By Semen

October 16, 2006 05:57 AM | Link to this

xanax [url=http://xanax-lyiy.blogspot.com/]xanax[/url]

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

Diane and Shaunti seem pretty much in agreement on this topic: when it comes to life choices, women should be free to embrace their sexuality, forge a path in business, get married, stay single, dance on a pole, or stay at home and raise kids as it suits them. The important thing is that the choices are available, not whether everyone agrees with each woman’s personal choice.

Diane’s main caveat seems to be the continued awareness that embracing of a “traditional� role not be mistaken for woman’s Biological Destiny As Dictated By God. Shaunti doesn’t actually make that claim, but Diane is suspicious that the underlying attitude is there. And I agree that constant vigilance is the price of freedom (where have I heard that before?).

All social revolutions involve iniitial excess (first wave) followed by a reactionary backlash, and then an inevitable return to equilibrium at a new set-point (which is hopefully where we are now). Civil rights and race relations went through these changes; gay rights are still enduring the “backlash� phase; and women’s rights have hopefully settled into a new position. Not all problems have been solved, obviously, but plenty of major victories have been won. The basic principle-—equality and freedom of choice-—has been established.

By Archie

October 16, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Both women do a good job and I disagree with both of them on some things. For example, when Shanti says women aren’t victims anymore I disagree because my state South Carolina has some of highest domestic violence rates anywhere. I think Diane is too concerned about stereotypes and doesn’t talk to enough women that think differently than she does. Feminists need consistency just like the civil rights movement does. Heck some choose to dance on the pole and somehow men are blamed for that choice, so let’s really understand that some do make that choice completely on their own therefore should carry all the consequences and blame that come with that choice or any other choice. No third wave feminism is not counterproductive but all feminism needs consistency.

By kimberly

October 16, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry, but they’re BOTH completely whack!!! I am a mother, was once a wife, and have always had to work. I NEVER HAD A CHOICE. EVER. I know very few women who ever did. There was no “going to college for an MRS degree,” except for maybe a few really pretty girls with rich daddies. The only “choice” most of us ever had was that of bearing children. Those of us who answered our maternal insticts (so powerful for many, that it’s not accurate to call it a “choice”) actually have FEWER choices, because we have to take some low-risk corporate desk job in order to provide benefits for our kids and a steady paycheck for the bills. Childless people can take risks, live on less, and succeed in ways we simply cannot, unless we have a spouse that’s (a) there, and (b) willing to support us through it. And for so many of us, that’s something we put on our list for Santa, but never get, then we remember that WE are freaking Santa, and nobody gets anything unless WE work and scrape for it.

“Burning Bras?” C’mon Shaunti…. When was the last time you saw a women burn her freaking $40 Victoria Secret dealie that we buy under the pervasive American pressure to be perfect in every way, despite the fact that we have to work, raise kids, and do every freaking thing ELSE with only 24 hours in a day? “Stiletto Heels” Yes, Diane, if we want dates who actually buy us dinner once in awhile, that’s not a “choice” either. Both of you can just BLOW IT OUT YOUR EAR. You’re totally clueless!

By chuck

October 16, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Once again, Diane shows the inability to grasp even the simplest of concepts. I don’t imagine for instance, that very many conservatives are supporters of ANY wave of feminism including the third wave. Since they did not really define the “waves” of feminism I will do so:

1st Wave: Fight over 70 years for the right of women to vote.

