AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2005 > September > 30 > Entry
Has feminism failed women?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Feminism hasn’t failed women any more than any other movement. If we’re going to point fingers, let’s question the success of the civil rights movement, too. Some blacks remain poor. Does that mean the civil rights movement failed? Of course not. The passage of civil rights laws improved the lives of black people, like the women’s movement has improved the lives of women. Movements don’t promise to remedy every social problem, only most evils.
Not long ago, women didn’t have the right to own property, get a divorce, obtain child custody, or simply walk the street. Now women can run for political office, run a household, run in a marathon and run amok. Feminism gave women the right to vote, the right to inherit property, earn an income, own their own homes and retain custody of their children.
Still, there are many who blame feminism for the disintegration of the family or a lack of male self-esteem. While finger-pointing at feminism as a subversive family influence, however, they ignore all of the other social and economic realities.
Feminism didn’t surface because an angry mob of females suddenly decided to burn their bras. It happened in a social and economic context demanding change. Would anyone argue that in a high-tech age, with the inflated cost of living the American Dream, that the marketplace doesn’t demand the sweat of both sexes? These social changes — not feminism — molded modern gender roles, an adjustment rooted in economics and social change, not a spontaneous occurrence of angry bra-burners.
And if you really think about it, why should women be blamed for making choices outside of marriage and family? The “disintegration” of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable. Besides, what is “disintegration” to some is “revitalization” for others.
Feminism hasn’t failed women. It’s just an easy target. Which is why most women shy away from the feminist label; they’re uncomfortable with the image of the female extremist. But the facts are a lot less sensational than the spin: Feminism believes women should have the same rights as men. What’s so scary about that?
Rebuttal
Women don’t shy away from the feminist label because they’re uncomfortable with the image of the female extremist. They shy away because they sense just how much of feminism — as a philosophy and a movement — is extreme. They shy away because decades of feminism has left many women feeling that the price they pay for “liberation” is not being allowed to be themselves.
Feminists don’t simply believe that women should have the same rights as men. That is a good thing, and is what they are fighting for. But what they believe is that women are, in most ways, the same as men, and that any apparent differences are the socialized result of our male-dominated society. They argue that our society is built around men at the expense of women, and change almost has to come at the expense of men. That mindset carries over into our romantic relationships, where we must assert ourselves lest our rights be trampled on.
But after decades of following that exhausting ideology, women are indeed feeling failed by it. Betrayed, even. Creating strong, confident women is all well and good, but what the feminist movement seems to want to create is a counterfeit of the real strength, the real confidence that comes from understanding and embracing our uniqueness as women. When a feminist leader talks about celebrating the strength of women, she often – ironically – seems as if she wants to turn women into imitation men. I am woman, hear me roar. And that includes roaring at our husbands – who usually don’t respond too well. (Who would?)
When a non-feminist women’s leader talks about celebrating the strength of women, she wants to do just that: celebrate and leverage our areas of uniqueness rather than pretending they don’t exist. Celebrate that there are indeed feminine characteristics, and that they are just as valuable as male ones. For example, in every society throughout history, women have been known as more nurturing than men. Isn’t that a good thing?
For most women, fighting against who we really are — I want to be nurturing, but feel like I shouldn’t be — creates not freedom and liberation but heartache.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Whiley
October 7, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Thank you finally a good topic ! lol
By kimberly
October 7, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Has JOURNALISM failed women?
By Paul
October 10, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this
The problem in this discussion seems to be that Diane and Shaunti do not agree on just what they are discussing (see the last paragraph in each comment). Quite frankly, after reading Diane’s comments, my initial thoughts on the subject were much more limited than [Diane].
Diane also confuses her position by introducing other issues. FIRST, what does the Civil Rights Movement have to do with it? SECOND, although some Blacks remain poor, so do some Whites, some Hispanics, etc. Although it might be easy to merge the Civil Rights Movement with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” because of the time line, I believe there are about the same percentage of people below the poverty line now as there were before those movements began. Again, what does this have to do with “feminism?”
By Gary Harrison
October 10, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this
Has feminism failed women? A resounding NO!!! It is part of a larger failure of human beings to BE the creatures created in the Garden of Eden. Look around you: women strive to be more masculine and the men become “metrosexuals.” Why? Because men are little girls inside (having been raised by women almost exclusively) and being more “touchly-feely” than most thugish women. Women are raised by other man-hating women and grow up man-destroyers. That is because they have been taught to hate men and are HARD inside (like a man is supposed to be- making decisions, taking responsibility, etc.). Where are the feminine, modest women of yesteryear? Probably with some lesbian because lack of a real daddy caused them to hate men. No, feminism hasn’t failed. It is right on target. Sit somewhere and people-watch for a while. See for yourself that men are becoming more and more feminine while girls favor masculine clothes, activities, and running in man-depreciating packs. Shaunti/Diane: examine truthfully YOUR feelings abour men. You probably have feelings based on the lack of a father in your life or your experiences with “men” iin your lives. Where is the focus on raising families with your “husband” that used to exist for women? Probably laid up with some woman “PARTNER.” Yea, feminism!! You go, GIRL!!
By Laura
October 10, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
Feminism has not failed us, but at the same time it has not accomplished all of its goals and the reason for that is women like Shaunti. The ERA movement failed a generation ago because not enough women supported it. No matter what strides we make there always seem to be scardy-cats like Shaunti who play into the hands of those who believe all feminists are feminazis. I am a stay-at-home mom who has been married for almost 10 years. I embrace my feminine strenghts with open arms. I am also proud to be a feminist and, should I ever re-enter the workplace, I should hope to get the same pay as a man doing my job, but I won’t because some women continue to uphold the argument that we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
By Denise Noe
October 10, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Feminism has helped women in some ways and harmed in others. Women who are high-competency in professional and business areas have been greatly helped because they are able to enter those areas and advance in far greater numbers than they could have in pre-feminist eras. Women as diverse as Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Condileeza Rice all owe a debt to the feminist movement. Feminism has harmed women who are low-competency in the workplace because it has undermined the traditional assumption that women should be supported by men. Although the overwhelming majority of the homeless remain men, we now see some women showing up on the streets and in the shelters. Part of this is, IMO, due to the fact that low work competency women are less likely to marry out of utter destitution because men today tend to expect working wives. It may also have harmed those women who are high competency in domestic skills by leading to a devaluation of work in the home. In many areas, feminism has been a mixed bag for women. The rape shield laws and improved sensitivity toward rape victims has meant that such malefactors are more likely to be punished and their victims less likely to be subjected to a kind of “courtroom rape.” However, to the extent that publicity around this crime has unnecessarily frightened women or heightened tension between the sexes, it has been negative. Feminism has helped women at the top and harmed those at the bottom because the positions of the sexes isn’t quite analogous to that of ethnic groups. Society has not been the “man’s world” of cliché but a mixture of patriarchal and matriarchal elements. Men have traditionally been the overwhelming majority of those at the top due to its patriarchal side and the majority at the bottom because of its matriarchal aspect. The homeless, alcoholic, imprisoned, and (most especially) the condemned and executed are apt to be men and these are the characteristics of an oppressed people. We should be at least as concerned about the men we allow to sink to the bottom as we are about the women we have unfairly prevented from rising to the top.
By Lori
October 10, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe that this is even a debate.
What can possibly be wrong with women wanting to be treated as equals? This doesn’t mean they are man-haters. Would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. a “white-hater”? Of course not! We’re talking about people fighting for equality, and that’s it.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this
I think the title of this weeks commentary pretty much says it all, Has Feminism failed WOMEN. We are not asking if it has failed our children or our society, we are asking if it has failed WOMEN because obviously all we women now care about is ourselves.
Are women better off now than they were 50 years ago? In some ways we are and in some ways we are in so much worse shape that it is unbelievable.
Are our children better off? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We raise our sons to think women should work, clean house, raise children, chop wood, whatever a man can do a woman can do, only better. We pound this into the minds of our young men so that when they are grown men they expect their wives to be superwomen.
Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.
Who has truly benefited from feminism? Big business. Large corporations can now market their products to more people at higher prices because two income families can afford to buy more stuff they don’t really need.
GO FEMINISM!!
By Lyrazel
October 10, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this
…chortle…giggle: Shaunti is a closet feminist! How dare I besmirch Our Lady? Ok, lets first do some history of said Lady Shaunti: Born (was not abandoned/killed because she was not male), graduated highschool (allowed to take advanced college coursework only afforded to men prior to 1960) Went on to college (Harvard was an all male school before feminism…lets blink and forget that fact, Shaunti….not enrolled in secretarial school) At 18 Ms Shaunti voted, (gasp! Liberation foulest deed was getting women to vote!) Lady Shaunti learned to drive that tidbit of overlooked independence going somewhere without the guys! Our Lady Shaunti worked a job in male dominated partnership (not as secretary, not as teacher, not as governess) took birth control (not married until AFTER job, was not virgin bride) Married and assumed role as Holy Madonna after child born. Continued to work outside home on projects such as this, her book…earning money…does she have separate bank account? Hmmm…and now with her loved rugrats in school will we hear Shaunti say: my daughter does not need to participate as an equal in sports, so let her be delegated to the sidelines to serve cookies to the boys, and never give my daughter special attention to her study in science, math and *boys subjects.
Nah!
She like many women of her age group confuses feminism with the NOW movement and feminists with the few mighty lesbians who advocated not shaving their armpits before church. Her article sure tells me that she sure wants all of the benefits of feminism…giggle…get out of the closet Shaunti!
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
Has feminism failed women? No not at all. Men have. That’s why feminism exists in the first place.
By Chet
October 10, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
I have an idea: let’s have whoever chooses the topics for these articles do this one again, except decide from the beginning which “feminism” is being discussed— the philosophy or the movement.
In my view the philosophy has helped women, but the movement has hurt them.
By Ken
October 10, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this
As an outsider looking in, I beleive Feminism has greatly helped women, but many Feminists have hurt women.
I watched a segment on “60 Minutes” where they interviewed several women who left “high-powered” job opportunities to raise their children. This was their choice and their appeared by all acounts very happy with their decisions. However, these women were promptly ridiculed by another woman in her fifties. I apologize her name escapes me. This woman says she fought and struggled so that talented women could escape the kitchen. So they could escape the stigma of raising children, and these women were simply rolling back all of the progress she fought so hard to achieve.
I kinda thought the whole idea was to give women the choice of what they wanted to do with their “career”. We now see those choices available to women, but when a woman actually chooses to stay at home with her children, especially when that woman is educated, business savvy or has other marketable skills, she is questioned and sometimes even ridculed.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this
So occasional criticism from other women sets all women back? We aren’t that fragile my dears. lol. Feminism hasn’t hurt women at all. Feminism hasn’t hurt children either. Feminism is the reason women now have options, when not that long ago there were little.
By Van
October 10, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this
As usual, the extremists on both sides of this issue are passing a lot of wind.
Whether or not feminism has helped or fail women will have to wait for history. In 25 or 50 years we will have a better grasp on the effect of feminism on women has been.
Until then, we have a society that allows anyone to raise to any office or position they can achieve through their own hard work.
If history shows that a movement, any movement, that elevates a person based on filling a slot or quota and not on hard work and qualifications is detrimental, then it has failed.
By Billy
October 10, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this
To paraphrase Lois Griffin, Feminism is about choice. If a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home Mom, more power to her. She should not be subjected to ridicule from women who choose otherwise.
In a similar vein, however, women who choose to pursue a career instead should not be criticized for that choice. All we ever hear about is the supposed collapse of the family unit and other comments that imply, indirectly or otherwise, that our society’s problems are, if not created by, then at the very least exacerbated by many women’s selfish insistence on maintaining full-time careers. Look at Heather’s above post for an example.
I know I, for one, hear much more criticism of career women than I do of homemakers. It’s incessant. There’s a pervasive idea among the highly vocal conservative minority (yes, it’s true) that it is somehow un-American to want something other than marriage, the man working, the wife keeping house, and 2.5 kids playing in the front yard behind the white picket fence.
As to whether Feminism has failed women…I like the line about the movement helping while some feminists have hurt. That’s a pretty good assessment. I think the only part that somewhat failed was the sexual liberation. Don’t get me wrong, things are a whole lot better on that front than they were 50 years ago. Women are more in tune with their sexual selves now, whereas before they were not supposed to have sexual selves apart from breeding and pleasing their men. I think the mistake came when women began to believe they could (and should, in some cases) have sex like men often do — often, with various partners, and with few strings attached. While I believe in not judging actions between consenting adults, I think it would have been much healthier for everyone if the concentration had been on getting men to be far more selective with sex.
But, of course, hindsight is 20/20, and this is but a small mark against what had otherwise been a highly beneficial movement
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
If anything feminism has saved us. Isn’t it mind boggling we had to fight & argue to have the right to vote? Own property? Have our own bank accounts etc? How was it we allowed ourselves to be forced into such a low status? Centuries of negative conditioning more than likely?
The battles that have not been won yet are anything concerning our sex lives & uterus. Sexual harassment & fair pay still needs a little work, & sexual & domestic violence needs a LOT of work. Women don’t hate masculinity, we hate extreme masculinity.
By TT
October 10, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
I agree with you 100 percent, Billy. But it strikes me as amusing that Shaunti can purport to discuss the ill effects of feminism when she obviously doesn’t grasp the meaning of the word. Feminism doesn’t insist that men and women are the same, it asserts that men and women have equal rights.
For those of you afraid of the “f” word, try reading J. Ann Tickner, Rebecca Cohn, and Cynthia Enloe for an accurate portrayal of the feminist philosophy. If equality is frightening to you, then you must have something to gain from the current inequality in our society. Or you must be like Shaunti, too meek to embrace your own potential. Feminism is about choice; any woman who criticizes the movement must enjoy having decisions made on her behalf.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this
Unbelievable… 4 in a row.
By Nanette D. Massey
October 10, 2005 09:56 AM | Link to this
What planet is Shaunti from?
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
4 in a row what?….
By Scalia
October 10, 2005 10:16 AM | Link to this
So having a man around, even if he is no good, is a drunk, is a compulsive gambler, and never says anything positive is a good thing? It’s okay if the man gets paid on Friday and comes home with half of his check gone. It’s okay if he talks trash to your mom, you, and your siblings. The good thing is a man needs to be there.
A good father is one that teaches you things. He is there to listen to you, guide you, show you what it means to be a man. You don’t have to be angry all the time. Men are given to options: anger or mute. Is that realistic? Why should you be looked down upon if you show any other emotion?
As for women, they have it good. They can express themselves and their parts won’t be on the chopblock. If a man sheds one tear, his pen!s is on the chopblock. He is less of a man. How did society get like this? No wonder so many men are drunks, etc. They have no outlet.
And not all men are metrosexuals, despite what you believe. There are plenty of men comfortable with the way they are.
By Michael H.
October 10, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this
The past two decades have seen an explosion of feminist writing on the philosophical canon, a development that has clear parallels in other disciplines like literature and art history. Since most of the writing is, in one way or another, critical of the tradition, a natural question to ask is: Why does the history of philosophy have importance for feminist philosophers? This question assumes that the history of philosophy is of importance for feminists, an assumption that is warranted by the sheer volume of recent feminist writing on the canon. This entry explores the different ways that feminist philosophers are interacting with the Western philosophical tradition. Feminist philosophers engaged in a project of re-reading and re-forming the philosophical canon have noticed two significant areas of concern. The first is the problem of historical exclusion. Feminist philosophers are faced with a tradition that believes that there are no women philosophers and, if there are any, they are unimportant. Of course, women are not entirely absent from the history of philosophy, and that brings us to the second challenge we face. Canonical philosophers have had plenty to say about women and what we are like. In general terms, we often find that philosophical norms like reason and objectivity are defined in contrast to matter, the irrational or whatever a given philosopher associates with women and the feminine. Our tradition tells us, either implicitly through images and metaphors, or explicitly in so many words, that philosophy itself, and its norms of reason and objectivity, exclude everything that is feminine or associated with women.
In response, feminist philosophers have criticized both the historical exclusion of women from the philosophical tradition, and the negative characterization of women or the feminine in it. Feminist historians of philosophy have argued that the historical record is incomplete because it omits women philosophers, and it is biased because it devalues any women philosophers it forgot to omit. In addition, feminist philosophers have argued that the philosophical tradition is conceptually flawed because of the way that its fundamental norms like reason and objectivity are gendered male.[1] By means of these criticisms, feminist philosophers are enlarging the philosophical canon and re-evaluating its norms, in order to include women in the philosophical “us”.
By Michael H.
October 10, 2005 10:22 AM | Link to this
One is not born, but rather becomes a woman. (Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949)
Philosophy (and our western society) has been dominated by the ideas of men, and this has caused many postmodern Feminist Philosophers to rebel from this male domination / patriarchy. Using ideas of postmodern relativism, (existentialism, no absolute truth) women have sought to free themselves of male defined gender roles and define for themselves what it means to be a women and thus how women should live. While this may liberate women, it unfortunately offers little guidance and does not abide by the fact that women are constructed of matter, interact with all other matter in the universe, and have evolved certain genetic traits as part of their evolutionary ancestry. Thus there are certain absolute truths that women (all things) must abide by if they are to live by the truth and the wisdom this attains.
The metaphysics of feminism considers what it means to be a ‘woman’ / ‘man’ based on how matter exists in space. The metaphysics of feminism understands and promotes equality at a fundamental level. Man and Woman both exist as structures of the universe / space, as does all life. How we are to live as man and woman is derived from metaphysical foundations of what actually exists (laws of nature). Now I understand some of you may be thinking ‘this is archaic’ and ‘metaphysics offers nothing to me as a woman’. In fact the opposite is true, Metaphysics, and its task of correctly describing what exists and its necessary interconnections, necessarily defines what it means to be both ‘Human’ and a ‘Woman’. The following brief introduction to the Wave Structure of Matter explains this correct foundation for describing reality, and thus explains how Woman is necessarily connected to Man, Child, Nature, Sexuality, Society and Cosmos by understanding how matter exists in Space. Woman, Man and Cosmos are united as One, and only through this interconnection can a woman understand her true self and be liberated from the bondage of past customs.
I think then that it is clear that while I am yet a male externally, I am decidedly female inside.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this
JBM what is the four in a row??
By Billy
October 10, 2005 10:29 AM | Link to this
Michael H, that is a ver interesting poszzZZZZZZZZZ…
By Billy
October 10, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Michael H, that was a very intersting poszzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZ…
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this
4 of these non-topics…
By Renee
October 10, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Yeah I agree totally!!!!!!!!
By Real Life
October 10, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
A math teacher at my private religious high school, made the comment to the girls, that he did not give outside tutoring to girls as “it was a waste of his time as girls were not college bound.” “You don’t need a degree to cook, clean, and serve your husbands,” he stated.
PS - I am working on my Master’s.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this
I look forward to the day that women hold at least 1/2 of all govt. positions. After all, we are over 1/2 of the US population aren’t we?
By Billy
October 10, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Whiley, that reminds me…and I know this is a tangent here…but it really grinds my gears that supporters of us being in Iraq point out that 25% of Iraq’s parliament or whatever is composed of women, like it’s some grand statement about the progressive nature of the government. Nevermind that the 25% is mandated by the interim government charter or whatever you want to call it. What kills me about it is that it’s the same group of conservatives who are against quotas where affirmative action is concerned.
Sorry about the rant.
By Nikita
October 10, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this
Real, amen sister. I went to a private non-religious school and was told by my advanced Calculus teacher “you don’t really need to learn this. Like all the other girls, you’re gonna marry some guy and spend all your life taking the kids to prep school when you aren’t planning your vacations to Cozumel or buying new Volvos or hiring new maids.” In other words, don’t trouble your pretty little head with Calculus. I wrote a him a letter a few years later to thank him for that — because I really thrive on opposition and his stupidity made me doubly determined to do well in math even though I’m not naturally inclined to do so. I even came in second in a statewide math competition, no doubt to p* him off.
anyway, while the argument this week is an interesting one, shaunti and diane do appear to be discussing different things. not only that, but the shallowness of their arguments makes it too easy for the uneducated knee jerk folks among us to just riff at will on the rush limbaugh-esque interpretation of feminism.
Feminism is about allowing women to make choices and to be accepted on equal footing with men. The philosophy of women having particular gifts which they uniquely possess and are obligated to develop is not feminism, and it is unkind to women who are not inclined in those ways. (By extension, the same is true of similar notions of what men are good at and should do.) Ditto this notion of counterfeit men. I’ve had many jobs in male-dominated fields, and I have done very well in them. In fact, many women have done well when they choose male-oriented positions. I have loaded trucks (women do very well at this because the job requires an ability to multitask, organize, think fast, and use a wide variety of motor skills while carrying up to 75 pounds laterally), sold cars (women salespeople do very well), etc. I am not as strong as a man, but I don’t really need to be. All I need to be able to do is support myself in the field of my choice by doing good work, and I don’t need to be limited in my career choices by other people’s expectations. Which is what thi comes down to. Feminism vs. the old order in which women knew their place and stuck to it, dependent on men for support and destined to a very narrow career path.
By Randy
October 10, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this
Everyone is equal in Jesus’ eyes. I love my daughter and want her to have every opportunity any guy would have, she is sharper than most males in business.
By Ken
October 10, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this
Not sure why anyone finds this topic boring or irrelevent… It effects over half of our population.
I just checked the Senate roles… I counted 13 female Senators (I may be off b/c that was very fast). When I think where we were just twenty years ago, that is huge increase. That is progress. Why not focus on where our society has come rather than how far we have to go.
Please also keep in mind that it takes time to change those types of demographics, unless you force it into your constitution like in Iraq. Try that in the U.S. and munity would abound.
Some of the older women on this BLOG are still battling with men and perceptions from their generation. I can honestly tell you that men and perceptions from my generation do not see the same differences between the sexes, races or religions. We want everyone to succeed or fail based on their ability.
I hear the rants of women like Wjiley, Lozen and others and feel terrible for them. They lived in a a time when they were stifled. They were not given opportunity. They were forced into careers, jobs etc. That situation has rapidly decreased. For example, three fourths of the managers in my office are women. Half of the workforce is women.
Change is happening. It simply takes time. The more someone forces it, the more difficult that change becomes.
Sometimes force is necessary to get the ball rolling, however, once the movement gets rolling, the inertia is difficult to stop.
By Nikita
October 10, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Addressing Heather’s earlier post:
I think the title of this weeks commentary pretty much says it all, Has Feminism failed WOMEN. We are not asking if it has failed our children or our society, we are asking if it has failed WOMEN because obviously all we women now care about is ourselves.
I’m not sure what to say to this. The title implies both that it may have hurt society and children because women make up 51% of both. But we must also consider what the implication of your last sentence is. Clearly women should subordinate their wishes, needs, and skills to the paradigm which has dictated what women can do for eons. And your concern for children doesn’t extend to the well-being of your female children as they become adults.
Are our children better off? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We raise our sons to think women should work, clean house, raise children, chop wood, whatever a man can do a woman can do, only better. We pound this into the minds of our young men so that when they are grown men they expect their wives to be superwomen.
Perhaps they might expect their wives merely to be individuals whom they love and expect love from in return. If they marry. Also, you asked about children, but you follow up with a non sequitur.
Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.
Personally, I don’t have children until I can afford them. And that includes affording the assistance or professional arrangement to be able to give them the quality time and love they deserve. Perhaps we wouldn’t struggle so if we didn’t feel that breeding is our birthright, to be exercised at the first moment possible following marriage. As for weapons, please look up some stats on the situation — violent incidents have fluctuated since 1993, but are generally trending downward.
By Billy
October 10, 2005 11:50 AM | Link to this
Well said Nikita.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Ken, I don’t think anyone said the topic was boring or irrelevant, but let me be the first!
It is boring because it is a non-topic. Even Diane and Shaunti can’t seem to figure out what the topic is, evidenced in their discussing two very different subjects. Diane’s article seems to be answering the title question (which, in my opinion, is a senseless question anyway), while Shaunti’s answers a more general question seemingly about what the feminist movement is all about and why women avoid the movement. These two don’t even know what they’re discussing.
Huhhhh?????????????
You mean to tell me that you believe this subject is a worthwhile discussion to capture and ignite bright and intelligent minds for 5 whole days?
Not this one.
Well, at least it offers a good opportunity for all the feminists to come and preach to all the men about how they’ve kept us down and to all the woman about how suppressed we are and don’t even know it…
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this
One would think because of the daily occurrence of women being murdered by the men that claim to love them something would be done. One would think because daily women & children are sexually abused or raped the govt. would rise up and stop this terrible epidemic. One would think that women who were blatantly harassed on the job still wouldn’t be told “we are sorry you have no case, better just to quit”. One would think that today, as advanced as we are this world would finally see the importance of better family planning for all women.
Those are just a few of the reasons we have to scream, yell, kick & fight.
If women were finally equal & finally protected from violence, who would that hurt? Why would that be a bad thing?
For those that criticize our rants, how do you think we’ve gotten where we are now? By sitting back & waiting for someone to let us? lol Nobody is going to give us the rights we need, we have to take them.
By Nikita
October 10, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
p.s. on jobs held by men and women, I actually think it is helpful to women to take jobs that were traditionally reserved for men, particularly when it comes to jobs that are physical. As you all know, we’re trending toward obese as a society. I suspect women are harder hit because many of the changes generally blamed for this are ones that affect them disproportionately. For example, concerns about safety and decreasing pedestrian traffic. Women, as supposedly vulnerable people, and also the primary movers of children and their stuff, don’t get much exercise. And since they also tend to lack time, the gym isn’t as effective a cure as working required physical activity into other activities. as for professional activities a bit further up the economic chain, in most industries people need to market to women and this makes female executives quite successful. Also, women are slightly better at finessing and defusing difficult situations — quite the asset when doing comparatively stressful work. The only real issue that I’ve run into is that men occasionally will physically intimidate women — but that’s pretty rare.
By Gina
October 10, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this
Women will finally be equal when they don’t have to or want to depend on a man for support. Now as it stands after divorce, even a woman with a high-paying career can take everything from a man. When trying to achieve equality, one must be willing to treat the other as an equal. That is not happening especially in family court. Women still pull the “gender” card.
I agree with Ken…Feminism has not failed us, some feminists have failed us.
By Gina
October 10, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Nikita, More women should consider the fact that they can’t afford children. However, they have children anyway because they know they can either receive public assistance or child support.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
JBM - You are so on point!
Whiley - I just wanted to ask about your 12:31 post. What does women & children being raped and women being murdered has to do with the feminist movement.
By jlb
October 10, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Women are better at some things than men. Men are better at some things than women. Both of the sexes need each other equally. Feminist is just another label. When we can all work together, what ever it is, then we will collectively be better - more productive - happy. All of these labels are counter-productive to a happy well adjusted society.
We should quit using our differences against one another and use that diversity towards a productive means.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 01:28 PM | Link to this
Renee, very good question (although I already know the answer!) LOL
By Heather
October 10, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this
Nikita, what world are you living in? Its not just the poor and struggling who are putting their children in daycare. As a matter of fact, most poor and struggling folks can’t afford daycare. All professional women who are mothers of young children are placing these children with other people to take care of them.
You talk of waiting until you can afford the assistance or professional position before you have kids, well good luck sister, you probably will die childless. It sounds as if you think the only people who should be having children are the rich. Well thats great for now, but whose going to check you out at the grocery store in 30 years?
Do you even know whats involved in finding a good daycare? When I said struggling, I wasn’t talking about struggling to afford it, I was talking about struggling to find quality care for children.
Then you said some fool thing about violence in schools being on the decrease, maybe thats because drugging up our kids in on the increase?? Meanwhile, I just read about a 9 year old GIRL who stabbed her good friend, an 11 year old GIRL, over something stupid. I see that the women’s movement has had a great affect on these two FEMALE children. And what about the girls that put rat poison in their classmates milk during lunch. And then there were the two girls who fed poison cake to students in the cafeteria. Funny how all of these children were FEMALE.
By anonymousella
October 10, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
gina, i’m calling you on your b.s.:
However, they have children anyway because they know they can either receive public assistance or child support.
poor women who have children they “can’t afford” do so because they would rather not have an abortion and/or see their pregnancy as a part of the consequences for having sex. in some ways, it’s an ultimate act of responsibility: living with the results of your actions.
to the topic, however: shaunti does a marvelous job at misunderstanding feminism and thereby avoids the question of whether it has failed as a philosophy and a movement.
By Mara
October 10, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Once again the old stereotype rears it’s ugly head. Whenever the “F” word comes up, there’re still a few angry stalwarts insisting that feminists are man-hating, hirsute lesbians intent on emasculating the male of the species and destroying the family unit. As a married, make-up wearing, stilletto-heel loving “40-something”…that description is insulting and belittling.
