forum fulfill the purpose one.

Intelligent discussion and exchange of ideas.

The nature of those are determined by the subject of the thread.

I take serious issue what some pass-off as on-topic around here that would get moderated out almost anywhere else.

Be that as it may, I'll make an effort to shut my trap on that, IF I can see someone is trying to be on topic.

But when its degenerating into a pissing contest, we all know exactly where it goes.

At best its a waste. At worst, Lowell will lock the thread, or even suspend users.

Can we actually try to discuss the damned subject now, PLEASE!

When our sandcastles keep getting stomped, we're not using enough nails. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Lowell maintains a very low level of moderation here.

---

If you want a moderator to step in, you have to report the post. They don't read every post on every thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pam

If you want a moderator to step in, you have to report the post. They don't read every post on every thread.

---

I have. So have others.

There is clearly a laissez-faire doctrine here of intervening in only the most extreme cases.

Unfortunately that ruins a lot of threads around here.

It wouldn't take a great deal of effort to clean it up.

Suspend or ban the two or three worst offenders and everyone would come into line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

I have. So have others.

There is clearly a laissez-faire doctrine here of intervening in only the most extreme cases.

Unfortunately that ruins a lot of threads around here.

It wouldn't take a great deal of effort to clean it up.

Suspend or ban the two or three worst offenders and everyone would come into line.

---

99.9% of the time I agree with you but IIRC, Lowell's goal in creating non-Detroit was to allow some leeway in getting a little feisty. I also agree with you that it can get so far off track that you are riding an entirely different train, if not switching to an airplane. I think his original intent was to let these threads police themselves, but recently it's gotten so bad he finally had to step in.

It’s kinda like a fly complaining about other fly’s buzzing about.

Okay.... I've been getting some complaints [On Non-Detroit, almost never on Discuss Detroit] so here's something I wrote in reply to one.

Non-Detroit was created to essentially say, “Argue politics all you like here, just keep it off Discuss Detroit and if you start one there we’re moving here.” It is a steam valve.

Members mix it up more over here due the nature of topics and more slack is allowed. Even then, direct name-calling or personal physical threats are not allowed. And civil behavior is always encouraged.

One needs to also understand that we do not have time or the unpleasant desire to intervene. In spite of flare ups almost all threads are self-healing, the tit for tats fade, and the discussions rolls on.

Our best advice is to rise above, and do not respond to posts that upset and never get personal. That only adds to the flames and spreads the fire. One also has to option to block posts by members who aggravate them.

Be like, say, oladub. Make your points in an informative manner and avoid the personal. Especially, resist the urge to hit back. Thank you.

Feminism, and Masculinity: How to have a more useful conversation.


"Honey, get me a beer!"

So now we know “How To Have A More Useful Conversation”, CV style, Eh?

It is HIS Thread damn it! Eh?

Or conversely:

"Honey, take out the trash, would you!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Feminism, and Masculinity: How to have a more useful conversation.

"Honey, get me a beer!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

It wouldn't take a great deal of effort to clean it up.

Suspend or ban the two or three worst offenders and everyone would come into line.

---

Just DUMPING Canadian Visitor would achieve it in “ONE”. Eh!

This is an observation without a conclusion: The general direction in the Western world, including places like Japan, S. Korea, and Singapore, is for more equality and personal choice. In our country, women were allowed to vote, there are more reproductive choices. The trend allows more individual choice. We are now told that having children is an option. I am not quarreling with any of this. We have, on average, unparalleled prosperity and freedom compared with most non-Western countries and our ancestors.

However, the resulting prosperity and freedom seems to be more about individual choices than continuity of Western culture including such choices. Birth rates are in extreme decline Western Europe to East Asia. Societies dependent on population growth for prosperity have empty playgrounds and rapidly aging population. Japan has bridged part of the gap with robotization and increased debt. Angela Merkel opened Germany's borders to address the dearth of German babies. The next generation of 'Germans' may or may not be as supportive of longstanding Western freedoms, democracy, and traditions.

