Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[Peepers]

His poor reputation with a profession run amok with politically correctness, yes. No, Dr. Nicolosi is a voice of* reason* in a profession that has for decades been sliding into the depths of denial where everything is a “disease”.

**The only **disease is the brand of therapy that promotes this nonsense by making everybody blameless in he first place . . .

Just so I understand you Elvis. Your claim is that while the professional organization which sets the standards in the US for the best evidence based medical practice points specifically to Dr. Nicolosi as a practitioner of bad medicine, and in fact names him as such, that you contradict that assessment?

Now is your opportunity to tell us how you came to that conclusion, in your learned and professional opinion. You are talking about a man who could not get into a decent school, and chose not to even try to qualify for a clinical license, a man who is an outcast and who is reviled by his own profession.

Please explain why you worship him?

 

[John21652]

I am, but something you should know about Englishmen/women is this - we are allowed to insult our country, but foreigners aren’t.

Stephen mentioned the military in his post, yes. But the final part of his post was most definately a general comment on the equal pay for equal work movement/arguments. And no, it’s not insulting the military. It’s pointing out a fact - the military is one employer of thousands, and therefore all he is doing is quoting the policy of one employer. Hardly the be all and end all of any point he was ever trying to make, assuming it’s true of course.

Fail.

He wrote from his military experience and you slammed him for it. It is you who extrapolated what he wrote to mean something wider. You are now trying to weasel out of your predicament by, again, trying to tell us the military is just one employer. According to your line of argument, non-one can have a valid point if they write from their own experience, because there are lots and lots of other experiences. Now you are even intimating about the veracity or otherwise of what he wrote. Good way to stifle debate and denigrate anothers point of view. That’s disingenuous.

 

[meltzerboy]

In post #15 you lauded the efforts of radical feminist leaders. Those very same feminist leaders who espoused Marxism and the destruction of the family as the basic unit of society. You ‘owned’ what they were striving for. In post 15 you wrote this -

Now you attempt to downplay what it is they strove for. You are now backpeddaling, trying to now paint them as being of the “lunatic fringe”. Your beckpaddaling is now so fast and furious you are tripping over yourself. Your support for all the things that have played a major role in the breakup of society is now very obvious and made more obvious by your attempt at denial. In post #15 you paid homage to the “radical” feminists you now try to disassociate yourself from. You have shot your own credibility to smithereens.

Again, John, you’re not reading my remarks carefully enough. I put the word “radical” in quotation marks to indicate I don’t believe all feminists behave in the way you and others portray them. The term “radical feminism” is a label or code that people who believe as you do give to all or most feminists. Given your conservative views, the whole idea of feminism is most likely a radical concept to you. In addition, citing one or two outlandish comments of a feminist should not necessarily condemn the whole body of their work. I would hate for anyone to play back a recording of every crazy remark I might have uttered or written in my life–especially many years ago–and hold me responsible for it, stating that it represented all my views on the subject. As I stated previously, one could compile a list of comments by civil rights leaders, religious leaders, animal rights activists, gay activists, pro-life supporters, and others that sound hostile as well. That does not necessarily negate all their work, nor (as mentioned) the masses of followers as well as other leaders who have spoken in a less extreme manner.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Whenever somebody speaks out and is not** part of the left-leaning, politically corrct machine - they are labeled as incompetent.

I asked you to tell me what you thought about their success stories - not another condemnation from the left. The proof is in the pudding - not in the acrimoniou remarks from their PC peers . . .

It never does good to attack those whom we disagree with. I don’t think there are easy answers to the question of homosexuality. Some people it may be because of a distant father and an overbearing mother. That may be for some. But how does that explain female homosexuality, bisexuality etc. Could some people be changed? Maybe, maybe not. Some people may think they are gay or bi when they are not, some may think they are gay when they are really bi and through the help of ex-gay ministries, suppress their same sex attractions and label themselves as straight.

See where I am going?

Both sides tend to think they have the answer and then denounce the others as having an agenda or as quacks. Is that really a good idea?

 

[John21652]

Again, John, you’re not reading my remarks carefully enough. I put the word “radical” in quotation marks to indicate I don’t believe all feminists behave in the way you and others portray them. The term “radical feminism” is a label or code that people who believe as you do give to all or most feminists. Given your conservative views, the whole idea of feminism is most likely a radical concept to you. In addition, citing one or two outlandish comments of a feminist should not necessarily condemn the whole body of their work. I would hate for anyone to play back a recording of every crazy remark I might have uttered or written in my life–especially many years ago–and hold me responsible for it, stating that it represented all my views on the subject. As I stated previously, one could compile a list of comments by civil rights leaders, religious leaders, animal rights activists, gay activists, pro-life supporters, and others that sound hostile as well. That does not necessarily negate all their work, nor (as mentioned) the masses of followers as well as other leaders who have spoken in a less extreme manner.

