Cosmo gives ball crushing as advice to get even with a cheating boyfriend.

[Richter]

http://i.imgur.com/t6022.jpg


You think there's anything else like this?

[ddrbst27]

Pretty interesting seeing it in a magazine like cosmo (being a joke or not!) Would be very interested to see if any more of these 'suggestions' have been seen in girls mags!

[try]

http://i.imgur.com/t6022.jpg


You think there's anything else like this?

I think girls should stick with the advice to crush his balls. Leaving him with a photo of herself naked to remind him what he's missing simply invites him to take revenge by posting said pic on social media sites. So ladies, just kick him in the nuts!

[try]

Pretty interesting seeing it in a magazine like cosmo (being a joke or not!) Would be very interested to see if any more of these 'suggestions' have been seen in girls mags!

Or if they took the advice and acted on it!

[bbbb]

I'm surprised to see a women's magazine literally promoting sexual assault. Feminists would be in an uproar if the sexes were reversed and using it as "proof" that men's mags promote misogyny.

[carnivorous_daisy]

I'm surprised to see a women's magazine literally promoting sexual assault. Feminists would be in an uproar if the sexes were reversed and using it as "proof" that men's mags promote misogyny.

You bring up an interesting point. How does everyone else feel about this?

[jabby]

Feminists would be in an uproar if the sexes were reversed and using it as "proof" that men's mags promote misogyny.

Feminists would be pissed off by this too. The main reason woman-on-man violence is seen as a joke is the idea that women are weak and men are strong, so the idea of a woman hurting a man is funny because men don't get hurt by women. If you get rid of the sexist stereotypes and think women and men are equal then violence is just as bad whoever its happening to.

[Alec Anaconda, A1]

You bring up an interesting point. How does everyone else feel about this?


In the OP link, http://i.imgur.com/t6022.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/t6022.jpg) , the first nine suggestions are evil and probably illegal, especially as the victim may well have been faithful.

However, number 10,

“Challenge him to a naked wrestling match and whip out your signature move, the Ten-Fingered Ball-Crusher,” seems different.

As it’s a signature move, surely the man expects his balls to be the prime target!

If he does not want to grapple, he can decline the challenge.



I’ll restrict my naked wrestling matches to females with the normal eight fingers.

[carnivorous_daisy]

"Feminists would be pissed off by this too."

That's simply untrue. But you're half right, as feminists are pissed off pretty much all of the time, except when men get hurt. Anyone who thinks these two things are untrue has a very big misunderstanding about what feminism is, and has done. Evidence: VAWA, child custody, alimony, child support, abortion rights, slut walks, r@p3 shield laws, draconian workplace environments, taking over and infecting all of academia, utter intolerance to any opposing views, stifling of freedom of speech, and so on. Feminism is not, nor has it ever been, about equality, it's a hate driven ideology that only holds itself out to be a movement of peace and love to get the support of the masses behind it.

"The main reason woman-on-man violence is seen as a joke is the idea that women are weak and men are strong, so the idea of a woman hurting a man is funny because men don't get hurt by women. If you get rid of the sexist stereotypes and think women and men are equal then violence is just as bad whoever its happening to."

Humans have inherent biological sexual dimorphism which cannot and should not be ignored by calling them "equal". Men and women are not equal, anyone who thinks this probably misunderstands the word "equal" or basic human biology. The interpretive social construct of these inherent biological differences based upon immediate environmental necessity creates gender roles. Non-consensual violence is unethical, regardless to whom, by whom, or under what circumstances.

[bbbb]

That's simply untrue. Correct. In fact, many feminists openly promote violence against men whilst most other feminists silently support (demonstrated by their inaction) it.


Evidence: VAWA, child custody, alimony, child support, abortion rights, slut walks, r@p3 shield laws, draconian workplace environments, taking over and infecting all of academia, utter intolerance to any opposing views, stifling of freedom of speech, and so on. Feminism is not, nor has it ever been, about equality, it's a hate driven ideology that only holds itself out to be a movement of peace and love to get the support of the masses behind it. Oh it's good to know other people do see beyond the lies & hocus-pocus. Don't forget, feminists are currently demanding that laws be created so as to make criticism of feminism illegal, yes illegal. Add to that the demand that Facebook remove any posts questioning feminist statistics, which have a well-documented history of manipulation and dishonesty. Recently, a poster was removed questioning the validity of the claims by feminists that 1/4 women on college campuses will be victims of ****. It didn't use any derogatory terms, but it did use actual statistics from real colleges and concluded the numbers were closer to 1/800 (if memory serves). All copies of the post have vanished from the several hundreds of 'shares' it had from various pages, users & other FB pages.

The last quote you answer is simply rubbish anyway. FB continues to allow feminist groups to continue, such as "all men are bastards" and "SCUM" (society for cutting up men). No such groups would exist if the sexes were reversed.

[carnivorous_daisy]

It seems reasonable to deduce that the existence of our community and undeniable growth over the past few decades has been much aided or almost entirely created by the ideas allowed to propagate within what is quickly becoming a global culture.

The separation between sexual identity and non-sexual identity is not as distinct as what HR departments and churches would have people believe. Everything affects everything in some way. Nothing is outside the realm of causality of another thing. Considering that(or disregarding that, if you choose), does anyone here think that perhaps any cultural factors(laws, politics, TV shows, movies, workplaces) shaped what we have become, and that our culture is creating more of us? And what are the consequences of that?

[One from the Vaults]

"Feminists" is a pretty broad term, covers a lot of people. Many of them are motivated by anger and bear the attitudes you describe... but there are others who are wiser and more well rounded in their approach. Having spent many years studying social sciences and humanities at a major university, I've had the privilege of knowing many such people.

My feminist friends are, for the most part, compassionate and not man hating. A few are. And I know that there are many others around who wouldn't even be able to be my friend, so there's a clear selection bias in the feminists I've encountered.

Suffice it to say that both exist. Many feminists want to end violence against everyone. Others want to work with intelligent and compassionate men (and non-men), powerful in their own right, collaborating for the purposes of mutual liberation and the downfall of patriarchal apparati...

All depends on which "feminism" we're talking about.

Btw, most my feminist friends to whom I've talked about ballbusting have accepted it as a fetish without judgement but for the most part not been terribly interested in doing it themselves. One mentioned how a past boyfriend of hers was into it, and she didn't mind squeezing his nuts for him but it didn't really do anything for her in particular. A couple of them are into it themselves. But anyway the smart feminists at least are united in not just thinking it's "weird."

[carnivorous_daisy]

"Feminists" is a pretty broad term, covers a lot of people. Many of them are motivated by anger and bear the attitudes you describe... but there are others who are wiser and more well rounded in their approach. Having spent many years studying social sciences and humanities at a major university, I've had the privilege of knowing many such people.

My feminist friends are, for the most part, compassionate and not man hating. A few are. And I know that there are many others around who wouldn't even be able to be my friend, so there's a clear selection bias in the feminists I've encountered.

Suffice it to say that both exist. Many feminists want to end violence against everyone. Others want to work with intelligent and compassionate men (and non-men), powerful in their own right, collaborating for the purposes of mutual liberation and the downfall of patriarchal apparati...

All depends on which "feminism" we're talking about.

Btw, most my feminist friends to whom I've talked about ballbusting have accepted it as a fetish without judgement but for the most part not been terribly interested in doing it themselves. One mentioned how a past boyfriend of hers was into it, and she didn't mind squeezing his nuts for him but it didn't really do anything for her in particular. A couple of them are into it themselves. But anyway the smart feminists at least are united in not just thinking it's "weird."

I'm sure there are also moderate n@zi's. Doesn't change that the movement itself is one of hate.

[carnivorous_daisy]

@ One from the Vaults:

I do understand what you mean about the broadness of the term, as feminism is our culture is ubiquitous.

[jabby]

That's simply untrue. But you're half right, as feminists are pissed off pretty much all of the time, except when men get hurt. Anyone who thinks these two things are untrue has a very big misunderstanding about what feminism is, and has done. Evidence: VAWA, child custody, alimony, child support, abortion rights, slut walks, r@p3 shield laws, draconian workplace environments, taking over and infecting all of academia, utter intolerance to any opposing views, stifling of freedom of speech, and so on. Feminism is not, nor has it ever been, about equality, it's a hate driven ideology that only holds itself out to be a movement of peace and love to get the support of the masses behind it.

Do you know many feminists personally? All the ones I know find violence against men just as bad as violence against women. Because they are about equality, not superiority. There are feminist extremists true, but defining the group by them is like defining all Muslims as terrorists. If you read any mainstream feminist material you will quickly see that gender equality is the goal rather than being against men.

The existence of areas where men are discriminated against isn't proof of anything other than the fact that there is inequality, which is precisely what you should be against. Discrimination against men doesn't mean discrimination against women doesn't exist, it means we need to fight both. Saying feminists support violence against men by not speaking out against it is like me saying you support genocide because I have never seen you condemn it. There are plenty of issues in the world and focusing on those that affect you the most does not mean you don't care about the others. If you actually came out and asked any feminists if they support violence against men 99% would say of course not.

However the fact that you think things like abortion rights, slutwalks and r@pe shield laws are bad things shows that you don't like women very much and probably think of them as second class citizens. Which is a more likely reason for your hatred of feminism than 'they are all nazis'.


Humans have inherent biological sexual dimorphism which cannot and should not be ignored by calling them "equal". Men and women are not equal, anyone who thinks this probably misunderstands the word "equal" or basic human biology. The interpretive social construct of these inherent biological differences based upon immediate environmental necessity creates gender roles. Non-consensual violence is unethical, regardless to whom, by whom, or under what circumstances.

Equal doesn't mean the same in all ways. In this context it just means having equal rights, and being equally capable of committing violence and being hurt by violence. Which you even seem to agree with in your last sentence.

[dark]

I find this video quite interesting
More or less it answers the attitude of the society towards men:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

[One from the Vaults]

I'm sure there are also moderate n@zi's. Doesn't change that the movement itself is one of hate.
There's not just one movement. Anarcho-feminists and liberal feminists really have little in common.

One of the ways it's characterised is in terms of "waves," which occludes the complexity and simultaneity of many movements, but remains a useful way to explain some of the differences...

In the early 20th century, First Wave feminists felt that women ought to count as people, and should have the right to vote.

In the 60s, Second Wave feminists felt that institutional oppression against women, most obviously characterised by the income gap, must be rectified. Some second wavers were quite militant and anti-male, though far from all of them.

In the 90s, Third Wave feminists realised that power and oppression are not exclusively a thing of men dominating women, but that similar dynamics are occurring due to sexual orientation, race, etc. Their interest was then in intersectionality (how various aspects of identity combine) and complexity. Here's where to go to find interesting, well argued philosophy, and very little man hating. Some Second Wavers believe that Third Wavers have missed the point, even accusing them of not being angry enough at male oppression.

Over the past few years we now have a Fourth Wave of feminists, specifically focusing on issues surrounding sexual assault, **** culture and the like. Slut Walk is a major hallmark of this (and originated in my city, I'd like to point out -- I've met some of the organisers).

The Fourth Wavers are the ones most active on the internet, while the Third Wavers are the ones most active in the universities. I wouldn't characterise the Fourth Wave as based on "hate" so much as it is based on *anger*. That is, they're used to seeing violence against women trivialised and ignored, and they're pissed off about it and trying to do something to change that. And they may even be succeeding. Though yes, many of them are not exactly being reasonable, and some can fairly be described as bigots.

[One from the Vaults]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ooeoUCJlC3U/TjBBZcagGII/AAAAAAAAAEw/0_uzhB4qCEE/s1600/Slut-Walk.jpg

Just look at these Nazis jackbooting through our fine streets... clearly they must be stopped (and chatted with).

[jabby]

I find this video quite interesting
More or less it answers the attitude of the society towards men:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks

It reflects how men and women are treated differently by society. Society, not feminists. Feminists would want men and women to be treated equally.

The video quite appropriately displays my original point though. When a woman was threatened people intervened because they thought the man was a significant threat and the woman was vulnerable and needed saving. When a man was attacked both men and women openly admitted that they didn't intervene because they didn't consider the woman to be a serious threat to the man. How can a big strong man be in danger from a frail little woman? That's the sexist attitude that allows people to ignore or minimize violence against men, not that everyone walking past that day (men and women) happened to be a man-hating feminist.

One from the Vaults, nice to see another educated man here. This forum can be pretty misogynist at times. :P

[One from the Vaults]

There's a mix on here. Plenty of ignorance. Probably better than average for the internet, though.

btw, that men and women should be treated "equally" is potentially problematic. Certainly it's the established dogma, based on social constructivist theories of gender. Except that it doesn't seem like those theories actually hold water (that is, social factors are a major influence, but biology is also involved and gender differences will probably never completely disappear).

Equity might be a better term than equality for this reason, and others.

[bull4you]

He he.. A serious discussion on feminism on porn sites?? still, I like it. And buddy you said it 100% correct. Feminism is not and never was a fight for equality. Hey, did you read recent article on

It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth
http://www(dot)forbes(dot)com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

[quote=carnivorous_daisy;125167]"Feminists would be pissed off by this too."

............. That's simply untrue. But you're half right, as feminists are pissed off pretty much all of the time, except when men get hurt. Anyone who thinks these two things are untrue has a very big misunderstanding about what feminism is, and has done. ....

[carnivorous_daisy]

First of all, my apologies for the long post. I just don't want anyone to think I'm avoiding a question. Also, thanks to dark, bull4you, and bbbb for being vocal supporters.

jabby: "Do you know many feminists personally? All the ones I know find violence against men just as bad as violence against women."
Ah, the ever elusive and mythical moderate feminist. Often spoken of despite being very elusive, much like Santa Claus. What next, unicorns are real as well? Perhaps they are, but I've never seen one, just like I've never seen a moderate feminist. If a person says something is true in the face of blatant evidence to the contrary that usually implies a person has either a child's mind or is a liar. Either way they shouldn't be trusted.

I don't see feminists marching in protest of male circumcision in this country, yet they're very upset about female circumcision in other countries. Where's the outrage? You say they find violence against men just as bad. I ask you for evidence. Evidence please, if you can.

If feminists find violence against men just as bad, then why do they lobby and support the VAWA? That's the violence against women act, btw. It's not the violence against PEOPLE act. It's the violence against WOMEN act. It is by and for women, at the expense of men.

jabby: "Because they are about equality, not superiority."

Name one instance where feminists marched, lobbied, demonstrated, or held a meeting in the interest of the rights of men. Name one. One. This is not a rhetorical question. Name one. You allege that feminists support equality, well name one instance of this being true other than your saying so. If it's true then you should have many examples. I'm only asking you to name one. Name ONE.

Here's a question for you. If a woman's body and her right to choose, then why is it a man's financial responsibility? It's her body, it's her choice, where anywhere do men have any reproductive rights? Are feminists marching against this outrage of inequality? No, because they don't actually care about equality.

jabby: "There are feminist extremists true, but defining the group by them is like defining all Muslims as terrorists. If you read any mainstream feminist material you will quickly see that gender equality is the goal rather than being against men."
It's interesting you compare feminists to Muslims. Is that really a stance you want to take?

jabby: "The existence of areas where men are discriminated against isn't proof of anything other than the fact that there is inequality,"
Are you actually reading the drivel you're writing?

jabby: "...which is precisely what you should be against."
Thank you for telling me what I should think.

jabby: "Discrimination against men doesn't mean discrimination against women doesn't exist, it means we need to fight both."
Let me guess, is your answer more feminism?

jabby: "Saying feminists support violence against men by not speaking out against it is like me saying you support genocide because I have never seen you condemn it."
Metaphors aren't really your thing. Here's why: that's what they do. They allegedly support equality. That's allegedly their whole deal. And yet you admit they don't speak out against it, despite your asserting they find discrimination against men just as bad. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? If they support equality then there should be evidence of them supporting equality, don't you think?

You say they support equality, but you don't have any evidence of it because you admit they don't actually do it, but that doesn't mean they don't do it, because you say they do it anyhow despite not having any evidence, and you say they do it, so no evidence is needed? Do I have that about right?

jabby: "There are plenty of issues in the world and focusing on those that affect you the most does not mean you don't care about the others. If you actually came out and asked any feminists if they support violence against men 99% would say of course not."
You're saying you can speak for an entire group of people. Typical of feminists to make wild statements that cannot possibly be backed up. You're saying you can speak for the opinions of an entire group of people. Ponder that for a moment. And again, their whole deal is about equality, and yet they do not care about men at all, except as open wallets for child support, alimony, and false r@pe accusations without consequence of perjury, thanks to your beloved r@pe shield laws.

jabby: "However the fact that you think things like abortion rights, slutwalks and r@pe shield laws are bad things shows that you don't like women very much and probably think of them as second class citizens."
That's a pretty heavy accusation based on very presumptive evidence. Another feminist technique of flinging wild accusations with little or no evidence and expecting no personal accountability when those accusations are proven false. This is the flaw of the r@pe shield laws. It creates a loophole of due process and prevents any chance of perjury. I would welcome a discussion on any of these points. Which would you like to talk about first?

jabby: "Which is a more likely reason for your hatred of feminism than 'they are all nazis'."
That's in quotations. When did I write that? Improper quote mining on your part, also known as lying. But that's typical of feminists to change facts when it suits them to fit their agenda. I'll warn you, when a person engages in tactics like you just did it damages their credibility and causes everything they say(or have said) to be viewed with increased scrutiny.

jabby: "Equal doesn't mean the same in all ways."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

jabby: "In this context it just means having equal rights, and being equally capable of committing violence and being hurt by violence. Which you even seem to agree with in your last sentence."
Thank you for telling me what I think, or should think, again.

"One From the Vaults: There's not just one movement. Anarcho-feminists and liberal feminists really have little in common."
You're just proving my point that feminism is ubiquitous. Feminism is everywhere.

One From the Vaults: "One of the ways it's characterised is in terms of "waves," which occludes the complexity and simultaneity of many movements, but remains a useful way to explain some of the differences...

In the early 20th century, First Wave feminists felt that women ought to count as people, and should have the right to vote."
Oh you mean when the first world war was going on and most young men died in trenches before they were old enough to vote, while bored housewives at home complained about how bad THEY had it? Cry me a river. If they were concerned about equality they would have been fighting for their place in the trenches, to do their duty to their country, instead of finding a way of getting a benefit without any of the responsibility.

One From the Vaults: "In the 60s, Second Wave feminists felt that institutional oppression against women, most obviously characterised by the income gap, must be rectified. Some second wavers were quite militant and anti-male, though far from all of them.

In the 90s, Third Wave feminists realised that power and oppression are not exclusively a thing of men dominating women, but that similar dynamics are occurring due to sexual orientation, race, etc. Their interest was then in intersectionality (how various aspects of identity combine) and complexity. Here's where to go to find interesting, well argued philosophy, and very little man hating. Some Second Wavers believe that Third Wavers have missed the point, even accusing them of not being angry enough at male oppression.

Over the past few years we now have a Fourth Wave of feminists, specifically focusing on issues surrounding sexual assault, **** culture and the like. Slut Walk is a major hallmark of this (and originated in my city, I'd like to point out -- I've met some of the organisers).

The Fourth Wavers are the ones most active on the internet, while the Third Wavers are the ones most active in the universities. I wouldn't characterise the Fourth Wave as based on "hate" so much as it is based on *anger*. That is, they're used to seeing violence against women trivialised and ignored, and they're pissed off about it and trying to do something to change that. And they may even be succeeding. Though yes, many of them are not exactly being reasonable, and some can fairly be described as bigots."
Yet again, feminism is ubiquitous. Amazing how feminism is everywhere, in media, in politics, in special interest groups, in law, in schools, in the workplace, all the signs of a monopoly, and yet they somehow are still the underdog. Fascinating.

One From the Vaults: "Just look at these Nazis jackbooting through our fine streets... clearly they must be stopped (and chatted with)."
One of these walks happened near my house. One of the women was holding a sign that read, "Why do we teach our daughters to not get r@ped but not teach our sons to not r@pe?" It's incredibly offensive that it's assumed that I or any other man need to be taught to not r@pe.

jabby: "It reflects how men and women are treated differently by society. Society, not feminists. Feminists would want men and women to be treated equally."
Evidence please. I'm aware that feminists parrot their goal is equality but have yet to see any of it in action. Please prove me wrong. Cite one example.

The video quite appropriately displays my original point though, and your response displays how utterly dense you are in the face of evidence.

jabby: "When a woman was threatened people intervened because they thought the man was a significant threat and the woman was vulnerable and needed saving. When a man was attacked both men and women openly admitted that they didn't intervene because they didn't consider the woman to be a serious threat to the man. How can a big strong man be in danger from a frail little woman? That's the sexist attitude that allows people to ignore or minimize violence against men, not that everyone walking past that day (men and women) happened to be a man-hating feminist."
Wow are you dense.

One from the Vaults: "nice to see another educated man here. This forum can be pretty misogynist at times. :P"
A bit early for smug self congratulations. What has been said that has been misogynistic? The issue is feminism, not women. Women are a gender, feminism is an ideology.

One From the Vaults: "There's a mix on here. Plenty of ignorance. Probably better than average for the internet, though."
Yes, there is plenty of ignorance on here. No argument here.

[jabby]

Ah, the ever elusive and mythical moderate feminist. Often spoken of despite being very elusive, much like Santa Claus.

You can't really claim they don't exist to me, since I know a bunch of them. Do you personally know a lot of extremist feminists, or are you just basing their existence (and the non-existence of moderates) on what you have read? I would consider myself moderately feminist (as much as a man can assist feminism), so do I not exist?

I don't see feminists marching in protest of male circumcision in this country, yet they're very upset about female circumcision in other countries. Where's the outrage? You say they find violence against men just as bad. I ask you for evidence. Evidence please, if you can.

Again, just because somebody focuses on the issues most meaningful to them doesn't mean they don't care about any other issues. I'm sure there are plenty of things in the world you disagree with that you have never been on a protest march about.

If you want evidence, just look for it. Here is an example of a self-identified feminist article about male circumcision: http://fembee.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/mens-issue-circumcision.html . Here is an article on a feminist website where the author is concerned about whether the VAWA offers adequate protection for men: http://thefeministwire.com/2013/03/feminist-anxiety-about-domestic-violence-against-men/ . I found those in a few minutes. Feminists do discuss men's issues, just not as much as they discuss women's issues.

The VAWA incidentally is badly named, since it offers protection to male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking as well as women. Look it up!

You're saying you can speak for an entire group of people. Typical of feminists to make wild statements that cannot possibly be backed up. You're saying you can speak for the opinions of an entire group of people. Ponder that for a moment.

This is pretty hilarious, since I'm the one saying there is a spectrum of opinions from the moderate to the extreme and you are telling me what all feminists are like. I guess you can speak for an entire group of people?

This is the flaw of the r@pe shield laws. It creates a loophole of due process and prevents any chance of perjury.

I don't know where you got this idea from. R@pe shield laws do not offer a defence against perjury, they prevent the prosecution asking certain questions about a woman's sexual history. Completely different thing.

One of these walks happened near my house. One of the women was holding a sign that read, "Why do we teach our daughters to not get r@ped but not teach our sons to not r@pe?" It's incredibly offensive that it's assumed that I or any other man need to be taught to not r@pe.

Considering the number of r@pes that occur where the man does not consider what he did 'r@pe' then I think educating people about consent seems like a good idea.

Wow are you dense.

Not really a rebuttal. Why do you think all the men and women in that video didn't offer the guy any help? Apart from the group of women at the end who called the police.

Really you are just approaching this completely wrong. Rights are not a competition between men and women. Improving things for women doesn't make things worse for men. In a lot of ways it makes things better! For example if you could get rid of the notion that women were weak and emotional and men were strong and tough then violence against men would be taken a lot more seriously. Get rid of the idea that women need more protection than men and VAWA becomes the Domestic Violence Act. Get rid of the idea that 'sluts deserve to be r@ped' and you don't need r@pe shield laws. That's the idea of equality rather than 'men vs women'.

[Richter]

You're all idiots.

[One from the Vaults]

Feminism is not ubiquitous everywhere, and having divisions within it doesn't demonstrate that any more than there being many types of Jews demonstrates that Judaism is ubiquitous.
You're all idiots.
Pretty much. I don't think carnivorous is really worth responding to at this point, after taking the position that our friends must not exist because he hasn't met them.

[One from the Vaults]

One last thing, though:

Nowhere did I say that my feminist friends are "moderate." Probably many of them would take umbrage at that characterisation. Some of them identify as "radical queers," and openly call for revolution. Yet they do so in solidarity with all disaffected and disenfranchised groups, including a great many men.

[jabby]

I did say the majority of my feminist friends were moderate, but that isn't the way they would describe themselves since they actually know what feminism is. The only reason I used the word moderate is that virtually every woman on earth is 'moderate' compared to the ridiculous man-hating straw feminists some people think exist.

[stman]

I did say the majority of my feminist friends were moderate, but that isn't the way they would describe themselves since they actually know what feminism is. The only reason I used the word moderate is that virtually every woman on earth is 'moderate' compared to the ridiculous man-hating straw feminists some people think exist.

Have to say, I know a lot of feminists, and I've yet to meet these man-haters in real life. The only places I hear about them tend to be in MRA conspiracy theories up there with chemtrails and HAARP, or occasionally on web forums. I guess statistically speaking, chances are there are women out there who are man haters...but I sure haven't met them.
For example when discussing the importance of consent regarding my, er our, fetish, the only people I've met so far who get it are queer/kink aware feminists.

[bbbb]

Do you know many feminists personally? I know a few, yes. However, it isn't just about those who declare themselves as feminists - there's also those who may-or-may-not-be feminists but don't say either way, whilst continuing to spout feminist misandry & general sexism at men & boys.


All the ones I know find violence against men just as bad as violence against women.All of them? Really, each and every single one of them? For sure...
Regardless, that's what they'll tell you, but let's see how many of them practise as they preach. How many defend a man's right to speak for men in gender-debates? How many turn a blind eye when a woman slaps a man? How many marginalize & ignore false **** allegations? How many smirk when they hear of a man being sexually assaulted because a woman *says* her feelings were offended? How many demand genital integrity for male babies? How many promote equal jail-time for women? How many etc. etc. etc. (I'm sure you get the point of their biased attitudes by now).


Because they are about equality, not superiority. Yeah and my name's Cinderella. How many promote equal jail-terms for female criminals? How many demand justice for falsely accused men? How many acknowledge female **** of men & push for a change in law to acknowledge female rapists? How many of them... etc. etc. (again, I'm sure you take the point by now about their so-called 'equality-when-its-to-their-benefit')


There are feminist extremists true, but defining the group by them is like defining all Muslims as terrorists. Do extremist muslims push for censorship of Christian forums? Do muslim extremists lobby for laws which elevate muslims against other religions? Do muslim extremists sit in government and constantly portray muslims as eternal victims and all other religions as abusers? Do muslim extremists... (I'm sure you get the point).


If you read any mainstream feminist material you will quickly see that gender equality is the goal rather than being against men.Oh, so when we saw an attack by a feminist author against men & father's day, that was a push for equality, right? Strange, to me it looked more like hate speech - which is the norm for them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louise-pennington/fathers-day-waste-of-time_b_3426832.html


The existence of areas where men are discriminated against isn't proof of anything other than the fact that there is inequality, which is precisely what you should be against. Discrimination against men doesn't mean discrimination against women doesn't exist, it means we need to fight both. Correct. Yet everytime men do collaborate anywhere, it is feminists telling us to shut up and focus on women and how men should be looking at changing xyz to benefit women. It seems, men are not allowed to discuss men's issues unless a feminist allows it.


Saying feminists support violence against men by not speaking out against it is like me saying you support genocide because I have never seen you condemn it. Not at all, that's silly.
Men are the primary victims of all violence - not women. Look at any government stats you want and you'll see men are always the highest portion of victims of crime. Yet feminists want us to focus on women - as always - thus, they're telling us that we being the majority victims is of no consequence to them. Clearly they're sending a message that the minority is more important. More men are abused, more men die, more men commit suicide, more men are murdered, more men are mugged, etc. etc. Yet feminists continually demand we stfu and talk about violence against women, because for some unknown reason, it's apparently more important than anything.


There are plenty of issues in the world and focusing on those that affect you the most does not mean you don't care about the others. If you actually came out and asked any feminists if they support violence against men 99% would say of course not.Of course they would say that, it's their actions you have to observe. Feminists have a long, long history of lying. Even the original 1/4 women are victims of ra.pe is a disproven lie, Koss herself (the study's author) admits the errors (both mathematical and wording/interpretation of data) but feminists continually repeat the misinformation over & over in order to ensure they keep getting money for victims that don't exist.


However the fact that you think things like abortion rights, slutwalks and r@pe shield laws are bad things shows that you don't like women very much and probably think of them as second class citizens. Which is a more likely reason for your hatred of feminism than 'they are all nazis'.Hmm, I fail to acknowledge your logic on this.
Men have no means of equalizing with a woman's right to abortion, we should at the very least have a means to financially abort (drop parental rights/no obligation to pay) just as women can. We also need more protection in other areas (paternity fraud, adoption without father's consent/knowledge, etc. etc.)
The slutwalk teaches women to put themselves in compromising positions then cry victim when/if something does happen. Similar logic would be me running down the street with a megaphone shouting "I've got money, har har har, I'm really rich and have lots of spare cash - come n' grab some if you can, losers!"
Obviously, you'd tell me I was asking to be mugged... and you'd be right. Similarly, if I left my car windows open and the keys in the ignition - if it's stolen that's not technically my fault, but my insurer won't give a shit, they'll not pay up because I refused to take the basic precaution of not removing my keys.
And **** shield laws protect abusers (false accusers) whilst punishing innocent victims (of false allegations). An equal law would protect the identity of both UNTIL a verdict is reached.

[jabby]

I know a few, yes. However, it isn't just about those who declare themselves as feminists - there's also those who may-or-may-not-be feminists but don't say either way, whilst continuing to spout feminist misandry & general sexism at men & boys.

If that's the case, then your problem isn't with feminism, its with sexist women. Do they exist? Sure. But if they aren't identifying themselves or their ideas as feminist then I'm not sure why you're assuming their sexism has anything to do with feminism.

All of them? Really, each and every single one of them? For sure...
Regardless, that's what they'll tell you, but let's see how many of them practise as they preach. How many defend a man's right to speak for men in gender-debates? How many turn a blind eye when a woman slaps a man? How many marginalize & ignore false **** allegations? How many smirk when they hear of a man being sexually assaulted because a woman *says* her feelings were offended? How many demand genital integrity for male babies? How many promote equal jail-time for women? How many etc. etc. etc. (I'm sure you get the point of their biased attitudes by now).

Uh, plenty of of them? Not sure what you want me to tell you, but the people I know find a woman assaulting a man just as bad as the other way around. False **** accusations also really hurt the feminist cause so naturally they are against women making them. You must know some pretty horrible people if they think the way you have made out.

How many promote equal jail-terms for female criminals?

Who is it that determines jail time? Almost invariably a male judge. Maybe think about why they are giving more lenient sentences to women?

Do extremist muslims push for censorship of Christian forums? Do muslim extremists lobby for laws which elevate muslims against other religions? Do muslim extremists sit in government and constantly portray muslims as eternal victims and all other religions as abusers? Do muslim extremists... (I'm sure you get the point).

Uh, yes? So do extremist Christians. It doesn't mean the whole movement is like that.

Men are the primary victims of all violence - not women. Look at any government stats you want and you'll see men are always the highest portion of victims of crime. Yet feminists want us to focus on women - as always - thus, they're telling us that we being the majority victims is of no consequence to them. Clearly they're sending a message that the minority is more important. More men are abused, more men die, more men commit suicide, more men are murdered, more men are mugged, etc. etc. Yet feminists continually demand we stfu and talk about violence against women, because for some unknown reason, it's apparently more important than anything.

Men are also the primary perpetrators of violence, against both men and women. So who has the change for things to improve? The women?

The slutwalk teaches women to put themselves in compromising positions then cry victim when/if something does happen. Similar logic would be me running down the street with a megaphone shouting "I've got money, har har har, I'm really rich and have lots of spare cash - come n' grab some if you can, losers!"

The problem is that not doing that isn't difficult. However for women practically anything they do can be interpreted as 'inviting ****'. Being out at night, being alone with a man, wearing nice clothes, flirting. In order to not get blamed they have to not have a life.

Besides, even if you were running down the street trying to get mugged it doesn't make the mugging your fault. Its still the mugger that was doing something wrong. We should be focusing on stopping the r@pist rather than trying to make women live in fear. Since the majority of r@pes are carried out by someone the woman knows most of the 'advice' is useless anyway.

[Richter]

A bunch of guys on a jerk-off fetish board trying to seem intellectual about feminism.

[bbbb]

If that's the case, then your problem isn't with feminism, its with sexist women. Do they exist? Sure. But if they aren't identifying themselves or their ideas as feminist then I'm not sure why you're assuming their sexism has anything to do with feminism.For one, feminist initiatives offers women the opportunity & excuse to be sexist without any comeback, so they (feminists) encourage sexism against men & boys.


...the people I know find a woman assaulting a man just as bad as the other way around.Really, if this were true (you're clearly implying the average feminist here) then USA would have VAPA (Violence Against People Act) - but no, feminists demanded that women be elevated above men so we're left with a sexist VAWA.


False **** accusations also really hurt the feminist cause so naturally they are against women making them. You must know some pretty horrible people if they think the way you have made out.And yet, they keep demanding we all focus on rap3 alone as well as hypothetical r4p3 and let's not forget the imagined numbers they rely on (repeatedly disproven) in order to justify their claims that 'all' men are rapists and we live in a 'r4p3 culture' (where all men approve of r4p3, allegedly).


Who is it that determines jail time?That's not what I asked, you're clearly avoiding a simple question to which we both know the answer...
NO feminist has EVER pushed for equal jail terms. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. Feminists have repeatedly demanded preferential treatment of female criminals. Harriet Harman, England's former acting Prime Minister pushed to close all women's prisons & open more men's prisons. If that isn't a clear call for sexism, what is?


Uh, yes? So do extremist Christians. It doesn't mean the whole movement is like that.Right, but whereas feminists keep making headway with their demands to make all men responsible for a minority (which they portray as all men), extremist muslims don't get anywhere.
And really, we shouldn't even be calling these people extremists, they're not extreme feminists - they're typical. Extremist feminists are the radicals.. you know, the ones calling for murder of all men save 10% for reproduction purposes. They've called for pregnant women carrying male babies to be poisoned so as to abort the child, and so on & so on. That is extreme... the constant waves of anti-male sexism is normal feminism, not extreme feminism.


Men are also the primary perpetrators of violence, against both men and women. So who has the change for things to improve? The women?Actually, two big points here.

In terms of intimate violence, women initiate 70% - but feminists keep forgetting to mention that.
And if you want to put that mentality on the block, how about we dig further... Most victims of assault are black males between the ages of 15-25. Most of those committing the assaults are also black males between the ages of 15-25.

Shall we ignore blacks victims of muggings now or would that be racist?
Your mentality stinks that you think it's acceptable that men should have no support just because it's likely that it was a male who committed the offense. That IS your sexism that you as a feminist sympathizer can't even comprehend... Why can't you see your own sexism? Because that would acknowledging the flaws of feminism and admitting to being in the wrong; something feminists never do.


