AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > March > 16 > Entry
Does our culture devalue manliness?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I do a lot of public speaking, and when I’m at a big venue, it is not uncommon to be followed around by large men in black suits talking into mysterious gadgets in their wrists or lapels. “Okay, she’s leaving the stage… entrance three, entrance three, we’re heading to the book table.”
Just a few hours before I had to write this column, in fact, I was speaking at a large church that had recently stepped up security. A multi-week series had stirred up some controversy; and after several earlier incidents, the security guys looked ready for anything. In fact… they almost looked as if they secretly wanted something to happen. Behind the scenes, I asked the head of security about it, and he chuckled a bit ruefully. “Obviously, we don’t want something to happen, but in a way… we do. When I needed to triple the security detail, the guys here were jumping to volunteer. There’s something in men that just wants to take on the bad guys, you know?”
I’ll bet that resonates with most men reading this – but for years our quasi-feminist culture has made them feel that its illegitimate. In the media and real life, the manly desire to be a risk-taker, a protector, a provider is often mocked or criticized – or said to be non-existent. We don’t need a man to rescue us, we women sniff, we can take care of ourselves. Well, okay, sure we can – but what is so wrong with appreciating his manly desire to take care of and sacrifice for us?
As Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield notes in his recent attention-getting book, “Manliness,” if we criticize and devalue something that is so built into men – and so beneficial to women – we may not like what we get.
Today as I was shadowed for eight hours by the large men in black, I realized that I liked the sense of being protected just as much as those guys probably like being the protector. And it’s telling of how far our culture has gone in the wrong direction, that I’m almost embarrassed to admit that. High time that the healthy ideals of manliness were again encouraged instead of being made politically incorrect.
Rebuttal
If manliness could be summed up by whether or not Shaunti felt safe inside we could all call it a day. Fortunately, what makes a man is much more complex.
Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield bemoans the decline of masculine traits in his book, “Manliness,” suggesting the decline is akin to an embattled war hero in a Euripides play – on the losing side, that is. But before taking him too seriously, we should consider the source: Mansfield is a 73-year-old-man born during the Neolithic period when men hunted woolly mammoths and women scrapped around the bush foraging for berries.
To his credit, though, Mansfield doesn’t assume masculine qualities are the sole province of men, as Shaunti does. Hillary Clinton has masculine qualities, he points out in a recent interview. And, let’s face it: a lot of men are more emotional and maternal than this columnist ever will be.
And yet conservatives persist in believing personality traits are rigidly defined by sex and modern man’s identity malaise is the fault of feminists. It’s pure laziness. It takes less mental effort to swipe a sword across the Gordian knot of human sexuality. This does a disservice to all of us by patting men on the head like toddlers.
The only ones castrating men — are men. Feminists are credited for giving women more flexibility and choices. This doesn’t mean men can’t “be men.” What makes a man means so much more than the warrior stereotype: It means being a good father and husband. It means using your physical prowess for good and not destruction, for peace and not abuse.
It’s interesting to note that although our cultural notions attempt to define what it means to be a woman, there is no female equivalent in the English vernacular about “being a woman.” Is this because what it means to “be a man” has too rigid a cast?
This is something men (and some women) need to consider: What makes a man isn’t about how women act. Women didn’t ask permission to break the mold, recast their roles and gain more freedom.
The same principle holds true for men. Masculinity is what men make of it. After all, they are the ones with the parts. They should know how to run the engine.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Ummmm, what’s the deal with all these spammers???
By Tim
March 20, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
I don’t devalue manliness… I think it’s sexy :)
By Renee
March 20, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Makes you want to buy insurance or play poker huh…lol
Mornin everyone and special good morning and hug to JBM.
By RF
March 20, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Okay, is it just me, or is it not absolutely ABSURD to think Shaunti needs bodyguards?? And what’s that mess about security at a CHURCH?? I got this hilarious image of her riding around in the 8 yr.old minivan with four guys looking like the agent from Lilo and Stitch, talking into their watches as Shaunti jets off to the soccer field or church moms meeting. “Okay, agent Friday, who’s got the diaper bag, I think Junior did a doodle, over?”
As to the topic— what the heck is threatening men and their ‘masculinity’? Must be some awfully insecure men out there. Seems obvious to me that if we have encouraged women to change their roles and take control of their lives, then men need to adjust some too. It’s not about feeling masculine—it’s about living together and working to make life good. If that requires men to be less “HE MAN” then they just need to get over it. I say every man needs to be left at home alone with the kids and the chores for about a month. Masculinity aside, they’d learn to manage a house, a job, and still be MEN while delivering the Girl Scout cookies. It really isn’t a “threat”, it’s reality folks. Men gotta learn to be flexible.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Manliness is exceptionally sexy on a female!!
By Renee
March 20, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
RF Hilarious!!!!!!!!! You are ABSOLUTELY correct!!!! Why WOULD Shaunti need bodyguards????
Any takes on how long before the topic goes to abortion and gay bashing???
JBM, RF, anyone????
By Whiley
March 20, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Our culture doesn’t “devalue” manliness. Unless manliness is defined as being abusive, violent, rude & crude beer drinking, pornography loving, multiple sex partner roughneck, then yes it does.
Looks like Shaunti & Diane aren’t at work yet. They have the power to get rid of spammers.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this
ROFLMBO @ RF and Renee!!!! I see you guys are off to a hilarious start!
Good point though, RF. Why would Shaunti need a bodyguard??????? Okay, I’m admittedly not up on the who’s who in the conservative Christian circles… but, I still find it hard to believe that Shaunti has anything that a church seminar-attending hoodlum would want (well, except that minivan, and perhaps some baby wipes) what?? the baby wipes do come in handy on road trips, ya know!!!
I’m just not seeing this very clearly… and I can’t even get past it to discuss the real topic at hand…
By Jack
March 20, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Hi All. I’ll be by later to join the fray. :)
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this
Renee, it would take a very crafty and cunning individual to redirect this topic to abortion… of course there’s no lack of those around here. But, I’m guessing this topic won’t last 24 hours without teetering on the edge of gay-bashing. About 36 hours before we see an out right attack…
By The72John
March 20, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
Back later myself. Morning, all.
By Chilao
March 20, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Maybe all that hate speech that is found at SOME churches causes the need for bodyguards. The natives are restless, so to speak. I distinctly remember being on lockdown, when I was a overseas missionary kid, because the natives were restless, it was rumoured they were massing weapons, and had had enough of those heathens(from their perspective) with their Bibles, telling them would they could do and not do. We were not allowed to leave the compound except for in-groups. It was diplomatically resolved, and the threat subsided. But the phrase, The natives are restless, stuck with me.
Let’s see, REAL men make their women overbreed, and when the woman can not handle it, do a Yates and bail and remarry? Do I get that correctly? Just trying to pull from current events, LOL.
But Gordian? I have actually dated some who wanted me to make absolutely EVERY decision for them, including what to wear and what to eat. Nothing like being responsible for yourself, so I passed, does that make me a non-Man? Just a thought.
And Diane is certainly right, there is much more to being a man than being able to be a man in black, with the high-tech gadgetry, to protect that poor damsel in distress.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
JBM, you underestimate the segue-ing abilities of some posters. For example, we could say that by allowing choice on the abortion question, we give women more say on procreation, which devalues mens ability to spread their seed far and wide. Therefore, abortion is a threat to “manliness” and must be stopped before our male breeders are completely emasculated by the mythical hirsute feminazis. LOL!! See how easy that was?
By the way…mornin’ all.
By RF
March 20, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
I’m now picturing the motorcade of black Suburbans with the raggedy minivan in the middle whipping into the Toys-r-Us parking lot. “Agent Bozo, you get the cart, Kowalski take the tike, and Jones you get the sippy cup. Check the entrance and I’ll bring her in, over?” I’m sorry, I’m just going to have a field day with that one.
And how would you train security guards for a CHURCH? “NO guns guys,we’re soldiers for Jeeesus here! Just biblical principles— Stone ‘em and if they get close enough, whack ‘em with the Big Book!” I mean, if you’re there for the Big G God, then shouldn’t he be able to throw a few lightning bolts and keep things under control??
By RF
March 20, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Great, Mara, you just laid it out for ‘em!! LOL
We could be discussing cookie recipes, and they’d find a way to gay-bash and cry against abortion rights.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this
Wow, Mara! And, you’re not even on my cunning & crafty list! You’ve got skills, girl! LOL!
RF, keep it up, dude!!! You’re making my Monday bearable…
By Chilao
March 20, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
RF - you can be sure those guys were packing, being in a church irrelevant. I don’t keep up on all the conservative writings out there, but. LOL Some people just might not like some of it. LMAO
And here I had refrained from making an initial comment about “You mean I also can be so emphatic that everyone thing/behave like me, since my Good Book says so, via legislation even, that I also can have a need for armed security guards?” LOL. Similiar to abortion clinics needing armed securty for the Army of God types.
But increasingly, for every Onward Christian Soldiers person out there, there is a the natives are restless type of person.
By Brian Curtis
March 20, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
Geez, I can’t post here. I feel devalued.
By Chilao
March 20, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Mara was merely demonstrating Bill-style(from last week) logic. made perfect sense. see? LOL
y’all have a good day, a short computer-access-time day for me. My last Monday like this.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
RF, I have no doubt that we could segue cookies and gays/abortion, but even I would have to put some thought into that one! LOL
And what exactly do they mean by “manliness”? This is as subjective as that long-ago forum on whether “femininity” was cultural or inborn.
By Troglodyke
March 20, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this
I’m a longtime lurker who is consistently amused by this blog. (Thought I’d get my intro outta the way first.)
I can see this debate easily giving itself over to gay-bashing and choice-bashing.
Let’s see: since our culture is so depraved, and homosexuality has pervaded everything, and it is, gasp! accepted by so many people (forgive them, father, they know not what they do!!), this has caused men to be emasculated. Because all godly people know that homos are all effete, limp-wristed pansies, and by accepting this depravity, and allowing these pansies to exist, we send a message to manly men that they are not needed.
Connection accomplished. The decline of masculinity is directly related to homosexual SIN.
Now, let’s see about the abortion thing. How about this: Probably at least half of aborted fetuses would have been boys, and at least 90% of those would have been hetero, so every other abortion prevents a fetus from becoming a “manly man” of the future.
Whatta ya think? Boy, my synapses are really firing today.
By Chilao
March 20, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
s/b “thinK/behave” - can’t blame that on the keyboard.
not the first I have done think as thing, either.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
RF…HILARIOUS!!!
RF, I was in a really crappy mood this morning until you came on!!! You brought on my first laugh of the day, and have subsequently kept them coming. Thanks!
And you are right. Cookie recipes are somehow related to the gays and/or abortion. I’ll come up with that later.
It’s the first day of Spring and we are having a snowstorm. I miss Atlanta, more and more each day.
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA! Good one, RF! Lilo & Stitch guys.. Hahaha!
I’m gonna agree with Diane on this one. If some men aren’t as “manly” as men used to be, that’s their choice. Lots of men in my generation don’t want a wife to take care of; they marry a woman who will take care of THEM while they remain big, irresponsible kids.
But I LUUUUUVVVV me some manly men! Mmmm mmmm good. What kind of a wuss would blame ME (a five-foot-two-inch, unarmed civilian female) for his loss of manliness? A real man is not intimidated by a female who demands her rights. A real man can put lil’ ol’ me in my place right quick. {;->
By Jack K
March 20, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
It sounds like you guys are obsessed with the topics of abortion and gay bashing. It’s all you talk about until someone takes your bait and runs with it.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s not really specific about which traits of manliness are being made politicaly incorrect? I mean, is she talking about a stereotypical 1950’s sitcom man?
Personally, I’m pretty darned appreciative of “manliness”, however it’s defined. But then, what I define as manliness may be totally different from what someone else does.
Are we talking grunting, emotionally distant, unwilling to do “woman’s work”, sit-down-drinking-a-beer-make-my-dinner-woman manliness, or are we talking strong, confident, equally able to build a cabinet out of scrap lumber or wash the dishes, pitching-in-to-help-out-around-the-house-before-watching-the-game-on-tv manliness?
Sorry, sounds like Shaunti is (yet again) inventing some crisis that doesn’t exist. Oh noes! The poor menfolk are being squashed by PC feminazis! Whatever. I guess the American Family Association or whichever lunatic fringe group that Shaunti is listening to today is getting all het up over nothing.
By Archie
March 20, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
“What makes a man isn’t about how women act.” This is so true Diane and I hope you read my statement.
“Masculinity is what men make of it. After all, they are the ones with the parts. They should know how to run the engine.”
Those three sentences are so true as well Diane. Diane you so correct the being a man is so much more complex than being a warrior.
Shanti,you’re just downright silly with your column. The reason some guys want something to happen in a way is because they want to know if their security procedures will work. Some guys have been practicing fight techniques or they have been lifting weights and they just want to see how they measure up,but it has nothing to do with protecting you,Shanti. I do light security myself,i.e. I don’t carry a gun and I don’t want anything to happen. As a man I can truly say that you do your job and if that means providing protection so be it. If Shanti had used a different premis then she would have gotten a different response from me but right now her argument seems downright silly and demeaning.
By RF
March 20, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
Okay, now imagine the security detail in the grocery store. “Kowalski, you get the bananas—no not those green ones you idiot! Jones, I’m going into frozen foods- cover the dairy. Oh no guys, she’s buying the strained peas. Watch out, you know what happens to the suits when Junior loses his lunch. Okay guys, the boss is buying the Kroger brand peanuts again—DAMN I like the Planters better. Jones- watch the suspicious old lady at your 2 o’clock by the Tender Vittles, she’s got an awful bulge in her dress. Nope, never mind, that’s just her support hose bunching up. Where’s agent Bozo? Kowalski, check the deli, he’s probably scarfing up the free samples again. I’m checking the item count- DAMN 16 items, no express lane today boys. Okay, who picked up the Huggies instead of Pampers?”
By The72John
March 20, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
16 items? Dang, your grocery store is tough! Wal-mart lets ya have 20.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
The culture deems it less important than in the past. I’m glad there are women who still appreciate masculinity in a man. How many women want whimps?
By Renee
March 20, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this
Jack K, it is a joke, not an obsession, as you so eloquently put it. And the reason we make the joke is because it never fails, every week, the topic changes to how bad gays are to the detriment of society coupled with abortion.
But, you seem to be a pot stirred, so you can make ignorant racial comments again this week. That seems to be your obsession.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
LOL RF!!!!! Too funny!!
By The72John
March 20, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
What qualifies as a wimp, in your opinion, Jack?
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Hi Jack. Did you and the missus watch “The Quiet Man” again? I did. Again. I always hate myself afterward, though.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
Jack, can you define “masculinity” without making women sound like helpless, ineffectual, delicate little fraidy-cats who need to be coddled, sheltered, provided for and protected from the cold, hard world?
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Hi Kim. Yes we watched it. Those priests were hilarious. (Do you look like Ms. O’Hara?)
John. Not enough time to answer that one.
By RF
March 20, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
So do church security guards pray before they shoot you?? That could get bad. The spirit gets hold of you, you jump up and start speaking in tongues, and BAM some trigger-happy guard give you the express lane to Jesus!! Yeah, I really want to go to a church where I have to wear riot gear just in case!
Sorry guys, I’m just OD’ing on that whole argument. I’ll quit soon, I promise.
See, Jack doesn’t feel devalued, and I bet he even does the dishes every now and then.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Jack K., if you did your homework and read up on some of the recent blogs (about 2 months worth), you’d see that Renee (et al) is predicting the logical next step (you know the saying, the best predictor of the future is the past). It has never failed (since I began frequenting this blog nearly a year ago) that every single topic, however far from sexuality or abortion it may be, is somehow redirected to religion, (homo)sexuality, and/or abortion.
So, it’s certainly not Renee (et al) stirring up the pot. It’s her reasonable anticipation of the stirring of the pot.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
I do the pots & pans thank you. Masculinity is not being afraid to speak your mind to someone’s face. if someone pushes you, you push back. Nothing grosses you out (Blood, guts, poop, puke ETC) You would rather do something yourself rather than let someone else do it. You do whatever it takes to satisfy your woman. I could go on and on.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Sorry guys, I’m just OD’ing on that whole argument. I’ll quit soon, I promise.
It’s because the entire argument is silly. As I said earlier, she never defines what qualities are being supressed by political correctness, she just makes some ambiguous and non-specific claims about men being “forced” to act against their supposed nature.
She’s a typical religious conservative - obsessed with some archaic idea of gender roles that never really existed in the first place, except in the Old Testament. Just like you-know-who, Shaunti makes broad-stroke claims about some pillar of society as we know it crumbling, but is completely unable to substantiate it or provide examples.
If she’s so concerned about gender roles, why does she keep working?
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Heh.. no dear. She’s taller and um… wider, and redder than I. I’m just a petite flower, afterall. Hee hee.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
In defense of Jack K., who I think unintentionally stuck his foot in his mouth last week, and to also be fair to Renee, didn’t do the best job of saying “whoops, sorry!”, I think his point was that maybe if we didn’t bring up the topic, even in a joking manner, that it might not come up.
Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that.
By Fair?!?Where-Is-The-Fair?
March 20, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Renee (et al) is predicting the logical next step (you know the saying, the best predictor of the future is the past). It has never failed (since I began frequenting this blog nearly a year ago) that every single topic, however far from sexuality or abortion it may be, is somehow redirected to religion, (homo)sexuality, and/or abortion.
Sounds like a self fullfilling prophecy. If you all were so confident in your beliefs you may not have to wave that banner so much as to call attention to the topic and you would also not engage yourself in it.
By RF
March 20, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
See, Jack has a comfortable grasp of his role in life, and I bet Mrs. Jack doesn’t regret being with him. It’s all about balance and self-assurance. If a guy feels devalued, he might ought to put down the remote and talk about it. He might find out he’s been devaluing those around him for a long time.
By Scalia
March 20, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
There is a really good book talking about raising boys. It talks about how boys and later men, are taught not to express their feelings. The range is happy to angry. That’s about it. It also talks about how boys are taught that men are strong, and not allowed to show vulnerability.
I’m guessing that’s what Shaunti is talking about. She wants men to stay this way. So it is kinda silly when week before last she talked about her husband cooking dinner for the family. Traditionally, society doesn’t see that as being masculine. She should have been writing her book, juggling the kid, and making sure to keep her house in order, meaning cooking and cleaning. All her husband was supposed to do was protect them, and bring home the food.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I love petite flowers. I like to wallow in them. :)
By The72John
March 20, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
If you all were so confident in your beliefs you may not have to wave that banner so much as to call attention to the topic and you would also not engage yourself in it.
Well, that’s a false assumption.
Jack - what you’ve described isn’t what I consider manly, it’s what I consider “Macho”. And it’s fake. It’s not real. There are lots of men who don’t like “iky” things, or who don’t think that violence is the solution. And…do you think that women should be afraid to speak their minds?
Sorry, but masculinity doesn’t mean you adhere to a set of requirements all designed to show how tough you are - that’s just bunk.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
If you all were so confident in your beliefs you may not have to wave that banner so much as to call attention to the topic and you would also not engage yourself in it.
Quite the opposite. First of all, I’m not the one who waves the banner but if I did, or choose to, I have no problem in that, or in engaging myself in it, because, well, I am so confident in my beliefs.
But I don’t know what the big deal is. I said it, I did, others have said the same exact thing on other weeks. It’s a comment, no more, no less. If it doesn’t apply, let it fly. If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit, and so forth and so on…
By Archie
March 20, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
“It’s because the entire argument is silly. As I said earlier, she never defines what qualities are being supressed by political correctness, she just makes some ambiguous and non-specific claims about men being “forced” to act against their supposed nature.”
Right on 72John,Shanti actually demeans a lot of us. By us I mean men. As I have said many times before I do the dishes,cook,do laundry, and work in the yard. Is their something wrong with my manliness? I have no idea what Shanti is trying to accomplish. Her premise is just downright silly.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Not biting John.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Jack? Did you actually say “You do whatever it takes to satisfy your woman”? YOUR woman? Like YOUR truck, YOUR dog, YOUR property?
As a *REAL MAN” (TM)”Nothing grosses you out”…until it comes to changing the turd-filled nappy, cleaning the cat-box, or picking up feminine hygeine products at the supermarket.
“You would rather do something yourself rather than let someone else do it.” - So all those “men” from the pre-feminist days weren’t really men since they “let” THEIR women do for them? Because “real men” do everything themselves. I guess that explains all the non-masculine wimps who hire people to do their lawnwork, build their houses, clean those houses, slaughter the livestock, butcher the livestock, cook the meat, clean the house, etc, etc, etc.
Had we women known that men wanted to do everything for themselves, we wouldn’t have even thought of actually being treated equally! We coulda ruled the WORLD!! Damn.
By Bruce
March 20, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
Altough I find this topic somewhat lame to begin with I would like to add my two cents.
Being a man is not as complex as Diane thinks it is. (for me anyway) Being a man has nothing to do with house work, protecting a woman or being the strongest.
Being a man is about being responsible, trustworthly and honorable. It requires one to be dependable, and honest.
My wife does not NEED a protector but I am the one that gets out of bed in the middle of the night when there is an unexplainable “bump”. I help wash dishes and fold clothes. Why? Because I help dirty them. I entered into this relationship as an equal PARTNER not as the boss. I could go on but I think you all get the point, at least I hope you do.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Or, perhaps we “wave that banner” because we are so confident in our beliefs…
By The72John
March 20, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I’m not fishing, Jack. Just, you know…discussing.
By Keith
March 20, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Hey dummies-the threat may be from someone not usually in the church. It is a fact that our female run public schools are trying to make something else out of little boys by not letting them be little boys.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Renee Cochran!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Mara. Do you refer to your husband as your husband? Excuse me. I should have said any woman. Masculintiy is in the eye of the beholder. What You or John think as masculine may be different than mine. Give us YOUR definition please.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
Mara, are you saying that Jack should not refer to his wife as his woman. I would say the exact same thing. I do what it takes to make my woman happy (substitute man if you like). Do you really find that sexist???
By Jack
March 20, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
Mara. I’ve done all you named. I’ve changed as many s** diapers as you and cleaned up plenty of puke. I have gone to the store at 11:00Pm to buy tampons and maternity napkins. I gladly did all. Beat on me some more. I love it.
By lozen
March 20, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
“There’s something in men that just wants to take on the bad guys, you know?” I’ll bet that resonates with most men reading this – but for years our quasi-feminist culture has made them feel that its illegitimate.”
I was waiting to see what the men on the blog thought about this. They don’t know what the heck shaunti is talking about; neither do I.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
*Hey dummies-the threat may be from someone not usually in the church. It is a fact that our female run public schools are trying to make something else out of little boys by not letting them be little boys. *
I like how the word “dummies” gives him credibility right off the bat. Then, he follows it up with a fact. We know it’s a fact because it’s bold.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
JBM - remember the South Park with Johnny Cochran and the Chewbaca defense….LOL
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why y’all want to pick on Jack. I mean, I don’t always agree with him in the issues, but I appreciate that he’s comfortable with who he is, not afraid to speak his mind, and doesn’t need to demean others to make himself feel good, like some “manly men” who come ‘round here.
First and foremost, we all have to be who we are, and respect others for being who they are, IMO. (Um, unless they’re intolerant a—ho—s or something.)
By Renee
March 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
ummmm…Jack??? Maternity napkins??? LOL
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I have to admit I haven’t gotten into this topic too deeply - I mean, face it, it’s just not a deep topic… we’ll be lucky if this lasts until 3:pm today…
Anyway, Bruce, I find it interesting that your wife doesn’t need a protector.
Shucks, when I hear an “unexplainable bump” in the middle of the night, the first thing I pray for is protection!!! I know the feminists hate to hear me say this, but I happen to appreciate a partner who protects me, whether it’s from a spider or from an armed burglar!
By Keith
March 20, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Hey superior being 72 John, fact comes from a substitute teacher-me.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
We know it’s a fact because it’s bold.
I got a good chuckle out of that one!
Renee, yeah I do remember that! Hey, speaking of South Park, Matt and Trey were on the news this morning and all weekend… regarding Tom Cruise and the Scientology episode…
By Mara
March 20, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Renee, actually I do find ignoring a person’s status in a relationship ( i.e. “my husband”, “my wife” etc) and defining a person only by their gender a bit sexist and demeaning. It is my opinion, and perhaps it is mine alone, that these titles define who or what that person is to you. So, saying “she’s my wife” comes off completely different than “she’s my woman” with the former indicating a notable part of your life and the latter as being un-worthy of title or regard. That’s my opinion.
Jack, see Bruces 11:32 post for a close approximation of what I consider “manly”…
By lozen
March 20, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Good comments from everyone. Bruce I liked your post a lot. Being a man is about being responsible, trustworthly and honorable. It requires one to be dependable, and honest. I think being a woman is about all those things too. I don’t believe in the huge divide between masculine and feminine. We all have both male and female characteristics and probably would act more alike if we weren’t trained to be different from the day we’re born. Of course, it’s impossible to really know what we would be like if we weren’t trained to “be a boy” or “be a girl”. I do know, from studying anthropology, that male and female “natural” behavior is different in other cultures.
By lozen
March 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Keith, could you give us some examples of how our female run schools keep boys from being boys please?