I love my husband, my career, and my freedom to NOT have children until I’m ready. I am grateful to those who came before me. Because of them I got to experience the thrill of playing sports instead of just watching and cheering. Because of them I had the opportunity to explore science, math, and technology. Because of them I was able to vote, to choose how I live my life, and the skills to support myself. Because of those feminists who came before me, I was given the chance to discover that my self-worth was not dependant on my womb, my cooking skills, or the ability to get shirts whiter than white. My husband doesn’t feel emasculated when he cleans the house up. In fact we laugh at it because he’s so much better at it than I. We enjoy cooking dinner…together. We do laundry together and keep up the house and yard…together. Neither of us feel the need to be “in charge”. Does that mean his p**s is on the chopping block? Because he doesn’t feel the need to dominate any portion of my life, does that mean that he’s less of a man? If you think so, then you have a very shallow definition of what being a “man” is all about. Or a woman, for that matter.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Renee, Women & children being raped and women being murdered has everything to do with the feminist movement. Feminism or the women’s rights movement was originally started to help women attain equality in the legal systems, justice systems and employment systems. Often when a woman was in a situation where she had to work (she had been abandoned, was unmarried, not cared for economically, her husband was deceased) she and her children could not survive economically if they could not find a man to help provide support. This often left women in situations which could be mentally, physically and psychologically compromising…such as in the case of abuse of the woman and/or her children.
Sadly this is too often the case today.
Feminists fight against the violence being perpetrated against women & children. It is a horrible epidemic being perpetrated openly everywhere & our country does not do even close enough to stop this. Feminist are the reasons today Domestic violence is finally being taken seriously in police departments. Feminists are the reason women have access to family planning. Feminists are the ones that finally stood up & demanded more control put on porn. Particularly in the legal section or violence against women, you will see so many personal stories/testaments of why feminism is still relevant. These are only a few examples.
10 years ago, feminists were the only ones focussed on domestic violence — it was feminists who created shelters, who funded this movement (it wasn’t until 1994 that the federal government first gave money to help end violence against women). It was only after Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered that most Americans started to understand how pervasive this issue was/is, then they responded by getting more involved. Before Sept. 11th, feminists were the only people paying any attention to the Taliban’s treatment of women and how they were denying women and girls their basic human rights. Feminists were the only ones putting pressure on the U.S. government to intervene and stop this hostile reign. Not until Sept. 11th, until this impacted more than women and children , did people bother to pay attention.
Feminists focus appears to only help women, but it really helps everyone.
By Gina
October 10, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Mara,
You rock! I agree with you.
By vince
October 10, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
I was shocked to discover that feminism created lesbians and gays. Wow. I thought the homos showed up in 1945. On that theory (you know, a mean dad makes a girl gay), I suppose society needs to take a hard look at mean dad’s, cause if they have a son, their son becomes a d**. And, we all know that a lesbian trapped in a man’s body spells trouble.
And, I had no idea that when a woman is a victim of a violent crime, its because of a movement toward equality. So, when a man is a victim of a violetn crime, it’s to balance out society with some inequality talk.
In 1939, MGM released a movie called, “The Women”. A black and white film featuring MGM’s biggest female stars. Not one man to be found in that movie. Not in the background, not anywhere. When the central character’s mother confronts the daughter about the son-in-law’s infedility, the mother advises the daughter to not give up the marriage if there is still love left. And, continues to say she (the mother) experienced her husband and cheating.
The daughter’s response, “That was fine for you mother, back in your time when women were herded like cattle, but not today. Steven (the cheater) and I are equals. 1939, folks. I wonder if that could fly in a movie made in 2005. Probably not. Anything having to do with equality of the sexes has been defined over the last five years as “anti-American” and unpatriotic. Apparently only the “evil doers” want women to be healthy, happy and thrive.
I’m also shocked over how a pro-life person can eat beef, chicken and/or seafood. I guess life isn’t all that precious when you want a cheeseburger. And, I am really shocked when a pro-life person shows no regard for the physical and mental health of women. Because, (this may be a shocking discovery for you) women make more life. Men cannot make babies.
By Scott
October 10, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this
JBM - I agree with you
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 10, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this
GINA - in some cases it’s not the court who is giving the wormen child support or primary custody of the children. I know a few men who would not accept custody and do not feel they should pay child support. So don’t blame it all on women being greedy for welfare and child support.
I’m a single mom who has never recieve welfare or child support and I still allow my duaghter to spend time with her father. There are many of us out there.
I have a friend who’s husband does not want custody, because he feels that it’s a womans job. My friend thought it would be better for the kids to be taken care of by their father, because she works nights and doesn’t see that changing for a few more years. The kids are currently staying with her parents at night while she works and he’s at home with his girlfriend. We all know that daycare for second and third shift is almost non existance, but what does he care when the ex-inlaws will do it for free.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
Vince, are women today healthy, happy, and thriving? Or are we just as exploited as we have ever been? Walk into any gas station in America, take a look at the magazine rack, and then tell me just how much feminism has managed to accomplish.
In times past, men had enough respect for women to at least keep such things under wraps, now days it is right out that for all to see. Yet feminist go on and on about how we are more equal now. It seems to me that we are more exploited if anything. Women still do most of the work in the home, only now we also get to put in 8+ hour days at the office as well, unless of course we are selling our naked bodies to porn producers, then we get to spend that time on our backs.
By Real Life
October 10, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
Heather, if you biggest and only goal in life is to be a brood mare and a maid, go be one, shut up, and leave the rest of us women alone. Some of us have higher goals and dreams. I love education. I love that I can attain any level of education that I choose to persue. Witches like you who want to take that away from me, other women and our daughters, make me sick.
By Jessica
October 10, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
It’s difficult if not impossible to think and speak critically about things we have been trained not to see. Understandably troubling, it is vital that we are able to unveil the hidden ways we participate in a system, particularly those aspects of the system we fundamentally oppose.
Both women’s views on this question are legitimate for me, and to dismiss either outright, doesn’t give us the opportunity to really interrogate the underlying issues of this debate (if we can even call it that, given the polemic quality of our response). Since both the movement and the philosophy guide and inform each other, it seems senseless to me to try and differentiate them in this discussion.
As it has already been pointed out, the question reads: “Has feminism failed women?” While it’s valid to ask why this question does not instead say, “failed us?” we should remember that the term effectually describes what it represents, quite literally: “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes,” or “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests” (From Merriam Webster).
While Feminism does usually start out it’s inquiry from an interest in “women’s rights and interests” it often and usually extends to a question of Civil Rights, which is why these two are related. We see an instance of this in the essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” by Peggy McIntosh. Through her investigation into her own thoughts on this idea of white privilege, she comes to this realization:
“I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.” She goes on to say, “My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will.”
The importance of personal experience and context are, in my opinion, a key part of what Feminism means for contemporary society. But this only partially supplies a definition for most people. The element of “informed choices” and the liberty to make them cannot be divided from a true representation of contemporary Feminism.
Because of this, while I think Ms. Feldhahn’s response has merit, I’m troubled by her habit of acting as authority for “many women” instead of qualifying her response as personal. It’s important to recognize that whether or not we agree with Shaunti Feldhahn’s response, it illustrates a very prevalent feeling among women that they should somehow be ashamed of “choosing” or “desiring” to take on “traditional roles.”
This is a reality that many self-named feminists refuse to consider. The perceived judgment some women feel is being passed on them is unfortunately all too real. This is not to say that it is common (I can’t really attest to that), but simply that it exists. It’s curious to me that Feldhahn feels so much of feminism is extreme. But we live in reactionary and extremist times, so I suppose it’s not that surprising.
Equally troubling, is Diane Glass’ response, which fails to admit any failure at all. Or, that if it has failed, those failures are not important because (or at least it seems) other movements from similar historical contexts also did not live up to our expectations. For me, this is a common response from people who had such high hopes for these then radical changes and protests, and were ultimately let down a little (if not more than a little) when these hopes weren’t fully realized. Disappointment is a not uncommon feeling about movements in general.
It’s also strange that Ms. Glass refuses to credit Feminism with any responsibility for gender roles, as though this somehow gives the word a clean bill of health. What I fail to see commented on is the fact that both Glass and Feldhahn adopt a defensive posture for their response. Both women feel judged by an unnamed force. Glass says, “Why should women be blamed for making choices outside of marriage and family?” Who is blaming her, and why, if the blame comes from no one in particular, would she perceive blame in the same way that Feldhahn does when she says, “I want to be nurturing, but feel like I shouldn’t be.”
In my opinion, contemporary Feminism tries to engender an environment of honest inquiry, and provides choice for people with authentic differences without condemnation. Beneath all this polemic, I see the opposite occurring. We have condemned both women’s views without an honest attempt to first entertain them.
By Mara
October 10, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Gina. And I agree with you about the family law situation. In divorce, the rights of fathers are oftentimes overlooked in favor of the perceived “nurturing” instinct of the mother. It’s something that should be looked at. Most feminists see the need for the equality of gender in all its aspects, even those where women have the edge.
By Scalia
October 10, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this
Women have the choice if they want to appear semi-nude on the front of a magazine. How many actresses have a non-nudity clause in their contracts? Several. Julia Roberts for one. Cameron Diaz another. Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis, and Cynthia Nixon from Sex and the City never appear nude in the show. They are always covered up.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Heather,
Women were being exploited for centuries - we just didn’t have videos, television and cameras. We are more of everything at this time and place, but feminist has nothing to do with it. It’s just plain old greed and lust.
Why don’t you blame men for all the increase in porn? Women buy it as well, but it’s definitely an industry owned by men. I agree that we still come home from an 8 hour job to cook and clean, but at least we have a choice. You can be a stay at home mom, a working mom and just a plain single woman with no kids or a husband. Feminist movements have brought about choices, that women did not have years ago.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
Whiley I disagree but I would be typing all day to make my points and I am too busy today. But to sum it all up, I don’t see anything about those isses that equate the feminist movement.
Nor, do I equate porn with it Heather.
I don’t understand it, first women want to be empowered with this equality but they can’t be because they are these frail, exploited bodies. And they can’t stand up for themselves for the constant whining. (I’m expected to clean up and cook all the time, I work and take care of the kids, etc)
I mean men aren’t whining about men being in porn (forced no less) and whining about being house husbands. A woman can do some things a man can’t do but not everything. Women and men are different.
Women will never be empowered or taken seriously as long as this whining continues!
By TT
October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Heather, Feminism does not advocate the exploitation of women. Exploitation of women was occurring many centuries before the feminist movement took root. To blame scantily-clad women on magazine covers and pornography on the movement for women’s equality is purely ignorant. Stop using feminism as a scapegoat for the effects of the “sex sells” culture that most men relish in.
It’s amazing to me that some people will argue a point without bothering to familiarize themselves with the terms of the debate. Someone please refresh Heather’s memory on what feminism means.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Well be sick Real Life. We are talking about real life here. Yes, you can do anything a man can do. Good for you. Can you do any of the things women could do 200 years ago? Have we evolved or devolved? Are you truly happy?
I don’t want to take any of your rights away from you. Why would I want to do that? The question is whether feminism has failed us. I think it has. If my stating my own opinion on a public forum makes me a witch in your eyes, so be it. You need to grow up a little bit.
By Jessica
October 10, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Something else that’s interesting to me is the format of Women To Woman. Why is the “left leaning columnist” providing “commentary” and the “right leaning columnist” providing a rebuttal? Aren’t these both commentaries and rebuttals? And, if not, why does one woman get the change to provide a rebuttal and not the other? Isn’t it suspicious that their arguments seemingly provide only a surface exploration of the topic, as though this segment of the paper were actually intended to be divisive (being both disruptive and dividing) instead of investigative.
By Real Life
October 10, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Heather - you need to move to the middle east. You would be happy there. You can’t vote in most countries, own property, men are allowed to rape and hit as the see fit, your children are not your own - the husband owns the children, in fact in most middle eastern countries women are property to be bought and traded. If you don’t like that women can be educated, hold jobs, own property, vote, then go somewhere where women can’t. Delta is ready when you are. Oh, take Feldman with you.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Jessica - Diane gives the commentary as well as Shaunti. It differs depending on the subject and the week.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Amazed, most women do not have a choice to stay at home or work. Our economy has shifted as the dynamics of the family have shifted. It is often perceived as necessary for women to work today. I say perceived because most people seem to desire to live a lifestyle above what they can actually afford so it becomes necessary for the wife to work to keep up with the Jones’.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Real Life, you are just looking for a fight aren’t you?
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 10, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
Heather,
Contrary to your beliefs, many of us chose careers that we love, not to keep up with the Jonese. I have a Computer Science Degree, because I like to design software. However, I have drifted into the data analysis sides in the past few years, not too happy about that.
Would you describe to me, what you consider to be a happy life? I believe you posed the question to another blogger earlier.
By Jessica
October 10, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Renee, thanks for clarifying. I’m new to Georgia and to this section of the paper.
By Mara
October 10, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Uh, Heather, Yes…we can do the things women could do 200 years ago…but who’d want to? 200 years ago we had no electricity, no indoor plumbing, primitive medicine, superstition (well, we still have that but people keep saying that we need religeon…)and society and governments based on blood-lines. We had no feminine hygeine products, no tooth-paste, no shampoo. We had corsets that were pulled so tight they literally disfigured a womans midsection and displaced her internal organs. A woman was considered chattel and as such had no say in the disposition of herself, her monies, her property or her children…all of which became belongings of her husband. He could beat her, rape her, sell her virtue, or torture her. He could lock her up, force her to labor day in and day out, forbid her contact with any other soul, and even deny her food and clothing. So, would you want to be a woman of 200 years ago, and if so, why?
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
TT, my point in bringing up porn was to illustrate just how unequal we still are. Men still exploit us, like they have for all time. Feminism has accomplished very little. Yes, we can vote. Yes, we can own property. Yes, we can go to college. But feminism did not stop there.
The definition of feminism:
n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women [syn: feminist movement, women’s liberation movement, women’s lib]
Notice the synonmyn for feminism, “women’s liberation movement”. We women demanded that not only should we be given equal rights, but that we should be “liberated” from our families and husbands. Married couples are no longer one unit moving forward together, they are two distinct and separate liberated individuals who are more interested in their own happiness than in each others. This is why I feel feminism has failed us.
By lozen
October 10, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
Heather, I just want to ask you: What does daycare for children, not having kids unless you’re rich and kids stabbing each other in school have to do with feminism?
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Heather, feminism has failed us??? Are you kidding me?
Most of the men today prefer an equal partner. All around equality makes everything better.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this
Renee, I completely agree (including the part about being too busy to type for hours explaining my dissent).
Heather, you asked, Vince, are women today healthy, happy, and thriving?
I’m not Vince, but as a woman I think I might be qualified to answer: YES. This woman is healthy, happy and thriving. Can all women say the same? Of course not. But I can.
And, as for that exploitation subject… GIVE ME A BREAK!! If you take a job for pay, how are you being exploited?
By AllAboutMe
October 10, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this
…has feminism failed men?…why yes it has…men wanted liberation…more than one to a cuddle…braless bouncers still perky after all those years…and what do we get… men are a continuing open wallet…pay their alimony…pay their dates…pay for their pretty perks…while men get a few sick days women get maternity leave…while men get career choices…women get to be housewives…then nag about not getting great jobs they can abandon…like its mens fault…nah…women dont know it but most men want to be women…its a mad world..men just wish the underwear fit better…
By Ken
October 10, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Real Life…
I don’t think anyone said that you should not, or wanted to prevent you from achieving whatever it is you want to achieve.
There are many things in our society that I believe have contributed to our decent into depravity. However, I would never legislate the prevention of said things. Why? B/C we as humans cannot be forced to do things we do not want to. When we are, we resist. That is the very nature of being human.
We make choices and do not like being told what to do. If you don’t agree just listen to the ranting on this BLOG. It is nearly always about some group telling some other group how to live or what to do.
The only way to achieve real change is for society to realize they need to make that change. Those are the only changes that last.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Amazed, so many women work because they have no other choice. Its great that many women are happy with the careers of their choice. Its great that we women can go to a female doctor if we prefer one. I am not saying that the benefits of the feminist movement are bad things. I am saying that the movement itself has failed women specifically and society in general.
As for what I consider a happy life, its easier to tell you what I think does not make a happy life. Isn’t it true that women are more at risk now days for heart attacks and heart disease? This is because of the increase in stress in women’s lives. Not only are we expected to be just like men and do whatever men do, we are expected to continue to be women and do all that women have traditionally done. Only we don’t receive the training as girls to do traditionally feminine things because they are portrayed as degrading to women, yet as women we still find ourselves needing to do them.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this
Whiley, do you really think most men consider women to be equal partners? Have you done a survey on just what men think? Have you done a survey on just what men want? Try it. Go find a man and have him ask 20 other men what they think about women, if they think women are equal, and what they want from women. I think you might be surprised by the results.
By Eye Think
October 10, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
What is feminism? What is failure? And finally, what is a woman? We all got it wrong form the beginning. Every female is feminine enough in every respect and in her own right. Therefore, the act of pushing the verb feminism or the adjective feminist suggests some level of infuriority complex that needs to be mediated by some form of recognition. Women don’t need to be told they are feminist or be recognized for what they already are. They know themselves. The bible is full of women who have proven how powerful women have been since eating the apple in the garden of Eden. Eve was the first active feminist because she convinced God’s first creature to join her in eating the forbidden apple. Whather this story is symbolic or real is beyond me. So, women are powerful, have always been powerful, and will always be powerful. Men, beware. Don’t get fooled. Women, are the ultimate power machines eventhough sometimes that is not very apparent. If you want to see the power of a woman, wait until a divorce happens. Then, you will see how the law cleans out a man in order to give everything to that same woman. Isn’t that power enough? Isn’t that feminism at its most capitalist heights? I don’t understand what the complaint is all about.
Earming or acting in the same vein as a man does not imply or suggest feminism. That is stupidity at its very best. So many women joined the crazy bandwagon in the 60s, confused, and thinking they were empowering themselves when they were already powerful in the beginning. Most of the great men in the bible and even today who fell, were not brought by an army of thousands, but by an army of one (a woman, sometimes women). Any man who says he is better off than a woman or acts in such like manner, is a foolish man. I have a healthy respect for women. They are incredible.
Therefore, feminism hasn’t failed women. It is the fake feminists of the 60s that have failed the true natural feminists (all the beautiful women of the world). God made women to be naturally beautiful as a way to keep men under some kind of spell and control. Every woman, I have come to conclude is beautiful in her own way and in her own right.
More women have given me the opportunity to rise in my career than men have. Yet i am a man. A man who ignores the power of a woman is sure to get burned at some point. Every woman is beautiful in her own way and in her own right. God designed women to have a unique type of power that men can’t see or replicate. Thus, the issue should not be one of equality but one of role. Fake feminists deceived us in the 60’s with equality. But the bible always reminds us of roles. A woman’s role is very important in any society. When that role becomes diminished, any society begins to collapse socially, then, economically. Lack of women led to the fall of the Spartans in Greek. While the appreciation and inclusion of women during the same period led to the flourishing of the Athenian society.
The high prison rates, crazy kids in school, and so many more odds things in our society are a partial result of the confused policy for our women. Do we focus on roles or equality? This makes a big difference. Our women have forgotten how to be women, queens, princesses, and ladies, which is were a woman’s strenghth lies. Today, we have hooligans, baba-mama, spoiled -brats, etc for women and wives. Thus, the men treat the women as such. This should come as no surprise to anyone. So lets stop complaining and reap the rewards of the confused state of our women, feminism or feminists. These are entirely two different matters altogether.
So, when a woman either decides to where skimpy clothes or remain clad like a human being, she portrays the essence of her values whether consciously or unconsciously. Skimpyness is a reflection of the individual getting closer to the animal kingdom, thus, any and all things go. A resulting consequence such as disrespect from men should be expected and in fact tolerated by the perpetrator. On the other hand, covering yourself so that your bossom or derrier is not forcibly represented may well attract you the right crowd and in fact may even help your agenda be forwarded. I don’t know. But it is worth the try. What I see today about women troubles me. They leave nothing to the imagination anymore, and yet there is this foolish argument about feminism. When a woman knows who she is, presents herself as such, with some wisdom, and a little bit of cunning, as always, she is the true feminist bar none.
By Mara
October 10, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
On one hand, I can see (sort of) where Heather is coming from vis-a-vis porn/exploitation. There’re all kinds of coercion. Consider that a dancer can make hundreds of dollars in a night. Would you dance nekkid to feed your kid? Sure, you could work two jobs and have no time with the child…Or would you pose in a porn magazine for college tuition? Yeah, you could get a job and take an extra year or so to finish… That’s one of the points that she seems to be missing about feminism. Economic equality would mean that a woman literally could not be exploited because there would be no “reward” to doing things that she wouldn’t ordinarily choose to do. On the other hand, those who have chosen to pose, or dance, or act in the adult entertainment field are adult enough to weigh the monetary rewards with their own feelings. Is it exploitation if the “exploited” thinks they got the better part of the bargain?
By Renee
October 10, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen - It has NOTHING to do with feminism
Mara - your 2:42 post was hilarious
Jessica - Welcome
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
I should have said,the men I know prefer woman as equals. I only surround myself with great men. Not the pea brains you are talking about. lol Which is exactly again why feminism is needed. It’s going to take some serious reconditioning to get the entire cavemen out of the male species.
Feminism also fights old outdated ideas. For instance, when someone calls a man a “p*y” what is he saying? Or when someone says a guy does x like a girl, what is he saying? How about when someone tells a woman to do x like a man? What does that say? I think we can retire “feminist” when we retire sexism and misogyny.
Until then, my own statement’s gonna be, “Yeah, I’m a feminist…Why aren’t YOU?”
By Heather
October 10, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
Lozen & Renee, it has everything to do with feminism. We are talking about feminism failing women. Since as someone pointed out, women are 51% of society, we are also talking about feminism failing society.
Children are part of our society and are the future of our society. Half of these children are girls who grow up to be women. You can’t separate the effect of feminism on children from the issue itself.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this
Is it exploitation if the “exploited� thinks they got the better part of the bargain?
Nope. It isn’t. That’s why none of those examples are of women being exploited anyway. Those are the choices they made. Heck, I could buy my daughter a lot more things, take more vacations, buy a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, and even spend more time with her if I became a nude dancer. I choose not to.
Those dancers, prostitutes, etc. CHOOSE to take those jobs, thus they are NOT exploited.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Whiley - correct me if I’m wrong but women and men are not equal. They are different, anatomically and mentally. Not saying one is better than the other but they are different. And physically, yes, some women are equal to some men, but as a rule, a woman is NOT a man. If so, we wouldn’t need men. If I tell my girl to stop acting like a man, I mean exactly that. If I tell her stop acting so girl, I mean exactly that.
So should we have equal rights, sure, if you want to go do everything those men can do, knock yourself out. That’s all we need is to have an army of nothing but women. They aren’t going to stop having attitudes long enough to handle any business.
In a male/female partnership, the woman’s strengths should make up for the males weaknesses and vice versa, but they are not equal.
By Mara
October 10, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this
Ken, are you serious when you say “we as humans cannot be forced to do things we do not want to.”? Are you serious?! Do you honestly think that the 14-year old prostitutes in AIDS-ravaged Africa want to be prostitutes? Do you think they want to take a sugar-daddy? Do you really think that when children are kidnapped and made to fight in armies and gangs that they want to do so? Do you really believe that no one can force a woman to have sex without her consent? We, as humans, can be forced to do almost anything if the leverage is right. Some get so used to be degraded that even freedom from coercion doesn’t mean that they have free choice…
By Heather
October 10, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Women who sell themselves to porn should be ashamed of themselves. There is just no nice way to phrase it. Everyone encouraging anyone to buy, sell, or perform pornography is a disgrace.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this
Who ever said women want to be big & man-like, in army’s fighting & killing on the front lines???? lol Of course we are different & so what?
The fact that men are usually physically stronger and more aggressive than women is hardly brain surgery. Again, there’s nothing wrong with boys or men being hyper, strong, or even a bit rowdy. The problem is that many males misuse their natural strength and driven natures to violate the rights of other people.
By Chilao
October 10, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this
Since I am a guy, should I be entitled to an opinion here? I like to feel that women are ‘better off’ due to feminism, but are they? Only a woman can really answer that.
So finally a truly woman-to-woman topic, though.
But on the two-income thing. Human nature, to our culture at least, to always want to do better. Hard to imagine a culture with ALL well-paid men, so that the wife does not even have to work.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
The fact that men are usually physically stronger and more aggressive than women is hardly brain surgery. Again, there’s nothing wrong with boys or men being hyper, strong, or even a bit rowdy. The problem is that many males misuse their natural strength and driven natures to violate the rights of other people.
And this is feminism because……….
By Mara
October 10, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
Renee, what do you mean about “acting like a man”? Is she grabbing her crotch uncontrollably or just refusing to ask for directions? What exactly is acting “like a man” or conversly, as you say, “acting so girl”? I’m not Whiley, so I won’t correct you about men and women not being equal (yet!), but we feminists are working on it. One day we will have equal opportunities, equal responsibilities, and equal worth to society.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 10, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
Why does the word children and girls seem to only coincide with women? Heather, you keep mentioning the effect of feminism on childrens and girls. Somewhere, there must be a father? Fathers also play a huge role in how the children grow up in society.
Fathers should be taking up the slack or contributing more to the raising of their children. Why should it fall solely on the woman or mothers?
Feminism has led to one thing, that many men have a problem dealing with, and that is a woman who earns more money. And I speak from experience. To eliminate the problem, I had to stop telling potential mates what I do for a living.
By Just Being Me
October 10, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
In a male/female partnership, the woman’s strengths should make up for the males weaknesses and vice versa, but they are not equal.
Well said Renee.
By Nikita
October 10, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Heather, I’m going to address a theme I see in your writing before I address your specific issues. You in general externalize blame. While frankly does a disservice to people who take responsibility for their own actions. Women now are, unfortunately, forced into roles much as they were in the past. But these are individual circumstances generally laid out by the family of birth, the job market and prevailing family patterns of the area where she lives, the values that a person holds, and her decisions as a woman. You seem to admit that feminism has done a lot for you, but blame it for pressures that you feel women are experiencing. And you hold the odd belief that women are forced to be mothers and other sorts of providers despite being trained for other purposes.
* Its not just the poor and struggling who are putting their children in daycare. As a matter of fact, most poor and struggling folks can’t afford daycare. All professional women who are mothers of young children are placing these children with other people to take care of them.*
I didn’t say that only the poor and disadvantaged seek daycare. However, there are alternatives to daycare for people who work, such as flexible scheduling (which is the favored method of raising children here among the poorly compensated middle class) which allows both parents to care for their children, family care, working at home or taking children to the office, and not having children you can’t care for.
*you probably will die childless. It sounds as if you think the only people who should be having children are the rich. *
a) would that be so bad? i had actually planned to adopt children who need homes instead of producing some of my own. b) you assume too much about my compensation. c)I think we’d all be far better off if people who had children could provide them a stable home and meet their basic needs. they need not be rich to do so, merely capable.
Well thats great for now, but whose going to check you out at the grocery store in 30 years?
Perhaps your children. The male children, that is.
Do you even know whats involved in finding a good daycare? When I said struggling, I wasn’t talking about struggling to afford it, I was talking about struggling to find quality care for children.
Only what I hear, and that doesn’t really change my opinion.
Then you said some fool thing about violence in schools being on the decrease, maybe thats because drugging up our kids in on the increase??
that wouldn’t be like some fool thing you said which amounts to “never mind the statistics — I only go by my own perception of how things are going,” would it?
as for drugging up our kids (though obviously neither yours nor mine), the bait & switch doesn’t work on me.
* Meanwhile, I just read about a 9 year old GIRL who stabbed her good friend, an 11 year old GIRL, over something stupid. I see that the women’s movement has had a great affect on these two FEMALE children. And what about the girls that put rat poison in their classmates milk during lunch. And then there were the two girls who fed poison cake to students in the cafeteria. Funny how all of these children were FEMALE. *
funny how we come back to the tendency to externalize blame again. none of these incidents occurred because the children were at fault, right? must be the feminists.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Chilao, it seems to me that men have profited more from feminism than women. Of course, now you know that you are really only good as a sperm provider and not needed in any other way, but on the bright side, you don’t have to be the sole provider of your family either. And you really don’t have to wash dishes either, you know that superwoman can do that too.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
I’m not Whiley, so I won’t correct you about men and women not being equal (yet!), but we feminists are working on it. One day we will have equal opportunities, equal responsibilities, and equal worth to society
I’m all for equal opportunities and equal worth to society. But in a society THAT will never happen.
I’m a woman, to some men I will never be equal I’m black, to some white people I will never be equal I’m lesbian, to some straight people I will never be equal.