The problem is that not doing that isn't difficult. However for women practically anything they do can be interpreted as 'inviting ****'. Being out at night, being alone with a man, wearing nice clothes, flirting. In order to not get blamed they have to not have a life.R4p3 is fortunately a rare crime to be committed, nowhere near the blatantly exaggerated 1/4 figure feminists keep lying about. The vast majority of women do not get raped. Lying that men are constantly two-seconds away from r4ping a woman just because she's in a short skirt is blatantly disgustingly sexist of you and your feminist friends.


Besides, even if you were running down the street trying to get mugged it doesn't make the mugging your fault. Keep in mind what you said earlier about ignoring male victims due to the assumed-sex of their attacker.


Its still the mugger that was doing something wrong. We should be focusing on stopping the r@pist rather than trying to make women live in fear. Since the majority of r@pes are carried out by someone the woman knows most of the 'advice' is useless anyway.
I do agree with this, but all these campaigns designed to make innocent men feel guilty are doing nothing to help either. Same with the domestic violence campaigns, the constant portrayal of male abuser & female victim is sexist and wrong at every level - yet feminists continually design & approve them.

[jabby]

For one, feminist initiatives offers women the opportunity & excuse to be sexist without any comeback, so they (feminists) encourage sexism against men & boys.

Not in my experience.

Really, if this were true (you're clearly implying the average feminist here) then USA would have VAPA (Violence Against People Act) - but no, feminists demanded that women be elevated above men so we're left with a sexist VAWA.

VAWA is badly named, since it does offer protection to men as well. However who named it and was responsible for its creation? Who passed it? A government almost entirely composed of white men. However you blame women for this?

NO feminist has EVER pushed for equal jail terms. In fact, the absolute opposite is true. Feminists have repeatedly demanded preferential treatment of female criminals.

Please give some examples of demanding preferential treatment for the same crime, and source your claim that Harriet Harman wanted to close "all women's prisons".

Again you are blaming women for the actions of elderly white men, namely the judges. Feminists want equal treatment, and these judges are not treating people equally, but you think feminists support this. Please answer: why do you think these elderly male judges are treating women differently? Are they all feminists?

Your mentality stinks that you think it's acceptable that men should have no support just because it's likely that it was a male who committed the offense.

A complete strawman, I never said anything like that. Men deserve support just as much as women do. But saying women should stop campaigning against violence because they don't suffer as much as we do is ridiculous. Maybe you should campaign against violence too rather than trying to prevent other people doing it?

Lying that men are constantly two-seconds away from r4ping a woman just because she's in a short skirt is blatantly disgustingly sexist of you and your feminist friends.

Again, nothing like what I said. In fact you brought up the idea that if a woman does certain things she is responsible when she gets r@ped. Surely that implies that men can't control themselves? I am the one saying women should be able to do whatever they like still have all the blame placed on the r@pist, because he chose to do and the fact she was wearing a short skirt makes no difference.

I do agree with this, but all these campaigns designed to make innocent men feel guilty are doing nothing to help either.

I actually used to think like this, and get offended when material assumed all men were potential r@pists. But remember that women are constantly bombarded with information that assumes they are all potential r@pe victims. There was a good study done a while back that showed a large number of men had ****** themselves sexually on a woman, but none of these men considered themselves r@pists. Probably because they didn't fully understand what r@pe was. So now I don't think these campaigns are such a bad idea. They aren't trying to make you feel guilty, they are trying to educate people who don't think ******* themselves on a woman is r@pe.

[Sockmess]

Feminist do not want equal treatment. They want preferred treatment as in keep their advantages and where women are at a disadvantage, have it made equal.

[Richter]

Best case scenario is one of you jerk offs on a fetish message board convince another jerk off on a fetish message board that you are correct about something that doesn't concern either one of you and has nothing to do with the fetish message board.

[mick_sl8ter]

A bunch of guys on a jerk-off fetish board trying to seem intellectual about feminism.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2nreb8.jpg


Spiderman proves there is a relation between exposure to stupidity and cancer, how do you come up with this :wooow :thumbup


Feminist do not want equal treatment. They want preferred treatment as in keep their advantages and where women are at a disadvantage, have it made equal.

Below you see an example of how to deal with this disease.
A shotgun is required.
http://i42.tinypic.com/fp3qy1.jpg

You could always fall back to medieval practices.
Kill it with fire ! Works like a charm !
http://i43.tinypic.com/mb62rq.jpg

[bbbb]

Not in my experience.So you've never once heard a feminist claim to the effect that men have ruled for two-thousand years, now it's women turn.. or the infamous 'all men are bastards' lines? Nothing of sort.. mmmk, I believe you.


VAWA is badly named, since it does offer protection to men as well. However who named it and was responsible for its creation? Who passed it? A government almost entirely composed of white men. However you blame women for this?Wrong, VAWA specifically prohibits funding any programmes that support male victims. The title is sexist, the policies are primarily geared towards what one could call 'male crimes' whilst ignoring (as ever) female crimes against men (sexual assault, paternity fraud, etc.)
And whilst Jo Biden did write up VAWA, he did so under feminist demands.. Stop blaming men for feminists (not women) demands to be elevated above men & children. I note how you imply one of two things above... 1) Either you suspect no man can be a feminist (hence you claim I'm attacking 'women' when I've repeatedly stated 'feminist', or 2) You're trying to pretend I have an issue with women simply because I disagree with the misandry & bigotry of feminism.


Please give some examples of demanding preferential treatment for the same crime, and source your claim that Harriet Harman wanted to close "all women's prisons".
OK, in England r4p3 is a male-only crime. It requires 'penetration' and doesn't include engulfment. So currently a woman can literally r4p3 a man and not be found guilty of the charge. The only exception is if she uses an instrument to penetrate someone. Recently that law was under review - the only group who opposed it was feminists, insisting that only men should be guilty of rap3. Similarly, in Egypt the same thing occurred, feminist groups went mad because the law was about to give women equal accountability with men... they didn't want equality, they want to be above the law. This is why feminists demand 'battered woman syndrome' so a woman can kill a man and so long as she claims to have been in fear, it affords her an excuse for execution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html

Instead, killers such as Rose West ? serving life for the murder of ten young women and girls ? would be sent to "homely" local custody units.

All the women's jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men.
Note how despite the fact most male criminals in jail have similar issues (family members, are vulnerable themselves, drug addictions, etc.) no support is being recommended - just more prisons. My apologies for the wrong name, Harriet Harman supports it, not created the notion.


Again you are blaming women...Stop lying please, I blame feminist lobby groups - not women. Now please discontinue with your lies.


...for the actions of elderly white men, namely the judges. Who are bombarded with feminist lobby groups demands. Why do you insist on blaming men for feminists demands? Are you seriously so incapable of not allowing a feminist to take responsibility for their actions?


Feminists want equal treatment,But their actions suggest otherwise.


and these judges are not treating people equally, but you think feminists support this. Please answer: why do you think these elderly male judges are treating women differently? Are they all feminists?Why do I think male judges give women softer sentences? I've already answered that... they upholding feminist lobby group demands. However, there is also an element of chivalry - I've yet to see a single feminist demand equality in this area. Why do YOU keep ignoring that fact?


But saying women should stop campaigning against violence Will you stop lying please? I haven't said women should do or not do anything... I've talked about feminists, not women. Are you not able to comprehend the difference between a sex and an ideology?
If feminists were campaigning to stop violence, I'd be all for it - but they don't - they campaign to portray only men as abusers & only women as victims, blatant sexist hate speech which is undeniably untrue. Women initiate 70% of IPV abuse, not men. Women also dominate the child abuse statistics, some 3x more likely to abuse than a man is... Where is the feminist outrage at women ? There is NONE.. Why? Because it isn't about protecting people from violence, it's about promoting bigotry & lies about men.


In fact you brought up the idea that if a woman does certain things she is responsible when she gets r@ped.Excuse me? Where the hell did I say that...?


There was a good study done a while back that showed a large number of men had ****** themselves sexually on a woman, One I am aware of was a South African study, performed by a feminist no less (feminist studies have a long, long history of manipulating data & results). She claimed 50% of men had admitted to r4ping women in her study. Unsurprisingly, the word 'r4p3' had not been used once so there's a distinctly bad taste about this study right away. Even in Koss' study, 73% of the 'r4p3' victims she had classified as victims did NOT consider themselves as victims and over half were still dating their 'r4pist' a year later.

[dark]

Since the conversation is getting too serious...
What you guys think of the riots in South Europe and South America?

Also there is an increase of nationalism in Europe (Sweden, England, Greece, France to name a few) . Is it because of illegal immigration or Europe failed to become United States?

Just kidding :Baahaha:

[jabby]

OK posts are getting a bit long and complex. To try and boil it down:

- Who are these feminist lobby groups and how do they have so much power over politicians, judges, etc.?

- Regarding VAWA, I refer you to the wikipedia article on it: "Its coverage extends to male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking."

- I agree, the law in England should be changed, however a woman would still be guilty of sexual assault. I haven't seen anything showing that feminists are opposed to changing it however.

- The prison stuff is interesting, but it was described as controversial. We are now six years on and women's prisons are still open.

I think the real question is how do you define a feminist? You talk a lot about feminist lobby groups and how feminists are behind this or support that but provide no real evidence of it. Maybe a few articles or whatever but certainly not some kind of mass movement with thousands of people behind it. Meanwhile there are plenty of 'moderate' feminists out there who wouldn't do any of the things you are saying yet you are lumping them all together.

[Richter]

It's really weird that this is more on topic than your bullshit.

[bbbb]

It seems to me, you've cut this short because you don't want to acknowledge the points I've addressed which you know are true. As I said, it's my experience when a feminist (or sympathizer) is caught out - they use distraction or censorship.


- Who are these feminist lobby groups and how do they have so much power over politicians, judges, etc.?


Regarding VAWA, I refer you to the wikipedia article on it: "Its coverage extends to male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking."Changes came in after numerous requests by men's groups which were fought against by feminist groups.


I agree, the law in England should be changed, however a woman would still be guilty of sexual assault. I haven't seen anything showing that feminists are opposed to changing it however.I'll have a look up for it, it was posted on numerous MRA forums & the feminist category on mumsnet was going insane with posts about it.


I think the real question is how do you define a feminist? You talk a lot about feminist lobby groups and how feminists are behind this or support that but provide no real evidence of it. Maybe a few articles or whatever but certainly not some kind of mass movement with thousands of people behind it. Meanwhile there are plenty of 'moderate' feminists out there who wouldn't do any of the things you are saying yet you are lumping them all together.I let feminists define themselves. Only yesterday on Facebook I was talking with a friend on a post in a group I wasn't affiliated with. It spoke about a bunch of men discussing women's reproductive rights and she thought (the woman in the image) she was still in 1920... He put a point forward that men don't have equality in terms of reproduction. Instantly three feminists (all openly stating themselves as) ranted on him for being out of touch and then went on about men's violence (ignoring women's violence) to distract from his factual point and eventually resorted to banning both he & I despite the fact neither of us once relied on insults or cursing while the three feminists did.
Similarly, (link (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174583/could-facebook-win-be-feminisms-tipping-point)) demonstrated feminist censorship and focus. Several man-friendly posts were deleted despite not being rude or crude, they simply poitned out some double standards and over generalizations by feminists. Yet, while civil posts were deleted by the moderator/author (Jessica Valenti), posts by feminists which were blatantly sexist and hateful were kept. Shocked, no nor was I.

Any male raised decently would not treat women and girls as anything less than equal.They would have respect for them and never degrade them by words or actions.

I do not care about violence against men ...

Males commit almost all the violence in this society. The nation's prisons are filled with male prisoners. I do not feel sorry for them, and I do not give a hoot about purported violence against men.
The overwhelming majority of violence perpetrated against males is by other males. The male sex does not understand any language other than violence.

Violent men, if they can be called men, which is a stretch, are violent towards both sexes.There is something inherently wrong with the male brain. It cannot be as developed when violence is the answer to everything.

However, most of the male sex is not worth a woman's spit.

Note how she specifies "anything less than equal" but doesn't afford men the same, demonstrating she seeks a minimal of equality but will be happy if they (women) are treated as superior.
One of the feminist icon sayings is "a woman can do anything a man can do at least as well as a man.." -note the superiority complex rearing again? A woman is 'at least as good as a man' -meaning the best man is only as good as the worst female but the best woman will always be ahead of the worst man.

Feminism has shown us, through it's actions & demands, that it is sexist. It isn't about equality else we'd have VAPA instead of VAWA - blaming men for feminist demands is not going to resolve the problem.

[kdunstfan]

Hey, I know! You guys should swap emails or pm each other so you don't pollute the forum with this garbage.


Thanks!

[stman]

Circle the correct answer. In the case of more than one, circle all available.

A [MRA / creationist / chemtrail theorist] walked up to a [feminist / atheist / meteorologist] who had been reading, studying and practicing [intersectionality / biology / atmospheric sciences] for years and began to tell them how they and all their peers were responsible for [SCUM manifesto / Social Darwinist / evil government] plans to [abuse men / kill ethnicities / poison all of us with strange chemicals], and how we all secretly knew this was true, based on [websites with angry people / the Piltdown Man / a youtube video].

The [feminist / biologist / meteorologist] realized that the opponent was so emotionally invested in believing strawmen that the hours it would take to dismantle them was pointless, and said 'Fuck it, let em win, I don't get paid enough for this shit, you can't argue with people who make it their goal in life to make you look bad,' slapped on a bit of CBT and went to bed.

[Richter]

They can't do it privately. They need the possibility that someone will agree with them so they won't seem so sad and pathetic.

[jabby]

Changes came in after numerous requests by men's groups which were fought against by feminist groups.

You still haven't told me who these feminist lobby groups are or how they have so much power over politicians/judges etc. Surely if they are so massive and organised there would be clear evidence of who they were and what their policies were.

It spoke about a bunch of men discussing women's reproductive rights

Maybe the problem was that a bunch of men were discussing women's reproductive rights as if they should have power over them? Wouldn't you be offended if a bunch of women were talking about how all men should be ****** to donate sperm or some other thing that meant we didn't have control over our bodies?

Similarly, (link (http://www.thenation.com/blog/174583/could-facebook-win-be-feminisms-tipping-point)) demonstrated feminist censorship and focus.

I don't see the problem with removing 'jokes' about **** and domestic violence from facebook.

You are also completely misinterpreting people. 'Nothing less than equality is acceptable' clearly states that the equality is satisfactory and being less than equal isn't good enough. It says nothing about wanting to being superior. If they wanted superiority then equality wouldn't be acceptable would it?


They can't do it privately. They need the possibility that someone will agree with them so they won't seem so sad and pathetic.

Dude, its one thread. No-one is ******* you to read any of it.

[Richter]

Dude, its one thread. No-one is ******* you to read any of it.

You can't tell me what to do.

[Alec Anaconda, A1]

Is this not Femaledom.com, where women are, by definition, the dominant sex?



From the OP:

“Challenge him to a naked wrestling match and whip out your signature move, the Ten-Fingered Ball-Crusher.”



Anyone prefer to chat about M/F naked wrestling, Ten-Fingered Ball-Crushers, even where to find women with the extra two digits?

[Richter]

Eight finger and two thumb ballcrusher just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[stman]

Dude, its one thread. No-one is ******* you to read any of it.

But mock neutrality/being the peanut gallery is an easy way to show intellectual superiority. It's actually obligatory in any debate on a web forum.

[stman]

Is this not Femaledom.com, where women are, by definition, the dominant sex?


Nothing is more confusing than sexuality.

[Richter]

But mock neutrality/being the peanut gallery is an easy way to show intellectual superiority. It's actually obligatory in any debate on a web forum.


Yeah, it can't be that this is the wrong place for this. I'm going to jerk off in a womens studies class. If they tell me it's the wrong place to jerk off, I'm just going to assume they're exhibiting mock neutrality for a false sense of intellectual superiority.

I honestly don't know what either of them are talking about. I probably agree with one of them. This just isn't the place for it.

[Richter]

If it wasn't clear already

[obedientesticle]

This just isn't the place for it.

You cannot say that. For some, female domination is just sexual organ wank and forget, for others, the fetish is more a brain fetish and a fantasy of being at women's mercy. And if this fantasy comes to reality, some people like it, some people try to fight...

There should be more women discussing here in this forum...

[stman]

You cannot say that. For some, female domination is just sexual organ wank and forget, for others, the fetish is more a brain fetish and a fantasy of being at women's mercy. And if this fantasy comes to reality, some people like it, some people try to fight...

There should be more women discussing here in this forum...

Well, richter's totally entitled to his opinion of course, but I agree with this. It is a 'brain' or sapiosexual turn on or something for me definitely. Apply all that intellect to sex or S/M and see what happens. Also it's taste. It would be harder for me to enjoy anything sexually-related if I felt I was 'on top' or 'in control' intellectually. I think surviving as a masochist used to require a lot of survival wits, as did finding secret ways to get off, (plus the whole nonconsensual issue). Turning my brain off during sex just isn't erotic. I can still get off on the pain alone but it isn't really all that satisfying--kind of like dry firing if you try to get yourself off first thing in the morning.

Also, I kind of know a lot of women who've been through a lot of shit, but I've had a lot of support from women, I've many friends who are women (probably more than half my regular friends) so I do know what they are arguing about, actually very well, I've read allll the talking points before sooo many times, almost word for word. I guess I can see how wtf yall posting in a spiderman thread is the reaction. lol.

[Richter]

Except this is the ballbusting forum. There is a Femaledom general forum, a ballbusting one, a foot fetish, a trampling, and face sitting, and so on. If you're gonna say this is the place for it because it's femaledom, you gotta be right as to which femaledom forum you are in.

[OneBadMamaJama]

I really fucking hate it when people take their sexual fantasies and apply them to the real world. If this were maledom and there were an article in FHM that advocated ****** your girl that magazine would be shut down in a heartbeat. And fuck all y'all who actually support assaulting someone.

Hope I didn't hop in this thread too late to say all that, but seeing something like this DRIVES ME UP A WALL. Legitimately infuriates me. The line between sexual fun and real-world harm is so fucking wide you could drive a truck through it.

[stman]

I really fucking hate it when people take their sexual fantasies and apply them to the real world. If this were maledom and there were an article in FHM that advocated ****** your girl that magazine would be shut down in a heartbeat. And fuck all y'all who actually support assaulting someone.

Hope I didn't hop in this thread too late to say all that, but seeing something like this DRIVES ME UP A WALL. Legitimately infuriates me. The line between sexual fun and real-world harm is so fucking wide you could drive a truck through it.

I think one of the issues here (societal double standard aside) is that so many people (men and women both) don't think it's all that big a deal to do nasty things to a man's genitals without his consent. Going by sexual assault laws, you'd think that lightly fondling my genitals was a bigger deal that beating the hell out of them and possibly ruining my sexuality for life, I mean destroying a guy's sexuality isn't even considered sexual assualt. We had cops here recently arrest a kid and while they had him down on the ground already in the submissive position, they went psycho and beat the shit out of his balls with their steel toes repeatedly. Now he's sexually damaged for life. Yet people somehow really are that abysmally dull-witted, they don't make the connection there--kid's sexuality pointlessly destroyed for no reason--sexuality taken away--major sexual violation/sexual torture. And this shit happens all the time when I pick up reports from Doctors without Borders, some women's groups etc (there's some people who do actually pay attention to this)

Actually I do kind of get off on things like this now when women are involved. Why? Because:
1. I have been busted nonconsensually (by dudes, not that it changes things ethically, but I'd much rather it have been women if I had a choice), and it was totally fucking violating, I'd rather those dudes have ass raped me.
2. Fantasies are an awesome way for me to take control of those violating experiences.
3. If someone wants to do things to your genitals without your consent, I think the biggest and most primal 'fuck you' I can imagine is getting off on it.

Anyway to be clear, I'd never be behind nonconsensual BB in real life. (With the exception of self defense). I would have been when I was a kid, but not now.

[Richter]

You have invoked him!

[Eric Menrhine]

Sooooooo, moving this to a somewhat lighter note, has anyone ever heard any good "revenge" stories about the cheating husband/boyfriend that would actually fit the theme of the forums?



I think my favorite was the guy whose wife locked him in a cb3000 and gave the keys to the man's mother. She wouldn't give the keys back, because she thought it was a good lesson, and also (I'm pretty sure) that it was funny.

Allegedly a true story.

Eric

[mick_sl8ter]

http://i39.tinypic.com/255usme.jpg

[Richter]

Eric, that's cold, involving the mother. There was a story years ago about a woman in Japan getting her boss stupid wasted at the office christmas party and replacing his balls with marbles and sewing him back up. It sounds SO fictional but it did make the news.

[bbbb]

You still haven't told me...There's an awful lot you've avoided answering too whilst demanding I answer your Q's... Why the double-standard? Oh, you're pro-feminist... there's the reason.


who these feminist lobby groups are or how they have so much power over politicians/judges etc. Surely if they are so massive and organised there would be clear evidence of who they were and what their policies were.Well as an example, let's look at feministing.com's founder's words about numbers of those who lobby for feminist causes.
In just a week, the protest—organized by Women, Action & the Media (WAM), Everyday Sexism and writer Soraya Chemaly—generated nearly 5,000 e-mails and 60,000 tweets directed at Facebook’s advertisers
Now tell me that isn't persuasive power there. NOW (national organization of whingers) has been known to turn up to court in numbers so as to intimidate Judges. Feminist pages are continually swamped with pictures showing dozens (sometimes 100s) of feminists standing united for whatever cause. Pretending they hold no sway is marginalizing their power.


Maybe the problem was that a bunch of men were discussing women's reproductive rights as if they should have power over them? Wouldn't you be offended if a bunch of women were talking about how all men should be ****** to donate sperm or some other thing that meant we didn't have control over our bodies?1) You're avoiding the issue addressed (censorship) by distraction techniques, 2) It was a drawing/cartoon, it wasn't a real picture (it was attempting to portray men as evil overlords, as is typical for feminist minded authors).
Going back to point 1), the fact is that when a pointed out men today do not have equal rights with women, he was shouted down and censored by feminists - as is typical of them.


I don't see the problem with removing 'jokes' about **** and domestic violence from facebook.Nor do I. But they aren't talking about that. They're talking about only female victims and as usual ignoring male victims of both crimes. If they were against abuse in general, it would be reflected in their words AND actions... By their own words and by their actions, they only seek to speak out for half the victims. You yourself have used the typical feminist defense to point out that it might be men committing the crimes - which makes it perfectly ok to ignore black crimes too, right?


You are also completely misinterpreting people. 'Nothing less than equality is acceptable' clearly states that the equality is satisfactory and being less than equal isn't good enough. It says nothing about wanting to being superior. If they wanted superiority then equality wouldn't be acceptable would it?
Convert this into basic maths..
<= is less than or equal to. => is equal to or greater.

Feminists, as I quoted, frequently state outright "at least" meaning more if available which is =>.

If white people kept stating, "Whites are at least as good as blacks" you would understandably pick up on the 'at least' statement and it's implied connotations.


Please give some examples of demanding preferential treatment for the same crime...You'll note I haven't said that. What I've said is they claim to want equality but they do NOT lobby for equality (which is either negative to women OR positive for men) such as equal jail-terms for same crimes. Have you EVER even once heard of a feminist pushing for equal jail time? No.. nor have I. In fact, feminist groups often lobby for law changes to enable women to get away with certain crimes that men could not get away with. For example, if a man dumped a baby he would face charges - women don't. r4p3 is a male-only crime in England and most parts of USA, no feminists I know have once lobbied for equality. Men in USA have to agree to be cannon-fodder if they 1) want a driver's license, 2) need a college loan and 3) require a passport.. Women don't. Again, where is the feminist demand for equality?

Nonetheless, here's a feminist pushing for differential laws to (primarily) benefit women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8041743/Women-who-murder-violent-partners-after-years-of-abuse-could-escape-prison.html


The change to the murder law was championed by Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, when she was Minister for Women.

When it was unveiled in January last year she said the move will "end the injustice of women being killed by their husband and the injustice of them then being blamed”.
You may note that this article rightly points out men & women could potentially make use of the law.. BUT feminists continually push for "men abuse - women as victims" standards, so very few men, if any at all would be able to realistically use this as a defense whilst any woman must be believed if she *claims* she is a victim of domestic violence. Again, if feminists were simply against all abuse - they'd stop pushing the man bad/woman victim template they rely on so heavily to keep their funding coming in.
Of course, you may disagree with me... So feel welcome to link me to a poster campaign funded by feminist groups reflecting woman bad/man victim instead? I'm betting you can't. How about a woman abuser/child victim portrayal instead? No.. I bet you can't find that either. The ONLY template feminists rely on is man bad - woman good/victim. Why? Because they simply do not care about men and want to promote fear of men by otherwise rational women.
You may also notice that she's happy for men who murder to be held accountable (I don't blame her for that)... but the law she is pushing enables women to murder the husband and then blame him for it.

Hypocrisy?

Of course... what else could one expect from a feminist :)



And finally, here is feministing.com's twitter page's tag-line, showing 'equality' all the way and not focusing on hating men at all.

Funny how an 'equality' lobby group would reference sexual assault on male genitals in their heading, right? Must be a mistake, right?

"Breaking news and busting balls." as found @ https://twitter.com/feministing

[Richter]

bbbb, what you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul...

[jabby]

There's an awful lot you've avoided answering too whilst demanding I answer your Q's... Why the double-standard? Oh, you're pro-feminist... there's the reason.

Maybe if you made your posts a bit easier to read and dropped the whole 'typical feminist' shtick I could identify your questions and answer them.

Well as an example, let's look at feministing.com's founder's words about numbers of those who lobby for feminist causes.
Now tell me that isn't persuasive power there. NOW (national organization of whingers) has been known to turn up to court in numbers so as to intimidate Judges. Feminist pages are continually swamped with pictures showing dozens (sometimes 100s) of feminists standing united for whatever cause. Pretending they hold no sway is marginalizing their power.

I'm not saying they hold no sway, I'm saying they aren't responsible for the things you think they are. I have never seen any examples of large numbers of feminists protesting for the superior treatment of women. I certainly couldn't find any examples of 'intimidating judges' into giving lesser sentences to women.

1) You're avoiding the issue addressed (censorship) by distraction techniques, 2) It was a drawing/cartoon, it wasn't a real picture (it was attempting to portray men as evil overlords, as is typical for feminist minded authors).
Going back to point 1), the fact is that when a pointed out men today do not have equal rights with women, he was shouted down and censored by feminists - as is typical of them.

I'm not avoiding the issue - I agree with the censorship in this case. Firstly because jokes about r@pe and domestic violence harm victims (who could be male or female). Second because 'pointing out' that men have less rights than women is bullshit. Apart from a few select areas women face a lot more discrimination and sexism in society. And even in areas where men are disadvantaged (like child custody and prison sentences) it's usually outdated ideas about 'chivalry' and gender roles that is the cause. And its usually men disadvantaging other men.

But they aren't talking about that. They're talking about only female victims and as usual ignoring male victims of both crimes.

Removing r@pe and domestic violence 'jokes' helps both men and women.

If they were against abuse in general, it would be reflected in their words AND actions... By their own words and by their actions, they only seek to speak out for half the victims. You yourself have used the typical feminist defense to point out that it might be men committing the crimes - which makes it perfectly ok to ignore black crimes too, right?

Most feminist groups are formed with the idea of improving things for women through gaining equality. You are asking 'why don't they focus on improving things for men as well?' Maybe because that's not what the majority of their members are interested in? Don't get me wrong, the closer we get to equality the better things will get for men too, but don't expect a group of women who want to make their lives better to spend a bunch of time and effort focusing on men's issues (usually as I said issues caused by other men). They have enough issues to deal with. Plus by fighting for the equal treatment of women and men they are fighting the root causes of these problems anyway.

Saying a majority of feminists should focus on men's issues (because of course, some do) is like saying the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People should hold a bake sale for white people.

If white people kept stating, "Whites are at least as good as blacks" you would understandably pick up on the 'at least' statement and it's implied connotations.

I agree that 'women can do anything at least as well as a man' is a bit of a sexist statement, not to mention not true in a lot of areas. But 'nothing less than equality will do' isn't, it just means the goal is equality and nothing less.

In fact, feminist groups often lobby for law changes to enable women to get away with certain crimes that men could not get away with. For example, if a man dumped a baby he would face charges - women don't. r4p3 is a male-only crime in England and most parts of USA, no feminists I know have once lobbied for equality. Men in USA have to agree to be cannon-fodder if they 1) want a driver's license, 2) need a college loan and 3) require a passport.. Women don't. Again, where is the feminist demand for equality?

I haven't seen any of this lobbying for preferential treatment. Can you elaborate what you mean by dumping a baby? I already said I think the law in England should be changed, but why don't you campaign for it instead of expecting feminist groups who focus on women's issues to do it? Not sure what you mean by the cannon fodder thing...

Nonetheless, here's a feminist pushing for differential laws to (primarily) benefit women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8041743/Women-who-murder-violent-partners-after-years-of-abuse-could-escape-prison.html

This benefits domestic violence victims. Are women the main victims of domestic violence? Yes, but that doesn't stop the law being equally applied to male victims.

The real question is why do male victims of domestic violence get taken less seriously than women. Is the answer A) Feminists did it, or B) Men are expected to be stronger and more dominant than women, and the idea of being beaten by a woman and losing their 'masculinity' is seen as a weakness and ridiculed by a lot of society.

Look at it this way, who is more likely to believe a woman is capable of physically abusing a man, a feminist or a non-feminist?

Funny how an 'equality' lobby group would reference sexual assault on male genitals in their heading, right? Must be a mistake, right?

It's a play on words. Can't say I like it myself, but Feministing is one of the more hardcore sites out there. Besides, outside our particular fetish to 'bust someone's balls' is far more likely to mean 'give them a hard time' than literally assault their testicles.

To boil it down, you are saying feminists are responsible for this and that injustice, but providing no evidence that they actually are. You see inequality where none exists (in domestic violence law for example) and you demand that groups composed mainly of women who are sick of being treated as second class citizens spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to improve the lives of men. Presumably while you yourself do nothing about these issues you care so deeply about.

Here's a question: are you for the equal treatment of men and women?

[kdunstfan]

The history of horse breeding goes back millennia. Though the precise date is in dispute, humans could have domesticated the horse as far back as approximately 4500 BCE. However, evidence of planned breeding has a more blurry history.

One of the earliest people known to document the breedings of their horses were the Bedouin of the Middle East, the breeders of the Arabian horse. While it is difficult to determine how far back the Bedouin passed on pedigree information via an oral tradition, there were written pedigrees of Arabian horses by A.D. 1330.[16] The Akhal-Teke of West-Central Asia is another breed with roots in ancient times that was also bred specifically for war and racing. The nomads of the Mongolian steppes bred horses for several thousand years as well.

The types of horse bred varied with culture and with the times. The uses to which a horse was put also determined its qualities, including smooth amblers for riding, fast horses for carrying messengers, heavy horses for plowing and pulling heavy wagons, ponies for hauling cars of ore from mines, packhorses, carriage horses and many others.

Medieval Europe bred large horses specifically for war, called destriers. These horses were the ancestors of the great heavy horses of today, and their size was preferred not simply because of the weight of the armor, but also because a large horse provided more power for the knight’s lance. Weighing almost twice as much as a normal riding horse, the destrier was a powerful weapon in battle.

On the other hand, during this same time, lighter horses were bred in northern Africa and the Middle East by Muslim warriors, who preferred a faster, more agile horse. The lighter horse suited the raids and battles of the Bedouins, allowing them to outmaneuver rather than overpower the enemy. When Muslim warriors and European knights collided in warfare, the heavy knights were frequently outmaneuvered. The Europeans, however, soon made up for the lack of speed of their native breeds by incorporating genetic traits from captured oriental horses such as the Arabian, Barb to their stables. This cross-breeding led both to a nimbler war horse, such as today's Percheron, but also to created a type of horse known as a Courser, a predecessor to the Thoroughbred, which was used as a message horse.

During the Renaissance, horses were bred not only for war, but for haute ecole riding, derived from the most athletic movements required of a war horse, and popular among the elite nobility of the time. Breeds such as the Lipizzan were developed from Spanish-bred horses for this purpose, and also became the preferred mounts of cavalry officers, who were derived mostly from the ranks of the nobility. It was during this time that gunpowder was developed, and so the light cavalry horse, a faster and quicker war horse, was bred for a “shoot and run” tactic rather than the close hand-to-hand fighting seen in the Middle Ages.

After Charles II retook the British throne in 1660, horse racing, which had been banned by Cromwell, was revived. The Thoroughbred was developed 40 years later, bred to be the ultimate racehorse, through the lines of 3 foundation Arabian stallions.

In the 18th century, James Burnett, Lord Monboddo noted the importance of selecting appropriate parentage to achieve desired outcomes of successive generations. Monboddo worked more broadly in the abstract thought of species relationships and evolution of species. The Thoroughbred breeding hub in Lexington, Kentucky was developed in the late 18th century, and became a mainstay in American racehorse breeding.

The 17th and 18th centuries saw more of a need for fine carriage horses in Europe, bringing in the dawn of the warmblood. The warmblood breeds have been exceptionally good at adapting to changing times, and from their carriage horse beginnings they easily transitioned during the 20th century into a sport horse type. Today’s warmblood breeds, although still used for competitive driving, are more often seen competing in the show jumping or dressage arenas.

The Thoroughbred continues to dominate the horseracing world, although its lines have been more recently used to improve warmblood breeds and to develop sport horses.

The predecessor of the American Quarter Horse was developed in the 18th century, mainly for quarter racing (racing ¼ of a mile). The breed was later adapted for work in the west, and “cow sense” was particularly bred for as their use for herding cattle increased. However, because there was also a need for animals suitable for sprint racing, the modern Quarter Horse has two distinct types: the sleeker racing type and the stock horse type. The racing type most resembles the finer-boned ancestors of the first racing Quarter Horses, and the type is still used for ¼-mile races. The stock horse type, used in western events, is bred for a shorter stride, docile temperament, and cow sense.

The need for horses for heavy draft and carriage work continued until the industrial revolution and the advent of the automobile and the tractor. After this time, draft and carriage horse numbers dropped significantly, though light riding horses remained popular for recreational pursuits. Draft horses today are used on a few small farms, but today are seen mainly for pulling and plowing competitions rather than farm work. Heavy harness horses are now used as an outcross with lighter breeds, such as the Thoroughbred, to produce the modern warmblood breeds popular in Olympic and sport horse disciplines.

[ddrbst27]

All feminist are evil man hating extremist and all people who do not identify as a feminist obviously hate women and women's right and equality. Obviously that was exaggerating and sarcasm (sadly people stand firm in there believes to these kind of extremes) but there's always an argument for two sides of anything and there's a place for certain arguments to take place but I have to agree with Richter the original post guy who was just making an interesting point and one comment however ignorant it was that could of still been ignored caused uproar. This is an interesting topic with Cosmo and yet were all members sharing an equal interest lets not bring up all our differences and just discuss from an unbiased view or neutral standpoint about the original post!

[Richter]

HEY! This guy's trying to be SENSIBLE!

[bbbb]

Here's a question: are you for the equal treatment of men and women?
Absolutely, which is precisely why I am anti-feminist; I want men & women treated as full equals, not selective equality when only for women's benefit or men's detriment which is what feminists currently push for.


All I've seen from you is pretty much ignore questions you don't want to answer, blame men for issues you do manage to respond to and trivialize issues faced by men and fully deny a shred of responsibility on feminism's part for any & all issues.