By Mara
March 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
ROTFLMAO 72J - “We know it’s a fact because it’s bold” just about killed me!!!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Yes twice. After each of my sons were born I had to get the napkins. I got the tampons at other times in my career as husband. It never bothered me cause at least I have a female to go get them for.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
I can agree with the 11:32. (Most of it)
By Mara
March 20, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Jack, I don’t mean to beat up on you but some of the comments you post make me say “WHAAA!?” And if I’m just as unafraid as you of poopy diapers, puke, and maternity napkins, does that make me a man? See, none of the qualities you name seem to be “masculine” exclusively. Of course, neither do mine but I’m not trying to seperate the “masculine” from the “feminine”. I thing gender roles are mainly (but not completely) imposed by society anyway, so listening to the break-down is fairly interesting to me.
On the other hand, I kinda just like to argue :^)
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Mara. Did it occur to you that I said woman instead of wife because many couples choose not to marry and I don’t want to leave them out. If wht I said offened you, you need help.
By Renee
March 20, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
I was just teasing you Jack. I had never heard them referred to as “maternity napkins”.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Well then, Keith, surely you know that using anecdotal evidence to support broad, sweeping claims is falacious? Or perhaps not…what are the educational requirements these days for being a substitute? A high school diploma or its equivalent?
Unless you can provide specific, concrete examples of the pervasive plot within the public educational system that support your broad claim, then I don’t care if your the State Superintendent.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
By “maternity” napkins, do you mean sanitary napkins (aka “maxi pads”)? Just curious.
Mara, you make a good point in your 12:11.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
I knew I would get beat up with my views on masculinity. After all, I am a male chavanist pig. Women SHOULD be put on pedestals. Women ARE special. Equal work equal pay is fine with me. Women should have all of the rights of men but that doesn’t mean I have to treat them like men.
By RF
March 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
OOOOOOKAY, so Keith’s a substitute teacher…yeah, dude, that gives you about as much authority as the janitor—no wait, the janitor has more because he’s a regular.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
JBM. Yes the ones as big as a table cloth.
By Zack
March 20, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Go to the mall today. Go to the grocery store. Heck, look on an NFL field. Do men really seem to be manly nowadays? A lot of times we don’t.
I’ve said it before and will again. The divorce rate is responsible for a lot of the effeminate nature of many “men” today. Adolescent males don’t have the paternal influence they need and therefore take after their moms. Some would say that boys don’t need to be around their dads, as their moms can provide both the maternal and paternal infleunces needed by growing boys.
No, they can’t.
I think another reason we’re seeing a more sissified society is because of the lack of work being done by our youth. Responsibility is one of the many hallmarks of manhood, and it’s not being held prominently anymore. My goodness, kids need to be taught responsibility and should learn the value of hard work, not be given cell phones, X Boxes, and the myth that they can just speed-dial their way through life.
I’m not necessarily a “60 Minutes” fan, but they had a very interesting piece about a year or so ago about how today’s high-school graduates are graduating and having no idea how to do things on their own, as they’ve always had things done for them. As for boys, if hard work is not a part of their lives, and if they don’t experience the joy of doing a job the right way—on their own—yes, the maturation process of boyhood to manhood won’t happen in any area except for their age.
We also need guys to try to look handsome, not pretty. Don’t forget your inherent gender role, guys.
By Zack
March 20, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
RF—Just saw your post about “abortion rights.” Please learn that no woman has the right to an abortion, regardless of what a judicial tyrant says. I think you HAVE learned it, as I think every pro-choice advocate has. Please admit to it.
By The72John
March 20, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Lol, did the inmate just say “sissified”? What a maroon.
By Tim
March 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
well… I worked for a landscaping business in the middle of summer in Orlando while in college… so I guess I have manliness (according to Zack)… but I’m also gay… so then I must be a sissy too… so I’m confused… what am I a lesbian? shoot I need a pill or something… this is too much for my brain
oh and I don’t try to look pretty or handsome… I try to look dead sexy… and then I do my little turn on the catwalk… yeah on the catwalk… I shake my lil tush (sp) on the catwalk
By RF
March 20, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Ummmmkay, I’ll bite. Zack- why do you suppose so many boys are left behind by their fathers? If that many men have abandoned their sons to effeminacy, then what does that say about the definition of manhood, and who would want to live up to it? And, some of the most masculine, straight, he-man types I know had single parents, while some less macho guys actually had two parents. What you’re proposing is anecdotal and flimsy at best.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
Zack. Good 12:33.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Jack - “many couples choose not to marry and I don’t want to leave them out.” So identifying someones special someone as “my significant other” , “my friend”, “my girlfriend” is all the same to you as them saying “my woman”? And no, it didn’t occur to me. Even if it had I would have found it just as dismissive.
And thanks, JBM for the kudos on the 12:11 post.
By RF
March 20, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Geez, who left the gate to the state home open again?? The loonies are loose.
By Eirik
March 20, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this
Zack,
Where are all these pretty guys you are talking about? I’m missing out…
The only thing I’ve noticed that has changed about men since I was a teenager in the ’70s, is that men are a lot fatter.
Zack seems to be confusing laziness and slothfulness with being effeminate.
I mean look what we wore in the 70’s…platform shoes, flowered shirts…hot pants… things have definitely changed for the better since then…if anything, guys are more manly.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
OK Mara. I’ll change it to say “a woman” That better?
By Whiley
March 20, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
LOL TIM ! ! !
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Although I would disagree either way Zack, I have to say that were it not for the condescending, hateful-yet so Christ-like little jabs laced throughout your 12:33, it would have been very well-written. Logically and reasonably thought out… but for the snide, unmasked attacks.
Giving in to the segueway, I must note that there are many a “sissified” man (assuming your definition of “sissified”) in today’s church who is NOT homosexual… what do you have to say about them?
By LaughAtZack
March 20, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Yeah Zack - you’re a real masculine guy. I think it’s really manly the way you threaten to sue people whenever they post something on the blog that makes you cry.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
” “sissified” man (assuming your definition of “sissified”) in today’s church who is NOT homosexual…”
JBM. They are referred to as “Femmes”
By Whiley
March 20, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
“Please learn that no woman has the right to an abortion, regardless of what a judicial tyrant says.” Zack dear, women DO have a right to an abortion, women DO own their OWN bodies, & women HAVE & WILL ALWAYS get abortions no matter what some of the hyper masculine religious based women controlling laws pass. I can’t stand the term macho & everything that stands for. YUCK ! Suave, sexy & cleans up his own crap is much better.
“effeminate nature “??????
You mean those that don’t dominate & beat their wife & kids?
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
I think it’s really manly the way you threaten to sue people whenever they post something on the blog that makes you cry.
LOL!!! I forgot about that!
And, Jack, in the black church, they’re referred to as sissies (as much as I hate to admit that).
By Renee
March 20, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
hmmm…I didn’t know that…I thought stereotypically I was referred to as a “femme”.
Tim, too funny!!
By Mara
March 20, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
if we’re going by the Zack/Jack/Keith model of “masculine” I wonder how long it’ll be before Austin Powers is straddling my back, yanking at my hair and screaming, “That’s no WOMAN, that a man baybee!”
Like Tim, I’m a bit confused. I have all the attributes that supposedly define “masculine” (except the p-nis) and yet…I feel so very feminine…LOL!!
By Tim
March 20, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
thanks whiley :)
lol at Jack
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Mara, I’ve known quite a few pen!s lacking women who like you, have all the attributes that define masculinity… And baby, that’s my kinda woman!!!! LOL!
By Manly Man
March 20, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
All I know is…I’m a lumberjack and that’s ok…
By Mara
March 20, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
Yes, Jack. I do think that if you must identify someone by something other than a name or title, it’s better to identify them as a part of a group than sigularly as “yours”…but as I said, it’s just my opinion that the one indicates more respect and regard than the other. Just a difference in perception.
By Whiley
March 20, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
I know some men with Man-boobs. Why are THEY allowed to go topless?
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
ROFL @ man-boobs!
By Renee
March 20, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
LOL JBM
By Tim
March 20, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
AMEN Whiley!!!… and to go along with that… why make speedos in XL??? just because they make it in your size doesn’t mean you should be wearing it!!!
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
I have to wonder why a self-professed “conservative,” (proponents of “personal accountability”) would blame SOCIETY on this silly non-issue. Isn’t that hypocritical? When a “liberal” blames society for the plight of the poor and illiterate, we’re “enabling” them. Yet Shaunti has no problem blaming society for the fact that a lot of men just don’t WANT to adhere to traditional masculine roles. (And why should they, when there are plenty of women who’ll bring home the bacon AND wash their shorts? And she’s one of them!)
Not pointing fingers at anyone really (‘cept Shauti), but does anyone else find that hypocritical?
By Mara
March 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
JBM - you sweet-talker you!!
LMAO @ Manly lumberjack and man-boobs WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
By Scalia
March 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Ewww…Whiley. Man boobs? Are they sweaty like the guy from Fight Club that was in the group therapy?
By Jack
March 20, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Mara. Please don’t say you have a hairy chest. (that is considered masculine in some circles)
By Scalia
March 20, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Tim…some men need an XL speedo. I was at the beach, and this guy definitely needed an XL. Wow!!!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t be caught dead in a speedo. (not in public anyway!)
By RF
March 20, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
ROFL at the man boobs and speedos!! GROSS!!
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
Okay, just for clarity, I do draw the line at a hairy chest…
By Susie
March 20, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Mara, the funniest thing was once some of us were chit chatting with a guy friend of ours, who has no children…he told us that NOTHING grossed him out and there was nothing we could tell him that would gross him out. We proved him wrong with just ONE of our childbirth stories. Actually it was just one small detail of one childbirth story. LOL! He said we didn’t fight fair.
By Tim
March 20, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
lol @ Scalia… ok… in that instance… I’ll make an exception… but I don’t think anyone should just be able to walk in a buy a speedo!
By LaughAtZack
March 20, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Don’t be so quick to say “gross”! Now…was the extra fabric needed on the BACK or on the FRONT?
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Jack! (LOL!!) I do NOT have a hairy chest (nor the hairy back that seems to go with it) But we’ve finally found a “masculine” attribute we agree on! Hooray!
;^P
By The72John
March 20, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Hmmm…JBM, you and I draw the line at VERY different places.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this
Susie, you should have seen my brother the first time he had to use the snot-bubble thingy to suck the mucus from his sons nose! I thought he was gonna up-chuck right then and there. (in all honesty, I thought it was pretty nasty too! eeeewww)
By Janie
March 20, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Once at the beach there was a guy who was so obese that you couldn’t see his speedo from the front…only from behind. From the front, the folds of fat hung down over the speedo, and it looked like he was wearing NOTHING. Now that’s what I call masculine. (rolls eyes)
By RF
March 20, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this
what’s just as bad as the ill-fitted speedo is a g-string(butt floss) on a cottage cheese butt!!
By Susie
March 20, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Haha, Mara, I don’t know anyone that those things don’t gross out! I’ll take a crappy diaper over the snot-sucker-outer any day of the week. LOL
By RF
March 20, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Mara- that’s soooo much easier than cleaning the throwup out of the carpet. I have a STRONG stomach, but that just about gets me every time.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this
I can do gross. How bout cleaning the carpet after your dog vomits up the squirrel he just ate. Hmmm. Warm & juicy.
By Whiley
March 20, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Scalia & even bigger ! oh the horror of it.
By ARNOLD
March 20, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
Don’t be a GIRLIE MAN! Listen to me now and hear me later. REAL MEN do not wear speedos…(I’ll be back…)
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
How about using your mouth as the sucky-thing when the snot is just too much for the sucky thing to handle???!!!! Now, THAT’S gross!!! (And, I’ve seen it done).
John, somehow that doesn’t surprise me! LOL!
By Brian Curtis
March 20, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
What I’ve learned that “manliness” means… to some people
People who don’t like violence aren’t manly. MLK, Jr.? He was a wuss. Gandhi, Jesus? Ditto.
Toughness is all that matters. “Play through the pain, take it like a man”—-and die early from such stupid behavior.
Manly men embrace the “separate but equal” philosophy of the sexes. Women are just like men, except they’re more special and deserve extra privileges. Not that they need them! But if you’re a “real man,” you’ll award those privileges anyway, and feel manly for doing so.
Manliness means doing everything for yourself and refusing help. That’s why I do my own surgery and dental work, for example. Only a wuss would rely on trained professionals to perform services for him.
Manly men do everything by hand. Tools are for sissies.
To be manly, you’ve gotta do a lot of killin’… errr, I mean, be “eager to take on the bad guys.” And like it—-no, LOVE it. Enemy soldiers, harmless woodland creatures, convicted criminals… makes no difference. The true test of manliness is how eager you are for blood.
-
So, by those standards, I’m clearly not a man. Yet I’m also not a woman. Hmm… maybe I’m Michael Jackson!
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
RF, Jack…let me introduce you to my little freind the “shop vac” LOL Pair that baby up with some Oxyclean and a long-handled scrubbrush, you’re good to go!
By WhatsUp
March 20, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this
Why would gay women take an interest in the topic of manliness? Doesn’t make much sense to me.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
JBM!!!! GROSSSS!!!!! I’ve seen a dog-breeder friend of mine do that with new-born puppies and that was pretty disgusting, too.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Brian. You forgot the part about us never needing to ask directions when driving or read directions when assembling anything.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis - very well said indeed! (applause)
By Susie
March 20, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Thank you Arnold, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve never been able to look at a guy wearing one without laughing, so I usually just don’t look.
Just Being Me, STOP IT STOP IT! I’m trying to eat an ice cream sandwich here and you are gonna make me blow ice cream out my own nose! LOL!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
But Mara. It tastes good.
By Just Being Me
March 20, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
~joining Mara in applause~ That was indeed well said, Brian!
What’s Up - I know it’s hard for you to believe - being so small-minded and all, but we take interest in more than just vag!nas.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
HAHAHAHA!!! My cut-n-paste offering for today…
“Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.”
for the rest of the article, go to RawStory.com
By RF
March 20, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Mara- I gotta remember that one. I do the oxyclean, but the scrubbing part is what gets me. I like the idea of the shop-vac. Gotta get me one of those.
By Susie
March 20, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Anyone heard “The Man Song?” I think it’s hysterical, but not nearly as funny as “The Woman Song.” I would post the lyrics here, but I don’t want to violate copyright or anything…to see more of this guy’s stuff you can go to www.seanmorey.com and check out all his albums and songs. I wish he’d come to atlanta, I’d buy tickets for sure!
By Mara
March 20, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Jack, I agree. Toss in a few taters, some carrots, onion, celery…m-m-m-m-mMMM. Dog Vomit Stew. Yumm-O!
By Tim
March 20, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Susie… you’re obviously not lookin in the right places… there are some men who look mighty fine in a speedo!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Mara. A nice red wine goes well with it.
By Mara
March 20, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
Ooops! Sorry, Jack. I just assumed you were talking about the flavor of the squirrel and not the puppy/baby mucus…
:^)
By Monica
March 20, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
I’m so confused… My husband works out 6 days a week, is incredibly strong, is a fantastic athlete, and will check out the bump in the night, but he also is afraid of snakes and spiders, he changes diapers, and he cooks dinner. Should I worry about his manliness and my preferences? :) BTW, I’m about as religious and conservative as Shaunti (see the MAP posts around Christmas time), but I have no idea what she’s talking about with the church venue that needs security.
I’m also a teacher, and I didn’t know that I was working for a female-run school system that didn’t allow boys to be boys. I wish someone would enlighten me! :)
By Scalia
March 20, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
Dog vomit? It’s so gross, and smelly.
As for the speedo, yeah, the extra fabric was needed in the front. UPS couldn’t even handle that package.
By Keith
March 20, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
OK 72John, I admit, being in the schools regularly probably doesn’t mean as much as getting your info from the AJC.
By Jody
March 20, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Whose version of manliness? Is Lance Armstrong manly? He’s the greatest cyclist ever but he shaves his legs..
By Mara
March 20, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Jack, I guess we don’t have to set a place at the dinner table for Scalia..heh, heh, heh….he doesn’t realize that the dog vomit is more of a…marinade, if you will, for the squirrel. (LOL-gag-LOL)
By The72John
March 20, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this
Should I worry about his manliness and my preferences? :) BTW, I’m about as religious and conservative as Shaunti
No, if you’re as religious and conservative as Shaunti, I’m sure it’s OTHER people’s preferences you’re obsessed with.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
The wine goes well with both. Mucus is desert. Monica if your man makes you happy that’s all that counts. The hell with what everone else thinks.
By Julia
March 20, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
WHEW!!! I’ll check back after we get past the dog-vomit casserole talk….(I’m about to lose my Taco Bell lunch-and it wasn’t that good to begin with!!!).
Nothing wrong with a speedo on the right man! ;) (Wasn’t Travolta wearing one of those in Saturday Night Fever? You know, when he surprised his grandma in the hallway.) Though he wouldn’t look the same in one of those today! LOL
By The72John
March 20, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
OK 72John, I admit, being in the schools regularly probably doesn’t mean as much as getting your info from the AJC.
And yet a third comment without a single shred of evidence supporting your broad assertion…
Why, could it be you don’t have any? Please, share with us the vast wisdom you have garnered while sleeping in the classroom and performing the difficult duties of subbing.
By Susie
March 20, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Tim, I’m not disputing that, there are definitely some that look good in them, but for some reason even THEY crack me up.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
It looked like something from taco bell. A little chunkier though. (I’ll stop now, I’m getting hungry)
By Mara
March 20, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
72John - I don’t know whether to laugh at your sharp observation regarding religeous conservatives like Shaunti or to feel sorry for Monica for not realizing that the group she self-identifies with really does worry more about other peoples preferances…
By Monica
March 20, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this
72John, Concerned about other people’s preferences, not obsessed with them; there is a difference! Jack, thanks for the support!
By Julia
March 20, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Jack, I don’t think I’ll EVER be able to eat at Taco Bell again!!! (Maybe that’s a good thing?)
By Mara
March 20, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Jack STOP!! I am literally choking from trying not to laugh too loudly. I just about ruptured something when I read the “taco bell” referance.
72J - I’m guessing he read that article about how making little boys sit in their desks, obey the rules, and do their work in inherently sexist because little boys don’t like to sit quietly at their desks (like little girls do). They don’t like to obey the rules (like little girls do). And they really don’t like having to do the school work (like little girls do.) You see how terrible that is?
By RF
March 20, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
John- I’ve had those kinds of subs who completely alter my lesson plan because they think they know better. Then they end up needing administrative help to control the class because, well, they thought they knew more than the certified teacher who left them the plans in the first place. Sad, but true.
By Tim
March 20, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
Susie… ok… I can understand that… but while you’re giggling… send em my way :)
ok… I’m officially not manly… Jack is about to make me vomit… which isn’t good… I’m eating constantly to try and gain weight
By The72John
March 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
72John, Concerned about other people’s preferences, not obsessed with them; there is a difference!
I’m sure you think there is.
By Jack
March 20, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this
Speedos should only be worn by school children on the swim team. Why a grown man would want all to see his “wares” is beyond me. Save it for the bedroom please.
By RF
March 20, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Monica- in a round about sort of way, the point we’ve been bouncing around here is that social perception and what other people think doesn’t mean squat. All that’s important is that you support each other. If you’re happy, then enjoy it. Not many couples can say they’re happy nowadays.
By Nikita
March 20, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Um, hey, not to break up the gross-a-thon (yech), but this is possibly one of the lamer W2W columns. After all, looking above Shaunti essentially tells a cute story about christian security men (wha????) and then makes a few completely unsupported statements about society devaluing manliness. Diane’s response is equally fluffy — but it’s not actually responding to anything, so that’s not surprising. Seriously, is the editor out sick? Why is this column even considered print-ready?
A few random comments supporting neither random conjecture statement above: 1. The nice thing about clearly defined and emphatic gender roles is that they provide a lot of people with unambiguous and therefore comforting rules of behavior. 2. The bad thing is, of course, that they also engender sexist/oppressive behavior and limit people who for whatever reason have talents that may be considered to belong to the opposite gender or who are forced by chance or what have you to take on roles considered to be the province of the opposite gender.
By Tim
March 20, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Why a grown man would want all to see his “wares” is beyond me
advertising
By Jack
March 20, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
Sorry Folks. I got a little out of hand.
By Julia
March 20, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Jack-I love you but right now my digestive system does not.
By lozen
March 20, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
What’sUp… Woman to Woman. Gay women have “manly” friends, fathers, brothers, cousins, coworkers, children, etc. Why you questioning what gay women are interested in, huh?
By Julia
March 20, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
Tim-advertising is one thing…free samples are another! LOL!
By Jack
March 20, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
Speaking of advertising, wasn’t it nice watching TV before lawyers and hospitals and pharmacutical companies started clogging our airwaves with commercials. Ya know, we have to stop your heart before we fix it. If we mess up, you can sue us. Stessed out over the lawsuit, take something for that pain.
By RF
March 20, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
Julia- Good One!!! I’ll quote “Steel Magnolias” here—“spoken like a true smarta-s-s.”
I’ll be chuckling about the free samples from now on when I go to the beach!!
By Tim
March 20, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Julia… that was GREAT… too funny!!!
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
For all the straight ladies (like me) and the gay guys out there…and since we’re talking about MEN:
“It’s Raining Men”
Humidity is rising Barometer’s getting low According to our sources The street’s the place to go
Cause’ tonight for the first time Just about half past ten For the first time in history It’s gonna start raining men
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
Humidity is rising Barometer’s getting low According to our sources The street’s the place to go
Cause’ tonight for the first time Just about half past ten For the first time in history It’s gonna start rainin men
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
I’m gonna go out I’m gonna let myself get Absolutley soaking wet
It’s rainin men Hallejulah It’s raining men Every special men
Tall blonde dark and lean Rough and tough and strong and mean
God bless Mother Nature She’s a single woman too She took over heaven And she did what she had to do
She fought every Angel To rearranged the sky So that each and every woman Could find the perfect guy
It’s raining men
Don’t get yourself Weather Girls I know you want to
I feel stormy wheather moving in About to begin Hear the thunder Don’t you loose your head Rip off the roof and stay in bed (Rip off the roof and stay)
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
It’s raining men Hallejulah It’s raining men Amen
It’s raining men It’s raining men It’s raining men
By GOB
March 20, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
“wasn’t it nice watching TV before lawyers and hospitals and pharmacutical companies started clogging our airwaves with commercials”
Yeah, I remember the good ol’ days when there were no ads on TV…oh, wait…
By lozen
March 20, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
By Keith
March 20, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
OK 72John, I admit, being in the schools regularly probably doesn’t mean as much as getting your info from the AJC.
Soooooooooo Keith. How do all female run schools teach little boys not to be manly, I ask you again.
By lozen
March 20, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Advertising in the speedo is fine by me!
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Jack-I so agree with you! If you take this RX it may cause liver and heart damage…but don’t worry about that ‘cause we’ve got more RX’s to fix the heart damage caused by the first med!
By Bruce
March 20, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
See you folks tomorrow.
By lozen
March 20, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
It is not Friday! Stop making me laugh so the other people in the office will guess what I’m doing.
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
The pharmaceutical companies and your AMA “medical” doctors do not want you to take control of your own health. That would put more money in YOUR pockets and less in theirs. They’d rather you pop the little purple pill every day for heartburn, along with the cholesterol-reducing pill and the performance-enhancing pill (hee hee), than to say “NO” to that 900-calories-per-slice, sodium & lard-laced pizza you just ordered. FREE YOURSELVES, people!
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this
AMEN to that Kimberly!!!
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 20, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
than to say “NO” to that 900-calories-per-slice, sodium & lard-laced pizza you just ordered
But I LIKE lard-laced pizza :)
By Joe
March 20, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
For those who need help seguing into gay bashing, I recall seeing a flier for an organization that was trying to connect the “rise” in gay Black men with the “emasculization” of Black men. They even had books about it. Now, of course, this must be a problem in Atlanta, with all those gay Black men running around, because, obvious, Black people devalue masculinity (except in its most negative forms, according to the conservative writers who bash hip hop).
There. :p
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
By the way, I just called my doctor about coming in for a visit for 2 seperate concerns. You know what they told me? One is a well visit and one is a sick visit and the insurance company won’t let them do that-(it’s called “blending” or something).
I said “So, you mean to tell me that I have to make TWO visits and pay TWO $35.00 co-pays and take time off from work on TWO different days because the insurance company will not let me ask the doctor about more than one issue at a time??????!!!!”
WTF folks! I’m not made of MONEY!
By kimberly
March 20, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Jewish and Proud: Yes Honey, it’s yummy. Here’s how you enjoy it: From time to time, order a small pizza, and have a slice or two WITH A SALAD or some carrot sticks or apple slices, instead of the five or six slices of lard it takes to feel full. You’ll be just as full, and your bowels & arteries (and wife) will thank you! Smith-Klein-Glaxo-Beecham-J******* will miss you at the pharmacy counter, though.
Also, ditch the tranqs & anti-D’s and face your issues. Can’t fix ‘em ‘till you face ‘em! Just a tip.
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
And just because it’s on the “market” doesn’t make it safe to take. (Look at the Vioxx issue alone.)
Hippocrates said it best-“Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food”.
Our bodies need to nutrients from good healthy foods to fight disease and stay strong.