The list goes on and on.
Thus becomes the reality of being a part of a society. Instead of trying to fit in and make everyone accept you, know for yourself that you are an equal but different and separate part of society. That goes for whatever religious, ethnic, sexual oriented, or gender part of society you belong to.
There will be times as a woman you will walk into a job interview equally or more experienced as the man after you. The man may get the job. It’s a part of life. Not fair but life. Welcome to the life of black people, gay people, and sometimes just people.
B*** about it and giving idiotic arguments about porno, is that helping or hurting the “cause”.
By Michael H.
October 10, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
Interesting now there is a second “Michael H.” posting remarks on philosophy. Coincidence? Well, maybe.
By lozen
October 10, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
I was a male chauvinist pig! I respected my male teachers in high school much more than my female teachers. Men were the experts. I respected my husband and his viewpoint more than my own. Men were the leaders and the breadwinners and the experts. At parties I made it a point to talk with the men and not the women. Men talked about important things but women just talked about the house and the kids. My high school friends and I thought nothing of bailing out of plans with each other if a boy called and asked us out at the last minute. We all knew our girl friends were not as important as a boy, any boy! The feminist movement helped me stop being a male chauvinist pig, just as studying civil rights enabled me to stop being a southern racist pig. In the mid 60’s women began to meet together for consciousness raising and I began to see where all those ideas about women being less worthy of respect, not worth talking to, and not as smart as men came from. I was miserable as a young mother, dissatisfied wife, and dependent female who felt unworthy and unable to take care of myself in the early 60’s. I am so glad I was alive during the feminist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and the hippie movement. I am happy now and since I lived my first 25 years before feminism, I know all women are better off now than they were 25 years ago.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
Nikita, you sound like a very intelligent woman. However, you admittedly don’t have any children and so probably have not been around many children. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that of course, but that might be why you don’t see the same things I am seeing in our society.
My 9 year old son has exposed me to all sorts of children and their parents. I have had the advantage of working with children and their parents. I have had the advantage of working with teachers and educators in our school systems.
What I see in our society is gross neglect of our most valuable resource, our children. Now maybe the professional women who post on this blog are not the ones most affected by this tragedy, maybe the women posting here are the ones who have benefitted the most by the feminist movement. But the question we were asked referred to all women, not just middle-class, educated women.
By Marcia Dearborn
October 10, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
I fail to understand how “women’s rights” can be a bad thing! I’m old enought to have been a stay at home Mom & young enough to have had a career. I’m lucky that I’m not having kids today as economics would dictate that I work—so why not be educated to work in my field of choice? I’m also not sure why my “rights” have to affect my man or our romance. Maybe I’ve missed something but I’ve never like to assign blame nor do I like to suggest that something is good or bad—it just is. So, ladies, if you have to/want to work you may have enought time to cute & color your hair so your man is attracted to you—he, to, can get grey & bald with impunity! Or should be buy him some Grecian Formula. I just hope my man has poor eyesite & a good sense of humor.
By tes
October 10, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
Eye think…”I think you are right on the money”
By lozen
October 10, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
Gosh Renee, that’s just what my father and other assorted relatives used to say about the civil rights movement. “Why are they marching and causing all this trouble for freedom? None of us are free! They’re not so bad off.” I’d be willing to bet that without the people who stood up and b*** about feminism, civil rights and gay rights you wouldn’t be so sure you ARE equal in spite of society telling you you aren’t.
By Denise Noe
October 10, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this
For Ken: I also saw that 60 Minutes about well educated women who decided to leave paid work to be stay-at-home-moms. I saw the mothers and the children and wondered how it was that they were being supported. They seemed too affluent to be depending on welfare. Had these women accumulated enough in their working lives to set aside enough to live on while they cared for young children? Did they have trust funds? Or were they being supported by men?
The program never said but, if they were like most SAHMs, the latter was the source of support. So why didn’t we see any interviews with the men? Why didn’t the show delve into the repercussions for men of being sole providers? It seems to me that being the sole breadwinner for several people can be highly stressful. It also seems noteworthy that a family’s income often declines drastically (wife quits work) right at the time expenses come up (baby). A man who is the sole provider for his family may feel a heavy burden which may lead him to avoid chances at his job in order to keep or take inappropriate ones in order to keep it or make more money. It may also lead him to put in more hours at work (whether or not he likes his job) in order to adequately support his family, thus whittling away his ability to bond with his child(ren) and influence them. It may lead him to take dangerous assignments because they pay more. Finally, the stress of being sole family provider may be a major factor in the fact that men live about 7 years less than women and suffer more from the major causes of death such as heart disease. None of this indicates that a breadwinning husband-homemaking wife is a bad way to live or that many families don’t thrive in this lifestyle. It just means that there are drawbacks for men, that some men may not want to be sole family breadwinners, and that more attention should be paid to the way women’s choices affect men.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this
Gosh Renee, that’s just what my father and other assorted relatives used to say about the civil rights movement. “Why are they marching and causing all this trouble for freedom? None of us are free! They’re not so bad off.� I’d be willing to bet that without the people who stood up and b*** about feminism, civil rights and gay rights you wouldn’t be so sure you ARE equal in spite of society telling you you aren’t.
I never said that they were causng problems. We aren’t talking about equal rights. Should we be looked down upon because we are women? No. Are we the same as men? No. The argument of exploitation has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
I’m saying b*** about cooking, cleaning, etc and how women are looked down upon is not helping the cause.
Being black, lesbian, and a woman I don’t want to be considered an inferior part of society, I do want equal rights, but I am not equal to a man. I should be looked at equal as a straight person or a white person, but am I the same, NO I’m not. But getting mad about people continuing their personal feelings outside of how I am TREATED is ridiculous. People will have their viewpoints and prejudices no matter what. I am comfortable with me.
By lozen
October 10, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this
One day an acquaintance began talking about how feminism never did a damn thing for her. She worked like a man, just as hard as a man she said. After years of secretarial work making very little money, finally one day she decided enough was enough. She got her company to put her on the crew with the men doing hard physical labor. The men didn’t want her there and they made her life miserable, but she didn’t care because she was making twice as much money to raise her kids! This woman really didn’t realize she would never have gotten that high paying “man’s” job if the gov’t hadn’t passed laws making it illegal to discriminate. She really didn’t realize the gov’t wouldn’t have passed such laws without the pressure from the women’s movement/feminists to do so. So she really and truly believed feminism had done nothing for her. Sad.
By lozen
October 10, 2005 04:43 PM | Link to this
Sorry Renee, I misunderstood. I thought you meant “B*** about it (discrimination) wasn’t helping the cause.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this
“The men didn’t want her there and they made her life miserable, but she didn’t care because she was making twice as much money to raise her kids!”
One day, because of feminism, men won’t be ABLE to make women’s life miserable at work. Can you believe that still happens?
By Nikita
October 10, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this
Heather, you’re correct that I don’t have children. But I am quite aware of how some of them are living due to some volunteer work I have undertaken. I know that some children are neglected and without role models. Some are abused.
However, first, there is a myth that at some point in the past life was perfect and everything was wonderful. That is true at some point, but it was a rare moment in a very limited portion of the world and it was not perfect. Going further back, women had no rights and they also had no way to compensate for the loss of a male breadwinner. So a woman’s only financial security was in her ability to produce male heirs. That’s where we are headed if women are required to submit to the notion of a strictly traditional system where most professions and education are closed to them and it’s not pretty. Secondly, I don’t believe feminism is to blame for the breakdown of the american family or the tendency of people to struggle for things they do not need at the expense of more precious commodities. and no one yet has provided proof otherwise.
Feminism is about choices — making those that are valid for you and serve your needs. Furthermore I believe it serves society’s needs that women who cannot raise children or do not want to are not compelled to. And it is advantageous to women who choose to raise children that their daughters can make those same choices.
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this
“The problem is that many males misuse their natural strength and driven natures to violate the rights of other people.
And this is feminism because……….”
because many males misuse their natural strength and driven natures to violate the rights of other people. I don’t really need to clear that up do I? lol
By lozen
October 10, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
Life was perfect for my grandmother! Married at 15 to a man who was 30 because she was pregnant. (People had morals back then and there wasn’t as much out-of-wedlock sex in the good-old-days!) Eight pregnancies before the age of 30, but only three lived because she was out working the fields just as hard as my grandfather. (Women didn’t have to work back in the good old days.) A husband who told her he was going to see the village prostitute when she was pregnant because he couldn’t live without sex! (Men respected women back in the good old days!) She couldn’t leave him for cheating on her; she didn’t have any education and no way to raise three kids alone. (Women’s liberation is a bad thing and people worked together and kept the family together back in the “good old days”.)
By Eye Think
October 10, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
Thanks Tes, I appreciate your eyes-wide-open candor. It seems to me we are becoming a people of self deceit. It is this self deciet and confusion that is causing our women to wonder if they should behave like males (I didn’t say men) or if they should behave females (I didn’t say women). The same goes for our men, they are now getting confused as to whether they should act as males or females.
Liberation and emancipation starts in the mind. It is a significant function of what is going on inside of the individual. Feminism as we know it was largely started by the female children of rich and upper middle class families. They didn’t have to forage for their daily bread as poor lower middle class women had to. So they had all the time in the world to stand on podiums, while chanting emancipation, selfishly, and leading all other unsuspecting poor and lower middle class women astray. Consequently, the children of the poor and lower class women who joined the foray are now seeing the unintneded consequences of their uncoordinated actions. The rich and upperclass women who started this madness are still living large and are well taken care of in their old age from their parents wealth. What do you think happened to the poor and lower class women? Many of them neglected their duties as wives and mothers and their children are either in jail, living on the streets, or are not alive at all. the point of the matter is that those poor and lower class women dont’t have anything to depend on, except from property obtained through divorce or the meager sum provided by social security. The rich and upper class women always had money set aside by their parents inspite of their galavanting round the country preaching such nonsense as feminism.
People who do not have food or have a hard time getting food don’t have the strength to practice the great American experiment called feminism. Long before feminism came to America, it was already practiced in Europe, especially in France and Belgium, during the French revolution. But the difference between Europen feminism and Americam feminism was that Europen women used their very innate character as females to compel males to do their bidding. Thus, there was no need for them to stand on podiums to chant, or give their bodies away, or even bother worrying about where there next meal would come from. They were taken care of and still they maintained their independence and sense of self.
Women helped Benjamin Franklin get close to King Loius who ultimately provided some of the logistics we needed to fight for our independence. So, one wonders, what is this feminism and liberation being talked about?
Women have always been emancipated from the very first day God created them. However, it is important to note that some societies deliberately suppressed that emancipation for reasons such as religion and tribal beleifs. In any case women in those societies still have found ways to make a difference in their society even though it was not as official as the feminism movement in America.
Confusison breeds further confusion. A woman should strive to love herself first and then know who she is before she can proclaim and spread the gospel of feminism.
By Ken
October 11, 2005 07:37 AM | Link to this
Mara… Thanks for simply bolstering my point. I never meant people cannot be forced into something. People cannot be forced into something and ACCEPTING it.
Denise… The point about the “60 Minutes” piece was not to discuss the men or the support system. The point was to bring out the bitter old woman chastising the women who chose to leave the workforce. That “feminist” was appalled that intelligent women would decide to stay at home. That “Feminist”, in my opinion, is the problem.
But you also bring up a point that I believe underscores the problems in America. All of the economic stresses you speak of only come about when we misplace our values. I was raised in a household that rarely GROSSED more than $40K a year. Yet I still had everything I needed.
Not the cell phones.
Not the video games.
Not the McMansion in Alpharetta or the shiny new cars.
I had my Mom, my Dad and my Brother. That’s what is important.
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this
Eye Think, uh,WHAT? Gobbly gook that’s all I read. Is that the best debate you can come up with? lol
Has anyone seen the new movie with Charleze Theron? The true story of female mine workers? Where can I find information on what happened & when?
By FatMoose
October 11, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
I think the feminist movment has made great strides, and like with any movement; there are idiots that provide bad examples of the adjenda as well.
Given enough people, there will be examples of groups to ‘prove’ any position - grand, devious, or idiotic.
I do hope that if groups are steering the direction for the individual; that the individual is connected to the groups goals. Seems that a lot of people talk a lot of smack; but provide nothing in its emergence.
By Akeya
October 11, 2005 08:52 AM | Link to this
Yes!! Feminism has failed us tremendously!! If not for those pesky feminists, I would be at home, not working, not having my own money or property, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with an 8th grade education, complete with cheating, abusive husband…
Damn feminists!
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
What a SILLY Topic. Women have failed themselves.
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 08:57 AM | Link to this
“Women have failed themselves.”
Only because we didn’t arm ourselves, take over the world, & throw out all the garbage in charge?
That’s about the only thing I see failed. lol
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this
As stated by others; I think it obvious that the feminist movement has made progress.
Does anyone know of a ‘critical list’ of things to change so that we might be able to see the progress compared to goals?
I would be curious to see whats left to do by the mind of the originators.
By E. Lewis
October 11, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this
Feminism, as we know it, came about in the 1950/1960’s. At that time there were two other movements coming into their own: the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. Instead of aligning itself with civil rights, too many feminists jumped on the sexual revolution bandwagon and I think this is where the problems started. Men were behaving like pigs and getting away with it. That doesn’t mean that women should aspire to do the same.
Women should have choices, but we also have to face the consequences of those choices. We should not fall into the belief that men have had it all, so we can to. Men traditionally were the bread winners, and that was it. Women took care of the household, the children and the social connections. Men couldn’t handle all of the responsibilities even if they wanted to. Superman never existed. Superwoman wouldn’t last either.
At least we now have option. No longer do we marry too young or go to college just to get our MRS degree. We don’t have to remain in marriages where our spouses beat us and our children. Women should be grateful to feminism for giving us the ability to become college educated professionals or not, to marry in our 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, etc. or not, to have children or not, to become religious or not…
By Archie
October 11, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this
“We should be at least as concerned about the men we allow to sink to the bottom as we are about the women we have unfairly prevented from rising to the top.”
I agree with the aforementioned statement.
No, I don’t think the feminist movement has failed. Like Whiley says I am glad to have a working spouse. I have already talked about the housework that I do in the past and I imagine many modern men do alot of housework because it seems as though the new generation of women don’t care about tidying things up(good grief). This is a good topic because people do have different opinions. As far as the porn issue many women brag about the money they make so let’s understand that each individual situation is different. I think Diane did a good job with her argument and Shanti provided a decent counterpoint because there are some extreme people that don’t want to acknowledge any differences and “that ain’t right” as Chris Rock would say.
By Nina
October 11, 2005 10:11 AM | Link to this
Diane says, “The ‘disintegration’ of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable.”
Does that mean that she thinks that conservatives (or other opposition) claim that the disintegration of the family unit is a benefit even though it makes women miserable? It seems to me that maybe she meant, “A ‘functional’ family, or one in which the wife stays at home, is not a benefit if it makes the woman miserable.”
I decided to write an English paper on this article, so feedback would be appreciated.
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this
Archie, that’d be me. I don’t clean, period. Well, I don’t mop or scrub. I do dust, sweep, and turn on the roomba. I do all the cooking, I do all the grocery shopping, and I handle all the healthcare and animal care (which are not small responsibilities). And I support my family with my paycheck, which is usually the only paycheck. My husband does some chores, as well — mainly skilled renovations and rearranging his stuff. But to avoid things getting funky we have a cleaning service.
Nina, I believe Diane is saying that women’s lib has benefits in general, though we cannot forget that for some women it has negative consequences. conservatives generally argue that it is all negative, and that all women are harmed by being released from traditional arrangements which they argue protected women from financial difficulty, irresponsible reproductive choices, and moral weakness.
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
“We should be at least as concerned about the men we allow to sink to the bottom as we are about the women we have unfairly prevented from rising to the top.�
So, feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men too? Gay rights activists aren’t expected to spend half their time campaigning for heterosexuals. Anti-racism activists aren’t expected to spend ages campaigning on behalf of white people. Yet its a different story with feminism, isn’t it? Every single instance of feminist activism has to be prefaced with a disclaimer about how this also benefits men it seems. And how does women achieving any status, independance or power cause anyone to sink to the bottom?
By Nina
October 11, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
So if some conservatives argue that all effects of feminism are bad, then wouldn’t Diane counter the argument by claiming that “the disintegration of the family isn’t necessarily bad, if the involuntary submission of the wife to her ‘intended’ role makes her miserable?”
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
Look at all you “talking heads…” LMAO
By Nina
October 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
By Ken
October 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Nikita… Conservatives do not generally argue “it” is all negative, nor do they argue that women are harmed.
As a conservative, I believe that every person should have the choice to conduct their life as they see fit, but I do see negatives to the current values we as Americans accept as normal.
Are children better off with their mother or father than in day care…? I think so.
Are marriages healthier when focus is placed on the relationship and the family, rather than career and wealth…? I think so.
Are families better off when they realize that what they “want” is not necessarily what they “need”…? I think so.
Are relatonships better off when they are partners working toward a common goal rather than selfishly focusing on their own goals…? I think so.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Whiley, Every single instance of feminist activism has to be prefaced with a disclaimer about how this also benefits men it seems.
I agree with you: I do not think that the progress that was made needed to consider men at all; nor should it in the future. This is your movement and should concern females only.
By Eye Think
October 11, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Whiley:
Your comments appear to be laden and clad with latent self denial encapsulated in sprinkles of verbal indsicretions. I wasn’t debating even if it appears so. I was just throwing out one of many relevant points of view.
You noted, “So, feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men too? Gay rights activists aren’t expected to spend half their time campaigning for heterosexuals. Anti-racism activists aren’t expected to spend ages campaigning on behalf of white people. Yet its a different story with feminism, isn’t it?”
Clearly, your logic seeks some type of escape from the obvious. Why this is happening top you at this time is beyond me. I am not a psychologist but seems to be an awful lot of escapism occuring in your comments. No one is trying to corner you here. All the good citizens of this forum and their comments are wonderful people in thier own right and are very much appreciated by “Eye Think”. Don’t worry about the other syllogism associated with “Eye Think”. It won’t do you any good.
By Archie
October 11, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
The person who wrote the statement about concern for men was off topic but she was right that we do need to be concerned about men and unfairness. Unfairness should be a concern period. The person who posted did not suggest that feminism has no value if it does not work to improve the lives of men. What has happened to reading and comprehension? People jump off topic all the time on this blog. I agree with Ken that relationships are better off if you work toward some common goals. I think the feminist movement has been great but just like civil rights movement some folk take it the wrong way. The feminist movement did not mean that women go from paying no bills to paying all the bills and it doesn’t that the man goes from doing no housework to doing all the housework except laundry, and it doesn’t mean that women can curse men out with impunity but a guy gets locked up for using profanity and it doesn’t mean women can tell a dirty joke but when a guy tells you a dirty joke women complain about being offended. I had someone send me an off-color joke then when I tried to share something sent to me from another woman the previous woman got offended. As far as children women still do more but then they cause some of the problems they complain about. You wonder why the child fights going to bed on time,well it’s because he/she doesn’t have a consistent bed time and when the dad tries enforce the time usually picked by the mother,mother brings up some exception to the bedtime she picked. I had women to put their hands on my chest and I was not offended but I wondered if I did the same in the workplace what would happen to me. No the feminist movement has not failed but it doesn’t mean you go from being kept in place to acting any kind of way.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Eye Think,
What you have to understand is that some females, like Whiley, have been so traumatized by the male dominated society that they are reactive to any man; bar the most gentle ones.
It is understandable that such effected people would be sensitive to any hint of counterpoint.
So, it is our job to tolerate their occasional barbs, and know that it is not personal, but reactionary - and men are at fault for that reaction to even exist.
I am unsure though, how to help people lost in the fray like this. So I have decided to suck it up and give them the freedom of the occasional stab/meanness/generalization.
By Nina
October 11, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Repeat comments:
Diane says, “The ‘disintegration’ of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable.�
Does that mean that she thinks that conservatives (or other opposition) claim that the disintegration of the family unit is a benefit even though it makes women miserable? It seems to me that maybe she meant, “A ‘functional’ family, or one in which the wife stays at home, is not a benefit if it makes the woman miserable.�
If some conservatives argue that effects of feminism are bad, then wouldn’t Diane counter the argument by claiming that “the disintegration of the family isn’t necessarily bad, if the involuntary submission of the wife to her ‘intended’ role makes her miserable?�
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
I decided to write an English paper on this article, so feedback would be appreciated.
By JD
October 11, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
“I do not think that the progress that was made needed to consider men at all; nor should it in the future. This is your movement and should concern females only.”
So this issue should be of no concern to the countless men who have stood side by side with women in the crusade for equity for everyone?
I hope you mean spirited gripe isn’t met with the attention it truely deserves….
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
JD, I hope you mean spirited gripe isn’t met with the attention it truely deserves…
I do not follow what you mean.
My point was that mens only role in this is to support women; and that women should not worry about guys in their movement. That is why it is the feminist movement - it is for females; not males.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Instead of sittin on your behinds eating twinkie, cupcakes and posting on this silly board, ALL you LOSERS should get a job.
Or at least discuss something relevant like Toilet Repair.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
FFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSHHHHHHHH
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
Ya bunch of WHINERS and Malcontents… FLUSH
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Actually, I think the feminist movement is for everyone, though the movement has concentrated on the issues of women’s inequality that affect everyone, as it should since that’s where the change occurs. I think feminism has a lot of benefits for men and children. Namely in making it possible for women to pursue properly compensated employment in a variety of sectors it does the same for men. Men who choose to can not work, or they can work in disciplines which women used to rule. and in their domestic pairings they can choose women who complement their skills with their own. An added benefit of feminism is that women who find themselves alone or with a disabled spouse now have a fighting chance of supporting their family.
By JD
October 11, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Equity for females only…OK call it what you may but the intent and mission is still the same.
Way to contibute Michael_D is it safe to assume you a white middle age male? News flash…… get over yourself.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Havent you people learned? The total sum of your combined brain power is equal to that of a clogged TOILET.
Ya PIGS sit around watching Oprah/CNN and shows of like kind and are thereby DUPED into believing you are educated individual.
Truth is ya all are just a group of discontented FAT PIGS sitting on the toilet all day disposing of last nights ice cream, cookies and liquor.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Nikita,
I believe there may be aspects that benefit all people; but the movement is for females.
We are not in disagreement by what I can see; just a different specificity of words.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Go on a DIET ya FAT PIGS!!!
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
yes, delta. correct.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
The movement is only for women eh…isnt that discrimination? Why yes…of course it is ya FAT PIGS.
What about women who have undergone a sex change operation? Ya know…they no longer have a wankey to wank-on? Are those women welcome in your silly DRUNKARDS club?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
Maybe one of you intelligent ladys can answer this question. A young couple gets married and decide to have a family. The agreement being they want a large family and the wife will stay home and raise the kids.
A few years or more pass with the wife squeezin out about 4 to 5 puppies. The husband still loves his wife butt cant understand why her rear-end is the size of a Mack Truck with a belly to match. The husband asks her to lose weight etc butt the broad only gets larger.
SO large infact that the husband becomes disgusted with her and files for divorce…suddenly the wife starts balling and wimpering like the fat pig that she is and is confused about the divorce.
She never saw it coming and all the other excuses you women use when you are OBVIOUSLY at fault. Just what is you womens problem. Do you really think a man wants to come home to a FAT PIG like yourself and then be expected to care about you.
If you women let yourself become as large as a beached whale and dont care for or about yourselves then why would your husbands.
See my point…OF COURSE YA DO…now find a DIET THAT WORKS, use some self-discipline and lose the refrigerator on your backside.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Old mother hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch Rover a bone
When Ms Hubbard bent over Rover took over and gave her a bone of his own
By Nina
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
One last request: Just a question of intention Diane says, “The ‘disintegration’ of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable.�
Does she intend to say that conservatives (or other opposition) claim that the disintegration of the family unit is a benefit even though it makes women miserable? It seems to me that maybe she meant, “A ‘functional’ family, or one in which the wife stays at home, is not a benefit if it makes the woman miserable.�
If some conservatives argue that effects of feminism are bad, then wouldn’t Diane counter the argument by claiming that “the disintegration of the family isn’t necessarily bad, if the involuntary submission of the wife to her ‘intended’ role makes her miserable?�
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
I decided to write an English paper on this article, so feedback would be appreciated.
By Ken
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Michael… Shut the “F” up.
By JD
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Michael_D, had it not been for males and people like yourself maybe their wouldn’t have been the need for a feminist movement, Funny how you comment on people wasting time responding to this thread but you’ve spent the last half hour obviously reading and then responding. Instead of asking these complete strangers your illogical idiotic questions why not ask your Mother with the same language your chosen to use here on the board, I’m sure she’ld be truely proud.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Ken and JD…PULL MY FINGER…
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Michael D is single & currently residing at the Fulton County jail. He is upset because the court has mandated he take daily anger management classes.
Men like Michael are one of the main reasons feminist groups exist. So, thank you Michael for that wonderful example.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
POOT
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
You are quite Welcome whiley.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
I think Diane is HOT…what doo doo you think?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Could one of you fine representatives of the human race mail me a carton of cigarettes, the latest copy of Hustler magazine and a fifth of MD 20/20 to the Fulton County Jail?
TIA.
By JD
October 11, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
I think Diane would prefer the company of a man with working male anatomy, you sir are not qualified.
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
Here’s the whole paragraph:
And if you really think about it, why should women be blamed for making choices outside of marriage and family? The “disintegration� of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable. Besides, what is “disintegration� to some is “revitalization� for others.
Nina, I believe that some implications are necessary to make the paragraph lucid. Diane doesn’t mention the implications of the purported ‘disintegration,’ merely provides alternate causes for it. so her comment regarding its benefit or detriment suggests a reference, which of course is not there. Evidently the ‘disintegration’ could be the natural result of a woman’s decisions which presumably are beneficial. But ‘disintegration’ could have negative repurcussions for some women.
Or maybe not. Honestly, I’m not sure what she’s trying to argue unless the paragraph is based on an inverted structure. She seems to be making an argument with some of the subordinate premises missing.
By JD
October 11, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Michael_D turns straight women into feminist lesbians, and gay men straight, all in less than 1 hour. Forget Christian counseling Michael’s the answer.
By Dan
October 11, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Feminism had it’s place at one time, but as with other niche rights advocates, their very success threatens the existence of their cause. This pushes them further to the fringe until they fall off the edge. So much like unions and affirmative action their time is past. The deeper they dig to uncover “injustices” the sillier they look.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Nice try JD…butt how would you know. POOT
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this
Michael_D, i KNOW you think it’s funny to put women down, especially when when we are discussing discrimination & changes that are needed. However you do nothing but make men look dumber & more hostile. You do nothing to help the frustration women have with men as a group. Why is it OK for Michael to be even joking like this? What if he was being just as hostile about a civil rights issue? What if he was saying N**r?. Being hostile on a message board that black men & women were trying to discuss serious problems that affected them? I wouldn’t be acceptable at all.
Another reason feminism is necessary.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:15 PM | Link to this
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this
Look at all you “talking heads…� LMAO
By Nina
October 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
By Ken
October 11, 2005 10:38 AM | Link to this
Nikita… Conservatives do not generally argue “it� is all negative, nor do they argue that women are harmed.
As a conservative, I believe that every person should have the choice to conduct their life as they see fit, but I do see negatives to the current values we as Americans accept as normal.
Are children better off with their mother or father than in day care…? I think so.
Are marriages healthier when focus is placed on the relationship and the family, rather than career and wealth…? I think so.
Are families better off when they realize that what they “want� is not necessarily what they “need�…? I think so.
Are relatonships better off when they are partners working toward a common goal rather than selfishly focusing on their own goals…? I think so.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 10:43 AM | Link to this
Whiley, Every single instance of feminist activism has to be prefaced with a disclaimer about how this also benefits men it seems.
I agree with you: I do not think that the progress that was made needed to consider men at all; nor should it in the future. This is your movement and should concern females only.
By Eye Think
October 11, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this
Whiley:
Your comments appear to be laden and clad with latent self denial encapsulated in sprinkles of verbal indsicretions. I wasn’t debating even if it appears so. I was just throwing out one of many relevant points of view.
You noted, “So, feminism only has value if it works on behalf of men and improves the lives of men too? Gay rights activists aren’t expected to spend half their time campaigning for heterosexuals. Anti-racism activists aren’t expected to spend ages campaigning on behalf of white people. Yet its a different story with feminism, isn’t it?�
Clearly, your logic seeks some type of escape from the obvious. Why this is happening top you at this time is beyond me. I am not a psychologist but seems to be an awful lot of escapism occuring in your comments. No one is trying to corner you here. All the good citizens of this forum and their comments are wonderful people in thier own right and are very much appreciated by “Eye Think�. Don’t worry about the other syllogism associated with “Eye Think�. It won’t do you any good.