Then you wonder why I call you a typical feminist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wuoytL8S7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GEm8XaV8rY&t=2640
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiqTtUd_KP0&list=PLJFNlFuxhdK5Mnw0_Au4s8_xzb788Uxbo
http://agentorangefiles.com

Here are some feminists demanding men not speak about their issues whilst simultaneously blaming men for everything. The final link is a collection of screen-grabs from a feminist board discussing poisoning men & (pregnant with male babies) women as well as other means of killing off men... but those jesting feminists ain't man-haters, of course :)


Pretending feminism is a peaceful, loving movement is at best ignorant and blatantly untruthful & deceptive at worst. Do your research, Sir.

[jabby]

Absolutely, which is precisely why I am anti-feminist; I want men & women treated as full equals, not selective equality when only for women's benefit or men's detriment which is what feminists currently push for.

fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Hate to break it to you, but if you want equality, you're a feminist. ;) You just don't want to associate yourself with feminists because you mistakenly think a minority of extremists speak for the entire group.


All I've seen from you is pretty much ignore questions you don't want to answer, blame men for issues you do manage to respond to and trivialize issues faced by men and fully deny a shred of responsibility on feminism's part for any & all issues.

Ask me any questions you like. And of course I deny that feminism is responsible for all the issues you say it creates. You are the one blaming the movement, you provide the evidence.

Here are some feminists demanding men not speak about their issues whilst simultaneously blaming men for everything. The final link is a collection of screen-grabs from a feminist board discussing poisoning men & (pregnant with male babies) women as well as other means of killing off men... but those jesting feminists ain't man-haters, of course :)

You mean some women are angry when instead of working towards equality men try and make everything about them, despite being incredibly privileged in society? No kidding.

And of course there are random nutters all over the internet. You are the one saying that represents every single person who describes themselves as a feminist. It doesn't.

[bbbb]

The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. The dictionary definition is lovely - shame feminist actions speak louder than their words.


Hate to break it to you, but if you want equality, you're a feminist. ;) You just don't want to associate yourself with feminists because you mistakenly think a minority of extremists speak for the entire group.No sir, you see, I want to see full equality rather than selective equality. We've already established that feminists do not promote true equality because they do not demand equal jail time, protection for baby boys and men from MGM (look at the way Sharon Osbourne hooted with laughter at a male victim of sexual mutilation) and don't believe f0rcing women into jobs they don't necessarily want via quotas is anything to do with 'equality'.


Ask me any questions you like. And of course I deny that feminism is responsible for all the issues you say it creates. You are the one blaming the movement, you provide the evidence.I have - and you did precisely as I stated above, you trivialized it and marginalized feminism's involvement. (see your next quote)


You mean some women are angry when instead of working towards equality men try and make everything about them, despite being incredibly privileged in society? No kidding.You clearly didn't review a single link.
Why are you feminists so scared of men being allowed to congregate and talk about issues affecting them? The feminists in the videos refused to allow men to speak. That is bullying.


And of course there are random nutters all over the internet. You are the one saying that represents every single person who describes themselves as a feminist. It doesn't.But it's not just a random one or two... It's seen over & over & over again.. the single factor that brings them under one umbrella is their affiliation with a hate movement known as feminism.

Now, you claim I'm privileged due to being male...

Do I get laws that elevate me above women, such as VAMA or similar?
Do I get well-funded organisations dedicated to giving me a boost up in my work/career?
Do I get groups who will attend court with me to help me put a woman behind bars if a falsely accuse her of a crime?
Are women held accountable for R@p3 & sexual assault in general?
Does society often look to explain away men's crimes (e.g. r@p3) or women's crimes (e.g. false allegations of r4p3)?
Are crimes against me treated as more severe (i.e. if someone kills me in an auto-mobile accident and another car runs over a woman, which car driver will face the stiffer penalty)?
Are crimes women commit not even recognised under law (paternity fraud, false CSA claims, r4p3, etc.)?

Now please, tell me, how on Earth am I remotely privileged compared to a woman?

[skweezme]

Oh dear. Some very boring rants on here. I thought the original post was somewhat humorous. If you're not a little turned on by the idea of ball-busting why are you here?

[Richter]

Now please, tell me, how on Earth am I remotely privileged compared to a woman?


Wait... what did I miss?

[kdunstfan]

The apple forms a tree that is small and deciduous, reaching 3 to 12 metres (9.8 to 39 ft) tall, with a broad, often densely twiggy crown.[3] The leaves are alternately arranged simple ovals 5 to 12 cm long and 3–6 centimetres (1.2–2.4 in) broad on a 2 to 5 centimetres (0.79 to 2.0 in) petiole with an acute tip, serrated margin and a slightly downy underside. Blossoms are produced in spring simultaneously with the budding of the leaves. The flowers are white with a pink tinge that gradually fades, five petaled, and 2.5 to 3.5 centimetres (0.98 to 1.4 in) in diameter. The fruit matures in autumn, and is typically 5 to 9 centimetres (2.0 to 3.5 in) in diameter. The skins of ripe apples range from red to yellow to green in colouration, and covered in a protective layer of epicuticular wax,[4] while the flesh is pale yellowish-white. The center of the fruit contains five carpels arranged in a five-point star, each carpel containing one to three seeds, called pips.[3]
Wild ancestors
Main article: Malus sieversii

The original wild ancestor of Malus domestica was Malus sieversii, found growing wild in the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Xinjiang, China.[3][5] Cultivation of the species, most likely beginning on the forested flanks of the Tian Shan mountains, progressed over a long period of time and permitted secondary introgression of genes from other species into the open-pollinated seeds. Significant exchange with Malus sylvestris, the crabapple, resulted in current populations of apples to be more related to crabapples than to the more morphologically similar progenitor Malus sieversii. In strains without recent admixture the contribution of the latter predominates.[6][7][8]
Genome

In 2010, an Italian-led consortium announced they had decoded the complete genome of the apple in collaboration with horticultural genomicists at Washington State University,[9] using the Golden delicious variety.[10] It had about 57,000 genes, the highest number of any plant genome studied to date[11] and more genes than the human genome (about 30,000).[12] This new understanding of the apple genome will help scientists in identifying genes and gene variants that contribute to resistance to disease and drought, and other desirable characteristics. Understanding the genes behind these characteristics will allow scientists to perform more knowledgeable selective breeding. Decoding the genome also provided proof that Malus sieversii was the wild ancestor of the domestic apple—an issue that had been long-debated in the scientific community.[13]
History
Wild Malus sieversii apple in Kazakhstan

The center of diversity of the genus Malus is in eastern Turkey. The apple tree was perhaps the earliest tree to be cultivated,[14] and its fruits have been improved through selection over thousands of years. Alexander the Great is credited with finding dwarfed apples in Kazakhstan in Asia in 328 BCE;[3] those he brought back to Macedonia might have been the progenitors of dwarfing root stocks. Winter apples, picked in late autumn and stored just above freezing, have been an important food in Asia and Europe for millennia, as well as in Argentina and in the United States since the arrival of Europeans.[14] Apples were brought to North America by colonists in the 17th century,[3] and the first apple orchard on the North American continent was planted in Boston by Reverend William Blaxton in 1625.[15] The only apples native to North America are crab apples, which were once called "common apples".[16] Apple varieties brought as seed from Europe were spread along Native American trade routes, as well as being cultivated on Colonial farms. An 1845 United States apples nursery catalogue sold 350 of the "best" varieties, showing the proliferation of new North American varieties by the early 19th century.[16] In the 20th century, irrigation projects in Washington state began and allowed the development of the multibillion dollar fruit industry, of which the apple is the leading product.[3]

Until the 20th century, farmers stored apples in frostproof cellars during the winter for their own use or for sale. Improved transportation of fresh apples by train and road replaced the necessity for storage.[17][18] In the 21st century, long-term storage again came into popularity, as "controlled atmosphere" facilities were used to keep apples fresh year-round. Controlled atmosphere facilities use high humidity and low oxygen and carbon dioxide levels to maintain fruit freshness.[19]
Cultural aspects
Main article: Apple (symbolism)
"Brita as Iduna" (1901) by Carl Larsson
Germanic paganism

In Norse mythology, the goddess Iðunn is portrayed in the Prose Edda (written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson) as providing apples to the gods that give them eternal youthfulness. English scholar H. R. Ellis Davidson links apples to religious practices in Germanic paganism, from which Norse paganism developed. She points out that buckets of apples were found in the Oseberg ship burial site in Norway, and that fruit and nuts (Iðunn having been described as being transformed into a nut in Skáldskaparmál) have been found in the early graves of the Germanic peoples in England and elsewhere on the continent of Europe, which may have had a symbolic meaning, and that nuts are still a recognized symbol of fertility in southwest England.[20]

Davidson notes a connection between apples and the Vanir, a tribe of gods associated with fertility in Norse mythology, citing an instance of eleven "golden apples" being given to woo the beautiful Gerðr by Skírnir, who was acting as messenger for the major Vanir god Freyr in stanzas 19 and 20 of Skírnismál. Davidson also notes a further connection between fertility and apples in Norse mythology in chapter 2 of the Völsunga saga when the major goddess Frigg sends King Rerir an apple after he prays to Odin for a child, Frigg's messenger (in the guise of a crow) drops the apple in his lap as he sits atop a mound.[21] Rerir's wife's consumption of the apple results in a six-year pregnancy and the Caesarean section birth of their son—the hero Völsung.[22]

Further, Davidson points out the "strange" phrase "Apples of Hel" used in an 11th-century poem by the skald Thorbiorn Brúnarson. She states this may imply that the apple was thought of by Brúnarson as the food of the dead. Further, Davidson notes that the potentially Germanic goddess Nehalennia is sometimes depicted with apples and that parallels exist in early Irish stories. Davidson asserts that while cultivation of the apple in Northern Europe extends back to at least the time of the Roman Empire and came to Europe from the Near East, the native varieties of apple trees growing in Northern Europe are small and bitter. Davidson concludes that in the figure of Iðunn "we must have a dim reflection of an old symbol: that of the guardian goddess of the life-giving fruit of the other world."[20]
Greek mythology
Heracles with the apple of Hesperides

Apples appear in many religious traditions, often as a mystical or forbidden fruit. One of the problems identifying apples in religion, mythology and folktales is that the word "apple" was used as a generic term for all (foreign) fruit, other than berries, including nuts, as late as the 17th century.[23] For instance, in Greek mythology, the Greek hero Heracles, as a part of his Twelve Labours, was required to travel to the Garden of the Hesperides and pick the golden apples off the Tree of Life growing at its center.[24][25][26]

The Greek goddess of *******, Eris, became disgruntled after she was excluded from the wedding of Peleus and Thetis.[27] In retaliation, she tossed a golden apple inscribed Καλλίστη (Kalliste, sometimes transliterated Kallisti, 'For the most beautiful one'), into the wedding party. Three goddesses claimed the apple: Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite. Paris of Troy was appointed to select the recipient. After being bribed by both Hera and Athena, Aphrodite tempted him with the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen of Sparta. He awarded the apple to Aphrodite, thus indirectly causing the Trojan War.

The apple was thus considered, in ancient Greece, to be sacred to Aphrodite, and to throw an apple at someone was to symbolically declare one's love; and similarly, to catch it was to symbolically show one's acceptance of that love.[28] An epigram claiming authorship by Plato states:

I throw the apple at you, and if you are willing to love me, take it and share your girlhood with me; but if your thoughts are what I pray they are not, even then take it, and consider how short-lived is beauty.
—Plato, Epigram VII[29]

Atalanta, also of Greek mythology, raced all her suitors in an attempt to avoid marriage. She outran all but Hippomenes (also known as Melanion, a name possibly derived from melon the Greek word for both "apple" and fruit in general),[25] who defeated her by cunning, not speed. Hippomenes knew that he could not win in a fair race, so he used three golden apples (gifts of Aphrodite, the goddess of love) to distract Atalanta. It took all three apples and all of his speed, but Hippomenes was finally successful, winning the race and Atalanta's hand.[24]
The forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden
Adam and Eve
Showcasing the apple as a symbol of sin.
Albrecht Dürer, 1507

Though the forbidden fruit in the Book of Genesis is not identified, popular Christian tradition has held that it was an apple that Eve coaxed Adam to share with her.[30] This may have been the result of Renaissance painters adding elements of Greek mythology into biblical scenes (alternative interpretations also based on Greek mythology occasionally replace the apple with a pomegranate). In this case the unnamed fruit of Eden became an apple under the influence of story of the golden apples in the Garden of Hesperides. As a result, in the story of Adam and Eve, the apple became a symbol for knowledge, immortality, temptation, the fall of man into sin, and sin itself. In Latin, the words for "apple" and for "evil" are similar (mālum "an apple", mălum "an evil, a misfortune"). This may also have influenced the apple becoming interpreted as the biblical "forbidden fruit". The larynx in the human throat has been called Adam's apple because of a notion that it was caused by the forbidden fruit remaining in the throat of Adam.[30] The apple as symbol of sexual seduction has been used to imply sexuality between men, possibly in an ironic vein.[30]
Cultivars
Red and Green apples in India
Main article: List of apple cultivars

There are more than 7,500 known cultivars of apples.[31] Cultivars vary in their yield and the ultimate size of the tree, even when grown on the same rootstock.[32] Different cultivars are available for temperate and subtropical climates. The UK's National Fruit Collection, which is the responsibility of the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs, has a collection of over 2,000 accessions in Kent.[33] The University of Reading, which is responsible for developing the UK national collection database, provides access to search the national collection. The University of Reading's work is part of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources of which there are 38 countries participating in the Malus/Pyrus work group.[34] The UK's national fruit collection database contains a wealth of information on the characteristics and origin of many apples, including alternative names for what is essentially the same 'genetic' apple variety. Most of these cultivars are bred for eating fresh (dessert apples), though some are cultivated specifically for cooking (cooking apples) or producing cider. Cider apples are typically too tart and astringent to eat fresh, but they give the beverage a rich flavour that dessert apples cannot.[35]

Commercially popular apple cultivars are soft but crisp. Other desired qualities in modern commercial apple breeding are a colourful skin, absence of russeting, ease of shipping, lengthy storage ability, high yields, disease resistance, common apple shape, and developed flavour.[32] Modern apples are generally sweeter than older cultivars, as popular tastes in apples have varied over time. Most North Americans and Europeans favour sweet, subacid apples, but tart apples have a strong minority following.[36] Extremely sweet apples with barely any acid flavour are popular in Asia[36] and especially India.[35]

Old cultivars are often oddly shaped, russeted, and have a variety of textures and colours. Some find them to have a better flavour than modern cultivars,[37] but may have other problems which make them commercially unviable from low yield, disease susceptibility, or poor tolerance for storage or transport. A few old cultivars are still produced on a large scale, but many have been preserved by home gardeners and farmers that sell directly to local markets. Many unusual and locally important cultivars with their own unique taste and appearance exist; apple conservation campaigns have sprung up around the world to preserve such local cultivars from extinction. In the United Kingdom, old cultivars such as 'Cox's Orange Pippin' and 'Egremont Russet' are still commercially important even though by modern standards they are low yielding and susceptible to disease.[3]
Cultivation
Breeding
See also: Fruit tree propagation
Apple pot

In the wild, apples grow readily from seeds. However, like most perennial fruits, apples are ordinarily propagated asexually by grafting. This is because seedling apples are an example of "extreme heterozygotes", in that rather than inheriting DNA from their parents to create a new apple with those characteristics, they are instead significantly different from their parents.[38] Triploid varieties have an additional reproductive barrier in that 3 sets of chromosomes cannot be divided evenly during meiosis, yielding unequal segregation of the chromosomes (aneuploids). Even in the case when a triploid plant can produce a seed (apples are an example), it occurs infrequently, and seedlings rarely survive.[39] Most new apple cultivars originate as seedlings, which either arise by chance or are bred by deliberately crossing cultivars with promising characteristics.[40] The words 'seedling', 'pippin', and 'kernel' in the name of an apple cultivar suggest that it originated as a seedling. Apples can also form bud sports (mutations on a single branch). Some bud sports turn out to be improved strains of the parent cultivar. Some differ sufficiently from the parent tree to be considered new cultivars.[41]

Since the 1930s, the Excelsior Experiment Station at the University of Minnesota has introduced a steady progression of important apples that are widely grown, both commercially and by local orchardists, throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. Its most important contributions have included 'Haralson' (which is the most widely cultivated apple in Minnesota), 'Wealthy', 'Honeygold', and 'Honeycrisp'.

Apples have been acclimatized in Ecuador at very high altitudes, where they provide crops twice per year because of constant temperate conditions year-round.[42]
Rootstocks
See also: Malling series

Rootstocks used to control tree size have been used in apple cultivation for over 2,000 years. Dwarfing rootstocks were probably discovered by chance in Asia.[citation needed] Alexander the Great sent samples of dwarf apple trees to Aristotle, in Greece. They were maintained at the Lyceum.

Most modern apple rootstocks were bred in the 20th century. Research into the existing rootstocks began at the East Malling Research Station in Kent, England.[citation needed] East Malling later worked with the John Innes Institute and the Long Ashton Research Station to produce a series of different rootstocks with disease resistance and a range of different sizes, which have been used all over the world.[citation needed]
Pollination
See also: Fruit tree pollination
Apple blossom from an old Ayrshire variety
Orchard mason bee on apple bloom, British Columbia, Canada

Apples are self-incompatible; they must cross-pollinate to develop fruit. During the flowering each season, apple growers often utilize pollinators to carry pollen. Honey bees are most commonly used. Orchard mason bees are also used as supplemental pollinators in commercial orchards. Bumblebee queens are sometimes present in orchards, but not usually in enough quantity to be significant pollinators.[41]

There are four to seven pollination groups in apples, depending on climate:

Group A – Early flowering, 1 to 3 May in England (Gravenstein, Red Astrachan)
Group B – 4 to 7 May (Idared, McIntosh)
Group C – Mid-season flowering, 8 to 11 May (Granny Smith, Cox's Orange Pippin)
Group D – Mid/late season flowering, 12 to 15 May (Golden Delicious, Calville blanc d'hiver)
Group E – Late flowering, 16 to 18 May (Braeburn, Reinette d'Orléans)
Group F – 19 to 23 May (Suntan)
Group H – 24 to 28 May (Court-Pendu Gris) (also called Court-Pendu plat)

One cultivar can be pollinated by a compatible cultivar from the same group or close (A with A, or A with B, but not A with C or D).[43]

Varieties are sometimes classified by the day of peak bloom in the average 30 day blossom period, with pollenizers selected from varieties within a 6 day overlap period.
Maturation and harvest
See also: Fruit picking and Fruit tree pruning

Cultivars vary in their yield and the ultimate size of the tree, even when grown on the same rootstock. Some cultivars, if left unpruned, will grow very large, which allows them to bear much more fruit, but makes harvesting very difficult. Depending on the tree density (number of trees planted per unit surface area), mature trees typically bear 40–200 kilograms (88–440 lb) of apples each year, though productivity can be close to zero in poor years. Apples are harvested using three-point ladders that are designed to fit amongst the branches. Trees grafted on dwarfing rootstocks will bear about 10–80 kilograms (22–180 lb) of fruit per year.[41]

Crops ripen at different times of the year according to the variety of apple. Varieties that yield their crop in the summer include Gala, Golden Supreme, McIntosh, Transparent, Primate, Sweet Bough, and Duchess; fall producers include Fuji, Jonagold, Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, Chenango, Gravenstein, Wealthy, McIntosh, Snow, and Blenheim; winter producers include Winesap, Granny Smith, King, Wagener, Swayzie, Greening, and Tolman Sweet.[16]
Storage

Commercially, apples can be stored for some months in controlled-atmosphere chambers to delay ethylene-induced ripening. Apples are commonly stored in chambers with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and high air filtration. This prevents ethylene concentrations from rising to higher amounts and preventing ripening from occurring too quickly. Ripening continues when the fruit is removed from storage.[44] For home storage, most varieties of apple can be held for approximately two weeks when kept at the coolest part of the refrigerator (i.e. below 5 °C). Some types, including the Granny Smith and Fuji, can be stored up to a year without significant degradation.[45][46]
Pests and diseases
Leaves with significant insect damage
Main article: List of apple diseases
See also: List of Lepidoptera that feed on Malus

Apple trees are susceptible to a number of fungal and bacterial diseases and insect pests. Many commercial orchards pursue an aggressive program of chemical sprays to maintain high fruit quality, tree health, and high yields. A trend in orchard management is the use of organic methods. These use less aggressive methods of conventional farming. Instead of spraying potent chemicals, often shown to be potentially dangerous and maleficent to the tree over time, organic methods include encouraging or discouraging certain cycles and pests. To control pests, organic growers might introduce its natural predator to reduce pest population. Organic apples generally have the same of conventionally grown apples, with cosmetic differences.[47]

A wide range of pests and diseases can affect the plant; three of the more common diseases/pests are mildew, aphids and apple scab.

Mildew: which is characterized by light grey powdery patches appearing on the leaves, shoots and flowers, normally in spring. The flowers will turn a creamy yellow colour and will not develop correctly. This can be treated in a manner not dissimilar from treating Botrytis; eliminating the conditions which caused the disease in the first place and burning the infected plants are among the recommended actions to take.[48]
Aphids: There are five species of aphids commonly found on apples: apple grain aphid, rosy apple aphid, apple aphid, spirea aphid and the woolly apple aphid. The aphid species can be identified by their colour, the time of year when they are present and by differences in the cornicles, which are small paired projections from the rear of aphids.[48] Aphids feed on foliage using needle-like mouth parts to suck out plant juices. When present in high numbers, certain species reduce tree growth and vigor.[49]
Apple scab: Apple scab causes leaves to develop olive-brown spots with a velvety texture that later turn brown and become cork-like in texture. The disease also affects the fruit, which also develops similar brown spots with velvety or cork-like textures. Apple scab is spread through fungus growing in old apple leaves on the ground and spreads during warm spring weather to infect the new year's growth.[50]

Among the most serious disease problems are fireblight, a bacterial disease; and Gymnosporangium rust, and black spot, two fungal diseases.[49] Codling moths and apple maggots are two other pests which affect apple trees. Young apple trees are also prone to mammal pests like mice and deer, which feed on the soft bark of the trees, especially in winter.

[Richter]

Learning is fun!

[skweezme]

All hail Eris! With Her apple (not a mac)

Hail Discordia!

[Richter]

Eris be lookin' fine!

[jabby]

[QUOTE=bbbb;125722]
Now, you claim I'm privileged due to being male...

Do I get laws that elevate me above women, such as VAMA or similar?

Please learn how VAWA works beyond just looking at the name.

Do I get well-funded organisations dedicated to giving me a boost up in my work/career?

Considering men find it easier to get hired and women only earn on average 80% of what men earn I don't think you need them.

Do I get groups who will attend court with me to help me put a woman behind bars if a falsely accuse her of a crime?

No groups exist to help people who falsely accuse others...

Are women held accountable for R@p3 & sexual assault in general?

Women have been convicted of sexual assault yes.

Does society often look to explain away men's crimes (e.g. r@p3) or women's crimes (e.g. false allegations of r4p3)?

Society goes to massive lengths to explain away r@pe. Look at how you tried to explain it as the woman failing to protect herself. Look at the recent incident involving two high school football players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_****_case) where everyone involved went to great lengths to ignore what had happened.

Are crimes against me treated as more severe (i.e. if someone kills me in an auto-mobile accident and another car runs over a woman, which car driver will face the stiffer penalty)?

Show me the law that says men should be treated more harshly, or the feminist support for such a thing.

Are crimes women commit not even recognised under law (paternity fraud, false CSA claims, r4p3, etc.)?

I already agreed that the law regarding r@pe in England should be changed, but you keep coming back to it as if it has anything to do with feminism. The law wasn't written by feminists.

As for ways in which you are privileged (borrowed this list from the internet, its far from exhaustive):

Male privilege checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.
3. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female coworkers are.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
5. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.
6. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.
7. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more
prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.
8. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.
9. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters.
10. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised
their hands just as often.
11. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex.
12. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.
13. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.”
14. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my
sexual availability or my gender conformity.
15. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring.
16. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time.
17. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
18. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
19. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will
always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman,
freshman, etc.
20. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
21. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.
22. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
23. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household
chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
24. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she’ll do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty, repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
25. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
26. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of
media are filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me
sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.
27. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female
counterparts are. If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic
consequences for being fat than fat women do.
28. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are
interrupted by men.
29. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

Cool, huh?

[kdunstfan]

Mechanics
A visual representation of an induced nuclear fission event where a slow-moving neutron is absorbed by the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom, which fissions into two fast-moving lighter elements (fission products) and additional neutrons. Most of the energy released is in the form of the kinetic velocities of the fission products and the neutrons.
Fission product yields by mass for thermal neutron fission of U-235, Pu-239, a combination of the two typical of current nuclear power reactors, and U-233 used in the thorium cycle.

Nuclear fission can occur without neutron bombardment, as a type of radioactive decay. This type of fission (called spontaneous fission) is rare except in a few heavy isotopes. In engineered nuclear devices, essentially all nuclear fission occurs as a "nuclear reaction" — a bombardment-driven process that results from the collision of two subatomic particles. In nuclear reactions, a subatomic particle collides with an atomic nucleus and causes changes to it. Nuclear reactions are thus driven by the mechanics of bombardment, not by the relatively constant exponential decay and half-life characteristic of spontaneous radioactive processes.

Many types of nuclear reactions are currently known. Nuclear fission differs importantly from other types of nuclear reactions, in that it can be amplified and sometimes controlled via a nuclear chain reaction (one type of general chain reaction). In such a reaction, free neutrons released by each fission event can trigger yet more events, which in turn release more neutrons and cause more fissions.

The chemical element isotopes that can sustain a fission chain reaction are called nuclear fuels, and are said to be fissile. The most common nuclear fuels are 235U (the isotope of uranium with an atomic mass of 235 and of use in nuclear reactors) and 239Pu (the isotope of plutonium with an atomic mass of 239). These fuels break apart into a bimodal range of chemical elements with atomic masses centering near 95 and 135 u (fission products). Most nuclear fuels undergo spontaneous fission only very slowly, decaying instead mainly via an alpha/beta decay chain over periods of millennia to eons. In a nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon, the overwhelming majority of fission events are induced by bombardment with another particle, a neutron, which is itself produced by prior fission events.

Nuclear fissions in fissile fuels are the result of the nuclear excitation energy produced when a fissile nucleus captures a neutron. This energy, resulting from the neutron capture, is a result of the attractive nuclear force acting between the neutron and nucleus. It is enough to deform the nucleus into a double-lobed "drop," to the point that nuclear fragments exceed the distances at which the nuclear force can hold two groups of charged nucleons together, and when this happens, the two fragments complete their separation and then are driven further apart by their mutually repulsive charges, in a process which becomes irreversible with greater and greater distance. A similar process occurs in fissionable isotopes (such as uranium-238), but in order to fission, these isotopes require additional energy provided by fast neutrons (such as those produced by nuclear fusion in thermonuclear weapons).

The liquid drop model of the atomic nucleus predicts equal-sized fission products as a mechanical outcome of nuclear deformation. The more sophisticated nuclear shell model is needed to mechanistically explain the route to the more energetically favorable outcome, in which one fission product is slightly smaller than the other.

The most common fission process is binary fission, and it produces the fission products noted above, at 95±15 and 135±15 u. However, the binary process happens merely because it is the most probable. In anywhere from 2 to 4 fissions per 1000 in a nuclear reactor, a process called ternary fission produces three positively charged fragments (plus neutrons) and the smallest of these may range from so small a charge and mass as a proton (Z=1), to as large a fragment as argon (Z=18). The most common small fragments, however, are composed of 90% helium-4 nuclei with more energy than alpha particles from alpha decay (so-called "long range alphas" at ~ 16 MeV), plus helium-6 nuclei, and tritons (the nuclei of tritium). The ternary process is less common, but still ends up producing significant helium-4 and tritium gas buildup in the fuel rods of modern nuclear reactors.[3]
Energetics
Input
The stages of binary fission in a liquid drop model. Energy input deforms the nucleus into a fat "cigar" shape, then a "peanut" shape, followed by binary fission as the two lobes exceed the short-range strong force attraction distance, then are pushed apart and away by their electrical charge. Note that in this model, the two fission fragments are the same size.

The fission of a heavy nucleus requires a total input energy of about 7 to 8 million electron volts (MeV) to initially overcome the strong force which holds the nucleus into a spherical or nearly spherical shape, and from there, deform it into a two-lobed ("peanut") shape in which the lobes are able to continue to separate from each other, pushed by their mutual positive charge, in the most common process of binary fission (two positively charged fission products + neutrons). Once the nuclear lobes have been pushed to a critical distance, beyond which the short range strong force can no longer hold them together, the process of their separation proceeds from the energy of the (longer range) electromagnetic repulsion between the fragments. The result is two fission fragments moving away from each other, at high energy.

About 6 MeV of the fission-input energy is supplied by the simple binding of an extra neutron to the heavy nucleus via the strong force; however, in many fissionable isotopes, this amount of energy is not enough for fission. Uranium-238, for example, has a near-zero fission cross section for neutrons of less than one MeV energy. If no additional energy is supplied by any other mechanism, the nucleus will not fission, but will merely absorb the neutron, as happens when U-238 absorbs slow and even some fraction of fast neutrons, to become U-239. The remaining energy to initiate fission can be supplied by two other mechanisms: one of these is more kinetic energy of the incoming neutron, which is increasingly able to fission a fissionable heavy nucleus as it exceeds a kinetic energy of one MeV or more (so-called fast neutrons). Such high energy neutrons are able to fission U-238 directly (see thermonuclear weapon for application, where the fast neutrons are supplied by nuclear fusion). However, this process cannot happen to a great extent in a nuclear reactor, as too small a fraction of the fission neutrons produced by any type of fission have enough energy to efficiently fission U-238 (fission neutrons have a median energy of 2 MeV, but a mode of only 0.75 MeV, meaning half of them have less than this insufficient energy).[4]

Among the heavy actinide elements, however, those isotopes that have an odd number of neutrons (such as U-235 with 143 neutrons) bind an extra neutron with an additional 1 to 2 MeV of energy over an isotope of the same element with an even number of neutrons (such as U-238 with 146 neutrons). This extra binding energy is made available as a result of the mechanism of neutron pairing effects. This extra energy results from the Pauli exclusion principle allowing an extra neutron to occupy the same nuclear orbital as the last neutron in the nucleus, so that the two form a pair. In such isotopes, therefore, no neutron kinetic energy is needed, for all the necessary energy is supplied by absorption of any neutron, either of the slow or fast variety (the former are used in moderated nuclear reactors, and the latter are used in fast neutron reactors, and in weapons). As noted above, the subgroup of fissionable elements that may be fissioned efficiently with their own fission neutrons (thus potentially causing a nuclear chain reaction in relatively small amounts of the pure material) are termed "fissile." Examples of fissile isotopes are U-235 and plutonium-239.
Output

Typical fission events release about two hundred million eV (200 MeV) of energy for each fission event. The exact isotope which is fissioned, and whether or not it is fissionable or fissile, has only a small impact on the amount of energy released. This can be easily seen by examining the curve of binding energy (image below), and noting that the average binding energy of the actinide nuclides beginning with uranium is around 7.6 Mev per nucleon. Looking further left on the curve of binding energy, where the fission products cluster, it is easily observed that the binding energy of the fission products tends to center around 8.5 Mev per nucleon. Thus, in any fission event of an isotope in the actinide's range of mass, roughly 0.9 Mev is released per nucleon of the starting element. The fission of U235 by a slow neutron yields nearly identical energy to the fission of U238 by a fast neutron. This energy release profile holds true for thorium and the various minor actinides as well.[5]

By contrast, most chemical oxidation reactions (such as burning coal or TNT) release at most a few eV per event. So, nuclear fuel contains at least ten million times more usable energy per unit mass than does chemical fuel. The energy of nuclear fission is released as kinetic energy of the fission products and fragments, and as electromagnetic radiation in the form of gamma rays; in a nuclear reactor, the energy is converted to heat as the particles and gamma rays collide with the atoms that make up the reactor and its working fluid, usually water or occasionally heavy water.

When a uranium nucleus fissions into two daughter nuclei fragments, about 0.1 percent of the mass of the uranium nucleus[6] appears as the fission energy of ~200 MeV. For uranium-235 (total mean fission energy 202.5 MeV), typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the daughter nuclei, which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion. Also, an average of 2.5 neutrons are emitted, with a mean kinetic energy per neutron of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).[7] The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons. The latter figure means that a nuclear fission explosion or criticality accident emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total of both types of radiation ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, as simple heat). In an atomic bomb, this heat may serve to raise the temperature of the bomb core to 100 million kelvin and cause secondary emission of soft X-rays, which convert some of this energy to ionizing radiation. However, in nuclear reactors, the fission fragment kinetic energy remains as low-temperature heat, which itself causes little or no ionization.

So-called neutron bombs (enhanced radiation weapons) have been constructed which release a larger fraction of their energy as ionizing radiation (specifically, neutrons), but these are all thermonuclear devices which rely on the nuclear fusion stage to produce the extra radiation. The energy dynamics of pure fission bombs always remain at about 6% yield of the total in radiation, as a prompt result of fission.

The total prompt fission energy amounts to about 181 MeV, or ~ 89% of the total energy which is eventually released by fission over time. The remaining ~ 11% is released in beta decays which have various half-lives, but begin as a process in the fission products immediately; and in delayed gamma emissions associated with these beta decays. For example, in uranium-235 this delayed energy is divided into about 6.5 MeV in betas, 8.8 MeV in antineutrinos (released at the same time as the betas), and finally, an additional 6.3 MeV in delayed gamma emission from the excited beta-decay products (for a mean total of ~10 gamma ray emissions per fission, in all). Thus, an additional 6% of the total energy of fission is also released eventually as non-prompt ionizing radiation, and this is about evenly divided between gamma and beta ray energy. The remainder of the energy is emitted as antineutrinos, which as a practical matter are not considered ionizing radiation (see below).

The 8.8 MeV/202.5 MeV = 4.3% of the energy which is released as antineutrinos is not captured by the reactor material as heat, and escapes directly through all materials (including the Earth) at nearly the speed of light, and into interplanetary space (the amount absorbed is minuscule). Neutrino radiation is ordinarily not classed as ionizing radiation, because it is almost entirely not absorbed and therefore does not produce effects. Almost all of the rest of the radiation (beta and gamma radiation) is eventually converted to heat in a reactor core or its shielding.

Some processes involving neutrons are notable for absorbing or finally yielding energy — for example neutron kinetic energy does not yield heat immediately if the neutron is captured by a uranium-238 atom to breed plutonium-239, but this energy is emitted if the plutonium-239 is later fissioned. On the other hand, so-called delayed neutrons emitted as radioactive decay products with half-lives up to several minutes, from fission-daughters, are very important to reactor control, because they give a characteristic "reaction" time for the total nuclear reaction to double in size, if the reaction is run in a "delayed-critical" zone which deliberately relies on these neutrons for a supercritical chain-reaction (one in which each fission cycle yields more neutrons than it absorbs). Without their existence, the nuclear chain-reaction would be prompt critical and increase in size faster than it could be controlled by human intervention. In this case, the first experimental atomic reactors would have run away to a dangerous and messy "prompt critical reaction" before their operators could have manually shut them down (for this reason, designer Enrico Fermi included radiation-counter-triggered control rods, suspended by electromagnets, which could automatically drop into the center of Chicago Pile-1). If these delayed neutrons are captured without producing fissions, they produce heat as well.[8]
Product nuclei and binding energy
Main articles: fission product and fission product yield

In fission there is a preference to yield fragments with even proton numbers, which is called the odd-even effect on the fragments charge distribution. However, no odd-even effect is observed on fragment mass number distribution. This result is attributed to nucleon pair breaking.