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 20, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Also, ditch the tranqs & anti-D’s and face your issues
The only issue I have is I have to go back to Israel in September. sniff
By Monica
March 20, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Keith, I an inside school daily and don’t see the problem you mention. My son is in school daily and I don’t see him be de-valued in any way. How are schools ruining boys, exactly?
By Julia
March 20, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Besides, blogging is great therapy as we all know. (kidding)
By Keith
March 20, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
OK Iozen, and thanks for asking for facts instead of just being a smarta** like some. Elimination of recess (in grammar schools the boys worked out a lot of problems and picked their own games to play), boys being required to include girls in all games/activities (can’t the little guys have their own “thing”), teachers as referees in all disagreements-let the kids work it out even if a little aggressive behavior takes place. To name a few.
By Lyrazel
March 21, 2006 07:47 AM | Link to this
Ok, so I do not understand why Shaunti hangs at churches that require body guards. To smell their manly scents now that hubby is in an apron? Does not seem like the ideal place to lecture, pray or preach. I knew there were such churches in Atlanta that had ushers packing heat outside the santuary but not the sort of church I thought Shaunti would be at. I was obviously mistaken.
This whole thing has to do with some elder professor of Harvard publishing a book: Manliness, by Harvey C. Mansfield. Possibly old Shaunti professor. The book mixes his philosophy with ancient traditional ideas about primordial manliness stemming from the groin area added with a mix of pluck and pride and he uses examples of Homer to Hemmingway. No quotes of Oscar Wilde, btw. In his book he also bashes feminists like Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir, along with the somewhat more recent, but not very recent, Kate Millet, Germaine Greer and so on and claims they all stole their theories of feminism from Marx and Nietzsche. Extreme manliness, he warns us, is not the answer, though, nor is returning women to the kitchen and holding them there with the threat of a sound flogging. Still, they may want to remain there voluntarily once they understand, as Mansfield does, that weaker than men, women have to be indirect in getting what they want; they cannot simply insist.
Yawn, Shaunti. Tell us what you needed body guards at church for— Do they pistol whip ya if you do not tithe enough? Are you sure you were not at Cheetahs—by mistake—of course—for the salad buffet—searching for Hanz and Franz to pump you up—no girly men for you—
By Mara
March 21, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this
Keith has that indulgent “boys will be boys” attitude that excuses (and subtly encourages) antisocial activities by boys. Who wants a teacher watching over your shoulder protecting the weaklings? What’s the big deal when the aggressive boys beat down the scrawny kid? If the nerd wasn’t so much of a sissy, he wouldn’t get beat up! It teaches some fine manly attributes like “if you’re mean enough, you get to tell people what to do”, and “it’s only against the rules if the teacher sees you do it”. Nice “manly” things like that. And forcing boys and girls to play together?! (gasp!) That’s terrible! Egad! Next thing you know, the boys will be learning to cooperate and share! How horrible! Why make those poor little boys share and play with those cootie-bearing girls? After all, it’s not like girls really like to play kick-ball, tag, or red rover… Poor, poor, pitiful little boys. So disenfranchised and marginalized.
By RF
March 21, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
If Keith were a certified teacher, he’d know he could lose his job and face charges for letting kids “work out their agressions.” I bet he overlooks bullying and harrassment when he’s in the room. That how the He-Men establish their domination over the cave! Keith, you seriously can’t let kids shove, kick, and punch without doing something about it. Read the teacher’s Code of Ethics for GA. In an effort to be fair here, I will say I have great respect for those who willingly work as substitutes. It’s not an easy job to walk into a class where you don’t know the kids or teacher. Kids push the limits with subs and do things they’d never do with the regular teacher in the room.
Speaking of manliness in training, Bravo was showing “In and Out” last night. I still love the scene where Howard has in the Manly Man tape. “Real men drink beer and have bad backs. Real men DON’T dance!” LOLOL I love how that movie exaggerates the stereotypes and makes fun of them.
By GOB
March 21, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this
Mara - You said exactly what i was thinking…
By Davan
March 21, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this
These comments remind me of a scene from the movie “On Any Given Sunday” where Lauren Holly slaps her QB husband, Dennis Quaid when he considers retirement from the game. Also the term “damsel in distress”, I was listening to a radio DJ talking about finding a good woman not through churches, seminars, or cruises but those who are involved in bad relationships. Looks like Forest Gump knew what he was doing.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Thanks, GOB. For some reason, violence and aggression seem to be the “manly” and cooperation and inclusion are somehow viewed as “girly”. It’s a puzzle.
Lyrazel, read some excerpts of the book on the Washington Post op/ed page. Absolutly ludicrous. A peice of socialogic detritus of cobbled together statistic and erroneous conclusions designed to cater to the conservative opinion that all the wrongs in the world can be traced to feminists in particular and liberals in general. Ptoooeee. I spit upon it.
By Billy
March 21, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
HA! Busted, Diane!
“It’s interesting to note that although our cultural notions attempt to define what it means to be a woman, there is no female equivalent in the English vernacular about ‘being a woman.’”
Wrong! I saw it on someone’s windshield this morning: “Cowgirl Up.” Of course, I guess it just applies to rednecks…
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
Cowgirl Up, must have been on a truck cap-back windshield?
But you sure it not on a truck of yet another emasculated male, who wants the woman to do all the work, for a change?
Sorry, could not resist. LMAO
By Brawny
March 21, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this
REAL men don’t wear jewelry…
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
caB-back - think i need to slow down?
By The72John
March 21, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
So…the best the sub can come up with is boys not being allowed to beat the crap out of each other, and no recess?
Well, we can see why he’s just a sub.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
72J, you forgot the part about being forced to let cootie-girls join into boy’s games/activities…
By Jack
March 21, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
Moose can tell us about cooties.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
and what exactly does “cowgirl up” mean? It sounds so “the “L”-word”, if ya know what I mean…
By GOB
March 21, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Yeah, Mara. From what I am reading here, i am not near as manly as i thought i was…I try to keep my violence and aggression contained to the hockey rink. I guess that isnt enough. i need to expand it to my everyday life.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I know it is not friday and StPaddy’s Day is over, but this too good, just received:
Voted best Irish joke of 2005!
John O’Reilly hoisted his beer and said, “Here’s to spending the rest of me life, between the legs of me wife!”
That won him the top prize at the pub for the best toast of the night!
He went home and told his wife, Mary, “I won the prize for the Best toast of the night” She said, “Aye, did ye now. And what was your toast?”
John said, “Here’s to spending the rest of me life, sitting in Church beside me wife.”
“Oh, that is very nice indeed, John!” Mary said.
The next day, Mary ran into one of John’s drinking buddies on the street corner. The man chuckled leeringly and said, “John won the prize the other night at the pub with a toast about you, Mary.”
She said, “Aye, he told me, and I was a bit surprised myself. You know, he’s only been there twice in the last four years. Once he fell asleep, and the other time I had to pull him by the ears to make him come.”
By kimberly
March 21, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Hockey players are HOT.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Mara - from the rodeo circuit, female bull riders, female bronc riders, (STOP, let your mind wander abit..LOL), okay now we can bring in female barrel racing and female calf roping.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Mara - and that pickup truck Billy mentioned was probably owned by a woman.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
They’ve discovered a new use for viagra in nursing homes.
It keeps the old men from rolling out of bed.
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
I think an example Keith may be looking for would be the new emergence of everyone getting an award at the end of soccer season. Or that a teacher is required by many schoolsystems now to tell a child that they are good at X (spelling, math…) when they in reality are not.
The nurturing aspect has been applied in a black/white manner - ignoring logic and awareness of the problems that exist and how to remedy them is an over-balance of masculine/feminine traits.
One cannot have natural balance with a yang and no yin.
By Julia
March 21, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Did you hear about the two guys that stole the medical van full of viagra?
The police said to be on the look out for a couple of hardened criminals.
By GOB
March 21, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
There is nothing wrong with giving every kid something after the soccer season. If you only recognize the best, the lesser skilled players will not play the next season. It is really about encouraging them to be active.
At the college level, where being active isnt an issue, believe me, they do not give everyone an award.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Petite flowers rule is soft places. :)
By Netbanker
March 21, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Hey kids! I’m having a really shi tty week! Surprise reorg announcement yesterday during our move into new space, lost all my experienced direct reports and am left with ½ my original team now made up solely of newbies to handle an unchanged work load, gained a new layer of management, lost new office I was unpacking my boxes in (good thing I hadn’t gotten very far into that) to the new management layer. Me thinks it’s time to find a new company to screw me over since the ‘sex’ with this one is getting old.
My initial reaction to the topic was ‘Oh, how stupid!’ I have since looked at the definition of manly in the dictionary which says: “having qualities generally associated with a man : STRONG, VIRILE” I see how that frames Shaunti’s position in a very subtle way that continues to support her conservative view of the male role. Men are to be STRONG which means they are to protect the “fairer” sex and strength tends to indicate power. VIRILE indicates that it is the man’s role to impregnate women. While rather subtle manly is different than masculine in that manly does not at all consider the judicial use of strength or the fall out of virility. A masculine man is one who’s self worth or identity is not threatened by not using strength/force or by perceptions of virility.
IMO Superman would be a good example of masculinity even though he is a fictional character. He had unparalleled strength yet used it only when necessary and so far as we know his image wasn’t one of running around impregnating women just because he was male. Superman also showed great gentleness and caring which are often considered feminine qualities yet he wouldn’t have been considered a girly-man by any stretch of the imagination.
So in response to the question of whether our culture devalues manliness I think that to some degree we are beginning to devalue manliness. What I do see is a subtle shift into valuing masculinity instead. Limiting men to a role of manly keeps them 2 dimensional and simplistic (strong,virile). Masculine men are multi-faceted, complex creatures. If one looks at how conservatives frame all positions they limit the number of dimensions to as few as possible (i.e. they like everything to be black/white) so it makes sense that Shaunti prefers to limit men to manly and doesn’t see the shift to allowing men to be full blown humans as a good thing.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the info Chilao. OK. Let me get this straight, the phrase “Cowgirl up” means you can do all sorts of manly rodeo riding (barrel racing is the only really girlie event…)and you can drive a pick-up truck - exactly how does this, as Billy exclaims, “Bust” Diane? I’m perplexed.
Hi Jack. Speaking of Viagra, did you hear about this? “The buyer of the horse called Vedor paid just a tenth of the price of over 4,000 euros ($4,900), claiming it had only one testicle and failed to get frisky with a female pony. A vet found the testicle after an examination, said Egbert Simons, a spokesman for the court in the eastern town of Neuruppin. And when the stallion was given the potency drug, it emerged he was fully functional, he added.”
The court ordered the buyer to pay the full price.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Expensive nut.
By Observer- Can'tKeepSilentAnymore
March 21, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Okay, so let me make sure I’m getting this right.
First, some dimwit named Keith makes the most ridiculous sweeping generalization I’ve ever heard on this blog. It is a fact that our female run public schools are trying to make something else out of little boys by not letting them be little boys.
Then, The72John challenges him to justify, or at least explain, his stupidity.
And then the second-biggest idiot on this blog (IMO) comes up with this ridiculous foolishness I think an example Keith may be looking for would be the new emergence of everyone getting an award at the end of soccer season. Or that a teacher is required by many schoolsystems now to tell a child that they are good at X (spelling, math…) when they in reality are not. The nurturing aspect has been applied in a black/white manner - ignoring logic and awareness of the problems that exist and how to remedy them is an over-balance of masculine/feminine traits. One cannot have natural balance with a yang and no yin.
IS THIS FOOL SERIOUS? WHAT A FVKKING JOKE! DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS NIMROD PORING OVER THE THESAURUS LOOKING FOR BIG WORDS (DEFINED BY HIM AS ANYTHING OVER 5 LETTERS)? WHAT A KNUCKLEHEAD. NOTHING WORSE THAN A DENSE DUMMY TRYING TO SOUND SMART.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
But his opinion is just as valuable as your’s or mine.
By Monica
March 21, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, Great post!
By init2winit
March 21, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Imagine how this is applied to Black men in an increasingly hostile society underneath “laws” and “pc.”
I haven’t seen any debates or rebuttals about that, ladies?
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Mara - I think the disclaimer was the redneck(woman) part…..LOL
I think he was actually (trying) to be really funny, now that I have re-read it, I probably jumped to the wrong conclusion the first time, mind-wandering and all that jazz. heeehaaaw.
By Netbanker
March 21, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
GOB…I don’t disagree that giving every kid something at the end of the season is good. Where I have an issue with this approach is when each child receives the exact same thing regardless of skill or where they finished. It de-motivates the top players and gives lesser players no goal to achieve. Somehow millions of us competed in sports in the 1970’s and 1980’s ( and before) when top players got larger trophies or different colored ribbons than lesser players and we managed to survive. If I look at the collection of ribbons/awards I earned at that time I can see my own progression to becoming a faster swimmer, better tennis player, and better team member in lacrosse. We are giving our children a false sense of the world and not at all preparing them for the competitive environment in the real world where those who are successful aren’t that way because of inflated senses of self-esteem. The best lessons in life are learned through failure. Are we allowing our children to learn those lessons when no one fails?
By Jack
March 21, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
Skin color has no place on this blog. Go to the editorial page.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
allowing men to be full blown humans as a good thing
Now this blog is just starting to get way too confusing for my simple mind. (J/K)..”com’on man, I’m a guy, you expect to me understand all that?” LMAO
By GOB
March 21, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
NetB - I agree completly. I coach a soccer team, and have always given awards to everyone. I dont give everyone the same award though. I have things like team MVP, most improved, most hustle, etc. That way, each kid’s best attributes are recognized, but the top players are still put in the higher category.
By WhatInTheSamHill
March 21, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
I don’t think we devalue manliness. I think we have such a hard time finding men who are truly “manly” instead of just “red-neck”!
Beer guzzling and farting do not a manly man make. Redneck man YES-manly NO.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Jack, that’s pretty unfair of you.
If the anonymous blogger (which I hate, by the way) has the right to express his opinion, then the newbie has an equal right to pose his question.
My two cents is that everyone’s opinion is not equal in value. I do believe that everyone is entitled to having and stating their opinion (provided it’s not excessively offensive in nature), but that doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally valuable. Some opinions make no sense. Some opinions are obviously inaccurate (e.g. I happen to think that 40 degrees below zero isn’t really cold to a normal human being). Some opinions are just plain stupid. Of course, that’s just my opinion…. lol.
Anyway, I’m sure you got my point.
Now, at the same time, I think that the newbie blogger is entitled to ask his question, however out-of-place you may think it is, just as we have the right to ignore him if we don’t want to answer it, or find it inappropriate.
Meanwhile, I’m just sitting here rocking back and forth and giggling like Miss Sophia after she returned home from jail… LOL!
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
There is nothing wrong with giving every kid something after the soccer season.
That is not what I said. Every kid can get something for their effort - but to withhold MVP, most saves, most goals, most improved awards and such de-motivates those that work hard.
Forcing everone into the bell-curve, advanced and behind players, is my point.
As for the troll - he gets no response to his fishing.
By GOB
March 21, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
Your exact post was:
“I think an example Keith may be looking for would be the new emergence of everyone getting an award at the end of soccer season.”
I think you can see where the confusion was, but it seems we agree. The end-of-year awards are really two-fold. To reward and recognize the best players, as well as motivating and recognizing the lesser skilled players by highlighting their particular strengths.
By RF
March 21, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
JBM- recovering quickly? I loved the part where Sophia finally came out of it and started talking again. She was a hoot! I loved watching her browbeat her husband, the weasel!
By GOB
March 21, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Your exact post was:
“I think an example Keith may be looking for would be the new emergence of everyone getting an award at the end of soccer season.”
I think you can see where the confusion was, but it seems we agree. The end-of-year awards are really two-fold. To reward and recognize the best players, as well as motivating and recognizing the lesser skilled players by highlighting their particular strengths.
By GOB
March 21, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this
Your exact post was:
“I think an example Keith may be looking for would be the new emergence of everyone getting an award at the end of soccer season.”
I think you can see where the confusion was, but it seems we agree. The end-of-year awards are really two-fold. To reward and recognize the best players, as well as motivating and recognizing the lesser skilled players by highlighting their particular strengths.
By GOB
March 21, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
sorry about the duplicate posts…not sure what is going on
By lozen
March 21, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
Seven Sins for a Life Worth Living by Roger Housden Indulge in: 1. Sensual pleasures, 2. Foolishness - Let your guard down, don’t take yourself so seriously, 3. Not Knowing - Recognize you’re never fully in control, 4. Giving up on perfection, 5. Doing Nothing Useful - lounge, 6. Celebrating the Ordinary - Be aware of sights, sounds, etc in this present moment, 7. Coming Home - Feel at home in your own skin and on this earth. Are these manly sins, womanly sins or androgynous sins?
By Netbanker
March 21, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Monica.
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
I think you can see where the confusion was, but it seems we agree.
Yes, we do agree. I tend not to think of them (general participation items) as awards, and see how that was not clear.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
and my vote is for androgynous sins
on this redneck thought, you do know that it is always those other guys don’t you? Met some people recently that rented space next to a relative’s work-shop, they even had a chained pit bull that when I asked “Is that your guard dog”, they replied “No, that’s our fighting dog”.
My relative commented later “Yes, they are certainly rednecks, but if you were to ask them, they would point to someone down the hollar with ‘now those folks, they are rednecks’”. LMAO
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
and my vote is for androgynous “sins”.
had a longer commentary on rednecks, (they are always ‘those other folk’) but not about to key it over, lost it on the great ajc I/O.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this
RF, I’m about 90% back to normal, that’s if I can accurately recall what “normal” even is! LOL!!!
TCP is by far one of my all-time favorite movies (Renee’s too)! Actually, I don’t know a single, solitary black person that doesn’t claim TCP as their favorite movie! I declare that makeup artist should have won an Oscar… or whatever makeup artists win! LOL!
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
GOB,
That example that we agreed on was to explain that the same thing IS happening in many school systems also; where noone is behind or ahead. It de-motivated the he!! out of my daughters and I had to get tutors and provide some homeschooling bc they were not being challenged, and more-over they were not being rewarded/pushed for overcoming challenges.
By RF
March 21, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Just to make Celie age and Sofia so scarred was art!
Did you ever see “The Cotton Club?” Another very, very good movie. I never really understood the Harlem Renaissance until I saw that.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
sorry, ajc, I had that blank screen again at post time, should have known, and held my text(tongue). LOL
By Jack
March 21, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
The choices are simple: Either dumb-down the curriculum so that the intelligence-challenged students can pass or just pass those students so you don’t have to look at them next year. Everyone loses.
By RF
March 21, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
JBM- NORMAL? Who wants that? That’s BORING!
By Netbanker
March 21, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Monica.
By Justin
March 21, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Plight Deepens for Black Men, Studies Warn
Black men in the United States face a far more dire situation than is portrayed by common employment and education statistics, a flurry of new scholarly studies warn, and it has worsened in recent years even as an economic boom and a welfare overhaul have brought gains to black women and other groups.
www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html
By Netbanker
March 21, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this
JBM…Don’t be normal, EVER! BE EXCEPTIONAL!
By Mara
March 21, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
FM - you and GOB both see a trend that basically “rewards” mediocrity. I don’t disagree that the trend exists, but my question would be - have these policies been implimented to “sissyfy” the boys, as Keith seems to posit, or were they implemented as one of those self-esteem raising “feel good about yourself” programs? It’s pretty telling to me that your daughter feels the same lack of challenge that a equally talented boy would feel. If we accept that as being correct, then it cannot be illustrative of Keiths opinion that schools are female-centric to the point of devaluing boys.
Chilao - googled and wiki’d - it seems that “Cowgirl Up” is a brandname of ladies western wear. Not a phrase at all!
By Justin
March 21, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
last part of the story…
In a society where higher education is vital to economic success, Mr. Mincy of Columbia said, programs to help more men enter and succeed in college may hold promise. But he lamented the dearth of policies and resources to aid single men.
“We spent $50 billion in efforts that produced the turnaround for poor women,” Mr. Mincy said. “We are not even beginning to think about the men’s problem on similar orders of magnitude.”
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
just be Abbie, Abbie Normal (Young Frankenstein)
By Justin
March 21, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Part of the article…
In a society where higher education is vital to economic success, Mr. Mincy of Columbia said, programs to help more men enter and succeed in college may hold promise. But he lamented the dearth of policies and resources to aid single men.
“We spent $50 billion in efforts that produced the turnaround for poor women,” Mr. Mincy said. “We are not even beginning to think about the men’s problem on similar orders of magnitude.”
By Renee
March 21, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
What is normal???
Color Purple is my fav, along with What’s Love Got To Do With It!!
By Justin
March 21, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
Part of the article…
In a society where higher education is vital to economic success, Mr. Mincy of Columbia said, programs to help more men enter and succeed in college may hold promise. But he lamented the dearth of policies and resources to aid single men.
“We spent $50 billion in efforts that produced the turnaround for poor women,” Mr. Mincy said. “We are not even beginning to think about the men’s problem on similar orders of magnitude.”
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
The choices are simple: Either dumb-down the curriculum so that the intelligence-challenged students can pass or just pass those students so you don’t have to look at them next year.
I disagree - those are two simple choices vs all of the choices being simple. There are a host of more complex and desreving choices available, but that would require thinking, analysis, problem solving, and implementation.
This is something the gvmt is ill-equiped to do and our citizens are quickly learning to mimic. This is also, in part, what we are covering here - the masculine side of lifes equation being eliminated.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Mara - funny I had googled it as well, before commenting, and thought “rodeo circuit”. LOL (based on the pictures and all)
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this
Mara,
have these policies been implimented to “sissyfy” the boys, as Keith seems to posit, or were they implemented as one of those self-esteem raising “feel good about yourself” programs? It’s pretty telling to me that your daughter feels the same lack of challenge that a equally talented boy would feel. If we accept that as being correct, then it cannot be illustrative of Keiths opinion that schools are female-centric to the point of devaluing boys.
I am not on Keith’s side; but can see where some of his view may be coming from.
I do think that this trend has been implimented to “sissyfy” the boys, but I do believe that it neglects teaching both boys/girls a well rounded approach. The old approach was too masculine - the “just push yourself through it” and “ignore your feelings” trek.
And now much of the schooling is about justifying feelings, voiding out the valid aspects of pushing yourself, as well as being sure not to create “bad feelings” by being honest about where the child is falling short.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Justin - So because men fail to take advantage of the opportunities given them to the extent that women do, that means they are being disenfranchised? Devalued? Are young men not allowed in the schools, as young women once weren’t? Are they barred from University, as young women once were? Are they gently steered away from certain courses because they’re men, as young women once were? I think not. If these young men choose not to challenge themselves, obey the rules, or sacrifice some hang-out time with their ex-con buddies (I read the article too…) then somehow that’s a sign that society invalidates their masculinity? It seems to me that they have just as much opportunity to go to school everyday, listen, learn, graduate, take out a student loan and go to college as women, minorities, the handicapped, etc. If they don’t accept the opportunity, then whose fault is it? It certainly isn’t the fault of those who put the effort into getting an education, be they male or female.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Good advice, NetB! Thanks!
RF, I’ve never seen The Cotton Club, but I’d sure like to now that you mention it. I took (was forced to take) a course in Harlem Renaissance literature in college (needed more English credits). Unfortunately, I was so annoyed they made me take the class that I didn’t get into it until the end of the semester. I was so ticked with myself for missing out on what could’ve been a great learning experience. Anyway, two years ago, I found the textbook when I moved, and started reading it… WOW!!!!
Anyway, I’m going to rent The Cotton Club! Can’t wait to see it!
By Jack
March 21, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
I disagree - those are two simple choices vs all of the choices being simple. There are a host of more complex and desreving choices available, but that would require thinking, analysis, problem solving, and implementation.
I Agree Moose.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Umm, Mara ~peering over my eyeglasses~ I must point out that you misspelled “sissified.” You see, in the verb form, the “y” becomes an “i.”
Just… ya know… thought I’d uh… point that out.
Carry on!
Nevertheless, your 1:17 was SOOOOO well said. It was exactly what I was thinking, but couldn’t quite get my words together. You hit the nail on the head.
By Nikita
March 21, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
That trend was about self-esteem. It’s the same trend that made the change from Junior High (just like high school, but transitional and with less responsibility) and Middle School (No need to think, honey. We’ve given you these nice bubble sheets to fill in ‘cause they make you feel better about yourself.)
That said, the issues confronting black men are substantial, but it’s not as though the measures which are helping black women aren’t open to black men. Furthermore, good for black women! In my opinion the issues facing black men are very simple — not enough carrot, too much stick. And also men have economic opportunities available to them at lower levels of education, so the likelihood of a family pushing sons to succeed academically is comparatively low.
By Justin
March 21, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this
Are schools failing black boys?
www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500FailingBlkBoys.html
By GOB
March 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this
Mara - I dont think any of the rewarding mediocrity (and i was only speaking about sports, and not really rewarding mediocrity, but encourging the kids to keep participating) were put in place to “sissify” the boys. I think that is a pretty ridiculous argument all the way around. Not having kids though, i dont really know enough about the current schools policies, etc to comment too much.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
FM - I wasn’t assigning “sides” to the discussion. I simply think Keiths argument that the schools are at fault for not turning out “manly men” is invalid.