By Archie
October 11, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this
The person who wrote the statement about concern for men was off topic but she was right that we do need to be concerned about men and unfairness. Unfairness should be a concern period. The person who posted did not suggest that feminism has no value if it does not work to improve the lives of men. What has happened to reading and comprehension? People jump off topic all the time on this blog. I agree with Ken that relationships are better off if you work toward some common goals. I think the feminist movement has been great but just like civil rights movement some folk take it the wrong way. The feminist movement did not mean that women go from paying no bills to paying all the bills and it doesn’t that the man goes from doing no housework to doing all the housework except laundry, and it doesn’t mean that women can curse men out with impunity but a guy gets locked up for using profanity and it doesn’t mean women can tell a dirty joke but when a guy tells you a dirty joke women complain about being offended. I had someone send me an off-color joke then when I tried to share something sent to me from another woman the previous woman got offended. As far as children women still do more but then they cause some of the problems they complain about. You wonder why the child fights going to bed on time,well it’s because he/she doesn’t have a consistent bed time and when the dad tries enforce the time usually picked by the mother,mother brings up some exception to the bedtime she picked. I had women to put their hands on my chest and I was not offended but I wondered if I did the same in the workplace what would happen to me. No the feminist movement has not failed but it doesn’t mean you go from being kept in place to acting any kind of way.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Eye Think,
What you have to understand is that some females, like Whiley, have been so traumatized by the male dominated society that they are reactive to any man; bar the most gentle ones.
It is understandable that such effected people would be sensitive to any hint of counterpoint.
So, it is our job to tolerate their occasional barbs, and know that it is not personal, but reactionary - and men are at fault for that reaction to even exist.
I am unsure though, how to help people lost in the fray like this. So I have decided to suck it up and give them the freedom of the occasional stab/meanness/generalization.
By Nina
October 11, 2005 11:35 AM | Link to this
Repeat comments:
Diane says, “The ‘disintegration’ of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable.�
Does that mean that she thinks that conservatives (or other opposition) claim that the disintegration of the family unit is a benefit even though it makes women miserable? It seems to me that maybe she meant, “A ‘functional’ family, or one in which the wife stays at home, is not a benefit if it makes the woman miserable.�
If some conservatives argue that effects of feminism are bad, then wouldn’t Diane counter the argument by claiming that “the disintegration of the family isn’t necessarily bad, if the involuntary submission of the wife to her ‘intended’ role makes her miserable?�
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
I decided to write an English paper on this article, so feedback would be appreciated.
By JD
October 11, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this
“I do not think that the progress that was made needed to consider men at all; nor should it in the future. This is your movement and should concern females only.�
So this issue should be of no concern to the countless men who have stood side by side with women in the crusade for equity for everyone?
I hope you mean spirited gripe isn’t met with the attention it truely deserves….
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 12:15 PM | Link to this
JD, I hope you mean spirited gripe isn’t met with the attention it truely deserves…
I do not follow what you mean.
My point was that mens only role in this is to support women; and that women should not worry about guys in their movement. That is why it is the feminist movement - it is for females; not males.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this
Instead of sittin on your behinds eating twinkie, cupcakes and posting on this silly board, ALL you LOSERS should get a job.
Or at least discuss something relevant like Toilet Repair.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this
FFFFFFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSHHHHHHHH
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this
Ya bunch of WHINERS and Malcontents… FLUSH
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Actually, I think the feminist movement is for everyone, though the movement has concentrated on the issues of women’s inequality that affect everyone, as it should since that’s where the change occurs. I think feminism has a lot of benefits for men and children. Namely in making it possible for women to pursue properly compensated employment in a variety of sectors it does the same for men. Men who choose to can not work, or they can work in disciplines which women used to rule. and in their domestic pairings they can choose women who complement their skills with their own. An added benefit of feminism is that women who find themselves alone or with a disabled spouse now have a fighting chance of supporting their family.
By JD
October 11, 2005 12:25 PM | Link to this
Equity for females only…OK call it what you may but the intent and mission is still the same.
Way to contibute Michael_D is it safe to assume you a white middle age male? News flash…… get over yourself.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Havent you people learned? The total sum of your combined brain power is equal to that of a clogged TOILET. Ya PIGS sit around watching Oprah/CNN and shows of like kind and are thereby DUPED into believing you are educated individual.
Truth is ya all are just a group of discontented FAT PIGS sitting on the toilet all day disposing of last nights ice cream, cookies and liquor.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this
Nikita,
I believe there may be aspects that benefit all people; but the movement is for females.
We are not in disagreement by what I can see; just a different specificity of words.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Go on a DIET ya FAT PIGS!!!
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
yes, delta. correct.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
The movement is only for women eh…isnt that discrimination? Why yes…of course it is ya FAT PIGS.
What about women who have undergone a sex change operation? Ya know…they no longer have a wankey to wank-on? Are those women welcome in your silly DRUNKARDS club?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this
Maybe one of you intelligent ladys can answer this question. A young couple gets married and decide to have a family. The agreement being they want a large family and the wife will stay home and raise the kids.
A few years or more pass with the wife squeezin out about 4 to 5 puppies. The husband still loves his wife butt cant understand why her rear-end is the size of a Mack Truck with a belly to match. The husband asks her to lose weight etc butt the broad only gets larger.
SO large infact that the husband becomes disgusted with her and files for divorce…suddenly the wife starts balling and wimpering like the fat pig that she is and is confused about the divorce.
She never saw it coming and all the other excuses you women use when you are OBVIOUSLY at fault. Just what is you womens problem. Do you really think a man wants to come home to a FAT PIG like yourself and then be expected to care about you.
If you women let yourself become as large as a beached whale and dont care for or about yourselves then why would your husbands.
See my point…OF COURSE YA DO…now find a DIET THAT WORKS, use some self-discipline and lose the refrigerator on your backside.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this
Old mother hubbard went to the cupboard to fetch Rover a bone
When Ms Hubbard bent over Rover took over and gave her a bone of his own
By Nina
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
One last request: Just a question of intention Diane says, “The ‘disintegration’ of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable.�
Does she intend to say that conservatives (or other opposition) claim that the disintegration of the family unit is a benefit even though it makes women miserable? It seems to me that maybe she meant, “A ‘functional’ family, or one in which the wife stays at home, is not a benefit if it makes the woman miserable.�
If some conservatives argue that effects of feminism are bad, then wouldn’t Diane counter the argument by claiming that “the disintegration of the family isn’t necessarily bad, if the involuntary submission of the wife to her ‘intended’ role makes her miserable?�
I’m not trying to debate the subject matter, simply the method of argument.
I decided to write an English paper on this article, so feedback would be appreciated.
By Ken
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Michael… Shut the “F� up.
By JD
October 11, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
Michael_D, had it not been for males and people like yourself maybe their wouldn’t have been the need for a feminist movement, Funny how you comment on people wasting time responding to this thread but you’ve spent the last half hour obviously reading and then responding. Instead of asking these complete strangers your illogical idiotic questions why not ask your Mother with the same language your chosen to use here on the board, I’m sure she’ld be truely proud.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Ken and JD…PULL MY FINGER…
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Michael D is single & currently residing at the Fulton County jail. He is upset because the court has mandated he take daily anger management classes.
Men like Michael are one of the main reasons feminist groups exist. So, thank you Michael for that wonderful example.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
POOT
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
You are quite Welcome whiley.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this
I think Diane is HOT…what doo doo you think?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Could one of you fine representatives of the human race mail me a carton of cigarettes, the latest copy of Hustler magazine and a fifth of MD 20/20 to the Fulton County Jail?
TIA.
By JD
October 11, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this
I think Diane would prefer the company of a man with working male anatomy, you sir are not qualified.
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
Here’s the whole paragraph:
And if you really think about it, why should women be blamed for making choices outside of marriage and family? The “disintegration� of the family is hardly a benefit if it makes some women miserable. Besides, what is “disintegration� to some is “revitalization� for others.
Nina, I believe that some implications are necessary to make the paragraph lucid. Diane doesn’t mention the implications of the purported ‘disintegration,’ merely provides alternate causes for it. so her comment regarding its benefit or detriment suggests a reference, which of course is not there. Evidently the ‘disintegration’ could be the natural result of a woman’s decisions which presumably are beneficial. But ‘disintegration’ could have negative repurcussions for some women.
Or maybe not. Honestly, I’m not sure what she’s trying to argue unless the paragraph is based on an inverted structure. She seems to be making an argument with some of the subordinate premises missing.
By JD
October 11, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this
Michael_D turns straight women into feminist lesbians, and gay men straight, all in less than 1 hour. Forget Christian counseling Michael’s the answer.
By Dan
October 11, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Feminism had it’s place at one time, but as with other niche rights advocates, their very success threatens the existence of their cause. This pushes them further to the fringe until they fall off the edge. So much like unions and affirmative action their time is past. The deeper they dig to uncover “injustices� the sillier they look.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Nice try JD…butt how would you know. POOT
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this
Nina, I believe that some implications are necessary to make the paragraph lucid. Diane doesn’t mention the implications of the purported ‘disintegration,’ merely provides alternate causes for it. so her comment regarding its benefit or detriment suggests a reference, which of course is not there. Evidently the ‘disintegration’ could be the natural result of a woman’s decisions which presumably are beneficial. But ‘disintegration’ could have negative repurcussions for some women.
Or maybe not. Honestly, I’m not sure what she’s trying to argue unless the paragraph is based on an inverted structure. She seems to be making an argument with some of the subordinate premises missing.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
By kimberly
October 7, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this
Has JOURNALISM failed women?
By Paul
October 10, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this
The problem in this discussion seems to be that Diane and Shaunti do not agree on just what they are discussing (see the last paragraph in each comment). Quite frankly, after reading DianeÂ’s comments, my initial thoughts on the subject were much more limited than [Diane].
Diane also confuses her position by introducing other issues. FIRST, what does the Civil Rights Movement have to do with it? SECOND, although some Blacks remain poor, so do some Whites, some Hispanics, etc. Although it might be easy to merge the Civil Rights Movement with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society� because of the time line, I believe there are about the same percentage of people below the poverty line now as there were before those movements began. Again, what does this have to do with “feminism?�
By Gary Harrison
October 10, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this
Has feminism failed women? A resounding NO!!! It is part of a larger failure of human beings to BE the creatures created in the Garden of Eden. Look around you: women strive to be more masculine and the men become “metrosexuals.� Why? Because men are little girls inside (having been raised by women almost exclusively) and being more “touchly-feely� than most thugish women. Women are raised by other man-hating women and grow up man-destroyers. That is because they have been taught to hate men and are HARD inside (like a man is supposed to be- making decisions, taking responsibility, etc.). Where are the feminine, modest women of yesteryear? Probably with some lesbian because lack of a real daddy caused them to hate men. No, feminism hasn’t failed. It is right on target. Sit somewhere and people-watch for a while. See for yourself that men are becoming more and more feminine while girls favor masculine clothes, activities, and running in man-depreciating packs. Shaunti/Diane: examine truthfully YOUR feelings abour men. You probably have feelings based on the lack of a father in your life or your experiences with “men� iin your lives. Where is the focus on raising families with your “husband� that used to exist for women? Probably laid up with some woman “PARTNER.� Yea, feminism!! You go, GIRL!!
By Laura
October 10, 2005 08:04 AM | Link to this
Feminism has not failed us, but at the same time it has not accomplished all of its goals and the reason for that is women like Shaunti. The ERA movement failed a generation ago because not enough women supported it. No matter what strides we make there always seem to be scardy-cats like Shaunti who play into the hands of those who believe all feminists are feminazis. I am a stay-at-home mom who has been married for almost 10 years. I embrace my feminine strenghts with open arms. I am also proud to be a feminist and, should I ever re-enter the workplace, I should hope to get the same pay as a man doing my job, but I won’t because some women continue to uphold the argument that we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
By Denise Noe
October 10, 2005 08:10 AM | Link to this
Feminism has helped women in some ways and harmed in others. Women who are high-competency in professional and business areas have been greatly helped because they are able to enter those areas and advance in far greater numbers than they could have in pre-feminist eras. Women as diverse as Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Condileeza Rice all owe a debt to the feminist movement. Feminism has harmed women who are low-competency in the workplace because it has undermined the traditional assumption that women should be supported by men. Although the overwhelming majority of the homeless remain men, we now see some women showing up on the streets and in the shelters. Part of this is, IMO, due to the fact that low work competency women are less likely to marry out of utter destitution because men today tend to expect working wives. It may also have harmed those women who are high competency in domestic skills by leading to a devaluation of work in the home. In many areas, feminism has been a mixed bag for women. The rape shield laws and improved sensitivity toward rape victims has meant that such malefactors are more likely to be punished and their victims less likely to be subjected to a kind of “courtroom rape.� However, to the extent that publicity around this crime has unnecessarily frightened women or heightened tension between the sexes, it has been negative. Feminism has helped women at the top and harmed those at the bottom because the positions of the sexes isn’t quite analogous to that of ethnic groups. Society has not been the “man’s world� of cliché but a mixture of patriarchal and matriarchal elements. Men have traditionally been the overwhelming majority of those at the top due to its patriarchal side and the majority at the bottom because of its matriarchal aspect. The homeless, alcoholic, imprisoned, and (most especially) the condemned and executed are apt to be men and these are the characteristics of an oppressed people. We should be at least as concerned about the men we allow to sink to the bottom as we are about the women we have unfairly prevented from rising to the top.
By Lori
October 10, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe that this is even a debate.
What can possibly be wrong with women wanting to be treated as equals? This doesn’t mean they are man-haters. Would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. a “white-hater�? Of course not! We’re talking about people fighting for equality, and that’s it.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 08:27 AM | Link to this
I think the title of this weeks commentary pretty much says it all, Has Feminism failed WOMEN. We are not asking if it has failed our children or our society, we are asking if it has failed WOMEN because obviously all we women now care about is ourselves.
Are women better off now than they were 50 years ago? In some ways we are and in some ways we are in so much worse shape that it is unbelievable.
Are our children better off? NO, THEY ARE NOT. We raise our sons to think women should work, clean house, raise children, chop wood, whatever a man can do a woman can do, only better. We pound this into the minds of our young men so that when they are grown men they expect their wives to be superwomen.
Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.
Who has truly benefited from feminism? Big business. Large corporations can now market their products to more people at higher prices because two income families can afford to buy more stuff they donÂ’t really need.
GO FEMINISM!!
By Lyrazel
October 10, 2005 08:28 AM | Link to this
…chortle…giggle: Shaunti is a closet feminist! How dare I besmirch Our Lady? Ok, lets first do some history of said Lady Shaunti: Born (was not abandoned/killed because she was not male), graduated highschool (allowed to take advanced college coursework only afforded to men prior to 1960) Went on to college (Harvard was an all male school before feminism…lets blink and forget that fact, Shaunti….not enrolled in secretarial school) At 18 Ms Shaunti voted, (gasp! Liberation foulest deed was getting women to vote!) Lady Shaunti learned to drive that tidbit of overlooked independence going somewhere without the guys! Our Lady Shaunti worked a job in male dominated partnership (not as secretary, not as teacher, not as governess) took birth control (not married until AFTER job, was not virgin bride) Married and assumed role as Holy Madonna after child born. Continued to work outside home on projects such as this, her book…earning money…does she have separate bank account? Hmmm…and now with her loved rugrats in school will we hear Shaunti say: my daughter does not need to participate as an equal in sports, so let her be delegated to the sidelines to serve cookies to the boys, and never give my daughter special attention to her study in science, math and *boys subjects.
Nah!
She like many women of her age group confuses feminism with the NOW movement and feminists with the few mighty lesbians who advocated not shaving their armpits before church. Her article sure tells me that she sure wants all of the benefits of feminism…giggle…get out of the closet Shaunti!
By Whiley
October 10, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this
Has feminism failed women? No not at all. Men have. That’s why feminism exists in the first place.
By Chet
October 10, 2005 08:39 AM | Link to this
I have an idea: let’s have whoever chooses the topics for these articles do this one again, except decide from the beginning which “feminism� is being discussed� the philosophy or the movement.
In my view the philosophy has helped women, but the movement has hurt them.
By Ken
October 10, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this
As an outsider looking in, I beleive Feminism has greatly helped women, but many Feminists have hurt women.
I watched a segment on “60 Minutes� where they interviewed several women who left “high-powered� job opportunities to raise their children. This was their choice and their appeared by all acounts very happy with their decisions. However, these women were promptly ridiculed by another woman in her fifties. I apologize her name escapes me. This woman says she fought and struggled so that talented women could escape the kitchen. So they could escape the stigma of raising children, and these women were simply rolling back all of the progress she fought so hard to achieve.
I kinda thought the whole idea was to give women the choice of what they wanted to do with their “career�. We now see those choices available to women, but when a woman actually chooses to stay at home with her children, especially when that woman is educated, business savvy or has other marketable skills, she is questioned and sometimes even ridculed.
By Whiley
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
correction: IT wouldn’t be acceptable at all.
lol
By JD
October 11, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this
Sorry Mikey, You’ve already gotten more attention than you deserves, you are the weakest link bye bye.
By Renee
October 11, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Whiley as obnoxious as Michael may or may not be, I fail to understand your statement “another reason why feminism is needed”.
I really think you need to go over again the definition of feminism to make more logical arguments. Or even better explain how feminism would make someone like Michael go away.
No it’s not acceptable for people to act like that. But yes, it happens. Black people are called n*, women are called b*, gay women are called d*, and the list goes on and on. People participating in that are just ignorant and they will be found in any facet of life, no matter how much feminism and civil rights are implemented.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:22 PM | Link to this
NEW YORK — AT&T says it’s solved a problem that has dogged Internet-based phone service: how to provide emergency 911 to people who use VoIP — short for Voice over Internet Protocol — on the road. The problem: VoIP users who call 911 from hotels and other remote sites sometimes can’t be found by 911 operators. That’s because the correct locations of these “nomadic” users don’t show up on operators’ screens.
The Federal Communications Commission has given Internet phone carriers until Nov. 28 to make their VoIP services 911-capable. AT&T’s rival carriers are still working on the problem.
The national 911 service uses databases crammed with customers’ home addresses to pinpoint the location of callers. VoIP is mobile. So home addresses are meaningless if a customer uses an Internet phone in a different location.
AT&T, which invented the USA’s 911 service in 1968, estimates that about 5% of its 53,000 VoIP customers use the service on the road. There are about 2 million VoIP users nationwide.
“That is the bane of everybody’s existence,” says Robert Quinn, an AT&T vice president.
AT&T’s nomadic solution, called Heartbeat, uses its Internet network to track the location of users. Here’s how it works:
When VoIP customers power down, AT&T’s network will automatically suspend VoIP service. Once the phone adapter is plugged back in, AT&T will ask the user to verify his or her location.
For customers who indicate they haven’t moved, service will be instantly restored. If they have moved, they’ll be directed to an 800 number or a Web page to register the new location.
AT&T’s VoIP units — sold under the CallVantage name — are programmed to contact the carrier’s global network once every 24 hours. During these communications, AT&T sends software upgrades and does maintenance.
Heartbeat works off that same protocol, Quinn notes.
AT&T’s solution isn’t foolproof. If a customer fails to verify he’s moved to a remote location, AT&T has no way to check, Quinn says.
The plan also has a limited reach. CallVantage now connects to about 50% of the “public safety administration points” that administer the 911 program. Those who travel outside that footprint will immediately lose service, Quinn says.
Quinn allows that AT&T’s fix “isn’t the most elegant solution.” Still, he says, AT&T is hopeful it will help educate the public about VoIP, particularly the 911 limitations.
AT&T, which has been sold to SBC � the deal could close as early as next month � is open to licensing its Heartbeat solution to other carriers, Quinn says.
The letter outlining the Heartbeat plan was sent to the FCC on Friday. Quinn says AT&T developed the plan after talking with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.
Vonage, the USA’s biggest VoIP player, is working with vendors to meet the FCC’s Nov. 28 deadline. Spokeswoman Brooke Schulz says Vonage’s 911 plans are “moving along nicely.”
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this
— Insurgents determined to wreck Iraq’s constitutional referendum killed more than 40 people and wounded dozens in a series of attacks Tuesday, including a suicide car bomb that ripped apart a crowded market in a town near the Syrian border, police said.
U.S. soldiers patrol near the wreck of a car bomb that targeted Iraqi police in Baghdad Tuesday.
By Khalid Mohammed, AP
U.S. and Iraqi officials have repeatedly warned that the insurgents would step up their attacks to undermine Saturday’s referendum, a crucial step in Iraq’s democratic transition.
In the deadliest attack in Iraq in nearly two weeks, a suicide car bomb exploded at about 11 a.m. in a crowded open market in the northwestern town of Tal Afar, killing 30 Iraqis and wounding 45, said Brig. Najim Abdullah, Tal Afar’s police chief. U.S and Iraqi forces routed insurgents in a major offensive in Tal Afar last month.
He said all the victims appeared to be civilians since no Iraqi or U.S. forces were in the center of Tal Afar, which is 260 miles northwest of Baghdad.
Insurgents also used two suicide car bombs, three roadside bombs and four drive-by shootings in the capital on Tuesday to kill a total of 14 Iraqis; 29 were wounded, police said.
The worst attack involved a suicide car bomb that exploded at about noon at an Iraqi army checkpoint in a busy area of western Baghdad, killing eight Iraqi soldiers and one civilian and wounding 12 soldiers, said police Capt. Qassim Hussein.
The violence came four days ahead of Iraq’s key vote on the new draft constitution, which Kurds and the majority Shiites largely support and the Sunni Arab minority rejects. Sunnis are campaigning to defeat the charter at the polls, though officials from all sides have been trying up to the last minute to decide on changes to the constitution to swing Sunni support.
Many Sunnis fear the document would create nearly autonomous Kurdish and Shiite mini-states in the north and south, where Iraq’s oil wealth is located, and leave most Sunnis isolated in central and western Iraq under a weak central government in Baghdad. Whether the constitution passes or fails, Iraq is due to hold elections for a new parliament on Dec. 15.
Across Iraq, militants are demanding that Iraqis boycott the referendum and have killed at least 384 people in the last 16 days in a series of attacks.
In another development, a top Iraqi election official said Tuesday that Iraqi law will allow Saddam Hussein and thousands of other Iraqi detainees who have not been brought to trial to vote in the referendum.
However, Abdul Hussein Hindawi, one of the eight highest-ranking officials on the Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq, also said the organization was still awaiting a full list from the Interior Ministry and the U.S.-led coalition of the detainees who should be allowed to receive copies of the draft constitution and to vote on Saturday at Abu Ghraib prison and several other U.S. detention centers.
“All non-convicted detainees have the right to vote. That includes Saddam and other former government officials. They will vote,” Hindawi said in a telephone interview.
Saddam’s long-awaited trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 19 on charges that he and seven of his regime’s henchmen ordered the 1982 massacre of 143 people in a mainly Shiite town north of Baghdad following a failed attack on Saddam’s life.
More than 12,000 detainees are being held at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, Camp Bucca and two other U.S. military camps in Iraq, many awaiting trial or, in some cases, formal charges. Many of the detainees are believed to be Sunni Arabs who were rounded up by U.S. and Iraqi forces on suspicion of supporting Sunni-led insurgent groups.
Tal Afar, 95 miles east of the Syrian border, is located in an area where Iraq’s Sunni-led insurgents have been active, making it difficult for coalition forces to maintain security in a large northwestern region of Iraq stretching to the Syrian border.
On Sept. 28, a woman suicide bomber attacked an Iraqi army recruitment center in Tal Afar, killing at least six people and wounding 30. The woman, wearing men’s clothing as a disguise, detonated her hidden explosives while standing in line with job applicants outside the center.
Iraqi authorities claimed that nearly 200 suspected militants were killed and 315 captured during the September offensive in Tal Afar. But when they completed the sweep, they discovered many of the insurgents had slipped out, some of them through a network of underground tunnels.
In another development, Iraq has issued arrest warrants against the defense minister and 27 other officials from former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s U.S.-backed government over the alleged disappearance or misappropriation of $1 billion in military procurement funds, officials said.
Those accused include four other ministers from Allawi’s government, which was replaced by an elected Cabinet led by Shiite parties in April, Ali al-Lami of Iraq’s Integrity Commission said Monday. Many of the officials are believed to have left Iraq, including Hazem Shaalan, the former defense minister who moved to Jordan shortly after the new government was installed.
For months, Iraqi investigators have been looking into allegations that millions of dollars were spent on overpriced deals for shoddy weapons and military hardware, apparently to launder cash, at a time when Iraq was battling a bloody insurgency that still persists.
With strong U.S. backing, Allawi was named head of the first transitional government after the U.S. returned sovereignty to Iraq in June 2004, but his Iraqi List party did poorly in January parliamentary elections that swept the Shiite-Kurdish coalition into power.
Besides Shaalan, warrants were issued against Allawi’s labor, transportation, electricity and housing ministers, as well as 23 former Defense Ministry officials, said al-Lami, who heads Iraq’s De-Baathification Commission, part of the Commission of Public Integrity. He did not name all the officials, and Shaalan and the ministers could not be reached for comment.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Women don’t shy away from the feminist label because they’re uncomfortable with the image of the female extremist. They shy away because they sense just how much of feminism — as a philosophy and a movement — is extreme. They shy away because decades of feminism has left many women feeling that the price they pay for “liberation� is not being allowed to be themselves.
Feminists donÂ’t simply believe that women should have the same rights as men. That is a good thing, and is what they are fighting for. But what they believe is that women are, in most ways, the same as men, and that any apparent differences are the socialized result of our male-dominated society. They argue that our society is built around men at the expense of women, and change almost has to come at the expense of men. That mindset carries over into our romantic relationships, where we must assert ourselves lest our rights be trampled on.
But after decades of following that exhausting ideology, women are indeed feeling failed by it. Betrayed, even. Creating strong, confident women is all well and good, but what the feminist movement seems to want to create is a counterfeit of the real strength, the real confidence that comes from understanding and embracing our uniqueness as women. When a feminist leader talks about celebrating the strength of women, she often – ironically – seems as if she wants to turn women into imitation men. I am woman, hear me roar. And that includes roaring at our husbands – who usually don’t respond too well. (Who would?)
When a non-feminist women’s leader talks about celebrating the strength of women, she wants to do just that: celebrate and leverage our areas of uniqueness rather than pretending they don’t exist. Celebrate that there are indeed feminine characteristics, and that they are just as valuable as male ones. For example, in every society throughout history, women have been known as more nurturing than men. Isn’t that a good thing?
For most women, fighting against who we really are � I want to be nurturing, but feel like I shouldn’t be � creates not freedom and liberation but heartache.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Nor, do I equate porn with it Heather.
I don’t understand it, first women want to be empowered with this equality but they can’t be because they are these frail, exploited bodies. And they can’t stand up for themselves for the constant whining. (I’m expected to clean up and cook all the time, I work and take care of the kids, etc)
I mean men aren’t whining about men being in porn (forced no less) and whining about being house husbands. A woman can do some things a man can’t do but not everything. Women and men are different.
Women will never be empowered or taken seriously as long as this whining continues!
By TT
October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Heather, Feminism does not advocate the exploitation of women. Exploitation of women was occurring many centuries before the feminist movement took root. To blame scantily-clad women on magazine covers and pornography on the movement for women’s equality is purely ignorant. Stop using feminism as a scapegoat for the effects of the “sex sells� culture that most men relish in.
It’s amazing to me that some people will argue a point without bothering to familiarize themselves with the terms of the debate. Someone please refresh Heather’s memory on what feminism means.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this
Well be sick Real Life. We are talking about real life here. Yes, you can do anything a man can do. Good for you. Can you do any of the things women could do 200 years ago? Have we evolved or devolved? Are you truly happy?
I don’t want to take any of your rights away from you. Why would I want to do that? The question is whether feminism has failed us. I think it has. If my stating my own opinion on a public forum makes me a witch in your eyes, so be it. You need to grow up a little bit.
By Jessica
October 10, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
Something else that’s interesting to me is the format of Women To Woman. Why is the “left leaning columnist� providing “commentary� and the “right leaning columnist� providing a rebuttal? Aren’t these both commentaries and rebuttals? And, if not, why does one woman get the change to provide a rebuttal and not the other? Isn’t it suspicious that their arguments seemingly provide only a surface exploration of the topic, as though this segment of the paper were actually intended to be divisive (being both disruptive and dividing) instead of investigative.
By Real Life
October 10, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
Heather - you need to move to the middle east. You would be happy there. You can’t vote in most countries, own property, men are allowed to rape and hit as the see fit, your children are not your own - the husband owns the children, in fact in most middle eastern countries women are property to be bought and traded. If you don’t like that women can be educated, hold jobs, own property, vote, then go somewhere where women can’t. Delta is ready when you are. Oh, take Feldman with you.