2nd wave: 1960’s and 70’s, Known as the “Women’s Lib” movement among other names. Second Wave Feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women, but also, through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation, to change their domestic and private lives. http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/ws/1st,2nd,3rd_wave.htm

Third wave: Third-wave feminism is a term identified with several diverse strains of feminist activity and study beginning in the late 1980s. The movement arose as a response both to perceived failures of second-wave feminism and to the popular backlash against the progress of that same second wave. Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid the second wave’s “essentialist” definitions of femininity which often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized the experiences of upper middle class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is central to much of the third wave and helps to account for its heightened emphasis on the discursive power and fundamental ambiguity inherent in all gender terms and categories. Third wave theory usually encompasses queer theory, women-of-color consciousness, post-colonial theory, critical theory, transnationalism, ecofeminism, and new feminist theory. In contrast to their predecessors, third wave feminists often focus on “micropolitics,” writing about forms of gender expression and representation that are less explicitly political. They also challenged the second wave’s definitions about what is or is not good for females, by finding signs of empowerment and resistance in areas which were not a part of the second wave paradigm. http://www.answers.com/topic/third-wave-feminism

I don’t think you are going to find many conservatives signing on the third-wave agenda which includes, among other things: Homosexual rights, transgender rights, pornography rights, etc. It does support women who make a CHOICE to maintain a feminine identity and who choose to accept what is considered to be a more traditional role as homemaker, but the rest of their agenda is pretty much the same crap just recycled in a nicer package. It is still feminism.

By 2D

October 16, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Kimberly… I am not sure of your age, but how can you say you never had a choice???

It may be possible that it would have been more difficult for you to accomplish certain things then as it is now, but to say you never had a choice??? Even my mother-in-law who is nearly seventy years old made a choice to get divorced, take her children and attempt to make it on her own.

You made a choice to be a wife and a mother and am assuming (which may be incorrect) to remain married. It is possible that those choices limited other subsequent choices, but such is the case for anyone who chooses to get married, have children or pursue particular careers.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

“I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.” Rebecca West, 1913.

Archie there can be no consistency in a movement made up of such diversity. Just as people have different political views and different religious views, people have different feminist views.

By kimberly

October 16, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

2D, Most women today never had the choice to be a “stay at home mom.” We never had the option to choose traditional home & family roles over clawing our way through the rat race every day. And once we have kids to support (mostly on our own), at least until they’re grown, we don’t have the choice to GO FOR the big promotion with the 70-hour work week, the on-the-road jobs that pay more, or to enter the risky world of becoming and entrepreneur — unless there is a spouse to support the family through these times. For many, having the baby is not a “choice” but an imperative at the core of their being. For many, divorce is not a “choice” but a necessity for survival, if only for financial survivial or sanity.

Hence, this yammer about “feminisim” in whatever “waves” is just garbage. It’s hard to be a woman, it always has been, and the fact that things have changed doesn’t mean it’s all gravy now, nor was it all grave before. It is what it is, but what do YOU care?

By AtlantaNative

October 16, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

I hear it is going to rain today. I went hiking this weekend. I never wave at a woman more than twice so there is no third wave women issue with me. Are Shaunti and Diane getting kind of boring or is it just my imagination?

By The72John

October 16, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

This topic seems a little flat to me, but who else is shocked that Chuck made his typical bee-line to gay bashing.

Don’t you have ANYTHING else to rant and rave about, Chuckie?

By Bob

October 16, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

BOB HERBERT: Why Aren’t We Shocked? Why we need Feminism. October 16th, 2006 “Who needs a brain when you have these?� — message on an Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirt for young women

In the recent shootings at an Amish schoolhouse in rural Pennsylvania and a large public high school in Colorado, the killers went out of their way to separate the girls from the boys, and then deliberately attacked only the girls.

Ten girls were shot and five killed at the Amish school. One girl was killed and a number of others were molested in the Colorado attack.

In the widespread coverage that followed these crimes, very little was made of the fact that only girls were targeted. Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews.

There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.

None of that occurred because these were just girls, and we have become so accustomed to living in a society saturated with misogyny that violence against females is more or less to be expected. Stories about the rape, murder and mutilation of women and girls are staples of the news, as familiar to us as weather forecasts. The startling aspect of the Pennsylvania attack was that this terrible thing happened at a school in Amish country, not that it happened to girls.

