I think that a fuzzy Pat Buchanan with a right pointing arrow in front of his mouth looks like Pat Robertson.

I'm not sure if you really want to know what I think.  But here are some quick parting shots:

1) Politics is a tough, dirty business.  If a woman wants to get in the ring she needs to be prepared to take a lot of hits.  Politics has chewed up and spit out a lot of men over the years and so, naturally, it will be tough for women too. 

2) If women cry for equality, they need to be prepared for equality.  Women can't say they want to be treated equal but then get upset that they're treated bad in the media when they enter the political arena.  Ask Bill Clinton, George W., and any number of male politicians if they were treated "fairly" in the media.  I bet they all say no.  So, if women want equality, they shouldn't complain when they get it (e.g. not being treated fairly in the media).

3) The modern day feminist movement hurt women more than helped them.  Chivalry is gone.  Because of "equality" women aren't special anymore.  To me it is obvious that there are a great number of differences between males and females.  I believe God created us differently so that we could complement each other.  (Quick note: By different, I don't mean in a superior-inferior sort of way, just different).

It seems to me that the modern feminist movement has tried to erase those differences and make women just like men.  But while women went out to prove that they could do everything men could do they lost what made them special to begin with.  When that was lost, men stopped treating women with the same respect and dignity they should be treated with.  The end result is the crude jokes (evident in the video) and complete sex objectification of women in society.

And that's just a couple of quick thoughts I had.  I would probably be branded a sexist or chauvinist by many readers here if I said everything I really thought (like why women shouldn't serve in combat, etc.)

Oh, and Chris Matthews is a jerk.

"2) If women cry for equality, they need to be prepared for equality."

There's nothing equal though about the media portrayal.  Most of those clips are comments on hair and clothing styles.  Save John Edwards, I haven't really heard much about that for men.  Sure, they will get the SNL treatment, but the way it appears here is that a man can be a strong determined leader, but a woman would just be a PMSing b*%$@.  So under number 2, they haven't even gotten equality yet to show they aren't prepared.

There's nothing equal though about the media portrayal.  Most of those clips are comments on hair and clothing styles.  Save John Edwards, I haven't really heard much about that for men.  Sure, they will get the SNL treatment, but the way it appears here is that a man can be a strong determined leader, but a woman would just be a PMSing b*%$@.  So under number 2, they haven't even gotten equality yet to show they aren't prepared.

It's against the first ammendment of the constitution to impede my right to voice the opinion that Hillary is a bitch.  And the same ammendment allows Chris Matthews and other members of the press to make comments they make.  So if Hillary and Pickle and others want our speech limited in cases when we criticize candidates for office, they are violating the constitution though I'll defend Pickle's right to be stupid just as much or more than I are.

I don't think limiting free speech is really the point.

P.S. Don Imus isn't very smrt.

"So if Hillary and Pickle and others want our speech limited in cases when we criticize candidates for office, they are violating the constitution though I'll defend Pickle's right to be stupid just as much or more than I are."

CDL, this is not a question on Constitutional law.  It is a question of morality.

"There's nothing equal though about the media portrayal.  Most of those clips are comments on hair and clothing styles.  Save John Edwards, I haven't really heard much about that for men."

 You're right - to an extent.  They are definitely different types of attacks but I would say they are fairly equal in scope. 

That being said, women are not treated as they should be and I believe a lot of blame has to fall on the feminist movement for that (see point #3).  Society has forgotten how a lady should be treated because there are so few ladies left that act like ladies.

i didn't know commenting on how good a woman looks was considered to be sexist or even a bad thing at all.  guess that means i'm sexist against my wife and all thirty three of my x-girlfriends

but 15.5 of those were men though

heh, but seriously, no.  i thought a feminist was just someone who wants women to be equal to men and if a sexist is someone who says a woman "looks fantastic tonight" then I'm a feminist and a sexist.  bull!

I wish I could find a great quote to put here, as I know something to the like has been said before. As long as we have differences, we will have discrimination. What is ment by this is that as long as we have different rules for different types of people, they will be treated differently.

Thing over the past 100 years have gotten thousands of times better, but still have a little ways to go. We still expect women to act, look, and dress different. Not to mention many other segergations we have.

It has gotten better, and is getting better. As the oder generations die off, and the newer ones that are more accepting of different genders become more pervelant, the problem will fade away. But the distinctions need to deminish too.

(seperate bathrooms, seperate dress and appeance laws and rules, seperate sports, seperate fashions... I think you get the point)

"2) If women cry for equality, they need to be prepared for equality."

equality, means the SAME

DA, feminist don't want to have equal access they want to have it all

"equality, means the SAME"

It also means, "correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability" 

From dictionary.com

Also having the same restrooms for men and women is one of the all-time dumbest moves we could make.  Sorry, but it sends shivers up my spine to think of a little girl using a public restroom with creepy men in the same restroom.  Call me old-fashioned, but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. 