By Renee
October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Jessica - Diane gives the commentary as well as Shaunti. It differs depending on the subject and the week.
By Heather
October 10, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
Amazed, most women do not have a choice
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this
Renee, Feminism is & will always be needed as long as women are murdered by men that claim to love them, as long as rapists & child molesters are a danger, as long as we are harassed on the job, as long as there is unequal pay, as long as the home & child raising are considered “women’s work”, because we have to fight to keep birth control & choice available. Because Abuse shelters all too often full, etc.
I for one believe the negative opinions & bad behavior of men have been taught. I for one believe there will come a day men will be able to express all feelings instead of just anger & masculinity, without a backlash. I for one believe that men are not hopeless. (except for ones like Michael) Eventually the old views will die out. I believe that because of feminism, the pressure to not accept them will prevail. After all, do you think people that watch the “man Show”, or Howard Stern care about changing sexist harmful views of women? lol Does anyone think owners of strip clubs & porn magazine care if your wife gets harrassed at work? Or if your daughter is being under paid what her male equals are? Or your sister is being verbally harrassed on her way to work every day? I wouldn’t count on it.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
The Man Show was GREAT…I miss it and the “Juggies” also.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
You believe the feminist movement is to change men?
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
{assuming you want to change men with the movement}
How? Manditory therapy for all babies born male a beginning?
What percentage of all men in America do you believe have anger-management issues? (you have a belief that you allude to; but can you please be specific?)
By lozen
October 11, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Testing, one, two, three Is Michael D (AKA Toe booger) cutting and pasting the entire conversation ovr and over? Or is this another instance of web master screw up?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:09 PM | Link to this
toe booger…lol
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this
“You believe the feminist movement is to change men?”
Women have been changing & adjusting to aggressive societies that frankly have been nothing but hostile till recent history. There is a lot of changes men must make. There is no excuse for violence, sexual violence, or bullying.
That goes for everyone tho. And I am not saying men don’t have their own injustices that need change. Family court & divorce could use some help for instance. We need to change women to. We need to be independent, more responsible with our own family planning, & not so gullible. And for god’s sake if you don’t have the patience for children do not have any !
It’s curious to me why anyone even questions why feminism is still needed. What are you afraid of?
By Renee
October 11, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
I seriously doubt if Michael and Taboga are one in the same.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
Its comments like: It’s curious to me why anyone even questions why feminism is still needed. What are you afraid of?
That engages someone in arguement. I am looking for a conversation, not an arguement.
So, again; What role do you see men in feminism?
I would think that men should attend therapy that females perscribe. That way the issues can be addressed as you see fit.
This comply?
By Neith
October 11, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this
I am a feminist. Neither men nor women can be truly free until the unequal power relations between genders (as well as races, classes, etc.) are broken down. All forms of domination are interconnected and destructive and this includes relations between sexes, races, classes, and between humans and the Earth. As a pagan, my religion is based on the love of nature. Nature includes all creatures, male and female, human and animal. I work for women because I am a woman and that work, hopefully, will benefit all living beings. For those with open minds, please read “The Chalice and the Blade” to see what some feminists envision for our future. Some choose the limited perspective that feminism wants women to assume the top dog position men have always enjoyed (although it has stunted men as human beings) and then women will treat men as we have been treated. That is not the only possibility. We, who study the old religion, believe that Goddess religions of the past did not treat men badly but treated them as precious. Women love men. They love their fathers, their lovers, their sons. We imagine a world where all are equal and all are loved and all are respected. So mote it be!
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:28 PM | Link to this
“I would think that men should attend therapy that females perscribe.” Now thats funny…would the leader of these “therapy” classes be from the Nazi party?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
“NO ONE will truly be free until Nerd Persecution ends.”
By Whiley
October 11, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
“that engages someone in argument. I am looking for a conversation, not an argument.”
Me too. I type more aggressively than I speak in person. :)
By lozen
October 11, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Went to a class last night entitled “The Sexy Years After 40!” One exercise was to have women get in a group and decide on advice they wanted to give the men. The men got in a group to decide on advice for the women. The women’s advice: 1. Just listen when we’re talking, and don’t think you always have to fix everything. 2. Go for a physical once a year instead of waiting to see a doctor when you’re in pain. 3. Take care of yourself, rest, exercise, eat right. 4. Learn to express emotions instead of bottling them up and having heart attacks. 5. Find interests that excite you and stay interested in life. The men’s advice for the women: 1. Keep yourself looking good and then you’ll feel good about yourself. 2. Exercise so you’ll look good! That was it.
By Scott
October 11, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
If I may pose a question -
Is feminism really about equality?
I saw a curious statement made earlier that feminism has not failed women, rahter men had. But isn’t one of the goals of feminism not to rely on men?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:39 PM | Link to this
“Whatsoever thou wilt…mete it be.”
Aleister Crowley
By lozen
October 11, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Neith, what amazing wisdom! Tell us more about being pagan. Has it been that religious philosophy that made you such a wise woman? Are pagans the same as witches (wiccans)? You stated something so wonderful and so often overlooked in discussions about feminism. The Chalice and the Blade is a great book. Thank you.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
Sounds as if Lozen may have found a new “life partner.”
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Renee, I have to admit that at first I thought they were the same too… then I started to doubt it.
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this
Renee…I must admit I thought the same thing butt Im Just Being Me.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Hey, anybody (level-headed) out there feel like playing Dr. Phil? I could use some advice…
By Scott
October 11, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
JBM - sure if you want me to, go for it
By Neith
October 11, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
lozen, paganism has certainly changed my vision and my perspective. I am also a wiccan, although not all pagans are wiccan and not all wiccans are pagans or feminists. Wicca or witch craft, literally means “to bend the will” or “to change consciousness at will.” As I sit here typing, looking out my window, I am aware that so much birthing, living and dying surround me. My home overlooks a green field sparkling in the sun. Beyond the field is a pond filled with life and then a forest filled with life. There is so much I don’t know. We humans don’t control nature and we have limited understanding. The leaves are turning yellow, brown, and gold and falling from the trees just as we humans grow old and fall from our tree of life. Pagans celebrate the turning of the seasons, the turning of the wheel of life. I can only trust in the process and know that it is good. I saw a wonderful bumper sticker this morning, “My religion is loving kindness.” Thank you, lady, for your kind words. Blessed Be!
By lozen
October 11, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
If I could find a life partner with that kind of wisdom, I’d go for it! Maybe I am looking for love in all the wrong places, or should I say, in the wrong gender?
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Whiley, Nice that neither of us want to argue:
So, again; What role do you see men in feminism?
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this
JBM,
There are a few of us that will respect your personal decisions while providing our opinions; of which I can adhere.
By Scott
October 11, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
JBM, I echo what DeltaX said…I wam willing to offer my advice, what you decide to do with it, is entirely up to you
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
It’s really a simple and very straightforward question. I’m just not sure how to handle it. Okay, here’s the story:
My friend (hehehehe) is miserable on her job. She’s been there for a little over 2 years, and wants desperately to resign. However, her job requires 3 years of service before she’ll be vested in her 401(k). She’s not sure if she can hold out until June.
Should she hang on until June or cut her losses and leave as soon as another job comes along? Or, does it depend on the amount she’ll lose out on?
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Lozen, you’ll never know until you try!
By Scott
October 11, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this
Well, I would think that how much your friend would lose out on would be an important factor, but I do understand being miserable on your job. I am in the same situation now, where I would love to change to a different company but have to wait a few more months to jump.
I would also tell your friend to take into account the current overall quality of life that job provides. If you are paid well and have decent benefits, but the job is just not to your taste, perhaps it would be a good idea to hang on for 7 months or so, keeping feelers out for a better job, and leave with a better job AND the 401k. If your friend is as tough as you are, I am sure she can stick it out long enough to get the best of both worlds
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this
It would really depend on how much she is going to loose; IMO.
I left a job with the same situation; I saw that my dislike for my new boss was affecting my off-time attitude - that was where I drew the line and moved on.
Unhappy at work I can tolerate to a degree, but spilling over to personal time is unacceptable.
By Renee
October 11, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
lol @ your 3:29 post JBM.
I would say that on a logical and business level it would make sense to stay until vested and tough it out. But sometimes you have to leave a job for your own sanity and well-being. I would have to know her probably to have a better answer.
By lozen
October 11, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
It really isn’t a good time to be looking for a new job. A job opening at the college where I work just received 200 applications! However, you do get back what you’ve put into your 401K, right? That can be rolled over to another fund. I’m lucky right now and have a job I love. If you can find something else you think you’d like, jump. It is awful to get up every morning hating the thought of going to work.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Scott, Delta, Renee:
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking too… In the grand scheme of things, I… oops, I mean my friend wouldn’t lose out on too much money… I think about $1300. My salary is very good - not excellent, but very good, benefits suck, and I’m not crazy about my commute. Can’t stand my colleagues or my boss. Very little opportunity for growth (especially since I clashed with the SVP of HR). On the good side, I have a lot of flexibility here. Actually, salary and flexibility are the only “pros” for me.
I guess Dr. Phil would say that it really could work out either way. But, here’s the other factor. My current employer only contributes like $500/yr. to my 401k. I’m thinking that the average employer contributes at least 50%, so really if I left, I could make it the lost money relatively quickly.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, Renee, I forgot to respond to your last point. It really would be beneficial to my mental well-being to leave this job immediately. I’m not at risk for having a breakdown or committing suicide or anything, but I really am depressed about it.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this
Lozen, yes I will be able to get back whatever I put in, but I hate the idea of leaving money behind - even if it’s just $1K. It’s not like I have $1K to throw away, ya know? You’re right, though. It really is a rough time to get a job in Atlanta, in most fields. But, I wouldn’t resign until I had something else anyway.
By Marti
October 11, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
lozen, i guess nobody else got it! The class you went to that you posted about earlier … ummmm. Same old, same old. The women took into account the many facets of life in the advice they gave the men: health, mental health, communication, etc. The men took only one thing into account: how a woman looks and how a woman looks. So typical. There are native american stories about women and men being different species. One is about some hairy, almost ape creatures who live in the mud on earth and only eat what they’re lucky enough to catch. Somehow they find out about some people who live in the sky and have fire and plenty of food, clothing, medicines, music, etc. I can’t remember exactly how they tricked the women into coming down a rope to where they were. But then they gnawed the rope off so the women couldn’t go back. The women taught them about making fire, growing food, weaving clothing and, gradually, taught them to be human. Makes sense to me!
By Renee
October 11, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
JBM - I feel you and trust me I have been there. It’s been so bad a vacation does not even help because it goes by too fast and you come back on to the same BS.
I think you should do what makes you happy. You only live once and being miserable is NOT living. I knew it was time to leave when I hated going in EVERY day. But that was me and my decision. It worked out for me because I have done better ever since. But you should definitely think it out before you make any rash decisions.
What does your better half think about it?
By Michael_D
October 11, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Dont quit your job and dont give up your 401k. Just slit your wrists and be done with it.
By Kodi
October 11, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this
Hey, this is awesome! You women are shining on here today. The lesson in pagan religion and wicca was golden. I’ve been interested for a long time but now I’ll get some books and learn more, Neith. When I read some of this WtoW a while back, it was just a bunch of old guys in a p** contest about something unimportant. It just proves what my mom (an old hippy and member of NOW for 40 years) keeps saying. If you really want to have fun and learn something just get a group of women together and listen to them. I raise my fist in feminist salute to you all!
By lozen
October 11, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this
Michael D, why don’t you slit yours and disappear forever! You are a jackass and if you’re not Toe Booger (who has disappeared today but you ARE here, ha, ha) you gotta be his even more stupid twin.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Michael, are you kidding? And scar up this beautiful brown body??? I think not!
Renee, frankly my partner sucks when it comes to this type of problem. She’s a lot more spontaneous than I am. I tend to be more realistic, and she’s just the ultimate optimist. Her solution is “throw caution to the wind and let the chips fall where they may.” She would tell me (and has told me) to just quit and look for something else. I would listen to her, but I don’t like pork n beans! LOL!
I think what I’ll probably do is start looking for something now, and if a great opportunity comes along that I just can’t pass up, I’ll take it. Sound okay to you?
By lozen
October 11, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this
JBM, how would you suggest an older woman start out on a new path? How do you meet like minded women? I have been advised to never be truthful and say this is a new thing for me as that would scare people away. I’ve also been warned about the “no second date” syndrome. I am not wanting to move in with someone after the first date! Got any advice for me?
By Frank
October 11, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
As a male with a sister I’ve seen treated like crap, I would say feminism has failed women in some ways. My advice is to get together in packs, arm yourselves and go out beating, raping and murdering men. Violence is the only thing most men understand.
By Just Being Me
October 11, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Ooooh, Lozen, this is juicy! LOL! I’m going to have to get back to you on this one tomorrow since it’s time for me to go. But, perhaps Renee can pitch in before I get back tomorrow.
Scott, Lozen, Delta, Renee: Thanks for your advice. I’m glad I heard from the smarter ones and not the village idiots.
Y’all have a great evening.
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
I am dissapointed in the women on here.
I have set aside the past arguements we have had and listened to yours and Lozen’s plea ‘to just listen.’
So I asked a simple question with hopes of understanding what you want guys to hear and be a part of; and no one cares to reply.
This is providing me with proof that you do not want to actually solve anything; but to point fingers. [Does this fall under the: 1. Just listen when we’re talking, and don’t think you always have to fix everything?]
I guess there is nothing else to say on this topic.
By Renee
October 11, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this
Lozen I too will have to get with you tomorrow on that one! But that’s definitely a juicy one.
Good night all!
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this
actually, i replied. but my stuff — along with all the troll’s posts — is now gone. please repost your stuff so i can address it a second time.
By Scott
October 11, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this
JBM - take care, see ya soon
By lozen
October 11, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this
frank, you are not the first man I’ve heard suggest violence as the only solution to breaking it down. On the other hand, I’ve never, in all my years studying feminism or working with women, heard a feminist advocate violence against men. It may be the only revolution that never advocated violence! It’s good that you care so much about your sister but…..
By lozen
October 11, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this
This has been a great day all right! loved hearing from all you women.
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this
Upon more reflection, it’s evident to me that some people don’t understand what feminism is. Especially when I see comments like “life is hunky dory for all women, so feminism has failed them.” first, feminism is a loose movement which doesn’t include everyone, though it has implications for everyone. second, feminism is not the only factor affecting women. and third, it’s not yet over.
By Nikita
October 11, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this
er, make that “NOT hunky dory”
By lozen
October 11, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Delta, what was the question again?
By Scott
October 11, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
Actually, I had a friend recommend the “S.C.U.M. Manifesto”, a feminist view on men and the havoc they have been responsible for and it advocated exactly that - - Violence. Shocking, huh?
While I have heard some very positive things on here from the feminist viewpoint, most of my real life encounters with it have proven to be dealing with very angry, hateful people who have less interest in equality as retribution for a perceived wrong
By Ken
October 12, 2005 07:32 AM | Link to this
Scott… Unfortunately, that is exactly what most civil rights movements become, retribution.
Future generations are constantly punished for the sins of their ancestors. Right now, I am being punished not for what my ancestors did, but what ancestors of others who happen to be in my racial classification did.
It is this attitude of retribution that makes many people of my generation scoff at many of today’s movements and render them much more detrimental than helpful.
By Ken
October 12, 2005 07:34 AM | Link to this
Just to clarify… I believe if these movements removed that attitude of retribution, then not only would they be embraced, but they would benefit everyone.
By Nikita
October 12, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this
The SCUM manifesto? Even I know that’s a joke…
By Bruce
October 12, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this
JBM,
I was always told, “never leave an income unless you have one to go too, and always make sure it is better than what you have now.” It sounds like you have a plan just start looking and when something better comes along take it. I hope and pray things come out in your favor.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
Retribution? Exactly WHAT retribution have feminist been demanding?
What specifically scares some of you about feminism? Not generally, specifically.
By Nikita
October 12, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
The problem with that comment, Ken, is that it ignores the fact that people of your racial classification in the current day are still actively working to persecute people of other rcial classifications. So, it’s not as though the oppressors went cold turkey — rather, it’s hard to move forward when people on both sides of the divide are stuck in the past.
By Ken
October 12, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this
Nikita… Then pass law to stop the persecution. Don’t pass law to punish the innocent.
By Nikita
October 12, 2005 08:43 AM | Link to this
what laws punish the innocent?
By Michael_D
October 12, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this
No one is innocent
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this
Whiley, You ask What specifically scares some of you about feminism? Not generally, specifically.
This is one specific instace of what ‘scares’ me(scare is the wrong word; bothers/annoys/deflates might be more accurate):
*By Whiley *
October 7, 2005 02:08 PM I also think those who want to frequent strip clubs & prostitutes should be required to have a special permission ID. This ID is registered with the state & proves his family knows about his dwiddlings. Informed consent right? Anyone purchasing porn must get a porn permit, must be renewed every year.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this
Nikita,
I still do not get this: it ignores the fact that people of your racial classification in the current day are still actively working to persecute people of other rcial classifications.
Who cares and whats the importance? If I was the only Ummpa Loompa that was not a murderer out of billions; do I have a responsibility to those crimes bc of my DNA?
By FatMoose
October 12, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this
Want to improve a females life by only looking at one criteria (men)?
Then this is what you do: Date/Marry/pro-creat only with men who act inline with your needs. Within three generations the idiot neanderthal types will be dying out - all without alienating yourself from guys who are already doing the right thing.
But the problem is that you will always have sellouts - girls that lower their morals for an easier life. And these women will pro-creat with these neanderthals - sabatoaging your efforts.
So, it seems that any solution will neccesitate the education of women also; but you all cannot get on the same page it seems - and to take some of the responsibility on yourself has been clearly shown as a non-option.
So, it seems that the general force of feminism has made good strides; but the specific factions are quite backwards - sounds a lot like religion!
By Akeya
October 12, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this
-Is our society better off? NO, IT IS NOT. We struggle to find daycare for our children and then wonder why our children must be drugged up for ADHD and Bipolar disorders. Then we wonder why our children go into their schools with weapons and kill other kids.-
Um, Heather, surely you’re not stating that daycare causes the above-stated problems?
-Then you said some fool thing about violence in schools being on the decrease, maybe thats because drugging up our kids in on the increase?? Meanwhile, I just read about a 9 year old GIRL who stabbed her good friend, an 11 year old GIRL, over something stupid. I see that the women’s movement has had a great affect on these two FEMALE children. And what about the girls that put rat poison in their classmates milk during lunch. And then there were the two girls who fed poison cake to students in the cafeteria. Funny how all of these children were FEMALE.-
What do any of these instances have to do with feminism and equality for women? Also, I also believe that people should be more financially prepared to have children. I work in an environment where women are constantly popping out babies that they have neither the wherewithal nor the resources (financial and otherwise) to care for these children. All they are concerned with is the extra 100+ dollars on their EBT card they receive and the possible deductions they get on their Section 8 case.
Quoting anonymousella -poor women who have children they “can’t afford� do so because they would rather not have an abortion and/or see their pregnancy as a part of the consequences for having sex. in some ways, it’s an ultimate act of responsibility: living with the results of your actions-
Um, no. The children are the ones who suffer. There is a difference between just having children and raising them. It’s easy to just have a child if your food, daycare, rent, and medical care is paid for by someone else.
Are children better off with their mother or father than in day care…? I think so. -Ken
Ken, it depends. Children may be better off in daycare if mom or dad has a drug or alcohol problem, they are ploppe in front of the television all day, if the children are left to their own devices, etc or all of the above.
By Ken
October 12, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this
Akeya… Take one step back and ask yourself the following question: Why are we struggling to find daycare?
If mom and dad took care of the children the way my parents and grandparents took care of children, we wouldn’t struggle to find daycare. We wouldn’t need daycare.
Your examples at the end of your post are extreme. We should not base our values on the extreme. We should base them on the expected norm.
By Renee
October 12, 2005 10:07 AM | Link to this
If mom and dad took care of the children the way my parents and grandparents took care of children, we wouldn’t struggle to find daycare. We wouldn’t need daycare.
That would be a nice concept but times change, people change, life changes. What worked yesterday does not work tomorrow. What will work tomorrow might not work today. Is daycare bad.
I listened to Dr Laura for years preach the fact of one parent staying at home with the children. That is sometimes feasible and sometimes not. Of course there are people that abuse the day care system and don’t parent and don’t pick up their kids but I don’t think that equates to the majority.
When my grandmothers generation was raising children, there were still quite a few bad apples in the bunch, who do we blame then, since it probably wasn’t day care. Good parents raise bad children and good children can have bad parents. I think we as a society like to place blame on something when sometimes there is no blame to place.
By Akeya
October 12, 2005 10:17 AM | Link to this
Ken- I think the problem with finding good daycares is linked to the fact that daycare employees are paid generally low wages. We need to concentrate on paying daycare workers decent wages, insuring that daycare workers are educated in childcare (which is hard, because not even parents have to take parenting or childcare classes)and also making sure that they have benefits. Having the right DNA does not always equate to providing the best child care.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
DeltaX, is that the best you can come up with why feminism scares you? lol I was just being sarcastic,using an example of the govt controlling men’s sex lives as they try all the time with women.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this
Whiley,
Well tell me, How do YOU like the joking old man sarcasm of: Maybe if you wore a shorter skirt we could talk about a raise? Don’t get your panties in a wad little lady; I am just foolin’ with ya.
So, unless you are willing to accept ‘joking’ about sexism; I would expect you to see my point.
But seeing as you do not understand, I do not expect you to be able to be a part of damaging sarcastic dialog. I am correct in assessing your ability, no?
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
My last post should read: I do not expect you to be able to be a part of removing damaging sarcastic dialog from society.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 10:30 AM | Link to this
Thanks, Bruce.
Where’s Lozen? hehehehe Don’t we have something to discuss today? LOL!
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this
DeltaX, it was a little uncomfortable wasn’t it?, the idea of the govt controlling the sex lives of men? Scarey huh? We deal with that everyday.
Feminism fights against the threat of govt control & regulation of women’s bodies & sex lives.
By Renee
October 12, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this
JBM, LOL, LOL, yeah I didn’t want to bring it up but…..
By Ken
October 12, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this
Akeya… You missed the whole point… We should be working to eliminate the need for daycare, not simply making daycare better.
In your world, all little children wouldbe sent of the daycare centers so all of the adults can go out and work. Maybe people who choose to have a child, and yes as long as we have abortion on demand having a child is a choice, should be parents and not pawn their responsibility off on to someone else.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Ken says we shouldn’t look at the extremes - the people Akeya talks about with childcare. Scott is looking only at the extremes of feminism. The woman who wrote SCUM manifesto got very little attention from any of the feminists I know. She was too radical for anyone except the most extreme feminists. Feminism, just like any movement, is made up of individuals who do not agree on everything. There are extremists, there are moderates. FatMoose, was that you last week? Did you really expose your teenage daughter to this rude blog? Or was that someone masquerading as you? I assumed it was not you and hope I was correct.
By Nikita
October 12, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this
Who cares and whats the importance? If I was the only Ummpa Loompa that was not a murderer out of billions; do I have a responsibility to those crimes bc of my DNA?
I have yet to see any proof that you’re being held responsible. I asked for proof — and did not get it.
That said, as long as there are individuals persecuting other individuals, the persecuted will pursue ways to address their issues.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this
Ken, that’s your opinion, and that’s all it is. Not everyone agrees. You think daycare should be eliminated so the kids can stay home with their fathers! How many fathers can give up their careers and stay home with the kids and live on the one income of the female partner who we know gets paid 73 cents for every dollar a male counterpart makes? It’s not gonna happen. And there are so many single parent households now and that number’s growing all the time. How would my nephew who just got divorced stay home and keep his kid out of daycare?
Hey Renee and JBM! I’m ready for your advice
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
Whiley,
No it is not scary; it is annoying - like a bug. No real power in sarcasm, just a bunch of hate. You are a hypocrite and cannot stay on topic.
You talk and act in the same manner that you want men to stop; all the while in conversation with a man who does not adhere to the Neanderthal premises that you (and I) dislike.
You make enemies out of possible alliances and only can speak from your personal agenda and hatred.
By Michael_D
October 12, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
How do you know when you are flying over Poland?
When you look down and see the toilet paper hanging from the clothes lines.
By Michael_D
October 12, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this
Why are there no drive-by shootings in Alabama?
Cuz all the cars are up on blocks and the houses on wheels.
By Michael_D
October 12, 2005 11:22 AM | Link to this
Lets have a poll!!
With which of our lovely woman to woman columnists would YOU rather make-out…Diane or Shaunti?
Im choosing Diane!
By Mara
October 12, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this
Ken, indeed if we took care of the children the way our parents and grandparents did, we wouldn’t need daycare. Of course, that would also mean that women (predominantly) would still be chained to the home whether they wanted to be or not, and dependant on men for, well, everything. While their child-rearing tasks are admirable in and of themselves, had everyone found it fulfilling, there would have been no need for a women’s movement and no feminism. Since there was a desire for something besides swapping recipes and colic remedies, daycare is a necessary part of a modern working family. One would think that any person who worries about the welfare of children, vis-a-vis daycare vs parent, would have to face reality and become a vocal advocate of work-site daycare. That way, Momma could work all day and still be able to drop in on Junior every hour or so…
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this
Nikita,
I have yet to see any proof that you’re being held responsible. I asked for proof � and did not get it. You did not ask for any; but read the blog and you will find about as many sexist remarks to guys as women.
That said, as long as there are individuals persecuting other individuals, the persecuted will pursue ways to address their issues. Yes, but do you not think that how you ‘persue ways to address issues’ matters? And should you not consider these ways and reflect on which served you r needs and which did not?
Seems no one is able to have a straight forward conversation on this topic once again.
So, Where are these guys so willing to help in a better mor efair tomorrow? Right here, but your hate is blinding you (psst - it is called sexism); and although I will not harbor anger towards you, I do feel remorse for those lost in the fray.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this
But Mara a lot of people would rather talk about what “should” be than face and work with reality. Yes, I do remember those days when I was a stay-at-home mom and it was the most miserable time of my life. I had to ask my husband for the money to buy his birthday present! I had to ask for money for everything, and a lot of the time I didn’t get it. Of course, when his brother was killed and his parents had no money to bury him, he didn’t even think to ask me if we could afford to give them money for that. He just gave it to them. We could only afford one car so he went with me to the grocery store each week and followed behind me putting things back that “we didn’t need”. Funny though, he had a new car with a huge monthly payment although everyone from his brother to the loan officer at the bank tried to talk him into a good used car. It was so wonderful for me after we were divorced to walk into the record store and buy three albums without having to ask him if we could afford it! A lot of men I’ve talked with think it would be great to be supported by someone and be able to stay home; that’s because they’ve never experienced the total dependency women feel in that situation.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this
DeltaX, feminism is about the oppression & violence against women. It’s very curious to me why anyone would be against stopping the suffering of women. The fight against oppression towards women, against violence towards women, is so difficult because we see, time and time again, we’re being blamed. It’s your fault, you provoked us, they say. If you had just gotten it right, I wouldn’t have gotten so mad. We hear it time and time again. In court cases, women’s sexual histories are raised to demonstrate that it might be their fault they were raped. We are blamed day after day for violence against us. We are blamed for men’s rage, and we are blamed when we try to fight back. As women, we pay a price. As feminists, we pay another priceâ€â€?the price of simply fighting for our rights as women. And we are especially upsetting a lot of people just by talking about it. God forbid we get angry. I would think 2000 years of oppression gives us the right to b*** don’t you?
Strange that in this time, we even need to be fighting for this. And yet, I am in awe of the many women who continue to fight this fight every day, despite the incredible battle we have ahead of us. Most of us are too busy struggling to support ourselves & raise families to fight these injustices. Has feminism failed us? Absolutely not ! The job isn’t done yet that’s all. When a close friend receives a job promotion in a primarily male industry, I am filled with pride. Then there are the larger battles. The battle to achieve access to birth control. The battle to keep abortion legal. The fight to become legally recognized as persons. The fight to not have a woman’s sexual history used against her in a rape or sexual assault case. The fight to have women’s centers and sexual assault crisis centers be funded by the government. The fight for access to post-secondary education. The fight to stop female genital mutilation and to ban other cultural abuses in societies. There are so many battles that we, as women, together, have fought, are fighting and are winning.
