How dare guys call us ladies chicks!!!!!

Jasper   Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:12 pm GMT
As to the other issue: looking at the matter from a third person's point of view, the notion that gay men hate females fails to carry conviction--at least from what I've seen. I work with the public, and I've noticed quite a few gay men who seem to dote on their Mothers. Sometimes, this attention is almost comically overdone, if secretly heartwarming. (Of course, mothers don't necessarily represent females in general.)

By contrast, the vilest misogynist sentiments I've ever heard seem to come from heterosexual men--particularly men who've gotten burnt in a bitter divorce.

These are my own observations and aren't intended to be scientific.
Travis   Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:21 pm GMT
At least in the language over here in Milwaukee, WI, terms like those really are not used much at all. The closest term to "chick" or like that is used here is simply "girl", which is informally applied extremely frequently to just about any woman younger than, say, 30 outside formal (and especially professional) contexts and whom one is not in a lower social position than. It is not disrespectful per se as long as one does not use it as a form of address, in that one can use it outside formal contexts to refer to someone of the same social stature as oneself without implying any negative connotations at all, but one would never refer to someone who is one's social superior with it nonetheless (where than terms like "woman" or "lady" would be expected). But I have never heard of it being used as a form of address, unlike terms like "chick", except sometimes amongst younger women (or even middle-aged women) themselves. (And I cannot imagine a guy addressing a girl as a "girl" without such being horribly disrespectful, to say the very least...)
Travis   Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:24 pm GMT
>>As to the other issue: looking at the matter from a third person's point of view, the notion that gay men hate females fails to carry conviction--at least from what I've seen. I work with the public, and I've noticed quite a few gay men who seem to dote on their Mothers. Sometimes, this attention is almost comically overdone, if secretly heartwarming. (Of course, mothers don't necessarily represent females in general.)

By contrast, the vilest misogynist sentiments I've ever heard seem to come from heterosexual men--particularly men who've gotten burnt in a bitter divorce.

These are my own observations and aren't intended to be scientific.<<

I have often observed similar things about gay men - that they often seem to get along better with women than heterosexual men do. Of course, in such contexts they seem to often take the role of essentially being honorary women, which does not make such all too much surprising.
Buddy   Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:51 pm GMT
"Chicks" is not really a term that we use with women--unless it's intended to get a rise out of them (hehe ;)

"chicks" is mainly used between friends--guy friends--to refer to women, so you shouldn't eavesdrop on our conversations (oh now I'm really in big trouble :)
Pub Lunch   Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:41 pm GMT
I respect all views, but personally I think referring to women as "chicks" or "birds" really is no different to calling a man a "geezer" or "dude" or whatever and I'm pretty surprised that people would actually perceive these terms as derogatory. Oh well.

Rene is right, in the midlands of England "chick" was a term that women used to address other women as in "how's it going chick"? etc. Actually, that usage MAY be a tad antiquated these days but it may give some clue to where the current reference of "chick" for women (as used by men)actually originated from.
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:19 am GMT
As a very happy and contented gay man who most certainly has never had any desire to be considered an "honorary woman" - for heaven's sake!!!! - the very idea!!! - I offer my sincere sympathies to all the straight men out there when they come up against the likes of the OP throwing an oestrogen fired wobbly over the little word "chick" and resenting big time being called that by men, especially, while at the same time reserving total and unconditional rights to hurl all manner of names and insults at the male gender with the full support of the media and society at large, be it through the divorce courts, the family courts, the child custody courts and the judiciary generally, all of which have become heavily influenced by the distortions and misrepresenting mendacity of the feminist movement.

Is there any wonder that those straight men exhibit the full extremities of rampant misogyny once they have emerged from the horrors of the divorce courts which in themselves have displayed such unjustified misandry in all its forms that it leaves very little doubt as to who are the true victims in very many of these cases, and it sure as hell isn't the females. I know just what I'm talking about as I have seen it for myself in the course of my job already.

"Glad to be Gay" of Edinburgh, and 100% masculine.
Master Blaster   Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:35 am GMT
womb + man ---> woman
Jesse   Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:45 am GMT
<<womb + man ---> woman >>

Figuritively maybe, but this is not etymologically correct.