I happen to agree with you that we do no favors to the children by sheltering them from realizing they may not be good at everything. While they shouldn’t be barred from trying something (and maybe even enjoying it, even though they’re mediocre at it..) they also should not be given a false sense that they’re the “Next Big Thing” in that activity. And that goes for girl-children as much as for boy-children. Which I think is your position also.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
It is not easy to be masculine. The easy way out is to become sissified.
By Scalia
March 21, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, hockey players are not nearly as hot as firemen (the New York firemen…wow), baseball players, football players, or construction workers.
By Justin
March 21, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Our society needs to let men be true men…that involves being responsible for your family and children without government involvement. It means not having to have society validate your manhood, you know you are simply by your character and your actions.
It means being a father to your children even when the family court system, the ultra-liberal radicals feel a child can be better raised by a mother. Being a man in America is hard, being a Black man in America is H-ll.
Turning the corner of Father absence in Black America
www.americanvalues.org/turningthecorner.pdf
By Mike T
March 21, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I have an honest question. If there can be a United Negro College Fund then what do you think would happen if there was a United Caucasian College Fund? I was a poor white kid who couldn’t afford to go to college. Is my mind NOT a terrible thing to waste?
What about a Miss White America to go along the lines of Miss Black America? Or the White Entertainment Television along the lines of BET?
It’ll never happen folks and that’s discrimination. Don’t you agree?
By Mike T
March 21, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
I have an honest question. If there can be a United Negro College Fund then what do you think would happen if there was a United Caucasian College Fund? I was a poor white kid who couldn’t afford to go to college. Is my mind NOT a terrible thing to waste?
What about a Miss White America to go along the lines of Miss Black America? Or the White Entertainment Television along the lines of BET?
It’ll never happen folks and that’s discrimination. Don’t you agree?
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Justin, is there something you want us to know?
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Justin. The illegitimate birth rate in the African-American community is close to 80%. A great many of these children see the dealer driving the Escalade as the father figure. There is nothing that can be done about that. Teachers cannot make the children learn. That responsibility falls on the parents who often are not there.
By RF
March 21, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this
Jack- did you eat another republican or something? I thought you had sworn off of useless fat!
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
FM - I wasn’t assigning “sides” to the discussion. I simply think Keiths argument that the schools are at fault for not turning out “manly men” is invalid.
I am making sure not to get clumped in his position since you referenced it.
I believe that teaching children with a overly feminine position does stifle the masculine aspects of development and vv. When there is an over abundance of masculine techniques, it creates a feeling of inadequacy in females - hence why society changed tactics.
I believe we are now in an era where we have over-compensated, and boys do not understand their place as men in the world, which also creates feelings of inadequacy.
By Julia
March 21, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
Jack-did you have Taco Bell today? (Just curious.)
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
Fat adds flavor!
By Julia
March 21, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Then you must LOVE fast food burger joints! A whopper and fries gives you about 80 grams of fat.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
No Julia but a taco would be mighty tasty right now!
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
Whats with the white screen of death?
By Jose Arcadio
March 21, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
First off, Mike T, look at the major networks on television. How many black dominated television shows do you see on ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS? How many black dominated shows do you see on TBS or TNT? Friends gets a heavy rotation on TBS. Seinfeld, too. Sex and the City. Everybody Loves Raymond. NBC hasn’t had a black show since The Cosby Show. How about MTV? Does Laguna Beach have anybody black living there? How about One Tree Hill? Or The Gilmore Girls? Or Reba? None of these shows even have a black character. How come Rachel, Ross, Monica, etc. never hung out with anybody black? Yeah, Ross dated Charlie for a minute. Didn’t last long.
So check your facts before you start talking about discrimination, buddy.
By Mara
March 21, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
JBM, Glad I could articulate for you on my 1:17 post but I’m all abashed at the misspelling “sissified”. See what happens when you type too fast?! LOL! And by the way, you look stunning in those glasses. :^)
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
Mike T, I think we had this discussion before… feels kinda familiar.
Anyway, I’m sure you don’t want to sift through the archives, so at the risk of dredging up this controversial subject all over again, I’ll briefly state my position. (And silently pray that I don’t get dragged into a discussion on the matter…)
The programs you referenced (UNCF, Miss Black America, etc.) were all instituted to fill a void that Black America had. The intention (and I stress the word intention because to me, that’s all that matters on this topic) was not to offend or slight non-Blacks, nor was it to discriminate. It was a response to the many disadvantages of being black that existed (or exist, depending on whom you ask).
I could go on, but I promised a terse response, so there you go.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this
Never ate at Sonic. Is it any good?
By Mara
March 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Jose, hate to break it to ya but Gilmore Girls does have a black character, “Michel Girard” played by Yanic Truesdale. Since that’s the only show on your list that I watch, it’s the only one I can comment on. That being said, if you were wrong about one, it’s possible that you have missed characters in others, too.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
Sonic is good. They have the best Strawberry Fruit Slush. And the tots with chili, cheese & jalapenos…whew! But I’m dieting and there’s no Sonic in Vermont so…..
By The72John
March 21, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
I think it’s safe to say, JBM, that people who ask questions like this “honestly” are just trolling for a response. The best answer I’ve ever found is that ALL the other scholarships were “United White College Funds” and ALL the beauty pageants were “Miss White America”.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
Sonic is good. They have the best Strawberry Fruit Slush. And the tots with chili, cheese & jalapenos…whew! But I’m dieting and there’s no Sonic in Vermont so…..
By Julia
March 21, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Vermont? I guess I assumed everyone here was in Georgia.
By RF
March 21, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this
Sonic’s got some gooood burgers.
Mike T- I heard the KKK was thinking about starting a trailer park college fund, but they soon realized that would require actually graduating from something higher than fifth grade. They then decided the money would better be spent bailing out the wife abusers and Neo-nazis.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Okay, Mara, since you got in, I’ll jump in for a sec. I don’t watch Gilmore Girls, but I’m a HUGE fan of Friends, Seinfeld, and Everybody Loves Raymond. Not a single black character.
I’m not complaining, just verifying what Jose said. That’s pretty typical of the major television networks today.
Actually, one thing that has always irked me (and finally an appropriate moment to mention it) is that on one of my fave shows, The L Word, the only “black” women are two sisters who are biracial. I always find myself wondering if they just couldn’t let them be “all the way black”…
By Jack
March 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
Thanks Renee’. :)
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
LOLOLOL!!! That was good, John. True, but still got a chuckle out of me. I hope I can remember that the next time someone asks that question. That’s the perfect answer.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
I think the point was equal representation or a “black dominated” show. One black character in Gilmore Girls, does not equally represent the black community. But who says they have to equally represent. So blacks produce and make their own “black dominated” shows, stations, and it’s still a problem.
I would never watch Gilmore Girls or any of the other shows, so in the scope of things I really don’t care. Just pointing out what I think Jose was trying to say.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
Oh, and the other thing I wanted to add, John, is that while the person who actually poses the question may be trolling, there really are folks out there who wonder… the last time we had this discussion there were quite a few who considered black-centered programs racist. I won’t name names because I don’t want to risk relying on a faulty memory… but, a couple of the regulars were among that number.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
And Cowboy Troy was on NBC Today Show just this weekend. so there.
(being facetious, but he was)
By Justin
March 21, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
When one is not the dominate culture, then one is often left out. Welfare and other factors removed the Black man as head of the family, thus the result of all the female headed households. Black women were also used to emasculate.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
That is a white-frat-boy-listens-to-Rush-too-much kinda of baited question.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
I lived in Atlanta my entire life Julia, until last June when I moved here to Vermont with my partner.
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Mike T,
Another short answer:
America’s legal foundation is intentionally geared to help the minority bc that is what we did not like in England; the minority was sh@t on - hence the paradox you are describing is a good thing.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
I lived in Atlanta my entire life Julia, until last June when I moved here to Vermont with my partner.
By Monica
March 21, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
So, if there were a White Entertainment Television channel, we would be watching WET? No thanks. :)
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
JBM - I always wondered that about the L Word too. I guess they don’t want to do lesbian and black. Too controversial. They have to ease it out, little by little lol.
RF…tooooo funny!!!!!!
By Jack K
March 21, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Probably should stay out of this one…but…
So, you’re saying that it would be okay to have a Caucasian College Fund and no one would get upset about it or say it was discrimination? You know someone would get upset.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Black women were also used to emasculate
And by whom were we used, Justin????
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
White Entertainment Television channel, we would be watching WET
I think we actually have that now, NBC, FOX(okay, there’s the Bernie Mac Show), CBS, ABC come to mind.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Jack K. I refer you to my 2:37 and John’s 2:50. Surely between the two you can find an answer to your satisfaction.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
Monica, all but two or three stations are already WET.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
WET TV is a porn channel. Let’s get with the program. LOL
By RF
March 21, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Jack K- you have to look back over history to understand why someone would complain. Typically, the white majority has, for all intents and purposes, taken full advantage of being the majority at the expense of minorities whose lives are just as important. Man’s history is full of examples of how minorities were enslaved, cast out, or just plain overlooked. The U.S. is one of the few places where one can actually have a TV show or channel devoted to a minority group. You would also have to be a minority to completely understand how disenfranchised many of them feel. Even if not intentional, the majority in this country have kept minorities enslaved with poverty and welfare programs that I believe were designed to split up families and lessen the chances for minorities to ever rise in status.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
I missed that acronym WET there for a few. LOL
By Whiley
March 21, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me, you should watch the Bernie Mac Show. HILARIOUS ONE OF THE BEST LAUGH OUT LOUD SHOWS ! !
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this
what’s up with the repeat postings??
Okay, I’ll bite momentarily. For years, it was unspoken, but known to whites and blacks that certain (actually the majority) of scholarships, among other things…. were for whites only. For years, it was legal to say, “these are white only”. To move on with the times, they make applications open to whites and blacks but only award to whites.
Personally, would I care if said White Entertainment TV or Causcasian College Fund. Not at all. I mean CMT is pretty white, so is that Speed Channel. There’s nothing on the other two channels that interest me, hence I don’t watch them. And I don’t expect equal black representation on either one, unless there was a large number of country singers or NASCAR people who are black and the networks are refusing to show.
By RF
March 21, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
Jack gets good cable channels under his bridge!
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Jack gets good cable channels under his bridge
Bootleg, now that most lines are underground, easier than climbing up a telephone pole to tap into the cable line. Not that I know anything ABOUT that but. LOL
By Mara
March 21, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Actually, whether his point was the underrepresentation of black characters, his words were - “None of these shows even have a black character”. Singular.
There was never any question (by me, or even those with common sense…) that people of color are underrepresented in the media.
Folks, I’m outta here.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this
Whiley, what makes you think I don’t watch Bernie Mac? I do watch it in syndication at 7:30p, but I don’t find it hilarious or one of the best laugh out loud shows… it’s okay.
By Whiley
March 21, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
jUST BEING I didn’t assume anything. There’s a lot of good funny shows out there. Like, the OFFICE ! :)
By Keith
March 21, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Hey, I’m not as smart as some of the anonymous a***** on this blog, but I am not hiding. 72John- is that the muslim customer of a prostitute?
By Renee
March 21, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
There was never any question (by me, or even those with common sense…) that people of color are underrepresented in the media.
If you stand by this statement, you were one of the first to bring up a fact to dispute his original statement. And from the tone of your statement, it would lead one to believe (or one with common sense) that the inclusion of one African American (which he either overlooked or was not aware of) was proof that blacks are represented on your show.
By lozen
March 21, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Justin, I just do not understand this: But he lamented the dearth of policies and resources to aid single men. I can go and apply for grants and loans to go to college. Any single man can do the same. What are the policies and resources that aid single women but not single men?
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
While we’re hodge-podging…
Finally colorblind Republicans will have the opportunity to vote Democrat in good conscience. Denise Majette is running for Kathy Cox’s seat as State Supt. of Education citing a consistent failure over the years to improve our test scores and overall ranking.
By Renee
March 21, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this
Denise Majette is running for Kathy Cox’s seat as State Supt. of Education citing a consistent failure over the years to improve our test scores and overall ranking.
Really, I missed that story! Hmmmmm
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
I guess I should have said “colorblind Republicans and Independents…”
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
72John- is that the muslim customer of a prostitute?
Wrong Guy, I think that would be 70John, no relation.
By Jack
March 21, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this
Majette’s head got too big. She won’t get the votes because many are mad at her for opening the door for Ms. Mckinney to step in.
By Justin
March 21, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
JBM, you are smart and you should know the answer to your question…
By Confused
March 21, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this
Maybe he’s an old guy who likes prostitutes?
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 21, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
You would also have to be a minority to completely understand how disenfranchised many of them feel
Tell me about RF! I has priviledged to be in this country during Christmas (Hannukah) time. Not a thing going for us Jews in this country during Christmas except Adam Sandler’s Hanukkah Song and his cartoon 8 Crazy Nights!
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 21, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this
You would also have to be a minority to completely understand how disenfranchised many of them feel
Tell me about RF! I has priviledged to be in this country during Christmas (Hannukah) time. Not a thing going for us Jews in this country during Christmas except Adam Sandler’s Hanukkah Song and his cartoon 8 Crazy Nights!
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 21, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
What’s up with the double posts?
By Confused
March 21, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
Jewish-Do you know Jesus Christ yet? (Are you Messianic?)
What are your thoughts on Palestinians?
Did you see the movie The Passion?
Do you think it’s safe to visit Israel or is that out of the question for a Westerner like me? I’ve always wanted to see the Holy Land!!!
By Nick
March 21, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this
By Mike T March 21, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this I have an honest question. If there can be a United Negro College Fund then what do you think would happen if there was a United Caucasian College Fund? I was a poor white kid who couldn’t afford to go to college. Is my mind NOT a terrible thing to waste? What about a Miss White America to go along the lines of Miss Black America? Or the White Entertainment Television along the lines of BET? It’ll never happen folks and that’s discrimination. Don’t you agree?
Gosh Mike I never thought about that! You poor white boys. I was a poor white kid who couldn’t afford to go to college —— so I applied for scholarships, grants and loans and I went to college. What stopped you from doing that? Oh, I know it was because you were a white BOY! It’s pretty obvious you never went to college if you can even ask this question.
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
Good answer, Justin. (insert sarcasm liberally)
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 21, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Confused, of course I know Jesus but I am not Messianic which really refers to the afterlife rather than describes a certain part of the Jewish population.
As far as the Paestinians are concerned, my attitude most closely aligns with Kadima.
I did see The Passion.
As a westerner, your as safe as an Israeli (which is relatively) pretty much anywhere you go. You just have to know what to look out for and what to stay clear of, much like any other country…
By Mike T
March 21, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Why does a poor white person have to be “living in a trailer”? I was a poor white person and we lived in an apartment thank you. Do you look down on people who live in trailers verses people who live in small run down houses?
If I was poor and lived in a trailer does that mean I do not deserve a good education? And does the UNCF provide college funds to white kids as well as black? If not, that is discrimination.
This is not the 50’s or 60’s. Things have changed. To have the BET or UNCF in 2006 IS discrimination. I can not be held accountable for the actions of white men of the past.
When you get right down to it-it should be the Indians who are the most deserving of our sympathy. They were the ones really discriminated against. This is their land that we took. But again, I was not here and I did not have anything to do with that.
(And for the record, I’m not a redneck, not a racist, and I do NOT support the KKK or any other group like them.)
Why are we stuck in the past? Everyone is on an equal playing field in 2006. Make your own success. Do you not agree with that?
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Renee, here it is.
Jack, I am far from a Majette fan. I actually didn’t vote on the Senate race because I didn’t like either candidate. But, I don’t know if I would say her head has gotten too big… what makes you think that? I agree that she will lose most of her anti-Cynthia Repub voters (and of course, she’ll lose her pro-Cynthia voters since they feel like she sold out. But, I’m still not sure where the “big head” opinion came from…
By Julia
March 21, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
I’m DEFINITELY staying out of this one!
(I’ll bet Jack’s going out for burgers tonight.)
By Justin
March 21, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Mike T, If you think there is a level playing field, you are much mistaken. There is only one playing field where all men are treated in a similar manner, family court! But, I digress. Going back to your comments…There are still issues to address and all of us must work together to solve those problems. In aiding others to become self-sufficient, we work toward a better society for all.
By The72John
March 21, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Why are we stuck in the past? Everyone is on an equal playing field in 2006. Make your own success. Do you not agree with that?
You’re kidding, right?
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
I am glad someone used some air-freshener after/during yesterday’s postings. LOL
Jewish and Proud - you are in the Seattle area? Or did you already state that, long ago?
By Jack
March 21, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
No Julia, tacos.
JBM. Denise could have won in a re-election. Her head got big and she thought that she could make senator. Unfortunately, this state is not ready for a female in that position yet.
By FatMoose
March 21, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
Mike T,
If you read my response you would see that there is another significant reason minorities get some special privledges.
Racial paybacks for wrong-doing are nearly non-existant, although there were many promises made to blacks as well as other groups.
What you are witnessing is HOW our gvmt/leagal system was intentionaly geared from the beginning - to promote minorities and to mitigate the “lost in the crowed” situation that comes with being the minority.
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 21, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
No Chilao, Atlanta…
By Just Being Me
March 21, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
Surely Mike T. is kidding… Never mind. I won’t even waste my time.
By Chilao
March 21, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
JAP - thanks, forgot you had a short acronym. LOL You seen the big scroll Bible they have at a synagogue(sp?) in Atlanta? It was on display at the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Mobile and (Houston?) a few years ago.
I think she meant ‘do you know Jesus Christ(as your Lord and Savior)’ good steppin’ there. Not an inquiry, btw.
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 22, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this
Good morning all! Sorry I didn’t get a chance to respond to your post yesterday Chilao, but I have not had a chance to see the Bible to which you refered (sp?). Do you know which synagogue it’s at? I attend Temple Kol Emeth in Marietta and haven’t been to a Temple in Atlanta. I’d definitely like to see it though…
By Monica
March 22, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this
Jack, Thanks for coming to my rescue!
By Jack
March 22, 2006 08:33 AM | Link to this
My pleasure. :)
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this
Those who were discussing the sissifying of our boys by public schools might get a kick out of this article in today’s AJC… the newly written “Humpty Dumpty” is especially hilarious!
By Monica
March 22, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
JBM, That’s pretty funny! I have a book of Politically Correct stories that go along those same lines.
With regard to manliness, does anyone remember the wisdom of Jack Handey on Saturday Night Live? I quote: “It takes a big man to cry, but it takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.”
By Renee
March 22, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this
That’s funny.
By Nick
March 22, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this
I can’t stand whiney white boys. I guarantee you that if Native Americans lived in this area (closer than N.C.) and you saw that they are getting support from the gov’t you’d be whining about that. Nobody is holding you back from anything except yourself. Period.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Jewish and Proud, no, I do not know which one, know only it is in one in the Atlanta area, so may not be Atlanta proper. It went through German/Nazi hands even, it is rather old. I’ll do some research, see if I can pinpoint.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
what’s up with the poker spam?
By Scalia
March 22, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
That’s funny, JBM. It reminds me of a different version of Snow White that I read. Snow White and the Queen tell the Prince to take a hike, become best friends, and open up a spa to help “womyn” instead of hating each other.
I thought that was the funniest thing ever.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Jewish and Proud - Congregation Or Hadash (in Atlanta) may be able to help you, they were involved with other aspects of the exhibit, but I am unable to (quickly) find reference on-line to that exact Torah scroll, except for a picture of two guys looking at it. There were samples of several Bibles there, independent of Dead Sea Scroll fragments and the Torah scroll. One was three column, in three languages, Latin, German, and English. huge book. LOL
By lozen
March 22, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this
Hey everybody, “The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of sexually-transmitted disease. The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced gonna-re-elect-em). Many victims contracted the disease in 2004, after having been screwed for the past four years. Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include:
anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones, extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia, inability to accept responsibility for own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards theocracy, categorical all-or-nothing behavior. Naturalists and epidemiologists have been amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a bush found in Texas.”
I tried so hard to save it until Friday. I just couldn’t do it!
By Jack
March 22, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
Strip Poker. Not wether you win or lose but how you play the game. LOl
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Hilarious, Lozen! Even a Bush fan would have to laugh at that one!
By Renee
March 22, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Good one lozen!!
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Lozen - well, that is a forwardable keeper.
off to my email.
By Julia
March 22, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this
Somehow I knew Jack was gonna bring up “strip poker”!!! ;)
By Jack
March 22, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
Heehee! My mind is usually in the gutter if it’s not occupied by work. (and even then sometimes)
By Justin
March 22, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Societal Shift in Role of Fathers
Tuesday , March 21, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Next week, an important moment will occur in the general trend toward recognizing the societal importance and legal rights of fathers.
On March 28, the New York State Assembly’s Children & Families Committee is scheduled to hear Bill A330 on shared parenting. The bill seeks to establish “the presumption in matrimonial proceedings for awarding shared parenting of minor children in the absence of an allegation that shared parenting would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.”
In short, a parent seeking sole custody (most commonly the mother) would assume the legal burden of proving why a shared arrangement would harm the child.
Father’s rights advocates view New York as “a battleground state” not only because of the influence its policies exert but also because New York is one of the few states to resist a national trend toward statutes favoring joint custody.
Because A330 is vehemently opposed by mainstream feminist organizations like the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women, the bill’s hearing may become raucous. But, given that almost three dozen State Assembly members have endorsed the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, A330 stands a good chance of passing.
Shared custody is only one of several fathers’ rights issues that are appearing with increased frequency in the courts and in the media. It is perhaps inevitable that, as the image of men gradually moves out of the shadow cast by mainstream feminism, that the image of fathers improves as well. The emerging complaints of fathers are likely to force a redefinition within family law over the next few years.
Some of those complaints and responses to them are as follows:
—The court-ordered child support paid by non-custodial parents (usually men) are often unreasonably high and do not reflect the custodial parent’s income.
A Georgia state law requiring that calculation of child support be based on the incomes of both parents goes into effect on July 1st. The Atlanta Journal Constitution comments, “estranged couples are already crunching numbers and contacting lawyers to figure out the effect on them.”
Randy Kessler, an Atlanta family law attorney, states “The fuses are being lit.”
—Responsible non-custodial parents are often denied access to their children through barriers erected by the custodial parent; ‘relocation’ is one such barrier.
On Feb. 2, the California Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Yana that a non-custodial father attempting to prevent an out-of-state relocation did not merit an evidentiary hearing on how it would affect his son. The Brown decision effectively reverses the 2004 LaMusga v. LaMusga ruling by which the California Supreme Court permitted a change of custody to a father as the result of a mother’s move to Ohio.
—Birth control advances have focused upon women even though effective male birth control is feasible.
The contraceptive injection called RISUG has been tested with success for more 25 years by Professor Sujoy K. Guha at the Indian Institute of Technology, tests which the National Institute of Health have replicated. One injection can render a man infertile for up to 10 years.
Some blame the slow development of male contraceptives on possible resistance by Pharmaceutical companies to offering an option less expensive than female birth control. Others blame politics for the focus on women.
—Through abortion, women can opt out of motherhood; fathers have no similar option over parenthood. They have responsibilities without rights.
Some fathers’ rights advocates argue simply for a legal right to withdraw from the responsibilities of fatherhood through a relinquishment of parenthood; this demand underlies the current so-called Roe v. Wade for Men lawsuit.
Others argue a more controversial position: namely, that aborting a child desired by the father transgresses his rights. Both positions are controversial and will meet stiff opposition but the latter one contains the seeds of an all-out gender war.
—Men who discover they are not the biological father of a child are, nevertheless, often required by courts to continue paying child support.
The battleground here seems to be state courts and legislatures, who demonstrate little consistency. In 2004, the Second District Court of Appeal of California overturned a paternity judgment against a man being forced to pay support for a child whose DNA tests proved he was not biologically related.
In Michigan, a ‘duped dad’ is currently going to court to be freed of the support payments that have reportedly driven him into bankruptcy and “destroyed” my life.” A favorable ruling is far from assured. Michigan has no law requiring relief for false paternity and many judges rule to continue payments “in the best interest of the child.”
—Fathers who wish custody of newborns put up for adoption are often left uninformed until it is too late to exert their parental rights.
The New York Times reported on March 19 the story of Floridean Jeremiah Clayton Jones who “discovered” that his former fiancée was pregnant just three weeks before the baby was due, when an adoption-agency lawyer called and asked if he would consent to have his baby adopted.”
He said ‘no,’ but because he had not filed with the required state registry for unwed fathers, Jeremiah lost the right to adopt his own child.
His child lost grandparents, aunts and cousins as well as a father. (Another problem posed by current notification procedures is the risk of fathers challenging adoptions they did not consent to after they have occurred, a situation that can be devastating for the child and adoptive parents.)
In essence, states that impose obscure and intrusive registry requirements are asking men to tell the state about every woman they sleep with in case one becomes pregnant.
It is not clear how the foregoing (and other fathers’ rights complaints) will be resolved. In some sense, that’s the point of this article. A sea change is occurring in how society and the legal system is viewing the need of children for their fathers and the longing of fathers for their children.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.
By Justin
March 22, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Not only does our culture devalue manliness, they devalue fathers!