I find myself lamenting the possible decline of Western culture due to some lack of balance between sexual freedoms on one hand and sexual responsibility on the other. By 'sexual responsibility', I just mean making necessary personal sacrifices to sustain a population and culture. It does take a lot of work to raise children and biology puts a heavier part of that burden on women.

I don't have the answer. Some counties have tried to stabilize their declining populations with extended maternal leaves and other incentives without much result. How do western ideas and the progression of democracy, personal freedom, specifically women's rights survive economically and politically, without enough children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Or conversely:

"Honey, take out the trash, would you!"

---

I'll have you know, when I was married, I always had the LAST word in MY house!

"yes dear...."

^^^ And here's more, haven't you heard THE FUTURE IS FEMALE anyway?!

Memo to Our Sons and Grandsons: The Future Is Female
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-female?page=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

This is an observation without a conclusion: The general direction in the Western world, including places like Japan, S. Korea, and Singapore, is for more equality and personal choice. In our country, women were allowed to vote, there are more reproductive choices. The trend allows more individual choice. We are now told that having children is an option. I am not quarreling with any of this. We have, on average, unparalleled prosperity and freedom compared with most non-Western countries and our ancestors.

However, the resulting prosperity and freedom seems to be more about individual choices than continuity of Western culture including such choices. Birth rates are in extreme decline Western Europe to East Asia. Societies dependent on population growth for prosperity have empty playgrounds and rapidly aging population. Japan has bridged part of the gap with robotization and increased debt. Angela Merkel opened Germany's borders to address the dearth of German babies. The next generation of 'Germans' may or may not be as supportive of longstanding Western freedoms, democracy, and traditions.

I find myself lamenting the possible decline of Western culture due to some lack of balance between sexual freedoms on one hand and sexual responsibility on the other. By 'sexual responsibility', I just mean making necessary personal sacrifices to sustain a population and culture. It does take a lot of work to raise children and biology puts a heavier part of that burden on women.

I don't have the answer. Some counties have tried to stabilize their declining populations with extended maternal leaves and other incentives without much result. How do western ideas and the progression of democracy, personal freedom, specifically women's rights survive economically and politically, without enough children?

---

TY for contributing to the discussion! :)

I think there are, as usual, a mixture of issues at play.

On the one hand, many places in the world are grossly over populated, and the advent of birth control, women's rights and higher education, contributing to a lowering birth rate must surely be a welcome thing.

Though, its not as if the rate lowers in a nice, steady, even way that allows for smooth transitions from era to the next.

ie. China's birth rate collapsed sufficiently that not only will its population fall quite dramatically in the years ahead, which will create workforce and pension issues..........due to a preference for male babies, there is a severe gender imbalance already having social consequences [[men out number women in the young adult generation by a substantial margin).

****

That said, the falling birth rate in developed societies, where acute, poses more of an issue, as noted in Japan, also in Italy.

Most other western, developed nations aren't so short of replacement value [[2.1 babies per woman) that it could be called an acute problem, but it will be, eventually, if not properly addressed.

****

In respect of the baby-having question, you need to ask why women [[and men/families) are choosing to have fewer children.

The evidence is that it is a function of 3 or 4 things in various degrees.

1) Settling down later in life, leaving a shorter window of fertility and one in competition with early career development for women.

2) Lower fertility rates at older ages for women.

3) Work-life balance questions. When both members of a couple work outside the home, the amount of house work doesn't decline, but the cost and hassle of childcare rises.

This provides a disincentive to baby-making.

4) Cost of raising a child to be successful has risen markedly in an era where families are expected to see a child go to University in most cases, and that not only means finding money for tuition, it means financial responsibility for your child extends later into their life and yours [[early 20s instead of late teens).