Why are there so many critics? If you research a bit their arguments are so vague, only using quotes from the most extremists (which really there aren’t many). Could it be most people just don’t realize all the good things feminism did & does now? I just don’t understand the resistance.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
lozen, your experience as a totally dependent stay at home mom has been expressed by millions of women. Why do so many people IGNORE IT? Feminism has been working on saving women from that fate. WHY is that a bad thing? Answer, it’s not. Or is it because men around the world are starting to panic because they’ve realized soon they are going to have to do their fair share of the cooking, cleaning & child rearing? (notice how marriages that share equally responsibilities at home are happier & divorce less)
By Renee
October 12, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this
Lozen, let me know exactly what your question is.
Whiley - Forgive my comment but I still don’t know what you are talking about. You appear to want to talk about feminism but end up talking about something else.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 12:10 PM | Link to this
Whiley, I understand the resistence I believe. We talk at work all the time about how we would love to have a wife. Most women still do all the nitty gritty work of caring for a home and children before and after their outside job. Men who “help out” expect a lot of praise, never seeming to realize that it’s their house, their laundry, their meals, and their kids too! Let me very careful to say not all men are like this, okay. But many men are like this. Many men don’t want to give up this privilege of not being held responsible for doing anything in the home and with children. Criticism is hard to take. Men don’t want to be criticized by feminists, just as white people don’t want to be criticized by black people. I can understand that, but how does one ask for change without speaking of the change they want? People who are privileged rarely admit their privileged status; they’d rather argue that they aren’t privileged and people just want to pick on them for no good reason. So they throw up the most extreme feminists like Valerie Solano who wrote SCUM Manifesto to keep from listening to moderate feminists. Like Deltax did yesterday, they express disappointment because we don’t answer their questions and follow their agenda. Change is hard and most people don’t like change especially when they believe that change may effect their status in some way. I bet you Deltax didn’t hear a word of your last post (which was right on sister) but will continue to harp on your being a little sarcastic from time to time.
By Ken
October 12, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this
I find it interesting that noone has refuted the idea that children were better off when raised the way my parents and grandparents raised children.
That being said… It appears that society has come to a crossroads where even though we know staying at home and raising our children is better for our children than shipping them to a baby warehouse, we choose not to b/c we don’t find it fulfilling. That’s just plain selfish. That is the absolute worst trait a parent could ever demonstrate.
All I’m saying is this… If you don’t want to be parent, then don’t have a kid.
As for being a house-husband… That would be my dream. I would love for my wife to make enough money for me to be able to stay home. Right now, my skills command more money than hers so she will be at home with our little one, but that could very well change in the future.
By Denise Noe
October 12, 2005 12:26 PM | Link to this
To Ken, if the support system for children and mothers who stay home with them is “beside the point,” why do so many people go ballistic when a mother who wants to be with her kids all the time depends on welfare rather than a husband, trust fund, or other private means? The aging feminist expressing disappointment that ladies leave the workforce is misguided. But so is an outlook that says men are required to support women’s choices without even considering how those choices impact them. I grew up in an era in which the husband breadwinner-female homemaker was the norm. Often the families were financially hard-strapped. I remember being told that a friend of mine, w/a SAHM, told her parents, “I don’t know why you two ever got married in the first place. All you do is fight over money!” My own SAHM did much to scrimp and save. For example, she would never throw a Kleenex tissue away until every bit had been used. Sometimes they were left around the box but usually she stuffed them in her bra. As a young girl whose breasts were first growing, I became super grossed out by this practice. Seeing a bulge on her breasts or a snotted tissue sticking out from them like a plume caused a great sense of revulsion and anxiety. I would beg her to throw the used tissue away and she would pull it out and shake it in my face. “It may be ‘gross’ to you but it’s money-saving to me!” she would say. Much of my adolescence was spent battling to get dirty tissues into the trash can. To avoid fighting with her, I would often automatically look away so I couldn’t see her chest area and mother-daughter talks took place with her talking to the back of my head. She also saved and re-re-used cotton balls that had been used to clean her face (defeating the purpose). When a slice of bread had mold, she pulled off the moldy part. One of the reasons I am permanently disabled with a psychiatric illness is the constant anxiety these practices provoked. Of course, I did have a Mom at home. Does any of this mean my mother ought to have been working outside the home? Of course not! She had worked prior to marriage but had lost all confidence in her ability to do so. She was slow, both mentally and physically, and easily confused.
When I was an older teenager, our one-paycheck family became a no-paycheck family. The plant at which my dad had worked at for 27 years folded up and not many companies were willing to hire a man entering his fifties. I can’t describe the horror that resulted as we sank from lower-middle-class into poverty.
None of this means we shouldn’t have male breadwinner-female homemaker families. It just means that there are costs and benefits to all ways of economically running familes.
By Ken
October 12, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
Lozen, Whiley and the rest of you feminists should wise up…
Many men under the age of 40 already do their fair share of everything, including cooking, cleaning and child rearing. Us and our wives are more like partners than any other large generational demographic.
This is where you and your type need to understand that the criticism will start to have a negative response. The people you need to change, are too old to change. The rest of us have already made that transition and the more we hear “yo men have to change” the more we are getting to simply see you as a bunch of bitter old women.
You bring up blacks criticizing whites as an example. This is exactly what I meant previously about the innocent being punished. My ancestors didn’t own, buy or sell slaves. In fact, many of them were not even here until the 1900’s and were persecuted themselves for a very long period of time. But, since I’m white, I have to feel the retribution. That’s crap.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
I was referring to Whiley’s 11:48 post being right about the problems women deal with.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Gee Ken why such hostility? How can anyone discuss issues with someone so angry? If the criticism doesn’t apply to you, why take it so personally? We’re not talking about you, are we? How exactly are “our type” giving you a hard time?
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Ken, good point about the old ones not being able to change. That is so true. Here’s the difference between the example of blacks being angry about slavery: There is no more slavery. Hasn’t been for a long time. There is constant occurrence of sexual violence, murder, abuse, harassment, unfair in the job market etc treatment of women. Because they are women. Being perpetrated by men. Big difference. You guys are the ones in charge, you guys are the ones doing this. So yes, most of us hold all men accountable. Until the time women hold 1/2 of all power in business & government, it seems nothing will change. We seem like bitter women? Do you think we have nothing to be mad about? Bitter, like it’s all in our heads because we have nothing better to do then pout like a bunch of little girls? See what we are up against?
By Scott
October 12, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
Lozen - Seriously, do you read what I write, or do you just wait your turn to say something crass? If you had read (but since I can’t post on here in crayon, you likely didn’t) I said that there were many good points made on here but I had not any but extremist feminists “in real life” That was not derogatory nor was it intended to be. Only someone looking for an argument, rather than a discussion would take it that way. I’m not surprised.
By Mara
October 12, 2005 12:51 PM | Link to this
Ken, few would refute the notion that an adult (any adult!) focusing most or all of their time and effort to the rearing of a child would be advantageous for the child. Just review the fight for smaller class sizes. That doesn’t negate the truism that many pre-feminist women felt trapped, marginalized, and unfulfulled in the role of house-wife. Nor, as lozen illustrated, does it disprove the pre-working- mother truth of having to ask/beg their husbands for pretty much everything. If that man was abusive, dominating, or otherwise unsavory, that left the woman with little or no recourse but to stick it out. In addition, when a man abandoned his family, the woman was often left with no marketable skills or business resources.
If your concern truly is for the children, then instead of wishing that we could return to those mythical Ozzy-n-Harriet days, maybe you should face the truth. Women are not going to give up their autonomy any time soon, so wouldn’t it be better to find ways to blend their work environment with their child-rearing responsibilities? Or is it just more fun to demean women who plan for that rainy day by assuring that they can support themselves and their child(ren) if they need to?
By Scott
October 12, 2005 12:54 PM | Link to this
Whiley - I am not afraid of feminism in general, but I don’t know that I have been given a complete picture. Most women I have talked to about it either give me an extremist point of view, or have a difficult time explaining their position. As far as equality, I think that is obvious. Of course women should be afforded equal rights and equal opportunity, equal pay, etc. No argument there. I think what concerns me is when I hear the rhetoric that men are evil and responsible for every problem under the sun (I’m paraphrasing here) That kind of rhetoric puts people off, especially if it isn’t (and it isn’t) true
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this
Lozen/Whiley,
Do either of you have anything to talk about with a person? Or are you going to talk at people your whole life?
I have addressed each and every question you two have put out there; no matter how barbed your comments are - and you do not reply.
I have also asked you direct questions (posted each one 3x); and you ignored them.
You do not want guys to be an asset; you want to crap on us good guys to get even for something that we were never part of.
The big secret is that the people in power, male or female, use the crap out of everyone below them - and although the wrongs are presented differently for each group, they are still wrongs comitted against those without power. Once you relize that good guys have to manuver, just as you do, around the :good ole boys, rich white old man, black sherrif stealing money, gold digging girl….will you stop pointing fingers at a general group.
The catagorization of people in classes/colors/genders that do wrong is endless; unless you catagorize by one criteria and one only: IDIOTS
By Whley
October 12, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this
“If the criticism doesn’t apply to you, why take it so personally? “
EXCELLENT POINT lozen ! ! WHY do all men get upset when anyone tries to discuss male violence? Immediately they revert to “women do it to !, men are victims of women !” Like a handful of female violence cancels out the thousands of male violence occurring daily. Male violence needs immediate attention NOW.
I would SERIOUSLY like to hear what the men have to say about the following question: What can MEN do about male violence & sexual harassment & abuse of women & children? (and see if you can not list ways women can just avoid it.)
By Renee
October 12, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Ken, I think that’s a bit harsh. There are quite a few worse traits a parent could demonstrate.
Now, I understand your argument, and where you are coming from, I don’t agree with it, but I understand. But I just think that comment was a little on the deep end.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
Wow Denise.
Lozen, I’ve given your question much thought (hehehehe). Okay, I’ll stop giggling. Are you Christian? If so, I’d recommend visiting an “open and affirming” church. There are quite a few of them here in Atlanta. There are also a myriad of social groups that meet as well, these are usually grouped by age and other interests. These are the safest options I can come up with.
Of course, if you’re into the bar scene, Atlanta has PLENTY of those to visit as well. Or, you can visit Outwrite Bookstore on Piedmont Ave. There you can have a cup of coffee and browse some pretty good books and things. Their clientele spans all age groups, you’re sure to meet some good folks there.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this
“You do not want guys to be an asset; you want to crap on us good guys to get even for something that we were never part of.”
I hold all men responsible for male violence & sexual abuse. WE can’t stop it, YOU guys can. But you don’t.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Scott, please don’t get so hysterical! All I said was that you brought up the “S.C.U.M. Manifestoâ€?, a feminist view on men and the havoc they have been responsible for and it advocated exactly that - - Violence. Shocking, huh? What was so crass about that, that makes you get all angry and hostile and put down my intelligence? Maybe that’s why ALL those extremist feminists weren’t nice to you.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this
That is a load of crap, seriously.
Do you even know what percentage of the population commits crimes and is incarcerated? Do you have any idea that the bs you spew about men applies to >5% of the male population?
By Renee
October 12, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
okay JBM, your comment made me go back and read Denise’s comment.
I ditto.
Wow Denise. Nuff said.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this
Lozen - Your intelligence? Please. On the occassions I thought you did make an intelligent point, I have told you so, whether you agreed or not. I find it amazing though that anytime you disagree with me or anyone else on this blog, you automatically assume they must be less intelligent not to recognize the “genius” of your opinion. It’s called disagreement
And actually the extremist feminists were the most patient in explaining their opinion, though I imagine it’s becasue they could explain their opinion thoroughly
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
“Do you even know what percentage of the population commits crimes and is incarcerated? Do you have any idea that the bs you spew about men applies to >5% of the male population?”
BS? All I know is that daily women are raped just in this city, almost DAILY we hear of a husband gunning down his wife just in this city, almost daily kids are being abducted. DAILY shooting, etc. It’s not BS. Why are you so angry men are perpetrating practically all the violence? Why are you so angry we are fed up about it?
What are YOU doing to promote the safety of women & what are YOU doing to stop male violence?
You not being violent yourself is not an answer. What are you doing to stop male violence? What COULD you be doing to help stop male violence?
By Tony
October 12, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don’t blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce.
Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and argument.
No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding.
If you understand, and you show that you understand, you can love, and the situation will change.
By Mara
October 12, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
As I said in a previous post, my own sweet honey-bunny is salt of the earth. Except for his refusal to clean the kitty box, we have no set man’s job/woman’s work, so I do see where Ken’s coming from in regard to post-boomer men. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that this mind-set is fairly new. Even into the ’70s and early ‘80 gender discrimination was ubiquitous. It’s maginally less so now that we have enshrined gender into anti-discrimination legislation. Progress has been made though, and that’s a good thing. Ken wants us to shut up, now that some men don’t have to be nagged to do their fair share. Not likely. When femininity is still used as an insult, when I still make less than the men in my department, when rightous outrage is no longer equated with “that time of month”, then, maybe I’ll consider my job as a feminist done.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 01:25 PM | Link to this
Whiley - A few things..
1) Yes it happens every day. No doubt. No less than 95% of men never do it, so while I agree with you that it is a serious problem, to demonize all men for it is absurd.
2) I would love to sit here and list off for you the things I have done and do to curb the tide of violence in general and male violence particularly, but I seriously doubt you would listen, except to tell me it was not enough because I have yet to stop it in every instance.
3) Just a question as to your opinion on an interesting court case… what did you think about that teacher in Florida who had sex with her 15 year old (or was it fourteen year old?) male student who got less than 9 months incarceration for that? A male teacher would have had the book thrown at him (and rightly so)
By Tony
October 12, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this
Wise men and philosophers throughout the ages have disagreed on many things, but many are in unanimous agreement on one point: “We become what we think about.” Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “A man is what he thinks about all day long.” The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius put it this way: “A man’s life is what his thoughts make of it.” In the Bible we find: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”
One Sunday afternoon, a cranky Lozen and Whiley was visiting their families. As they lay down to take a nap, their grandsons decided to have a little fun by putting Limburger cheese on their upper lips. Soon, Lozen and Whiley awoke with a snort and charged out of their bedrooms saying, “This room stinks.” Through the house they went, finding every room smelling the same. Desperately they made their way outside only to find that “the whole world stinks!”
So it is when we fill our minds with negativism.
Everything we experience and everybody we encounter will carry the scent we hold in our mind.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this
Whiley - I think you have officially fell off your rocker. I can stop men from being violent by donning my red cape or answering my bat phone at night.
The only way men can stop “male violence” is not being violent, respecting women, and ensuring that moral standard is passed on with other family values.
I have no control over your husband coming home and whoopin your tail because his dinner isn’t ready. I have no control over the Internet pervert who someone’s teenage daughter is talking to.
You can’t blame ALL men because SOME of them are deranged and wrong in the head. Superman couldn’t do it, and I think Spiderman got caught up with love.
Get serious!
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this
I seriously do want to hear what the men here have to say & what they think they should be doing to help stop male violence. What do I think of any teacher having sex with a student? Nasty & should be prosecuted. Does a few bad female teachers cancel out all the large numbers of male teachers sexually abusing students? NO ! And how many of you guys said “I wish my teacher sexually abused me if she was that hot”.
Now we are cranky for discussing our frustration with male violence & not being about to stop it? We’re cranky??? lol SEE why feminist groups are needed?
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Ben, Who is in charge in this country? Who makes the laws & enforces them? Intil recent history it certainly wans’t us. To sit back & ignore makes you part of the problem.
Now, what do you think you should be doing to help stop male violence. Arming yourself doesn’t solve it, only aviod it.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this
Whiley and Lozen:
Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. (A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed and assessed with the CTS. Agreement concerning intimate partner violence was about 40%, with no differences reported across ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner violence than men in all three ethnic groups
Now how about waking up and realizing that violent men make up less than 5% of all men; and guess what the other (me, ken..many others) 95% are doing? Protecting you from the 5% - but you keep slamming the 95% and we will disregarde you as lost.
Ready to wake up yet?
By Renee
October 12, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Whiley - I think you have officially fell off your rocker. I can stop men from being violent by donning my red cape or answering my bat phone at night
Tooooo funny Ben
By Scott
October 12, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this
Whiley - Does a few bad female teachers cancel out all the large numbers of male teachers sexually abusing students? Thanks for diminishing the double standard…large number? How many male teachers are guilty of that? 1%? Give me a break…
As Ben said men can stop “male violence� is not being violent, respecting women, and ensuring that moral standard is passed on with other family values. That is the first way and most impactful way men can do something about it. Teach their children it is wrong to treat women with anything other than the utmost respect. As should also be the lesson they teach their children regarding, race, religion, and every other difference.
By Mara
October 12, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
oops. that should have read…While femininity is still used as an insult, while I still…..etc.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
Whiley - I already told you what I do to stop male violence - “The only way men can stop “male violenceâ€? is not being violent, respecting women, and ensuring that that moral standard is passed on with other family values. “
I’m not ignoring anything, and last time I checked men weren’t getting a free pass to beat their wives or molest children. A lot of men that abuse their spouses DO get arrested, and when it comes time to pay the piper, the WOMEN decided NOT to press charges or testify against.
I’m not part of the problem because I don’t condone it, I don’t do it and my son, if I ever have one, will never do it. That’s MY part.
And to call me responsible is the same as calling women responsible for the teacher molesting her student. But I don’t expect you to see that!
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this
“Teach their children it is wrong to treat women with anything other than the utmost respect. As should also be the lesson they teach their children regarding, race, religion, and every other difference. “
GOOD example. Excellent start. What else?
By Ken
October 12, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this
Whiley… Slavery may be over, but there are individuals that harbor prejudice against African-Americans. Nothing you or anyone else can do will change that.
The same can be said for feminism. Women have the legal right to choose any kind of life they want: single, married, house wife, career, etc. However, there are still men who carry prejudices and nothing you or anyone else can do will change that. Over time, these men will be replaced with men like myself. You have to wait for them to die off.
Violence toward women is terrible, the same that racial violence is terrible, that violence against children is terrible, etc. I see them all the same. Once you start labeling it as violence twoard women, you purport that we need to be more responsive when a man kills a woman versus when a man kills a man. Both are equally as heinous.
BTW… Women will have half of the power positions in business and government. Just look at the number of female Senators. It simply takes time. I can’t quote philosophers like others on this BLOG but patience is a virtue.
Mara… I never asked women to be relegated to cooking, cleaning and children. I simply said that if you are going to be choose to be a parent, be the best parent you can be. If that means sacrificing career or other personal goals then make the sacrifice, or choose to not be a parent.
I also never asked women to “shut up”. I simply tried to illustrate that a great deal of progress has been made and many men younger than 40 have embraced equality of the sexes. Continued criticsm of all men will very likely make individuals like myself angry. Your criticsm should be focused to the ignorent and the closed minded. Not to men in general.
Renee… I don’t think calling selfish the worst possible trait of a parent. Any horrible thing parent does is due to them putting thier own needs to the needs of the child. If you’re not willing to that… Don’t be a parent.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
“A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed “
I go by police reports. Not interviews.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this
Whiley, You now state:
I would SERIOUSLY like to hear what the men have to say about the following question: What can MEN do about male violence & sexual harassment & abuse of women & children? (and see if you can not list ways women can just avoid it.)
That is complete BS - you do not want any input from us men.
I wrote:
*By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this
Whiley, Nice that neither of us want to argue:
So, again; What role do you see men in feminism?*
I am no longer interested - no need for a reply.
Ken, Scott, etc
Do you find girls like whiley/lozen compelling you towards sexism? After hearing their BS about how terrible all guys are and even the good ones have a cross to bear bc of some idiot 5% - do you not feel as though sexism cuts the other way as soon as a girl is able?
More importantly, how do you guys suggest ending this cake and eat it too syndrome? It is getting to be absurd.
[you girls will surely reply to this - but have exhausted my hope that you have anything to say relevant]
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
DELTAX - I don’t expect much, truly. Whiley and/or Lozen can not push my opinion toward sexism any more than other opinions on here can push me towards bigotry, or hatred towards homosexuals, or those of other religious beliefs. I know the difference between right and wrong, regardless.
My issue is not with feminist equality. I’m all for that. Feminist sexism and retribution I have a problem with.
As far as getting to be absurd..trust me, we are already there
By Ken
October 12, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this
DeltaX…
I propose nothing other than to love my wife and treat her as an equal.
I propose nothing other than to give my female superiors the same respect that I give to my male superiors.
I propose nothing other than to treat men and women equally in regard to my perception of them as human beings.
I propose that the workplace look at an individual’s talents and abilities rather than their gender, age or race.
I propose that we continue to cherish the fact that women are the agents of continuing human life on the Earth and treat them as if we cherish them.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
The thing is DeltaX - I just laugh and try to HOPEFULLY shed some light. Feminism today is a JOKE - particulary because of the views of some of the talking heads here.
Women have the same opportunities that men have. If they are held back, particularly in their home, it’s their fault because they chose their situation. There are twice as many women working, and in managerial positions, in my Agency than men. The feminist movement today is just a bunch of bitter ole bitties that were wronged by a man at some point in their life and instead getting over it, they blame their woes on the entire male population. Because we are all alike of course! If Scott went home and beat his wife, Delta and Ken are to blame because they aren’t doing anything to end male violence. Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?
By Renee
October 12, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Whiley - rather than screaming and throwing blame every where else, why don’t YOU come up with a solution.
Men are not to blame for violence on women unless all men are at fault for being violent towards women. And seeing how you are so passionate about the subject, you should have better solutions and statements than “I hold all men responsible”. No great leader ever got their point across that way, nor got any followers in that fashion.
And how are we as women responsible, I ask. Well, for one, letting a man know that violence is not tolerable under any circumstances is one way responsibility is avoided. One hit and you are out the door. Not ten hits and then I call the police and take up the courts and taxpayers money, to then not press charges and allow the man to move back in “for the children”. Sometimes taking self responsiblity can not alleviate a problem but not make it so prevalent in ones life.
Another one. Don’t be a doormat all your life for your husband and then complain about men. You knew the man you married (or should have) before you married him and knew what type of person he was. Has nothing to do with being a man, if you allow someone to do it, they will do it.
I am in a lesbian relationship. Yes, lesbians beat their partners. Lesbians become verbally abusive. Lesbians take advantage of their partners and walk all over them. If I had not let my partner know in the beginning by “no toleration” policy I’m sure I could be a doormat. So, then how would that be a male problem. It’s still violence against women.
If you’re for no violence against women, then by all means fight the fight, but fight all the fights.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:06 PM | Link to this
“That is complete BS - you do not want any input from us men.”
What you are trying to tell me is, you don’t matter, women don’t matter, what you are saying doesn’t matter, YOU are the crazy one why are you complaining? OK, you made yourself clear, you have absolutely no interest in stopping male violence or care about the conditions women are forced to live with. That really saddens me, but also reminds me why supporting groups fighting for women & children are so important & should be encouraged.
OK, is there anyone else out there that can give ideas on how to get rid of so much male violence? Yes we should be raising our children to treat others equally. That is where it starts right? What do we do with the 10 years old & up then? What do we do with all the ones already prone to violence & sexual issues?
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this
Renee - good points
By Archie
October 12, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
“Many men under the age of 40 already do their fair share of everything, including cooking, cleaning and child rearing. Us and our wives are more like partners than any other large generational demographic.”
I agree with the aforementioned statement and I add that it applies to some of us over 40. I don’t with too much else that Ken has said though. I don’t think the civil rights movement of today is about retribution. You still have police brutality and unfair enforcement of laws. I want to stay on the topic however and say that Whiley is extreme because men may not get raped but they get abused in so many ways daily. The guy in New Orleans was just beat down by the police and as many have mentioned on this board the custody situations in court. I can only control me as a grown man. Nikita 8:38 am post is correct. I also point out to Ken that his ancestors were helpful to the civil rights movement,so some anger should reserved for his ancestors. There are plenty of good people of all colors. I repeat there are plenty of good people of all colors. We can’t raise kids exactly the way my grandparents did because the costs of everything. You need two working people and it’s good for women to get out of the house. There’s nothing wrong with daycare. It is just a different way of doing things and one can adapt.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
What you are trying to tell me is, you don’t matter, women don’t matter, what you are saying doesn’t matter, YOU are the crazy one why are you complaining? OK, you made yourself clear, you have absolutely no interest in stopping male violence or care about the conditions women are forced to live with.
No, what he is saying is that YOU don’t care what solutions he might have, are not interested in a discussion, but only lie in wait to shoot down anything he says and twist it into further “evidence” to support your claims that all men are responsible
By james
October 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
lozen, your description of your past living conditions sounds so scripted. a stay at home mom isn’t a slave. how could YOU allow YOURSELF not to have access to the household assets???? why ask for money, didn’t u have a atm card????? couldn’t you tell your husband, “that’s alright honey, i’d rather go to the store alone. do you need me to get you anything?” i’m not buying it.
all of this hard work that women have to do seems the be the same hard work that i do. of course i have to factor in the I have to clean the gutters. I have to cut the grass. I have to maintain the vehicles. Seems that according to most women that i know, these are MAN jobs. Strange, why isn’t cooking on their list of women’s jobs? Cause, that list doesn’t exist.
Women waffle too much in what they precieve as their needs/wants/desires. to them (women) they’re all interchangeable. One example: Women want us to listen and not try to fix things. The next time a women decides to unload her problems on me I guess i’ll just say, “Yea, okay.” and leave it at that. that’ll go over really swell.
By Tony
October 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
Scott,
I agree and was directing my dislike towards: the feminist sexism and retribution I have a problem with.
I guess I should abort trying to have a rational conversation after relizing they have a polarized adgenda and disregard them as uninformed.
It is a pity when ones damage prevents the removal of the device/situation causing the damage.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this
Renee you do make good points. We’ve heard this our whole lives, what WE can do to avoid being a victim of violence. I want to know what men are doing to stop it. BTW, I’ve never been a victim. But have immediate family, friends,& acquaintances who were, including domestic murder.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:17 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - That will probably save a lot of headaches for you
By Renee
October 12, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
Tony - great quote!
By james
October 12, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this
ken, my daughter’s grandparents live in michigan. they both work. how are they supposed to take care of my daughter when both me and my wife are at work?
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Whiley,
You have NO basis for stating this about me - I have contradicted that notion from the beginning: you have absolutely no interest in stopping male violence or care about the conditions women are forced to live with
I am convinced you are a lying, spitefull woman that has a black heart.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Renee, that was really good.
By mit
October 12, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this
whiley,
[http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Suitcase_Remains.html]
now shut up
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. “
So, that means you really don’t feel the need to try to stop the violence?
By Renee
October 12, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this
Thanks Scott and JBM!!
By Tim
October 12, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this
ok… so I know y’all missed me sooooo much while I was gone :)… I didn’t read all the responses so forgive me if I repeat something that someone else has already said… my thoughts… yes it has helped… now moving on… Whiley I agree with many things you say but to state that all men are responsible for the violence women face is like saying all white people are responsible for racism… but I tell you what… next time I stumble across a magic lamp and a Genie grants me 3 wishes the first thing I will wish for is that all violence against women be stopped
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this
A WOMAN IN NJ KILLS HER HUSBAND ! It wasn’t even in this city, is that the best you can find????? This definitely cancels out all the women that will be killed just today. I’m pretty sure more than one women will be murdered in this city alone.
SO YOU shut up.
Men kill women constantly. When a woman does it, it’s friggin news of the year & used as an example for years why women are just as bad.
I’d like to know what YOU are going to start doing to stop male violence.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this
Everywhere I seached I found the same data: Women perform more violent action towards their mates than men accross ALL races.
They all go on to show that guys are generally bigger and if a guy does hit a girl, the damage is marked compared to a girls hit.
Also, out of all men arrested for battery; 3/5 of them were engaged first - but the law states that a man must have one caliber lower weapon than a female. So, even if a girl hits a guy 20 times, and the guy restrains her while the police show up: He goes to jail.
There is some equality to be worked on WHILEY! What are you doing about stopping your gender from creating more violence?
By Eye Think
October 12, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Wiley, Please read this.
“180,000 women behind bars.Prison and jail officials from around the country are to gather this weekend in Bloomington, Minnesota, to address the rising number of incarcerated women — more than 180,000 in prisons and jails nationwide, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Since 1995, the number of women in state and federal prisons has swelled more than 50 percent, outstripping an increase of about 32 percent for men. Female jail populations are growing even faster.Women are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. prison population, a trend fueled by their growing involvement in drug crimes and by longer sentences in general.”From CNN, the link is http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/12/women.prison.ap/index.html.
I guess the news above is part of the concept and product of feminism. The women in jail did not just wake up one morning and decide to walk into jail. Something happened and women today are living the consequence. One of the events that happened and many women are still in denial about it is feminism. One can fool some of the people some of the time but cannot fool all of the people all of the time. To be fore-informed is to be fore-armed.