By RF
March 22, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
JBM- how long do you think it will be before someone denounces the ‘rainbow colored sheep’ because it represents gay lifestyle? LOLOL Makes me wonder how long it’ll be before we can’t call him Humpty-Dumpty because that name suggests a negatively obese appearance and might suggest that a large person is unfairly considered more likely to fall? I just roll every time I read a PC kids book!!
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Yet more reasons to keep sex within a marriage and not sleep around. The risks of these things happening then would be very low.
But NOOOOOO…we have to have free love and sleep with anyone we like. To H-E-L-L with the consequences of those actions!
Stop your whining and keep your pants on until you get married! Stop screwing everything that moves and you won’t have to worry about how many women are having your baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Justin
March 22, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
I am not against people but it is a shame you can’t have a rainbow anywhere now without someone thinking you aren’t straight. They took the rainbow from children and the rest of us.
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Married people have sex? You mean with each other? Who knew? {;->
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Poor Jack Horner sitting in the corner….did some mean teacher put him there?
And why was Mary the only one to grow a garden-very sexist! It should now be Larry Larry Quite Contrary how does your garden grow!
By Renee
March 22, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
We took the rainbow?????
Just damn.
By Justin
March 22, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
When the Civil Rights Act was signed, 82 percent of Black households had two parents. We can plainly see the marked difference in Black families with the number of unwed mother lead families. In fact, female headed families are rewarded through not ever marrying or getting divorced.
All men need to ensure they are fathers to their children and band together to ensure their rights are intact. The pendulum of justice needs to swing back to the middle. Men need to be the head of their households once again.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Okay, I almost never do “forwards” and I have to admit, I rarely read them. But, coincidentally, I just got one from a co-worker regarding black relations in the millennium U.S.
I have not done any fact-checking, and won’t bother to, since I refuse to spend that much time on a forward. But, if any of this stuff is true, it’s quite interesting. There were about 20 items on a list compiled from Tavis Smiley’s Think Tank. Here are a few of them:
15. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all hate crimes in America are against blacks.
11. In 1860, 98% of all Blacks in America worked for White people. In 2001, 98% of all Blacks in America still work for white people.
7. There [aren’t] any black owned national cable, or major network television stations. Cathy Hughes, the black woman who owns our only black owned radio stations, plans to sell to white owners after hearing the deal Bob Johnson received for selling BET.
5. Asians received 80% of all government minority set aside contracts.
4. Two white men: Bill Gates and Larry Elision, combined have more wealth than the combined wealth of all 36 million blacks in America. Civil Rights did not change the economic landscape or the balance of power in America.
Okay, on that last one, I certainly am not crying “woe are we” because Blacks don’t have the wealth that whites have, but the last sentence is the point, and the overwhelming theme of the entire discussion (I guess in answer to the bait Mike T. put out yesterday): the balance of power and wealth in America is clear, and until that changes, Black Americans should do whatever it takes to turn things around in their (our) favor, including initiating college funds, home ownership programs, and other wealth-building initiatives.
One other point included in the e-mail… I won’t cut and paste it b/c I don’t like the way the author worded it. But, his point was a valid one. Surveys and applications generally don’t use the term “Black American” as I do. Most paperwork uses the term “African American.” And, surely we know that not all African Americans are black. YES, white people from So. Africa (and any other part of Africa) are considered African American, can check off the “African American” box on an application honestly, and will be eligible for any benefits designed for Black people.
By GOB
March 22, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
Jack K - Are you referring to Justin’s long 10:24 post? If so, what does sleeping around and keeping sex inside a marriage have to do with custodial fights during a divorce? By definition, there cant be a divorce without a marriage, therefore, it can be assumed that at least the sex that created the child was in the marriage (or at least the commited relationship).
I dont see the connection to your rant. Could you please explain?
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
They took the rainbow from children and the rest of us.
Um….. Dude. Seriously. When did any of us ever HAVE the rainbow? It has only ever been a brief vision of beauty to brighten up a rainy day. What do you care if someone identifies with it? What’s your obsession with ownership? We’re all just passing through.
By Justin
March 22, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Renee,
I didn’t mean “you took the rainbow”. It is just often I want to buy things with rainbows for my children, but it is often taken out of context.
JBM, Those statistics say it all…
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
“Men need to be the head of their households once again.”
Remember: If Mama ain’t happy, nobody is happy.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Hi Kim. :)
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
JBM - I, like Jack, wanted to keep race off this blog, but I almost commented yesterday that I actually had an ex brother-in-law who was able to get finanacial aid(grant) at a HBUC because they(school) wanted more cultural diversity, and he, being white, helped fulfill that goal. I thought it pretty interesting at the time he got it.
Personally, I spent alot of time of my 20/s going to school, know how hard that was, and did it all with only a Pell grant for one semester in JC and then a small student loan my senior year(that I spent on non-school fun). And since I know how hard all that was, appreciate being able to get help anyway someone can.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Did Justin just say that we took the rainbow from children?
Surely I misread that.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Actually gays originally tried to use white hoods and robes as the universal symbol but that was taken too.
I hijack rainbows on Thursdays and Saturdays!
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
He mentioned letting the govt know which women you slept with in case they get pregnant. I mentioned the idea of not sleeping around so there would be no need for keeping records of all the women. That’s where that came from. I wasn’t speaking about divorce.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
Justin, I seriously doubt that anyone would find you buying rainbows for your children symbolic with you or them being gay.
Well, there are some idiots out there, but I speak of the majority of the sane community.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
They would get the wrong idea if he were to put a rainbow bumper sticker on his car.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Ooooh, Renee. Your 11:05 was good. Real good.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Well, who on earth puts a bumper sticker on their car in honor of their children???? Other than the obvious “My Child is on the Honor Roll”….
And, if he had a bumper sticker on his car that said something like, “I love my kid,” and it had a rainbow on it, I highly doubt any reasonably intelligent person would get the wrong idea.
That’s just stupid.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
First of all the rainbow itself is not the gay symbol, its the rainbow colors in differents shapes, sizes and symbols. So putting a bumper sticker on your car with a rainbow would not give someone the wrong idea. And even if a person or too got the wrong idea, so what??? I drive with a rainbow sticker on my car (in a couple of places) and lesbians are not following me down the road trying to pull me over every time I leave the house.
So when a gay person does not have a rainbow on their car, does someone then get the wrong idea that they are straight? And if they do, is it horrible and life changing?
By RF
March 22, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
Renee-LOLOL at the white hood and robe! ;->
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
JBM. I was referring to a sticker that only had a rainbow on it. No writing. Don’t you think the adverage person would assume the driver was gay? If I put a swastika on my bumper don’t you think others would say I was a Nazi?
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
Does our Culture devalue Manliness,
No, of course not, if you are a 24-year-old MALE teacher, and have carnal knowledge of a 13-year-old student, you get several to many years in prison.
However, if you are a stunning 24 year old FEMALE teacher, and have carnal knowledge of a 14-year-old student, you get probation and the obvious need for “Therapy”.
Recent Smithonsonian discusses John Paul Jones, the Revolutionary War Naval hero. Seems he went to work for Catherine the Great later, and was run out of St. Petersburg related to indiscretions with a 12-year-old girl. I am tempted to write them “So if he were around today, we would find him on a sexual offenders web site?”. LOL
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
~finally realizing why women never flirt with me!…. heading out to get some rainbow stickers!!~
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
So putting a bumper sticker on your car with a rainbow would not give someone the wrong idea.
Believe me it would.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry, Jack, did swastikas have another meaning that I’m not aware of???
And, again, how many parents can honestly say that they wanted to put a sticker with only a rainbow on it on their bumper sticker to honor their children, but couldn’t because someone might think they’re gay. Please.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this
~finally realizing why women never flirt with me!…. heading out to get some rainbow stickers!!~
Not sure it works that way, I have had many gay guys try to hit on me(well get real friendly to determine whether I could be “worked” or not, one person’s term for it), and I never had any rainbow displayed or anything. LMAO
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
Jack - I don’t know why on earth, like JBM said, someone would put a bumper sticker of a rainbow on their car. But if the bumper sticker is of a rainbow, in the shape of rainbow, then nobody should get the wrong idea. But if you are that concerned, of the homosexual synonymity (huh?) then don’t put it on your car.
So if you wear a shirt with black, green and yellow stripes do people automatically think you are Jamaican?? If you wear an AJC shirt, does that mean you live in Atlanta. If you have a green square on your shirt, can you run this risk of being mistaken an H & R Block employee. We can go on and on with this.
By RF
March 22, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
I’m with Renee— so what if you have a bumper sticker? I just find it amusing that a rainbow without words on my bumper would be a lifestyle advertisement, but Jack’s right. Many still see it that way. JBM- grab me a couple while you’re out. Might be confusing on my truck though…
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
JBM, excellent 11:32 post.
By Julia
March 22, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
As a parent I can say the issue has come up when buying things for my child. When you see a rainbow on something you do think of the gay symbol. It DOES go through your mind. I can’t help it-that’s the truth.
By Julia
March 22, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Just to clarify…Now I said it went through my mind. Didn’t say I’d stop buying things with a rainbow on them.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
I am not concerned at all JBM. I was not talking about a parent putting it on their car, you are. Geez. You don’t think I’m right. Go cruising through rural Georgia and note the looks you receive. Again, I am not concerned at all. You can do anything you like. BFD. My point was that some people would get the wrong idea. Keep your head in the sand if you wish.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Julia, you’ve piqued my curiosity. When you were faced with the “rainbow issue,” what kinds of things were you trying to buy for your son?
By RF
March 22, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
symbols and stereotypes are alive and well in our country. Problem is, once a symbol becomes recognized, it takes a long time for it to go away.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Julia - I just find that ridiculous. Before I embraced my lifestyle I never, ever thought that when buying a rainbow for my child, not that I ever bought a ton of them.
I mean is this a serious subject in someone’s house.
“Mommy, can you buy me some rainbow curtains?”
“Honey, no I can’t, people will either think you are gay, or that I’m gay for buying them for you.
“Mommy, what’s gay?”
“I’ll tell you later”
“Well can we put a rainbow bumper sticker on the car to represent my childhood?”
“No, Tommy (Maggie), the neighbors will talk”
“About what”
“They’ll think we are gay”
“Like happy?”
“No, like homosexual”
“Homo what??”
By Monica
March 22, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this
I have to agree with Jack about the rainbow bumper stickers. And don’t forget the controversy surrounding Jeff Gordon and his “rainbow riders” NASCAR team!
By The72John
March 22, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Hi all.
I love it when I’m refered to as a “they”. Nice way to dehumanize an entire group of people, Justin. Thanks a bunch.
Just so you know, the “gay” rainbow has only six colors, not seven. Possibly you didn’t know how many colors were in a rainbow since you were too busy dividing people up into Us and Thems.
Now you know. And Knowing is half the battle.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Are we sure Humpty-Dumpty isn’t new code for chubby chasers or maybe sex between obese people?
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
Haha! Good one, Renee! I’m seriously wondering why anyone would give a rat’s fuzzy a—. Have we solved all the world’s problems, so now we should contemplate the deeper meaning of silly bumper stickers or what other people imagine we MIGHT do with our private parts at home? Geez.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Justin, if a man has sex with a woman, never bothers to call her again (how many of us have had THAT one happen to us ! lol), he never bothers to find out even if a pregnancy occurred, why should he have any rights to the say so of that pregnancy? Why should such an uncaring azzwipe have ANY say so over ANY reproductive organs other than his own? Answer, he doesn’t & shouldn’t. Should he be forced to pay child support if that pregnancy is taken to term & a baby is born? You BET CHA. (sorry about that, you should have at LEAST worn a condom) Too many families are without fathers because so many just walk away. I’m already paying too many deadbeat dad’s child support via my taxes as it is. I’d appreciate it if more guys looked after their sperm better. Come to think of it would you guys also please stop having casual sex with women who continually make bad decisions in their lives & don’t have any problems having multiple babies with different sperm donors?
I know a lot of you guys scream “UNFAIR ! WHERE IS OUR CHOICE! Blah, blah, Blah”
IF & WHEN you’ll be able to gestate, I’d agree that every pregnant man has the right to an abortion! Or, not to give birth if he doesn’t want to. His body isn’t the property of his wife or his girlfriend. She shouldn’t be allowed to force him to carry the pregnancy. Nor should she be able to leave the child destitute if he makes her a mother before she’s ready.
THERE that sounds fair to me.
Kermit the frog has that rainbow song, think he was referring to those guys on Queer Eye?
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this
Jack, at 11:31, you said: They would get the wrong idea if he were to put a rainbow bumper sticker on his car.
And, at 11:51, you said: I was not talking about a parent putting it on their car, you are.
Whatever, dude. Clearly, you’re just typing to hear yourself type.
By RF
March 22, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Renee- I doubt anyone would be concerned about curtains, but bumper stickers, which other people see is a different matter. There are those who are all about symbols. Didn’t the rainbow/gay symbol come up in like the eighties or something? Funny that it’s still around, but it is.
JBM- Jack’s got a point. Go into less progressive communities, i.e. rural, with a rainbow sticker, and you will get some funny looks. Nobody would say anything, but they’d talk about you after you drove off.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
This rainbow discussion is resolving a lot of questions for me. I told my parents that they didn’t do anything during my childhood that made me gay, but now looking back there was a rainbow sticker on the rear window of my mother’s 1977 Pontiac Sunbird. Being 10 year old kid I rode in the back seat and must have been exposed to the ‘gay rays’ given off when the sun hit the sticker. When the first one faded out she even replaced it with a new one. That sticker was still on the car when I drove it in college. NOW I finally know why. Can’t wait to explain it to them when the come for a visit in 2 weeks.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I think Kermit came LONG BEFORE Queer Eye.(20 years? or more)
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
My final comment for this ridiculous mini-topic is that any person who wants to buy a doll or teddy bear or toy or bumper sticker or whatever for their child, but feels s/he can’t because it has a rainbow on it and therefore people might think s/he or his/her child is gay is a complete and utter idiot.
(And anyone who wants to put a bumper sticker with a rainbow on their car in honor of their child, but can’t because folks might think they’re gay is a complete and utter LYING idiot).
For the record, I have no outward symbols of my homosexuality. That’s just not my style. Renee knows I always find it funny that she loves symbols that refer to homosexuality. But, just like waving an American flag doesn’t make you American, waving the gay flag doesn’t make you gay. And only an idiot would think it does.
I hate talking to little-minded people.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this
Nobody would say anything, but they’d talk about you after you drove off.
Would that be because of the rainbow sticker or merely because you did not have a local plate? (J/K, sorta)
‘dem der city folk were down here again’
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
RF, scroll up. That was never my issue, nor did I make a point to negate that obvious fact.
Justin said: I am not against people but it is a shame you can’t have a rainbow anywhere now without someone thinking you aren’t straight. They took the rainbow from children and the rest of us.
Then, that he want[s] to buy things with rainbows for my children, but it is often taken out of context.
Then, Jack said: They would get the wrong idea if he were to put a rainbow bumper sticker on his car.
My response was, in keeping with Justin’s original comment, that most parents wouldn’t want to put a bumper sticker on their car in honor of their children. I felt that Jack’s comment had absolutely nothing to do with what Justin was saying. I never negated whether or not rainbow bumper stickers = homosexuality. I negated whether parents would want to put a bumper sticker on their car for a child in the first place.
Basically, I thought the whole “bumper sticker” argument was lame, weak, and had nothing to do with what Justin was saying.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
“waving an American flag doesn’t make you American, waving the gay flag doesn’t make you gay.” This is very true. In my gayborhood (30 out of 46 homes in my lil’ slice ‘o suburbia are gay or lesbian owned) we had several straight neighbors who put out rainbow flags along with some of the gay people when houses would go up for sale. We all liked the diversity of our hood and started hanging the flags to let prospective buyers know what they were getting into. As one straight neighbor said, “The gay and lesbian couples in this neighborhood are much nicer than most of the straight ones and throw better parties. Can you get me one of those flags to hang?”
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
Hilarious, NET, but you sure it wasn’t “just” the Sunbird? If you are going to tell it to them, tell them it was because they did not have a Hemi or something. LOL (makes as much sense..J/K)
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 22, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this
Justin, if a man has sex with a woman, never bothers to call her again (how many of us have had THAT one happen to us ! lol
It doesn’t happen to anyone who has a shred of self-respect. It seems here in America, the concept of sex is that it doesn’t really matter what the situation is, let’s just have sex. No wonder there are so many people having unwanted pregnancies around here. Have enough respect for youself to abstain from sex until you at least have a modicum of stability in your relationship…
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Okay, I admit I didn’t start off my day in a most pleasant mood. But, this stupid friggin rainbow bumper sticker discussion is p** me off to no end. I absolutely have no tolerance for ignorance. NONE. This is really so ver stupid and is really bringing out the idiot in some folks. Who needs chuck? There are plenty of other idiots right here.
I’m going to take a lunch break before I pop a vessel.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
RF you got it right about the bumper stickers. It IS the South after all and appearances are more important than reality. Renee…as a native you should be quite familiar with the phrase (heard this one all my life)…”What will the neighbors think?!”
Of course being the South also means that the neighbors won’t actually SAY anything until you’re gone (as RF pointed out) at which time the ‘blessing of hearts’ and gossip will begin.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
As usual, NetB, you come right in, roll up your sleeves, and hit the nail on the head.
THAT was my point (or, the point I was trying to make)… that supporting a cause, or wearing a symbol doesn’t mean that you ARE a part of a group. And, to answer Jack’s question from earlier, wearing a swastika doesn’t make you a Nazi, but it most likely means that you support their cause.
My daughter has a t-shirt with the gay rainbow (thanks, John for mentioning that there is a difference). And, she is certainly not gay. And, fortunately (THANK GOD ABOVE) she’s not small-minded enough to think that wearing the t-shirt means that people will think she’s gay.
Okay, so I finally got something good out of this stupid discussion. I was ticked at my daughter all day. Now I’m grateful that she’s not as stupid as some adults I know of.
By Justin
March 22, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Jack, The saying should be, “If Daddy ain’t happy, then nobody is happy!”
About the rainbow… If it is purple on the bottom, isn’t that how you recognize each other?
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
If you go into a less progressive, rural community without a bumper sticker, they will still LOOK at you funny, ‘cause you’re a STRANGER. Regardless of who you are or what you drive, they’ll talk about you after you drive off. HELLO?
If you insist on perpetuating the silly bumper sticker issue (I have two on mine, and no one cares) then someone please tell me the point of the “W: The President” and “W: Still the President” stickers. Those annoy me, and yes, I actually DO judge the occupants of those cars negatively. Comments?
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
Chilao - you know it may have had something to do with the car. They gave it to me in college so I had to get new plates with the title change. As I walked out of the DMV I stopped to check out the new plate and about fell over when I saw the tag number was WCM 666. My car became known on campus (the college was associated with Church of the Brethren) as Satan’s Taxi. My best friend at the time said that WCM referred to the taxi driver and meant ‘Wicked Cute Man’
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Chilao good point, I was confusing it with the new Kermit the frog commercial on TV now, he’s actually singing “I’m green”. I can’t believe I actually KNOW that.
Jewish and Proud of It, I think MOST of us can relate to having sex with someone & then not hearing from them again. That’s not from being frivolous with sex, it’s from being young, inexperienced with the world & BELIEVING everything someone we had a crush on said at the time. Not everybody thinks that having self respect means you abstain from sex. And the fact I didn’t know too many people that had that much self control at that age, I doubt that’s changed much. That’s just life.
I personally didn’t realize the rainbow had that “gay” connection. What would somebody think of a bumpersticker of a burning cross? Or, the Confederate flag? This world is full of symbols that mean different things. I personally don’t put bumper stickers on my car, it looks trashy.
By The72John
March 22, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
About the rainbow… If it is purple on the bottom, isn’t that how you recognize each other?
Is this some kind of puerile butt sex joke?
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
I actually DO judge the occupants of those cars negatively
how about the W sticker with the big red slanted line across it, like a do not enter/one way. I’ve seen those as well, on the black W sticker.
Net - too funny, on the “666”, see, now you can blame DMV/the state. LOL
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
shoud be quotes on the “blame”
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this
If it’s purple on the bottom someone either fell down the stairs or got one heck of a spanking! Or they’re into Barney sex.
By Monica
March 22, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, you mentioned another Southernism that I love: you can say anything about anyone, and as long as you precede or follow it with “Bless His Heart,” then you’re not talking bad about him!
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Hmmmm….I wonder if I could sue the State for marking me for Satan with that 666? I’m afraid to take the Satan made me gay route over it because then the religious whackos would try to send me to reparative therapy and pray all over me.
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
NetB, did you have to go there? Now I’m all excited! Haha… {;->
By Renee
March 22, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Are we sure Humpty-Dumpty isn’t new code for chubby chasers or maybe sex between obese people?
Hilarious Net!!!
Justin, about the purple bottom comment…never mind…
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this
send me to reparative therapy and pray all over me.
I think that got covered well enough on a previous blog topic. LOL
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Where did I go, Kimberly? Was it the spanking or the sex with fuzzy purple dinosaurs?
Monica…isn’t that just the greatest thing? I call it the get out of hell free card for gossip.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
that purple bottom comment went right over my head.
By Brian Curtis
March 22, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this
Some clarifications:
Before the Nazis appropriated it, the swastika had been a spiritual symbol in the Hindu and Buddhist religions (the Hindu version has dots between the arms).
-
The rainbow DOES have seven colors, though not everyone can discern indigo between blue and violet. In a primary (standard) rainbow, the red band is always at the top, and violet’s at the bottom.
And if you have any unwanted rainbow merchandise, just send it to me. I get enough assumptions that I’m gay already, just because I like cats. 8~)
-
Wendy McElroy’s piece was an interesting review of changes going on in divorce and custody proceedings. I like the idea that the presumption of sole custody should be challenged and discussed, rather than “defaulting” to the mother in every case.
-
If a man has no say in the outcome of an unintended pregnancy, why should he be held liable for what the women decides on her own? His body is no more her property than hers is his. The argument “you made the decision when you jumped into bed, now take your punishment” is a familiar one—-it was used for decades by pro-life nuts to condemn WOMEN for having sex. As an argument, it’s no more valid or appealing now that it’s being used against men.
Of course, there’s no reason some middle ground can’t be reached—-such as having the man pay a set fee in exchange for waiving both his rights and responsibilities—but that’s a topic for a different week.
Two more days till Joke Friday!
By RF
March 22, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Thank you Net, for pointing out the southern obsession with symbols and what the neighbors will think. That comes from having been largely made up of small towns where everyone knew everyone AND their business, and had little else to obsees about. Stupid? Indeed it is, but it happens.
By Monica
March 22, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this
Well, Net, my mother has one of those cards for sure (bless her heart), and she has passed it on to me. I catch myself using that phrase more and more as I get older. Oh my gosh, I’m turning into my mother! EEK!
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
NetB, I’ve learned that it’s better to leave such things open to speculation than to admit them outright. Hee hee…
By Justin
March 22, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Brian Curtis, you are a wise man!
By Bruce
March 22, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Symbols are not just a Southern thing.
By Bruce
March 22, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
Symbols are not just a Southern thing.
By RF
March 22, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
JBM- I hope I didn’t come across as being one of the stupid ones. Net rephrased what I was saying and made it make a little more sense. Boy, isn’t it amazing how one little comment I made about a rainbow got alllll blown out of proportion?? Who’d guess that could happen on this blog?? OH YEAHHHH, that’s what happens every day isn’t it?? ;-)
By Renee
March 22, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I think we have beat this subject to death. What it boils down is being overly obsessive on how someone perceives you. Human nature is to make assumptions of people, sometimes with or without provaction. Someone seeing me for the first time, can think anything they want to think about me, true or not. I drive around with my rainbows, some people in the gay community, as well as the straighties, do not identify me as gay. I know who I am, I am comfortable with who I am so it doesn’t matter. My daughter’s opinion is really the only opinion that matters (her along with anybody who wants to pay my bills).
I personally think if more people cared less about what everybody else is doing we would do MUCH better as a society.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Brian, Until men can gestate, women will always have the “upper hand” & final decision when it comes to a pregnancy or the possible child that results in her decision. As I said before, if men are able to LEGALLY opt out of every pregnancy they helped to create, who’s going to pay for all those diapers? Who’s going to help cover the cost for childcare, medial bill, FOOD? I REFUSE to do it, especially considering I never had kids. It’s not fair to the rest of us. Can you imagine the possible babies ONE Buckhead stud could create without giving a S@#$#@ because he’d never have to be responsible for any of them?
Now, something SERIOUSLY has to be done with the current child support laws of divorced families. That’s a tough one. The single parent must get child support, is it fair? enough? too much? Not to mention both parties are P@#@# off at the other. That’s a recipe for fun huh?
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
Don’t worry, Kimberly, we all knew what did it for you. LMAO
BC - exactly, is it MEN/dogs, women/cats. I get the same ‘problem’. Except I can get especially Manly if some dog comes into my yard after my cats. Pop, Pop.(not direct to hit). I actually learned taking a whiz on my property at night at the dog entry points keeps the dogs out. Have seen them spend time sniffing where I marked my ‘turf’.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
“I personally think if more people cared less about what everybody else is doing we would do MUCH better as a society.”
