Quote Originally Posted by Atomic View Post
Women should be respected and be equal but there are major differences in how men and women think and behave in a generalization. There are always exceptions. This means that women may be better suited to one task and a man may be better suited to another.
You said it yourself: there are always exceptions. That means A PARTICULAR MAN may be better suited to one task than A PARTICULAR WOMAN. Generally speaking, men of African descent are the best runners in the world -- should white men be denied access to the same opportunities? Women are often denied access simply because it is assumed that a man would be better.

Quote Originally Posted by Atomic View Post
I also believe that the feminist movement along with single parent (read mother, thanks moms!) have combined to make a few generations of pansy men. Not men at all, weak, emotional boys. The single mothers did the best they could. The feminists did a very bad thing.
Extreme feminists are no better than the chauvinistic men. They bring nothing but turmoil where ever they go. These feminists need to respect men. And men need to be men and respect women.
Now, this is a pretty typical claim of anti-feminists. You have to do some legwork to back it up, however. "Single mothers made this generation into pansies" is incredibly specious. First, you'd have to show that this generation is made up of pansies, which you'd have to do with more than anecdotal evidence. More likely is that this generation is much like any other, only with access to free and varied internet porn, more single parents and worse personal fitness. If you DID show that there were more pansies, you'd have to eliminate other social factors: the decline of personal fitness, more stringent anti-discrimination and sexual harrassment law enforcement, an increased focus on success-via-intelligence (a new nerdocracy) thanks to the internet, and men changing their habits BY CHOICE to impress or attract increasingly independent and discerning women. Any one of those, and others I haven't thought of, have stronger links to (alleged) increases in the numbers of "pansy men" than single mothers.

Bear in mind also that this generation is being brought up by women who fought for things like equal pay, the right to serve in the military, and so on -- this generation has been brought up by women who knew how to fight for things.

Furthermore, your assertion that "men need to be men" is one that is falling out of favour, and about time, too. Men come in a variety of natures: pansy, macho, buff, flamingly camp, nerdy, sporty, handy, French... why is one kind of man more a man than another? Am I less of a man than you? I've never been in a fight, and I hate sports and love music theatre, but I'm also very handy, know how to build, can hold my alcohol, can take care of myself in the wild and have always gotten superb reviews from women I've fucked. I'm also pretty well groomed, and don't grow a very good beard, and am pushing five feet seven at a generous guess. Does any of that make me more or less of a man than any other man?

Quote Originally Posted by Atomic View Post
EDIT: And my work place. It's no place for a woman. The guys are pretty rough and if the woman wants to be treated equally then she is in for a lot of tears. You should be glad that we have the respect to not say some of the things we say to each other to you. It's not nice, but guys learn to be tough skinned and not wear emotions on their sleeve.
It's funny you say that, because I know more than a few girls who could make you and your work buddies blush. The women who run in my circles tend to be thick skinned, tough, interesting, and completely good-humoured. You might be able to beat them up (men are typically stronger and bigger than women, yeah, yeah), but your friends are no more tough skinned than they are.

No, the fact is, saying things about women behind their backs is no more -- and probably less -- respectful than saying it to their face. Respect would mean not only refraining from saying offensive, objectifying things but refraining even from considering them legitimate, appropriate thoughts in the first place. I realise that you can't help thinking things, but there's a difference between thinking something and legitimising a certain thought as justified.

You should understand that I'm not attacking you. On the contrary -- less than five years ago I would have agreed whole heartedly with everything you have said. I'm trying to make you see that your take on the issue is made up of faulty, out-of-date assumptions.