By FatMoose
October 12, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this
Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families ed. Murray Straus & Richard Gelles. Transaction Pub., New Brunswick, NJ, 1990. This study includes the following quote: “I have never seen any data which broke down child abuse perpetrators by gender which did not show a significantly higher incidence of abuse by female caregivers. The only exceptions are when only sexual abuse is examined and not physical abuse. I do not believe that this is because women are evil or more violent than men. Women still do more than 50% of the childcare, which I think has a lot to do with the gender disparity. However, people who wish to argue that women are inherently non-violent have their work cut out for them…”
By FatMoose
October 12, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this
Child Abuse Rates by Gender — American Humane Association Study
Child abusers are:
More likely to be female. More likely to be a single parent. 4 times more likely to be poor. 2 times more likely to be black.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this
Whiley, well the good thing that came out of all this is that I now better understand the woman who called my partner a loser, and me a doormat. That comment weighs a lot less today than it did then.
That aside, I think the problem with your question (what are men doing to stop violence) is that it assigns the problem to a gender and not a culture. Domestic violence is not a gender problem (as Renee pointed out, it happens in gay relationships as well), nor is it a racial problem, regional problem… it is a HUMAN problem, and to narrow it down a bit, it is a national issue that all Americans, male and female, should address and combat. It is NOT up to men to resolve the problem, any more than it is up to white people to resolve racism. It is a human issue to be addressed by humans, regardless of gender.
By Renee
October 12, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Whiley - you don’t really want to be overwhelmed with the statistics of domestic violence (with women being the aggressor not the victim).
To say that an example was given to you in NJ and not in Atlanta, I personally will guarantee you that there are many stories (reported and nonreported). I don’t live in ATL anymore, but remember SEVERAL from this year up until my move, last year, and I read the AJC every day so I have read still more.
Additionally, domestic violence is a problem. A PEOPLE problem. Domestic violence happens men against women, women against men, women against women, men against men. So why don’t you just say NO domestic violence, women included. Women are not these innocent, frail victims that you put in this category. I know because I am a women, I know several women, and I am raising a woman to be.
Your hate for men is funny to me. I thought I had met some lesbians who hate men, but you have them beat.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this
Whiley - What are YOU doing to stop female violence?
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this
Whiley - How often do you read police reports, since interviews and studies are of no interest to you?
By james
October 12, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
whiley, women are a lot more guilty of all forms of crimes than anyone admits. u need to accept that but i believe you already know this. from the simple issue of receiveing trafic tickets to the more deplorable issue of child molestation, women are dastardly.
By Renee
October 12, 2005 02:45 PM | Link to this
Scott - I meant to ask that but forgot.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me and Renee - Thanks for being the sane ones. Good points
By Bruce
October 12, 2005 02:51 PM | Link to this
Even though it is a small compaired to male violence on women, What are you Whiley/Lozen, doing to stop women violence on men? If all men are responsible for stopping our 5% then all women share the same resposibility women violence. What are YOU doing to stop it?
Ken your 2:03 post says it all for me. I don’t what more we (those that do not commit violence against women) can do.
By Bobb
October 12, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this
Anyone noticed that all of the networks now have women on field during football games to bring us some down home story about a player or to interrupt with inane questions a coach’s trek to locker room? My wife gets upset when I say it is stupid and obvious.
“Just like man to say that! You are sexist! They ought to be in up in the broadcast booth!�, she yells at me.
“Exactly!�, I yell back.
What’s my point you ask? I’m not sure to honest, but I think there is some deeper meaning here to both the presence of the stereotypical woman on the field and to my wife’s equally stereotypical response to a male.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this
All I am seeing is a panic scramble to come up with excuses as to why very few here want to do anything to end male violence against women & children. Why is that? What HAS been proven once again is men do NOT LIKE WOMEN telling them they are wrong about anything lol. So strange. Thank you to all you feminist & feminist organizations out there.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this
Tony said: If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth.
Whiley replied: So, that means you really don’t feel the need to try to stop the violence?
Of course that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that the best thing you can do (and often times the only thing you can do) is to start with YOURSELF. Detest, denounce and shun violence, and teach your children to do the same.
I haven’t actively participated in this discussion, but I’ve followed most of it - and I see clearly why everyone (MALE AND FEMALE ALIKE) is so frustrated.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
btw, I don’t hate men, I hate perverts, murders, abusers, harrassers.
By Renee
October 12, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this
Well according to you that pretty much describes men.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
No Whiley - What men do not like is the retarded question you put forth and you persistently ignoring the fact that one man or a group of men are NOT responsible for the actions of others.
What men don’t like is your victim attitude being projected on other men because you met or know some creep.
What men don’t like is how you could possible suggest that men here scrambled for anything. I think all of men who responded were pretty CLEAR on our views of male violence. And I think we were all on the same page in regards to it. But it is you the loon, who is divided with the other women on the blog. It is you who doesn’t make sense.
The best thing for you is to just forgive the poor bastard who did you wrong and move on with your life.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley - Of course that’s what you get out of it. What you have seen is not a panic scramble but rather an indignant response to your clearly sexist agenda. As is often the case, you have no intention of dicussing or learning a darn thing. You have your mind made up already and are just trying to pander your garbage on those of us you think are uninformed or unintelligent simply because we disagree. Nobody has made any excuses, and several people have come up with solutions. YOU certainly aren’t one of those people, but that isn’t shocking. It’s much easier to complain and assign blame about a problem rather than be part of the solution, but that would require you to be open-minded and attempt to see an issue from a point of view other than your own, which is about as likely as opening a Baskin-Robbins in downtown he11.
The men and women on here have been respectful for the most part, they simply disagree with you. You have dodged questions and paused only to spew yo9ur caustic rhetoric about the evils of men. Did you happen to notice that it isn’t just the men on here who opposed your view? Oh, but wait, those women are probably just ignorant doormats. They couldn’t possibly be intelligent women who disagree with you, huh? You haven’t proven a darn thing other than the opinion of those who think you are simply a sexist and a detriment to feminist equality
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this
Whiley -
btw, I don’t hate men, I hate perverts, murders, abusers, harrassers.
Yeah well, we all hate perverts, murderers and abusers…but I for one, and I bet I am not alone, don’t believe you don’t hate men for one second.
By Tony
October 12, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this
Your task is to build a better world, God said. I answered, How?…This world is such a large vast place, and there’s nothing I can do. But God said, in all His wisdom, just build a better you.
How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway… And you can always, always give something, even if it is only kindness!
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this
“Well according to you that pretty much describes men.”
(I’m not happy about it either) How many perverted females are on sex offender registries? (and a small handful does not cancel out all the THOUSANDS JUST IN GA)
How many female serial killers are roaming the country taking out random men?
So I appologize if I seem a little hostile toward most men. You don’t give me much to be bubbly happy about a lot of the time. lol Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to worry about our personal safety in the company of men? Is it you guys just don’t understand the underlining fear we have to deal with?
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this
Hate men? No, she doesn’t. What’s to hate? You’re all FABULOUS! I mean it. Let’s all join hands and sing. Share the love.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this
Renee,
I want to thank you also for providing sane input.
Whiley,
You want a solution to YOUR issues with men? It begins with your statement: All I am seeing is… and I can stop there. This is the first place to implement a solution: You only see what you want and it is all colored either black or white.
There is YOUR solution - open your eyes and see MORE.
By Ben
October 12, 2005 03:16 PM | Link to this
We understand your fell off your rocker! Yes women, women all over Atlanta, fear for your life and safety because the big bad men are lurking in every corner. Don’t trust em, none em. Hold your purse tight and pray you are spared the evil doings of men during your day-to-day activities.
Take Whiley’s warning because the men that aren’t evil will do nothing to protect you.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:18 PM | Link to this
A wise instructor once told me (in a mixed group of men and women, btw, and it applied to all of us)
“If you look like food, someone may try to eat you”
We all have to be careful in an ever increasingly violent world to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm, either with a pen or at the point of a gun. Human beings are capable of being predatory. Not men. Not women. Humans. Prudence prevents quite a bit, though it is much harder to quantify statistics (not that it would matter) on what you may have prevented by actively being prudent in your individual choices.
Less than 5% of all men are criminals, yet you don’t feel safe. Quite honestly, I think that is an insult to the rest of us and is your problem.
By mit
October 12, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this
whiley, why does it matter what city its in? I am doing nothing to stop other men from doing whatever. just like you are doing nothing to stop women from doing the same thing. Why would you expect me doing something about it? you think I am responsible for a man who beats his wife? If that man is me, then I would be. but if that man were your father, not my problem.
if men were killing women constantly, as you state, then that would be news, but since men are not constantly killing women, its not news. How do I know men are not constantly killing women? because you are still here.
Women killing a man is not news either, but when a women kills her husband and dismembers his body and puts it in his luggage, now thats a story.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this
lol oh lord I can’t understand why everyone has such blinders on. No wonder things are the way they are.
What is my solution to the problem? Talk about it, tell the truth, ask questions & ask why. Getting angry is Ok in this instance. I know it’s not easy confronting men about this issue. But they are the ones that can at least make it not as common place. So common a murder on the news isn’t a big deal anymore. So that when yet another girl is murdered on vacation, her sexuality & morals aren’t questioned. (instead concentrate on the perpetrators) Things like that.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this
Scott,
Crazy huh: So I appologize if I seem a little hostile toward most men. You don’t give me much to be bubbly happy about a lot of the time. lol Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to worry about our personal safety in the company of men? Is it you guys just don’t understand the underlining fear we have to deal with?
That is an apology? Geeze.
Whiley,
You choose to obsess over the 5% - that is YOUR choice, but not a healthy one.
I think your lying about not being in a abusive relationship. I think you witnessed a lot of crap with your mom and dad, was mad at your mom for not stopping it; and displaced all that anger on ALL men.
You mother should have been stronger and left the lousy guy.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this
Yeah, everyone has blinders on but you, Whiley…The light from your genius is so blinding we need them.
Please…
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this
DeltaX - What did you expect? Sincerity? LOL you should know better by now
By mit
October 12, 2005 03:36 PM | Link to this
whiley,
how are we going to stop someone from committing a crime by talking about it and asking questions.
we already know what the most causes for crime are but there is nothing that we can do to eradict it. talk about it till your blue in the face and it will still happen. Nothing you or anyone else does will stop it from happening. if your husband beats you, leave. if your wife beats you, leave. if either one track you down? call the police. but if either victim welcomes that same person back in, then they get what is coming, and any idiot can tell you its coming.
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this
LOL @ the Baskin Robbins in downtown hell… HILARIOUS!
Hey Tony, you’re just a mouthful of wisdom today, huh? I’m liking your stuff a lot.
Whiley, Ben gave you the best advice any of us could: forgive him and move on. He inhabits you. He lives in you. He hates through you. Through your hatred for him, he still controls you to this very day. LET IT GO. For your own good, sister, let it go. Even though you’re a stranger, and we disagree on just about everything, I care about you because you’re human and a child of God. Listen to me when I tell you that you MUST let him go. You probably don’t even realize it, but everyone here can see it for what it is. You’ve held on for too long, and it has affected your entire being. Let today be the day that you truly forgive him, and move forward.
Delta, you were so on point. Her problem is that she can’t see, but I’m willing to bet my big toe that it’s because she’s still seeing stars…
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
JBM I think you hit the nail on the head
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
SOME of what’s in the news today: An Atlanta man was today convicted of the 1986 murder and rape of WSB-TV receptionist Clydine Dallas. A man twice convicted of sex offenses in the past was indicted again Tuesday on 83 felony counts ranging from statutory rape to sexually exploiting a minor.
A Macon man faces a 200-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to child pornography and molestation charges.
A Powder Springs woman used a disconnected cellphone to call 911 as she and her three children were being terrorized Sunday by her husband.
I suppose I have nothing to be afraid of, have no reason to be angry about anything. I’m just a bitter old cranky woman. lol
By Tony
October 12, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this
Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate. Darkness cannot put out darkness. Only light can do that. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this
YES, give Whiley a break, please. A bad man experience is like a bowlfull of tainted chilli. She’s not going to be okay until she expels ALL of it’s vile toxins. The higher the concentration of poison, the more she has to spew. Stop criticizing her for eating the chilli. We’ve all been there. She was hungry. She trusted it. Offer her some clean towels, a saline IV, or perhaps a phenergen suppository. Stop hatin’. The pain is real for her, and for many of us.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this
JBM - Funny that you wrote:Delta, you were so on point. Her problem is that she can’t see, but I’m willing to bet my big toe that it’s because she’s still seeing stars…
Because I was addressing someone getting frustrated by Whiley yesterday and even tried to stand up for her in the same manner as you describe above:
By DeltaX
October 11, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this
Eye Think,
What you have to understand is that some females, like Whiley, have been so traumatized by the male dominated society that they are reactive to any man; bar the most gentle ones.
It is understandable that such effected people would be sensitive to any hint of counterpoint.
So, it is our job to tolerate their occasional barbs, and know that it is not personal, but reactionary - and men are at fault for that reaction to even exist.
I am unsure though, how to help people lost in the fray like this. So I have decided to suck it up and give them the freedom of the occasional stab/meanness/generalization.
See Whiley…
A guy came to your aid, who understands - and of all people me; but you are unable to see that because of the blinders I am wearing???
By Archie
October 12, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this
“Less than 5% of all men are criminals, yet you don’t feel safe. Quite honestly, I think that is an insult to the rest of us and is your problem.”
I agree with the statements above and I must add that same reasoning applies to color as well. If it’s only five percent then there should be no fear of men of color for the most part. Everytime the discussion comes up about feminism or any male/female issue Whiley has major issues. The forum topic is good because there are so many stories to be told about how feminism has helped women. There’s a lady on my job that could not own a credit card but now she can. That is the kind of example we need to discuss or know about. I do think some,some women have used gender to control situations but I don’t think the feminist movement is about retribution. Women recognize when other women are being manipulative and call them on it.
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this
Tony, for many of us, our days HAVE become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and our nights darker than a thousand midnights. But one MAN and one bullet took care of Dr. King and his dream. WHO carries that on for us now? NO ONE, that’s who. Who will stand in his place?
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this
UCR (uniform crime statistics) for Atlanta PD Zone 3, July 2005 are as follows:
Murders: 2 Rape: 1 Aggravated Assault: 81 Robbery: 55
For the rest of them, google UCR Atlanta PD 2005
So Whiley, since you read all of these police reports, can you tell me how they break down? Can you show me the news articles for every single one of them.. Of course not, because they aren’t there. Does that make them unimportant? Not at all, but the media is a business and they are going to put things up they deem “news-worthy”.
We can trade news stories all day about men and women. It will never give you a clear picture of what is going on out there
By Jack
October 12, 2005 03:53 PM | Link to this
Kimberly. The answer is Jesse Jackson of course.
By Tony
October 12, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this
Kimberly
To believe is to know that every day is a new beginning. It is to trust that miracles happen, and dreams really do come true. To believe is to see angels dancing among the clouds, To know the wonder of a stardust sky and the wisdom of the man in the moon. To believe is to know the value of a nurturing heart, The innocence of a child’s eyes and the beauty of an aging hand, for it is through their teachings we learn to love. To believe is to find the strength and courage that lies within us. When it is time to pick up the pieces and begin again. To believe is to know we are not alone, That life is a gift and this is our time to cherish it. To believe is to know that wonderful surprises are just waiting to happen, And all our hopes and dreams are within reach. If only we believe.
Author Unknown But Greatly Appreciated!
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 03:56 PM | Link to this
Agreed Scott, it’s much worse than what’s actually reported.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - I would say that given the incredible good done by MLK it is on all of us to keep up his work in our own lives. Me, you, everyone.
I must add that same reasoning applies to color as well. If it’s only five percent then there should be no fear of men of color for the most part
Archie - Agreed. Having spent the majority of my time working in communities where I was the minority, I can say that only a fraction of the population was responsible for keeping me busy. The overwhelming majority were good hard-working people trying to make a life.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this
Whiley, there is a group here in Atlanta, Men Against Violence, who work alongside women to prevent violence. Unfortunately, it’s a small group. There are men’s consciousness raising groups (I have a neighbor who attends such a group) in which men learn to face their racist, sexist, ageist indoctrination and stop denying it so they can deal with it. That’s the only way. As long as so many men deny the problem, and don’t want to do anything except argue with people when they try to explain their situation and their feelings, nothing will change. The men who are so angry and resistant to your feelings, are the same men who are angry and resistant to change around racism too. We have been here before on this blog. I remember Deltax saying the same kind of things then. “You girls can’t explain it to me in the way I want/ask you to, so I don’t have to listen to anything you say.” “You ignore my questions and don’t allow me to switch you from your agenda to mine, therefore you aren’t worth listening to.” I remember back in the 70’s a lot of women stopped trying to explain because they realized it was just a baiting game and some men didn’t really want to hear about it, they just wanted to argue about it. We don’t have time to keep on and on trying to explain it; we need to use our energy to work on the problem.
By mit
October 12, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this
an earlier whiley post at 2:15 BTW, I’ve never been a victim. But have immediate family, friends,& acquaintances who were, including domestic murder.
for kim, she only knows of other’s experience not her own. which I can say I have experienced domestic violence, not my own but someone else’s. my bubby’s girlfriend kick his butt alot. and we made fun of him because he wouldn’t break up with her, he loved her too much. so, he got made fun of and called names by us. (we are his friends so we can do those kinds of things)
so, whiley I am now suppose to hate women? or hate men you are wussies and get beat up by a girl? or hate men because they hit back?
or, are you going to say that men arent suppose to hit women no matter what? I would say that but I don’t have a girlfriend beating the crap out me. if i did i might look at it a little differently, like my buddy did, she hit him and he did nothing until one day he decided to hit her back. but with the logic, she wanted him too.
If a girl beats up a man, is she saying that she is tough enough to get what comes in return? I think they mostly think they can hit men all they want and that men can’t hit them back because they are women. you agree with this?
By Just Being Me
October 12, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this
Why not you, Kimberly?
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
You plead: YES, give Whiley a break, please. A bad man experience is like a bowlfull of tainted chilli. She’s not going to be okay until she expels ALL of it’s vile toxins. The higher the concentration of poison, the more she has to spew. Stop criticizing her for eating the chilli. We’ve all been there. She was hungry. She trusted it. Offer her some clean towels, a saline IV, or perhaps a phenergen suppository. Stop hatin’. The pain is real for her, and for many of us
And I did - many times - but she refused it; and resurected the same bile of ALL guys this or that.
She also accuses women of being men that do not agree with her as she sees things. Is this beneficial?
What, at all, has she provided of benefit in this blog? Try to illustrate two or more consecutive posts by her that are healthy and productive! Or that does not reek of hypocrite.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this
Lozen - That sounds like a group actually doing something about it. Good deal. Thats’ the first positive action thing I have heard yet from either you regarding this topic, so thank you.
There are no doubt men who need to face up to their sexist, racist, etc. views. The point being made here is it is NOT ALL MEN OR EVEN A MAJORITY!
I am “angry and resistant” to Whiley’s views, not becasue I am a closet sexist or racist (I am not nor have I ever been either one) but becasue I see her views as equally sexist in assigning blame for the actions of the very few to all. As Archie said (paraphrasing) that would be akin to blaming all men of color for the actions of a few. Which would be equally stupid and equally wrong. Just because her point of view is female does not make it any less sexist
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
“Atlanta, Men Against Violence, who work alongside women to prevent violence.”
Lozen I’ll look into them. Groups always need funding & recognition.
:) Thanks !
By Jack
October 12, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this
Whiley. I and probably most of the men on this blog hope that the animal that caused you such great pain suffers 5 times what he caused you. Most are not like him and it is a shame he has made trusting men nearly impossible for you. What goes around comes around. Hopefully, he’ll get his. You’re blog buddies love you. :)
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this
Tony, I used to believe that stuff. I used to believe in a lot of things. For many years, I had faith. Not anymore. The world is going to heck in a handbasket, to quote someone here earlier today. What evidence can you share with us that there is, in fact, anything to believe in?
I can take the high road and do the right thing, but that’s because I personally don’t want to make the world suck any more than it already does. But there is NO reward for it. NONE. NO beautiful rainbow at the end. Zippo.
By mit
October 12, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this
jack,
whiley has never been a victim of domestic violence, she hates men based on the experience of people she knows.
By Jack
October 12, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
Still love her.
By Tony
October 12, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this
The majority of us lead quiet, unheralded lives as we pass through this world. There will most likely be no ticker-tape parades for us, no monuments created in our honor. But that does not lessen our possible impact, for there are scores of people waiting for someone just like us to come along; people who will appreciate our compassion, our unique talents. Someone who will live a happier life merely because we took the time to share what we had to give. Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have a potential to turn a life around. It’s overwhelming to consider the continuous opportunities there are to make our love felt.
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this
JBM: Whenever I try, I get shot down… mostly by men who call me unpatriotic or criticize by lack of traditional female morals. Still, sometimes I get up and try again. Nutshell: No one really cares. Not really.
We all just come here during our boring work day (or for some, to break the tedium of not working) to b—-h. It’s cathartic, and it gets us in less trouble than arguing with co-workers.
By Dan
October 12, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this
I am surprised that a person ignorant enough to compare the race baiting, professional extortionist Jesse Jackson, to MLK is capable of using a computer.
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this
oh hey Jack ! I promise it wasn’t one guy. It’s the thousands of stories I have seen & heard throughout my lifetime. That’s all I promise.
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this
Tony, I agree with what you just said. Completely. Still, I find it hard to believe anymore that good will win out over evil in the end. Evil is just too big, and the things of which you speak are too few. Small picture: yes we can make it better. Big picture: we’re still screwed.
By Jack
October 12, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
I’m surprised someone named Dan who doesn’t recognize sarcasm can read much less use a computer.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this
Well said, Jack
By Whiley
October 12, 2005 04:24 PM | Link to this
lol thank you mit. I don’t hate men. I love most of them. Which is why I refuse to give up the belief that they are uncontrollable if their violence & sexual deviate behavior.
By mit
October 12, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this
i would put my money on al sharpton. don king went to the dark side in ‘04.
By Tony
October 12, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this
Kimberly,
See if you can get in touch with Ken. I believe he is a pastor. I’ll bet the people who attend his services are wonderful.
Of course if you lived in Texas, you can come with us.
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this
Jack is so cute. xxoo. Whiley, I know some of those guys. There are a lot of them. They are drawn to me. Guess I’m just lucky.
By DeltaX
October 12, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this
Lozen,
Please do not lie about my posts. I have never said: You girls can’t explain it to me in the way I want/ask you to, so I don’t have to listen to anything you say.� “You ignore my questions and don’t allow me to switch you from your agenda to mine, therefore you aren’t worth listening to
What percentage of firemen that loose their lives are male? How about police officers? G.Iis?
What ratio of men loosing their lives defending a wife/woman vs women standing up for a man?
Any of you guys have a woman stand up for you? A great feeling huh? One of the best probably? - Now answer what percentage of the time does that happen compared to the standing up guys do?
And we guys are all crap! Shheeesh.
By Jack
October 12, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this
Thank you Kimberly and Scott. See ya tomorrow. Work, work, work….
By kimberly
October 12, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this
Been to church. Done that. Trust me, the good men of the church have been instrumental in molding my current beliefs, or lack thereof. Man I know personally who behaves most like Christ did on earth: my Dad the athiest. He expects no reward either.
By mit
October 12, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this
i love most women myself. but you are all crazy in my book. freakin’ crazy!!
what is up with the mind reading. you just assume we can do this? if you can’t, we can’t either. so just spill it out for once in my life. not that you have a hard time at it but others (my wife mainly, she is the only one i care to please really).
By Tony
October 12, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Kimberly
When you come to the edge of all the light you know and are about to step into the darkness of the unknown.
Faith is knowing that one of two things will happen. There will be solid ground to stand on or you will be taught to fly.
Trust God, go back and try again and don’t stop until you find it. Get in touch with Ken.
By Scott
October 12, 2005 04:36 PM | Link to this
Whiley -
In my 32 years on earth I have…
had a domestic violence incident (female agressor) end in the murder of a cousin
been bilked out of $13,000 by an ex-fiancee who ran off with another man
have been assualted by numerous women during calls to domestic violence incidents for arresting the husbands/boyfriends/baby’s daddy/flavor of the month they called about in the first place
seen several friends whose wives/girlfriends left them for other men with no better reason than boredom.
have arrested many women for neglect and abuse of their children with visible bruising and or emaciation from starvation.
However…
I have also…
-Been raised by a wonderful mother who instilled in me values and respect for all people and who loved me unconditionally
-Had fantastic grandmothers who loved me and kept me in line when neccessary
-Have an amazing wife, the love of my life who I cherish more than anything because of who she is as well as how she treats me…
Now should I hate women becasue of the first group of examples? Those aren’t “thousands of stories” but rahter personal experiences.
Or should I love women and people due to the latter? Which are also personal experiences
I think I will choose the latter
By lozen
October 12, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this
“What are you Whiley/Lozen, doing to stop women violence on men?” And why are you asking me that Ben? Whiley and I agree on some things and not on other things, so why lump us together? Since you ask, I’ve known one man in my 60+ years who was beaten up by his girlfriend. I’ve known countless women who have been beaten by boyfriends and husbands including my sister and one of my best friends. I’ve known one man who was raped (by another man) but I’ve know countless women who have been raped by men. I don’t think all men are murderers, rapists and wife beaters. But I do think violence is right under the surface with many men. I know one of the most sensitive and low key men I dated, slapped me in the face one night when we came home from a party because he wanted to have sex and I told him I was tired. I never would have believed he would do that. I did not date him again. I know my ex-husband, who had never been physically violent toward me before, picked me up and threw me out of the house into the yard during an argument. That’s one of the reasons he’s my ex. When I talk with other women this is not unusual.
By lozen
October 12, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this
Scott, this is tongue in cheek. I just have to answer your list of the women who done you wrong with this:
Scott your description of the wrongs done to you sounds so scripted. What, you weren’t a slave! How could you allow yourself to be taken advantage of? Couldn’t you tell that woman was out to take you? i’m not buying it.
By james October 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this lozen, your description of your past living conditions sounds so scripted. a stay at home mom isn’t a slave. how could YOU allow YOURSELF not to have access to the household assets???? why ask for money, didn’t u have a atm card????? couldn’t you tell your husband, “that’s alright honey, i’d rather go to the store alone. do you need me to get you anything?� i’m not buying it.
James, I was 19 years old and had been taught by example by my mother and mother-in-law that a woman does what her husband wants her to do. Honey, that was 30 years ago and no I didn’t have an ATM card; neither did anyone else! He wasn’t going to babysit two kids under three while I went to the store! Twit.
By Nikita
October 12, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this
Hey, Delta — Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply. Much going on.
* you did not ask [for proof], but read the blog and you will find about as many sexist remarks to guys as women.*
I did ask, about three posts before. and it’s anecdotal, which makes it equal with the anecdotal evidence which has been presented in abundance against your assertions. In other words sketchy and unquantifiable.
“That said, as long as there are individuals persecuting other individuals, the persecuted will pursue ways to address their issues.” Yes, but do you not think that how you ‘persue ways to address issues’ matters? And should you not consider these ways and reflect on which served you r needs and which did not?
Of course. But as I mentioned I still do not have proof of laws which punish innocent men for guilty ones. Nor any proof of any other behavior on the part of feminists that I should be concerned about.
* Seems no one is able to have a straight forward conversation on this topic once again. *
That’s a groundless ad hominem statement.
* So, Where are these guys so willing to help in a better mor efair tomorrow? Right here, but your hate is blinding you (psst - it is called sexism); and although I will not harbor anger towards you, I do feel remorse for those lost in the fray.*
Ditto, my friend. Personally, I’d like it if people would merely work together to make things better for everyone without thought to labels and other divisive tactics. But hey, that’s crazy talk.
By Ben
October 13, 2005 07:34 AM | Link to this
Lozen - What are you Whiley/Lozen, doing to stop women violence on men?� And why are you asking me that Ben?
I didn’t ask anything like that. I asked Whiley waht she was doing to stop female violence. Don’t remember mentioning you at all.
By Jack
October 13, 2005 07:40 AM | Link to this
Good morning Ben.
By Tony
October 13, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this
First of all Whiley and Lozen, may I point out that the most dangerous place in the world is a public highway. But we drive on. The best way for ME to make our highways a little safer is to be the most courteous driver I can be. Slow down, let people in, wave when possible, etc. etc. The bottom line, I can’t prevent accidents of others, but I can limit my impact.
Now Rapes and murders and our children. Currently there’s a push for Jessica’s Law. It would mandate a 25 to life sentence for all first time sex offenders. A lot of states have incorporated this law, and Fox News is calling out the states that don’t. It’s a start. In addition, Judges need to be held accountable for light sentence’s. We have the power on a lot of judges through our vote. Some are appointed for life, but that doesn’t make them immune from criticism. Be vocal in you communities, change yourself and the world around you will change along with you.