Well, that’s a cop out. particularly when you stated that “Without those “radical” feminists, not as many women would have higher aspirations…It takes dynamic leaders to shake up the status quo…” The “dynamic leaders” you referred to were the “rdicals” you also referred to and in post #15 you are saying they were needed to “shake up the status quo”. Now, when the underlying goals of those “dynamic leaders” are exposed, you suddenly start to try and dissasociate yourself from them. You mentioned the animal liberation activists. They have used the same tactics and the ignorant rank and file went along. Now we have it where even a famed Professor of Animal Rights, one Peter Singer, considered to be the ‘father’ of animal rights and who famously stated the Bible is myth, now says sex between animals and people is OK. By the way, Singer taught at Germaine Greer’s Alma Mater. The “radical” feminists are the ones who put in train the anti-family, Marxist driven ideology which has turned moral conventions on its head under the guise of “equality”, or as you put it, shook up the status quo. You supported their agenda and their tactics in post #15. By definition, you also must ‘own’ their extreme views as posted in response.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Some people it may be because of a distant father and an overbearing mother. That may be for some. But how does that explain female homosexuality, bisexuality etc. Could some people be changed? Maybe, maybe not. Some people may think they are gay or bi when they are not, some may think they are gay when they are really bi and through the help of ex-gay ministries, suppress their same sex attractions and label themselves as straight.

Parental influence is, not surprisingly, also profound in the formation of female sexual orientation. Disappointment with the father-figure, while not necessarily a conscious admission by all/most lesbians (as a factor in their drift toward the lifestyle) is nevertheless a factor that is pronounced in that population. It’s just that it has been observed in various studies of boys/men, that in many regards (not just sexuality but, for example, academic behavior), male role modeling is absolutely crucial. Sometimes, however, this factor is misunderstood as “weak father/strong mother” (that can also be there, but doesn’t necessarily have to be). Just as possible (and often specifically stated by grown men) is merely the non-engagement of the father in the growing boy’s sense of self in the very early years. That is a kind of “absence” that registers in the young male child as indifference and even rejection. Way too many fathers, at least in this country, believe (or perhaps wish?) that active fatherhood can be postponed until a time when the boy is more capable of interacting with Dad in a physical way, and verbally more understandable in a way that a man prefers to relate to. (“Mom will do the Heavy Lifting in the early years; I’ll come along when it’s my time to join in.” No!) The fact that a young boy is so vulnerable at a very young age is precisely why Dad should be there affirming him, as opposed to the boy believing that only Mom cares about him, and Dad cannot be relied on. Boys look to their fathers to teach them precisely what masculinity is, so that a boy can look to whether he is “measuring up” in Dad’s eyes, and that teaching begins at a very early age.

Society way too much emphasizes the later years (particulary middle-school & high school years) as formative for boys, relative to fathers, but we are increasingly realizing how critical the affirming father figure is in the much more formative years (ages 2-5).

 

[JohnnyReb]

Parental influence is, not surprisingly, also profound in the formation of female sexual orientation. Disappointment with the father-figure, while not necessarily a conscious admission by all/most lesbians (as a factor in their drift toward the lifestyle) is nevertheless a factor that is pronounced in that population. It’s just that it has been observed in various studies of boys/men, that in many regards (not just sexuality but, for example, academic behavior), male role modeling is absolutely crucial. Sometimes, however, this factor is misunderstood as “weak father/strong mother” (that can also be there, but doesn’t necessarily have to be). Just as possible (and often specifically stated by grown men) is merely the non-engagement of the father in the growing boy’s sense of self in the very early years. That is a kind of “absence” that registers in the young male child as indifference and even rejection. Way too many fathers, at least in this country, believe (or perhaps wish?) that active fatherhood can be postponed until a time when the boy is physically more capable of interacting with Dad in a physical way, and verbally more understandable in a way that a man prefers to relate to. (“Mom will do the Heavy Lifting in the early years; I’ll come along when it’s my time to joing in.” No!) The fact that a young boy is so vulnerable at a very young age is precisely why Dad should be there affirming him, as opposed to the boy believing that only Mom cares about him, and Dad cannot be relied on.