In nuclear fission events the nuclei may break into any combination of lighter nuclei, but the most common event is not fission to equal mass nuclei of about mass 120; the most common event (depending on isotope and process) is a slightly unequal fission in which one daughter nucleus has a mass of about 90 to 100 u and the other the remaining 130 to 140 u.[9] Unequal fissions are energetically more favorable because this allows one product to be closer to the energetic minimum near mass 60 u (only a quarter of the average fissionable mass), while the other nucleus with mass 135 u is still not far out of the range of the most tightly bound nuclei (another statement of this, is that the atomic binding energy curve is slightly steeper to the left of mass 120 u than to the right of it).
Origin of the active energy and the curve of binding energy
The "curve of binding energy": A graph of binding energy per nucleon of common isotopes.

Nuclear fission of heavy elements produces energy because the specific binding energy (binding energy per mass) of intermediate-mass nuclei with atomic numbers and atomic masses close to 62Ni and 56Fe is greater than the nucleon-specific binding energy of very heavy nuclei, so that energy is released when heavy nuclei are broken apart. The total rest masses of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus (M). The excess mass Δm = M – Mp is the invariant mass of the energy that is released as photons (gamma rays) and kinetic energy of the fission fragments, according to the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2.

The variation in specific binding energy with atomic number is due to the interplay of the two fundamental ****** acting on the component nucleons (protons and neutrons) that make up the nucleus. Nuclei are bound by an attractive nuclear force between nucleons, which overcomes the electrostatic repulsion between protons. However, the nuclear force acts only over relatively short ranges (a few nucleon diameters), since it follows an exponentially decaying Yukawa potential which makes it insignificant at longer distances. The electrostatic repulsion is of longer range, since it decays by an inverse-square rule, so that nuclei larger than about 12 nucleons in diameter reach a point that the total electrostatic repulsion overcomes the nuclear force and causes them to be spontaneously unstable. For the same reason, larger nuclei (more than about eight nucleons in diameter) are less tightly bound per unit mass than are smaller nuclei; breaking a large nucleus into two or more intermediate-sized nuclei releases energy. The origin of this energy is the nuclear force, which intermediate-sized nuclei allows to act more efficiently, because each nucleon has more neighbors which are within the short range attraction of this force. Thus less energy is needed in the smaller nuclei and the difference to the state before is set free.

Also because of the short range of the strong binding force, large stable nuclei must contain proportionally more neutrons than do the lightest elements, which are most stable with a 1 to 1 ratio of protons and neutrons. Nuclei which have more than 20 protons cannot be stable unless they have more than an equal number of neutrons. Extra neutrons stabilize heavy elements because they add to strong-force binding (which acts between all nucleons) without adding to proton–proton repulsion. Fission products have, on average, about the same ratio of neutrons and protons as their parent nucleus, and are therefore usually unstable to beta decay (which changes neutrons to protons) because they have proportionally too many neutrons compared to stable isotopes of similar mass.

This tendency for fission product nuclei to beta-decay is the fundamental cause of the problem of radioactive high level waste from nuclear reactors. Fission products tend to be beta emitters, emitting fast-moving electrons to conserve electric charge, as excess neutrons convert to protons in the fission-product atoms. See Fission products (by element) for a description of fission products sorted by element.
Chain reactions
A schematic nuclear fission chain reaction. 1. A uranium-235 atom absorbs a neutron and fissions into two new atoms (fission fragments), releasing three new neutrons and some binding energy. 2. One of those neutrons is absorbed by an atom of uranium-238 and does not continue the reaction. Another neutron is simply lost and does not collide with anything, also not continuing the reaction. However, one neutron does collide with an atom of uranium-235, which then fissions and releases two neutrons and some binding energy. 3. Both of those neutrons collide with uranium-235 atoms, each of which fissions and releases between one and three neutrons, which can then continue the reaction.
Main article: Nuclear chain reaction

Several heavy elements, such as uranium, thorium, and plutonium, undergo both spontaneous fission, a form of radioactive decay and induced fission, a form of nuclear reaction. Elemental isotopes that undergo induced fission when struck by a free neutron are called fissionable; isotopes that undergo fission when struck by a thermal, slow moving neutron are also called fissile. A few particularly fissile and readily obtainable isotopes (notably 233U, 235U and 239Pu) are called nuclear fuels because they can sustain a chain reaction and can be obtained in large enough quantities to be useful.

All fissionable and fissile isotopes undergo a small amount of spontaneous fission which releases a few free neutrons into any sample of nuclear fuel. Such neutrons would escape rapidly from the fuel and become a free neutron, with a mean lifetime of about 15 minutes before decaying to protons and beta particles. However, neutrons almost invariably impact and are absorbed by other nuclei in the vicinity long before this happens (newly created fission neutrons move at about 7% of the speed of light, and even moderated neutrons move at about 8 times the speed of sound). Some neutrons will impact fuel nuclei and induce further fissions, releasing yet more neutrons. If enough nuclear fuel is assembled in one place, or if the escaping neutrons are sufficiently contained, then these freshly emitted neutrons outnumber the neutrons that escape from the assembly, and a sustained nuclear chain reaction will take place.

An assembly that supports a sustained nuclear chain reaction is called a critical assembly or, if the assembly is almost entirely made of a nuclear fuel, a critical mass. The word "critical" refers to a cusp in the behavior of the differential equation that governs the number of free neutrons present in the fuel: if less than a critical mass is present, then the amount of neutrons is determined by radioactive decay, but if a critical mass or more is present, then the amount of neutrons is controlled instead by the physics of the chain reaction. The actual mass of a critical mass of nuclear fuel depends strongly on the geometry and surrounding materials.

Not all fissionable isotopes can sustain a chain reaction. For example, 238U, the most abundant form of uranium, is fissionable but not fissile: it undergoes induced fission when impacted by an energetic neutron with over 1 MeV of kinetic energy. However, too few of the neutrons produced by 238U fission are energetic enough to induce further fissions in 238U, so no chain reaction is possible with this isotope. Instead, bombarding 238U with slow neutrons causes it to absorb them (becoming 239U) and decay by beta emission to 239Np which then decays again by the same process to 239Pu; that process is used to manufacture 239Pu in breeder reactors. In-situ plutonium production also contributes to the neutron chain reaction in other types of reactors after sufficient plutonium-239 has been produced, since plutonium-239 is also a fissile element which serves as fuel. It is estimated that up to half of the power produced by a standard "non-breeder" reactor is produced by the fission of plutonium-239 produced in place, over the total life-cycle of a fuel load.

Fissionable, non-fissile isotopes can be used as fission energy source even without a chain reaction. Bombarding 238U with fast neutrons induces fissions, releasing energy as long as the external neutron source is present. This is an important effect in all reactors where fast neutrons from the fissile isotope can cause the fission of nearby 238U nuclei, which means that some small part of the 238U is "burned-up" in all nuclear fuels, especially in fast breeder reactors that operate with higher-energy neutrons. That same fast-fission effect is used to augment the energy released by modern thermonuclear weapons, by jacketing the weapon with 238U to react with neutrons released by nuclear fusion at the center of the device.
Fission reactors
The cooling towers of the Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant, in Germany.

Critical fission reactors are the most common type of nuclear reactor. In a critical fission reactor, neutrons produced by fission of fuel atoms are used to induce yet more fissions, to sustain a controllable amount of energy release. Devices that produce engineered but non-self-sustaining fission reactions are subcritical fission reactors. Such devices use radioactive decay or particle accelerators to trigger fissions.

Critical fission reactors are built for three primary purposes, which typically involve different engineering trade-offs to take advantage of either the heat or the neutrons produced by the fission chain reaction:

power reactors are intended to produce heat for nuclear power, either as part of a generating station or a local power system such as a nuclear submarine.
research reactors are intended to produce neutrons and/or activate radioactive sources for scientific, medical, engineering, or other research purposes.
breeder reactors are intended to produce nuclear fuels in bulk from more abundant isotopes. The better known fast breeder reactor makes 239Pu (a nuclear fuel) from the naturally very abundant 238U (not a nuclear fuel). Thermal breeder reactors previously tested using 232Th to breed the fissile isotope 233U (thorium fuel cycle) continue to be studied and developed.

While, in principle, all fission reactors can act in all three capacities, in practice the tasks lead to conflicting engineering goals and most reactors have been built with only one of the above tasks in mind. (There are several early counter-examples, such as the Hanford N reactor, now decommissioned). Power reactors generally convert the kinetic energy of fission products into heat, which is used to heat a working fluid and drive a heat engine that generates mechanical or electrical power. The working fluid is usually water with a steam turbine, but some designs use other materials such as gaseous helium. Research reactors produce neutrons that are used in various ways, with the heat of fission being treated as an unavoidable waste product. Breeder reactors are a specialized form of research reactor, with the caveat that the sample being irradiated is usually the fuel itself, a mixture of 238U and 235U. For a more detailed description of the physics and operating principles of critical fission reactors, see nuclear reactor physics. For a description of their social, political, and environmental aspects, see nuclear power.
Fission bombs
The mushroom cloud of the atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan in 1945 rose some 18 kilometres (11 mi) above the bomb's hypocenter. The bomb killed at least 60,000 people.[10]

One class of nuclear weapon, a fission bomb (not to be confused with the fusion bomb), otherwise known as an atomic bomb or atom bomb, is a fission reactor designed to liberate as much energy as possible as rapidly as possible, before the released energy causes the reactor to explode (and the chain reaction to stop). Development of nuclear weapons was the motivation behind early research into nuclear fission: the Manhattan Project of the U.S. military during World War II carried out most of the early scientific work on fission chain reactions, culminating in the Trinity test bomb and the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs that were exploded over the cities Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Japan in August 1945.

Even the first fission bombs were thousands of times more explosive than a comparable mass of chemical explosive. For example, Little Boy weighed a total of about four tons (of which 60 kg was nuclear fuel) and was 11 feet (3.4 m) long; it also yielded an explosion equivalent to about 15 kilotons of TNT, destroying a large part of the city of Hiroshima. Modern nuclear weapons (which include a thermonuclear fusion as well as one or more fission stages) are hundreds of times more energetic for their weight than the first pure fission atomic bombs (see nuclear weapon yield), so that a modern single missile warhead bomb weighing less than 1/8 as much as Little Boy (see for example W88) has a yield of 475,000 tons of TNT, and could bring destruction to about 10 times the city area.

While the fundamental physics of the fission chain reaction in a nuclear weapon is similar to the physics of a controlled nuclear reactor, the two types of device must be engineered quite differently (see nuclear reactor physics). A nuclear bomb is designed to release all its energy at once, while a reactor is designed to generate a steady supply of useful power. While overheating of a reactor can lead to, and has led to, meltdown and steam explosions, the much lower uranium enrichment makes it impossible for a nuclear reactor to explode with the same destructive power as a nuclear weapon. It is also difficult to extract useful power from a nuclear bomb, although at least one rocket propulsion system, Project Orion, was intended to work by exploding fission bombs behind a massively padded and shielded spacecraft.

The strategic importance of nuclear weapons is a major reason why the technology of nuclear fission is politically sensitive. Viable fission bomb designs are, arguably, within the capabilities of many being relatively simple from an engineering viewpoint. However, the difficulty of obtaining fissile nuclear material to realize the designs, is the key to the relative unavailability of nuclear weapons to all but modern industrialized governments with special programs to produce fissile materials (see uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel cycle).

[LesM]

Maybe someday Gen. Buck's cutie will strap one of those babies to her sweet little footsie and kick me in the nuttsies, then....

Ya-hoooo, ya-hoooo, ya-hooooooooo!!

We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

[bbbb]

Feminists would be pissed off by this too. The main reason woman-on-man violence is seen as a joke is the idea that women are weak and men are strong, so the idea of a woman hurting a man is funny because men don't get hurt by women. If you get rid of the sexist stereotypes and think women and men are equal then violence is just as bad whoever its happening to.
Here are a few current feminist icons in a room talking about a man who's wife, after asking for a divorce, drugged him & tied him up. Then waited for him to wake up and then hacked off his penis and finally went all the way to ensure he could never have any kind of sex life again by putting it in a garbage disposal unit. Note the laughter, the vindictive joy they all (save one) take from the victims position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc

There is NOTHING stopping any woman doing similar and although still a fairly rare occurence in western cultures, it does happen a lot. In fact, that and ca$tration were a common punishment in years gone by, to which many women would eagerly applaude.
Note the apology, the barely-stifled laughter from Sharon & co.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc

There are plenty of issues in the world and focusing on those that affect you the most does not mean you don't care about the others.

Again, just because somebody focuses on the issues most meaningful to them doesn't mean they don't care about any other issues.

Really you are just approaching this completely wrong. Rights are not a competition between men and women. Improving things for women doesn't make things worse for men.

My person gripe is that if they're (feminists) going to claim to seek equality, then it should be FULL equality, not this selective equality which is always to women's benefit or to men's detriment. So we should see feminists demanding equal jail terms or equal paternity leave for men. If they're going to focus so much on positive outcomes for women, they should declare this instead of lying about equality.

However, moving on... Re-read the above quotes again, about how focusing on x isn't necessarily bad for y and such... Then consider what you said recently, as quoted below:

You mean some women are angry when instead of working towards equality men try and make everything about them, despite being incredibly privileged in society? No kidding.
So the typically feminist mentality of double-standards hasn't failed. You've basically stated it's fine for women to focus on women but it's terrible that men focus on men.
That's just yet-another area feminism demonstrates it's intolerance for open debate. They can't go and just talk about the issues, they bawl & scream, demanding they alone be heard and the men stfu. And what do they blame everything on? MEN.
Feminism IS sexism of the highest extreme.


However the fact that you think things like abortion rights, slutwalks and r@pe shield laws are bad things shows that you don't like women very much and probably think of them as second class citizens. Which is a more likely reason for your hatred of feminism than 'they are all nazis'.
However, that you don't think things like paternity fraud, parental rights, the boys crisis, suicide rates are bad things shows that you don't like men very much and probably think of them as second class citizens. Which is a more likely reason for your hatred of MRA's than 'they only think about men's issues', you know, just like feminists only think about women's issues.


The Fourth Wavers are the ones most active on the internet, while the Third Wavers are the ones most active in the universities. I wouldn't characterise the Fourth Wave as based on "hate" so much as it is based on *anger*. That is, they're used to seeing violence against women trivialised and ignored, and they're pissed off about it and trying to do something to change that. And they may even be succeeding. Though yes, many of them are not exactly being reasonable, and some can fairly be described as bigots.
So given the video above, you can see why MRA's are angry when feminists continually trivialize male rap3 victims (of women and other men), male victims of domestic violence and invade & abuse men's support groups as in the other videos from my previous post.


It reflects how men and women are treated differently by society. Society, not feminists. Feminists would want men and women to be treated equally. So it begs the question why they trivialize male victims of DV. It also brings to light begs the question, contrary to your other claims, as to why they promote only the 'man abuser' & 'woman victim' meme and demands laws that state 'women' and take no issue with funding female-only support groups. IF feminists wanted men & women treated equally as you claim, they would speak out against this mentality - instead, they promote it.


...not that everyone walking past that day (men and women) happened to be a man-hating feminist.But you'll note the woman who openly rejoiced.
She claims she is 'pretty nice all the time, I should've done what she done', yeah, she demonstrated how nice she is by rejoicing in seeing a male victim of abuse. Repeatedly in this video we see women assuming the man 'must have done something to deserve it'. Don't you think, when women are systematically glazed over with images of 'bad man/victim woman', it just might alter their perceptions of men & women? Even just a little..?


One from the Vaults, nice to see another educated man here. This forum can be pretty misogynist at times. :PThis forum is based in misandry. If we had a forum on cuntbusting, that would be misogyny. This one is misandry. Not everything is about women, you know...



Please learn how VAWA works beyond just looking at the name.I have explained that groups which support male victims of DV are prohibited from receiving any funding. Add that to the title's sexism amongst the other elements & it's clear that VAWA is very sexist in more than it's title.

Considering men find it easier to get hired and women only earn on average 80% of what men earn I don't think you need them.I do hope your claim is based on ignorance rather than intention deception - again... The so-called wage-gap is an average which does NOT account for such trivial things like; hours worked (men on average work 14 hours more than women p/w), education, service time with the company, job type (e.g. a female cleaner of a small office building will obviously EARN less than an electrician risking his life 100+ft above the ground in various weather conditions), etc. etc. Pretending two people who do identical jobs with identical backgrounds in the same company just doesn't happen in today's world with the rarest of exception. In fact, as it is today, young women are paid more than their male counterparts... Until they have a baby (and before you blame men for women getting pregnant, remember men do NOT have abortion options and extremely limited reproductive rights & devices compared to women).

No groups exist to help people who falsely accuse others...NOW & iconic TV feminists have been known more than once to support false accusers even after they've been found to be lying. Look at Nancy Grace for an example.

Women have been convicted of sexual assault yes.Not to the same level as men. Women's sexual misconduct is typically excused, justified or trivialized. For instance, the recent Catherine Kieu Becker charges were reported in the papers. She wasn't charged with any sexual offences. MGM is perfectly legal in the western world as well as third world nations despite killing many babies and young men. Girls learn in school they can assault boys sexually and only on occasion face repercussions, whilst boys who ping a bra are suspended from school on the grounds of sexual harassment. Amazing double-standards, which feminists who you claim seek equality somehow manage to not say a word against it whilst focusing on the bad boys' behaviours alone.

Look at how you tried to explain it as the woman failing to protect herself.What? Please quote the precise words rather than putting words in my mouth - aka lying... again.

Show me the law that says men should be treated more harshly, or the feminist support for such a thing.I didn't say there was a law for it. I've repeatedly said that if feminists wanted TRUE EQUALITY they would speak out against it, yet they always manage to either excuse or justify or use misdirection (as you've done repeatedly in this thread) to avoid the parts of equality that don't suit them (you know, the parts where men might benefit or women might not benefit from equality).

I already agreed that the law regarding r@pe in England should be changed, but you keep coming back to it as if it has anything to do with feminism. The law wasn't written by feminists.Yes, streaking is another example that feminists know of an inequality yet remain strangely silent about despite claiming to want equality. There were others I raised too, not just r@p3, it is you who returns to only portion, not me.

Blah blah Blah dem evul menz am alway privulidgeded but us womyn am alway so hard doned bye
If you want to see privileges... Look at THESE lists.

http://mensresistance.wordpress.com/female-privilege-checklist/
http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/male-privilege-vs-female-privilege-14354.html#post97703
http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/my-own-privilege-list-8877.html


1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.

3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.

4. Regardless of my mate value society has organized fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.

5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.

6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.

7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.

8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.

9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.

10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.

11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.

12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.

13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.

14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.

15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing “discount” because of my gender. If I am very pretty it will increase my discount.

16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.

17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behavior is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defense for murdering that same husband.

18. At age 18 I will not be ****** to register for Selective Service and will not be penalized for failing to do so.

19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and ****** to become a military slave.

20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly %100 of workplace fatalities.

21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.

22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.

23. Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.

24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.

25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.

26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes.

27. If I **** or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.

28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.

29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.

30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localized. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.

31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.

32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.

33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically ****** a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.

34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshaled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.

35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control %80 of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.

36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.

37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.

38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.

39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.

40. If I make a false claim of **** against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behavior I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.

41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.

42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organizations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalized %30 of the time.

43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.

44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.

45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.

46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.

47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.

48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.

49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society ****** into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.

50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.

51. If I’m uncomfortable exercising around men I can demand a female only gym be made for women. If any male only gyms exist I can demand membership under threat of lawsuit.

52. If my female only gym at the university decides to close early for safety reasons I can scream sexism and force them to keep it open as long as the main gym.

53. If I succeed at keeping the female gym open and I leave late at night and I don’t feel safe I can demand that the university spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for more lighting and police presence.

54. If after getting new lighting and police protection I decide I don’t want to go to the gym anymore well that’s just my prerogative.

55. I’m likely to believe that if a woman is intoxicated she is not capable of giving consent and if sex occurs it is ****. However, if her male partner is also intoxicated he is capable of consenting.

56. If a man is promoted over me at work I have a right to suspect sexism even though I also believe that under adverse circumstances men are more capable than women of making good decisions. (see #55)

57. I can cry and get my husband to do something for me that he might not have done otherwise.

58. I expect people (especially men) to be sensitive to my feelings.

59. I can deny a man’s feelings or disregard them or ridicule him for having them without social penalty.

60. If I lose my job it’s because of sexism or the economy. If a man loses his job it’s because he’s a loser.

61. If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place.

62. Even though men die more from prostate cancer than women die from breast cancer I can expect that twice as much funding is given for breast cancer. The same will apply to any female specific disease or malady.

63. If for some reason I do not get custody of my children I will be expected to pay less child support than another man in my exact same position.

64. If I kidnap my children and I am eventually caught I can successfully defend myself by claiming I was protecting them from my husband–even if my children were given to him to protect them from me.

65. My gender makes up %53 of the voting population yet when I see more men in political office I will call that sexism.

66. If I am married with children and I want to stay home with the kids I’m likely to blame my husband for not making enough to allow me to do that.

67. I think it is my right to work and I am unconcerned if the influx of women into the workforce has reduced overall wages to the point that it’s hard to support a family on just one income, or affirmative action has kept men from being promoted even though they deserved it.

68. I can get student financial aid without signing up for Selective Service (the Draft).

69. I can get employment with a federal agency without signing up for Selective Service.

70. Restrooms for my gender will be cleaner and are more likely to have flowers or other decorations.

71. If I’m caring for a child restrooms for my gender will more likely have a changing table for my convenience.

72. People I’ve never met before are more likely to open doors for me.

73. People I’ve never met before are more likely to talk to me in public.

74. If I go to a bar I can expect that members of the opposite sex will purchase drinks for me.

75. Anytime I find an organization just for men I can denounce it as sexism.

76. I believe that women should have organizations just for women.

77. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he doesn’t call I have a right to think of him as an asshole.

78. If I meet a man that I like and I give him my phone number and he calls me I have a right to blow him off or act like I don’t know him.

79. I believe I have a right to live in an orderly and safe society but I feel no obligation to risk my safety to secure or maintain that society.

80. I like it when bars and clubs have drinks specials just for women.

81. I think that organizations that offer any discounts or privileges just for men is a clear sign of sexism.

82. If I’m white I will live 6 years longer than white males and 14 years longer than black males.

83. If I’m encouraged to get medical care it’s because I owe it to myself.

84. When my husband is encouraged to get medical help it’s because he owes to to me and the kids.

85. If something bad happens to me or just one woman I believe it is an offense against all women.

86. I believe that if something bad happens to a man it’s because he’s a loser.

87. I think that alimony is fair when paid to a woman but not fair when paid by a woman.

88. I’m more likely to believe that women who commit crimes are sick and need treatment or understanding whereas men who commit crimes are evil and should be locked up forever.

89. I can criticize the opposite sex without social penalty, but woe be to the man who attempts to criticize me or other women.

90. I can throw a fit and act like a two year old to get what I want without damaging my mate value.

91. I have the luxury of not being the filter for natural selection.

92. I can sleep with my boss if I want and afterwards I can sue him for sexual harassment.

93. I can wear seductive clothing and perfume to attract a man at work but no one will accuse me of sexual harassment.

94. If I hear a story about Darfur and how men who leave the refugee camps to gather wood are hacked to death to prevent their wives from being raped I am likely to think that is proper but not likely to send money.

95. If I hear a story about Darfur and how women are leaving the refugee camps to gather wood are being raped I’m likely to be outraged. I’m also likely to wonder why these women’s husbands aren’t protecting them.

96. If I ever heard these stories about Darfur it is my privilege not to care or even consider that the reason the second story exists is because all the men in the first have already been killed.

97. It is my right to maintain the belief that men oppress women despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

1. I’m under less pressure than others to engage in risky, dangerous and unhealthy behaviors - one of the reasons I get to live longer than others do.

2. I can choose professions that are less lucrative, and not be called a loser.

3. If I don’t rise to the top of my profession, it’s OK – people won’t judge me the less for it.

4. I’m entitled to the benefits of a safe, orderly society, but no one expects me to risk my personal safety to maintain it.

5. I have the right to have the overwhelming majority of personal risk suffered in defense of my country handled by others.

6. I’m allowed to avoid violence, and even run from it, without the risk I’ll be laughed at.

7. If I see someone else in danger, I’m allowed to stop and think carefully about my personal risk before saving them, without my courage being called into question.

8. I have the right to avoid risky, dangerous challenges, and not be called a coward.

9. I’m allowed to cry as a child and tell my parents I’m scared of something - my parents won't be disappointed with me.

10. I have the right to have most of the really dangerous professions handled by others.

11. If I commit a crime, I get less jail time than others would get for the exact same crime.

12. When I find myself with others in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, I have the right to be evacuated first, once the children are safe. Others can wait.

13. If I get slaughtered as part of some atrocity, people will be especially outraged and will call particular attention to the fact I was slaughtered. When others are slaughtered, it isn't quite as upsetting.

14. I have the right to give my child up for adoption, and thus totally repudiate any personal and financial responsibilities I might otherwise have.

15. I can choose whether I want to be a parent or not, knowing that society will compel the other parent to meet their financial responsibilities - whether they want to or not.

16. If I am personally attacked, I expect otherwise safe, otherwise uninvolved people to come to my defense.

17. If I see someone else being attacked, I’m not expected to risk my own safety to defend them. It's OK for me to wait for others to intervene, and it’s also OK for me to criticize others if they don’t.

18. In any dispute involving custody, I’m granted the presumption that I am the better, safer parent.

19. I have the right to interact with children not my own, and not have people look at me suspiciously.

20. If I choose to become a parent, people understand if I want to focus entirely on the personal, day-to-day care and nurturing of my children. Society expects my spouse to make enough money to make this choice possible.

21. I can get real nasty when someone makes me mad, and call them ugly, a loser, a nerd, a geek, a disgusting creep, a revolting little worm, a worthless piece of garbage, a scum bag, a wimp, a pervert, a jerk-off, an old fart, or a fat slob. After all, I have the right not to be treated meanly at work, and the right not to hear harsh things that might make me uncomfortable. I have legal recourse if that right is not respected, and I have the right to make this perfectly clear on my job interview.

22. I’m allowed to embrace and cultivate my spiritual qualities, and adopt a more elevated and more refined view of life - because other people handle all the "dirty work" like: yard work, garbage hauling, construction, fishing, mining, sewage disposal, street cleaning, long distance trucking, baggage handling, painting, sandblasting, and cement work.

23. If I fail at something, I can go to college and study the historical ****** and social constructs that make it harder for people like me. If others fail, it’s because they just don’t have what it takes.

24. If I fail at almost everything, I can always teach college courses that explain why people like me fail a lot.

If I marry, there is a very good chance that I will be given the option to quit my job and live off my husband’s* income without having my femininity questioned.
If I become pregnant, I and I alone choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or have the baby. As a result, I can be reasonably certain that I will never be held financially responsible for a child I didn’t want to have, and that I will never have my unborn child aborted without my consent.
Many employers, including the government, have policies specifically designed to privilege me over male candidates.
If my husband is unfaithful to me or abuses me, I will receive sympathy unmixed with derision.
I am significantly more likely to graduate from college than I would be if I were a man.
Moderately impaired social skills are not a serious impediment to my ability to achieve romantic and sexual fulfillment.
Although I am every bit as likely as a man to allow my sex drive to compromise my judgment, I will never be accused of thinking with my clitoris.
I can expect to pay a significantly lower premium for car insurance than a man with a similar driving record would.
If I commit a crime, I will likely be treated much more leniently in a court of law than would a man who had committed the same crime.
Men are expected to buy me drinks, meals, flowers, and jewelry in exchange for a chance to spend time with me.
Because I am not expected to be my family’s primary breadwinner, I have the luxury of prioritizing factors other than salary when choosing a career path.
***I have the privilege of being unaware of my female privilege.***

1. I have a much lower chance of being murdered than a man.

2. I have a much lower chance of being driven to successfully commit suicide than a man.

3. I have a lower chance of being a victim of a violent assault than a man.

4. I have probably been taught that it is acceptable to cry.

5. I will probably live longer than the average man.

6. Most people in society probably will not see my overall worthiness as a person being exclusively tied to how high up in the hierarchy I rise.

7. I have a much better chance of being considered to be a worthy mate for someone, even if I’m unemployed with little money, than a man.

8. I am given much greater latitude to form close, intimate friendships than a man is.

9. My chance of suffering a work-related injury or illness is significantly lower than a man’s.

10. My chance of being killed on the job is a tiny fraction of a man’s.

11. If I shy away from fights, it is unlikely that this will damage my standing in my peer group or call into question my worthiness as a sex partner.

12. I am not generally expected to be capable of violence. If I lack this capacity, this will generally not be seen as a damning personal deficiency.

13. If I was born in North America since WWII, I can be almost certain that my genitals were not mutilated soon after birth, without anesthesia.

14. If I attempt to hug a friend in joy, it’s much less likely that my friend will wonder about my sexuality or pull away in unease.

15. If I seek a hug in solace from a close friend, I’ll have much less concern about how my friend will interpret the gesture or whether my worthiness as a member of my gender will be called into question.

16. I generally am not compelled by the rules of my sex to wear emotional armor in interactions with most people.

17. I am frequently the emotional center of my family.

18. I am allowed to wear clothes that signify ‘vulnerability’, ‘playful openness’, and ’softness’.

19. I am allowed to BE vulnerable, playful, and soft without calling my worthiness as a human being into question.

20. If I interact with other people’s children — particularly people I don’t know very well — I do not have to worry much about the interaction being misinterpreted.

21. If I have trouble accommodating to some aspects of gender demands, I have a much greater chance than a man does of having a sympathetic audience to discuss the unreasonableness of the demand, and a much lower chance that this failure to accommodate will be seen as signifying my fundamental inadequacy as a member of my gender.

22. I am less likely to be shamed for being sexually inactive than a man.

23. From my late teens through menopause, for most levels of sexual attractiveness, it is easier for me to find a sex partner at my attractiveness level than it is for a man.

24. My role in my child’s life is generally seen as more important than the child’s father’s role.


1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.

2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.

3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.

4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.

5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.

6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.

7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.

8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.

9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.

10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.

11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.

12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.

13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.

14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.

15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.

16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.

17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.

18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.

19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.

20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.

21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”

22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.

23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.

24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.

25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.

1. If I express negative feelings about something that is affecting me, either physically or verbally, people are more likely to see it as a legitimate problem that needs to be solved rather than a defect of my character.

2. I can rely on a greater likelihood that others will believe that a third party is the cause of my suffering rather than myself.

3. I can express my sexuality with significantly less likelihood of being seen as a threat to others.

4. I do not have to worry about my sexual attraction to others being perceived as blinding myself to or devaluing their character.

5. I can absorb aggressive, violent and/or male-dominated media and partake in aggressive, violent and/or male dominant behavior and be seen as a pioneer for my gender rather than a negative stereotype.

6. Autoerotic sexual activity is far less likely to be seen as a sign of my failure as a human being.

7. I can rely on advertisers and other media outlets proclaiming that I can be overweight and still be attractive.

8. I can rely on a greater likelihood of outcry and disdain over any negative opinions or statements or dismissal of privileges or respect regarding my physical appearance.

9. I can rely on there being outcry from a sizable section of society should someone of the opposite gender express disdain for anything pertaining to my gender or sex or any form of character assassination that relies on my gender or sex.

10. I can rely on the possibility of being granted media coverage should I ever go missing.

11. I am given less impetus to worry about growing up a social or sexual deviant based on my accomplishments in life or lack thereof.

12. I can be confident that I will be judged significantly less harshly for my sexual performance, and that such a thing will be far less likely to be used as an attack on my overall character.

13. Assertion of myself based on my gender is more likely to be seen in a positive light by mainstream society. Pride in my gender is far more likely to be as a sign of intelligence than a lack thereof.

14. I can speak on matters of gender where issues regarding my own are discussed with greatly decreased likelihood of being considered insecure, ignorant, overprivileged or insane. I can also have greater confidence that such views of mine will be accepted and, if not accepted, will be treated less harshly and result in less dire consequences.

15. I do not require as much reliance on the achievement of a significant other to prove the existence of moral character within myself.

16. My biological and hormonal makeup is less likely to be seen as impetus for a potential criminal threat.

17. I have significantly greater confidence in knowing sexist behavior or commentary committed against myself will be recognized as sexism, and that such sexism is unjustified.

18. I am given more reason to believe that someone, somewhere, outside my peer group, cares about me and is willing to look out for me and my best interests, based solely on my gender.


1) Career wise, I can complain about harassment and not laughed at or have my gender called into question by both genders.

2) I can skip a few years of employment and then return, demanding the same rises that others have had who remained employed. If my demand is not met, I can accuse the company of discrimination.

3) Even though I'm more likely to abuse children, I am perceived as sweet & innocent.

4) If I start a fight with a man, I can be guaranteed others will come to my defense - even if he isn't defending himself.

5) I can go to a bar and drink for free.

6) I almost never have to worry about being sexually harrassed by my boss as I can take him to the cleaners if he even tries it.

7) My ability to do a certain job will never come into question because of my gender.

8 ) I can fall on my gender as a sympathy vote if I run for politics.

9) I can marry someone based on thier financial or social status like it will actually empower me more.

10) I can sexually assault men and remain legally immune.

11) I can go out in public wearing almost anything without being harrassed or judged as I have a lot more options in clothing, whereas men are generally restricted in their 'acceptable' dress codes.

12) If I so happen to meet someone at a party, and decide to have sex, I would be viewed as being “empowered” and television even promotes this with programmes like "sex in the city".

13) I can sexually mutilate my male children and deprive them of a few thousand nerves which assist greatly in enhancing sexual pleasure.

14) My handbag is my world and get to have groups follow me for a simple pee.

15) I don’t have to worry about the father's opinion if I get pregnant, it's all about me!

16) I can bash men and no one bats an eye-lid, if a man bashes us women - we call him a misogynist and people will shun him.

17) I can date more than one man at the same time, and society would think I'm empowered.

18) I can put on the television and be safe in the knowledge that women are portrayed positively while men are portayed as idiots or abusers.

19) I am practically imune from legal repercussions for my actions as I have feminist groups coming to my saviour - even killing my children or husband.

20) I reproduce - that must be pretty awesome for guys to witness.

21) I can fake an orgasm... something almost impossible for a guy to do.

22) No pharmacist can claim the right to deny me any medicines I ask for at a drug store as I can claim discrimination. Of course, if I'm underage that's different - duh.

23) Even when I am acting within my gender role, I am GAINING from it, rather than being oppressed as I can CHOOSE to stay at home and enjoy watching the children grow up while my husband (assuming I bother to keep him around) works his ass off to keep a roof over our head.

24) If I go to church, I can attend knowing the folks are taught immeasurable levels of respect for me and it is meant to be mutual respect.

25) I don’t have to live up to expectations of how thin I am supposed to be - feminism freed me from such pettiness.

26) I get to use PMS as an excuse for murdering my children or husband.