In our Parish for examples we have Retrouvaille weekend to offer help for hurting marriages. World Youth Day is coming up at six flags. Smart Discipline program offering parents effective tools in disciplining their children. Symposium on Jail and Prison offering information about how to help incarcerated transition from prison to the outside world. I can go on and on and on, but you get the point. This is all through the hated Catholic Church.
My point is as in the drive on example and in our lives, if we associate with good people, read the good book, pray and surround ourselves with good, pretty soon, we start making a difference. I pray Whiley and Lozen, that you too will join in and walk with Jesus and us to try and make our communities a little safer.
By Tony
October 13, 2005 08:11 AM | Link to this
First of all Whiley and Lozen, may I point out that the most dangerous place in the world is a public highway. But we drive on. The best way for ME to make our highways a little safer is to be the most courteous driver I can be. Slow down, let people in, wave when possible, etc. etc. The bottom line, I can’t prevent accidents of others, but I can limit my impact.
Now Rapes, murders and our children. Currently there’s a push for Jessica’s Law. It would mandate a 25 to life sentence for all first time sex offenders. A lot of states have incorporated this law, and Fox News is calling out the states that don’t. It’s a start. In addition, Judges need to be held accountable for light sentence’s. We have the power on a lot of judges through our vote. Some are appointed for life, but that doesn’t make them immune from criticism. Be vocal in you communities, change yourself and the world around you will change.
In our Parish for examples we have Retrouvaille weekend to offer help for hurting marriages. World Youth Day is coming up at six flags. Smart Discipline program offering parents effective tools in disciplining their children. Symposium on Jail and Prison offering information about how to help incarcerated transition from prison to the outside world. I can go on and on and on, but you get the point. This is all through the hated Catholic Church.
My point is as in the drive on example and in our lives, if we associate with good people, read the good book, pray and surround ourselves with good, pretty soon, we start making a difference. I pray Whiley and Lozen, that you too will join in and walk with Jesus and us to try and make our communities a little safer.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this
So what do we do will the large amount of “PEOPLE” that are currently making everywhere unsafe? When I was a child we had the run of the neighborhood & everything was fine. What happened? Nowhere is safe anymore. Remember when everyone used to hitch hike & it wasn’t considered dangerous?
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this
Tony: awesome.
Whiley, I am so dazed. You absolutely refuse to HEAR anything that is being said. You are approaching this so superficially, taking the words and not the meaning of the words. I absolutely cannot believe that your 8:38 post was a response to Tony’s 8:11. Unbelievable. I wish you could see the look on my face. I’m totally dazed.
By Nikita
October 13, 2005 09:03 AM | Link to this
Actually, it’s not significantly less safe now than it was then. Parents are merely a lot more concerned/paranoid about supervising their children.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this
Tony sounds like a Parrot….”SQUAWK, SQUAWK…”
By Jack
October 13, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this
Nikita I couldn’t disagree more. Back in the early 60’s, we could leave our doors unlocked all day and night, children were able to play in the neighborhood without the fear of being snatched, it was MUCH safer then that it is now. I think the problem is too many people period. More people = more crime.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this
Jack, I couldnt disagree more. I think the problem is more Liberals, liberal laws and bleeding heart democrats.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this
Tony, lay off the marijuana & you won’t feel so dazed & confused. I DID reply. What are you talking about? “My point is as in the drive on example and in our lives, if we associate with good people, read the good book, pray and surround ourselves with good, pretty soon, we start making a difference. I pray Whiley and Lozen, that you too will join in and walk with Jesus and us to try and make our communities a little safer.”
All right I’ll respond. Most of us don’t have to read the bible & walk with Jesus (exactly what does that mean?) in order to make our communities safer.
I’ve never been into mind controlling groups. Although, maybe some people would benefit with a little mind control rather than committing crimes. I’ll repeat my reply: So what do we do will the large amount of “PEOPLEâ€? that are currently making everywhere unsafe? Those individuals that aren’t “walking with Jesus?”
By Jack
October 13, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this
Does the “D” stand for dork?
By Ken
October 13, 2005 09:34 AM | Link to this
Whiley… Mind controlling groups…? Can you please elaborate on that…?
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this
Shaking my head @ Whiley…
By jlb
October 13, 2005 09:37 AM | Link to this
Jack and Tony are right. It is less safe. Much more less safe. More people does equal more crime. The only thing we can do is be diligent in the knowledge or where and what our children are doing - be VERY conscious of our surrounding and make a big effort to surround ourselves with people who are not malicious. The best we can do IS the best that we can do. If we make an effort to make each of our individual communities safer that is a step in the direction of making the big picture safer for all of us.
Whether a person is liberal or not has absolutely nothing to do with a person who is bent on malicious intent
By jlb
October 13, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this
Jack and Tony are right. It is less safe. Much more less safe. More people does equal more crime. The only thing we can do is be diligent in the knowledge or where and what our children are doing - be VERY conscious of our surrounding and make a big effort to surround ourselves with people who are not malicious. The best we can do IS the best that we can do. If we make an effort to make each of our individual communities safer that is a step in the direction of making the big picture safer for all of us.
Whether a person is liberal or not has absolutely nothing to do with a person who is bent on malicious intent.
By Nikita
October 13, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
Yes, but Jack, you are talking about your perception, not reality. It is 2005, I live in the highest crime zip code in my town, and my doors are generally unlocked 24/7. I have never had a home burglary (though property crime of things that are portable is pretty common) and there are neighborhood children playing in front of my house, which is about a block from their house on a much busier and less safe street, every day.
It was never 100% safe, and it was not substantially safer. But it is useful to many people and industries to perpetuate the notion that it was and that we live in increasingly violent and deviant times which require our constant fear of our fellow man. Ironically, this attitude actually makes us less safe because when law-abiding citizens abandon outdoor activity out of fear then the only people using our streets are criminals.
By Renee
October 13, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this
Ok JBM you have me cracking up over here. Unbelievable isn’t it…..
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this
Okay, I was going to let this go, but it’s not in my nature. I just have to respond.
Whiley, first of all, why would you accuse someone of smoking marijuana when they have exhibited no valid signs of such behavior? Secondly, Tony never said he was dazed, that was me (and I didn’t say I was confused, you said that).
Lastly, my being dazed wasn’t because I didn’t see or understand your reply. I was (and still am) dazed by your seemingly dense response. It’s like you didn’t even understand what Tony was saying. HIS POINT WAS (in continuation of a point someone else made yesterday) THAT HE CANNOT CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS, HE CAN ONLY ENSURE THAT HIS ACTIONS AREN’T DAMAGING TO OTHERS.
No offense, but talking to you is like literally squatting down and talking to a kindergartener. For real.
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this
Renee, I am really just dazed. I don’t even know what to say… it’s like talking to a wall.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this
I personally consider religious organizations mind controlling groups. Most, although some seem much less the wrath of God-everyone are sinners-going to hell type of thing. Those seem to at least try to help out others other than preaching too much. A person doesn’t have to actively belong to a church to do good in this world. I personally don’t believe the only way to talk to God is through Church services & confession. Listening to completely boring long sermons does not make me a better person. But if others need that connection, fine. Since most sex offenders & the criminally minded are not active members in church, what do we do with them? Prison church camps?
By Jack
October 13, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this
Nikita. I’m guessing that you do not live in the metro Atlanta area. (otherwise, your doors would be locked) That is the area of which I speak.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 10:18 AM | Link to this
“THAT HE CANNOT CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS, HE CAN ONLY ENSURE THAT HIS ACTIONS AREN’T DAMAGING TO OTHERS.”
Well that’s just dandy for him. Women & children on the other hand just have to DEAL WITH it then right? Nobody is going to care enough to actually DO something about the “people” that affect our freedom to live in this society. Thankyou. Thank you again to all the feminist groups out there that ARE doing something about it.
By Renee
October 13, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this
too funny
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this
“Whether a person is liberal or not has absolutely nothing to do with a person who is bent on malicious intent”
WHAT?!!…it has EVERYTHING to do with it. Just look at your CRIME INFESTED housing projects…Democrats. Look at Dekalb and South Fulton counties…Crime runs rampant there and ALL liberals/democrats.
My point is proven. NEXT!
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this
If you don’t do the “Jesus” thing, at least try a joint.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this
Where democrats/liberals thrive so does crime. Examples…housing projects, street corners, crack houses, welfare lines, food stamp recipients, Govt workers.
Remember Poverty begats poverty and the liberals want to do nothing about it BUTT raise taxes and throw money at the issue.
Lets face some hard cold facts here…liberals/democrats are beset by deep character flaws and are unwilling to do anything to assist themselves.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this
A 15-year-old was killed Wednesday. The boy was walking with friends Wwednesday night when police say three men dressed in black approached him. He was shot and killed.
Two Smyrna women who lived alone within a mile of each other were killed by gunshots within days each other, police said Wednesday.
Think THAT is “too funny” Renee?
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
We all would like to think that being a member of our church and being associated with “Good� Christian people will solve the problems of the world. However, what I see in church and other religious organizations are the same types of people who have never set foot inside a church/temple/synagogue.
It’s not just happening at my church, my friend’s church or the Catholic Church. The problems are not occurring at all churches or religious organizations. But, what we encounter on the streets and see on television is occurring inside many religious organizations. There are thieves, adulteress, child molesters, jealousy, murder, etc… sitting inside our churches on any given Sunday.
This is not something new and has been occurring for many years, but the shade has been pulled and the light has shined upon the sinners.
We have never been safe and crimes were covered up and kept between the families. Somewhere in the last century, people have begun to open up and let the truth be told about well-kept family secrets. Those secrets have led to many movements (Women, Civil Rights, Gay, etc).
If we could only be honest about the past, you would see the hidden truths about it.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this
Did these two killings happen where DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS thrive?
UH…yes…I believe they did.
My point is proven. NEXT!!!
By lozen
October 13, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this
Is it not amazing how much alike Michael D and Toe Booger are? They seem to be in complete agreement on liberals! Well, at least they listen to the same rabid talking heads on tv and radio!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this
Michael_D,
From a liberal democrat to you:
I don’t live in a housing project, on a street corner, nor crack house. My democratic friends and I do not receive welfare or food stamps and we do not work for the Government.
If the conservative republicans are such excellent examples of good citizens and proficient leaders - all the world problems would be solved and not made worse. Let me guess: It’s all the liberal fault? That’s what I thought!
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this
The “independent woman” is amazed…lol. Im not amazed one iota at her amazement. Typical “living under a rock” female/liberal reply.
NEXT!!
By Renee
October 13, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this
Think THAT is “too funny� Renee?
Rather than answering that “question”, could you tell me how men in Atlanta and Cobb County could have prevented this from happening.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this
Good Question Renee!
By Archie
October 13, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this
Good job Amazed(Independent Woman) on your 10:57 a.m. post. That’s something I have been saying for years. Everytime I hear about the good ole’ days I think thoughts similar to yours.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 11:44 AM | Link to this
I would rather live under a rock, than to have a rock for a brain.
What problems have the conservative leaders solved in the past 3 years? Last 5 years? Last 10 years? Last 20 years?
Well you scored about the same as the people you complain about. So stop complaining about what the liberals have not done and fix the problem. Oh…I see, you need more time so that you can blame the liberals.
Do you need to spend/waste a few more Billions? Or are you still praying for a maricle in Iraq? You have about 3 more years to show your talents. FYI… you are not doing so well at this time, but you still have time. I’m hoping that you pass the test, because we will all go down if you can’t pull it off.
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this
“Rather than answering that “questionâ€?, could you tell me how men in Atlanta and Cobb County could have prevented this from happening. “
Why don’t you ask the men in Atlanta that question instead of a woman in Atlanta?
You can’t ask those 2 women in Smyrna how they could have prevented their own murder, their dead too late. Probaby their fault anyway, dated the wrong guys, left a door or window unlocked right?
By jlb
October 13, 2005 11:49 AM | Link to this
Michael_D - you are a clueless half-wit.
I gues the ‘D’ does stand for dork.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this
All you malcontents can doo doo is respond with name calling…LMAO…is that your best.
It must be!!!
My point is proven, ONCE AGAIN…
NEXT!!!
By jlb
October 13, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Actually - you proved my point.
By Superhero
October 13, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this
Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird - no it’s a plane …! Fear not my fellow citizens, it is I —SuperCrimeStopperDude. Most of you don’t know me, but at night I fly across metro Atlanta preventing men from committing heinous crimes against humanity.. more importantly women.
I must apologize for caring for MY family and teaching MY family morals at the expense of letting men commit crime. I have let you all down by not stopping men from committing crime. You see the truth is, Superman, Spider Man and Meteor Man all left the legion and it’s up to me to do it all myself.
By Ben
October 13, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this
Whiley still off her rocker I see!
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this
Lisa Ann Bourquardez, 27, a single mother of two young daughters, was stabbed more than 50 times before her body was stuffed inside a closet in her home, police said. The father of Bourquardez’s youngest child, is being sought by police in the murder.
A reward for information leading to an arrest in the murder of a Kennesaw woman killed increased Wednesday to $12,000, Kennesaw police said.
Three men pepper-sprayed a clerk at a Smyrna gas station before robbing the store .
Thanks superman, you’re fired.
By Nikita
October 13, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this
Michael, all you’ve proven (if that) is that policies championed by democrats/liberals/whatever bogeyman you’ve got to trot out tend to provide for the poor.
And whoever asked, I don’t live in Atlanta, but I do live in a metro area. But I have never locked my doors. I didn’t lock them in the city I grew up in, either. (I rarely even lock my car doors.)
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this
Great Job Superhero. Could you please flush the idiots on this thread…thanks so much.
Sorry jlb…you are WRONG AGAIN, ASSusual.
NEXT!!
By Tony
October 13, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this
By Amazed (Independent Woman) October 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this We all would like to think that being a member of our church and being associated with “Good� Christian people will solve the problems of the world. However, what I see in church and other religious organizations are the same types of people who have never set foot inside a church/temple/synagogue.
(What I see in church are people who have never set foot in church). Now that makes sense!
It’s not just happening at my church, my friend’s church or the Catholic Church. The problems are not occurring at all churches or religious organizations. But, what we encounter on the streets and see on television is occurring inside many religious organizations. There are thieves, adulteress, child molesters, jealousy, murder, etc… sitting inside our churches on any given Sunday. This is not something new and has been occurring for many years, but the shade has been pulled and the light has shined upon the sinners. We have never been safe and crimes were covered up and kept between the families. Somewhere in the last century, people have begun to open up and let the truth be told about well-kept family secrets. Those secrets have led to many movements (Women, Civil Rights, Gay, etc) If we could only be honest about the past, you would see the hidden truths about it.
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. You certianly amaze me.
Look the only point I was trying to make and I’m probably wasting my time, nah nevermind.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 12:36 PM | Link to this
Nikita…you sound like one really naive individual or a crime spree waiting to be happened upon. Hopefully, SUPERHERO, will be flying at nights to protect you and the rest of us.
Suffice is to say you are STUPID.
My point is proven…ONCE AGAIN.
NEXT!!!!
By kimberly
October 13, 2005 12:37 PM | Link to this
Toober-face thinks he can post under a different name and we won’t know to ignore him.
By Jack
October 13, 2005 12:39 PM | Link to this
Someone call the truant officer on Michael. He needs to be back in school.
By jlb
October 13, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
You are soo cute Mikey_D! You remind me of my 10 year old who babbles on and on incessantly just to hear the sound of her own voice. Hope yours is as pretty as hers! LOL
By Scott
October 13, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this
Renee & JBM
Seriously, your wasting your fingers trying to convince Whiley of anything. Nothing anyone has said has made or will make any difference. She made up her mind that men are evil, all men are to blame,regardless. Her hatred of men in general is too much for anyone here to overcome. You are likely to remain dazed by it, so don’t worry about it.
It doesn’t matter what men have or haven’t done to stop violence, in Whiley’s mind it will always be our collective faults until there is no violence in the world.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Tony,
For small minded people, I will clarify. The people who go to church every Sunday, “act” just like the people who have never set foot inside a church at all. You can’t “see” the sinners inside your church, but you can point a finger at the sinners who have never been “too” church.
Stop trying to rewrite what I wrote.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this
Yep…no less than expected…truant officers, ten year olds.
lame, lame, lame.
My point is proven.
NEXT!!
By Jack
October 13, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this
Kimberly. Mikey doesn’t use the same brand of sarcasm as Toboga. Mikey isn’t even in the same league.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this
Tony isnt rewriting anything independent ignoramous. Why dont you get a job working with leppers or something.
NEXT!!
By Superhero
October 13, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this
I have to maintain my 9-5 first… then I will don my cape and tights.
By jlb
October 13, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Mikey - why don’t you get a job?
NEXT
Hey Mikey - why don’t you try real hard to come up with something clever?
NEXT
Hey Mikey - How about you just NEXT yourself altogether.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this
WOW…impressive jlb…perhaps you might join the independent ignoramous in a job search.
Good luck.
NEXT!!
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this
Michael_D,
You can’t defend yourself, so you want to defend Tony. Some advice for Tony, you are better off defending yourself.
Michael_D - Why can’t you tell the world about all the wonderful problems you conservatives have solved today? What is your three year plan? Times running out!
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 01:08 PM | Link to this
Scott, you’re right. I’m done with it.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this
Ok…whatever you say independent ignoramous. mmm hmm…
I was finished with you some time ago…now crawl back under your rock.
NEXT!
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this
“Nothing anyone has said has made or will make any difference.”
That my friend is the truth unfortunately. Look at the denial just here on this board by most of the people here. You can’t change what you refuse to see. I’m not that surprised tho, if it doesn’t really affect your day to day life, why should you care?
By Nikita
October 13, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this
actually, Michael, I made a decision after being violently assaulted twice in a three-month period, once in a very public place in broad daylight (with witnesses) and once behind a rather complex security system — both supposedly “safe” places — that I wasn’t going to let anyone intimidate me. Ironically at the time I had a concealed weapons permit and a can of mace — neither of which helped me. I haven’t been attacked since and I sleep much better at night. I walk alone at night, too.
Crime prevention is for me a matter of alertness and awareness of my surroundings. It is not a matter of circumscribing my life out of fear so that I can stick to “safe” places and hope the bad guys don’t make them unsafe. Besides which, the presence of law-abiding people like me in our public spaces makes the world safer, as do the connections between neighbors and other people who look out for each other.
By Renee
October 13, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this
Why don’t you ask the men in Atlanta that question instead of a woman in Atlanta?
No, I’m asking you because you are asking the men what they are doing to help. Therefore I want to know as you continue posting all these crimes what men could have done to prevent it. Not one man, but men. It couldn’t just be that these are bad people who commit crimes but according to you these are proof of violence against women.
JBM and Scott - I know I shouldn’t continue to comment, I just can’t believe that this is continuing.
Superhero - Too funny
Jack - I tend to agree with your 12:49 post.
Now again, an answer please Whiley. Not a rant, but an answer. But I’m sure I’ll get a rant so it makes me the dumb a__ for responding again, and again, and again.
By Scott
October 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
Whiley - It’s not denial, it’s disagreement. But since it doesn’t line up with your point of view, you think it’s just wrong. You haven’t listened to a darn thing. You told Jack (paraphrasing) that nobody injured you personally it was just the stories you have heard. So I guess that doesn’t affect you personally, so “why should you care?”
Every evening/night in my job I work to put the scourge of society in jail and stand between you and them, even if I have to put up with your opinion that nobody is doing anything. Whether you think it is worth a damn or not won’t stop me from going out there b ecause I am doing what I believe is right. It certainly doesn’t matter to you, because while I have stopped some of it, I can’t do it all. You will just fall into the group of people I am willing to defend in spite of their lack of support, and despite their willingness to blame me for it because I am white, or male, or Christian, or whatever you want to pick.
By Mara
October 13, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this
I don’t think that Whiley is saying that all men assault women, nor that there are no good men out there, merely that men, in general, are more accepting of violence (no matter who it’s against…)and misogyny. Why do we sneer at fat women while giving Big-gut Bubba in his stained old wife beater (there’s another for ya…) a pass? Why is a whack up-side the head called “bi* slapping”? I’ve heard a lot of men muttering the “B” word and becoming angry after approaching a woman and being rebuffed. Men use the feminine to belittle each other all the time, implying that men who don’t play sports well, show concern for others feelings, or like sentimental movies are less than manly…they’re “girly men”, p*sies. And you guys wonder why we women still feel as though we’re under-valued.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
I can see where a can of Mace might be a help butt a concealed weapons permit without the weapon?
What happened to your weapon?
By Jack
October 13, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this
Nikita. OK Hon, what is it? First you feel safe and secure in the worst crime area in your zip code and never lock your doors. Now you say you were assaulted twice in a three month period. The concealed weapons permit was a good idea, but you forgot the weapon.
By Scott
October 13, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this
Mara - why is it okay to make general statements encompassing all men (thats what a general statement does) but if we made the same comments about women, we are mysogynistic hate mongers? Hypocrisy, that’s why.
By your statement about “Big-gut Bubba in his stained old wife beater ” you brought up a negative stereotype that everyone here is familiar with. It’s a negative stereotype and a derogatory one, so how is that giving a pass?
By kimberly
October 13, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this
Mara, you’re so right. The even though “feminism” has advanced the opportunities available for women, it has done nothing to eliminate the double standard. When challenged, the double standard just shifts like a snake. Hence my assertion that “we’re all screwed.” To borrow an analogy from Satan’s Rumsfeld spawn, we don’t live in the world we want, we live in the world we have. When women pull out from under one societal thumb, be sure there’s another waiting to pin us down. When they have nothing else, they throw the “she’s fat” or “ewww, who’d wanna do HER?” cards out.
If I’m really really good in this one, in my next life, I’m going to be a man.
By Tony
October 13, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Alright, just this one time. Amazed, if you followed along yesterday, Whiley and others stated that nothing was being done to stop crime and she blamed men for all the woes on earth. I tried to explain that we are powerless to change other people and the only person we can change is ourselves. I used the fact that the most dangerous place on earth is a public highway. I can’t change how you drive I can watch out for myself by changing the way I drive.
I also pointed out what we can do as a citizens to get criminals their due justice. Lastly I pointed out some of the things our parish does to help encourage people to make changes in themselves. It’s not earth shattering, but it’s a something. It may not stop crime, but I believe it helps. After all, isn’t that the goal?
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this
Renee,
You need to ask MEN what they are doing to prevent MEN from committing crimes against women & children. What are they doing to change the acceptable treatment of women & children? It is not women’s responsibility to cure men of their dangerous behavior. It is men. How many of us have received emails warning us about a new tactic rapists & serial killers are using to lure us? How many email do we receive listing 100 ways to prevent from being a victim? Why aren’t there hordes of emails circulating to men how they can stop violence, battery, robbery & sex crimes?
By Renee
October 13, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this
Actually Mara Whiley is saying that all should be doing their part to stop violence on women, as well as stating as she holds all men responsible for the violence on women.
As far as the comments like “b1tch” and “girly-man”, they are describing how that particular man is acting to them at that time. There are stereotypes all in society including between the sexes but men are not women. There are characteristics that men have that women just don’t have. And women do the EXACT same thing as far as putting down a woman that is too masculine.
Women come in the office and brag about the men they’ve bedded, the size of the d_ the man they currently are bedding has, and how they would like to get this man in the bed, but when a man says something it’s like the world has ended. Women put up pictures of men with their chests out, fireman calendars, etc but holler sexism and harrassment when a man has a picture of a woman.
By jlb
October 13, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this
Nikita, I couldn’t agree with you more. I was in a relationship where I was beaten severly by a man who told me he loved me. Bought me roses to apologize. I remember the point that I decided that was not going to happen anymore. Through this man I learned what it truly can be like. Him beating me in front of strangers and his friend and my daughters father…none of these men did ANYTHING to stop him. The only person who tried to help was one of my best friend - a female.
From those experiences I have learned A LOT. To be aware of my surroundings. To be aware of the people that surround me. That I do not need a man to feel self worth. Your following statement speaks volumes of truth: ‘Besides which, the presence of law-abiding people like me in our public spaces makes the world safer, as do the connections between neighbors and other people who look out for each other.’
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this
I just pooted
By Scott
October 13, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
Whiley - You have been told what men think about it ad nauseum and what they do about it. You just ignore those posts and restate your position that men are evil, responsible for all evil, and that they do nothing but either actively or passively promote violence against women and children.
By Jack
October 13, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this
There are 2 genders. Male & female. When a man does not act like a man, other men will taunt him by calling him a girl, wus, ETC. Sort of a pre-cursor for male on male violence. Not meant as derogatory towards women at all.
By jlb
October 13, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this
I do not blame the men on a whole for what happened to me. It is everyones responsibilty to respect each other to the point that bodily harm does not occur - just as it is the responsibility of of everybody to remove themselves from situations that are not healthy for them.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
hey jlb…dont forget your weapon to go along with your concealed weapons permit…ya bubble-head.
LMAO…
POOT
NEXT!!
By Whiley
October 13, 2005 01:48 PM | Link to this
“actively or passively promote violence against women and children. “
That is the problem. Denial is the bigger problem.
By jlb
October 13, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Put a sock in it Mikey - Give birth and then lets talk. Oh yeah, there are doing testing on male monkeys - attaching the embroy onto the intestinal track. I hear the embroy survives to the 7th month before they abort. You would be the perfect candidate when the trials get to the human stage.
By Denise Noe
October 13, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this
Violence and criminality tend to be more common among oppressed groups. Men have many of the characteristics of a subordinate people in their higher representation in prison and among the condemned and executed.
By Scott
October 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this
“Denial is the bigger problem”
I agree. Your denial in seeing that 95% of men are not the problem IS a big problem.
Since you want to take my thoughts out of context, here’s the rest of that sentence.
You just ignore those posts and restate your position that men are evil, responsible for all evil, and that they do nothing but either actively or passively promote violence against women and children.
That isn’t the truth, but it IS your position
By Jack
October 13, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this
Michael_D. I remember you now. You are the dumass that posted the words poot & squirt 200 times and the AJC removed it from the blog after you fouled it. So intelligent. Why don’t you just crawl up your a$$ and die?
By bdmlw
October 13, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this
There she goes again.
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this
Jackass…Im afraid you cornfuse me with another…I appreciate the obsessive thought patterns though.
YOU LOSE!!!
POOT SQUIRT
FLUSH
NEXT!!
By Jack
October 13, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this
Careful what you wish for Kimberly. You may come back as a man with a big two incher. LOL
By Mara
October 13, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this
Whether men see taunting other men by calling them women, or wuss ( a nice combo of wimp and p—-y) as being derogatory to women is pretty much the point. Women feel like it’s derogatory. Women feel put down and devalued by men implying that being a woman is embarrassing. And, uh, I’m married so I’m quite aware that there’re two genders.
And Renee, maybe I’ve been sheltered but exactly what insults do women say about tom-boys? I’ve never heard masculinity (other than the oh-so-lonely “what a p—ck”) be used as an insult. Do they say “you’re a manly girl” or “you throw like a guy”?
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this
jlb forgot her concealed weapon butt brought her permit. LMAO…BubbleHead.
SQUIRT POOT FLUSH
By Michael_D
October 13, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this
Big two incher…ya…Jackass should know all about it.
LMAO…
SQUIRT
By Jack
October 13, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this
If I were to hear a woman say another woman looks like a man, I would not be offended in the least. But Mara. Women rule the world. You control half the money and all of the coohie. LOL
By Jack
October 13, 2005 02:19 PM | Link to this
Michael_D. It would be such a pleasure to meet you in person. It would make my day for sure.
By Amazed (Independent Woman)
October 13, 2005 02:24 PM | Link to this
“Women feel put down and devalued by men implying that being a woman is embarrassing.”
I say, speak for yourself. I’m not insulted at all.
I am very indepedent and I can take care of myself. However, there is nothing worse, “to me”, than a man who can’t control the situation any better than I can. If I can do it, he had better be able to handle the situation 10 fold. I like a strong man and can’t have him any other way.
By Renee
October 13, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this
Mara, I think you were being sarcastic but I will answer your question anyway. Yes, girls do put down other masculine girls by calling them a d**, lesbo, he-she, your n_ are getting bigger by the minute and so on and so forth. For some reason other women seem to think that masculine women equates gay.
I have known many a tomboy who is not gay, and lord knows I know plenty of feminine (fine) women who are as gay as they come.
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this
Mara, no, they call them d*kes.
By Just Being Me
October 13, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this
And butches…
By Renee
October 13, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this
yeah the list goes on and on and on….
By DeltaX
October 13, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this
Renee,
What you responded to was directed at Whiley. I think yu confused me complaining about not getting an answer from Whiley/Lozen - but not from you. I even posted that it was nice that your sane.
I see that Whiley et company is still just as