SO TRUE ! But that will NE-VERRRRRRR happen
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
s/b “it is Men/dogs”, etc., not dyslexic just appears that way.
By Scalia
March 22, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this
Now you know. And Knowing is half the battle
Thanks The72John for getting the theme song for G.I. Joe in my head.
I loved that cartoon. It’s amazing how you can feed children things, and they really don’t know what they are watching, like the terrorists that Cobra Commander represented. Or the twins, Tomax and Xamot, were business guys that were corrupt and supported the bad guys by financing them. Amazing.
By The72John
March 22, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
I like cats. I also like dogs. Big ones. With teeth. That like to play. Pets are great.
By The72John
March 22, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
I loved that cartoon. It’s amazing how you can feed children things, and they really don’t know what they are watching, like the terrorists that Cobra Commander represented. Or the twins, Tomax and Xamot, were business guys that were corrupt and supported the bad guys by financing them. Amazing.
Forget that - Stormshadow and SnakeEyes kicked a*!
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
What is this law that requires men to pay for babies that turn out aren’t theirs? Meaning, he thought it was but turned out later it wasn’t his baby.
I thought DNA tests took care of that issue? Why are they still required to pay child support for that baby?
That doesn’t seem right to even ME.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this
LOL @ Kimberly! You’re absolutely right about admitting nothing. So in the dirty part of my mind I’ll just assume you mean being spanked by fuzzy purple dinosaurs. grin
Monica…don’t fight it dear. We ALL turn into our mothers every now and again as well as more frequently as we age. I know I do it every time we go away on a trip and have this overwhelming need to make sure that the house is immaculate, laundry is done, fridge is cleared of anything that may turn suspect during our absence, etc just like she did when I was a kid. Hopefully when I die it will be on a trip so that when my family or the authorities come into the house it will be spotless and they’ll be fooled into thinking I really lived like that all the time. OK, my MOTHER won’t be fooled, but she’ll be too grief stricken and worried about what people would think if she shattered the illusion.
Renee…you make a wonderful point! I’m trying to take a page from my Great Grandmother who confided in me that you eventually get to an age where you don’t care so much about what other people think of you. Family and friends you’ll always care, but people who don’t have much affect or meaning in your life you stop worrying about so much. I recall her saying she wished she’d learned that lesson earlier in life so she wouldn’t have wasted so much time thinking about other people who likely weren’t even aware of whatever she was worrying about them knowing or even if they did it unless they lent a helping hand it never mattered anyway. Ok….gotta go take a private moment. I’m getting all teary-eyed thinking about Grandma and Grandma-ma…they were 2 wonderful ladies whom I miss very much.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Whiley - probably depends on the state, but in at least some, if he has accepted responsibility, or even better, the child has known him as a father-figure, he can be held responsible and it takes alot on his part, even with DNA proving it is not his, to ‘get out of it’. Now if he had contested from the start, there would be the DNA test, and he would probably not be held responsible.
That Wendy McElroy, at ifeminists, via FOX, has some interesting/valid pro-Men articles/viewpoints. I disagree with her more often, but sometimes have to agree with her. LOL
By Jack
March 22, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this
Clearly JBM you are just arguing just to hear yourself argue. Why don’t you interject race into it? That’ll give you much more to say.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
RF, there isn’t much you could say at this point to change my opinion of you. I don’t think I could ever consider you an idiot, or anything close to it.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
Whiley…it’s all about the best interest of the child to have additional support. I was reading a brief somewhere or other in which the argument was something along the lines that since the man HAD paid child support for X number of years as well as having fulfilled the role of father he had, in fact been the child’s father. Since the man had accepted and fulfilled the role of father he would be required to continue to pay child support as ‘father in fact’ despite the child not being biologically his and despite the fact that the mother had represented the child as biologically his. What this says to me is that a man should demand a DNA test immediately after birth for every child to guarantee he won’t get stuck paying for children that aren’t his because he was tricked into fulfilling the role of father.
That whole issue is rather difficult. In the case in question the man had raised the children with the mother and had acted as their dad. He said he would willingly continue a relationship with the children because he was the only father they had ever known and that he would always love the children as if they were his. Ultimately I think he was p** at and wanted to punish the mother for having been unfaithful, gotten pregnant, and lied to him.
By RF
March 22, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Net- I make beds every morning because my granny always said, “what if there was an emergency and somebody had to come in and get your things? What would they think?” I know it isn’t important, but I still do it anyway.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
“Whiley…it’s all about the best interest of the child to have additional support.”
Then why are people even considering giving father’s the option to opt out? I don’t think it will ever pass, I just think it’s a huge waste of everybody’s time. Those who are wasting time & a lot of money arguing in court this opt out thing, could be using that money & time for, lets say food & additional shelter for homeless mothers with kids? Help with the food bill for all those kids in foster homes?
By Zack
March 22, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
I was criticized for using the word “sissified.” I can see how some might be upset, but at the same time, when men priss around like women, not to mention dressing like them, etc., the word does warrant a degree of use.
RF—You said a while back that a woman could do whatever she wanted to with her body. You need to realize that abortion is an act of murder to a different individual. If the “my body” line applied, abortion would be suicide. The baby is not YOUR body. Therefore, you have no right to have an abortion. Show me ANYTHING in the Constitution that supports your claim. This country would be better if we didn’t have judicial tyrants trying to poison it.
Diane Glass—Why don’t you, instead of seeking special privileges for women, seek the equality you claim you seek? Why don’t you type out a paragraph or so about how women are held back? I could type out pages and pages about how men are held back, largely due to you and your type and how you have influenced the brainwashing of people to the point of their believing men are supposed to take whatever feminists dish out. Men are the ones being held back in our society, not women. It’d be nice if people would accept my approach: Let’s be fair to everyone.
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
I make my bed every morning so my &*&^%$# CAT won’t rub his hairy little a— on my pillows!
By Zack
March 22, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Very quickly, another way society attacks manliness is through the big screen. I seldom, seldom watch movies, but I do know Hollywood promotes not the hero but the anti-hero, another reason why I hate Hollywood.
Last week, someone was telling me Kobe Bryant was a rapist. How would you know? It’s simply his word against hers. You’re innocent until proven guilty. (I did find it ironic to learn that the alleged victim was friends with the officer who made the arrest.)
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
How original, Jack. And, actually, I stopped “arguing” with you over two hours ago!
And, about the race thing - just because you wish black people would just shut up all the noise, doesn’t mean we ever will!
I don’t think I have ever ONCE raised race as an issue on this blog or anywhere else. The post I made this morning (both the article about PC in the classroom and the one about race relations were BOTH in response to comments others had made yesterday). Funny how you have no problem with the PC article, but have to make jabs about the other one.
Anway, you’re a lot less intelligent than I thought, but still an interesting person, and have some good characteristics. I don’t hold any hard feelings, I just know what I’m dealing with now. I’ll get back up with you tomorrow or the next day, but as for today, I’m through with this subject with you. Tootaloo
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
RF…making the bed every day IS important. It was just one of those things we were required to have done before leaving for school and it just drives me NUTS to see a bed that was slept in and unmade. A room just looks less messy or unkempt if the bed is made. It’s one of those things I’ve had to learn to live with because my partner’s family didn’t have any kind of rules about making beds. He gets up after I do and rarely makes the bed. His reasoning is that he’s just going to sleep in it again anyway. So when I get home from work I make the bed. Heck, I’ve even made the bed just so I can get in it to go to sleep. Well if you didn’t know it before it’s now officially revealed that I am a freak.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this
Zack must have missed Firewall. Maybe it is not out on DVD yet. and Inside Man starts this weekend, looks rather Manly to me, a must-see this weekend.
By Mara
March 22, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
Can’t stay, too busy today. Got this from a friend and thought it’d interest some of you -
Cecilia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe at Pine Ridge, SD, says that she is going to stand up to Gov. Rounds’ ban of all abortion in the state of South Dakota. According to a ‘Native American Times’ article by Tim Giago, Ms. Fire Thunder was “incensed…that a body made up of mostly white males would make such a stupid law against women.”
“To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” she said to Giago last week. “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.”
By Renee
March 22, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Okay, if we can get a quick comment from a religious nut, we will have touched on everything including gay bashing (not really, but enough to count), race, and abortion by Wednesday!!!
I guess I spoke it into existence on Monday.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this
We, as kids, were not allowed to make the beds until after noon, had to pull them back all the way to let them air out, Mom considered it a health-issue. Of course we did not have a cat (LOL) I have the pillows covered WELL when I leave, since one of mine is smart enough to only come in for the warmth in the winter or the A/C in the summer. And being a long hair, gets leaves/twigs in his fur, and NO WAY is he touching my pillows.
By Confused
March 22, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
Jack you’d better be careful. You won’t be able to sleep tonight thinking JBM thinks you’re an idiot.
Don’t you know she runs this here blog? HER opinion of what’s stupid is ALL that matters.
JBM-why don’t you give us the list of who’s stupid and who’s not. That way those of us that you think are stupid can start our our blog and not trouble you so much anymore.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
Wow. Go, Cecilia, Go! I love it when people (esp. the underdog) fight back… I tend not to care what the issue is. I just love to see strong, intelligent people stand up to bullies. I’m no pro-choice activist - not by a long shot - but I sure am proud of Miss Cecilia for standing up to the bullies, and I will certainly be sending her a contribution.
By RF
March 22, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
Renee- look back up. Zack’s here and trying to get me into it. I’ll ignore it today.
kimberly- now I’m gonna worry about my cat doing that.GROSS!!!! Did you HAVE to bring that image to mind?? LOLOL
Net- welcome to the Freaks Club, dude. I cannot stand to get into a wrinkled bed. I’ll straighten it and fold the covers down neatly before I’m comfortable in it!! I can overlook the dust for a few days, but dang those covers better be neat!
By Jack
March 22, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
I don’t really give a flying rat’s a$$ what JBM thinks of me.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Confused, let’s make a deal. You can lick the crack of my behind on an August day in Atlanta (*after I’ve gone jogging, of course) and I’ll get you that list you want. Mmmkay?
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Yeah, you’re confused alright. Who in the heck would actually give a darn what a nameless, faceless blogger thinks about them??????
By Renee
March 22, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Damn, LOL.
By Confused
March 22, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this
“Confused” is as good a “name” as “just being me”.
You need to calm down, let other people express their opinions (even if YOU don’t agree with them), and take your blood pressure medicine.
And Jack, I know you don’t care. I was being facetious. I don’t care what she thinks about me either.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this
Zack, trust me, Kobe’s a rapist.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
Zack doesn’t think Kobe’s a rapist because it’s not rape if a female walks into a man’s hotel room. It’s not rape even if she says no to even anal sex. (which was what the issue was my dear).
Oh & attractive rich athletes aren’t able to commit rape because they have so many women that would be willing to have sex with him. Oh & it’s not rape if the accused can afford the best attorney’s in the country & can figure out how to get it dismissed. Oh & it’s not rape if the victim is harassed & threatened so much she withdraws her case.
WHAT A MANLY MAN YOU ARE ZACK !
By Confused
March 22, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this
No thanks for your offer. I’ll leave that to your girlfriend/boyfriend.
By Chuck
March 22, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
JBM-girl, you have ISSUES!!!!
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
What’s next…”I’m rubber, you’re glue…”???
By Renee
March 22, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
I don’t think Kobe raped anyone.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this
LOL… how telling. I knew they were one in the same, just didn’t want to make accusations before I was certain. What an idiot.
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Ahhh…. Zack does me a favor when he comes here. He reminds me that there are indeed people with whom rational discussion is not possible, men who see themselves as superior to everyone else, and who have so few redeeming human qualities that interaction of any sort is NEVER a good idea. Okay, guard is back UP now! Someone please thank him for me!
By The72John
March 22, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
JBM-girl, you have ISSUES!!!!
Hello, Kettle! I’m the Pot! Did you know that you were Black?
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this
JBM-Does it really make you feel superior to call people “idiots”?
How big of you. Really.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
I was just about to say something along those lines, Renee. I’m not surprised Whiley feels that way, though…. for more than one reason.
I wouldn’t say that date rape doesn’t happen, but I firmly believe that it didn’t happen that night in Colorado.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
What’s next…”I’m rubber, you’re glue…”???
Jack K - I think that was your line, if I remember correctly. Historically, on this blog, it is My dad can beat up your dad. Sure, semantics. LMAO
or a book and a half with the subject of ‘don’t talk to me’ LOL
By Renee
March 22, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this
John tooooooo funny!!!!!!!!!!
By ann
March 22, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Our culture does not devalue men, however, men have stopped being manly. Many of today’s men seem to expect the women around them to take responsibility for everything, i.e, financial, children, etc. I am very disappointed in men in general. They have stopped being leaders and protectors on the home front. They toss off their responsibilites like so much worn underwear, take off with a newer, younger women at the drop of a hat. And then wish to fight their exes in court to see how little they can provide financially.
And then dating….they expect you to call them, make the plans, be interested in them instead of interesting to be with.
If I seem a bit cynical, it happens too much, guys. Where is the INTEGRITY??
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this
Jack K - of course I MAY have memory issues with who exactly came out with the rubber/glue remark awhile back. possibly.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this
Renee that’s because Kobe’s “legal team” made darn sure the evidence of forceful anal assault was kept under wrap. Particularly from the public. If you research actual medical exam reports, there was extensive proof of it. His legal pigs were lucky, the victim was harassed so much she withdrew her case. It’s so sad. See if you have money, you can buy anything. Even a free get out of jail.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
Jack K. I don’t know you from Adam. I don’t even “e-know” you. Please don’t speak to me today. Thanks. Tootaloo.
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
I’m sure when Kobe directed the anachonda in a less welcoming direction, he was only trying to “do the right thing” by not impregnating her. And see what he gets for trying to do the right thing? If she said NO, or if it was too scary or painful, she should have thanked him anyway for doing the right thing, right?
By Nikita
March 22, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
Zack, you can say that all you want, but it’s not accurate.
Secondly, as for this rainbow flag business, the purpose of the rainbow flag is to show support for gay people. it is also ‘cause, heck, you like rainbows. it is not because you’re gay, because you support “the gay agenda” (whatever that is), or because you’re part of some giant conspiracy to cover the world in Lisa Frank merchandise. If you lack the self-esteem to put one on your property because you’re a homophobe, that’s a commentary on you — not on the advocacy organization who chose the rainbow to exemplify their solidarity.
By the way, I still have seen no proof of Shaunti’s assertion above. Does anyone have any proof that we as a society devalue manliness? Or have we gotten our bloomers in a wad over nothing?
By Renee
March 22, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
I don’t share your sentiments at all Whiley. Nothing happened in that hotel room that she didn’t want to happen, in my opinion of course, since NONE of us were there.
By Nikita
March 22, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this
Zack, you can say that all you want, but it’s not accurate.
Secondly, as for this rainbow flag business, the purpose of the rainbow flag is to show support for gay people. it is also ‘cause, heck, you like rainbows. it is not because you’re gay, because you support “the gay agenda” (whatever that is), or because you’re part of some giant conspiracy to cover the world in Lisa Frank merchandise. If you lack the self-esteem to put one on your property because you’re a homophobe, that’s a commentary on you — not on the advocacy organization who chose the rainbow to exemplify their solidarity.
By the way, I still have seen no proof of Shaunti’s assertion above. Does anyone have any proof that we as a society devalue manliness? Or have we gotten our bloomers in a wad over nothing?
By Justin
March 22, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
A law should be passed to require mandatory DNA testing for every newborn and their parents. It will solve many problems and put an end to “Momma’s baby, Papa’s maybe?”
Zack, I agree with you about Kobe. She was game but was ashamed of what happened. However, he was stupid, put himself in a bad situation to even get caught up with that girl. He was married and he knew how the women chase athletes. Heck, if I was a rich athlete, I wouldn’t even ride an elevator alone with a woman.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
Chuck. You know she doesn’t like being referred to as “girl”. Show some respect. She p** me off but I still like her. (she may not like me but so be it)
By Renee
March 22, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Good comment Nikita.
or because you’re part of some giant conspiracy to cover the world in Lisa Frank merchandise.
LOL too funny….hmmm my daughter used to like Lisa Frank
By kimberly
March 22, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
Ann, so true! Sad but true.
By Jack K
March 22, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
JBM-if you can come on here and insult people and call them idiots then I think I can address you any way I see fit.
You’re rude to people and then expect them to sit and take it. Doesn’t work that way on or off the blog.
By Chilao
March 22, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
By the way, I still have seen no proof of Shaunti’s assertion above
We are not all Manly packing security guards for places (possibly) filled with hate speakers. It got outsourced anyway.
Proof enough? LOL I was going to mention the translator that tagged along, but that British/Indian English sounds real close to American English.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
So Renee you must be agreeing with Zack that a woman cannot claim rape if she enters a man’s hotel room.
A YOUNG woman I might add, with very little knowledge of how the world works cannot claim rape if she only wanted to make out with a man.
That’s very oppressive OLD way of thinking. How sad.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
So you have consented to have sex with Gigantus. When you see it you say “no”. He does it anyway and tears the lining of your v——-a. You have to go to the hospital to get sewn up. This is not rape? No is no even in the middle of the “act”. Stop, do not pass go.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
OK so now JUSTIN, ZACK & RENEE think any FEMALE entering a man’s hotel room, or heck just being alone with him cannot be raped. Particularly if he is good looking, rich, famous, or all of the above. Those three think if a young woman wants to make out with a man, she is not allowed to say no to sex.
I never knew that.
By Renee
March 22, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
That’s not what I said Whiley and Jack.
I do believe no is no no matter when you say it. I don’t think she said anything but yes, I don’t think no was in her vocabulary that day. That’s all I’m saying.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
Jack, I don’t dislike you. As I said an hour or so ago, I have no hard feelings and I hope you don’t either. You got under my skin, ticked me off, I got to know you a little bit better, and that’s the end of that (as far as I’m concerned).
As for satan or Confused, or whatever moniker he’s using today, don’t even bother to talk to him about showing respect. His parents were too busy teaching him to hate anyone who’s different than him… they never covered respect. That’s a waste of your typing energy.
By Just Being Me
March 22, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
Whiley, (I know I’m going to regret this, but…) let me ask you a question.
Imagine in your mind (force yourself to imagine, just to humor me) that Colorada (the name I’m giving her since I don’t know her name) and Kobe started making out. Then, imagine that they had sex. Imagine that he asked her if he could try anal (or maybe he didn’t ask - maybe he just started poking around to see if she’d acquiesce). Imagine she’s enjoying the sex…
Now imagine scenario #1: She didn’t like the anal, and felt remorseful after doing it.
Or perhaps, #2: She enjoyed the entire experience, and saw this as a nice opportunity to make some big cash.
I’m not saying either of these happened. I’m just asking you to reasonably imagine in your mind, both of those scenarios.
Now.
Can you, with reasonable mind, say that it is in no way possible that either of these scenarios occurred?
By Justin
March 22, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Ann, And those issues started when some women decided they wanted to be free with bodies and felt marriage constrained them. Why some men don’t take responsibility? They can get sex without marriage. They can enjoy “a wife” through cohabitation. Some women don’t demand as much in the character of a man, especially in the Black community where there is a shortage of educated men/business men/blue collar men with a high wage earning trade.
By Jack
March 22, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
JBM. Seems we were arguing different points. The Mrs. and I do that a lot, get all P O’d at each other and when all is said and done it’s like “I was talking about “X”. Then I’ll say, “but I was talking about “Y”
By Bruce
March 22, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
Whiley, in your research did you dicover how her clothes were taken off? Just asking cause you seem to have all the details and I only have tibits.
By Whiley
March 22, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
I want all sexual assault victims take it all the way to court. Every last one of them. If every woman who was raped was to push like hell and get it into court the court system in this nation would come to a grinding halt. Then maybe some of you “defenders of rapists no matter what evidence there is” would get a clue & go after the real pigs. Then MAYBE SOME of these ancient women-hating old opinions will finally go away.
By Netbanker
March 22, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
ZAck….until the fetus can survive without an umbilical cord then it IS part of her body because it’s her blood and nutrients flowing around. It’s not a baby until it’s born.
You’re innocent until proven guilty. This is a concept that only applies to the government. Individuals do not have to subscribe to this view. It only applies to the government because based on the proof of guilt or innocence the government is empowered to deprive the individual of freedom, property, and/or life. Individuals are not empowered by the Constitution or Laws to do this. As a result we may presume or state our belief of guilt at whatever time we choose since that belief or statement has no bearing on the actions of the court or government nor will it deprive the individual of their freedom, property, or life.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this
Interesting article in the NYT this morning written by a college admittance officer. Just to share and excerpt -
“…We heard about a young woman from Kentucky we were not yet ready to admit outright. She was the leader/president/editor/captain/lead actress in every activity in her school. She had taken six advanced placement courses and had been selected for a prestigious state leadership program. In her free time, this whirlwind of achievement had accumulated more than 300 hours of community service in four different organizations. Unfortunately, her test scores and grade point average placed her in the middle of our pool.
Had she been a male applicant, there would have been little, if any, hesitation to admit. The reality is that because young men are rarer, they’re more valued applicants. Today, two-thirds of colleges and universities report that they get more female than male applicants, and more than 56 percent of undergraduates nationwide are women. Demographers predict that by 2009, only 42 percent of all baccalaureate degrees awarded in the United States will be given to men.
We have told today’s young women that the world is their oyster; the problem is, so many of them believed us that the standards for admission to today’s most selective colleges are stiffer for women than men. The elephant that looms large in the middle of the room is the importance of gender balance. Should it trump the qualifications of talented young female applicants? At those colleges that have reached what the experts call a “tipping point,” where 60 percent or more of their enrolled students are female, you’ll hear a hint of desperation in the voices of admissions officers.
What are the consequences of young men discovering that even if they do less, they have more options? And what messages are we sending young women that they must, nearly 25 years after the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment, be even more accomplished than men to gain admission to the nation’s top colleges? These are questions that admissions officers like me grapple with. “
By whiley
March 23, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this
I just realized something, Zack, Renee & Justin are the SAME PERSON. Probably one of the mail room guys at the ajc that posts occasionally when the conversation is getting slow. All three of these “peoples” like to stir things up. Of course I bite EVERY time lol. I’ll bet he is given office coffee & doughnuts everytime he posts something really obnoxious. Diane & Shaunti are cracking themselves up. Wait, what if those three are the creation of D&S? THAT’S IT ! Brilliant idea ladies lol
By Kim
March 23, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this
Women didn’t ask permission to break the mold, recast their roles and gain more freedom, they demanded it. If men can’t be the protectors that they were made to be, then they just may end up as predators instead. Afterall, it does seem the number of predators has been increasing…right along with feminism. Many men do not feel comfortable opening a door for lady these days, he may get verbally, or physically assaulted. Yes, as feminism has spread, chivalry has died. I recently had to change a flat tire in the rain. Bring back chivalry and let the feminism die!
By Kim
March 23, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
Netbanker, you are ignorant. The baby has his or her own blood suppy. There are only two questions you need to ask to determine if abortion is murder. Is it human and is it alive? The answers to both these questions is a definite and resounding “yes!”
By Renee
March 23, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this
Whiley, I don’t even appreciate your disrespect. Why is it so hard to take when someone disagrees with you????
So once again in case you still don’t understand.
I DON’T agree with rape (obviously).
I DON’T think the Kobe woman (Colorada) was raped.
Please don’t group me with anyone else. I have my own opinion’s and thoughts, though they might agree with each other.
By Julia
March 23, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this
Kim, I agree with some of your statements. I don’t WANT to change my tire in the rain…I could if I HAD to…but I’d much rather a man stop and help me. Things like opening a door are also nice and show the man to be a “gentleman”. Now THAT’S something we have a hard time finding these days. Forget the “manly man” stuff…where oh where are all the “gentlemen”? They are afraid (like you said) of offending the woman.
What’s wrong with being a lady and being treated like one?
I think Jack will agree with this and probably opens every door for his lady. ;)
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Here’s the problem I have with some of the pro-troglodyte comments further up…they’re baseless. There is no proof that anyone is conspiring to devalue the manliness of anyone. Yet we argue the hypothesis like there’s something to argue.
Moving on, I will buy that behavioral standards and advantages in general aren’t as high as they once were, particularly for children and low-skills workers. The free market paradigm has gained ground, and this means that all segments of society have begun to view their employees or constituents as independent from themselves. So, community is suffering and the group as a whole isn’t necessarily charged with such attributes as protection, care for children, etc. Which means that unless you hold a job which is specific to a particular attribute, then you probably don’t get much opportunity to experience it unless you create it in your personal life. So, less men get to be professionally “manly,” though they still hold the majority of security jobs. Fewer women get to be professionally “womanly,” though nursing, education, and other traditionally female careers remain largely female. It also bears noting that men’s jobs are those that america has overwhelmingly lost over the last 20 or so years. much of it outsourced. heavy and light manufacturing, for example.
Finally, Kim, if it can’t survive on its own, it’s part of the woman’s body. Which is why there is a basis for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act — kill the mother up until a relatively late phase and you also kill the fetus. The opposite is not true.
By Ken
March 23, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this
Mara… I think you need to read the Newsweek article from a few weeks (maybe a couple of months) back. That magazine, hardly a bastion of conservative thought, clearly makes it’s case that the reason for the drop of male applicants to college and subsequently their onitinued lower percentage of makeup in the student body is directly related to the feminist movement.