Society way too much emphasizes the later years (particulary middle-school & high school years) as formative for boys, relative to fathers, but we are increasingly realizing how critical the affirming father figure is in the much more formative years (ages 2-5).

All good points. I know many gay men and lesbian women. I have found some people who fit the molds described by you, and others who do not. I have found plenty of gay men who have had wonderful relationships with their fathers who were active in their life. I have met gays that are effeminate-loves shopping OMG and those who drive mud covered pick ups and listen to country and rock music.

The bottom line for me is that homosexuals need to be shown the love of Christ. I’m not into “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I let the Holy Spirit take care of their sin, has he takes care of mine.

 

[Elizabeth502]

All good points. I know many gay men and lesbian women. I have found some people who fit the molds described by you, and others who do not. I have found plenty of gay men who have had wonderful relationships with their fathers who were active in their life. I have met gays that are effeminate-loves shopping OMG and those who drive mud covered pick ups and listen to country and rock music.

Johnny,
I am not stating, nor did I state, that there is one “mold.” Obviously there are variations. But that is why sexuality is complex, and not straight-line-causality such as the “born that way” school. The variables contributing to a particular outcome are many. It’s just that the father-figure is one extremely strong variable among those, and especially for males, although the father-figure is an aspect of female sexual orientation as well.

Conversely, it has been observed that those who fall outside the ‘traditional norm’ of social behavior often connected with gender do most often, when provided with an exceptionally affirming, non-judgmental parenting on the part of both parents, and when fortunate enough to meet a person of the other gender who is simiilarly affirming rather than demanding, when it comes to gender expectations, most often orient toward heterosexuality.

The point being that parenting is not a minor aspect in the development of sexual orientation, for both males and females. It is central to it, even though marginally okay parenting can be overriden by certain other factors – if that other combination of factors is strong enough. Some of these other factors would be hormonal and other physiological factors, as well as sexual experiences at impressionable ages.

Just because you see a gay guy behave in a macho manner and claim he has or had a great relationship with his Dad, is an incomplete picture of all the variables involved.

I’m not into “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

We have not been advised by the Church to state that, nor to conform our behavior toward homosexuals with a consciousness of their “sin.” That in itself is a very misunderstood phrase. This phrase is merely a backdrop to emphasize that having loved ones who live a homosexual lifestyle does not allow us to support the lifestyle, such as urging the Church to change its moral teachings, such as falsely claiming that marriage is a homosexual “right,” etc.

I have no problem loving my friends who live homosexual lifestyles. Their lifestyle is not the basis of our relationship. Their humanity is the basis of our relationship. But I am not compromising my love for them by opposing homosexual initiatives in the public square which contradict Catholic moral values.

 

[Peepers]

Johnny,
I am not stating, nor did I state, that there is one “mold.” Obviously there are variations. But that is why sexuality is complex, and not straight-line-causality such as the “born that way” school. The variables contributing to a particular outcome are many. It’s just that the father-figure is one extremely strong variable among those, and especially for males, although the father-figure is an aspect of female sexual orientation as well.

Conversely, it has been observed that those who fall outside the ‘traditional norm’ of social behavior often connected with gender do most often, when provided with an exceptionally affirming, non-judgmental parenting on the part of both parents, and when fortunate enough to meet a person of the other gender who is simiilarly affirming rather than demanding, when it comes to gender expectations, most often orient toward heterosexuality.

The point being that parenting is not a minor aspect in the development of sexual orientation, for both males and females. It is central to it, even though marginally okay parenting can be overriden by certain other factors – if that other combination of factors is strong enough. Some of these other factors would be hormonal and other physiological factors, as well as sexual experiences at impressionable ages.

Just because you see a gay guy behave in a macho manner and claim he has or had a great relationship with his Dad, is an incomplete picture of all the variables involved.

We have not been advised by the Church to state that, nor to conform our behavior toward homosexuals with a consciousness of their “sin.” That in itself is a very misunderstood phrase. This phrase is merely a backdrop to emphasize that having loved ones who live a homosexual lifestyle does not allow us to support the lifestyle, such as urging the Church to change its moral teachings, such as falsely claiming that marriage is a homosexual “right,” etc.

I have no problem loving my friends who live homosexual lifestyles. Their lifestyle is not the basis of our relationship. Their humanity is the basis of our relationship. But I am not compromising my love for them by opposing homosexual initiatives in the public square which contradict Catholic moral values.