The disrespectful, degrading, contemptuous treatment of women is so pervasive and so mainstream that it has just about lost its ability to shock. Guys at sporting events and other public venues have shown no qualms about raising an insistent chant to nearby women to show their breasts. An ad for a major long-distance telephone carrier shows three apparently naked women holding a billing statement from a competitor. The text asks, “When was the last time you got screwed?�

An ad for Clinique moisturizing lotion shows a woman’s face with the lotion spattered across it to simulate the climactic shot of a porn video.

We have a problem. Staggering amounts of violence are unleashed on women every day, and there is no escaping the fact that in the most sensational stories, large segments of the population are titillated by that violence. We’ve been watching the sexualized image of the murdered 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey for 10 years. JonBenet is dead. Her mother is dead. And we’re still watching the video of this poor child prancing in lipstick and high heels.

What have we learned since then? That there’s big money to be made from thongs, spandex tops and sexy makeovers for little girls. In a misogynistic culture, it’s never too early to drill into the minds of girls that what really matters is their appearance and their ability to please men sexually.

A girl or woman is sexually assaulted every couple of minutes or so in the U.S. The number of seriously battered wives and girlfriends is far beyond the ability of any agency to count. We’re all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society’s casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels — objects — and never, ever as the equals of men.

“Once you dehumanize somebody, everything is possible,� said Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of the women’s advocacy group Equality Now.

That was never clearer than in some of the extreme forms of pornography that have spread like nuclear waste across mainstream America. Forget the embarrassed, inhibited raincoat crowd of the old days. Now Mr. Solid Citizen can come home, log on to this $7 billion mega-industry and get his kicks watching real women being beaten and sexually assaulted on Web sites with names like “Ravished Bride� and “Rough Sex — Where W******* Get Owned.�

Then, of course, there’s gangsta rap, and the video games where the players themselves get to maul and molest women, the rise of pimp culture (the Academy Award-winning song this year was “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp�), and on and on.

You’re deluded if you think this is all about fun and games. It’s all part of a devastating continuum of misogyny that at its farthest extreme touches down in places like the one-room Amish schoolhouse in normally quiet Nickel Mines, Pa.

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Of course! Any minute now someone is going to blame abortion on feminism and declare it a “holocaust.”

By NetBanker

October 16, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Hey kids!

Lozen, based on your comment I’d say that Feminism today is like ‘The Gay Agenda.’ They apparently exist, but no one knows what it is including members of the groups.

If this topic doesn’t take off can we change the subject to Thomas Friedman’s essay in the Sunday paper in which polls of likely voters (who trend Republican) state that energy independence from the Middle East is their top security concern?

By Mara

October 16, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

So Shaunti thinks that “the second-wave feminists who fought for equal treatment have had a hard time recognizing that its time to lay down their arms and realize that women aren’t victims any more”.

Pardon me if I disagree. To declare that it’s time for feminists to “lay down their arms” ignores the fact that in most of the world, women are still second-class citizens. Even in the western industrialized “1st World” countries we still have a problem with domestic violence, workplaces that still frown on personal leave time for family issues, the slow-tracking the careers of women of a certain age (because they’re gonna leave to have babies soon anyway…), the non-hypothetical “wage gap”, and the reluctance of society to trust women with responsibility. Look at Congress for example. Only 80 of the 535 members of congress are women. That ranks the U.S. as 61st inthe World. A February 2006 CBS poll found that “61 percent of Democrats think the country is ready for a woman president, compared to 48 percent of Republicans. Liberals are also more likely than conservatives and moderates to believe America is ready for a woman to be president” That means that 39% of liberals and 52% of conservatives don’t believe that America is ready for a woman to be President. But, yeah. Our work is done here. Sure.

and I still haven’t touched on the routine abuse, rape and displacement of women in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Nor have I mentioned the still-flourishing business of sex-trade trafficking. State Department estimates go into the mid-hundreds of thousands of women and children transported across borders for sexual exploitation last year alone. In the some countries, victims of rape are murdered because of the “shame” they bring onto their families.

But yeah, Shaunti. I sure do feel like we’ve reached the point where we can lay down our arms and rest on our laurels. After all, there’s nothing left to do.