If one imagines not starting to have kids till 28, to have three, at one every second year, extends you to at least 32 [[fertility issues may already play into this).

But if you have to look after your kid until they are 23, you're not committed to kids in your home until you are 55.

That's not only a huge commitment, its one that may mean deferred retirement savings, which in turn may mean the need to defer retirement.

****

There are plethora of policy options that can make it easier on people to have a larger family, or to start one later in life.

Though, as you noted, countries where many of these have been pursued have only bumped up fertility rates modestly, and not to replacement value.

Which to me, leaves a couple of key questions to examine.

First, is the key to this getting people to start a family sooner [[particularly for women whose fertility is key to this); and if so, what adjustments would we have to make as a society to make this a preferred choice?

Second, if having more than 2 children will naturally, severely impact on a woman's career development, can we make any adjustments to workplace law or custom that would address that? Or alternatively, do we modify other aspects of social/economic policy [[outside the workplace) to allow for that, conceding there is no good policy solution in the work place?

****

Tangential to the above, is the question IF redistribution of the world's population is part of the answer to this issue in the near term [[people from overcrowded areas moving to regions that could support more people); how can we best handle the issue of integration of newcomers into established societies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I'll have you know, when I was married, I always had the LAST word in MY house!

"yes dear...."

---

Lol,but with technology women are obsolete anyways in the sense that we know them now.

With Alexa and Siri all you have to do is command and they obey,no questions asked.

Automatic dishwashers,microwaves,Uber eats and soon drones deliver dinner to the door on demand,Chinese laundry is cheap,robo vacuum cleaners etc.,if you think about it women are kinda being phased out anyways,soon they will be just another guy,advanced medicines can change the thinking like a woman part and we will all be mindless little drudes equally.

Think about the songs during the decades that some will find offensive,Barbra Streisand can no longer be a woman in love,she has to be a gender neutral person in love,but she is no longer even a she.

No more a lady in red is dancing with me,it has to change to a person in red dancing in the same proximity as to not actually touch.

It could get really complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard

Lol,but with technology women are obsolete anyways in the sense that we know them now.

With Alexa and Siri all you have to do is command and they obey,no questions asked.

Automatic dishwashers,microwaves,Uber eats and soon drones deliver dinner to the door on demand,Chinese laundry is cheap,robo vacuum cleaners etc.,if you think about it women are kinda being phased out anyways,soon they will be just another guy,advanced medicines can change the thinking like a woman part and we will all be mindless little drudes equally.

Think about the songs during the decades that some will find offensive,Barbra Streisand can no longer be a woman in love,she has to be a gender neutral person in love,but she is no longer even a she.

No more a lady in red is dancing with me,it has to change to a person in red dancing in the same proximity as to not actually touch.

It could get really complicated.

---

Tall and tan and young and lovely
The gender specific person from Ipanema goes walking
And when the gender specific person passes, each gender specific person they pass goes - ah

Climate change threatens to kill us all and some of you are worried about the birth rate? In a world of scarce resources fewer people is a good thing. Unless you want to look forward to this:

https://youtu.be/9IKVj4l5GU4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pam

Climate change threatens to kill us all and some of you are worried about the birth rate? In a world of scarce resources fewer people is a good thing. Unless you want to look forward to this:

https://youtu.be/9IKVj4l5GU4

---

Actually I'm looking forward to the day I can enjoy a head of iceberg lettuce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Actually I'm looking forward to the day I can enjoy a head of iceberg lettuce.

---

https://youtu.be/oShTJ90fC34

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQ6wNfkcmc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pam

Climate change threatens to kill us all and some of you are worried about the birth rate? In a world of scarce resources fewer people is a good thing. Unless you want to look forward to this:

https://youtu.be/9IKVj4l5GU4

---

The whole thread is reminiscent of what I had to endure in Catholic school in the 60/70's when they were worried about the Chinese having so many kids that they would take over the world so we were told that it was our DUTY to be good Catholic wives and have large families so we could keep up with the Communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

The whole thread is reminiscent of what I had to endure in Catholic school in the 60/70's when they were worried about the Chinese having so many kids that they would take over the world so we were told that it was our DUTY to be good Catholic wives and have large families so we could keep up with the Communists.