Elizabeth, please be careful about what you state as “fact” regarding sexual development. Freudian ideas of a dominant mother and weak father figure are usually discounted. There is still much to be learned on “nature vs nurture”. I would be the first to say that there are no definite answers at this time. But I have studied the topic more than the average person. It seems to me, based on what is known, that a person’s sexual orientation is determined very early in life, possibly by the age of 2 or 3 years( or earlier), and probably no later than 5 or 6 years.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Are you saying female nurses make more than male nurses?

No, certainly not in the NHS which has standardised bands of pay regardless of age and gender.

I said that studies have shown that female nurses are more likely to be promoted/pass training than male nurses. How can you mistake what I said in a forum where every word is typed out and available to be re-read?

Again - please explain what you meant by homosexual women being the ones who complain about equal pay.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Fail.

He wrote from his military experience and you slammed him for it. It is you who extrapolated what he wrote to mean something wider. You are now trying to weasel out of your predicament by, again, trying to tell us the military is just one employer. According to your line of argument, non-one can have a valid point if they write from their own experience, because there are lots and lots of other experiences. Now you are even intimating about the veracity or otherwise of what he wrote. Good way to stifle debate and denigrate anothers point of view. That’s disingenuous.

I am perfectly entitled to say that someone’s experienced is not sufficient evidence when stating that men and women are paid the same.

Well, the military is one employer. What am I weaselling out of? I think you should calm down.

Stephen has yet to respond to me asking about what he meant by homosexual women being the ones who complain, he is the one who is trying to “weasel” out of his predicament.

Also, Stephen is perfectly able to respond to me on his own without you speaking for him.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Elizabeth, please be careful about what you state as “fact” regarding sexual development. Freudian ideas of a dominant mother and weak father figure are usually discounted. There is still much to be learned on “nature vs nurture”. I would be the first to say that there are no definite answers at this time. But I have studied the topic more than the average person. It seems to me, based on what is known, that a person’s sexual orientation is determined very early in life, possibly by the age of 2 or 3 years( or earlier), and probably no later than 5 or 6 years.

Exactly. I find that people either over want to emphasize one side or the other. Some point to nature to say that they were born this way and so that is the way it is and there is no changing it and that their orientation should be accepted as natural and moral. The other side points to nurture, with the idea that ones orientation can be changed or cured through counseling. I know these are generalizations, but I am speaking only in general terms.

There probably is a connection between radical feminism and the rise of homosexuality in our society. They do correlate. But correlation does not always equal causation. Our society is moving away (in many ways to our own detriment) from traditional morality and societal structures and norms.

 

[Stephen168]

They are on the SAME pay scale but men AVERAGE more……why?

More men are in the top jobs, perhaps because men are more likely to be promoted for being a male in a “manly” profession (the same way that women are more likely to get top nursing jobs).

Are you saying female nurses make more than male nurses?

No, certainly not in the NHS which has standardised bands of pay regardless of age and gender.

So you did not explain why men & women are on the SAME pay scale but men AVERAGE more.

 

[elvisman]

Hey - Peepers,
**I know you’re ****new **here so here is some advice:
Calm down with the exaggeration and false accusations. You might just get yourself in trouble with the moderators and eventually banned.
First of all - nobody worships Dr. Nicolosi. Worship is reserved only for God. That was Lie #1.

Lie #2** - You call Dr. Nicolosi, "a man who could not get into a decent school, and chose not to even try to qualify for a clinical license". He is, in fact is a clinical psychologist and holds a PhD.**

---

**Lastly – You have dodged my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. You haven’t even attempted **to answer my questions about his success rate. What do you think about the scores of people that he and Joe Dallas have counseled out of the homosexual lifestyle and behavior?
It’s really a simple question . . .

 

[bhall0689]

LemonAndLime: I’m sorry other posters have been uncharitable to you. It’s very rude to them to suggest your opinions about gender inequality are ill-informed because you’re young. Twenty-somethings can definitely have intelligent, subjective opinions about their world, regardless of how many children they have (can’t believe a poster asked you that).

As for me? Well, I’ll be honest with you all. Feminism WAS partially responsible for disbanding the “traditional” nuclear family of the 50s (actually not that traditional at all - our modern image of SAHM is a relatively modern concept). There were many more opportunities for women, so many women moved outside of the home to pursue their dreams and careers.