By NetBanker

October 16, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

we don’t have the choice to GO FOR the big promotion with the 70-hour work week Those 70-hour weeks aren’t all they’re cracked up to be Kimberly. Almost every company has blown past the 40 hour work week to the expected 45-50 hour work week. The white collar worker needs more protection today from management than do blue collar workers. Our jobs have become just as open to off-shoring and what’s even better for the company is that they can demand you work as many hours as humanly possible without being required to provide any type of compensation for your time and effort. We all need to remember that in the end it will not be our companies who help care for us when we are ill, lending a helping hand when we’re in a pinch, or even give a sh it when we have a crisis.

Whatever the 3rd wave of feminism is it is a shame it’s not about the balance between work and personal lives for everyone. We have some of the least family-friendly laws and corporate policies out there even as our politicians claim to be the guardians of ‘Family Values.’ Look at how little vacation time we tend to get and how hard it has become to take time off because there’s always some critical fire burning. Is there anyone here who hasn’t felt pressured to either cancel a vacation due to work or to be ‘available’ by phone while on vacation?

By 2D

October 16, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Kimberly… My mother (now 55) made the choice. My aunts (btwn 55-65) made a choice. In fact, every woman in my family except for my g-ma was able to make a choice. Shucks, my spouse’s grandmother went to college to be I beleive a journalist, and chose to have a family, so even she (who would be nearly 100 right now) made a choice.

So, again, it may have been more difficult to do things in a prior generation, but it could be done. Options may have been limited, but they were there. The women at the turn of the century didn’t choices either, so they made their own and forced society to provide more.

By Insurance Girl

October 16, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Probably being the youngest here- I think term feminism has a negative twirl to it nowadays. It’s kind of tiring now to think people out there still consider the possibility that women don’t have a choice or aren’t allowed to be just a single successful career woman, a mom, etc. I have got to tell you- if you want the choice to be a very successful business woman you can- if you want to be a mom and be courted and be “traditional” you can. I don’t see why people today think there hasn’t been progress or that there isn’t a choice. Now I can understand people that say men still get paid more or have better roles- etc- But I doubt any respectable company wouldn’t want more outstanding woman taking leading roles. My mother- way up there on the food chain in the Business world- noticed that opening positions for the job she was promoted up to were to be hired in at more of a salary then she was making- a simple email to HR stating- what would she need to provide to show she is eligible to meet that requirement for a pay grade- and it happened. Not overnight- It was more of a 3 month long exchange- but they recognized her. And it was done in a respectable way not bashing males or demanding more money- it was very respectable- so of course women today have every chance to be what they wanna be! Now I still have a lot to learn but that’s my opinion… .

By kimberly

October 16, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

2D,(Mister know-it-all) you must be a man, as you have clearly missed my entire point. As such, I am through responding to your attempts to appear “smart” by berating my point, which again, you have clearly missed.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I understand your point. I have a cousin who realized after several years of marriage, two children, two suicide attempts, and a period in a mental hospital, that she never really wanted to be a wife and mother. She says she was miserable; wanted to be free of a husband who fought everything she wanted to do to grow as a person, and she just didn’t have any maternal instinct. But she was taught by her parents, small town upbringing, church, the culture of the 50’s, that marriage and children were her only choice. (Her story really reminds me of the stories I’ve heard from gay people who got married, had children, and then finally have to admit they are miserable!) All young females of our generation were taught the most important thing was to find a man! Not to find yourself - your self was totally unimportant because when you married you would adopt his self anyway! The worst thing that could happen was to be an old maid! My cousin wanted to be an artist, but her parents wouldn’t help her with college because they said it was a waste of money. She would just get married and her husband would support her! It took her many unhappy years, but when she finally was able to admit to herself the life she was living was destroying her, she divorced and let the father have custody of the children. She had no job skills or training and could barely support herself for years. The choice she made turned her into a pariah to our entire family, her friends, her church family. Many people, esp. other women, decided they had to punish her for breaking the rules and making a choice that’s unheard of for a woman to make. Her children’s step-mother tried to turn her children against her, and made it very difficult for her to see them. It worked on one of her children; she hates her mother and they haven’t seen each other for years.