"We still expect women to act, look, and dress different. "

That's because men and women are different. 

cdl, you're basing that assumption on what exactly?

many years of observation pkl; but not all women are feminists

I ask Mr. Cochrane to explain why it is ok to segregate based on gender and not ethnicity.

I also ask how, with any segregation, we can achieve equality, by any definition that is used.

Or do you not belive they should have true equality?

(BTW, I agree that there still needs to be separation for such privacies. It is sad that humans act the way we do when dealing with nudity when most other animals don't. [I know it still happens with other animals, but even they are less accepting] However, in time it will

get better, and we won't need such separation)

"It is sad that humans act the way we do when dealing with nudity when most other animals don't."

You're sad we aren't acting like the animals? I just want to say . . . as a woman . . . I am really, really glad that men don't act like animals any more than they already do (saying that men already do act like animals is a sexist remark, but I will get away with it because I'm a woman.  How is that fair?).

Matthew is right.  The kind of equality women are looking for is being equal to men in our value, honor, and self-worth - not the kind of equality that makes us share the same bathroom . . . eww!

Men and women are very different.  From the very moment we're born we are identified as being a "girl" or a "boy."  There is a difference.  I don't always like to be told that I have less ability to accomplish something because I'm a woman.  But then again, I know there are other things men just aren't as able to do as women because they are not equipped to handle certain things as well.  For example, a lot of women don't like to be expected to be the ones who stay home and raise babies but men can't have babies and they can't even feed or nurture that baby until a certain age.  Honestly, even if he could I don't even know if I would want my husband to raise the kids and I sure as hell don't think the government will do any better.  So whose job does that make it?

I'm not saying anything groundbreaking.  This is common sense stuff. Men and women are different.   Women are better at some things.  Men are better at some things.  Again, I have to agree with Matthew that if women ask to be treated fairly then they need to be prepared to be treated fairly.  Last year Larry Summers said the exact same thing, that men and women are different, and Harvard fired him because women were so flabbergasted by his remarks they passed out in their seats.  How is that fair?  He was making his statement, not from the blatantly obvious things that we all know are true, but from scientific inquiry.  How is it fair that women can join the army, and not have to meet the same physical standards as the men?  Is it possible that if women demand to be treated fairly, they might want to grow a pair first?  I don't think it's fair that women raise hell if a television commercial portrays them as bimbos, but no one thinks twice to make the man look like a complete dooface.  You wanna talk about sexist bias in the media, then I think you need to look at the shameless sexist advertising that goes on in the media.  Umm, take pizza hut for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5fg1ajFGao&eurl=

Come on!  They're saying you guys had better order pizza because you sure as hell don't know how to cook.  Take a look at the real world, however, and you’ll see a much different picture than the one painted in this male-bashing ad: Men still dominate professional kitchens as chefs. You can take your pick from the tons of male celebrity chefs like Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver. Of course you use the microwave, but you can also boil an egg, grill a great steak and even prepare vegetables.  Think Domino's is any better than pizza hut when it comes to sexist advertising?  They're not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acCnKmZDpfA&eurl=

Here again, for the millionth and first time, is the joke of the under-performing man.

Or how about Whiskas.  While men are regularly called dogs, Whiskas is comparing men to cats:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn7jaToceq4&eurl=

Men are involved in more fatal car accidents than women. Does this make you idiots? This South African insurance company that only insures women (How is that fair?) seems to think so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHAEeRbnpe0&eurl

Here’s the real story: Men spend around 20% more time driving than women. Men still have more fatal car accidents, but in the past 30 years female deaths have increased 14%, while Male deaths have declined by 11%. Plus, evidence shows that women get in more minor accidents than men. Clearly, women aren’t the timid drivers previous stats would suggest (though the feminist movement may be to blame there as well).

These are by no means the last of the sexist commercials.  Comcast, Dairy Queen, Lowes, Roomba, and many more companies are doing all they can to keep the sexist bias in the media against men as much as they can (as are the sit-coms, talk shows and newspapers!)  Forget men sharing baby duties, knowing how to vacuum, doing dishes, and picking up after themselves and others. Instead, these cliched messages are that women are the civilized voice burdened with managing men and their ingrained frat-boy mindset. Instead of chanting “toga” after you’ve watched these ads, however, you may be inclined to another chant “b*llsh*t,” like at football games after a bad call.