I, of course, as a feminist, think this is awesome. If this hadn’t happened, I would already be married with a few children and little opportunity to pursue my true passion and calling. I think the entire topic of this thread - linking the rise of the feminist movement to homosexuality is a bit odd, and I would agree with the previous poster who theorized the feminist AND beginning of the gay rights movements were more products the social milieu of the 60s than each other.

Oh well. But LemonAndLime - I used to get really worked up in threads like this (I remember a particularly insulting one that actually asserted male intellectual superiority) to the point of feeling physically sick, like you said earlier, but then I realized there was really nothing to be angry about. Women have made a permanent professional transition into society, and progress will not move in the reverse. If anyone should be angry, it’s the misogynists who are angry at women’s professional success, and as a result accuse them of trying to imitate men’s behavior. And trust me - even though they accuse you of being angry, they are very, very, very angry.

Have a splendiforous day! :extrahappy:

 

[elvisman]

It never does good to attack those whom we disagree with. I don’t think there are easy answers to the question of homosexuality. Some people it may be because of a distant father and an overbearing mother. That may be for some. But how does that explain female homosexuality, bisexuality etc. Could some people be changed? Maybe, maybe not. Some people may think they are gay or bi when they are not, some may think they are gay when they are really bi and through the help of ex-gay ministries, suppress their same sex attractions and label themselves as straight.

See where I am going?

Both sides tend to think they have the answer and then denounce the others as having an agenda or as quacks. Is that really a good idea?

That is all well and good, my friend.
However, I have been asking the nay-sayers - ad nauseam - what they think about the success stories of Dr. Nicolosi, NARTH, Joe Dallas and Genesis - and the scores of people they have helped.

It is one thing to try to smear their names, but you cannot simply laugh away their proof.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, please be careful about what you state as “fact” regarding sexual development. Freudian ideas of a dominant mother and weak father figure are usually discounted…

Exactly. I find that people either over want to emphasize one side or the other. .

Why are you BOTH misrepresenting me? Here is what I said:

Parental influence is, not surprisingly, also profound in the formation of female sexual orientation. Disappointment with the father-figure, while not necessarily a conscious admission by all/most lesbians (as a factor in their drift toward the lifestyle) is nevertheless a factor that is pronounced in that population. It’s just that it has been observed in various studies of boys/men, that in many regards (not just sexuality but, for example, academic behavior), male role modeling is absolutely crucial. Sometimes, however, this factor is misunderstood as “weak father/strong mother” (that can also be there, but doesn’t necessarily have to be). Just as possible (and often specifically stated by grown men) is merely the non-engagement of the father in the growing boy’s sense of self in the very early years. That is a kind of “absence” that registers in the young male child as indifference and even rejection. Way too many fathers, at least in this country, believe (or perhaps wish?) that active fatherhood can be postponed until a time when the boy is more capable of interacting with Dad in a physical way, and verbally more understandable in a way that a man prefers to relate to. (“Mom will do the Heavy Lifting in the early years; I’ll come along when it’s my time to join in.” No!) The fact that a young boy is so vulnerable at a very young age is precisely why Dad should be there affirming him, as opposed to the boy believing that only Mom cares about him, and Dad cannot be relied on. Boys look to their fathers to teach them precisely what masculinity is, so that a boy can look to whether he is “measuring up” in Dad’s eyes, and that teaching begins at a very early age.

Society way too much emphasizes the later years (particulary middle-school & high school years) as formative for boys, relative to fathers, but we are increasingly realizing how critical the affirming father figure is in the much more formative years (ages 2-5).

I am not stating, nor did I state, that there is one “mold.” Obviously there are variations. But that is why sexuality is complex, and not straight-line-causality such as the “born that way” school. The variables contributing to a particular outcome are many. It’s just that the father-figure is one extremely strong variable among those, and especially for males, although the father-figure is an aspect of female sexual orientation as well.

Conversely, it has been observed that those who fall outside the ‘traditional norm’ of social behavior often connected with gender do most often, when provided with an exceptionally affirming, non-judgmental parenting on the part of both parents, and when fortunate enough to meet a person of the other gender who is simiilarly affirming rather than demanding, when it comes to gender expectations, most often orient toward heterosexuality.

The point being that parenting is not a minor aspect in the development of sexual orientation, for both males and females. It is central to it, even though marginally okay parenting can be overriden by certain other factors – if that other combination of factors is strong enough. Some of these other factors would be hormonal and other physiological factors, as well as sexual experiences at impressionable ages.