I also remember a talk show about women who had given up custody of their children for various reasons. One woman had emotional/mental problems and had been in and out of mental hospitals. She thought the children would be better off with their father. A woman called in and told her any woman who didn’t take care of her children did not deserve to live! Sometimes the choices we have are very, very hard.

By 2D

October 16, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… If I have missed your point, then please make it more clear. If someone else out there understands the point, then please help me out. If Lozen’s post sums up your point, then enough said.

I think she actually sums things up pretty well, b/c I think the key is what you are taught while growing up as a child. If parents teach a young woman that finding a great husband is the pinnacle, chances are that is what the young girl will strive for, regardless of the generation she is born into. Unfortunately, that was the prevailing case in generations past, and continues to be the case for some still today.

As for the poll about are we ready for a woman to be President, I wonder how much of that is the polled individuals’ inability to separate simply voting for a female President from a voting for a particular candididate. For example, many people may initially think Hillary Clinton and say “no way.” Not sure, just a thought.

One other thing Kimberly… You shouldn’t assume anything. You know what happens when you assume.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

2D, it would be really interesting to hear what those women have to say about their “choices” instead of what it looks like to you. Having said that, there have always been a few exceptional women who broke the mold. They usually had a strong woman role-model in the family, and support from their family to follow their path. Most women don’t have that.

Mara, very good points as always! Insurance Girl, who do you think gave feminism a bad twirl? Did you read Mara’s post just before yours?

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there. Maureen Reagan

By Sanhan

October 16, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

Hi all. Yep, been awhile. No this is not a Tramadol ad. Just thought I would remark on Kimberly’s views, which reminded me of a couple of quotes I once copied from the book, Pathfinders by Gail Sheehy: Aniticipation is one of the truest measures of social class. And, per Daniel Fader, linguist (not sure if he’s related to Mr. Richard Fader of New Jersey…) who states that the language of poverty stricken inner city adolesecents usually relates to the present, because it’s all they have. There is nothing much to count on in the fuutre and nothing particular to cherish from the past, so they live and talk in the now.

Sadly, this is not living in the now in the Zen enlightened sense, but in the this is the hand I’ve been dealt, and I can’t really imagine how things are going to improve sense.

In some ways this reflects my view of feminism…I’m far too busy working for my family’s survival to sit and ponder earnestly about the third wave of feminism. (I get to blog about this today because I’m out on surgical disability…)

Man, if you think it’s hard for a pimp out there, imagine how hard it is for the prostitute…Metaphorically speaking.

By kimberly

October 16, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Lozen sums it up for HER generation very well. My point is that, for MY generation, the opposite is true for most of us. We had no choice but to enter a “career path” whether we want to or not — even with a husband. I NEVER was told “Get a husband” when I was growing up. Once we have kids and the and bills get going, we’re stuck grinding 8-5 behind a desk to provide medical benefits. Married men demand two incomes to have nice stuff at home — it’s all about the STUFF. MOST divorced women I know only get a fraction of their child-support, if any. We don’t really have the choice to persue our “dream jobs” because responsibilities require we stick to something steady. Without a spouse to handle the kids, we can’t go for high-powered, high-paying stuff, unless we want to screw the kids out of all the non-material things they need. Many working moms put up with abusive employers or jobs they hate because they need to pay the bills. The childless have plenty of choices, but MOST moms are just as limited as they were before, just in different ways. “Feminist” rhetoric doesn’t mean much to those of us answered the maternal instinct, work our a—es off for everybody else, never have time or money for anything WE want to do, and barely get five hours sleep a night. That’s all I’m saying.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.â€? Pat Robertson If Robertson is agin it, it’s gotta be a good thing!

Bob Herbert’s post at 11:38 said some things that are really pertinent to this discussion also.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

“Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.â€? Rush Limbaugh And what was it that allowed unattractive men (like Limbaugh) easy access?