So is there really a sexist bias in the media?  If there is, what do you want to do about it?  Make it so that no one can crack jokes anymore?  Look, I laughed when those guys drove off the cliff.  It's funny.  But I think a joke is just as funny at the woman's expense.  A world without jokes at someone else's expense would be a lame world.  Men know this and that's why you don't hear them whine over these senseless ads.  If women demand equality in the media, why can't they grab their balls when they take it like they do when they're the ones dishing it out?

and the list goes on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO7hC0uiMwY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhbKwVVTUyU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01KGYmbk4o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3gJUAX7xQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwTtJZ6Db4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFUVZqeCa4

"DA, feminist don't want to have equal access they want to have it all" - CDL

"cdl, you're basing that assumption on what exactly?" - Pickl

He probably bases it on the same stuff I do.  Check out some of the asinine quotes from feminists in our past:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WfsT3k18jw

What she said.

What a great video Jamers!!!

OK, so I have reread everything, and none of my previous 3 questions were answered.

I do not care how thing are TODAY, I merely state that if there is to be equality, things need to be the same pertaining to EVERYTHING. I do not question that it will not work today, that it will take time, years, decades, or even centuries before older generations die off, and their "old fashion" views fade from influence on our children.

I also intentionally, chose nudity and bathrooms, as there is historical evidence proving how such segregation leads to inequality.

WOW, I can hear every one of these arguments being used as ethnic inequalities. "you can achieve the same, even though we treat you differently"

So far, everything I have read, is that there will never be gender equality, cause they are unequal. It is ok if you do not believe the genders should be, or can be, equal, but don't think they can be without equal treatment.

"2) If women cry for equality, they need to be prepared for equality."
says it perfectly. You can't pick and choose what pieces of "equality" you want, you get none or all.

This was covered on an old Star Trek episode. It was totally lame. They made it illegal to have any preference, so people would randomly have sex with whoever (and whatever sex) they felt like.

Totally ghey. If you want equality in bathrooms... go to Holland. In Skiphol airport, I was taking a leak, and this portugese lady started sweeping around the urinal that I was standing at. My junk was almost at eye level (she was short) and about a foot away. It was rather awkward, but I was like... whatever... if you get splashed, it's your own fault.

Look, don't bring up Dr. King when it comes to this.  You're totally taking his comment out of context and, at the same time, marginalizing everything the Civil Rights movement stood for by applying his quote to a debate about separate bathrooms.

"I ask Mr. Cochrane to explain why it is ok to segregate based on gender and not ethnicity. "

Separate bathrooms, if you want to call it segregation, is necessary to protect the dignity and provide physical safety for women.  Hence it is just and right to separate genders in bathrooms but still not okay to separate based on race. 

Racial and gender segregation are clearly not the same in this case.  One of the things I find curious in today's society is how many people turn to racial equality to settle other types of arguments.  For instance, here Doughboy, your logic seems to be that because racial segregation is wrong then any kind of segregation is wrong. That is not true and based on poor logic and reasoning.  There will obviously be different factors that will be needed to take into consideration in every argument and these needed to be taken into consideration. 

You are right, it is wrong to misuse someone's speech that way, as I found the entire speech, it directly states ethnic segregation. However I have to ask, what is the difference between any segregation? Who has the right to say one segregation is right and another is wrong? Where is the line between the two drawn? Physiological, biological, or genetic? Is it a line based is logic, or do we let emotion decide?

Everything I have posed here has only been a statement of logic, not emotion. I state that to have TRUE equality, you can not have ANY segregation. Everyone seems to feel that I mean to remove all forms of segregation by elimination separate bathrooms. I merely indicated that is was one of the commonly found forms of segregation that exists. (I wonder why, of the list I made, that is the single item everyone focused on)

My 3 questions STILL haven't been answered.
1) Why it is ok to segregate based on gender and not ethnicity?
2) How, with any segregation, we can achieve equality, by any definition that is used?
3) Do you not believe they should have true equality?

(ohh, and I never applied his quote to bathrooms, you made that assumption. I used it to demonstrate others believe that segregation is segregation, and cause inequality.)

My beliefs:
Like it or not, the segregations are diminishing. TRUE equality may be a ways off, but it is getting closer. Look at how far human kind has come throughout known history. More and more often, your ethnicity does not impede you, nor does your gender. There used to be a day when certain ethnicities had no freedom. Certain genders had no say. When the gender decided if you could show your face in public, or you had to be escorted in subservient shroud. When you could choose your spouse, or your parents had to bribe someone to take you. I know the entire world is not the same, however the nations that aren't allowing the equalities, are suffering and soon to fall. (see where it says beliefs up there) It has become quite apparent we are still MANY generations off before true equality can be attained, but I am sure it will happen.
(just in time to discriminate against Terran and non-Terran)

My feelings:
(withheld due to the severe misconstruement and flaming it would receive :-) 

Todd:
That episode of Star Trek dealt with a species of hermaphrodites, and as we can all agree most humans are not, it doesn't apply here.