Just because you see a gay guy behave in a macho manner and claim he has or had a great relationship with his Dad, is an incomplete picture of all the variables involved.

 

[Peepers]

Hey - Peepers,
I know you’re new here so here is some advice:
Calm down with the exaggeration and false accusations. You might just get yourself in trouble with the moderators and eventually banned.
First of all - nobody worships Dr. Nicolosi. Worship is reserved only for God. That was Lie #1.

Lie #2** - You call Dr. Nicolosi, "a man who could not get into a decent school, and chose not to even try to qualify for a clinical license". He is, in fact is a clinical psychologist and holds a PhD.**

Lastly – You have dodged my questions, yet you expect me to answer yours. You haven’t even attemptedto answer my questions about his success rate. What do you think about the scores of people that he and Joe Dallas have counseled out of the homosexual lifestyle and behavior?
It’s really a simple question . . .

Elvis. Thanks for the unsolicited advice. Next time you feel inclined, please keep it to yourself.

There are many clinical psychologists in the world. Dr. Nicolosi chose to be licensed in a way which did not even require him to complete even one clinical hour of practice. It is a matter of public record. Dr. Nicolosi is specifically named by the American Psychological Association as being a practitioner who harms his patients. This is a nearly unprecedented act for an organization as prestigious as the APA.

If the moderators would like to ban me for pointing that out. That is fine. Your adoration of Dr. Nicolosi is astounding considering his apparent incompetence. It is actually difficult to achieve his level of notoriety.

You ask me to answer to Dr. Nicolosi’s claims of success. I have answered you directly with the citing of the proclamations of the APA which specifically warns against the danger of his practices.

What more do you want? The APA is more reputable, more learned, more qualified, and more authoritative on the topic than you or me or Dr. Nicolosi himself.

You accuse me of lying. Look in the mirror as you type your next adoring comment about Nicolosi. You have failed to answer my question, why do you adore him so, when the evidence as to his incompetence is so overwhelming. While I have answered you directly, you have avoided my question.

 

[LemonAndLime]

LemonAndLime: I’m sorry other posters have been uncharitable to you. It’s very rude to them to suggest your opinions about gender inequality are ill-informed because you’re young. Twenty-somethings can definitely have intelligent, subjective opinions about their world, regardless of how many children they have (can’t believe a poster asked you that).

As for me? Well, I’ll be honest with you all. Feminism WAS partially responsible for disbanding the “traditional” nuclear family of the 50s (actually not that traditional at all - our modern image of SAHM is a relatively modern concept). There were many more opportunities for women, so many women moved outside of the home to pursue their dreams and careers.

I, of course, as a feminist, think this is awesome. If this hadn’t happened, I would already be married with a few children and little opportunity to pursue my true passion and calling. I think the entire topic of this thread - linking the rise of the feminist movement to homosexuality is a bit odd, and I would agree with the previous poster who theorized the feminist AND beginning of the gay rights movements were more products the social milieu of the 60s than each other.

Oh well. But LemonAndLime - I used to get really worked up in threads like this (I remember a particularly insulting one that actually asserted male intellectual superiority) to the point of feeling physically sick, like you said earlier, but then I realized there was really nothing to be angry about. Women have made a permanent professional transition into society, and progress will not move in the reverse. If anyone should be angry, it’s the misogynists who are angry at women’s professional success, and as a result accuse them of trying to imitate men’s behavior. And trust me - even though they accuse you of being angry, they are very, very, very angry.

Have a splendiforous day! :extrahappy:

Thank you for the message of support and advice

And for making my point in a clear way and being on “my side” was beginning to feel I was a minority here, which is terrible because women seem to be blamed a lot for all sorts of things recently, not just on this forum.

A side note - most revolutions are spear-headed by teenagers/young people who refuse to accept the status quo. Therefore to say my opinion is mis-informed is potentially dangerous as I may riot and bring down the government. Peace out.

 

[LemonAndLime]

So you did not explain why men & women are on the SAME pay scale but men AVERAGE more.

I did actually Stephen but you convineantly left that part out when you quoted me in your post. Why did you leave the first bolded part out of that paragraph I wonder?

Men perhaps receive more bonuses. More men are in the top jobs, perhaps because men are more likely to be promoted for being a male in a “manly” profession (the same way that women are more likely to get top nursing jobs).

Also, I am very annoyed I have to ask this again.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUAL WOMEN ARE THE ONES WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT UNEQUAL PAY?