Note, I'm not saying any privileges of either sex is women's fault or even feminists fault... BUT feminists DO blame men, as is so typical of them and as you have done over & over throughout this conversation.

The fact that feminists ignore AND deny female privileges even exist demonstrates their blatant sexism & ignorance of men's issues.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/be89d62f34af53f64ac616386c6e9352/tumblr_mio633RDh81rc29i6o1_500.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/484659_275784829230096_242638610_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946202_397345467050965_1549239628_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1044299_10151700245963913_517178609_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1002286_363547890439409_607591051_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/424567_487704744631697_901741530_n.jpg


And as I pointed out earlier, feminism is now beginning to demand it be above scrutiny.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/946685_516870355041230_941135017_n.png

It takes a special kind of bigotry to think this way. I wonder how many 'moderate feminists' opposed this ?

Any..? Anyone..?

[jabby]

You claim that feminists don't want 'true equality' because they don't campaign for the rights of men. Since you apparently want 'true equality' can I assume that you campaign equally for both men and women's issues?

Also, your list of 'female privileges' is really creepy in the way it keeps referring to a woman's 'mating value'. Ugh, lets not think of women as actual people, they are just babymaking factories that are all out to bleed men of money and respect! 90% of them are also hilariously wrong. Women have full reproductive rights? Have you been to America lately? Men have to join the army? Not in most developed nations. This is particularly good:

"If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place."

Really? Women have the right to be annoyed when men won't leave them alone? That is considered a privilege? Let's ignore the fact that thinking they have the right to approach any woman anywhere is an extremely good example of a male priviledge...

[bbbb]

You claim that feminists don't want 'true equality' because they don't campaign for the rights of men. Since you apparently want 'true equality' can I assume that you campaign equally for both men and women's issues?

Also, your list of 'female privileges' is really creepy in the way it keeps referring to a woman's 'mating value'. Ugh, lets not think of women as actual people, they are just babymaking factories that are all out to bleed men of money and respect! 90% of them are also hilariously wrong. Women have full reproductive rights? Have you been to America lately? Men have to join the army? Not in most developed nations. This is particularly good:

"If I go to a club or bar with my girlfriends and I look my sexy best I have a right to be perturbed when men approach me and hit on me in this public place."

Really? Women have the right to be annoyed when men won't leave them alone? That is considered a privilege? Let's ignore the fact that thinking they have the right to approach any woman anywhere is an extremely good example of a male priviledge...
I observe all of my questions have been ignored, yet again. I observe that you decline to acknowledge a single point, yet again. I observe that you instead opt to continue blaming men.
Check out drivers license application forms in USA - it states you have tick here if you're male. You cannot get a driving license unless you give permission to be called up for the draft. Men also can't get college loans without accepting the possibility of being called into the draft. There are many other examples.

MRA's have rallied behind women too, many MRA's are in fact ex-feminists who became sick and tired of the misandry & sexism of the (feminist) movement.

Approaching someone is not a privilege you numpty LOL. It's called social interaction. If you talk to women, most normal ones prefer the man to do the approaching - leaving them the option to walk or take him up.

Now, I'll just repeat ONE question from my last post...

"What? Please quote the precise words rather than putting words in my mouth - aka lying... again."

[jabby]

I observe all of my questions have been ignored, yet again. I observe that you decline to acknowledge a single point, yet again. I observe that you instead opt to continue blaming men.
Check out drivers license application forms in USA - it states you have tick here if you're male. You cannot get a driving license unless you give permission to be called up for the draft. Men also can't get college loans without accepting the possibility of being called into the draft. There are many other examples.

Maybe if you made your questions a little clearer? I searched your enormous post for question marks and only found a couple that weren't in youtube links or rhetorical questions. If you have a question please make it clear and I will do my best to answer it.

Regarding the draft, the chances of there ever being one in the USA are incredibly small. Regardless feminists have been campaigning to fight on the military front lines for a long time, with only recent success. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100199981/the-pentagon-allows-women-to-fight-on-the-front-line-when-did-feminism-become-pro-war/) Surely the fact that women are campaigning for the same right to fight as men takes away from the whole 'men have to fight for the country' idea? Seems like a lot of women would love the same rights. If that came with the formality of registering for selective service then fine. Again, its a system that was set up decades ago when the idea of women in the military was unthinkable. Now women want to be in the military and they face enormous resistance. You can't claim that not having to fight is a 'female privilege' when plenty of men are actively trying to keep them from doing so.

MRA's have rallied behind women too, many MRA's are in fact ex-feminists who became sick and tired of the misandry & sexism of the (feminist) movement.

Can you provide some examples of MRA's campaigning for women's issues? Should be easy if they are for total equality.

Approaching someone is not a privilege you numpty LOL. It's called social interaction. If you talk to women, most normal ones prefer the man to do the approaching - leaving them the option to walk or take him up.

Talk to some women. A huge amount find going to a nightclub a mixed experience at best due to the constant barrage of guys hitting on them. Why do so many end up going to gay clubs? Simply because they can't make it stop. If all men were polite and took no for an answer it wouldn't be a problem, but acting like women shouldn't have the right to be pissed off at unwanted advances is pretty sexist. It implies that a man can then get mad at her if he gets rejected, and a lot of them do making it a pretty scary experience for some women. Have you ever had to reject fifteen drunken advances a night from unpredictable strangers that are all bigger and stronger than you? It's not fun. All human beings have the right to be upset if intimidating people keep bothering them.

Now, I'll just repeat ONE question from my last post...

"What? Please quote the precise words rather than putting words in my mouth - aka lying... again."

Certainly. You said:

"The slutwalk teaches women to put themselves in compromising positions then cry victim when/if something does happen. Similar logic would be me running down the street with a megaphone shouting "I've got money, har har har, I'm really rich and have lots of spare cash - come n' grab some if you can, losers!" Obviously, you'd tell me I was asking to be mugged... and you'd be right."

You basically said that if a woman is in a 'compromising position' (I have no idea what this is - walking down the street maybe?) then it's the same thing as you 'asking to be mugged'. Presumably she is 'asking to be raped'. You are blaming the victim for failing to prevent their attack.

[kdunstfan]

Cattle were originally identified as three separate species: Bos taurus, the European or "taurine" cattle (including similar types from Africa and Asia); Bos indicus, the zebu; and the extinct Bos primigenius, the aurochs. The aurochs is ancestral to both zebu and taurine cattle. Recently, these three have increasingly been grouped as one species, with Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius as the subspecies.[5]
Zubron, a cross between wisent and cattle

Complicating the matter is the ability of cattle to interbreed with other closely related species. Hybrid individuals and even breeds exist, not only between taurine cattle and zebu (such as the sanga cattle, Bos taurus africanus), but also between one or both of these and some other members of the genus Bos – yaks (the dzo or yattle[6]), banteng, and gaur. Hybrids such as the beefalo breed can even occur between taurine cattle and either species of bison, leading some authors to consider them part of the genus Bos, as well.[7] The hybrid origin of some types may not be obvious – for example, genetic testing of the Dwarf Lulu breed, the only taurine-type cattle in Nepal, found them to be a mix of taurine cattle, zebu, and yak.[8] However, cattle cannot successfully be hybridized with more distantly related bovines such as water buffalo or African buffalo.

The aurochs originally ranged throughout Europe, North Africa, and much of Asia. In historical times, its range became restricted to Europe, and the last known individual died in Masovia, Poland, in about 1627.[9] Breeders have attempted to recreate cattle of similar appearance to aurochs by crossing traditional types of domesticated cattle, creating the Heck cattle breed.
Etymology

"Cattle" did not originate as the term for bovine animals. It was borrowed from Anglo-Norman catel, itself from Latin caput, head, and originally meant movable personal property, especially livestock of any kind, as opposed to real property (the land, which also included wild or small free-roaming animals such as chickens — they were sold as part of the land).[10] The word is closely related to "chattel" (a unit of personal property) and "capital" in the economic sense.[11][12] The term replaced earlier Old English feoh "cattle, property" (cf. German: Vieh, Gothic: faihu).

The word "cow" came via Anglo-Saxon cū (plural cȳ), from Common Indo-European gʷōus (genitive gʷowes) = "a bovine animal", compare Persian gâv, Sanskrit go, Welsh buwch.[citation needed] The genitive plural of cū is cȳna, which gave the now archaic English plural of "kine". The Scots language singular is coo or cou, and the plural is "kye".

In older English sources such as the King James Version of the Bible, "cattle" refers to livestock, as opposed to "deer" which refers to wildlife. "Wild cattle" may refer to feral cattle or to undomesticated species of the genus Bos. Today, when used without any other qualifier, the modern meaning of "cattle" is usually restricted to domesticated bovines.[citation needed]
Terminology
Look up cattle or cow in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
A Hereford bull

In general, the same words are used in different parts of the world, but with minor differences in the definitions. The terminology described here contrasts the differences in definition between the United Kingdom and other British-influenced parts of world such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and the United States.[13]

An "intact" (i.e., not *********) adult male is called a bull. A wild, young, unmarked bull is known as a "micky" in Australia.[14] An unbranded bovine of either sex is called a "maverick" in the USA and Canada.
An adult female that has had a calf (or two, depending on regional usage) is a cow.
A young female before she has had a calf of her own[15] and is under three years of age is called a heifer (/ˈhɛfər/ HEF-ər).[16] A young female that has had only one calf is occasionally called a first-calf heifer.
Young cattle of both sexes are called calves until they are weaned, then weaners until they are a year old in some areas; in other areas, particularly with male beef cattle, they may be known as feeder calves or simply feeders. After that, they are referred to as yearlings or stirks[17] if between one and two years of age.[18]
A ********* male is called a steer in the United States; older steers are often called bullocks in other parts of the world,[19] but in North America this term refers to a young bull. Piker bullocks are micky bulls that were caught, ********* and then later lost.[14] In Australia, the term "Japanese ox" is used for grain-fed steers in the weight range of 500 to 650 kg that are destined for the Japanese meat trade.[20] In North America, draft cattle under four years old are called working steers. Improper or late ********** on a bull results in it becoming a coarse steer known as a stag in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.[21] In some countries, an incompletely ********* male is known also as a rig.
A ********* male (occasionally a female or in some areas a bull) kept for draft purposes is called an ox (plural oxen); "ox" may also be used to refer to some carcass products from any adult cattle, such as ox-hide, ox-blood, oxtail, or ox-liver.[16]
A springer is a cow or heifer close to calving.[22]
In all cattle species, a female twin of a bull usually becomes an infertile partial intersex, and is a freemartin.
Neat (horned oxen, from which neatsfoot oil is derived), beef (young ox) and beefing (young animal fit for slaughtering) are obsolete terms, although poll, pollard or polled cattle are still terms in use for naturally hornless animals, or in some areas also for those that have been disbudded.
Cattle raised for human consumption are called beef cattle. Within the beef cattle industry in parts of the United States, the older term beef (plural beeves) is still used to refer to an animal of either sex. Some Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and British people use the term beast, especially for single animals when the sex is unknown.[23]
Cattle of certain breeds bred specifically for milk production are called milking or dairy cattle;[13] a cow kept to provide milk for one family may be called a house cow or milker.
The adjective applying to cattle in general is usually bovine. The terms "bull", "cow" and "calf" are also used by extension to denote the sex or age of other large animals, including whales, hippopotamuses, camels, elk and elephants

See also: List of animal names
Singular terminology issue
A herd of cattle

Cattle can only be used in the plural and not in the singular: it is a plurale tantum.[24] Thus one may refer to "three cattle" or "some cattle", but not "one cattle". No universally used singular form in modern English of "cattle" exists, other than the sex- and age-specific terms such as cow, bull, steer and heifer. Historically, "ox" was not a sex-specific term for adult cattle, but generally this is now used only for draft cattle, especially adult ********* males. The term is also incorporated into the names of other species, such as the musk ox and "grunting ox" (yak), and is used in some areas to describe certain cattle products such as ox-hide and oxtail.[25]
A Brahman calf

"Cow" is in general use as a singular for the collective "cattle", despite the objections by those who insist it to be a female-specific term. Although the phrase "that cow is a bull" is absurd from a lexicographic standpoint, the word "cow" is easy to use when a singular is needed and the sex is unknown or irrelevant - when "there is a cow in the road", for example. Further, any herd of fully mature cattle in or near a pasture is statistically likely to consist mostly of cows, so the term is probably accurate even in the restrictive sense. Other than the few bulls needed for breeding, the vast majority of male cattle are ********* as calves and slaughtered for meat before the age of three years. Thus, in a pastured herd, any calves or herd bulls usually are clearly distinguishable from the cows due to distinctively different sizes and clear anatomical differences. Merriam-Webster, a US dictionary, recognizes the sex-nonspecific use of "cow" as an alternate definition,[26] whereas Collins, a UK dictionary, does not.[27]

Colloquially, more general nonspecific terms may denote cattle when a singular form is needed. Australian, New Zealand and British farmers use the term "beast" or "cattle beast". "Bovine" is also used in Britain. The term "critter" is common in the western United States and Canada, particularly when referring to young cattle.[28] In some areas of the American South (particularly the Appalachian region), where both dairy and beef cattle are present, an individual animal was once called a "beef critter", though that term is becoming archaic.
Other terminology

A cow's moo
Menu
0:00
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Cattle raised for human consumption are called "beef cattle". Within the beef cattle industry in parts of the United States, the term "beef" (plural "beeves") is still used in its archaic sense to refer to an animal of either sex. Cows of certain breeds that are kept for the milk they give are called "dairy cows" or "milking cows" (formerly "milch cows"). Most young male offspring of dairy cows are sold for veal, and may be referred to as veal calves.

The term "dogies" is used to describe orphaned calves in the context of ranch work in the American West, as in "Keep them dogies moving".[29] In some places, a cow kept to provide milk for one family is called a "house cow". Other obsolete terms for cattle include "neat" (this use survives in "neatsfoot oil", extracted from the feet and legs of cattle), and "beefing" (young animal fit for slaughter).

An onomatopoeic term for one of the most common sounds made by cattle is "moo" (also called lowing). There are a number of other sounds made by cattle, including calves bawling, and bulls bellowing. The bullroarer makes a sound similar to a bull's territorial call.[citation needed]
Anatomy

Cattle have one stomach with four compartments, the rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum, with the rumen being the largest compartment. The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb". Cattle sometimes consume metal objects which are deposited in the reticulum and irritation from the metal objects causes hardware disease. The omasum's main function is to absorb water and nutrients from the digestible feed. The omasum is known as the "many plies". The abomasum is like the human stomach; this is why it is known as the "true stomach".
Dairy farming and the milking of cattle was once performed largely by hand, but is now usually replaced by machine

Cattle are ruminants, meaning their digestive systems allows use of otherwise indigestible foods by regurgitating and rechewing them as "cud". The cud is then reswallowed and further digested by specialised microorganisms in the rumen. These microbes are primarily responsible for decomposing cellulose and other carbohydrates into volatile fatty acids cattle use as their primary metabolic fuel. The microbes inside the rumen also synthesize amino acids from nonprotein nitrogenous sources, such as urea and ammonia. As these microbes reproduce in the rumen, older generations die and their cells continue on through the digestive tract. These cells are then partially digested by the cattle, allowing them to gain a high-quality protein source. These features allow cattle to thrive on grasses and other vegetation.

The gestation period for a cow is nine months. A newborn calf weighs 25 to 45 kg (55 to 99 lb). The world record for the heaviest bull was 1,740 kg (3,840 lb), a Chianina named Donetto, when he was exhibited at the Arezzo show in 1955.[30] The heaviest steer was eight-year-old ‘Old Ben’, a Shorthorn/Hereford cross weighing in at 2,140 kg (4,720 lb) in 1910.[31] Steers are generally killed before reaching 750 kg (1,650 lb). Breeding stock usually live to about 15 years (occasionally as much as 25 years). The oldest recorded cow, Big Bertha, died at the age of 48 in 1993.

A common misconception about cattle (particularly bulls) is that they are enraged by the color red (something provocative is often said to be "like a red flag to a bull"). This is incorrect, as cattle are red-green color-blind.[32][33] The myth arose from the use of red capes in the sport of bullfighting; in fact, two different capes are used. The capote is a large, flowing, magenta and yellow cape. The more famous muleta is the smaller, red cape, used exclusively for the final, fatal segment of the fight. It is not the color of the cape that angers the bull, but rather the movement of the fabric that irritates the bull and incites it to charge.

Having two kinds of color receptors in the cone cells in their retinas, cattle are dichromatic, as are most other nonprimate land mammals.[34][35]

A cow's udder contains two pairs of mammary glands.
Weight
Question book-new.svg
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2012)

Adult weights of cattle always depend on the breed. Smaller kinds, such as Dexter and Jersey adults, range between 272 to 454 kg (600 to 1,000 lb). Large Continental breeds, such as Charolais, Marchigiana, Belgian Blue and Chianina, adults range up to 635 to 1,134 kg (1,400 to 2,500 lb). British-breeds, such as Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn, mature between 454 to 907 kg (1,000 to 2,000 lb), occasionally higher, particularly with Angus and Hereford.

Bulls will always be a bit larger than cows by a few extra hundred pounds. Chianina bulls can weigh up to 1,500 kg (3,300 lb); British bulls, such as Angus and Hereford, can weigh as little as 907 kg (2,000 lb) to as much as 1,361 kg (3,000 lb).

It is difficult to generalize or average out the weight of all cattle because different kinds have different averages of weights. However, according to some sources, the average weight of all cattle is 753 kg (1,660 lb). Finishing steers in the feedlot average about 640 kg (1,400 lb); cows about 725 kg (1,600 lb), and bulls about 1,090 kg (2,400 lb).
Cattle genome
Further information: Bovine genome

In the April 24, 2009, edition of the journal Science, a team of researchers led by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Agriculture reported having mapped the bovine genome.[36] The scientists found cattle have about 22,000 genes, and 80% of their genes are shared with humans, and they share about 1000 genes with dogs and rodents, but are not found in humans. Using this bovine "HapMap", researchers can track the differences between the breeds that affect the quality of meat and milk yields.[37]
Domestication and husbandry
Texas Longhorns are a US breed

Cattle occupy a unique role in human history, domesticated since at least the early Neolithic. Modern genetic research suggests the entire modern domestic stock may have arisen from as few as 80 aurochs tamed in the upper reaches of Mesopotamia about 10,500 years ago near the villages of Çayönü Tepesi in southeastern Turkey and Dja'de el-Mughara in northern Iraq.[2] They are raised for meat (beef cattle), dairy products and hides. They are also used as draft animals and in certain sports. Some consider cattle the oldest form of wealth, and cattle raiding consequently one of the earliest forms of theft.
This Hereford is being inspected for ticks; cattle are often restrained or confined in cattle crushes (squeeze chutes) when given medical attention.
This young bovine has a nose ring to prevent it from suckling, which is usually to assist in weaning.

Cattle are often raised by allowing herds to graze on the grasses of large tracts of rangeland. Raising cattle in this manner allows the use of land that might be unsuitable for growing crops. The most common interactions with cattle involve daily feeding, cleaning and milking. Many routine husbandry practices involve ear tagging, dehorning, loading, medical operations, vaccinations and hoof care, as well as training for agricultural shows and preparations. Also, some cultural differences occur in working with cattle; the cattle husbandry of Fulani men rests on behavioural techniques, whereas in Europe, cattle are controlled primarily by physical means, such as fences.[38] Breeders use cattle husbandry to reduce M. bovis infection susceptibility by selective breeding and maintaining herd health to avoid concurrent disease.[39]

Cattle are farmed for beef, veal, dairy, and leather, and they are less commonly used for conservation grazing, simply to maintain grassland for wildlife – for example, in Epping Forest, England. They are often used in some of the most wild places for livestock. Depending on the breed, cattle can survive on hill grazing, heaths, marshes, moors and semidesert. Modern cattle are more commercial than older breeds and, having become more specialized, are less versatile. For this reason, many smaller farmers still favor old breeds, such as the Jersey dairy breed. In Portugal, Spain, southern France and some Latin American countries, bulls are used in the activity of bullfighting; Jallikattu in India is a bull taming sport radically different from European bullfighting, humans are unarmed and bulls are not killed. In many other countries bullfighting is illegal. Other activities such as bull riding are seen as part of a rodeo, especially in North America. Bull-leaping, a central ritual in Bronze Age Minoan culture (see Bull (mythology)), still exists in southwestern France. In modern times, cattle are also entered into agricultural competitions. These competitions can involve live cattle or cattle carcases in hoof and hook events.

In terms of food intake by humans, consumption of cattle is less efficient than of grain or vegetables with regard to land use, and hence cattle grazing consumes more area than such other agricultural production when raised on grains.[40] Nonetheless, cattle and other forms of domesticated animals can sometimes help to use plant resources in areas not easily amenable to other forms of agriculture.
Sleep
Further information: Sleep (non-human)

The average sleep time of a domestic cow is about four hours a day.[41]
Economy
Holstein cattle are the primary dairy breed, bred for high milk production.

The meat of adult cattle is known as beef, and that of calves is veal. Other animal parts are also used as food products, including blood, liver, kidney, heart and oxtail. Cattle also produce milk, and dairy cattle are specifically bred to produce the large quantities of milk processed and sold for human consumption. Cattle today are the basis of a multi-billion dollar industry worldwide. The international trade in beef for 2000 was over $30 billion and represented only 23% of world beef production.[42] The production of milk, which is also made into cheese, butter, yogurt, and other dairy products, is comparable in economic size to beef production, and provides an important part of the food supply for many of the world's people. Cattle hides, used for leather to make shoes, couches and clothing, are another widespread product. Cattle remain broadly used as draft animals in many developing countries, such as India.
Environmental impact
See also: Environmental effects of meat production
Cattle have been identified as a contributing factor in the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

A report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that the livestock sector is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions".[43] The report concludes, unless changes are made, the damage thought to be linked to livestock may more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases. Another concern is manure, which if not well-managed, can lead to adverse environmental consequences. However, manure also is a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer.[44] Manure was used as a fertilizer on about 15.8 million acres of US cropland in 2006, with manure from cattle accounting for nearly 70% of manure applications to soybeans and about 80% or more of manure applications to corn, wheat, barley, oats and sorghum.[45] Further, substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 MJ of fossil fuel energy are used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.[46]

One of the cited changes suggested to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is intensification of the livestock industry, since intensification leads to less land for a given level of production. This assertion is supported by studies of the US beef production system, suggesting practices prevailing in 2007 involved 8.6% less fossil fuel use, 16.3% less greenhouse gas emissions, 12.1% less water use, and 33.0% less land use, per unit mass of beef produced, than those used in 1977.[47] However, these numbers included not only feedlots, but also feed production, forage-based cow-calf operations, backgrounding before cattle enter a feedlot, and animals culled from the dairy industry.[48]

The number of American cattle kept in confined feedlot conditions fluctuates. From January 1, 2002 through January 1, 2012, there was no significant overall upward or downward trend in the number of US cattle on feed for slaughter, which averaged about 14.046 million head over that period.[49][50] Previously, the number had increased; it was 12.453 million in 1985.[51] Cattle on feed (for slaughter) numbered about 14.121 million on January 1, 2012, i.e. about 15.5% of the estimated inventory of 90.8 million US cattle (including calves) on that date. Of the 14.121 million, US cattle on feed (for slaughter) in operations with 1000 head or more were estimated to number 11.9 million.[50] Cattle feedlots in this size category correspond to the regulatory definition of "large" concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for cattle other than mature dairy cows or veal calves.[52] Significant numbers of dairy, as well as beef cattle, are confined in CAFOs. CAFOs are defined as "new and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified"[53] where "[c]rops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility."[54] They may be designated as small, medium and large. Such designation of cattle CAFOs is according to cattle type (mature dairy cows, veal calves or other) and cattle numbers, but medium CAFOs are so designated only if they meet certain discharge criteria, and small CAFOs are designated only on a case-by-case basis.[55]

A CAFO that discharges pollutants is required to obtain a permit, which requires a plan to manage nutrient runoff, manure, chemicals, contaminants, and other wastewater pursuant to the Clean Water Act.[56] The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.[57] Commonly, CAFO wastewater and manure nutrients are applied to land at agronomic rates for use by forages or crops, and it is often assumed that various constituents of wastewater and manure, e.g. organic contaminants and pathogens, will be retained, inactivated or degraded on the land with application at such rates; however, additional evidence is needed to test reliability of such assumptions .[58] Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to feedlot runoff,[59] soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and an increase in E. coli contamination.[60] While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems[59] and planting cover crops in larger setback zones,[61] the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and externalize costs.[62]

An estimated 935,000 cattle operations were operating in the USA in 2010.[63] In 2001, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tallied 5,990 cattle CAFOs then regulated, consisting of beef (2,200), dairy (3,150), heifer (620) and veal operations (20).[64] Since that time, the EPA has established CAFOs as an enforcement priority. EPA enforcement highlights for fiscal year 2010 indicated enforcement actions against 12 cattle CAFOs for violations that included failures to obtain a permit, failures to meet the terms of a permit, and discharges of contaminated water.[65]

Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and forbs; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing biodiversity due to overgrazing.[66] A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying.[67] Proper management of pastures, notably managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities can lead to less use of fossil fuel energy, increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality, and less water pollution.[62]

Some microbes in the cattle gut carry out anaerobic process known as methanogenesis, which produces methane. Cattle and other livestock emit about 80 to 93 Tg of methane per year,[68] accounting for an estimated 37% of anthropogenic methane emissions,[43] and additional methane is produced by anaerobic fermentation of manure in manure lagoons and other manure storage structures.[69] The 100-year global warming potential of methane, including effects on ozone and stratospheric water vapor, is 25 times as great as that of carbon dioxide.[70] Methane's effect on global warming is correlated with changes in atmospheric methane content, not with emissions. The net change in atmospheric methane content was recently about 1 Tg per year,[71] and in some recent years there has been no increase in atmospheric methane content.[72] Mitigation options for reducing methane emission from ruminant enteric fermentation include genetic selection, immunization, rumen defaunation, diet modification and grazing management, among others.[73][74][75] While cattle fed forage actually produce more methane than grain-fed cattle, the increase may be offset by the increased carbon recapture of pastures, which recapture three times the CO2 of cropland used for grain.[62]
Health

Cow urine is commonly used in India for medical purposes. It is distilled and then consumed by patients seeking treatment for a wide variety of illnesses. At present, no conclusive medical evidence shows this has any effect.[76]
Oxen
Question book-new.svg
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2008)
Main article: Ox
Draft Zebus in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Oxen (singular ox) are cattle trained as draft animals. Often they are adult, ********* males of larger breeds, although females and bulls are also used in some areas. Usually, an ox is over four years old due to the need for training and to allow it to grow to full size. Oxen are used for plowing, transport, hauling cargo, grain-grinding by trampling or by powering machines, irrigation by powering pumps, and wagon drawing. Oxen were commonly used to skid logs in forests, and sometimes still are, in low-impact, select-cut logging. Oxen are most often used in teams of two, paired, for light work such as carting, with additional pairs added when more power is required, sometimes up to a total of 20 or more.

An ox is a mature bovine which has learned to respond appropriately to a teamster's signals. These signals are given by verbal commands or by noise (whip cracks). Verbal commands vary according to dialect and local tradition. In one tradition in North America, the commands are:[citation needed]

"Get up": walk forward
"Whoa": stop
"Back up": go backwards
"Gee": turn right
"Haw": turn left

Riding an ox in Hova, Sweden

Oxen can pull harder and longer than horses. Though not as fast as horses, they are less prone to injury because they are more sure-footed.

Many oxen are used worldwide, especially in developing countries. About 11.3 million draft oxen are used in sub-Saharan Africa.[77] In India, the number of draft cattle in 1998 was estimated at 65.7 million head.[78] About half the world's crop production is thought to depend on land preparation (such as plowing) made possible by animal traction.[79]
Ure-Ox
Religion, traditions and folklore
Main article: Cattle in religion
Further information: Cattle slaughter in India
Hindu tradition
In Hinduism, the cow is a symbol of wealth, strength, abundance, selfless giving and a full Earthly life.

Cattle are venerated within the Hindu religion of India.[clarification needed] According to Vedic scriptures they are to be treated with the same respect 'as one's mother' because of the milk they provide; "The cow is my mother" (Mahabharata)[80] They appear in numerous stories from the Puranas and Vedas. The deity Krishna was brought up in a family of cowherders, and given the name Govinda (protector of the cows). Also, Shiva is traditionally said to ride on the back of a bull named Nandi. In ancient rural India every household had a few cows which provided a constant supply of milk and a few bulls that helped as draft animals.[citation needed]

Observant Hindus, though they might eat meat of other animals, almost always abstain from beef, and the slaughter of cows is considered a heinous sin in mainstream Orthodox Hinduism. Slaughter of cows (including oxen, bulls and calves) is forbidden by law in several states of the Indian Union. McDonalds outlets in India do not serve any beef burgers. At one time, the death sentence was imposed for killing a cow in India.[81] According to a Lodi News-Sentinel news story written in the 1960s, in then contemporary Nepal an individual could serve three months in jail for killing a pedestrian, but one year for injuring a cow, and life imprisonment for killing a cow.[82]
Other traditions
Legend of the founding of Durham Cathedral is that monks carrying the body of Saint Cuthbert were led to the location by a milk maid who had lost her dun cow, which was found resting on the spot.
An idealized depiction of girl cow herders in 19th Century Norway by Knud Bergslien.

The Evangelist St. Luke is depicted as an ox in Christian art.
In Judaism, as described in Numbers 19:2, the ashes of a sacrificed unblemished red heifer that has never been yoked can be used for ritual purification of people who came into contact with a corpse.
The ox is one of the 12-year cycle of animals which appear in the Chinese zodiac related to the Chinese calendar. See: Ox (Zodiac).
The constellation Taurus represents a bull.
An apocryphal story has it that a cow started the Great Chicago Fire by kicking over a kerosene lamp. Michael Ahern, the reporter who created the cow story, admitted in 1893 that he had fabricated it for more colorful copy.
On February 18, 1930, Elm Farm Ollie became the first cow to fly in an airplane and also the first cow to be milked in an airplane.
The first known law requiring branding in North America was enacted on February 5, 1644, by Connecticut. It said that all cattle and pigs had to have a registered brand or earmark by May 1, 1644.[83]
The akabeko (赤べこ?, red cow) is a traditional toy from the Aizu region of Japan that is thought to ward off illness.[84]
The case of Sherwood v. Walker—involving a supposedly barren heifer that was actually pregnant—-first enunciated the concept of mutual mistake as a means of destroying the meeting of the minds in contract law.[citation needed]
The Fulani of West Africa are the world's largest nomadic cattle-herders.
The Maasai tribe of East Africa traditionally believe all cows on earth are the God-given property of the Maasai.[citation needed]

In heraldry

Cattle are typically represented in heraldry by the bull.

Arms of Turin, Italy
Arms of Kaunas, Lithuania
Arms of Bielsk Podlaski, Poland
Arms of Turek, Poland
Arms of the Azores

See also: Ciołek coat of arms
Population

The world cattle population is estimated to be about 1.3 billion.[3] The following table shows the cattle population in 2009[85]

Africa has about 20,000,000 head of cattle, many of which are raised in traditional ways and serve partly as tokens of their owner's wealth.[citation needed]

[kdunstfan]

Sheep (Ovis aries) are quadrupedal, ruminant mammals typically kept as livestock. Like all ruminants, sheep are members of the order Artiodactyla, the even-toed ungulates. Although the name "sheep" applies to many species in the genus Ovis, in everyday usage it almost always refers to Ovis aries. Numbering a little over one billion, domestic sheep are also the most numerous species of sheep. A male sheep is called a ram and a female sheep is called a ewe (IPA:[j'u]).

Sheep are most likely descended from the wild mouflon of Europe and Asia. One of the earliest animals to be domesticated for agricultural purposes, sheep are raised for fleece, meat (lamb, hogget or mutton) and milk. A sheep's wool is the most widely used animal fiber, and is usually harvested by shearing. Ovine meat is called lamb when from younger animals and mutton when from older ones. Sheep continue to be important for wool and meat today, and are also occasionally raised for pelts, as dairy animals, or as model organisms for science.

Sheep husbandry is practised throughout the majority of the inhabited world, and has been fundamental to many civilizations. In the modern era, Australia, New Zealand, the southern and central South American nations, and the British Isles are most closely associated with sheep production.

Sheepraising has a large lexicon of unique terms which vary considerably by region and dialect. Use of the word sheep began in Middle English as a derivation of the Old English word scēap; it is both the singular and plural name for the animal. A group of sheep is called a flock, herd or mob. Adult female sheep are referred to as ewes, intact males as rams or occasionally tups, ********* males as wethers, and younger sheep as lambs. Many other specific terms for the various life stages of sheep exist, generally related to lambing, shearing, and age.

Being a key animal in the history of farming, sheep have a deeply entrenched place in human culture, and find representation in much modern language and symbology. As livestock, sheep are most often associated with pastoral, Arcadian imagery. Sheep figure in many mythologies—such as the Golden Fleece—and major religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions. In both ancient and modern religious ritual, sheep are used as sacrificial animals.
Contents

1 Description and evolution
1.1 Sheep compared to goats
1.2 Breeds
2 Diet
3 Behavior
3.1 Flock behavior
3.2 Dominance hierarchy
3.3 Intelligence and learning ability
3.4 Vocalisations
3.5 Senses
4 Reproduction
5 Health
5.1 Predation
6 Economic importance
7 Food
8 Science
9 Cultural impact
9.1 Religion and folklore
10 See also
11 Footnotes
12 References
13 External links

Description and evolution
A sheep's skull

Domestic sheep are relatively small ruminants, usually with a crimped hair called wool and often with horns forming a lateral spiral. Domestic sheep differ from their wild relatives and ancestors in several respects, having become uniquely neotenic as a result of selective breeding by humans.[1][2] A few primitive breeds of sheep retain some of the characteristics of their wild cousins, such as short tails. Depending on breed, domestic sheep may have no horns at all (i.e. polled), or horns in both sexes, or in males only. Most horned breeds have a single pair, but a few breeds may have several.[3]

Another trait unique to domestic sheep as compared to wild ovines is their wide variation in color. Wild sheep are largely variations of brown hues, and variation within species is extremely limited. Colors of domestic sheep range from pure white to dark chocolate brown and even spotted or piebald.[4][5] Selection for easily dyeable white fleeces began early in sheep domestication, and as white wool is a dominant trait it spread quickly. However, colored sheep do appear in many modern breeds, and may even appear as a recessive trait in white flocks.[4][5] While white wool is desirable for large commercial markets, there is a niche market for colored fleeces, mostly for handspinning.[6] The nature of the fleece varies widely among the breeds, from dense and highly crimped, to long and hairlike. There is variation of wool type and quality even among members of the same flock, so wool classing is a step in the commercial processing of the fibre.
Suffolks are a medium wool, black-faced breed of meat sheep that make up 60% of the sheep population in the U.S.[7]

Depending on breed, sheep show a range of heights and weights. Their rate of growth and mature weight is a heritable trait that is often selected for in breeding.[7] Ewes typically weigh between 45 and 100 kilograms (99 and 220 lb), and rams between 45 and 160 kilograms (99 and 350 lb).[8] When all deciduous teeth have erupted, the sheep has 20 teeth.[9] Mature sheep have 32 teeth. As with other ruminants, the front teeth in the lower jaw bite against a hard, toothless pad in the upper jaw. These are used to pick off vegetation, then the rear teeth grind it before it is swallowed. There are eight lower front teeth in ruminants, but there is some disagreement as to whether these are eight incisors, or six incisors and two incisor-shaped canines. This means that the dental formula for sheep is either 0.0.3.34.0.3.3 or 0.0.3.33.1.3.3 [10] There is a large diastema between the incisors and the molars.