The article proposes that movement worked very hard to shift the primary and secondary education styles to better suit young girls than young boys (where the opposite existed in the past). This has left a generation of young boys floundering and completely disinterested with education. Of course, this is a very boiled down version of the article. I am not an educator, so I must stand on what the article states.
It makes me sad for that young girl from Kentucky. I know how she feels. I was not considered for many prestigious colleges in spite of my high SAT/ACT scores, High School GPA and community involvement. However, it does make me somewhat smile inside, that finally the white male applicant gets some advantage from the socialist quota laws. Somewhat ironic, isn’t it?
By Ken
March 23, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Nikita… What if it can survive with the help of medical technology (i.e. breathing machines, feeding tubes, incubators, etc.)???
Does mommy still have the right to kill it???
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
IMHO, chivalry is a simple matter of politeness. It has nothing to do with status whatsoever. As a woman, I have stopped to help older people change a tire, I have held doors open for women and men, carried a bag of groceries for someone who clearly hadd too many to manage, and I generally make eye contact with the people I meet. Basic courtesy, you know?
By Julia
March 23, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Kim, first of all Netbanker is NOT ignorant. That was rude and uncalled for.
I do however agree with your pro-life comments.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
A first term or second term fetus (marginally) cannot survive with or without feeding tubes, incubator or anything else. It’s not even developed.
By Monica
March 23, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
I wish that college applications would take off gender and race. Of course, that might cause troubles in dorm assignments, I realize, but it’s would be a better assurance of fair admissions policies.
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
Anybody who calls NetB ignorant says more about him/herself than he/she realizes…
Jack - Yeah, I agree. That’s exactly what we were doing.
Whiley - You think I might get a response to my 4:57?
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this
First, Ken, until you can make your argument without emotional appeals you don’t have an argument. One of the issues with the so-called pro-life movement is that a) it calls itself pro-life, when in fact it’s anti-personal autonomy and anti-medical privacy. and b) it fails to recognize that in some cases it defends an entity which cannot even be recognized as an entity in any other context and is not self-contained or capable of self-determination.
I decline to state when I think a developing packet of fetal cells is a human worthy of legal protection other than to say that I believe the existing medical guidelines are appropriate. one cannot kill that which does not exist. Nor can one be forced to host an entity which cannot sustain itself to please the religious scruples of other people.
When women can relinquish fetii for raising by medical means or what have you, and the resources for that kind of care is devised, the discussion of tubes will be relevant. And perhaps then abortion should be illegal.
By Chilao
March 23, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this
Why would someone, a male, spend time trying to get into college and do all that work, when they can make much better money in construction? I work for a manufacturing company, and the plant workers, on piecemeal, make more per year than anybody here in IT, who mostly all have four-year degrees.
My little brother, who never went to college, makes more per hour than I do, in a cabinetry shop, Sure, he is a professional at it, has done that type of work for years so he does not make costly mistakes with materials. And he just got a raise and was already making more than me. He also the highest paid in that shop.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
Whiley won’t respond to your 4:57. She’s too busy trying to figure out if Justin, Zack & myself are the same person. Plus, it makes too much sense, therefore, it’s easier to ignore.
By Paul
March 23, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Monica-you can wish in one hand and sh!# in the other…see which fills up the fastest. Race and gender will always be a factor unfortunately.
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 23, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this
Whiley - You think I might get a response to my 4:57?
Don’t bother JBM. You already know her answer to that question. You knew it when you asked it. If a woman brings a rape charge against a man, the man is guilty PERIOD! No If’s, And’s, or (snicker) but’s about it.
By Justin
March 23, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Renee, I agree. Whiley is not going to respond.
By John
March 23, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this
Generally, this seems to be another fluff topic. However, the notion that somehow there are men that think they need to “protect” and “hunt” to prove to their women and themselves that they ARE men, may explain our current political nightmare. Look at Mr. Bush, and Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Did we end up in a war for no reason other than their need to prove that they could “perform” for their women and prove to other men that they are REAL men? When they talk to the public don’t you feel that they are saying, “simmer down little lady, I’ll deal with the problem, don’t you worry your little head.” ? Are their personal insecurities about their own performance, manliness what has driven the last few dismal years?
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
And if she does reply, it would just wind-up the person more bc she would put words in their mouth or not even address the actual question and just rant for a while - and then say that she was just kidding…
By Ken
March 23, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
Nikita… Actually, there isn’t emotion at all. YOU made the statement about “if it needs a mother to survive…” not me. Answer the question. If a baby can survive with medical technology, does the mother have the right to kill it.
Renee… I know of a young lady who “gave birth” to a little baby girl at between four and five months, wathced it survive with the hellp of technology and took her home at a little over six months. So, it can be done. In any event, first term, seciond term, late term, it doesn’t matter…
The question was very simply If the baby can survive with medical technology does the mother have the right to kill it? Don’t skew the question with parameters when I did not introduce them. That tells me you are not comfortable with your answer.
By Paul
March 23, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Come on John, what about Bill “cigar” Clinton? He was too busy chasing skirts to take care of our country and grab Bin Laden when he had the chance. We were too busy worrying about who the President slept with to bother worrying about our country.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
Ken, just to clarify…boys are under-represented in college applications because boys aren’t interested in scholastics unless it’s tailored to their learning style? I’m incredulous! After all, girls learned boy-style before feminism. Were girls underrepresented on college campuses because being taught in a manner better suited to male learning left them “floundering and completely disinterested with education.”? Of course not. Boys could learn if they want, just as girls did back then. It’s completely unfair to say that the barriers of male-centric teaching styles that lots of girls had to overcome in the past, (which, according to your Newsweek article, are now reversed to tilt toward female-centric teaching styles) pose far too challenging to expect boys to succeed in education.
Wow. If that’s the level of expectation for the boys, no wonder they choose to check out and drop out.
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Yeah, I guess you all are right. Either that or she will answer the question with some off-the-wall response that’ll make me regret ever asking her.
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
Nope, Ken. Question one is “when is it a baby?” I would argue not until it can survive as an independent entity. Furthermore, regardless of when it is viable, its mother is guaranteed self-determination, access to medical care, and the ability to make decisions about both herself and the entity within.
(P.S. If you don’t know the difference between using technical terms and using cutesy, emotionally charged and inaccurate terms such as “baby,”“mommy,” and “kill,” then you’re still not even arguing.)
By Whiley
March 23, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Hi all I’m really busy today! I’ll respond as soon as it’s possible. I’d like to say that feminism & women standing up not accepting abuse, fighting for personal freedoms & demanding respect in relationships have nothing to do with men being lazy ARSES. Women working, being independent has NOTHING to do with the level of chivalry or male violence. There are more & more predators because we as a world don’t raise our boys properly. The boys are left on their own to go wild. Is it any wonder? Behind every mature respectful male adult are parents that took the time to raise him to be a proper educated happy adult.
Hopefully I’ll have time to post later today. Everyone have fun today! :)
By Renee
March 23, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Well, since you feel like my answer was substandard Ken, I’m sorry. First term (trimester) = first three months, fetus is NOT a fully developed baby, it’s not even a baby. It starts to develop more in the second trimester but it’s chances for survival are still remote.
I think a woman should have the right to make whatever decision she deems necessary with her body. That is not up to me, you, the government or anyone else to make the decision for her, or for any woman.
So to answer your question, yes, I think a woman should have the right to kill the baby (that’s how you word it, right).
I’m sure you can argue the morning after pill with the fact that you once knew a woman who raised a zygote successfully into a fetus, into a baby, so forth and so on.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Okay, now your busy Whiley. You weren’t too busy this morning to make your foolish 8:36 am post. In the amount of time it took you to do your 9:58 post, you could have answered JBM as well. You don’t WANT to answer, you want to rant and rave. I swear you hate men worse than the most hard core lesbians I know.
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary…
BABY=an extremely young child
CHILD=an unborn or recently born person
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this
Mara,
Where you born this caustic?
Just to refresh your memory, we already discussed and deemed it an ignorant arguement to say “You did it to us first” as a means to justify any unfairness in the world.
That grudge-based mentality is a PART of the corrupt system of boys vs girls. If you stop playing ball, you may have time to apply to the betterment of this world.
But instead, you would rather see guys attending colleges in lower numbers bc it feeds your angst.
AGAIN - any unfairness is exactly that - and should be remedied. To refer to wrong doings of some old guys that most of us are not even related to, and that we do not agree with is just plain backwards.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this
From the Merrian-Webster Dictionary
MURDER
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought 2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy
Doesn’t describe abortion to me!
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
FETUS=a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
According to your logic a nine month old child inside the womb should be legally killed if the mother chose to do so. It’s not a baby until it’s born. However, some babies are born at 4 mos and survive, some at 5 mos, 6 mos, 7 mos. This same child can be killed in the womb.
FYI-a child who was just born can not take care of himself AFTER he’s born either. It is still totally dependant. I don’t care WHO you are-you can go through 9 months of pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption INSTEAD OF PAYING SOMEONE TO KILL IT/END IT”S LIFE/MUTILATE IT AND FLUSH IT DOWN THE DRAIN OR PUT IT IN THE TRASH OR INCINERATOR. This practice is inhmane and people would be outraged if it was done to DOGS.
By kimberly
March 23, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this
This abortion issue, as it pertains to public discussion, is not about when or whether the fetus is a separate life. There will NEVER be agreement by everyone in a society on this question.
The ISSUE, as it DOES pertain to everyone is twofold: (1) Who makes medical decisions for an individual, and (2) What is the appropriate level to legislate such an action, bearing in mind (a) the logistics and cost of equitable enforcement of such legislation, and (b) the repercussions to individuals and society for the enforcement of this legislation.
So, unless you’re going to discuss the REAL issues that surround this ongoing issue, then STFU! Your personal religious beliefs and your feeeeeeeeeelings are absolutely NOT pertinent!
Thusly, I challenge any of you who squawk that it should be illegal, to address ALL the other ramifications in your response, including the issues of rape, incest, health, domestic violence, poverty, and the future of unwanted chilren — ALL of them, not just healthy white adoptable ones. If you cannot perpetuate the discussion with foresight, intelligence, and plausible solutions to problems both existing and resultant, then again: STFU!
Thank you.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this
PERSON
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL — sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing 5 : the personality of a human being : SELF 6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
Since murder involves killing a person, abortion should not be categorized as such.
By GOB
March 23, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
FM - How would you propose this problem with the education system be fixed? Do you think there is a magic teaching style that will be just right for both boys and girls?
Maybe we should separate the boys and girls and have teachers trained to teach a specific gender, on top of the subject. That seems to be the only “fair” way to go, but is not realistic way to approach the problem.
Not to put words in Mara’s mouth, but the way i read her argument, she was simply saying that it is a lame attempt to shift blame, rather than working hard to overcome an obstacle (if you could even call it that).
By Renee
March 23, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
I love it, we are on abortion! Next religion and gaybashing…okay, back to abortion.
Charlene, how many babies have you adopted to help out?
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 23, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this
Thusly, I challenge any of you who squawk that it should be illegal, to address ALL the other ramifications in your response, including the issues of rape, incest, health, domestic violence, poverty, and the future of unwanted chilren — ALL of them, not just healthy white adoptable ones.
Kimberly, you know those issues don’t matter to the pro-lifers. The only thing that matters to them is that’s a baby inside that mom and babies are just so cute and cuddly that you shouldn’t possibly be allowed to kill one of them. No matter that baby, if born, might be left in some trashcan somewhere or possibly sold to someone who may allow people to do unspeakable things to it. The baby must be allowed to live and if something horrible happens to it well WTF do they care.
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Um, Charlene — it IS done to dogs. It’s called a pregnant spay, and it’s pretty routine in most practices. I assume you know about animal overpopulation and the eventual end of a good portion of unwanted puppies?
By Renee
March 23, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, excellent, excellent post.
Do I have to take Net’s tiara again and give it to you??
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
It describes abortion perfectly!
By Jack
March 23, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
Julia. Thankyou for the nice comment. After 28+ years I still open the car door for my lady. I have changed several flat tires on the side of the road for women. A man shouldn’t think twice before doing that for a woman unless another man is present.
JBM. I feel bad about yesterday. Didn’t mean to get so riled. I love all of my blog buddies.
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
So, we’re coming up on Friday and have made no significant progress.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
GOB,
Maybe we should separate the boys and girls and have teachers trained to teach a specific gender, on top of the subject. That seems to be the only “fair” way to go, but is not realistic way to approach the problem.
That is not unrealistic for it was being done at one time. They have videos for teachers to watch how a person will treat both sexes different in a school setting and then explain how it SHOULD have been done. There should (and could) be courses on this in getting your teachers certificate.
Not to put words in Mara’s mouth, but the way i read her argument, she was simply saying that it is a lame attempt to shift blame, rather than working hard to overcome an obstacle (if you could even call it that).
No, she applies blame to the boys for not overcoming what the girls WERE faced with (temporarily), but THOSE obsacles were changed BC it was unfair.
What she is saying is the same old childish - well I had to walk uphill in the snow, bla, bla… Instead of aknowledging the evidence that the tides have swung too far the other way.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
FM- I did not say that because girls got the short end of the stick that boys should have to suffer now. I said that in the past, girls have overcome the same barriers that boys face today. Using the difficulty of the task to excuse boys for their lack of motivation is, IMO, invalid. My point was that the previously accepted teaching styles did not lessen the desire to learn. Girls did it, boys can do it. It’s not a case of “You hit me first!”, it’s a case of “If she can do it, he can do it”. Equal expectations for those facing similar challenges.
As to my temperment, I have little patience with those who make excuses for anyone choosing ignorance. “Oooh, poor Johnny just can’t learn to read because his teacher is too boring”, “Johnny doesn’t like the books the teachers assign in class” or “Oooh, it’s too hard for Johnny to learn the way the other kids do.” Excuses to fail, to quit, to not even try. If you want to call that “caustic”, fine. I call it challenging the argument.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
GOB,
I was not being clear in my last post and I was not refering to this part of your phrase: “Maybe we should separate the boys and girls”
If we changed how things were done once (less male-centric teaching), why so doubful that it can be done again?
By Mara
March 23, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Why thank you GOB, for your 10:24 post. That’s exactly what I was trying to say.
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
~giving Jack a big ole hug~
Don’t feel badly. We all have our days. I love you, and all my blog buddies too, and I apologize for getting so riled up. As you said, we were totally discussing two different things. No hard feelings on my end, and I hope there aren’t any on your end.
~smooches~
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
I was so preoccupied yesterday I forgot to mention that Blablabla was on my mind… hope all is well with him, Mrs. Bla and BabyBla.
I miss you Bla! Come baaaaaaaaaaaaaackkkkkkkk!!!
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Mara, I wish I could whisper something in your ear….
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
girls have overcome the same barriers that boys face today.
But they have not (en todo), we changed the system. And there are some boys in college, so there are a lot of them that are also, like the girls had once had to do, overcoming the barriers.
But this is about contining changing the system for females although it is damaging males - to which you make whiney statements on guys behalf that are not present. My youngest daughter uses the same verbal skills to state that an arguement is not of her liking - but she is 13yo.
What do you have against changing the system to be fair to boys and girls? BC you are arguing against it -and you aknowledge that it is female-centric.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
JBM , I’m intrigued…
By Renee
March 23, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
I was thinking about bla too….I really need to discuss “flava of love” with him…lol!!
By Ken
March 23, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Mara… Obviously you didn’t read my entire post. I never claimed to be an educator, only that Newsweek wrote an article on your statement. A statement that was obviously a potshot against men.
The article created a compelling argument. It didn’t take any sides, it simply stated the facts. Not sure why you would so quickly dismiss the idea that little girls and little boys learn differently and that by shifting the focus and methods of education toward little girls, it can frustrate and disinterest little boys.
We’ve seen similar results in the past when little girls would go to “all girl”, for lack of a better term, schools. Do you think the higher performance was simply b/c they weren’t thinking about boys. Of course not. The styles and environments are vastly different in way to maximize their abilities.
Nikita… I apologize if you don’t like my word choice of “mommy” and “kill”. Perhaps if I use such inocuous terms as “host” and “terminate” it will euthanize your mind and numb you to the reality of the actual act taking place.
By GOB
March 23, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
FM - I think you are being way to dramatic here. To say that the schools are now “female-centric,” is a bit of a stretch. They are clearly less male-centric than the past, but that doesn’t mean that they are now catering to females.
I agree that the feminist movement can probably be pointed to as the point in which girls began to attend college in greater numbers. I think the reason behind this, however, is very different than the one you are claiming. We now have an entire generation of women who have grown up being told that they have options and can go to college and do whatever they want with their lives. Now those people are having children, and are passing that mindset on. I believe that has contributed more to the increase of women in college than anything else.
The number posted here was 56% of college undergrads are female. Guess what, there are more women in this country than men overall, so that number isn’t quite as out of proportion as it might sound. Also, should we change the way schools function in order to make sure college undergrads are split 50/50?
I guess my whole point is that I don’t see a problem with the way boys are treated or taught in schools.
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
I don’t like your terms because they’re leading. and furthermore, i don’t like the anti-choice group in general because it insists on lying to women and badgering them to elicit their support.
By RF
March 23, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
Nikita- you want progress??? Here??? HAHAHAHA!!! That’s like rain Phoenix, AZ these days—rarely happens and it’s over about the time it gets started!!
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Don’t be, Mara. I don’t have anything fascinating to say. Just want to tell you something that I wouldn’t say openly on this blog.
By Chilao
March 23, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
I was thinking of blah yesterday with my book and a half remark. LOL
By Ken
March 23, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
GOB… Thank you for bringing some facts into the discussion.
However, where I would not use the term “female-centric” I will again reiterate what I have read that indicates the schools are a place better suited for little boys than little girls.
By Chilao
March 23, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Ken - don’t forget the male prison population that skews the college-gender numbers as well.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
Once again FM, you willfully twist the point of my posts.
Never in any of them do I say that the system shouldn’t be adjusted or changed. What I do say is that blaming the system for the dearth of boys who succeed in scholastics is a cop-out. An excuse. A justification for mediocrity and failure.
I never said the system was equitable and I have no objections to making it more “boy-friendly”. Just because I don’t perceive the lack of motivation in boy students as “excusable” because of prevailing girl-centric teaching methods, that does NOT mean that I think we can’t do any better.
And calling me names doesn’t make your agrument, whatever it is, any more credible. Fine if you want to disagree with me, but ad hominem insults don’t become you.
By Jack
March 23, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Haven’t been in school a long time but what is the problem with having more females than males? Isn’t that what we want?
By Ken
March 23, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
Nikita… I don’t like the term “anti-choice”. That term is very leading.
By Ken
March 23, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Typo… I meant better suited for little girls than little boys…
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
I respect that, Ken, but in my opinion that’s what “pro-life” really means. Personally I would like to see few, if any abortions. So I applaud access to birth control, sex education and ABC-type diversified programs, education, better family violence laws and logical welfare policy, emergency contraception, and other such measures because they reduce the need for medical abortion. However, that isn’t what “pro-life” does — it works to ensure that women do not have the right to privacy, self-determination, or appropriate medical care when they might be pregnant. So let’s be honest — the so-called “pro-life” movement in fact works to deprive women of the right to make decisions about their medical care whenever a potential “life,” no matter how far from coming into existence or how small a chance of it actually coming to fruition might be present.
By Jewish and Proud of It
March 23, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Ken, so when they outlaw abortion, should they bring those babies they find in the dumpsters and trashcans to your house, since instead of being aborted they ended up in the dumpster? Should they bring all the unwanted babies to your house so you can take care of them? or should they just go sell them to the child pornographer down the street for $50 a pop?
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Maraaaaa….
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
I guess my whole point is that I don’t see a problem with the way boys are treated or taught in schools.
Well, there are studies that show that the teaching being done is far more female-centric and therefore does alienate boys; but we would have to agree that the issue exists to even disagree on what to do about it - so it sounds like a non-issue.
Take care.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
LOL
By kimberly
March 23, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Ken, the term “Pro-life” is misleading because life only BEGINS at birth, and requires much to sustain it beyond that point. The “Pro-life” movement primarily drops out of the picture at this beginning.
Why not say you are “Pro-choosing-life?” If it is your wish that a woman CHOOSE to carry to term and give birth, then wouldn’t that more accurately reflect your feelings? Or would it be more accurate to say you are “Pro-laws-prohibiting-choice?” Or how about “Pro-prosecution-of-individuals-exercising-choice?” Those boil down to “anti-choice” really.
By Justin
March 23, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
I am staying out of the abortion discussion.
By Monica
March 23, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
Since I made my pro-life feelings clear (and abstinence advocacy)on previous blogs, I’m not touching this one. No need beating a dead horse.
Ken, There is also evidence to show that female teachers favor boys more than girls. I just don’t see the female-centric education.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Never in any of them do I say that the system shouldn’t be adjusted or changed. What I do say is that blaming the system for the dearth of boys who succeed in scholastics is a cop-out. An excuse. A justification for mediocrity and failure.
OK. You think the system should change, but we should not blame the system for short-comings. And if it eleviates any male/schoolastic dissonance; it is coincidence, and we should not aknowledge that the previous one caused harm.
Sounds pretty twisted all by itself. You are saying that you are fine with changing the system, but we are to ignore WHY we would change it…
And I did not call you a name, but I did describe your actions. If you do not want to be described as a (fill in blank), you should not act like one.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
JBEhhhhhmmmmm… (what? What?!…)
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
Kimberly gets the tiara for her 10:17am post! Great job! Interestingly whenever ‘libruls’ raise all the practical issues that WILL happen the conservatives don’t respond or continue with their emotional, religion-based rants about killing babies. Ken…I’d really like to hear your thoughts on the practicalities that Kimberly raised and how those should be addressed. Kim…feel free to jump in there too.
Since religion is tied to abortion already should we throw in the gaybashing at the same time by discussing the conservative position on aborting gay unborn babies? When the biological drivers for homosexuality are finally nailed down would it be acceptable to Ken/Kim/Chuck/Randy/Zack to terminate only those babies destined to be gay? Does a biological driver of sexual orientation negate the religious argument that homosexual behavor is a sin since the person was in fact born that way (i.e. God DID make them gay on purpose)? I know I’m talking a bit hypothetically since the biological factors aren’t fully nailed down, but researchers are getting closer. They’ve proved that gay men and heterosexual women have the exact same responses in the area of the brain that controls sex drive when exposed to male pheromones. This certainly lends a great deal of weight to the hypothesis that sexual orientation is not an active choice, but is hard wired. Let’s have at it kids! We can gay bash through religious-based pro-life positions.
By Boscoe
March 23, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Kimberly what’s your definition of life? For that matter define what choice is. What choice do you feel you have a right to?
By GOB
March 23, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this
FM - What exactly does “female-centric” mean, in real world terms? What are the day-to-day activities that would show schools are being more female-centric? It sounds like a buzz word that really doesnt mean anything.
I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to make sure i really understand what you are saying.
By RF
March 23, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
anyone who pronounces an M with that many syllables must be from the south!!
By RF
March 23, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Net- OF COURSE
By RF
March 23, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this
Net- OF COURSE you have to take it to that level. I’d LOVE to hear the fundamental view on that issue. Betcha we already know the answer…
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
Mara, I opened a new e-mail just for you! LOL! (And anyone else in W2W who might want to harass me or send me good tidings!!)
Hit me up at JBMnATL@yahoo.com and I’ll tell you.
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
Ken..the term ‘pro-life’ is outrageously misleading because it only refers to abortion. It is not a blanket position that also applies to being pro-life in ALL situations where death is metted out by humans such as in war or death sentences handed down by our legal system.
It also says nothing about QUALITY of life. Technologically we CAN save babies born as early as 24 weeks. Whether we should is another matter since we know that these babies WILL have medical and developmental issues that severly impact the quality of their lives. Most born that young WILL never mentally progress beyond early childhood and will NEVER be able to live independently. They will NEVER hold a job, dress themselves, feed themselves, etc. They will not have true self awareness. Is it a human that is alive? Yes. Is it a human with a life? IMO…NO.
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this
RF - would you expect anything less from me? It’s my ‘job’ to raise the bar (or in some cases lower the floor).
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
What exactly does “female-centric” mean, in real world terms?
Creating an environment that is more hospitable to females.
GOB, they (teachers) have study aids on how a girl’s question is fielded by a teacher differently compared to a boy student’s Q.
The tactics that work for (most) boys do not work as well with girls; which was discovered and remedied in the 70s-80s. But now there is a swing in the other direction.
I am no way stating this swing is too significant but the % are begining to show it; and was only replying to the snottiness presented in posts that do not even want to aknowledge this new trend so we can keep our finger on it’s pulse.
Also, it is alot easier to change something earlyer than later.
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Anybody else get a chuckle out of the banner ad at the top of the page? LOL!
By kimberly
March 23, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
NetB, Renee, I am honored to wear the tiara… but just for today. blush Boscoe, good question. I’d love to ramble on at length, but my employer is requiring some actual work from me this afternoon. I WILL say, however, that I personally differentiate “life” from “existence” although existence holds more potential than non-existence. Life IS precious, and IS something to be cherished, valued, and nutured. That being said, it takes more than fertilization to reach the point of “life” (my opinion, not necessarily fact, but just as valid as your opinion.)
