Diaries of a rebel

I didn't say ur annoying. PhD 'changes' people, so don't do it!

When you get a PhD you may not 'tell it like it is' anymore.  You may go by the book and become annonying like others who see nothing fallible.

Everything is sacred.

Parchin jan

You seem to contradict yourself a lot. Some of the stuff you said are real shockers, you have to admit one judges others by their behaviour and what they say. I like you very much, irrespective of your views in any subject. Good luck in anything you chose to do.

AsteroidX

I think you might have interpreted the story a bit too literally. I hope you realize I'm not on the other side. I hold multiple college degrees in various fields and hold multiple positions in various fields. I surely don't plan on being dependent on any man or woman. But face it...You and I must struggle 10 times more than the regular woman at a relationship. At my age, i must make sure they poor guy is just as educated as I am, makes just as much money as I do, reads just as many books and is from a family just as great as mine. My pool has shrunk and it's rate of change is inversely proportional to my success level. This can't be denied, in any culture.

i prefer realistic rather than naive.

Do you recall the two shows, Lipstick Jungle and Cashmere Mafia, one on ABC and the other on NBC? These shows were both aired in 2008 and 2009, your dear 21st century. America, the most modern country on the planet, addressed the issue of power women and their problems in relationships with men, inside and outside of their personal lives. Face it. It's nature. It's reality. Men and women do not have similar, equal roles.

I think my mind is a bit too broad.  I don't want to get into details since I plan on keeping my identity a mystery to all. I was raised to defy my culture, and my views have nothing to do with it. You see, I don't think women should sit at home and sew; that was merely an exaggeration for dramatic effect. But I do believe that naturally, biologically, psychologically, men must always remain a step ahead of women. Veshkoon me. That's what I believe. I'm annoying because I say it like it is and it's not something people like to hear most of the time; a PhD won't change that.

parchin

i knew that there was something amiss in the blog.  it seemed like it was soliciting people naive enough to agree with it and have them debate with those who don't.  as you described it; its a shophomore essay where it doesn't explain how a feminist makes her transformation into an anti-feminist. however, it does expalin how "women like me" (as you put it in the blog) may think that feminism may be irrelevant for them.  your clarification seemed even more naive than the original post which i think asteriodx responded to some of your most stereotypical comments.  i think your next project should be writing a devil's advocate to your own blog.  you should have enough material from this one and it's a good exercise if one is to take on a phd program.  good luck.

.

posted twice.

Oh for God's sake ...

LOL.   :-)

Ok time to move on from this blog.

Men who are not sexist = Gay

Everything is sacred.

She is already annoying (joking)

I thought we had enough on our plate with sexist men.

Parchin jaan don't waste ur time on a PhD! U'll become annoying!

Of course you can do whatever you want but have you talked to some PhDs?! 9 out of 10 of them are annoying, you can't even talk to them! There are other things to do! Good luck! 

Everything is sacred.

Parchin jan

"But men MUST be a step ahead of women at all times. It's our nature, it's their nature. When this balance is disrupted, men feel inferior and resort to other outlets such as cheating, domestic violence, and verbal and emotional abuse. Because naturally they have a tendency to protect women under their wings. I don't think anyone can deny this...at all! "

I think that you are speaking your upbringing and culture. And do you speak from experience? Have you been out there, dated men from different backgrounds and culture? FOUND OUT FOR YOURSELF? I honestly doubt if you have had the courage to be the "rebel" free spirit you proclaim to be on the header of your blog. You may think I am being hard on you but you go on to blame women in a round about way for mens bad behaviour, which is even more outrageous. You sound a little naive.

"guided, minimal education of a university, which I think everyone agrees is a complete waste of time"

Again, who is everyone? So when you go to a doctor, solicitor, architect etc where do you think they learnt their skills? And do you check their genitals to assess their intellect and ability as a human being? How good they are at their job?

"I realize our conversation is well extended to the radius of 7 rows and my feminist friends are still silent. A rebuttal is nowhere in sight... pilot must be a man, but the two feminists have landed different people."

I dont think so, I think they may have thought it is best to walk away and leave you to yourself.

Sorry but it needs to be said, you really need to broaden your mind.  This is the 21st century.

Hate that, I wish I could do

Hate that, I wish I could do nothing all day. But since that's not possible, I'll go after my PhD

Nur-i-Azal

I do. And I don't think it should change at all.

I'm glad I've raised this discussion

The story was written humorously about an issue that contains very little of it. I Wrote this during my second year of college and understand that it carries some childish ideologies. The reality is, women's rights has nothing to do with the intentions of some to empower women in the workplace and the social stage. Abortion rights and civil rights have nothing to do with taking women out of their traditional, natural roles and placing them in situations where competition TRAPS US IN THE DREAMS OF OTHERS. Most women are proud and capable, but I don't believe they'd be fighting for the CEO positions if they didn't feel belittled by not doing so.