For the first few years of life it is possible to calculate the age of sheep from their front teeth, as a pair of milk teeth is replaced by larger adult teeth each year, the full set of eight adult front teeth being complete at about four years of age. The front teeth are then gradually lost as sheep age, making it harder for them to feed and hindering the health and productivity of the animal. For this reason, domestic sheep on normal pasture begin to slowly decline from four years on, and the average life expectancy of a sheep is 10 to 12 years, though some sheep may live as long as 20 years.[3][11][12]

Sheep have good hearing, and are sensitive to noise when being handled.[13] Sheep have horizontal slit-shaped pupils, possessing excellent peripheral vision; with visual fields of approximately 270° to 320°, sheep can see behind themselves without turning their heads.[6][14] Many breeds have only short hair on the face, and some have facial wool (if any) confined to the poll and or the area of the mandibular angle; the wide angles of peripheral vision apply to these breeds. A few breeds tend to have considerable wool on the face; for some individuals of these breeds, peripheral vision may be greatly reduced by "wool blindness", unless recently shorn about the face.[15] Sheep have poor depth perception; shadows and dips in the ground may cause sheep to baulk. In general, sheep have a tendency to move out of the dark and into well lit areas,[16] and prefer to move uphill when disturbed. Sheep also have an excellent sense of smell, and, like all species of their genus, have scent glands just in front of the eyes, and interdigitally on the feet. The purpose of these glands is uncertain,[17] but those on the face may be used in breeding behaviors.[7] The foot glands might also be related to reproduction,[7] but alternative reasons, such as secretion of a waste product or a scent marker to help lost sheep find their flock, have also been proposed.[17]
Sheep compared to goats

Sheep and goats are closely related as both are in the subfamily Caprinae. However, they are separate species, so hybrids rarely occur, and are always infertile. A hybrid of a ewe and a buck (a male goat) is called a sheep-goat hybrid (only a single such animal has been confirmed), and is not to be confused with the genetic chimera called a geep. Visual differences between sheep and goats include the beard and divided upper lip of goats. Sheep tails also hang down, even when short or docked, while the short tails of goats are held upwards. Sheep breeds are also often naturally polled (either in both sexes or just in the female), while naturally polled goats are rare (though many are polled artificially). Males of the two species differ in that buck goats acquire a unique and strong odor during the rut, whereas rams do not.[12]
Breeds
Sheep being judged for adherence to their breed standard, and being held by the most common method of restraint
See also: List of sheep breeds

The domestic sheep is a multi-purpose animal, and the more than 200 breeds now in existence were created to serve these diverse purposes.[3][18] Some sources give a count of a thousand or more breeds,[19][20] but these numbers cannot be verified, according to some sources.[6][12] However, several hundred breeds of sheep have been identified by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN), with the estimated number varying somewhat from time to time: e.g. 863 breeds as of 1993,[21] 1314 breeds as of 1995[22] and 1229 breeds as of 2006.[23] (These numbers exclude extinct breeds, which are also tallied by the FAO.) For purposes of such tallies, the FAO definition of a breed is "either a subspecific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species or a group for which geographical and/or cultural separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity."[23] Almost all sheep are classified as being best suited to furnishing a certain product: wool, meat, milk, hides, or a combination in a dual-purpose breed. Other features used when classifying sheep include face color (generally white or black), tail length, presence or lack of horns, and the topography for which the breed has been developed. This last point is especially stressed in the UK, where breeds are described as either upland (hill or mountain) or lowland breeds.[16] A sheep may also be of a fat-tailed type, which is a dual-purpose sheep common in Africa and Asia with larger deposits of fat within and around its tail.
The Barbados Blackbelly is a hair sheep breed of Caribbean origin.

Breeds are often categorized by the type of their wool. Fine wool breeds are those that have wool of great crimp and density, which are preferred for textiles. Most of these were derived from Merino sheep, and the breed continues to dominate the world sheep industry. Downs breeds have wool between the extremes, and are typically fast-growing meat and ram breeds with dark faces.[24] Some major medium wool breeds, such as the Corriedale, are dual-purpose crosses of long and fine-wooled breeds and were created for high-production commercial flocks. Long wool breeds are the largest of sheep, with long wool and a slow rate of growth. Long wool sheep are most valued for crossbreeding to improve the attributes of other sheep types. For example: the American Columbia breed was developed by crossing Lincoln rams (a long wool breed) with fine-wooled Rambouillet ewes.

Coarse or carpet wool sheep are those with a medium to long length wool of characteristic coarseness. Breeds traditionally used for carpet wool show great variability, but the chief requirement is a wool that will not break down under heavy use (as would that of the finer breeds). As the demand for carpet-quality wool declines, some breeders of this type of sheep are attempting to use a few of these traditional breeds for alternative purposes. Others have always been primarily meat-class sheep.[25]

A minor class of sheep are the dairy breeds. Dual-purpose breeds that may primarily be meat or wool sheep are often used secondarily as milking animals, but there are a few breeds that are predominantly used for milking. These sheep do produce a higher quantity of milk and have slightly longer lactation curves.[26] In the quality of their milk, fat and protein content percentages of dairy sheep vary from non-dairy breeds but lactose content does not.[27]

A last group of sheep breeds is that of fur or hair sheep, which do not grow wool at all. Hair sheep are similar to the early domesticated sheep kept before woolly breeds were developed, and are raised for meat and pelts. Some modern breeds of hair sheep, such as the Dorper, result from crosses between wool and hair breeds. For meat and hide producers, hair sheep are cheaper to keep, as they do not need shearing.[25] Hair sheep are also more resistant to parasites and hot weather.[12]

With the modern rise of corporate agribusiness and the decline of localized family farms, many breeds of sheep are in danger of extinction. The Rare Breeds Survival Trust of the UK lists 22 native breeds as having only 3,000 registered animals (each), and the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy lists 14 as having fewer than 10,000.[28][29][30] Preferences for breeds with uniform characteristics and fast growth have pushed heritage (or heirloom) breeds to the margins of the sheep industry.[25] Those that remain are maintained through the efforts of conservation organizations, breed registries, and individual farmers dedicated to their preservation.
Diet
A ewe grazing

Sheep are exclusively herbivorous mammals. Most breeds prefer to graze on grass and other short roughage, avoiding the taller woody parts of plants that goats readily consume.[31] Both sheep and goats use their lips and tongues to select parts of the plant that are easier to digest or higher in nutrition.[31] Sheep, however, graze well in monoculture pastures where most goats fare poorly.[31] Like all ruminants, sheep have a complex digestive system composed of four chambers, allowing them to break down cellulose from stems, leaves, and seed hulls into simpler carbohydrates. When sheep graze, vegetation is chewed into a mass called a bolus, which is then passed into the rumen, via the reticulum. The rumen is a 19- to 38-liter (5 to 10 gal) organ in which feed is fermented.[32] The fermenting organisms include bacteria, fungi, and protozoa.[33] (Other important rumen organisms include some archaea, which produce methane from carbon dioxide.[34]) The bolus is periodically regurgitated back to the mouth as cud for additional chewing and salivation.[32] Cud chewing is an adaptation allowing ruminants to graze more quickly in the morning, and then fully chew and digest feed later in the day.[35] This is safer than grazing, which requires lowering the head thus leaving the animal vulnerable to predators, while cud chewing does not.[12]
A sheep's ruminant system

During fermentation, the rumen produces gas that must be expelled; disturbances of the organ, such as sudden changes in a sheep's diet, can cause the potentially fatal condition of bloat, when gas becomes trapped in the rumen, due to reflex closure of the caudal esophageal sphincter when in contact with foam or liquid.[36] After fermentation in the rumen, feed passes into the reticulum and the omasum; special feeds such as grains may bypass the rumen altogether. After the first three chambers, food moves into the abomasum for final digestion before processing by the intestines. The abomasum is the only one of the four chambers analogous to the human stomach, and is sometimes called the "true stomach".[37]

Sheep follow a diurnal pattern of activity, feeding from dawn to dusk, stopping sporadically to rest and chew their cud. Ideal pasture for sheep is not lawnlike grass, but an array of grasses, legumes and forbs.[38] Types of land where sheep are raised vary widely, from pastures that are seeded and improved intentionally to rough, native lands. Common plants toxic to sheep are present in most of the world, and include (but are not limited to) cherry, some oaks and acorns, tomato, yew, rhubarb, potato, and rhododendron.[39]
Sheep graze on public land in Snake Valley, Utah.

Sheep are largely grazing herbivores, unlike browsing animals such as goats and deer that prefer taller foliage. With a much narrower face, sheep crop plants very close to the ground and can overgraze a pasture much faster than cattle.[12] For this reason, many shepherds use managed intensive rotational grazing, where a flock is rotated through multiple pastures, giving plants time to recover.[12][16] Paradoxically, sheep can both cause and solve the spread of invasive plant species. By disturbing the natural state of pasture, sheep and other livestock can pave the way for invasive plants. However, sheep also prefer to eat invasives such as cheatgrass, leafy spurge, kudzu and spotted knapweed over native species such as sagebrush, making grazing sheep effective for conservation grazing.[40] Research conducted in Imperial County, California compared lamb grazing with herbicides for weed control in seedling alfalfa fields. Three trials demonstrated that grazing lambs were just as effective as herbicides in controlling winter weeds. Entomologists also compared grazing lambs to insecticides for insect control in winter alfalfa. In this trial, lambs provided insect control as effectively as insecticides.[41]

Other than forage, the other staple feed for sheep is hay, often during the winter months. The ability to thrive solely on pasture (even without hay) varies with breed, but all sheep can survive on this diet.[25] Also included in some sheep's diets are minerals, either in a trace mix or in licks.

Naturally, a constant source of potable water is also a fundamental requirement for sheep. The amount of water needed by sheep fluctuates with the season and the type and quality of the food they consume.[42] When sheep feed on large amounts of new growth and there is precipitation (including dew, as sheep are dawn feeders), sheep need less water. When sheep are confined or are eating large amounts of cured hay, more water is typically needed. Sheep also require clean water, and may refuse to drink water that is covered in scum or algae.[42]

Sheep are one of the few livestock animals raised for meat today that have never been widely raised in an intensive, confined animal feeding operation (CAFO).[6] Although there is a growing movement advocating alternative farming styles, a large percentage of beef cattle, pigs, and poultry are still produced under such conditions.[7] In contrast, only some sheep are regularly given high-concentration grain feed, much less kept in confinement. Especially in industrialized countries, sheep producers may fatten market lambs before slaughter (called "finishing") in feedlots.[12] Many sheep breeders flush ewes and rams with a daily ration of grain during breeding to increase fertility.[43] Ewes may be flushed during pregnancy to increase birth weights, as 70% of a lamb's growth occurs in the last five to six weeks of gestation.[6] [However, overfeeding of ewe hoggets (i.e. adolescent ewes) in early pregnancy can result in restricted placental development, restricting growth of fetal lambs in late pregnancy.[44][45]] Otherwise, only lactating ewes and especially old or infirm sheep are commonly provided with grain.[6][25] Feed provided to sheep must be specially formulated, as most cattle, poultry, pig, and even some goat feeds contain levels of copper that are lethal to sheep.[6] The same danger applies to mineral supplements such as salt licks.[46]
Behavior
Sheep showing flocking behavior during a sheepdog trial
Flock behavior

Sheep are flock animals and strongly gregarious; much sheep behavior can be understood on the basis of these tendencies. The dominance hierarchy of sheep and their natural inclination to follow a leader to new pastures were the pivotal factors in sheep being one of the first domesticated livestock species.[47] Furthermore, in contrast to the red deer and gazelle (two other ungulates of primary importance to meat production in prehistoric times), sheep do not defend territories although they do form home ranges.[48] All sheep have a tendency to congregate close to other members of a flock, although this behavior varies with breed,[13] and sheep can become stressed when separated from their flock members.[7] During flocking, sheep have a strong tendency to follow and a leader may simply be the first individual to move. Relationships in flocks tend to be closest among related sheep: in mixed-breed flocks, subgroups of the same breed tend to form, and a ewe and her direct descendants often move as a unit within large flocks.[6] Sheep can become hefted to one particular local pasture (heft) so they do not roam freely in unfenced landscapes. Lambs learn the heft from ewes and if whole flocks are culled it must be retaught to the replacement animals.[7][49]

Flock behaviour in sheep is generally only exhibited in groups of four or more sheep; fewer sheep may not react as expected when alone or with few other sheep.[6] Being a prey species, the primary defense mechanism of sheep is to flee from danger when their flight zone is entered. Cornered sheep may charge and butt, or threaten by hoof stamping and adopting an aggressive posture. This is particularly true for ewes with newborn lambs.[6]

In regions where sheep have no natural predators, none of the native breeds of sheep exhibit a strong flocking behavior.[12]
Herding
Escaped sheep being led back to pasture with the enticement of food. This method of moving sheep works best with smaller flocks.

Farmers exploit flocking behavior to keep sheep together on unfenced pastures such as hill farming, and to move them more easily. Shepherds may also use herding dogs in this effort, whose highly bred herding ability can assist in moving flocks. Sheep are food-oriented and association of humans with regular feeding often results in sheep soliciting people for food.[50] Those who are moving sheep may exploit this behavior by leading sheep with buckets of feed, rather than ******* their movements with herding.[51][52]
Dominance hierarchy

Sheep establish a dominance hiererachy through fighting, threats and competitiveness. Dominant animals are inclined to be more aggressive with other sheep, and usually feed first at troughs.[53] Primarily among rams, horn size is a factor in the flock hierarchy.[54] Rams with different size horns may be less inclined to fight to establish the dominance order, while rams with similarly sized horns are more so.[54] Merinos have an almost linear hierarchy whereas there is a less rigid structure in Border Leicesters when a competitive feeding situation arises.[55]

In sheep, position in a moving flock is highly correlated with social dominance, but there is no definitive study to show consistent voluntary leadership by an individual sheep.[55]
Intelligence and learning ability

Sheep are frequently thought of as unintelligent animals.[56] Their flocking behavior and quickness to flee and panic can make shepherding a difficult endeavor for the uninitiated. Despite these perceptions, a University of Illinois monograph on sheep reported them to be just below pigs and on par with cattle in IQ.[6] Sheep can recognize individual human and ovine faces, and remember them for years.[57][58] In addition to long-term facial recognition of individuals, sheep can also differentiate emotional states through facial characteristics.[57][58] If worked with patiently, sheep may learn their names and many sheep are trained to be led by halter for showing and other purposes.[6] Sheep have also responded well to clicker training.[6] Sheep have been used as pack animals; Tibetan nomads distribute baggage equally throughout a flock as it is herded between living sites.[6]

It has been reported that some sheep have apparently shown problem-solving abilities; a flock in West Yorkshire, England allegedly found a way to get over cattle grids by rolling on their backs, although documentation of this has relied on anecdotal accounts.[59]
Vocalisations

A sheep baa
Menu
0:00
A sheep bleat
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Sounds made by domestic sheep include bleats, grunts, rumbles and snorts. Bleating ("baaing") is used mostly for contact communication, especially between dam and lambs, but also at times between other flock members.[60] The bleats of individual sheep are distinctive, enabling the ewe and her lambs to recognize each other's vocalizations.[61] Vocal communication between lambs and their dam declines to a very low level within several weeks after parturition.[60] A variety of bleats may be heard, depending on sheep age and circumstances. Apart from contact communication, bleating may signal distress, frustration or impatience; however, sheep are usually silent when in pain. Isolation commonly prompts bleating by sheep.[62] Pregnant ewes may grunt when in labor.[63] Rumbling sounds are made by the ram during courting; somewhat similar rumbling sounds may be made by the ewe,[60] especially when with her neonate lambs. A snort (explosive exhalation through the nostrils) may signal aggression or a warning,[60][64] or it may be an alarm or startle response.[65]
Senses

Sheep have panoramic vision of 330° to 360° and binocular vision of 25° to 50°. They are thought to have colour vision and are able to distinguish between a variety of colours: black, red, brown, green, yellow and white [66] They have no accommodation, so must lift their head to see distant objects. This also means that they are unable to judge depth as accurately as some other animals. Sheep eyes possess very low hyperopia with little astigmatism. Such visual characteristics are likely to produce a well-focused retinal image of objects in both the middle and long distance.[67] Sight is a vital part of sheep communication and when grazing, they maintain visual contact with each other.[68] Each sheep lifts its head upwards to check the position of other sheep in the flock. This constant monitoring is probably what keeps the sheep in a flock as they move along grazing. Sheep become stressed when isolated; this stress is reduced if they are provided with a mirror, indicating that the sight of other sheep has stress-reducing properties.[69]

Taste is the most important sense in sheep establishing forage preferences, with sweet and sour plants being preferred and bitter plants being more commonly rejected. Touch and sight are also important in relation to specific plant characteristics, such as succulence and growth form.[70]

The ram uses his vomeronasal organ (sometimes called the Jacobson's organ) for sensing the pheromones of ewes and detecting when they are in estrus.[71] The ewe uses her vomeronasal organ for early recognition of her neonate lamb.[72]
Reproduction
Main article: Domestic sheep reproduction
The second of twins being born on a New Zealand pasture

Sheep follow a similar reproductive strategy to other herd animals. A group of ewes is generally mated by a single ram, who has either been chosen by a breeder or has established dominance through physical contest with other rams (in feral populations).[25] Most sheep are seasonal breeders, although some are able to breed year-round.[25] Ewes generally reach sexual maturity at six to eight months of age, and rams generally at four to six months.[25] However, there are exceptions. For example, Finnsheep ewe lambs may reach puberty as early as 3 to 4 months, and Merino ewes sometimes reach puberty at 18 to 20 months.[73] Ewes have estrus cycles about every 17 days,[74] during which they emit a scent and indicate readiness through physical displays towards rams. A minority of rams display a preference for homosexuality (8% on average)[75] and a small number of the females that were accompanied by a male fetus in utero are freemartins (female animals that are behaviorally masculine and lack functioning ovaries).[76][77][78][79]

In feral sheep, rams may fight during the rut to determine which individuals may mate with ewes. Rams, especially unfamiliar ones, will also fight outside the breeding period to establish dominance; rams can kill one another if allowed to mix freely.[25] During the rut, even normally friendly rams may become aggressive towards humans due to increases in their hormone levels.[7]

After mating, sheep have a gestation period of about five months,[80] and normal labor takes one to three hours.[81] Although some breeds regularly throw larger litters of lambs, most produce single or twin lambs.[7][82] During or soon after labor, ewes and lambs may be confined to small lambing jugs,[83] small pens designed to aid both careful observation of ewes and to cement the bond between them and their lambs.[16][25]
A lamb's first steps

Ovine obstetrics can be problematic. By selectively breeding ewes that produce multiple offspring with higher birth weights for generations, sheep producers have inadvertently caused some domestic sheep to have difficulty lambing; balancing ease of lambing with high productivity is one of the dilemmas of sheep breeding.[84] In the case of any such problems, those present at lambing may assist the ewe by extracting or repositioning lambs.[25] After the birth, ewes ideally break the amniotic sac (if it is not broken during labor), and begin licking clean the lamb.[25] Most lambs will begin standing within an hour of birth.[25] In normal situations, lambs nurse after standing, receiving vital colostrum milk. Lambs that either fail to nurse or that are rejected by the ewe require aid to live, such as bottle-feeding or fostering by another ewe.[85]

After lambs are several weeks old, lamb marking (the process of ear tagging, docking, and **********) is carried out.[25] Vaccinations are usually carried out at this point as well. Ear tags with numbers are attached, or ear marks are applied for ease of later identification of sheep. ********** is performed on ram lambs not intended for breeding, although some shepherds choose to avoid the procedure for ethical, economic or practical reasons.[25] However, many would disagree with regard to timing. Docking and ********** are commonly done after 24 hours (to avoid interference with maternal bonding and consumption of colostrum) and are often done not later than one week after birth, to minimize pain, stress, recovery time and complications[86][87] The first course of vaccinations (commonly anti-clostridial) is commonly given at an age of about 10 to 12 weeks; i.e. when the concentration of maternal antibodies passively acquired via colostrum is expected to have fallen low enough to permit development of active immunity.[88][89][90] Ewes are often revaccinated annually about 3 weeks before lambing, to provide high antibody concentrations in colostrum during the first several hours after lambing.[36] Ram lambs that will either be slaughtered or separated from ewes before sexual maturity are not usually *********.[16] Tail docking is commonly done for welfare, having been shown to reduce risk of fly strike.[91] Objections to all these procedures have been raised by animal rights groups, but farmers defend them by saying they solve many practical and veterinary problems, and inflict only temporary pain.[7][25]
Health
A veterinarian draws blood to test for resistance to scrapie

Sheep may fall victim to poisons, infectious diseases, and physical injuries. As a prey species, a sheep's system is adapted to hide the obvious signs of illness, to prevent being targeted by predators.[7] However, some signs of ill health are obvious, with sick sheep eating little, vocalizing excessively, and being generally listless.[92] Throughout history, much of the money and labor of sheep husbandry has aimed to prevent sheep ailments. Historically, shepherds often created remedies by experimentation on the farm. In some developed countries, including the United States, sheep lack the economic importance for drug companies to perform expensive clinical trials required to approve more than a relatively limited number of drugs for ovine use.[93] However, extra-label drug use in sheep production is permitted in many jurisdictions, subject to certain restrictions. In the US, for example, regulations governing extra-label drug use in animals are found in 21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 530.[94] In the 20th and 21st centuries, a minority of sheep owners have turned to alternative treatments such as homeopathy, herbalism and even traditional Chinese medicine to treat sheep veterinary problems.[6][7] Despite some favorable anecdotal evidence, the effectiveness of alternative veterinary medicine has been met with skepticism in scientific journals.[6][7][95] The need for traditional anti-parasite drugs and antibiotics is widespread, and is the main impediment to certified organic farming with sheep.[25]

Many breeders take a variety of preventive measures to ward off problems. The first is to ensure all sheep are healthy when purchased. Many buyers avoid outlets known to be clearing houses for animals culled from healthy flocks as either sick or simply inferior.[7] This can also mean maintaining a closed flock, and quarantining new sheep for a month. Two fundamental preventive programs are maintaining good nutrition and reducing stress in the sheep. Restraint, isolation, loud noises, novel situations, pain, heat, extreme cold, fatigue and other stressors can lead to secretion of cortisol, a stress hormone, in amounts that may indicate welfare problems.[96][97][98][99] Excessive stress can compromise the immune system.[99] "Shipping fever" (pneumonic mannheimiosis, formerly called pasteurellosis) is a disease of particular concern, that can occur as a result of stress, notably during transport and (or) handling.[100][101] Pain, fear and several other stressors can cause secretion of epinephrine (adrenaline). Considerable epinephrine secretion in the final days before slaughter can adversely affect meat quality (by causing glycogenolysis, removing the substrate for normal post-slaughter acidification of meat) and result in meat becoming more susceptible to colonization by spoilage bacteria.[97] Because of such issues, low-stress handling is essential in sheep management. Avoiding poisoning is also important; common poisons are pesticide sprays, inorganic fertilizer, motor oil, as well as radiator coolant containing ethylene glycol.[102]
A sheep infected with orf, a disease transmittable to humans through skin contact

Common forms of preventive medication for sheep are vaccinations and treatments for parasites. Both external and internal parasites are the most prevalent malady in sheep, and are either fatal, or reduce the productivity of flocks.[7] Worms are the most common internal parasites. They are ingested during grazing, incubate within the sheep, and are expelled through the digestive system (beginning the cycle again). Oral anti-parasitic medicines, known as drenches, are given to a flock to treat worms, sometimes after worm eggs in the feces has been counted to assess infestation levels. Diatomaceaus Earth has been shown to be an effective, non chemical treatment for worm control in sheep.[103] Afterwards, sheep may be moved to a new pasture to avoid ingesting the same parasites.[16] External sheep parasites include: lice (for different parts of the body), sheep keds, nose bots, sheep itch mites, and maggots. Keds are blood-sucking parasites that cause general malnutrition and decreased productivity, but are not fatal. Maggots are those of the bot fly and the blow-fly. Fly maggots cause the extremely destructive condition of flystrike. Flies lay their eggs in wounds or wet, manure-soiled wool; when the maggots hatch they burrow into a sheep's flesh, eventually causing death if untreated. In addition to other treatments, crutching (shearing wool from a sheep's rump) is a common preventive method. Some countries allow mulesing, a practice that involves stripping away the skin on the rump to prevent fly-strike, normally performed when the sheep is a lamb.[104][105] Nose bots are fly larvae that inhabit a sheep's sinuses, causing breathing difficulties and discomfort. Common signs are a discharge from the nasal passage, sneezing, and frantic movement such as head shaking. External parasites may be controlled through the use of backliners, sprays or immersive sheep dips.[7]

A wide array of bacterial and viral diseases affect sheep. Diseases of the hoof, such as foot rot and foot scald may occur, and are treated with footbaths and other remedies. These painful conditions cause lameness and hinder feeding. Ovine Johne's disease is a wasting disease that affects young sheep. Bluetongue disease is an insect-borne illness causing fever and inflammation of the mucous membranes. Ovine rinderpest (or peste des petits ruminants) is a highly contagious and often fatal viral disease affecting sheep and goats.

A few sheep conditions are transmissible to humans. Orf (also known as scabby mouth, contagious ecthyma or soremouth) is a skin disease leaving lesions that is transmitted through skin-to-skin contact. Cutaneous anthrax is also called woolsorter's disease, as the spores can be transmitted in unwashed wool. More seriously, the organisms that can cause spontaneous enzootic abortion in sheep are easily transmitted to pregnant women. Also of concern are the prion disease scrapie and the virus that causes foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), as both can devastate flocks. The latter poses a slight risk to humans. During the 2001 FMD pandemic in the UK, hundreds of sheep were culled and some rare British breeds were at risk of extinction due to this.[7]
Predation
Main article: Domestic sheep predation
A lamb being attacked by coyotes with the most typical method, a bite to the throat

Other than parasites and disease, predation is a threat to sheep and the profitability of sheep raising. Sheep have little ability to defend themselves, compared with other species kept as livestock. Even if sheep survive an attack, they may die from their injuries, or simply from panic.[7] However, the impact of predation varies dramatically with region. In Africa, Australia, the Americas, and parts of Europe and Asia predators are a serious problem. In the United States, for instance, over one third of sheep deaths in 2004 were caused by predation.[106] In contrast, other nations are virtually devoid of sheep predators, particularly islands known for extensive sheep husbandry.[7] Worldwide, canids—including the domestic dog—are responsible for most sheep deaths.[107][108][109] Other animals that occasionally prey on sheep include: felines, bears, birds of prey, ravens and feral hogs.[106][110]

Sheep producers have used a wide variety of measures to combat predation. Pre-modern shepherds used their own presence, livestock guardian dogs, and protective structures such as barns and fencing. Fencing (both regular and electric), penning sheep at night and lambing indoors all continue to be widely used.[25] More modern shepherds used guns, traps, and poisons to kill predators,[111] causing significant decreases in predator populations. In the wake of the environmental and conservation movements, the use of these methods now usually falls under the purview of specially designated government agencies in most developed countries .[112]

The 1970s saw a resurgence in the use of livestock guardian dogs and the development of new methods of predator control by sheep producers, many of them non-lethal.[16] Donkeys and guard llamas have been used since the 1980s in sheep operations, using the same basic principle as livestock guardian dogs.[7] Interspecific pasturing, usually with larger livestock such as cattle or horses, may help to deter predators, even if such species do not actively guard sheep.[25] In addition to animal guardians, contemporary sheep operations may use non-lethal predator deterrents such as motion-activated lights and noisy alarms.[7]
Economic importance
Main article: Agricultural economics
Global sheep stocks
in 2008
(million)
China 136.4
Australia 79.0
India 65.0
Iran 53.8
Sudan 51.1
New Zealand 34.1
Nigeria 33.9
United Kingdom 33.1
World Total 1,078.2
Source:
UN Food & Agriculture Organisation
(FAO)

Sheep are an important part of the global agricultural economy. However, their once vital status has been largely replaced by other livestock species, especially the pig, chicken, and cow.[16] China, Australia, India, and Iran have the largest modern flocks, and serve both local and exportation needs for wool and mutton.[113] Other countries such as New Zealand have smaller flocks but retain a large international economic impact due to their export of sheep products. Sheep also play a major role in many local economies, which may be niche markets focused on organic or sustainable agriculture and local food customers.[6][114] Especially in developing countries, such flocks may be a part of subsistence agriculture rather than a system of trade. Sheep themselves may be a medium of trade in barter economies.[6]
Wool supplied by Australian farmers to dealers (tonnes/quarter) has been in decline since 1990

Domestic sheep provide a wide array of raw materials. Wool was one of the first textiles, although in the late 20th century wool prices began to fall dramatically as the result of the popularity and cheap prices for synthetic fabrics.[6] For many sheep owners, the cost of shearing is greater than the possible profit from the fleece, making subsisting on wool production alone practically impossible without farm subsidies.[6] Fleeces are used as material in making alternative products such as wool insulation.[115] In the 21st century, the sale of meat is the most profitable enterprise in the sheep industry, even though far less sheep meat is consumed than chicken, pork or beef.[16]

Sheepskin is likewise used for making clothes, footwear, rugs, and other products. Byproducts from the slaughter of sheep are also of value: sheep tallow can be used in candle and soap making, sheep bone and cartilage has been used to furnish carved items such as dice and buttons as well as rendered glue and gelatin.[116] Sheep intestine can be formed into sausage casings, and lamb intestine has been formed into surgical sutures, as well as strings for musical instruments and tennis rackets.[3] Sheep droppings, which are high in cellulose, have even been sterilized and mixed with traditional pulp materials to make paper.[117] Of all sheep byproducts, perhaps the most valuable is lanolin: the waterproof, fatty substance found naturally in sheep's wool and used as a base for innumerable cosmetics and other products.[3]

Some farmers who keep sheep also make a profit from live sheep. Providing lambs for youth programs such as 4-H and competition at agricultural shows is often a dependable avenue for the sale of sheep.[118] Farmers may also choose to focus on a particular breed of sheep in order to sell registered purebred animals, as well as provide a ram rental service for breeding.[119] The most valuable sheep ever sold to date was a purebred Texel ram that fetched £231,000 at auction.[120] The previous record holder was a Merino ram sold for £205,000 in 1989.[120] A new option for deriving profit from live sheep is the rental of flocks for grazing; these "mowing services" are hired in order to keep unwanted vegetation down in public spaces and to lessen fire hazard.[121]

Despite the falling demand and price for sheep products in many markets, sheep have distinct economic advantages when compared with other livestock. They do not require the expensive housing,[122] such as that used in the intensive farming of chickens or pigs. They are an efficient use of land; roughly six sheep can be kept on the amount that would suffice for a single cow or horse.[7][123] Sheep can also consume plants, such as noxious weeds, that most other animals will not touch, and produce more young at a faster rate.[124] Also, in contrast to most livestock species, the cost of raising sheep is not necessarily tied to the price of feed crops such as grain, soybeans and corn.[125] Combined with the lower cost of quality sheep, all these factors combine to equal a lower overhead for sheep producers, thus entailing a higher profitability potential for the small farmer.[125] Sheep are especially beneficial for independent producers, including family farms with limited resources, as the sheep industry is one of the few types of animal agriculture that has not been vertically integrated by agribusiness.[126]
Food
Shoulder of lamb
Main articles: Lamb and mutton and Sheep milk
See also: Category:Sheep's-milk cheeses

Sheep meat and milk were one of the earliest staple proteins consumed by human civilization after the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture.[7] Sheep meat prepared for food is known as either mutton or lamb. "Mutton" is derived from the Old French moton, which was the word for sheep used by the Anglo-Norman rulers of much of the British Isles in the Middle Ages. This became the name for sheep meat in English, while the Old English word sceap was kept for the live animal.[127] Throughout modern history, "mutton" has been limited to the meat of mature sheep usually at least two years of age; "lamb" is used for that of immature sheep less than a year.[128][129][130]

In the 21st century, the nations with the highest consumption of sheep meat are the Persian Gulf states, New Zealand, Australia, Greece, Uruguay, the United Kingdom and Ireland.[6] These countries eat 14–40 lbs (3–18 kg) of sheep meat per capita, per annum.[6][130] Sheep meat is also popular in France, Africa (especially the Maghreb), the Caribbean, the rest of the Middle East, India, and parts of China.[130] This often reflects a history of sheep production. In these countries in particular, dishes comprising alternative cuts and offal may be popular or traditional. Sheep testicles—called animelles or lamb fries—are considered a delicacy in many parts of the world. Perhaps the most unusual dish of sheep meat is the Scottish haggis, composed of various sheep innards cooked along with oatmeal and chopped onions inside its stomach.[131] In comparison, countries such as the U.S. consume only a pound or less (under 0.5 kg), with Americans eating 50 pounds (22 kg) of pork and 65 pounds (29 kg) of beef.[130] In addition, such countries rarely eat mutton, and may favor the more expensive cuts of lamb: mostly lamb chops and leg of lamb.[6]

Though sheep's milk may be drunk rarely in fresh form,[132] today it is used predominantly in cheese and yogurt making. Sheep have only two teats, and produce a far smaller volume of milk than cows.[7] However, as sheep's milk contains far more fat, solids, and minerals than cow's milk, it is ideal for the cheese-making process.[27] It also resists contamination during cooling better because of its much higher calcium content.[27] Well-known cheeses made from sheep milk include the Feta of Bulgaria and Greece, Roquefort of France, Manchego from Spain, the Pecorino Romano (the Italian word for sheep is pecore) and Ricotta of Italy. Yogurts, especially some forms of strained yogurt, may also be made from sheep milk.[133] Many of these products are now often made with cow's milk, especially when produced outside their country of origin.[6] Sheep milk contains 4.8% lactose, which may affect those who are intolerant.[6]
Science
See also: U.S. Sheep Experiment Station
A cloned ewe named Dolly was a scientific landmark.

Sheep are generally too large and reproduce too slowly to make ideal research subjects, and thus are not a common model organism.[134] They have, however, played an influential role in some fields of science. In particular, the Roslin Institute of Edinburgh, Scotland used sheep for genetics research that produced groundbreaking results. In 1995, two ewes named Megan and Morag were the first mammals cloned from differentiated cells. A year later, a Finnish Dorset sheep named Dolly, dubbed "the world's most famous sheep" in Scientific American,[135] was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell. Following this, Polly and Molly were the first mammals to be simultaneously cloned and transgenic.

As of 2008, the sheep genome has not been fully sequenced, although a detailed genetic map has been published,[136] and a draft version of the complete genome produced by assembling sheep DNA sequences using information given by the genomes of other mammals.[137] In 2012, a transgenic sheep named "Peng Peng" was cloned by Chinese scientists, who spliced his genes with that of a roundworm (C. elegans) in order to increase production of fats healthier for human consumption.[138]

In the study of natural selection, the population of Soay sheep that remain on the island of Hirta have been used to explore the relation of body size and coloration to reproductive success.[139] Soay sheep come in several colors, and researchers investigated why the larger, darker sheep were in decline; this occurrence contradicted the rule of thumb that larger members of a population tend to be more successful reproductively.[140] The feral Soays on Hirta are especially useful subjects because they are isolated.[141]

Sheep are one of the few animals where the molecular basis of the diversity of male sexual preferences has been examined.[142] However, this research has been controversial, and much publicity has been produced by a study at the Oregon Health and Science University that investigated the mechanisms that produce homosexuality in rams. Organizations such as PETA campaigned against the study, accusing scientists of trying to cure homosexuality in the sheep.[75] OHSU and the involved scientists vehemently denied such accusations.[75]
A 1979 Faroese stamp by Czesław Słania. Sheep are the heraldic animal of the Faroes ("Sheep Islands").