---

Needless to say, that is not what I had in mind when I started this thread!

The idea was to discuss the high level issue of people misunderstanding one another, with the male-female dynamic provided as example.

Misapprehension that occurs by way of people not carefully listening to what others are saying, or understanding how a speaker may have a different life-history, experience, or even biology such that certain words or ideas have a different meaning or a different slant that they would coming from the listener.

I was willing to go w/Oladub's discussion point on the basis that at least he was trying to have a conversation, which I have found almost impossible here as of late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

Needless to say, that is not what I had in mind when I started this thread!

The idea was to discuss the high level issue of people misunderstanding one another, with the male-female dynamic provided as example.

Misapprehension that occurs by way of people not carefully listening to what others are saying, or understanding how a speaker may have a different life-history, experience, or even biology such that certain words or ideas have a different meaning or a different slant that they would coming from the listener.

I was willing to go w/Oladub's discussion point on the basis that at least he was trying to have a conversation, which I have found almost impossible here as of late.

---

I hear ya, CV, and I know that wasn't your intent; it's just the vibe I'm getting. It's almost as if some people think the only thing women are good for are populating the earth and look decorative while doing so. Oh, and cooking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

I hear ya, CV, and I know that wasn't your intent; it's just the vibe I'm getting. It's almost as if some people think the only thing women are good for are populating the earth and look decorative while doing so. Oh, and cooking.

---

and what about the laundry? A man can only turn his socks and underwear inside out so many times.

It goes back to how an individual views others and at what level are they allowed to think,act,react etc. as an individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

The whole thread is reminiscent of what I had to endure in Catholic school in the 60/70's when they were worried about the Chinese having so many kids that they would take over the world so we were told that it was our DUTY to be good Catholic wives and have large families so we could keep up with the Communists.

---

When you say it was something that you had to endure,is that what you were thinking at that time and age? Or looking back now it is a feeling of something that you had to endure?

Large families were not uncommon as a hold over of the more rural times in order to have help on the farms.Religion also played a role on the birth control aspect.

Two world wars wiped out 120 million people and depleted the population and in the 30,40s a large percentage of the population could not afford to feed another mouth let alone make babies.

Living in a high immigration state it is interesting when dealing with the differences between women in general.

Most foreign women are geared towards the whole taking care of their man aspect until they become Americanized,but yet there are American women who do the same thing,if that is what they are comfortable with why try and convince them it is not the right thing to do.

It is kinda like asking what the meaning of life is,there is no answer,because it will have a different meaning to each different person.

I kinda like the redistribution of people aspect,we could go to Brazil and redistribute their women over here and have a government mandated procreation act.

When you receive a fine if you do not partake in such activities and a tax credit if you do.

In all seriousness,it is actually a real issue in Japan.

Which is actually cause and effect of where we are today and where it leads.

I'm missing 'full leaf' spinach with the deep folds and body over the anemic baby spinach...:p... offerings!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Actually I'm looking forward to the day I can enjoy a head of iceberg lettuce.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQ6wNfkcmc

---

Oh. I thought you were making a joke about body parts.

Don't worry guys, there are still some women who want to breed like bunnies.

https://youtu.be/sUiMAg9T2ro

https://youtu.be/gh-kCWF21Xw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pam

Oh. I thought you were making a joke about body parts.

---

Tsk, tsk, tsk...... Get your mind out of the gutter, Pam. You should read


"How To Have A More Useful Conversation."

From Suffrage to Suppression: Women Now Lead in Anti-Speech Sentiment

I've often thought the term, "the opposite sex" is odd. We have most things in common from two feet each and hands to largely overlapping set of opinions. This article addresses an aspect of that latter category. Recent polls suggest that women are slightly to moderately more opposed to free speech.