There is a natural balance of power between men and women everywhere, in every culture, in every country, in every language. Matriarchy, yes it's everywhere. But men MUST be a step ahead of women at all times. It's our nature, it's their nature. When this balance is disrupted, men feel inferior and resort to other outlets such as cheating, domestic violence, and verbal and emotional abuse. Because naturally they have a tendency to protect women under their wings. I don't think anyone can deny this...at all! So yes, I think putting women next to men and demanding equality is different from allowing them to choose for themselves and preventing them from being beaten to death. 2 completely different concepts here. I was not objecting the latter. 

asteriod

i did use the word "most" and also qualified that men would do the same.  i'm also aware that there are inherent values to one's profession other than monetary compensation (e.g. intellectual curiosity).  it's not hard to find people who don't need the money, keep on working, and are rational at the same time.

Hamsade jan

"i think if all women had the choice of having it "all" as the author said (maid, cook, gardener, etc.), most of them would opt out of sweating it out. "

Not necessarily. I once drove 45 miles each way with a broken arm nad dislocated knee, to an assignment to not miss a once in a life time opportunity. Believe me, women who work or have careers love their jobs. It has nothing to do with material things. We can be as driven as men and as ambitious. 

Guys thanks for your supportive comments. Really appreciate it. And we do love you!   :-) 

midwesty

i forgot to answer to your supply-demand logic at the end of your last comment.  i'm assuming by supply-demand, you're assuming the "invisible auctioneer" principle of the neoclassical economics.  this theory has many assmuptions that does not hold true in real life.  that's why there are protections for the labor market (most notably, many programs started by franklin roosevelt).  these protections include minimum wage, definition of work week, right to unionize and many other rights granted by government and updated by government throughout time.  anti discrimination laws against people of color, ethnicity, handicap, and gender are some of these protections that have been granted over time.

therefore, one cannot just invoke supply and demand.  one of the purposes of government (even in a free-market society) is to protect its citizens where the free market theory fails.  feminism is not just a theory.  there has been practical applications of this ideology in many western societies.

midwesty

i don't understnad your "women are saints in iran" argument.  that's the first i've heard of that.  then again, i'm not familiar with religious rhetoric.  i do know that women do not have power in iran.  women's testimony in court are doubted because they're too emotional and cannot make rational decisions.  even then, one man's testimony equals to that of two women.  the divorce and child custody laws are skewed in favor of the man and his family.  the hijab laws is not enforced on men: men can wear short sleeve shirts, show their bare feet and shave (in islam, a man cannot put razor to his skin).  a woman cannot travel without her husband's (or male relative's if unamarried).  basically a woman cannot make any household decision in disagreement with male relative.  a girl can be married off at age of nine whereas a boy can marry at age of fourteen.  a man can marry up to four wives whereas a woman cannot.  i can go on and on.  talk about disproportionate number of women being stoned to death, wages, employment, inheritance, ownership...

if you think the above facts are manifestation of feminism and iri is a feminist state, then i do agree with you.  feminism has gone way too far and we should defenitely put a stop to it.

Hamsadeh,

"we can see what road anti feminist ideologies lead us to by looking at
the current state of iran or any other religious-based government".

If we define feminism as a tool to give women power, the Iranian government is absolutely a feminist one because they have elevated the ranks of women beyond humans at a saint level. All the malformed charcteristics of that state is the natural consequence of their contradiction between reality and ideaology.

On other notion, what is the fem in feminisim? It's to segregade women from the body of humanity and force the rest of us to respect it.

My point is that feminism is an idealogy and nevertheless it has the same charcteristics and will have the same ending as any other idealogy that we have endured.

You said, "feminism is not the reason women have to work.  it allows them to potentially earn their value".

If the natural supply-demand dynamics doesn't cooperate what would you do? Put guns at people's head to respect what you think is right? Idealogy again.

The argument is not about how feminism has started, it's about where it's going and taking us along the way! 

Hamsade this is (my) humor! I do not agree with midwesty.