Domestic sheep are sometimes used in medical research, particularly for researching cardiovascular physiology, in areas such as hypertension and heart failure.[143][144] Pregnant sheep are also a useful model for human pregnancy,[145] and have been used to investigate the effects on fetal development of malnutrition and hypoxia.[146] In behavioral sciences, sheep have been used in isolated cases for the study of facial recognition, as their mental process of recognition is qualitatively similar to humans.[147]
Cultural impact
See also: List of fictional sheep and Bellwether

Sheep have had a strong presence in many cultures, especially in areas where they form the most common type of livestock. In the English language, to call someone a sheep or ovine may allude that they are timid and easily led, if not outright stupid.[148] In contradiction to this image, male sheep are often used as symbols of virility and power; although the logos of the St. Louis Rams and the Dodge Ram allude specifically to males of the species bighorn sheep, ovis canadensis. Sheep are key symbols in fables and nursery rhymes like The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, Little Bo Peep, Baa, Baa, Black Sheep, and Mary Had a Little Lamb. Novels such as George Orwell's Animal Farm, Haruki Murakami's A Wild Sheep Chase, Thomas Hardy's Far from the Madding Crowd, Neil Astley's The Sheep Who Changed the World (which features a cloned sheep) and Leonie Swann's Three Bags Full: A Sheep Detective Story utilize sheep as characters or plot devices. Poems like William Blake's "The Lamb", songs such as Pink Floyd's Sheep and Bach's aria Sheep may safely graze (Schafe können sicher weiden) use sheep for metaphorical purposes. In more recent popular culture, the 2007 film Black Sheep exploits sheep for horror and comedic effect, ironically turning them into blood-thirsty killers.
The proverbial black sheep

Counting sheep is popularly said to be an aid to sleep, and some ancient systems of counting sheep persist today. Sheep also enter in colloquial sayings and idiom frequently with such phrases as "black sheep". To call an individual a black sheep implies that they are an odd or disreputable member of a group.[149] This usage derives from the recessive trait that causes an occasional black lamb to be born into an entirely white flock. These black sheep were considered undesirable by shepherds, as black wool is not as commercially viable as white wool.[149] Citizens who accept overbearing governments have been referred to by the Portmanteau neologism of sheeple. Somewhat differently, the adjective "sheepish" is also used to describe embarrassment.[150]
Religion and folklore
Ancient Greek red-figure ram rhyton, ca. 460-450 BC. From Anavyssos. National Archaeological Museum, Athens.

In antiquity, symbolism involving sheep cropped up in religions in the ancient Near East, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean area: Çatalhöyük, ancient Egyptian religion, the Cana'anite and Phoenician tradition, Judaism, Greek religion, and others. Religious symbolism and ritual involving sheep began with some of the first known faiths: skulls of rams (along with bulls) occupied central placement in shrines at the Çatalhöyük settlement in 8,000 BCE.[151] In Ancient Egyptian religion, the ram was the symbol of several gods: Khnum, Heryshaf and Amun (in his incarnation as a god of fertility).[6] Other deities occasionally shown with ram features include: the goddess Ishtar, the Phoenician god Baal-Hamon, and the Babylonian god Ea-Oannes.[6] In Madagascar, sheep were not eaten as they were believed to be incarnations of the souls of ancestors.[152]

There are also many ancient Greek references to sheep: that of Chrysomallos, the golden-fleeced ram, continuing to be told through into the modern era. Astrologically, Aries, the ram, is the first sign of the classical Greek zodiac and the sheep is also the eighth of the twelve animals associated with the 12-year cycle of in the Chinese zodiac, related to the Chinese calendar.[152] In Mongolia, shagai are an ancient form of dice made from the cuboid bones of sheep that are often used for fortunetelling purposes.

Sheep play an important role in all the Abrahamic faiths; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, King David and the Islamic prophet Muhammad were all shepherds. According to the Biblical story of the Binding of Isaac, a ram is sacrificed as a substitute for Isaac after an angel stays Abraham's hand (in the Islamic tradition, Abraham was about to sacrifice Ishmael). Eid al-Adha is a major annual festival in Islam in which sheep (or other animals) are sacrificed in remembrance of this act.[153][154] Sheep are also occasionally sacrificed to commemorate important secular events in Islamic cultures.[155] Greeks and Romans also sacrificed sheep regularly in religious practice, and Judaism also once sacrificed sheep as a Korban (sacrifice), such as the Passover lamb .[152] Ovine symbols—such as the ceremonial blowing of a shofar—still find a presence in modern Judaic traditions. Followers of Christianity are collectively often referred to as a flock, with Christ as the Good Shepherd, and sheep are an element in the Christian iconography of the birth of Jesus. Some Christian saints are considered patrons of shepherds, and even of sheep themselves. Christ is also portrayed as the Sacrificial lamb of God (Agnus Dei) and Easter celebrations in Greece and Romania traditionally feature a meal of Paschal lamb. In many Christian traditions, a church leader is called the pastor, which is derived from the Latin word for shepherd.

[kdunstfan]

The honey badger (Mellivora capensis), also known as the ratel (/ˈreɪtəl/ or /ˈrɑːtəl/),[3] is a species of mustelid native to Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Indian Subcontinent. Despite its name, the honey badger does not closely resemble other badger species; instead, it bears more anatomical similarities to weasels. It is classed as Least Concern by the IUCN owing to its extensive range and general environmental adaptations. It is primarily a carnivorous species and has few natural predators because of its thick skin and ferocious defensive abilities.
Contents

1 Etymology
2 Taxonomy
2.1 Subspecies
3 Physical description
4 Behavior
4.1 Habits
4.2 Diet
5 Range
6 Relationships with humans
7 In popular culture
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links

Etymology

Ratel is an Afrikaans word, possibly derived from the Middle Dutch word for rattle, honeycomb (either because of its cry or its taste for honey).
Taxonomy
Skeleton from the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle

The honey badger is the only species of the genus Mellivora. Although in the 1860s it was assigned to the badger subfamily, the Melinae, it is now generally agreed that it bears very few similarities to the Melinae. It is much more closely related to the marten subfamily, Mustelinae, but furthermore is assigned its own subfamily, Mellivorinae.[4] Differences between Mellivorinae and Melinae include differences in their dentition formulae. Though not in the same subfamily as the wolverines, which are a genus of large-sized and atypical Mustelinae, the honey badger can be regarded as another, analogous, form of outsized weasel or polecat.

The species first appeared during the middle Pliocene in Asia. Its closest relation was the extinct genus Eomellivora, which is known from the upper Miocene, and evolved into several different species throughout the whole Pliocene in both the Old and New World.[5]
Subspecies

As of 2005, 12 subspecies are recognised.[6] Points taken into consideration in assigning different subspecies include size and the extent of whiteness or greyness on the back.[7]
Subspecies Trinomial authority Description Range Synonyms
Cape ratel
Mellivora capensis capensis

Cape ratel.jpg
Schreber, 1776 South and southwestern Africa mellivorus (G. [Baron] Cuvier, 1798)

ratel (Sparrman, 1777)
typicus (A. Smith, 1833)
vernayi (Roberts, 1932)
Ethiopian ratel
Mellivora capensis abyssinica Hollister, 1910 Ethiopia
Turkmenian ratel
Mellivora capensis buechneri Baryshnikov, 2000 Similar to the subspecies indica and inaurita, but is distinguished by its larger size and narrower postorbital constriction[8] Turkmenistan
Lake Chad ratel
Mellivora capensis concisa Thomas and Wroughton, 1907 The coat on the back consists largely of very long, pure white bristle-hairs amongst long, fine, black underfur. Its distinguishing feature is the fact that unlike other subspecies, it lacks the usual white bristle-hairs in the lumbar area[9] Sahel and Sudan zones, as far as Somaliland brockmani (Wroughton and Cheesman, 1920)

buchanani (Thomas, 1925)
Black ratel
Mellivora capensis cottoni Lydekker, 1906 The fur is typically entirely black, with thin and harsh hairs.[9] Ghana, northeastern Congo sagulata (Hollister, 1910)
Nepalese ratel
Mellivora capensis inaurita Hodgson, 1836 Distinguished from indica by its longer, much woollier coat and having overgrown hair on its heels[10] Nepal and contiguous areas east of it
Indian ratel
Mellivora capensis indica

Indian ratel.jpg
Kerr, 1792 Distinguished from capensis by its smaller size, paler fur and having a less distinct lateral white band separating the upper white and lower black areas of the body[11] Western Middle Asia northward to the Ustyurt Plateau and eastward to Amu Darya. Outside the former Soviet Union, its range includes Afghanistan, Iran (except the southwestern part), western Pakistan and western India mellivorus (Bennett, 1830)

ratel (Horsfield, 1851)
ratelus (Fraser, 1862)
White-backed ratel
Mellivora capensis leuconota Sclater, 1867 The entire upper side from the face to half-way along the tail is pure creamy white with little admixture of black hairs[9] West Africa, southern Morocco, former French Congo
Kenyan ratel
Mellivora capensis maxwelli Thomas, 1923 Kenya
Arabian ratel
Mellivora capensis pumilio Pocock, 1946 Hadhramaut, southern Arabia
Speckled ratel
Mellivora capensis signata Pocock, 1909 Although its pelage is the normal dense white over the crown, this pale colour starts to thin out over the neck and shoulders, continuing to the rump where it fades into black. It possesses an extra lower molar on the left side of the jaw[9] Sierra Leone
Persian ratel
Mellivora capensis wilsoni Cheesman, 1920 Southwestern Iran and Iraq
Physical description
Skull, as illustrated by N. N. Kondakov.

The honey badger has a fairly long body, but is distinctly thick-set and broad across the back. Its skin is remarkably loose, and allows it to turn and twist freely within it.[12] The skin around the neck is 6 millimetres (0.24 in) thick, an adaptation to fighting conspecifics.[13] The head is small and flat, with a short muzzle. The eyes are small, and the ears are little more than ridges on the skin,[12] another possible adaptation to avoiding damage while fighting.[13]

The honey badger has short and sturdy legs, with five toes on each foot. The feet are armed with very strong claws, which are short on the hind legs and remarkably long on the forelimbs. It is a partially plantigrade animal whose soles are thickly padded and naked up to the wrists. The tail is short and is covered in long hairs, save for below the base.

Honey badgers are the largest terrestrial mustelids in Africa. Adults measure 23 to 28 cm (9.1 to 11 in) in shoulder height and 55–77 cm (22–30 in) in body length, with the tail adding another 12–30 cm (4.7–12 in). Females are smaller than males.[12][14] Males weigh 9 to 16 kg (20 to 35 lb) while females weigh 5 to 10 kg (11 to 22 lb) on average. Skull length is 13.9–14.5 cm (5.5–5.7 in) in males and 13 cm (5.1 in) for females.[15][16]

There are two pairs of mammae.[17] The honey badger possesses an anal pouch which, unusual among mustelids, is reversible,[18] a trait shared with hyenas and mongooses. The smell of the pouch is reportedly "suffocating", and may assist in calming bees when raiding beehives.[19]

The skull bears little similarity to that of the European badger, and greatly resembles a larger version of a marbled polecat skull.[20] The skull is very solidly built, with that of adults having no trace of an independent bone structure. The braincase is broader than that of dogs.

The dental formula is: 3.1.3.13.1.3.1. The teeth often display signs of irregular development, with some teeth being exceptionally small, set at unusual angles or are absent altogether. Honey badgers of the subspecies signata have a second lower molar on the left side of their jaws, but not the right. Although it feeds predominantly on soft foods, the honey badger's cheek teeth are often extensively worn. The canine teeth are exceptionally short for carnivores.[21] The tongue has sharp, backward-pointing papillae which assist it in processing tough foods.[22]

The winter fur is long (being 40–50 mm long on the lower back), and consists of sparse, coarse, bristle-like hairs lacking underfur. Hairs are even sparser on the flanks, belly and groin. The summer fur is shorter (being only 15 mm long on the back) and even sparser, with the belly being half bare. The sides of the heads and lower body are pure black in colour. A large white band covers their upper bodies, beginning from the top of their heads down to the base of their tails.[23] Honey badgers of the cottoni subspecies are unique in being completely black in colour.[9]
Behavior
Black ratel (M. c. cottoni)
Habits

Although mostly solitary, honey badgers may hunt together in pairs during the May breeding season.[22] Little is known of the honey badger's breeding habits. Its gestation period is thought to last six months, usually resulting in two cubs, which are born blind. They vocalise through plaintive whines. Its lifespan in the wild is unknown, though captive individuals have been known to live for approximately 24 years.[7]
Dentition

Honey badgers live alone in self-dug holes. They are skilled diggers, able to dig tunnels into hard ground in 10 minutes. These burrows usually only have one passage and a nesting chamber and are usually only 1–3 m long. They do not place bedding into the nesting chamber.[24] Although they usually dig their own burrows, they may take over disused aardvark and warthog holes or termite mounds.[22]

Honey badgers are intelligent animals and are one of a few species known to be capable of using tools. In the 1997 documentary series Land of the Tiger, a honey badger in India was filmed making use of a tool; the animal rolled a log and stood on it to reach a kingfisher fledgling stuck up in the roots coming from the ceiling in an underground cave.[25]

As with other mustelids of relatively large size, such as wolverines and badgers, honey badgers are notorious for their strength, ferocity and toughness. They have been known to savagely and fearlessly attack almost any kind of animal when escape is impossible, reportedly even repelling much larger predators such as lions.[26] Bee stings, porcupine quills, and animal bites rarely penetrate their skin. If horses, cattle, or Cape buffalos intrude upon a ratel's burrow, it will attack them. They are virtually tireless in combat and can wear out much larger animals in physical confrontations.[21] The aversion of most predators toward hunting honey badgers has led to the theory that the countershaded coats of cheetah kittens evolved in imitation of the honey badger's colouration to ward off predators.[27]

The voice of the honey badger is a hoarse "khrya-ya-ya-ya" sound. When mating, males emit loud grunting sounds.[5] Cubs vocalise through plaintive whines.[7] When confronting dogs, honey badgers scream like bear cubs.[28]
Diet

Next to the wolverine, the honey badger has the least specialised diet of the weasel family.[13] In undeveloped areas, honey badgers may hunt at any time of the day, though they become nocturnal in places with high human populations. When hunting, they trot with their foretoes turned in. Honey badgers favor bee honey, and will often search for beehives to get it, which earns them their name. They often follow a honeyguide (a bird that eats bee larvae) to find the beehives. They are also carnivorous and will eat insects, frogs, tortoises, rodents, turtles, lizards, eggs, and birds. Honey badgers have even been known to chase away young lions and take their kills. They will eat fruit and vegetables such as berries, roots and bulbs.[22]

They may hunt frogs and rodents such as gerbils and ground squirrels by digging them out of their burrows. Honey badgers are able to feed on tortoises without difficulty, due to their powerful jaws. They kill and eat snakes, even highly venomous or large ones such as cobras. They have been known to dig up human corpses in India.[29] They devour all parts of their prey, including skin, hair, feathers, flesh and bones, holding their food down with their forepaws.[30] When seeking vegetable food, they lift stones or tear bark from trees.[22]
Range

The species ranges through most of sub-Saharan Africa, from the Western Cape, South Africa, to southern Morocco and southwestern Algeria and outside Africa through Arabia, Iran and western Asia to Turkmenistan and the Indian Peninsula. It is known to range from sea level to as much as 2,600 m above sea level in the Moroccan High Atlas and 4,000 m in Ethiopia's Bale Mountains.[1]
Relationships with humans

Honey badgers often become serious poultry predators. Because of their strength and persistence, they are difficult to deter. They are known to rip thick planks from hen-houses or burrow underneath stone foundations. Surplus killing is common during these events, with one incident resulting in the death of 17 Muscovy ducks and 36 chickens.[22]

Because of the toughness and looseness of their skin, honey badgers are very difficult to kill with dogs. Their skin is hard to penetrate, and its looseness allows them to twist and turn on their attackers when held. The only safe grip on a honey badger is on the back of the neck. The skin is also tough enough to resist several machete blows. The only sure way of killing them quickly is through a blow to the skull with a club or a shot to the head with a gun, as their skin is almost impervious to arrows and spears.[31]

During the British occupation of Basra, rumours of "man-eating badgers" emerged from the local population, including allegations that these beasts were released by the British troops, something that the British categorically denied.[32][33] A British army spokesperson said that the badgers were "native to the region but rare in Iraq" and "are usually only dangerous to humans if provoked".[34] The director of Basra's veterinary hospital, Mushtaq Abdul-Mahdi, confirmed that honey badgers had been seen in the area as early as 1986. The deputy dean of Basra's veterinary college, Dr. Ghazi Yaqub Azzam, speculated that "the badgers were being driven towards the city because of flooding in marshland north of Basra."[33] The event received coverage in the Western press during the 2007 silly season.[35]

In many parts of North India, honey badgers are reported to have been living in the close vicinity of human dwellings, leading to many instances of attacks on poultry, small livestock animals and, sometimes, even children.[citation needed] They retaliate fiercely when attacked, and are reviled in North India.[citation needed] According to a 1941 volume of The Fauna of British India, the honey badger has also been reported to dig up human corpses in that country.[36]

In Kenya, the honey badger is a major reservoir of rabies[37][38] and suspected to be a significant contributor to the sylvatic cycle of the disease.[39]
In popular culture
See also: List of fictional badgers

A honey badger appears in a running gag in the 1989 film The Gods Must Be Crazy II.[40]

The viral video Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger became a popular Internet meme in 2011, attaining over 60 million views on YouTube as of April 2013.[41] The video features footage from the Nat Geo WILD network of honey badgers fighting jackals, invading beehives, and eating cobras. The video includes a comical voiceover by "Randall" in a vulgar, effeminate, and sometimes exasperated narration, including lines like "Honey badger don't care!" and "Honey badger don't give a shit!"[42] Randall subsequently published the book Honey Badger Don't Care in the same year. The video has been referenced in an episode of the popular television series Glee and commercials for the video game Madden NFL 12 and Wonderful Pistachios.[43] The video has also influenced references to honey badgers on the show American Pickers.[44] In Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, a honeybadger makes a brief appearance.

Australian Wallabies and Western Force rugby player Nick Cummins nickname is "Honey Badger", drawn from his attitude towards strong defence and based on the above internet meme.[45]

Former LSU Tigers' football player Tyrann Mathieu's nickname is "The Honey Badger". The nickname became popular during the 2011 college football season, when it was often referenced in the national media. "He takes what he wants" said CBS sportscaster Verne Lundquist of Mathieu, in reference to the Internet meme.[46]

[kdunstfan]

This article is about the mammalian family. For the koala and extinct bear-like marsupials, see Phascolarctidae. For other uses, see Bear (disambiguation).
"Ursine" redirects here. For the village, see Ursine, Nevada.
Page semi-protected
Bears
Temporal range: 38–0Ma
PreЄ
Є
O
S
D
C
P
T
J
K
Pg
N
Late Eocene – Recent
Brown bear, Ursus arctos in Norway
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Ursidae
G. Fischer de Waldheim, 1817
Genera

Ailuropoda
Helarctos
Melursus
Ursus
Tremarctos
Agriarctos †
Agriotherium †
Amphicticeps †
Amphicynodon †
Arctotherium †
Arctodus †
Indarctos †
Kolponomos †
Parictis †
Plionarctos †
Ursavus †

Bears are mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives. Although only eight species of bears are extant, they are widespread, appearing in a wide variety of habitats throughout the Northern Hemisphere and partially in the Southern Hemisphere. Bears are found on the continents of North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.

Common characteristics of modern bears include large bodies with stocky legs, long snouts, shaggy hair, plantigrade paws with five nonretractile claws, and short tails. While the polar bear is mostly carnivorous and the giant panda feeds almost entirely on bamboo, the remaining six species are omnivorous, with varied diets.

With the exceptions of courting individuals and mothers with their young, bears are typically solitary animals. They are generally diurnal, but may be active during the night (nocturnal) or twilight (crepuscular), particularly around humans. Bears are aided by an excellent sense of smell, and despite their heavy build and awkward gait, they can run quickly and are adept climbers and swimmers. In autumn, some bear species forage large amounts of fermented fruits, which affects their behaviour.[1] Bears use shelters, such as caves and burrows, as their dens; most species occupy their dens during the winter for a long period (up to 100 days) of sleep similar to hibernation.[2]

Bears have been hunted since prehistoric times for their meat and fur. With their tremendous physical presence and charisma, they play a prominent role in the arts, mythology, and other cultural aspects of various human societies. In modern times, the bears' existence has been pressured through the encroachment on their habitats and the illegal trade of bears and bear parts, including the Asian bile bear market. The IUCN lists six bear species as vulnerable or endangered, and even least concern species, such as the brown bear, are at risk of extirpation in certain countries. The poaching and international trade of these most threatened populations are prohibited, but still ongoing.
Contents

1 Etymology
2 Evolutionary history
2.1 Fossil bears
2.2 Taxonomic revisions of living bear species
3 Classification
4 Biology
4.1 Morphology
4.1.1 Dentition
4.2 Distribution and habitat
4.3 Behaviour
4.4 Vocalizations
4.5 Diet and interspecific interactions
4.6 Breeding
4.7 Winter dormancy
5 Relationship with humans
5.1 Bear hunt
6 Culture
6.1 Names
6.2 Myth and legend
6.3 Symbolic use
6.4 Figures of speech
6.5 Teddy bears
7 Organizations regarding bears
8 See also
9 References
10 Further reading
11 External links

Etymology

The English word "bear" comes from Old English bera and belongs to a family of names for the bear in Germanic languages that originate from an adjective meaning "brown".[3] In Scandinavia, the word for bear is björn (or bjørn), and is a relatively common given name for males. The use of this name is ancient and has been found mentioned in several runestone inscriptions.[4]

The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European name of the bear is *h₂ŕ̥tḱos, whence Sanskrit r̥kṣa, Avestan arša, Greek ἄρκτος (arktos), Latin ursus, Welsh arth (whence perhaps "Arthur"), Albanian ari, Armenian արջ (arj). Also compared is Hittite ḫartagga-, the name of a monster or predator.[3] In the binomial name of the brown bear, Ursus arctos, Linnaeus simply combined the Latin and Greek names.

The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) word for bear, *h₂ŕ̥tḱos seems to have been subject to taboo deformation or replacement in some languages (as was the word for wolf, wlkwos), resulting in the use of numerous unrelated words with meanings like "brown one" (English bruin) and "honey-eater" (Slavic medved).[5] Thus, some Indo-European language groups do not share the same PIE root. The theory of the bear taboo is taught to almost all starting students of Indo-European and historical linguistics; the putative original PIE word for bear is itself descriptive, because a cognate word in Sanskrit is rakṣas, meaning "harm, injury".[6]
Evolutionary history

The family Ursidae is one of 9 families in the suborder Caniformia, or "doglike" carnivores, within the order Carnivora. Bears' closest living relatives are the pinnipeds, canids, and musteloids.[7]

The following synapomorphic (derived) traits set bears apart from related families:

presence of an alisphenoid canal
paroccipital processes that are large and not fused to the auditory bullae
auditory bullae are not enlarged
lacrimal bone is vestigial
cheek teeth are bunodont and hence indicative of a broad, hypocarnivorous (not strictly meat-eating) diet (although hypercarnivorous (strictly meat-eating) taxa are known from the fossil record)[8]
carnassials are flattened

Additionally, members of this family possess posteriorly oriented M2 postprotocrista molars, elongated m2 molars, and a reduction of the premolars.

Modern bears comprise eight species in three subfamilies: Ailuropodinae (monotypic with the giant panda), Tremarctinae (monotypic with the spectacled bear), and Ursinae (containing six species divided into one to three genera, depending upon authority).
Fossil bears

The earliest members of Ursidae belong to the extinct subfamily Amphicynodontinae, including Parictis (late Eocene to early middle Miocene, 38–18 Mya) and the slightly younger Allocyon (early Oligocene, 34–30 Mya), both from North America. These animals looked very different from today's bears, being small and raccoon-like in overall appearance, and diets perhaps more similar to that of a badger. Parictis does not appear in Eurasia and Africa until the Miocene.[9] It is unclear whether late-Eocene ursids were also present in Eurasia, although faunal exchange across the Bering land bridge may have been possible during a major sea level low stand as early as the late Eocene (about 37 Mya) and continuing into the early Oligocene.[10] European genera morphologically are very similar to Allocyon, and also the much younger American Kolponomos (about 18 Mya), are known from the Oligocene, including Amphicticeps and Amphicynodon.
Plithocyon armagnacensis skull

The raccoon-sized, dog-like Cephalogale is the oldest-known member of the subfamily Hemicyoninae, which first appeared during the middle Oligocene in Eurasia about 30 Mya ago. The subfamily also includes the younger genera Phoberocyon (20–15 Mya), and Plithocyon (15–7 Mya).

A Cephalogale-like species gave rise to the genus Ursavus during the early Oligocene (30–28 Mya); this genus proliferated into many species in Asia and is ancestral to all living bears. Species of Ursavus subsequently entered North America, together with Amphicynodon and Cephalogale, during the early Miocene (21–18 Mya).

Members of the living lineages of bears diverged from Ursavus around 20 Mya ago, likely via the species Ursavus elmensis. Based on genetic and morphological data, the Ailuropodinae (pandas) were the first to diverge from other living bears about 19 Mya ago, although no fossils of this group have been found before about 5 Mya.[11]

The New World short-faced bears (Tremarctinae) differentiated from Ursinae following a dispersal event into North America during the mid Miocene (about 13 Mya).[11] They invaded South America (~1 Ma) following formation of the Isthmus of Panama.[12] Their earliest fossil representative is Plionarctos in North America (~ 10–2 Ma). This genus is probably the direct ancestor to the North American short-faced bears (genus Arctodus), the South American short-faced bears (Arctotherium), and the spectacled bears, Tremarctos, represented by both an extinct North American species (T. floridanus), and the lone surviving representative of the Tremarctinae, the South American spectacled bear (T. ornatus).
Fossil of cave bear (Ursus spelaeus)

The subfamily Ursinae experienced a dramatic proliferation of taxa about 5.3–4.5 Mya ago coincident with major environmental changes, with the first members of the genus Ursus also appearing around this time.[11] The sloth bear is a modern survivor of one of the earliest lineages to diverge during this radiation event (5.3 Mya); it took on its peculiar morphology, related to its diet of termites and ants, no later than by the early Pleistocene. By 3–4 Mya ago, the species Ursus minimus appears in the fossil record of Europe; apart from its size, it was nearly identical to today's Asiatic black bear. It is likely ancestral to all bears within Ursinae, perhaps aside from the sloth bear. Two lineages evolved from U. minimus: the black bears (including the sun bear, the Asiatic black bear, and the American black bear); and the brown bears (which includes the polar bear). Modern brown bears evolved from U. minimus via Ursus etruscus, which itself is ancestral to both the extinct Pleistocene cave bear and today's brown and polar bears. Species of Ursinae have migrated repeatedly into North America from Eurasia as early as 4 Mya during the early Pliocene.[13]

The fossil record of bears is exceptionally good. Direct ancestor-descendent relationships between individual species are often fairly well established, with sufficient intermediate forms known to make the precise cut-off between an ancestral and its daughter species subjective.[14]

Other extinct bear genera include Agriarctos, Indarctos, and Agriotherium (sometimes placed within hemicyonids).
Taxonomic revisions of living bear species

The giant panda's taxonomy (subfamily Ailuropodinae) has long been debated. Its original classification by Armand David in 1869 was within the bear genus Ursus, but in 1870, it was reclassified by Alphonse Milne-Edwards to the raccoon family.[15] In recent studies, the majority of DNA analyses suggest the giant panda has a much closer relationship to other bears and should be considered a member of the family Ursidae.[16] Estimates of divergence dates place the giant panda as the most ancient offshoot among living taxa within Ursidae, having split from other bears 17.9 to 22.1 Mya.[11] The red panda was included within Ursidae in the past. However, more recent research does not support such a conclusion, and instead places it in its own family Ailuridae, in superfamily Musteloidea along with Mustelidae, Procyonidae, and Mephitidae.[17][18][19] Multiple similarities between the two pandas, including the presence of false thumbs, are thus thought to represent an example of convergent evolution for feeding primarily on bamboo.

Unlike their neighbors elsewhere, the brown bears of Alaska's ABC Islands evidently are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears in the world. Researchers Gerald Shields and Sandra Talbot of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology studied the DNA of several samples of the species and found their DNA is different from that of other brown bears. The discovery has shown, while all other brown bears share a brown bear as their closest relative, those of Alaska's ABC Islands differ and share their closest relation with the polar bear.[20] Also, the very rare Tibetan blue bear is a type of brown bear. This animal has never been photographed.[citation needed]

Koalas are often referred to as bears due to their appearance; they are not bears, however, but are marsupials.
Classification
Brown bear (Ursus arctos) at the Moscow Zoo
Asian black bear Ursus thibetanus, at the Wrocław Zoo, Poland
Sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium
Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington DC

Family Ursidae
Subfamily Ailuropodinae
† Ailurarctos
† Ailurarctos lufengensis
† Ailurarctos yuanmouenensis
Ailuropoda (pandas)
† Ailuropoda baconi
† Ailuropoda fovealis
Ailuropoda melanoleuca, giant panda
Ailuropoda melanoleuca melanoleuca, giant panda
Ailuropoda melanoleuca qinlingensis, Qinling panda
† Ailuropoda microta
† Ailuropoda wulingshanensis
Subfamily Tremarctinae
Tremarctos (Spectacled bears)
Tremarctos ornatus, spectacled bear
† Tremarctos floridanus
† Arctodus
† Arctodus simus
† Arctodus pristinus
† Arctotherium
† Arctotherium angustidens
† Arctotherium bonariense
† Arctotherium brasilense
† Arctotherium latidens
† Arctotherium tarijense
† Arctotherium vetustum
† Arctotherium wingei
† Plionarctos
† Plionarctos edensis
† Plionarctos harroldorum
Subfamily Ursinae
† Agriotherium
† Agriotherium inexpetans
† Agriotherium schneideri
† Agriotherium sivalensis
Helarctos
Helarctos malayanus, sun bear
Helarctos malayanus malayanus
Helarctos malayanus euryspilus, Borneo sun bear
† Indarctos
† Indarctos anthraciti
† Indarctos arctoides
† Indarctos atticus
† Indarctos nevadensis
† Indarctos oregonensis
† Indarctos salmontanus
† Indarctos vireti
† Indarctos zdanskyi
Melursus
Melursus ursinus, sloth bear
Melursus ursinus inornatus, Sri Lankan sloth bear
Melursus ursinus ursinus, Indian sloth bear
† Ursavus
† Ursavus brevirhinus
† Ursavus depereti
† Ursavus elmensis
† Ursavus pawniensis
† Ursavus primaevus
Ursus
† Ursus abstrusus
Ursus americanus, American black bear
Ursus americanus altifrontalis, Olympic black bear
Ursus americanus amblyceps, New Mexico black bear
Ursus americanus americanus, Eastern black bear
Ursus americanus californiensis, California black bear
Ursus americanus carlottae, Haida Gwaii black bear or Queen Charlotte black bear
Ursus americanus cinnamomum, cinnamon bear
Ursus americanus emmonsii, Glacier bear
Ursus americanus eremicus, Mexican black bear
Ursus americanus floridanus, Florida black bear
Ursus americanus hamiltoni, Newfoundland black bear
Ursus americanus kermodei, Kermode bear or spirit bear
Ursus americanus luteolus, Louisiana black bear
Ursus americanus machetes, West Mexico black bear
Ursus americanus perniger, Kenai black bear
Ursus americanus pugnax, Dall black bear
Ursus americanus vancouveri, Vancouver Island black bear
Ursus arctos, brown bear
Ursus arctos arctos, Eurasian brown bear
Ursus arctos alascensis
Ursus arctos beringianus, Kamchatka brown bear or Far Eastern brown bear
† Ursus arctos californicus, California golden bear
† Ursus arctos crowtheri, Atlas bear
† Ursus arctos dalli
Ursus arctos gobiensis, Gobi bear (very rare)
Ursus arctos horribilis, grizzly bear
Ursus arctos isabellinus, Himalayan brown bear or Himalayan red bear
Ursus arctos lasiotus, Ussuri brown bear or black grizzly
Ursus arctos middendorffi, Kodiak bear
† Ursus arctos nelsoni, Mexican grizzly bear
Ursus arctos piscator, Bergman's bear (extinct?)
Ursus arctos pruinosus, Tibetan blue bear, Tibetan bear, or Himalayan blue bear
Ursus arctos sitkensis
Ursus arctos syriacus Syrian (brown) bear
† Ursus deningeri
† Ursus etruscus
† Ursus inopinatus, MacFarlane's bear (cryptid; if an authentic species, extinct)
† Ursus minimus
Ursus maritimus, polar bear
Ursus maritimus maritimus
† Ursus maritimus tyrannus
† Ursus rossicus
† Ursus sackdillingensis
† Ursus spelaeus, cave bear
Ursus thibetanus, Asian black bear
Ursus thibetanus formosanus, Formosan black bear
Ursus thibetanus gedrosianus
Ursus thibetanus japonicus
Ursus thibetanus laniger
Ursus thibetanus mupinensis
Ursus thibetanus thibetanus
Ursus thibetanus ussuricus
† Kolponomos
† Kolponomos clallamensis
† Kolponomos newportensis

The genera Melursus and Helarctos are sometimes also included in Ursus. The Asiatic black bear and the polar bear used to be placed in their own genera, Selenarctos and Thalarctos; these names have since been reduced in rank to subgeneric rank.

A number of hybrids have been bred between American black, brown, and polar bears.
Biology
Morphology
Despite being quadrupeds, bears can stand and sit similarly to humans.
Unlike most other Carnivora, bears have plantigrade feet

Bears are generally bulky and robust animals with relatively short legs. They are sexually dimorphic with regard to size, with the males being larger. Larger species tend to show increased levels of sexual dimorphism in comparison to smaller species, and where a species varies in size across its distribution, individuals from larger-sized areas tend also to vary more. Bears are the most massive terrestrial members of the order Carnivora. Some exceptional polar bears and Kodiak bears (a brown bear subspecies) have been weighed at over 750 kg (1,700 lb). As to which species is the largest depends on whether the assessment is based on which species has the largest individuals (brown bears) or on the largest average size (polar bears), as some races of brown bears are much smaller than polar bears. Adult male Kodiak bears average 480 to 533 kg (1,100 to 1,180 lb) compared to an average of 386 to 408 kg (850 to 900 lb) in adult male polar bears, per the Guinness Book of World Records.[21] The smallest bears are the sun bears of Asia, which weigh an average of 65 kg (140 lb) for the males and 45 kg (99 lb) for the females, though the smallest mature females can weigh only 20 kg (44 lb).[22][23] All "medium"-sized bear species (which include the other five extant species) are around the same average weight, with males averaging around 100 to 120 kg (220 to 260 lb) and females averaging around 60 to 85 kg (130 to 190 lb), although it is not uncommon for male American black bears to considerably exceed "average" weights.[24] Head-and-body length can range from 120 cm (47 in) in sun bears to 300 cm (120 in) in large polar and brown bears and shoulder height can range from 60 cm (24 in) to over 160 cm (63 in) in the same species, respectively. The tails of bears are often considered a vestigal feature and can range from 3 to 22 cm (1.2 to 8.7 in).[23][24]

Unlike most other land carnivorans, bears are plantigrade. They distribute their weight toward the hind feet, which makes them look lumbering when they walk. They are still quite fast, with the brown bear reaching 30 mph (48 km/h), although they are still slower than felines and canines. Bears can stand on their hind feet and sit up straight with remarkable balance. Bears' nonretractable claws are used for digging, climbing, tearing, and catching prey. Their ears are rounded.