"While there are many women who support robust free speech rights, and many well-known women who have made their career working as advocates and activists for free speech, as a group women are increasingly hostile to freedom of speech."

"Increasingly" means trending. It is curious. Any thought on why? There are some interesting comments after the article suggesting everything from women considering themselves more vulnerable to downtrodden groups have the most to gain from free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

From Suffrage to Suppression: Women Now Lead in Anti-Speech Sentiment

I've often thought the term, "the opposite sex" is odd. We have most things in common from two feet each and hands to largely overlapping set of opinions.

---

This part is simple enough, while we are opposite sex, we are the same species. Opposite sex does not mean opposite in everything. It means opposite in sex. Meaning genitals/reproductive organs for the most part, though there are some other obvious physical differences as well.

*****

Quote:

---

"Increasingly" means trending. It is curious. Any thought on why? There are some interesting comments after the article suggesting everything from women considering themselves more vulnerable to downtrodden groups have the most to gain from free speech.

---

In reference to free speech, having read the article.

I'm inclined to find it misleading and alarmist.

I say that as someone who while supporting hate speech laws, also opposes 'safe spaces' and generally loathes mob mentality in all respects.

There in lies the first of many rubs w/the argument put forth.

First the views on free speech aren't binary. They are nuanced.

The question makes them binary either by means of yes/no or by ranking this right against another right or desirable characteristic.

So I would consider the answers to be misleading in that respect.

I would also note that I don't think there has been a dramatic shift in views.

New variations have come up [[ie. safe spaces) but the notion of censorship in one fashion or another is hardly new.

Neither is the male-female variation of this set of views.

Let's start by noting the spread on the first question was only 11 points or so, nothing huge, it implies one sex is slightly differently placed on a spectrum that the other, not in a wildly opposite position.

That said, one of the key physical differences between men and women is the level of testosterone.

This hormone contributes to greater aggressiveness/assertiveness in males.

Its one thing that makes us more competitive, more confident and more willing to take a risk.

Those can all be good things, up to a point.

But they are also a key reason men are more likely to go bankrupt, more likely to commit a crime and more likely to be in a car accident.

That relatively small, but fundamental difference helps foster a difference in perspective.

So does the difference in physical strength and size [[on average).

Women [[as a group) are more likely to depend on others. They are more likely to communicate with others [[women talk more). Its the butt of many jokes, but its also a skill and informs perspective.

Women are as a group more empathetic. They are more likely to care about the feelings of others.

The result is to weigh choices around speech differently.

It should surprise no one that a woman is less likely to be comfortable with being offensive, and equally less likely to accept someone who seems to be trying to be offensive.

There is a risk involved in both engaging in with with confrontational speech.

Some men are every bit as adverse to this; and someone women have no difficulty with it at all.

But when generalizing, men are more likely to thrive on getting a reaction and more likely to believe any negative consequence is worth it, if it advances their cause or their career.

Women tend to be less likely to make that same call. More likely to consider the risks to themselves, their families, and others.

There should be no surprise then that women value un-fettered free speech w/greater suspicion.

That the difference on most of these questions is relatively small is really the more notable result.

****

Is there some broader trend on this issue? I'm not sure that's the case.

Yes, we can find extreme examples of universities, faculties, professors, students etc. protesting someone speaking or dis inviting them etc etc.

But in truth, this isn't new. What's new is some of the language around it, and the fact that it gets discussed and disseminated via social media much more quickly that it would have been in the past.

If an advocate for abolition had been dis invited from speaking at a university in the south, who would have known?

Those immediately involved, perhaps.

But not many more, the news would likely never have reached much beyond that university or perhaps its community.

Today the news will appear in a free speech social media group within hours at most.

For the most part, I don't see any real threat to free speech on the horizon.