"woman" is more accurately wife + man as the Anglo-Saxon origin of the word indicates - wifmann
Jasper   Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:46 am GMT
"Is there any wonder that those straight men exhibit the full extremities of rampant misogyny once they have emerged from the horrors of the divorce courts which in themselves have displayed such unjustified misandry in all its forms that it leaves very little doubt as to who are the true victims in very many of these cases, and it sure as hell isn't the females. I know just what I'm talking about as I have seen it for myself in the course of my job already."
Damian, your true words took a tragic twist in the news a year or two ago. An embittered man, who took it in the shins in a nasty divorce, murdered his ex-wife in cold blood, then shot the divorce judge through a window from a parking garage a block away. Any of you who want more information on the story is urged to Google "Darren Mack"--it made international news.
Yeshua   Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:53 am GMT
<<Damian, your true words took a tragic twist in the news a year or two ago. An embittered man, who took it in the shins in a nasty divorce, murdered his ex-wife in cold blood, then shot the divorce judge through a window from a parking garage a block away. Any of you who want more information on the story is urged to Google "Darren Mack"--it made international news. >>


I would do the same if I were blatantly shafted in the courts and had nothing left to live for. Although I don't condone such actions, it sounds like an honour killing to me, justified at least as far as killings go.
Jasper   Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:36 am GMT
Yeshua, are you out of your mind? Is this a joke?
Wintereis   Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:54 pm GMT
<<As a very happy and contented gay man who most certainly has never had any desire to be considered an "honorary woman" - for heaven's sake!!!! - the very idea!!! - I offer my sincere sympathies to all the straight men out there when they come up against the likes of the OP throwing an oestrogen fired wobbly over the little word "chick" and resenting big time being called that by men, especially, while at the same time reserving total and unconditional rights to hurl all manner of names and insults at the male gender with the full support of the media and society at large, be it through the divorce courts, the family courts, the child custody courts and the judiciary generally, all of which have become heavily influenced by the distortions and misrepresenting mendacity of the feminist movement. >>

As true as this is, Damian, you cannot deny that there are still inequalities existing between men and women in western culture (which is among the more progressive cultures when it comes to women's rights). Statistically women still make far less than men in similar positions, women are more likely to be victims of violence; women occupy far fewer positions of power than what should statistically be true. Yes, some forms of feminism go too far and chose to focus on unimportant and hypocritical aspects of gender relations. Yet, you should not dismiss the real inequalities that still exist within western society just because of a handful of feminazis get on your nerves.
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:23 pm GMT
***.....Statistically women still make far less than men in similar positions, women are more likely to be victims of violence; women occupy far fewer positions of power.......****

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear......I will start this post with the words "with respect" as I am sure you say what you say above with the best of motives. Sadly your "facts" as stated by you are quite incorrect, and with regard to the issue of violence, especially....absolutely glaringly incorrect, totally so. You haven't been browsing through some feminist web sites have you? We all know how comppletely skewed and doctored all of those are, just for starters...packed to the gunnels with false statistics and barefaced lies.

In western societies, and certainly here in the UK which is, as you would understand, the country I am best placed to talk about on matters such as these, there is nothing whatsoever to stop women getting to the top of their chosen field.......we saw that in Margaret Thatcher (now Baroness Thatcher, elevated to the perage in precisely the same way as all the men before her. She came from a humble background - the daughter of a small town greengrocer shop (fruit and vegetables and all accompanyng accoutrements) in Grantham, Lincolnshire, England. She climbed her way to the very top of the political tree in Britain entirely through her own efforts and perseverance, a woman who was as good as any man and better than many more - a chemistry graduate who became the British Prime Minister for elevn years and earning exactly the same dosh as any male PM would at the time - 1979 to 1990. She was a woman, an exceptional woman, who knew how to cut the mustard, and who revolutionised much of British society at the time, especially with regard to industrial relations and the promotion of personal effort and development.

There is nothing to stop other women in Britain doing exactly the same in their own line of occupation, but as I say Thatcher was truly exceptional. True, much of commerce and industry and politics and finance and everything else that goes to running a country and society can be regarded as "masculine" and Thatcher recognised this which is why she played by "masculine" rules in order to get to the top. Running a country, especially a complex one such as this one is - the UK - simply has to be run along "masculine" lines, requiring masculine qualities, because that is how the world is, whether we like it or not.