Everything is sacred.

i think if all women had

i think if all women had the choice of having it "all" as the author said (maid, cook, gardener, etc.), most of them would opt out of sweating it out.  same thing goes for men.  in economics, this is described within the framework of rational decisionmakers. however, not "all" have that option; and those who do, exercise it.  it sounds that the author may have that option and all the power to her for having the luxury to have a larger "possibilities set" than most other women.

we can see what road anti feminist ideologies lead us to by looking at the current state of iran or any other religious-based government.

i disagree with anonymous and midwestry on the notions that "feminism is the reason women have to work" and "feminism not being human rights."  one of the misconception about the standard of life in the u.s. is that standard of life has been raised in real terms constantly in the modern times.  economists have examined this fallacy and have come to the conclusion that people's need to accumulate material things have forced them to work longer hours, and for both men and women to work in the household to maintain the "keeping up with the jonses" phenomenon.  the article that i read concluded that in real terms, in the 1960s (when a much smaller proportion of women worked), household income was greater than today.  however, we can afford more things today because we're working more for it as a household.  put another way, the cost side of the equation had been missing in the "standard of living" argument. therefore, feminism is not the reason women have to work.  it allows them to potentially earn their value.

feminism fights for women's right.  women are human.  therefore, feminism is a type of human right.  i can also argue that civil rights for african americans are human rights for a specific segment of the society. and so on...

nuri-azal, i have anecdotal evidence that some tribes in iran are matriarchal such as the qashqais. but this comment is getting too long.

thanks AsX

"Feminism was only about opening doors and opportunities, and support for women in dire straits (many organisations  supporting battered women, supply of contraceptions, etc). This perception of putting men down is through the wrong stereotypes that have hijacked the movement, which happens in every movement, you get people with own agendas. "

I agree.

Subject of this blog has been used by many standup comics

This argument of feminism causing women to work is used in many standup routines by women comedians.  Although it can become a no-end in sight discussion and jibber jab over nothing.

Everything is sacred.

Midwesty Jan

I am a doctor and believe me even in Europe women are still payed less than men FOR THE SAME JOB. We have to FIGHT all the time to be recognised for our contributions and to be taken as seriously as men. We have the support of our male colleagues. This perception of hating men is so false, as we rely on their support and they are mostly supportive and fair human beings.

At work they still try to keep pay structure and scales hidden, but we have to do a lot of nosing around to make sure we are not being screwed. And then when we do inform of their discrimination we need to threaten legal action and they only give in at the last moment.

PS: Sorry I did not mean to insult, but your answer shocked me a little.

PPS: And what did slightly annoy me about the jist of this article was thet there is noone FORCING other women to work, that is not Feminism was or is about. So I was not sure why the author is writing an "anti-" article. Is it to convince herself that her choice is the right one and others is not? Why not just accept that everyone has a choice and should not put others people down because they have chosen a different path.

Feminism was only about opening doors and opportunities, and support for women in dire straits (many organisations  supporting battered women, supply of contraceptions, etc). This perception of putting men down is through the wrong stereotypes that have hijacked the movement, which happens in every movement, you get people with own agendas.

AsX jan

I presume you have no logical answer for my argument since you have resortedd to labeling me. You know your sarcastic answer has an equal answer but I am afraid I can not generalize Iranian women since the author of this blog is at least one exception.

Midwesty jan

"If women think they are not paid equally it's because there might be less demand for their work and if you look at it carefully you realize why is that. "

I am so surpirsed at you. This statement is totally false, but what can I say. This is IRANIAN.COM and men are Iranian!

MARGE

I totally agree with your points about Feminism. 

Marge,

You are mistaking feminism with human rights. Feminism is a product of capitalism. Saying that I have no problem with capitalist ideas. However in that system the price is set based on supply and demand. If women think they are not paid equally it's because there might be less demand for their work and if you look at it carefully you realize why is that.

So are the professors who have spent most of their lives on research. The wages are purely based on supply and demand dynamics reading more into it, is purely paranoia.

Midwesty, you haven't looked; that is why.

You're a typical anti-feminist who paints feminists with broad strokes. 

It has less to do with men and more to do with women, this feminism. It has to do with choices and freedom. I hate to say you're a typical man, but jeez, you and express your feelings about feminism being wrong about MEN!? It wasn't about you. It was about us. It's a slow process and it's painful.

I'm proud of feminism and the freedom it has brought women. I think that it's great that there are opportunities for women if they need to support themselves and their families. I think equality is a simple concept that if I do the same work as you do, I deserve the same earnings. If I have an idea, I should be credited and rewarded if it contributes to improving those around me.  

Feminists,

had the wrong perception about men to begin with. It's like any other useless movement that started with an ideal idea and sacred motto and ended up just being another tool to push the special interest group's agenda.

I am a man. I don't wake up every morning and thinking, wow another beautiful day to beat the heck out women!

Feminists don't have the slightest clue about the things going on in a man's brain nor his encoded behavior, taking advantage of rough and scruffy look and selling the idea of rise against men oppression.

You can't find anyone of them who can clearly define what equality is.

Good post!

Remarkable points are made here. I truly enjoyed your article. Thanks.