Its now easier than ever to self-publish, online or in print, and to disseminate one's view point.

No one is being jailed for holding a view, or discussing same unless the clearly advocate violence, and even then, its incredibly rare.

The medium of protest has simply changed. The sit-in is out, the online boycott is in. etc. etc.

Here's a measurable gender split between male and female college students regarding free speech vs. politically correct speech:

"We found that a substantial majority of college men, 71 percent, said that promoting free speech was the more important priority over diversity inclusion issues," she said. "We found that over half, 58 percent, of college women said the opposite. So they said that promoting a diverse, inclusive society was the greater concern for them." -The Hill 5/31/19

Lol they say that but yet they want to ban everybody from campus that does not cater to thier views.

True Free speech would also allow a racist KKK nazi loving person get up and say thier peace.

Useful conversation? How inspired...:rolleyes:...

The main problem is the extremists within the feminists [[namely the third wave crowd) too often do NOT want reconciliation [[no less a conversation). Nope!

They want a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy!

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!".

The best remediation possible. How very learned. Hah!

The rub is that an increasing percentage of women are questioning feminism as it's working out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Here's a measurable gender split between male and female college students regarding free speech vs. politically correct speech:

"We found that a substantial majority of college men, 71 percent, said that promoting free speech was the more important priority over diversity inclusion issues," she said. "We found that over half, 58 percent, of college women said the opposite. So they said that promoting a diverse, inclusive society was the greater concern for them." -The Hill 5/31/19

---

Again, there is an artificial distinction; and one without much specificity.

You're being asked to choose between two competing, amorphous ideas.

Surely, few [[or ideally none) of the men backing 'free speech' as a priority imagine that it would be ok if people of particularly skin colour or faith were banned from their campus.

Most particularly if that colour were white.

Put in that context, I'm sure they would prioritize inclusiveness.

At the same time, I imagine the vast majority of women were not advocating jailing people for their political views.

Rather you're identifying that one group [[women) is more aware that some groups on campus may have genuine fears for their safety; or feel that their very real concerns over any number of things may be overlooked.

The identify that 'free speech' is already in place; while those other concerns require addressing.

The young men being asked, have not likely had their speech rights curtailed; but likewise probably feel plenty included and like there's nothing THEY need by way of further improvements to 'inclusion'.

Shock, rich people don't think the biggest priority is covering the uninsured for healthcare; because there's is covered.

Same principle at play.

The other thing that's true, again, is that women, as a group, on average, are more attuned to the emotional state/grievances of others.

Men, collectively, are a bit more obtuse about such things.

Its not a huge deal, nor a concerted effort to thwart free speech.

Canadian Visitor, I was thinking about the 1st. Amendment meaning of speech which is absolute. "No" means none. Here we have 29% of male and 58% of female students, that's double the percentage of male students, prioritizing something over free speech. It might be one of the reasons women are more likely to vote Democratic if there is a biological basis for the difference. Free speech often leads to conflict although long run free speech provides understanding which heads off larger conflict and fosters democracy. There are plenty of religious and political systems that suppress speech in the name of the greater good. The Constitution's first Amendment must be an exception.

I haven't seen any statistics but I'm unaware of any churches with women ministers that have increased membership. Surely there are some but I haven't come across any. It could be that since most denominations are losing membership and liberal denominations are losing the most, it is impossible to determine whether liberal churches with women ministers are losing membership at a faster rate than liberal churches with male ministers. Or is could be that men do not respond well to being led by women ministers. Women political leaders seem to do better with men then women ministers. That's just a personal observation rather than a statistical fact. Does anyone have thoughts about the viability and effectiveness of women ministers relative to their male church members?

Related anecdote: A number of years ago upon receiving communion wine, I happened to glance at our female minister's ankles below her robe as I was swallowing. That caused the wine to go down the wrong pipe and I had a horrible coughing fit at the front of the church. My punishment no doubt.