Bears have an excellent sense of smell, better than the dogs (Canidae), or possibly any other mammal. This sense of smell is used for signalling between bears (either to warn off rivals or detect mates) and for finding food. Smell is the principal sense used by bears to find most of their food.[22]
Dentition

Unlike most other members of the Carnivora, bears have relatively undeveloped carnassial teeth, and their teeth are adapted for a diet that includes a significant amount of vegetable matter. The canine teeth are large, and the molar teeth flat and crushing. Considerable variation occurs in dental formula even within a given species. This may indicate bears are still in the process of evolving from carnivorous to predominantly herbivorous diets. Polar bears appear to have secondarily re-evolved fully functional carnassials, as their diets have switched back towards carnivory.[25] The dental formula for living bears is: 3.1.2-4.23.1.2-4.3
Distribution and habitat
See also: List of carnivorans by population

Bears are primarily found in the Northern Hemisphere, and with one exception, only in Asia, North America and Europe. A single species, the spectacled bear, is native to the Andean region of South America. The Atlas bear, a subspecies of the brown bear, was the only bear native to Africa. It was distributed in North Africa from Morocco to Libya, but has been extinct since around the 1870s. The most widespread species is the brown bear, which occurs from Western Europe eastwards through Asia to the western areas of North America. The American black bear is restricted to North America, and the polar bear is restricted to the Arctic Sea. All the remaining species are Asian.[22]

With the exception of the polar bear, bears are mostly forest species. Some species, particularly the brown bear, may inhabit or seasonally use other areas, such as alpine scrub or tundra.
Behaviour

While many people think bears are nocturnal, they are, in fact, generally diurnal, active for the most part during the day. The belief they are nocturnal apparently comes from the habits of bears that live near humans, which engage in some nocturnal activities, such as raiding trash cans or crops while avoiding humans. The sloth bear of Asia is the most nocturnal of the bears, but this varies by individual, and females with cubs are often diurnal to avoid competition with males and nocturnal predators.[22] Bears are overwhelmingly solitary and are considered to be the most asocial of all the Carnivora. Liaisons between breeding bears are brief, and the only times bears are encountered in small groups are mothers with young or occasional seasonal bounties of rich food (such as salmon runs).[22]
Vocalizations

Bears produce a variety of vocalizations such as:

Moaning is produced mostly as mild warnings to potential threats or in fear,
Barking is produced during times of alarm, excitement or to give away the animal's position.
Huffing is made during courtship or between mother and cubs to warn of danger.
Growling is produced as strong warnings to potential threats or in anger.
Roaring is used much for the same reasons as growls and also to proclaim territory and for intimidation.

Diet and interspecific interactions
Asian black bear feeding on berries
Brown bears make use of infrequent but predictable salmon runs in order to feed

Their carnivorous reputation not withstanding, most bears have adopted diets of more plant than animal matter and are completely opportunistic omnivores. Some bears will climb trees to obtain mast (edible vegatative or reproductive parts such as acorns); smaller species that are more able to climb include a greater amount of this in their diets.[26] Such masts can be very important to the diets of these species, and mast failures may result in long-range movements by bears looking for alternative food sources.[27] One exception is the polar bear, which has adopted a diet mainly of marine mammals to survive in the Arctic. The other exception is the giant panda, which has adopted a diet mainly of bamboo. Stable isotope analysis of the extinct giant short-faced bear (Arctodus simus) shows it was also an exclusive meat-eater, probably a scavenger.[28] The sloth bear, though not as specialized as the previous two species, has lost several front teeth usually seen in bears, and developed a long, suctioning tongue to feed on the ants, termites, and other burrowing insects they favour. At certain times of the year, these insects can make up 90% of their diets.[29] All bears will feed on any food source that becomes available, the nature of which varies seasonally. A study of Asiatic black bears in Taiwan found they would consume large numbers of acorns when they were most common, and switch to ungulates at other times of the year.[30]

When taking warm-blooded animals, bears will typically take small or young animals, as they are easier to catch. However, both species of black bears and the brown bear can sometimes take large prey, such as ungulates.[30][31] Often, bears will feed on other large animals when they encounter a carcass, whether or not the carcass is claimed by, or is the kill of, another predator. This competition is the main source of interspecies conflict. Bears are typically the apex predators in their ranges due to their size and power, and can defend a carcass against nearly all comers. Mother bears also can usually defend their cubs against other predators. The tiger is the only predator known to regularly prey on adult bears, including sloth bears, Asiatic black bears, giant pandas, sun bears and small brown bears.
Breeding
Bear cubs, like this American black bear, are sometimes killed by males.

The age at which bears reach sexual maturity is highly variable, both between and within species. Sexual maturity is dependent on body condition, which is in turn dependent upon the food supply available to the growing individual. The females of smaller species may have young in as little as two years, whereas the larger species may not rear young until they are four or even 9 years old. First breeding may be even later in males, where competition for mates may leave younger males without access to females.[22]
American black bears mating

The bear's courtship period is very brief. Bears in northern climates reproduce seasonally, usually after a period of inactivity similar to hibernation, although tropical species breed all year round. Cubs are born toothless, blind, and bald. The cubs of brown bears, usually born in litters of one to three, will typically stay with the mother for two full seasons. They feed on their mother's milk through the duration of their relationship with their mother, although as the cubs continue to grow, nursing becomes less frequent and cubs learn to begin hunting with the mother. They will remain with the mother for about three years, until she enters the next cycle of estrus and drives the cubs off. Bears will reach sexual maturity in five to seven years. Male bears, especially polar and brown bears, will kill and sometimes devour cubs born to another father to induce a female to breed again. Female bears are often successful in driving off males in protection of their cubs, despite being rather smaller.
Winter dormancy
File:Cub polar bear is nursing 2.OGG
Polar bear mother nursing her cub
Polar bear at Wapusk National Park, Canada

Many bears of northern regions are assumed[by whom?] to hibernate in the winter. While many bear species do go into a physiological state often colloquially called "hibernation" or "winter sleep", it is not true hibernation.[citation needed] In true hibernators, body temperatures drop to near ambient and heart rates slow drastically, but the animals periodically rouse themselves to urinate or defecate and to eat from stored food. The body temperature of bears, on the other hand, drops only a few degrees from normal and heart rate slows only slightly. They normally do not wake during this "hibernation", so do not eat, drink, urinate, or defecate the entire period. Higher body heat and being easily roused may be adaptations, because females give birth to their cubs during this winter sleep.
Relationship with humans
See also: Bear danger

Some species, such as the polar bear, American black bear, sloth bear, and brown bear, are dangerous to humans, especially in areas where they have become used to people. All bears are physically powerful and are likely capable of fatally attacking a person, but they, for the most part, are shy, are easily frightened and will avoid humans. Injuries caused by bears are rare, but are often widely reported.[32] The danger that bears pose is often vastly exaggerated, in part by the human imagination. However, when a mother feels her cubs are threatened, she will behave ferociously. It is recommended to give all bears a wide berth because they are behaviorally unpredictable.

Where bears raid crops or attack livestock, they may come into conflict with humans.[33][34] These problems may be the work of only a few bears, but they create a climate of conflict, as farmers and ranchers may perceive all losses as due to bears and advocate the preventive removal of all bears.[34] Mitigation methods may be used to reduce bear damage to crops, and reduce local antipathy towards bears.[33]
Bear danger area closure sign of a type used in Denali National Park in Alaska
Wojtek the bear with a Polish soldier: During the Battle of Monte Cassino, Wojtek helped move ammunition.

Laws have been passed in many areas of the world to protect bears from habitat destruction. Public perception of bears is often very positive, as people identify with bears due to their omnivorous diets, ability to stand on two legs, and symbolic importance,[35] and support for bear protection is widespread, at least in more affluent societies.[36] In more rural and poorer regions, attitudes may be more shaped by the dangers posed by bears and the economic costs they cause to farmers and ranchers.[34] Some populated areas with bear populations have also outlawed the feeding of bears, including allowing them access to garbage or other food waste. Bears in captivity have been trained to dance, box, or ride bicycles; however, this use of the animals became controversial in the late 20th century. Bears were kept for baiting in Europe at least since the 16th century.
Bear hunt
Main article: Bear hunting

Some cultures use bears for food and folk medicine. Their meat is dark and stringy, like a tough cut of beef. In Cantonese cuisine, bear paws are considered a delicacy. The peoples of China, Japan, and Korea use bears' body parts and secretions (notably their gallbladders and bile) as part of traditional Chinese medicine. More than 12,000 bile bears are thought to be kept on farms, for their bile, in China, Vietnam, and South Korea.[37] Bear meat must be cooked thoroughly, as it can be infected with Trichinella spiralis, which can cause trichinosis.[38][39][40]
Culture
Names

The female first name "Ursula", originally derived from a Christian saint's name and common in English- and German-speaking countries, means "little she-bear" (diminutive of Latin ursa). In Switzerland, the male first name "Urs" is especially popular, while the name of the canton and city of Bern is derived from Bär, German for bear.

In Scandinavia, the male personal names Björn (Sweden, Iceland) and Bjørn (Norway, Denmark), meaning "bear", are relatively common. In Finland, the male personal name Otso is an old poetic name for bear, similar to Kontio.

In Russian and other Slavic languages, the word for bear, medved (медведь), and variants or derivatives such as Medvedev, are common surnames.

The Irish family name "McMahon" means "Son of Bear" in Irish.

In East European Jewish communities, the name Ber (בער)—Yiddish cognate of "Bear"—has been attested as a common male first name, at least since the 18th century, and was, among others, the name of several prominent rabbis. The Yiddish Ber is still in use among Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel, the US, and other countries. With the transition from Yiddish to Hebrew under the influence of zionism, the Hebrew word for "bear", dov (דב), was taken up in contemporary Israel and is at present among the commonly used male first names in that country.

"Ten Bears" (Paruasemana) was the name of a well-known 19th century chieftain among the Comanche. Also among other Native American tribes, bear-related names are attested.
Myth and legend
For bears in mythology, see Jean de l'Ours, Arcturus, Ursa Major, and Berserker.

There is evidence of prehistoric bear worship. Anthropologists such as Joseph Campbell have regarded this as a common feature in most of the fishing and hunting-tribes. The prehistoric Finns, along with most Siberian peoples, considered the bear as the spirit of one's forefathers. This is why the bear (karhu) was a greatly respected animal, with several euphemistic names (such as otso, mesikämmen and kontio). The bear is the national animal of Finland.

This kind of attitude is reflected in the traditional Russian fairy tale "Morozko", whose arrogant protagonist Ivan tries to kill a mother bear and her cubs—and is punished and humbled by having his own head turned magically into a bear's head and being subsequently shunned by human society.

"The Brown Bear of Norway" is a Scottish fairy tale telling the adventures of a girl who married a prince magically turned into a bear, and who managed to get him back into a human form by the force of her love and after many trials and difficulties. In the 1970s, this story was adapted into the East German fantasy film The Singing Ringing Tree and broadcast on British television.

Evidence of bear worship has been found in early Chinese and Ainu cultures, as well (see Iomante). Korean people in their mythology identify the bear as their ancestor and symbolic animal. According to the Korean legend, a god imposed a difficult test on a she-bear; when she passed it, the god turned her into a woman and married her.

Legends of saints taming bears are common in the Alpine zone. In the arms of the bishopric of Freising, the bear is the dangerous totem animal tamed by St. Corbinian and made to carry his civilised baggage over the mountains. A bear also features prominently in the legend of St. Romedius, who is also said to have tamed one of these animals and had the same bear carry him from his hermitage in the mountains to the city of Trento.

Similar stories are told of Saint Gall and Saint Columbanus.

This recurrent motif was used by the Church as a symbol of the victory of Christianity over paganism.[41] In the Norse settlements of northern England during the 10th century, a type of "hogback" grave cover of a long narrow block of stone, with a shaped apex like the roof beam of a long house, is carved with a muzzled, thus Christianised, bear clasping each gable end. Though the best collection of these is in the church at Brompton, North Yorkshire,[42] their distribution ranges across northern England and southern Scotland, with a scattered few in the north Midlands and single survivals in Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland; a late group is found in the Orkney Islands.

Bears are a popular feature of many children's stories, including Goldilocks and "The Story of the Three Bears", the Berenstein Bears, and Winnie the Pooh.

"En uheldig bjørnejakt" (An Unfortunate Bear Hunt) by Theodor Kittelsen.

Onikuma from Ehon Hyaku Monogatari

According to his hagiography, a bear killed Saint Corbinian's pack horse on the way to Rome, so the saint commanded it to carry his load. Once he arrived in Rome, however, he let the bear go.

The saddled "bear of St. Corbinian" the emblem of Freising, here incorporated in the arms of Pope Benedict XVI

Coat of Arms of the Abbey of Saint Gall

"The Three Bears", Arthur Rackham's illustration to English Fairy Tales, by

Symbolic use
For more details on this topic, see Bear in heraldry.
The British Lion, the Persian Cat and the Russian Bear (see The Great Game)

The Russian bear is a common national personification for Russia (as well as the Soviet Union). The brown bear is also Finland's national animal.
The flag of California

In the United States, the black bear is the state animal of Louisiana, New Mexico, and West Virginia; the grizzly bear is the state animal of both Montana and California. Bears also appear in the state seals of California and Missouri.

In the UK, the bear and staff has long featured on the heraldic arms of Warwickshire county.[43]

Bears appear in the canting arms of Bern and Berlin. Bear symbols are used extensively in Berlin street decorations. [44]

Also, "bear", "bruin", or specific types of bears are popular nicknames or mascots, for example, for sports teams (Chicago Bears, California Golden Bears, UCLA Bruins, Boston Bruins); and a bear cub called Misha was mascot of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, USSR.
Smokey Bear

Smokey Bear has become a part of American culture since his introduction in 1944. Known to almost all Americans, he and his message, "Only you can prevent forest fires" (updated in 2001 to "Only you can prevent wildfires"), have been a symbol of preserving woodlands.[45] Smokey wears a hat similar to one worn by U.S. Forest Service rangers; state police officers in some states wear a similar style, giving rise to the CB slang "bear" or "Smokey" for the highway patrol.

The name Beowulf has been hypothesized to mean "bee-wolf", a kenning for "bear".[46]
Figures of speech

The physical attributes and behaviours of bears are commonly used in figures of speech in English.

In the stock market, a bear market is a period of declining prices. Pessimistic forecasting or negative activity is said to be bearish (due to the stereotypical posture of bears looking downwards), and one who expresses bearish sentiment is a bear. Its opposite is a bull market, and bullish sentiment from bulls.
In gay slang, the term "bear" refers to male individuals who possess physical attributes much like a bear, such as a heavy build, abundant body hair, and commonly facial hair.
A bear hug is typically a tight hug that involves wrapping one's arms around another person, often leaving that person's arms immobile. It was used in the Ronald Reagan political ad "Bear in the woods".
Bear tracking – in the old Western states of the U.S. and, to this day, in the former Dakota Territory, the expression "you ain't just a bear trackin'" is used to mean "you ain't lying" or "that's for sure". This expression evolved as an outgrowth of the experience pioneer hunters and mountainmen had when tracking bear. Bears often lay down false tracks and are notorious for doubling back on anything tracking them. If you are not following bear tracks, you are not following false trails or leads in your thoughts, words or deeds.
In Korean culture a person is referred to as being "like a bear" when they are stubborn or not sensitive to what is happening around their surroundings. Used as a phrase to call a person "stubborn bear".
The Bible compares King David's "bitter warriors", who fight with such fury that they could overcome many times their number of opponents, with "a bear robbed of her whelps in the field" (2 Samuel 17:8 s:Bible (King James)/2 Samuel#Chapter 17). The phrase "a bereaved bear" (דב שכול), derived from this Biblical source, is still used in the literary Hebrew of contemporary Israel.

Teddy bears
Main article: Teddy bear

Around the world, many children have stuffed toys in the form of bears.
Organizations regarding bears

There are at least two authoritative organizations for seeking scientific information on bear species of the world. These focus on, for example, the species' natural history, management, and conservation. The International Association for Bear Research & Management is also known as the International Bear Association (IBA). The Bear Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission is part of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

[Alec Anaconda, A1]

Jabby and bbbb – get a room and sort this out!

[Richter]

I can see into the future. They both want to be at this until the other quits ("Thereby making me the victor! Hee hee!"). So it's going to go on a long, long time. Everyone's done what they can to make it clear how stupid and unwanted this jerkoff contest is between them. But they're too stupid to see it for what it is. So they'll keep doing it, quoting each other and responding. In their head they'll think "I'm picking apart his arguments so meticulously and thoroughly" while skimming his opponents rebuttals, not realizing his opponent is doing the same.


In the end, nothing will change. People like this lead very very sad lives and continue to lead their very very sad lives after it happens. Neither one can acknowledge that they are just in a flame war with an idiot on a ballbusting fetish board about feminism when neither one is a woman. If they acknowledge the reality of the situation, they have to accept their own stupidity for being such an enormous part of it. So, denial, and continue the pointless fight. There's no chance to win. There's no reason to win. But giving up means looking in the mirror at what they really are. Losers.

[gary198]

I can see into the future. They both want to be at this until the other quits ("Thereby making me the victor! Hee hee!"). So it's going to go on a long, long time. Everyone's done what they can to make it clear how stupid and unwanted this jerkoff contest is between them. But they're too stupid to see it for what it is. So they'll keep doing it, quoting each other and responding. In their head they'll think "I'm picking apart his arguments so meticulously and thoroughly" while skimming his opponents rebuttals, not realizing his opponent is doing the same.


In the end, nothing will change. People like this lead very very sad lives and continue to lead their very very sad lives after it happens. Neither one can acknowledge that they are just in a flame war with an idiot on a ballbusting fetish board about feminism when neither one is a woman. If they acknowledge the reality of the situation, they have to accept their own stupidity for being such an enormous part of it. So, denial, and continue the pointless fight. There's no chance to win. There's no reason to win. But giving up means looking in the mirror at what they really are. Losers.


You can't fix stupid

[jabby]

In the end, nothing will change. People like this lead very very sad lives and continue to lead their very very sad lives after it happens.

At the end of the day, who is wasting more time? The people enjoying the discussion or the people trying to prevent them from having it? :D


Everyone's done what they can to make it clear how stupid and unwanted this jerkoff contest is between them.

Pretty ironic considering we are on a website dedicated to jerking off. I guess your jerking off is more productive than ours?

Anyway, it seems people are simultaneously not interested in our discussion and can't stop themselves from reading it, so I guess its best saved for another time or place. Thus I will try and resist the temptation to bring up any more points/rebuttals. If anyone is interested the following is some good information for the male feminist:


Gender Issues - Focusing on Men


Here are a list of resources for male feminists, including reading recommendations for men by men, and sites that address the problems faced by men in American society.


http://www.achilleseffect.com/ Achilles Effect is a great resource if you want to learn more about gendered messages that are specifically targeting boys and what is happening because of them. It also includes great analysis of the problems young men face growing up exposed to gendered media and some things that can be done to counter it.

http://malefeminists.com/ Covers a variety of topics, including men active in the feminist movement, current events that men are supporting and the necessity of exploring both the roles of men and the roles they are expected to play in order to foster the freedom for both genders to express themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d&v=3exzMPT4nGI

Tough Guise: A Crisis in Masculinity explores men's roles in society, race, violence, and what has occured to foster the current culture of masculinity that traps men into particular roles and stereotypes. This is part 1 of a 7 part series.

The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy by Allan Johnson. This book is a good introduction to feminism for both men and women, but it is especially useful for men. The author carefully examines feminist issues from the perspective of a man and provides insight into what can be done to combat patriarchy, misogyny and entrenched gender roles.

The Masculine Self by Christopher Kilmartin. Although this book does not solely focus on feminism, it serves the critical role of examining men's issues and the concept of masculinity in modern culture. The author breaks down what it means to be a man in Western society, and how this matches up with scientific research and goals of equality.

[Richter]

I saw my name!

Wait... you think people are READING what you two post?! LMFAO

[jabby]

I saw my name!

Wait... you think people are READING what you two post?! LMFAO

And yet you just couldn't stay out of the thread... In fact, I think you have about as many posts as I do. Except at least one person was listening to me.

Anyway, I think I'd rather be the loser carrying on a discussion than the loser who has nothing better to do than try and stop a discussion he doesn't like from taking place. Despite the fact that he is free to ignore it any time he wishes, but he just can't because they're talking about things he doesn't find interesting! Such an imposition. :D

[Richter]

Uh huh. Has nothing to do with the fact that every time one of your tools update, the thread jumps up to the top and pushes everything else down. You got that I started this thread before you mouth breathers decided to start making tender love to each other, right? That's another reason I'd prefer you knuckle draggers to wake up and realize you aren't wanted here. I was hoping the Spider-man shit (and the cool wikipedia thing someone else started) would clue you nancy boys in that you're being ridiculous.

The more you flame me though, you warthog faced buffoon, is the more I draw you off topic and into the absurd, which dies out much quicker than blind arrogance.

[stman]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/files/2012/06/meme-privilege.jpg

[kdunstfan]

My only thing is I wish they would take it to private. They're obviously free to discuss whatever they want but this shit on the board is uncalled for.

[jabby]

Uh huh. Has nothing to do with the fact that every time one of your tools update, the thread jumps up to the top and pushes everything else down. You got that I started this thread before you mouth breathers decided to start making tender love to each other, right? That's another reason I'd prefer you knuckle draggers to wake up and realize you aren't wanted here. I was hoping the Spider-man shit (and the cool wikipedia thing someone else started) would clue you nancy boys in that you're being ridiculous.

The more you flame me though, you warthog faced buffoon, is the more I draw you off topic and into the absurd, which dies out much quicker than blind arrogance.

So do you have a repetitive strain injury that prevents you scrolling past this thread or are you just insanely optimistic that we had started posting about the cosmo article after 5 pages of other discussion?

The funny part is you don't seem to realise that your posts bump up the thread as quickly as mine. I guess if this really was about killing the thread rather than being an arrogant dickhead on the internet you won't be replying to me again. After all that would be the quickest way to let things die out. Unless you are worried about such petty things as having the last word in an internet argument?

[Sockmess]

The funny part is you don't seem to realise that your posts bump up the thread as quickly as mine. I guess if this really was about killing the thread rather than being an arrogant dickhead on the internet you won't be replying to me again. After all that would be the quickest way to let things die out. Unless you are worried about such petty things as having the last word in an internet argument?

How you do all the internet wins? Quoted FTW and the truth. They can easily ignore one thread.

[Richter]

You are right and have changed my mind. There is no longer a point to attempting to convince me. Have a nice day. :)

[bbbb]

Regarding the draft, the chances of there ever being one in the USA are incredibly small. Regardless feminists have been campaigning to fight on the military front lines for a long time, with only recent success. Surely the fact that women are campaigning for the same right to fight as men takes away from the whole 'men have to fight for the country' idea? Seems like a lot of women would love the same rights. If that came with the formality of registering for selective service then fine. Again, its a system that was set up decades ago when the idea of women in the military was unthinkable. Now women want to be in the military and they face enormous resistance. You can't claim that not having to fight is a 'female privilege' when plenty of men are actively trying to keep them from doing so.Is it compulsory for women to fight in a war as it is for men, regardless of how small (or large) the chances of pulled up might be? That is my point, not the right to *volunteer* to fight (this has been met with derision from both sexes and applause from both sexes). Women are NOT compelled to fight - men are. Feminists do NOT promote equality in this area. If I'm wrong, feel welcome to correct me.


Can you provide some examples of MRA's campaigning for women's issues? Should be easy if they are for total equality.
Just like where I've asked you to show me various things you've/feminists have claimed and declined to, such as feminists supporting men's issues. Instead, you've excused them by telling us that it's ok for feminists to focus on women and ignore men but it's wrong when MRA's focus on men - because apparently, that's "making it all about them".
I do love hypocrites.
For one, most MRA's recognise the issues faced by Erin Pizzey when she received death threats from feminist groups after revealing the fact that some 65% of women in the 'safe house' were abusers themselves (either of the man or of the children). Her dog was also killed as a 'message'. She ended up needing a police escort and had to leave England due to the continued hate campaigned against her, simply for revealing what we know today; that women are as bad as men. The only difference is, she asked that men be afforded similar support as women were. That, apparently, upset feminists a lot.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/family-courts/aimee-nicholls-versus-the-star-chamber/
We also recognise that women do not get equality in criminal sentencing, which feminists seem strangely quiet about (aside those who promote closing women's prisons and opening more men's prisons because that's some weird-ass kind of equality). We also acknowledge the longevity-gap caused by various factors, of which ignorance towards men's health (sexual, mental and physical) while focusing on women's health as if it's the only important one, must play a part. Further, we also address child abuse which - with the exception to sexual abuse - is primarily performed by women, not men. This is yet another demonstration by feminists that they do not seek to protect people from abuse; their actions show us that they only want to protect some women and some children from abuse committed by men but NOT to protect the majority victims of abuse (women in lesbian relationships and children in single-mother house-holds).


All human beings have the right to be upset if intimidating people keep bothering them.You seem to be suggesting that a man asking if he can buy a woman a drink is an experience they dread & fear. It makes me wonder why they go out at all if it's that bad... I don't think you actually know and instead of asking 'women' you've asked 'feminists' who have answered 'for women' (ie projection).


You are blaming the victim for failing to prevent their attack.
Not at all. I'm pointing out that there is use for common sense. If I leave my keys in the ignition and a window open, I can't claim the insurance because I didn't take any precautions. Men who impregnate a woman cannot skip C$A (assuming he's not kept around) just because he didn't take precautions. He can assume she was telling the truth all he wants - but his decision not to wrap it up resulted in him being a financial slave for the next 18+ years.
The slutwalk, on the other hand, teaches women to act like ... well, sluts.


...Apart from a few select areas women face a lot more discrimination and sexism in society. And even in areas where men are disadvantaged (like child custody and prison sentences) it's usually outdated ideas about 'chivalry' and gender roles that is the cause. And its usually men disadvantaging other men. So in your mind, we can ignore black on black crime... stats confirm that most victims of assaults are black males and most perpetrators are black males - using your logic we can just ignore the victims and blame it on themselves.
And for the record, the drawing had nothing to do with r4p3 or DV... that's projection again on your part. Thus, only your second point has any relationship to why you condone ignoring sexism & discrimination against men, which is also wrong.
Tell me, how is it a man's fault that women have numerous options upon conception whilst men have none?


You are asking 'why don't they focus on improving things for men as well?' Not quite, I'm asking why they claim to seek equality when by your own words they do not - they seek limited equality so long as it's of benefit to women whilst ignoring men's issues, which you've done a piss poor job of marginalizing and excusing with typical feminist tactics of blaming men whilst pretending you don't keep blaming men.
You've already stated that it's acceptable for feminists to bawl & scream in male victims' faces when they try to talk about their issues. You claimed these victims of abuse were "trying to make it all about them", yet you simultaneously justify feminists continually marginalizing men's issues and in doing so making it all about them (women/feminists). If you could, just for a few moments, step out of your circular logic, you'd see the bigotry.


Saying a majority of feminists should focus on men's issues (because of course, some do) is like saying the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People should hold a bake sale for white people.No. It is more like saying "If you're going to tell me you want equality - then go for full, real, legitimate equality instead of cherry picking the good bits and leaving the bad bits, like criminal sentencing & highlighting child abuse statistics"


This benefits domestic violence victims. Are women the main victims of domestic violence? Yes, but that doesn't stop the law being equally applied to male victims.No, they're not. Every year the stats reflect the same story - that DV is roughly 50/50. You also ignore that women initiate 70% of violence... Ever wonder why? Perhaps it's partly because feminists keep telling them they can get away with abusing a man, and the implementation of the law typically supports that notion (i.e. it's rare a woman actually is held accountable - but it's ok, you already have justified why it's ok for women to abuse men and not be responsible for their actions).

I see you're also justifying the feministing (not a hardcore site at all, she (Jessica Valenti) is a very, very respected & iconic feminist) reference to sexually assaulting men. I wonder, if we had a men's rights web site using similar play on words, would you jump to justify it or would you use it as 'proof' that MRA's all bad?


To boil it down, you are saying men are responsible for this and that injustice, but providing no evidence that they actually are. You see inequality where none exists and you demand that groups composed mainly of men who are sick of being treated as second class citizens spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to improve the lives of women. Presumably while you yourself do nothing about these issues you care so deeply about.


Anyway, apologies for lengthy delays.. have been away.

Oh, and while you pretend I do nothing about it - I'm very active in the community, inc. writing to my local MP (who has confirmed that the law is not applied equally to protect men as it does women) and I'm heavily involved in the background of a very active site on this topic.

[Richter]

You're too late. We declared him the victor. You lost by forfeit.

[jabby]

Dude, we're arguing around in circles. I simply don't agree that to be for equality women have to fight for men's issues. I don't think its wrong for them to focus, just like I don't think its wrong for men to campaign about men's issues if they want to. You on the other hand seem to think its wrong for feminists to focus on getting better treatment for women but not wrong for MRAs to focus on getting better treatment for men. We have reached an impasse since neither of us will budge on that point.

You are TOTALLY wrong on your domestic violence stats though. Try reading something. (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/research/projects/reports/2009/rj4843/whodoeswhat.pdf)


In previous research involving the North East of England the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police were found to be men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%).

[bbbb]

I don't think its wrong for them to focus, just like I don't think its wrong for men to campaign about men's issues if they want to.
So why did you previously justify feminists disrupting a forum for male victims of abuse and big red (the loud mouthed one) screeching at the boys' conference, claiming it was ok for them to do so as the men were making it 'all about them'?

Anyway, I'm happy to move on - just pointing out the lies & hypocrisy of the feminist movement.



ETA: Using feminist sources to prove feminist claims is a bit underhanded and will sprout somewhat predictable results. No wonder it claims such disproportionate stats when it comes from such a selective source: "Violence Against Women Research Group"

By: marianne.hester@bristol.ac.uk who just happens to be... http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/people/marianne-hester/index.html ... a feminist! Ta-daaaaaa

Yet again, circular logic @ play.. Tsk tsk.

[jabby]

So why did you previously justify feminists disrupting a forum for male victims of abuse and big red (the loud mouthed one) screeching at the boys' conference, claiming it was ok for them to do so as the men were making it 'all about them'?

I don't actually think anyone should be prevented from speaking, I thought that was out of order. Although I think a lot of women's anger at MRAs is understandable since rather than simply fighting for mens issues a lot see themselves as 'anti-feminists' and actively oppose the feminist movement.


ETA: Using feminist sources to prove feminist claims is a bit underhanded and will sprout somewhat predictable results. No wonder it claims such disproportionate stats when it comes from such a selective source: "Violence Against Women Research Group"

By: marianne.hester@bristol.ac.uk who just happens to be... http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/people/marianne-hester/index.html ... a feminist! Ta-daaaaaa

Yet again, circular logic @ play.. Tsk tsk.

Police crime statistics are a feminist source? Dude, it's a 6 year study in a peer-reviewed journal. You think they can get away with just pulling numbers out of their ass? You think the leader of the study is biased because she once worked on a paper with 'feminist' in the title? Her current research is 'Exploring the service and support needs of male, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered, black and other ethnic victims of domestic and sexual violence' for goodness sake. Where are your numbers to back up your claims?

[stman]

I don't actually think anyone should be prevented from speaking, I thought that was out of order. Although I think a lot of women's anger at MRAs is understandable since rather than simply fighting for mens issues a lot see themselves as 'anti-feminists' and actively oppose the feminist movement.



Police crime statistics are a feminist source? Dude, it's a 6 year study in a peer-reviewed journal. You think they can get away with just pulling numbers out of their ass? You think the leader of the study is biased because she once worked on a paper with 'feminist' in the title? Her current research is 'Exploring the service and support needs of male, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered, black and other ethnic victims of domestic and sexual violence' for goodness sake. Where are your numbers to back up your claims?

Nothing new there. Not the first time I've read of issues that affect men that women's groups are involved with doing something about, or researching. There's entire journals dedicated to the subject. (http://jmm.sagepub.com/)

Reminds me, in Canada there was an antifeminist MRA who opened a shelter for male victims. As it turns out though, he refused to help gay men who came to him, in fact his words were that if he took in gay victims next step "How come you don't take calls from animals who are victims of domestic violence?"
(http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/winnipeg-agencies-say-the-need-mens-shelter-critical) It's tragic, he committed suicide after funding ran out and as much as I congratulate him as an individual for dedicating his life to at least helping -some- male victims (better than none), I have to say just a thought, maybe if he hadn't been a rabid antifeminist and come off homophobic, he might have gotten more funding than a bit of provincial coin. Even women's groups in Canada are having a hell of a time as the current Conservative government has pulled out a lot of their funding since being voted in, so it's hard to say. MRAs often use him as a proud example of some battle against feminism, when there is no evidence in that regard whatsoever that he was battling anything other than cultural stereotypes (and government funding issues). The same stereotypes that feminists want to challenge.

It's a shame really because MRAs are so lost in circular rhetoric they can't even see that many feminists are pissed off about the same problems and are working to solve them. If MRAs weren't so arrogantly antifeminist (and into r*** statistic denial) maybe they'd have some feminists attending their conferences instead of protesting outside. I mean here an MRA is talking to two of us who know about feminism, fuck I actually READ feminist theory and hang with feminists all the time, and he is telling us what all feminists do and say, based on fringe examples, cherry picking, and a whole lot of conspiracy type thinking. In denial and desperate to blame feminism for everything, including the problems men have made for other men.

All I can say is a male movement is a good idea, and it's a damn shame that it has become a confused, anti-intellectual mess that ends up protesting some of the very things that might be on its side if it wasn't so desperately anti-woman. It's sad because I know male victims and men who work in outreach and none of them have fuck all to do with MRAs. MRAs as a whole reinforce the cultural problems that lead to male victimization. And damn, his list of reasons women are privileged.. holy shit.. talk about patronizing women. Talk about fantasizing about what women really want. Talk about having no idea what women really deal with.

At least as a movement they seem to have reached maximum steam for now mostly because they fill a niche: they appeal to loosely educated types who have a slightly above average intelligence, enough to string together rhetoric and read Orwell and make youtube videos. But read a little too much of the so-called intellectual stuff, ask more difficult far-reaching questions and you graduate from MRA to feminist. On the other hand if reading and getting involved isn't your bag then MRA rhetoric will bore/irritate the piss out of you. It's almost like it's self-limiting somehow.

[Richter]

:cryingblu No... no... not again... It was over, wasn't it? Why are they starting again?!