The issue of personal choice, and laws governing or restricting the personal medical decisions made by anyone, male or female, regarding their OWN body, life, health, and future, is actually a separate subject requiring more than gut feelings, platitudes, or religious beliefs to address.
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
FM…I’m all in favor of single sex classes for teaching the basics while keeping mixed gender classes for non-academic classes such as art/music/phys ed. If we KNOW (and I’m not hearing this disputed) that young males and young females learn differently and are responded to differently when in mixed gender classes then why not create an environment in which both have the maximum opportunity to succeed and excel?
By Jack
March 23, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
Oh Kim. That 10:17 was very good. That’s all I can say now. (they edited out my other post :) )
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
I have some questions for the pro-lifers. Why is your approach to outlaw something with which you disagree instead of offering counseling and support directly to each individual thus preserving ‘free will’ granted by God as well as the concept of self-determination? Why isn’t the currently legal status of abortion acceptable to you since it completely allows anyone with your view of abortion as being immoral not to have one? Have you considered any of the legal ramifications of destroying the ‘right to privacy’ on which Roe v. Wade was decided that fall completely outside the abortion issue?
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
VERRRRRRY good question, NetB.
VERY GOOD.
And yes, Kim, that 10:17 was brilliant.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
why not create an environment in which both have the maximum opportunity to succeed and excel?
I do not think the answer is in separation, for the teachers/adults (male and female) have something to learn here also: To be able to communicate effectively with each gender.
So, we could have two of every class, or teach males and females how to communicate….then again, maybe separation is more realistic;)
But seriously, it seems like the perfect place to start the “understanding” of each gender - while they are young. To separate the two would further the problem we already have with adults - the girls vs boys game. But in order to do ANY of this, we need adults that put down their personal hurts for the greater good - same as with divorce…etc.
By lozen
March 23, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
“… it does make me somewhat smile inside, that finally the white male applicant gets some advantage from the socialist quota laws. Somewhat ironic, isn’t it?” Obviously history isn’t your strong point. How many years was it that only white males could get an education in this country?
“…If the baby can survive with medical technology does the mother have the right to kill it?” We are talking about embryos and fetuses here, not babies.
Why would you argue about whether Kobe was innocent or not? None of us were there. There’s no way to know one way or the other.
By lozen
March 23, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
Mara, aren’t you lucky? You get to be FatMoose’s woman to ridicule this week. 72John said all FM does week after week is pick someone to argue with and act like he’s so righteous and smart and they’re so stupid and wrong. He also said FM never adds anything constructive. Do you agree?
By RF
March 23, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Okay, we obviously need TWO tiaras today!! Kim and Net are working it today (and I’m sure looking fabulous in the process!!)
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
NetB,
I have some questions for the pro-lifers.
Although I am not a pro-lifer, the reason is purely bc I (and gvmt&science) have not have a determined point in time that one is covered by the constitution besides having a SS#.
If one day there is evidence of a soul of any sort pre-birth, my position will abruptly change.
I do not see this as an absolute right that females have, but a mitigation of fallout from a females unwanted situation in comparison to the rights of an unknown.
The fact is that we do not know if we grow into individuals, or are born as an individual. If it is determined that every person IS unique from the beginning - then we will have to re-think our position on abortion.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
72John said….
The 72 John says a number of things;)
Glad you pay attention to my posts;)
By Monica
March 23, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
NetBanker, As for your 12:50 post, the only drawback to your suggestion is that more than likely, a female teacher would be teaching an all male class, or a male teacher with an all female class, which could possibly make some people uncomfortable.
As for your 1:02, many pro-lifers do offer counseling and support to those in need. There are several crisis pregnancy centers that share all alternatives with women, although they do stess the non-abortion options. These crisis centers also offer counseling to women who have had an abortion.
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
You get to be FatMoose’s woman to ridicule this week.
Lozen, You just refered to her as “my woman,” did jack not catch heck for that earlier this week???
And do not lie, I am an equal opp ridiculor;) To say different is insane.
By chuck
March 23, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Time to join the fray! The post calling JBM, “girl” yesterday afternoon was not mine. This is my first post on this topic. And come on JBM, when have you ever known me to be CONFUSED about anything? I’m always CONVINCED.
I spoke about this issue several months ago. I call it the “Womanizing of America.” Part of the problem is that women (and frankly, some men)don’t know how to raise little boys. They want their little boys to be “sensitive” whatever that means, and caring. They want them to share their feelings and “communicate”. They want them to be smooth skinned, scar free, and fashionable. When divorces became the norm instead of the exception, many women were forced to raise children on their own. Because of that rotten guy that ran off and left them (or that they ran off and left) they wanted their children to be different. They raised their little girls to be strong and independent so that when some man dumped them they would be able to take care of themselves, and they raised their boys to be sensitve and caring so they wouldn’t put some woman through what they had to go through. It was and is a total reversal of roles.
Real men: 1) should be “ashy”. They don’t use LOTION for smooth skin.
2) do stupid things like riding dirt bikes 70 mph through the woods.
3) have had at least 3 concussions
4) don’t share their feelings with words but rather with acts of stupidity like punching a hole in a wall.
5) don’t hit women
6) don’t take crap off of anybody
7) don’t let women pay
8) open doors for women
9) work for a living
10) play as hard as they work
11) don’t wear “outfits”. They wear pants and a shirt that sometimes even match
12) don’t carry “man bags”.
13) take care of their responsibilities
14) don’t NEED to ask for directions
15) don’t sleep with other men.
Ladies, if you don’t want to be around real men, move to France.
By chuck
March 23, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this
Time to join the fray! The post calling JBM, “girl” yesterday afternoon was not mine. This is my first post on this topic. And come on JBM, when have you ever known me to be CONFUSED about anything? I’m always CONVINCED.
I spoke about this issue several months ago. I call it the “Womanizing of America.” Part of the problem is that women (and frankly, some men)don’t know how to raise little boys. They want their little boys to be “sensitive” whatever that means, and caring. They want them to share their feelings and “communicate”. They want them to be smooth skinned, scar free, and fashionable. When divorces became the norm instead of the exception, many women were forced to raise children on their own. Because of that rotten guy that ran off and left them (or that they ran off and left) they wanted their children to be different. They raised their little girls to be strong and independent so that when some man dumped them they would be able to take care of themselves, and they raised their boys to be sensitve and caring so they wouldn’t put some woman through what they had to go through. It was and is a total reversal of roles.
Real men: 1) should be “ashy”. They don’t use LOTION for smooth skin.
2) do stupid things like riding dirt bikes 70 mph through the woods.
3) have had at least 3 concussions
4) don’t share their feelings with words but rather with acts of stupidity like punching a hole in a wall.
5) don’t hit women
6) don’t take crap off of anybody
7) don’t let women pay
8) open doors for women
9) work for a living
10) play as hard as they work
11) don’t wear “outfits”. They wear pants and a shirt that sometimes even match
12) don’t carry “man bags”.
13) take care of their responsibilities
14) don’t NEED to ask for directions
15) don’t sleep with other men.
Ladies, if you don’t want to be around real men, move to France.
By Renee
March 23, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
Here’s an interesting article. For all interested, here is a change from abortion.
By Mara
March 23, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I may be the butt of FM’s ire this week, but I’m fearless in the face of plebian discourse. LOL!
I’m pleased to discuss any points that FM deems, uh, meaningful. Unfortunately, like 72J and others, I find his arguments tend toward the inane and unconstructive. I’ve also noticed a tendancy to restate others positions to conform to what he thinks they think instead of their actual premise. Charitably, I assume it’s because he has to reframe it in order to understand it and doesn’t do it out of malice. I could be wrong.
By Ken
March 23, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this
Netbanker… Your first assumption about abortion being linked to religion does not hold water. I know many people who are against abortion and not actively part of any religious faith. Sure the face of the “pro-life” movement (a name I personally do not like, I prefer “anti-abortion”) may be religious figures, but that is not a pre-req to want to stop abortion. Most folks make that argument b/c it is easier to demonize religion than to demonize the idea that the unborn are humans.
The whole argument against abortion is to not end an innocent life. Period. Innocent being the key word. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter if the baby is male, female, white, black, yellow, green, gay, strait, etc. They are completely innocent and deserve the right to live.
As for the the proud Jewish person. Bring them to me. I’ll do whatever it takes to find them homes. There isn’t one church/mosque/synagogue out there who would not work day and night to find a home for an unwanted, abandoned child. You are so darn cynical. I’d bet your Synagogue would do the exact same thing.
I feel sorry for the folks who are unable to to think of the unborn as human being. I can’t understand how an individual that sees an ultrsound, hears the heartbeat or sees a woman’s belly ripple with activity, could still not realize it is human. They must have a very cold heart.
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
FM - thanks for stating your position, but I don’t understand the correlation between “every person IS unique from the beginning” and “our position on abortion.” If people grow into unique beings then abortion would be ok, but not if we start that way? Why would this make a difference? Let’s suppose that every person IS unique from the beginning. Would it have been wrong to abort Saddam Hussein knowing that his unique self would cause such suffering for MILLIONS?
I don’t think we’ll ever see evidence of a soul because this is a religious concept not a scienctific one. Can we even determine what would define a soul in a non-religious context? The closest I can determine at this moment is something I mentioned a number of weeks ago. Human ‘life’ and consciousness is driven by the electrical impulses that course through our bodies. One principle of physics is that energy is the only form of matter that can not be destroyed. Can we assume that these impulses represent one’s soul? Does the energy disburse when released from the body by death (no soul) or does it stay bound together (soul)? If it does stay bound, what happens to the memories that are chemically stored in the brain to which the energy is no longer attached? Does that mean that souls have no consciousness or self awareness or memory? If so, then what is the point of a soul if it does not contain consciousness?
By Jack
March 23, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
The website is acting up today,like me, it needs a drink!
By sanhan
March 23, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this
Was listening to Randi Rhodes last night on the radio. She took on a conservative republican on the topic of abortion and she hit on something I have tried to articulate in the past: the religious right believes that the purpose of the Constitution is to provide a framework for morality, when in fact it is supposed to provide a framework to guarantee freedoms.
To tell a woman that she must carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is to take away her freedom. If the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest is to rape her again. To do it because of religious reasons takes away her freedom from your religion.
When we look at how overwhelmed and underfunded most child protective and advocacy agencies are at present, imagine if they had an additional several million unwanted children added to the rolls, some born to drug-addicted mothers, some with birth defects, and those born into abject poverty. Would this be enough to test the faith of the anti-choice faithful?
Furthermore, to equate abortion and murder does not quite square. Do you equate the stillborn or miscarriages with neglect?
Birth control and abortion should not be viewed as matters of convenience, but of survival. A woman facing pregnancy ought to be trusted to know her own life, her own strengths and limitations, and that of her family. To not trust her is to take away her freedom.
The republicans are for small government until they want to force their morality on the public.
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Kimberly said the following,“Why not say you are “Pro-choosing-life?”
Ok, so why not say YOU are “pro-choosing-abortion”. After all, the term “pro-choice” is so misleading. “Choice” can mean anything…choosing which school to attend, choosing which job to take…choosing who to date or marry…choosing what to eat for dinner. “Choice” is a vague term that can apply to anything. How about “pro-being able to choose death for my child”. Nah, doesn’t have a nice ring to it now does it?
By Just Being Me
March 23, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
I guess they couldn’t find enough material on Google to cut and paste, Net.
By Sanhan
March 23, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
For further discussion, see Do They Really Believe Abortion is Murder? at Alas, A Blog.
By Scalia
March 23, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this
So Fatmoose, what about the boys that are making it through? Are they all gay since they manage to work through a “female-centric” system? Or did they just learn to maneuver through the system, weeding out the female things?
Most research shows that guys are tactile and kinesthetic learners. You can’t build everything and teach everything by means of kinestetic. Most things, but not all things.
I took a Women’s Study course in college. The teacher, professor, and I got along very well. There were two guys in the class. There seemed to be more tension and problems with her and the female students.
By Zack
March 23, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this
WHAT DO YOU MEAN “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply to regular citizens? Of course it does! Do you really think an accusation without supporting evidence is valid? It might be in the court of public opinion, but that’s it. To go back to the most recent example, that lady claims Kobe Bryant raped her. He says he didn’t. It’s simply his word against hers, and that’s not proof.
To the person who said a fetus isn’t a human being because he can’t survive on his own, guess what? A newborn baby can’t, either. Life is life, no matter what stage of life that person is at. A fetus is every bit as much a life as a 27-year-old professional athlete.
Nikita—I didn’t follow your post yesterday. I really don’t know what inspired your thoughts. Are you sure you meant to post it to me?
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this
Whoa is this blog freaking out or what?!
RF…thanks for the welcome yesterday, but I should have responded that I’ve been a card carrying member of the Freaks Club for quite some time. You know the membership generally frowns on open disclosure in non-freaks gatherings so I usually don’t advertise that fact. But since we’re both ‘out’ would you be willing to serve on the sub-committee “to improve communications on the unsettling nature of unmade beds?” I had to call my unmade beds support group last night when I arrived home because the bed went beyond just not being made…it was practically destroyed with sheets twisted up and the comforter flung over with the top edge hanging over the foot of the bed. And the pillow shams! I just can’t even relive the horror by telling you about those. beginning cleansing breaths NOW
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
The abortion issue is not a religious issue. Not one pro-life person here has brought up anything remotely religious in the abortion discussion.
The issue is about murdering an innocent person who deserves to live and should have a right to life. It’s not about taking rights away from women…it’s about giving everyone the right to life.
People talk like abortion is a great thing. It’s not. It’s dangerous and can cause physical and emotional damage that lasts a lifetime. It can make you sterile, can cause future pregnancies to miscarry, can even cause death to the woman.
The quacks doing the abortions are the rejects of the medical field. And guess what-not many doctors are going into this line of business. The ones doing it are getting up in years and are getting a little shakey. (Can list several “clinics” here in GA that use some of these older guys.) Some even have lawsuits pending but are still practicing.
This is an unregulated business because the abortion lobby does not want ANY restrictions placed on abortion…even if it keeps women SAFE. They want it legal-safe doesn’t matter at all.
By GOB
March 23, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this
Is anyone else haveing issues when they refresh the page? I keep going back to post from early this morning
By Charlene
March 23, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Isn’t it odd that when you want the unborn child it’s a “baby” and when you don’t want it it’s a “fetus”? How many pregnant women talk about their “fetus”? NONE. How many pregnant women talk about their “baby”…ALL OF THEM. (“I felt the baby move”…”doctor is my baby ok?”…etc)
And according to the new laws-it’s BAD to kill a baby if it’s wanted by the mother but OK to kill a baby if it was unwanted. Very confusing isn’t it.
By Logical Dude
March 23, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
I think I missed something. What are two obstacles that keep boys from doing well in college? I understand there were obstacles for women in the past, but I’m missing the obstacles for men today, since I am a man, and I graduated from college with the only obstacles being the grades I was earning.
By MISC BLOGGERS
March 23, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
What is wrong with this blog? I can’t see any posts past 12:00pm!!!!!!!!!!!!
What’s wrong AJC????
By Justin
March 23, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Interesting article…to stir up more conversation…
================
Devaluing the Black Family by Anthony B. Bradley, Research Fellow
Forty-three percent of black pregnancies end in abortion, according to a recent study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a leading research and advocacy organization promoting sex education. Nearly 70 percent of all black children are born out-of-wedlock. These two facts taken together should be perceived by everyone as clear evidence of a marriage and family crisis in black America. But don’t count on it. During the upcoming presidential campaign, while we can expect to hear a lot about affirmative action and racial injustice, we’ll likely hear nothing about this crisis.
For demagogues, such unbalanced racial statistics necessarily imply discrimination. Employing this popular political logic, the numbers suggest that abortion providers are racist and that states racially discriminate when issuing marriage licenses. The explanation lies elsewhere.
If nearly half of all black kids in America are being aborted, we must start asking different questions about the moral climate of America in general and what incentives lie behind the preference for abortion and the disdain for marriage. Facts and figures about family life necessarily raise larger questions about the moral choices people make. What’s more, we should be asking searching questions about churches and what they are teaching about the dignity and value of human life, marriage, family, and community.
Interestingly, the severity of social problems within black communities has intensified since the civil rights victories of the 1960s. In 1960, when black America was considered relatively worse off, only 23 percent of black kids were born out-of-wedlock. In 1970, just 33 percent of black women aged 20-29 were unmarried. By 1992, the number of unmarried twenty-something black women catapulted to 70 percent. A gross misconception about the out-of-wedlock birth crisis in black communities is that it is a consequence of teenage pregnancy. In fact, out-of-wedlock birth rates are the highest among women between the ages of 18 and 29. Moreover, since 1969, the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births has been among black women between the age of 20 and 24. Therefore, adult black women are purposefully choosing to have children outside of the context of marriage.
Marriage has profound effects on the quality of life for black kids. A data analysis report on marriage released by the Heritage Foundation highlights several benefits of marriage. For example, marriage dramatically reduces the incidence of poverty for women who remain romantically involved with the father from the time of the child’s birth. Marriage reduces the odds that a mother and child will live in poverty by more than 70 percent. If mothers remain single and unemployed, they will remain poor permanently; if single and employed at least part-time, slightly more than half will slip below the poverty line; and only 10 percent of mothers will sink into poverty if employed full-time. Moreover, marriage combined with part-time maternal employment increases family income by 75 percent. Sadly, over 80 percent of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married families.
There are even more alarming pathologies resulting from out-of-wedlock births. For example, nearly 30 percent of all welfare recipients resort to living on public assistance because of poverty associated with single-parenthood. Black children from single-parent homes are twice as likely to commit crimes as are black children from families with resident fathers. Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from single-parent homes. And there is a strong, inverse relationship between incidence of out-of-wedlock births and education attainment.
Of course, individuals can and do rise above brokenness and poverty. Yet, the statistical big picture reveals how the devaluation of marriage and family has created a crisis in many black communities. The Bush Administration has proposed making marriage an important component of the next phase of welfare reform and rightly so. The administration seeks to introduce incentives to increase and maintain a high number of marriages in an effort to thwart many of the associated outcomes listed above.
A government program, however, can only go so far. What is needed, more desperately than ever, is for churches to step in and engage this issue proactively. What America needs is a strong witness from Christians who can communicate persuasively and practice God’s design for marriage, family, and community. Disconnecting human life, marriage, and family from its correct foundation in God is literally destroying our communities and keeping generations enslaved to self-destructive behavior.
Reverend Ray Hammond, pastor of Bethel AME Church and board member of Boston’s Black Ministerial Alliance, has the right idea. Rev. Hammond is promoting biblical formulations of marriage and family in hopes of combating what he calls “the epidemic level of fatherlessness in America.” He understands that marriage, rightly constructed, is necessary in providing the way out of “the social wilderness of family disintegration.”
Given a culture that stifles human potential through abortion and the devaluation of the bedrock, life-sustaining institution of the family, we should not be surprised that there is not “enough” black presence in influential sectors of American society. Many have forgotten that there was a time when these pathologies were the exception rather than the rule in the black community. They can be overcome only when we rediscover God’s wisdom, including a right understanding of the institutions that strengthen families and build up communities.
Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute.
By Justin
March 23, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this
I couldn’t stay quiet…
Forum: Fathers back in abortion debate
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060128-091432-7337r.htm
By FatMoose
March 23, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
NetB,
All good questions.
I believe the main problem with all of this abortion stuff is that even though all those questions are good, we do not know which question is really pertinent(sp? I only put these stupid notations to keep the blog spelling police off my back).
All the constitution says is that we citizens have these rights. So, someone will have to redefine who/what they were refering to and when do they attain these rights.
IMO they are talking about a individual citizen; but what that means can/is debated. If there is a closure to this and it is determined that an unborn baby fits the status of individual - we either have to overturn RvW or alter the text in the constitution to state a birthed individual.
By Netbanker
March 23, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this
Zack…the concept doesn’t apply to private citizens making a judgement about guilt or innocence of another person because private citizens can not deprive said individual of life, property, or freedom based on their personal judgement. The concept is a LEGAL one that MUST be upheld in COURT, but not in the banterings and judgements of private individuals. Private individuals aren’t held to the LEGAL standard.
A new born can survive with the help of anyone who will feed and change it. A fetus can not survive in the same fashion nor can it be passed off from person to person like a new born. That’s a major difference.
By kimberly
March 23, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this
Charlene, why don’t you bring some logic to back up your convictions? First of all, I’m not Pro-abortion, I am “Pro-YOUR-medical-decisions-are-YOURS-to-make.” Your assertions are repetitive and pointless. We know you don’t like the idea of this particular medical procedure. What are your recommendations regarding legislation? If you demand that it be made illegal, then please clearly articulate reasonable, feasible, intelligent ideas about the following: (1) Who makes medical decisions for an individual, and what will qualify someone to have such authority over another(2) What is the appropriate level to legislate, ie exceptions for rape, and does it have to be a conviction, or just an accusation, and what if it’s a hung jury, and who protects the child impregnanted by an abusive father, etc., bearing in mind (a) the logistics and cost of equitable enforcement of such legislation — added police officers to each jurisdiction, a “Fetus Squads” to investigate miscarriages and ultimately, watch over ALL gynecological appointments to be sure, and (b) the repercussions to individuals and society for the enforcement of this legislation, such as loss of trust between citizens and law enforcement and the medical community, and the financial cost (SOMEBODY has to pay!) and issue to society of both unwanted babies and the longterm damages to a family whose mother or daughter has died attempting to abort a fetus herself. If you cannot address THESE issues, then again, please, and I mean this in the most respectful way, STFU!
KEN, please go post your name, address, phone number, and willingness to adopt ANYONE at every family planning clinic in town IMMEDIATELY so we will all know you are not an a$$-chewing hypocrite!
By Nikita
March 23, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this
Ken, re: “There isn’t one church/mosque/synagogue out there who would not work day and night to find a home for an unwanted, abandoned child.”
Try looking at the foster care system. There are MILLIONS languishing for years, even unto adulthood.
And Charlene, you are very aggressive and very emotional. And as I have said before, that means you’re not arguing. Rather, you are attacking. So I’m not going to bother with responding. When you’d like to acknowledge scientific reality or legal reality, then we can talk.
By backgammon
March 23, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this
The agent shook his head as he heaved his body out of the chair backgammon [url=http://www.2gammon.com]backgammon[/url] He watched from around the side of it as the Professor pulled the rope .
By Renee
March 24, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this
Okay, joke day! Hopefully no abortion ravings from the “pro-lifers”!
The aspiring psychiatrists were attending their first class on emotional extremes. “Just to establish some parameters,” said the professor to the student from Arkansas, “What is the opposite of joy?”
“Sadness,” said the student.
And the opposite of depression?” he asked of the young lady from Oklahoma.
“Elation,” said she.
“And you sir,” he said to the young man from Texas, “how about the opposite of woe?”
The Texan replied, “Sir, I believe that would be giddy-up.”
By Archie
March 24, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
That was an interesting article Justin and it is one of the reasons I disagree with Dianne on the subject of out-of-wedlock sex and pregnancy. I agree most everything else Diane writes about though.
By Renee
March 24, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this
Three patients in a mental institution prepare for an examination given by the head psychiatrist. If the patients pass the exam, they will be free to leave the hospital. However, if they fail, the institution will detain them for five years.
The doctor takes the three patients to the top of a diving board looking over an empty swimming pool, and asks the first patient to jump.
The first patient jumps head first into the pool and breaks both arms.
Then the second patient jumps and breaks both legs.
The third patient looks over the side and refuses to jump. “Congratulations! You’re a free man. Just tell me why didn’t you jump?” asked the doctor.
To which the third patient answered, “Well Doc, I can’t swim!”
By Whiley
March 24, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this
WELL said Kimberly. Unfortunately those who are pro-fetus won’t ever ever address the issues you bring up.
The truth is that having complete access to abortion does not devalue life. A woman’s choice not bring a child into the world is based on her personal, emotional, financial and physical circumstances and is a moral decision that strongly values life. Not just the life of the potential child, but also for her life, her partners life, her families life, in short her family’s survival. No one, no government, can or should make that decision.
I don’t actually believe that the instant that the sperm and egg unite poof it’s a baby. And as much as some believe that it is, I believe that is the most ridiculous concept ever.
And as far as being fair about pregnancies, how can it ever be evenly fair since only 1/2 is the only one that’s physically affected? All fairness goes out the window. And aren’t “fathers” not required to pay for ANYTHING unless a child is actually grown & born? There are a lot of expenses not including all the dr. visits & tests for the next 9 months. Not including the costs of eating better food. The costs of maternity clothes.
Tell you what, If I ever knock up a guy, and he decides to have the baby, I solemnly pledge to pay my child support on time, in full, every month. Even if I don’t want to be a mother. And yes, even if he told me he couldn’t get pregnant!
I was raised by parents that told me the truth about everything. I grew up having a healthy, exciting, & well protected sex life despite the lack of birth control options back then. And guess what? No unplanned pregnancies. That’s for using 2 types of BC each time. EVERY TIME. I was lucky. But you better darn well bet I’d have an abortion if I had to.
The point is as much trouble as an unplanned pregnancy is, you’d think EVERYBODY would be more open about birth control, having it available