DA dated a few hermaphrodites.

cdl only knows that because one of them was his mom

Doughboy,

1. Because the sexes are physically different in ways that cannot be changed naturally.  We are talking the ability to grow balls or birth a child. Ethnicity is hardly comparable. 

2. Yes, we are and should be seen as equal in value. The roles we play as male and female are both equally important and neccesary. 

3. No, because it is not physically possible without castrating all men, cutting off all female breasts and finding a way to make test tube babies.

and my dad

"BTW, Jamers, I merely pointed out one area where animals were superior, not that we should act more like them, male or female."

Well then, doughboy, if the thing that makes animals superior to humans is that they don't segregate, then if we stopped segregating, we would be equal to animals.  And if we were equal to the animals then we shouldn't segregate from them and since they all pee wherever they want then maybe we should all just pee/defecate wherever the hell we want.  If we can't segregate based on gender, why segregate against a certain species?  Wouldn't that make someone a "specist?"  Yeah, instead of having restrooms where we have privacy (segregation from humans and animals), everyone should just go right there in the open.  That is, of course, if you want to be like the much more evolved, much more superior animal kingdom. 

" 1) Why it is ok to segregate based on gender and not ethnicity?"

It's called common sense

"2) How, with any segregation, we can achieve equality, by any definition that is used?"

Well, if equality is defined as equal status, equal value, equal self-worth, equal dignity, and equal honor, then as long as we allow women all the same constitutional rights that men have (freedom of speech, right to vote, right to privacy when they have to pee, etc.) there shouldn't be any problem.  Can we achieve equality?  We already have!  As Jamers showed us, men don't hate women any more than women hate men.  That's equal!

" 3) Do you not believe they should have true equality?"

lol.  If equality is how Matthew and Jamers defined it then yeah I believe women should have equality.  But if equality means we all have to pee like the animals do then no, I don't want that kind of equality.  In a way, doughboy, segregating men and womens' restrooms is equal because we're separated from them and they're separated from us.  That's fair by any standards! 

Can you even name one person that we would all know who thinks women are inferior to men or who thinks women shouldn't have equal rights?

"Can we achieve equality?  We already have!  As Jamers showed us, men don't hate women any more than women hate men.  That's equal!"

I just want to add, the only reason why it wouldn't be totally equal is because I see sexism against women disappearing more and more every passing day where sexism against men seems to be increasing more and more every passing day.  I actually have to agree with cdl here, feminists don't want equality, they want to have it all.  They may take our freedom, but they'll never take . . . OUR  BATHROOM!!!

click to watch another stupid man-bashing commercial

These commercials are so retarded.  All you have to do is switch the roles around to see how sexist it is.  A blind person could see it.

This little girl is showing her dad how to use the internet.  Meanwhile, the wife comes in and tells him to get back to his chores (taking care of the dog).

I'm sorry, I don't know too many men that are clueless as to how the internet works.  And it's my understanding the internet was invented mostly by men, not women and not little 12 year old girls. 

But switch the roles around.  Imagine that was the mother who was clueless about how the internet works, and then imagine the father walking in and commanding her to go back to washing the dishes or something like that.  It would never get aired!  It would be so blatantly sexist it's not even funny.  No, it's only funny when the joke's on the man.

if unisex bathrooms is the ultimate question, one of these url's certainly contains the ultimate answer

http://www.grupthink.com/answer/64477

http://agaurav.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!84D47F2258BC1301!1007.entry

feminism: "not by definition, but by historical use of the suffix" - Doughboy

I just stumbled on a good Carl G. Jung quote in The Difference between Eastern and Western Thinking.¹ "If you shift the formula a bit [ie, Westerners are Christians in the way they think even if they have "forgotten...or have never heard of their own religion"] and substitute for God some other power, for instance the world or money, you get a complete picture of Wester man -- assiduous, fearful, devout, self-abasing, enterprising, greedy, and violent in his pursuit of the goods of this world: possessions, health, knowledge, technical mastery, public welfare, political power, conquest, and so on.  What are the great poplular movements of our time? Attempts to grab the money or property of others and to protect our own.  The mind is chiefly employed in devising suitable "isms" to hide the real motives or to get more loot."

Therefore, feminism would be hiding behind a worthy goal such as equal rights or equal pay for equal work (who can argue against that?) to hide the real motive of "getting more loot" ie a disproportionate share of the loot.  And of course, sexism would be about protecting a disproportionate share of the loot.  Just realize the "isms" ain't about equal rights.

¹Jung, Carl G. Psychological Commentary on "The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation, Part 1 1939.

good quote