Every effort has been made to accommodate women in the workforce, and it was certainly the aim of Tony Blair when he became Labour PM of the UK in 1997 and his famous "Blair babes" joined all their male colleagues in the House of Commons in May 1997 - a record number of female MPs in the Commons. But sadly one by one many of them began to object to the "long hours" culture of Parliament, the late nights, the relentless pressure, the lack of time off, the lack of time with "family" and all the extra curricular activities involved in the whole job of being one of the 650 MPs making up the lower chamber of the UK Government. Trying to "feminise" the whole environment and ethos of any high powered organistion requiring all the characteristics of the typical masculine temperament and nature simply doesn't work too well in the main - as it really is those very same characteristics which are required in the modern day world.

Positive discrimination in favour of women in Government was introduced, and it's true to say that less qualified women have been selected over much better qualified, and more suitable, men for positions in Westminister, and the results have been proved to be less than satisfactory in many instances for a whole variety of reasons, some of which I have referred to above. At one time four individual Government Departments at Westminster were headed by women at the same time, and as it turned out all four Departments were at the bottom of the league with regard to performance and results. One by one all four women either resigned "for personal reasons" - or were simply replaced - by men. Make what you will out of that one.

Sadly a thing called "Political Correctness" virtually prohibits open censure of badly performing women in such positions, whereas similarly situated men would be publicly vilified and "slaughtered" in the media, much of which is feminist controlled now anyway, which may well have something to do with the steady decline in standards overall in itself, but that's a separate issue....

As for women being "far more likely to be victims of violence" - that really and truly is a total load of nonsense - utter tripe, as they say in the North of England. Again, and speaking from a British perspective, males in the UK are far, far more likely to suffer violent attacks than are females - far more so. The largest category of male victims of violence are young men between the ages of 17 and 30. Very few females fall victim to random attacks of violence compared with males. The current ratio of male to female victims of violence in the UK is 17:1, taking all such recorded crimes into account.

Even the reports of UK Domestic Violence statistics do not show the true picture at all for reasons that may well be known to most people, and though its true that it is nearly always in cases of DV that females fall victim to violence, the figures routinely produced by women's groups are grossly exaggerated, but such is the influence of the Feminist brigade in the media at large here in the UK that very few people are willing to openly challenge the figures produced with these groups even when they are so obviously spurious.

When it comes to male victims of DV - of whom there are far more than the general public would realise - the true figures here will probably never be known really, as this is a far more sensitive issue for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the media generally, and many members of the public, ignores completely, or even acknowledge that it even exists.

No - men are far more likely to be victims of violence in the UK - either on the homefont, or on the battlefield. Men have always been so much more disposable, as men like Warren Farrell and Neil Lyndon have so clearly pointed out in their respective publications, and in the case of Lyndon in particular, made to suffer drastically for doing so, and for committing the ultimate heresy by speaking the gospel truth of the whole thing. As a lad it was drummed into me to "always be truthful". Now outside in the big wide world it surely isn't always something that goes down well in far too many aspects of life. In fact, it can be bloody downright dangerous at times.
Yeshua   Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:28 pm GMT
<<Statistically women still make far less than men in similar positions, ... women occupy far fewer positions of power than what should statistically be true.>>

Please respond to these examples of gender inequality:

There are very few women working in low paying jobs like the construction industry. Why aren't they complaining? If they want equal representation it should be in ALL fields, not just ones that suit them.

Figures show that the Arts are dominated by women at universities. Why should we not make an effort to increase the number of males studying things like art history or sociology?

It is more difficult for a man to reach a high position in fashion design and similar fields.

It is near impossible for a man to be a primary school teacher, and if he makes it he will not be able to escape the accusations of child molestation.

Why do women insist on having concessions against men even when they aren't needed. For example, chess championships are separated by sex, but chess requires only a brain! So are the women just afraid or what?

Another example of concessions: I work in an occupation voluntarily demanding long hours and there are a few women who are always complaining about the lack of time and stress. They say "we need more time off", and they get the reply "you're free to go home if you want to", and they reply "but we will be left behind", and they get the reply "if you don't want to be left behind, then don't go home". Why should they expect everyone else to stop working so they can have time off? If they aren't willing to be productive, goodbye!
~_~   Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:02 pm GMT
Why must boys always be so competitive?
"Productive, truthful" - big words.
Take a break - relax a little. If us chicks ruled the world it'd be much nicer place.