By 2D

October 16, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen… If Rush didn’t have a great voice, he’d have nothing, b/c he definitely has a “face for radio”.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

How pertinent this quote is to one of our previous discussions on this blog!

“When an actress takes off her clothes onscreen but a nursing mother is told to leave, what message do we send about the roles of women? In some ways we’re as committed to the old madonna-w******* dichotomy as ever. And the madonna stays home, feeding the baby behind the blinds, a vestige of those days when for a lady to venture out was a flagrant act of public exposure.â€? Anna Quindlen

By lozen

October 16, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

I’ve yet to be on a campus where most women weren’t worrying about some aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career. I’ve yet to find one where any men were worrying about the same thing. ~Gloria Steinem

Insurance Girl states that you can be a successful career woman, OR you can be a mom! So how can anyone think there’s no choice, she wonders?

By Sanhan

October 16, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

“Men have always been afraid that women could get along without them…” Margaret Mead.

By Insurance Girl

October 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

No- You can always be both- obviously my MOM is a successful career woman AND a MOM

By Brian Curtis

October 16, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

I will say that life is generally easier without kids to worry about. You have a lot more options without kids than with them.

By Mara

October 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the kudos, y’all. I’m really sorry about the long posts. I’m very passionate about this issue and I can’t help but go on and on and on…I’m trying to get help though :^)

Insurance Girl, 2D - I’d like you to ponder these quotes from Neil French, who was THE high grand poobah in advertising…until he actually said what he believes.

He reportedly said that there weren’t more female creative directors “because they’re crap” and that motherhood made them “wimp out” and “go suckle something.” Even though he was forced to resign he went out firing, and expanded on earlier remarks in which he characterized women as unwilling to commit to the long hours their male colleagues put in to get to the top.

He said out loud what many business leaders still privately believe “You can’t be a great creative director and have a baby and keep spending time off every time your kids are ill. You can’t do the job.” He expressed publicly one of the most common stereotypes that we see in business, the stereotype that if you have a family, if you have children, you are not committed to the workplace. Of course, this doesn’t seem to apply to men who have children at home, just to the women. Though that’s easily explained.

Look at any study on who is responsible for domestic tasks and women still dispurportionatly take the majority of the household burden, even when both the husband and wife work full time. They are the ones who generally stay home with the sick kid, too. While this trend and mindset doesn’t preclude women from choosing to work and have children, many women, when push comes to shove, don’t have the energy to do both of these full time jobs. Or they sacrifice the career that their skills could have earned them for a part-time job and a couple kids. Most businesses don’t do flex-tim, or easily accomadate the needs of a family. I think that may have been what kimberly was getting at, 2D. Or maybe not.

I.G. - It’s wonderful that your mother works for such an accomadating company. (Can I hazard a guess that she works in finance or banking?) I would suggest that you decide feminism is obsolete and un-necessary that you look a bit farther afeild than your mothers employer. Guess how many Fortune 500 companies are let by women? Guess how many even have a woman on the Board? We are very scarce in the upper levels. From Wal-mart, who’s currently being sued for promoting men but leaving women languishing on the sales floor, to the fisheries industry (Lewis v. Talley Fisheries comes to mind), to professorships and the tenure track at elite universities (Lawrence Summers, Beyond Bias and Barriers) there are literally millions of American women dealing with descrimination issues that include harrassment, failure to promote, job ineqities, work/home time issues, maternity leave and on and on. That’s not to say that we are still the same society we were 30 years ago, or even 15 years ago. We are making progress but that doesn’t mean that women have reached parity. Despite how “feminists” have been portrayed, most of us don’t hate men. We aren’t hairy, unwashed, bosom sagging, shrill harpies who want to destroy families. Many of us are married. We wear make-up, dress stylishly, and even have children. We are also deeply committed to the idea that women and men should be treated equally when it comes to respect, opportunity, education, and compensation.

By Archie

October 16, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

Archie there can be no consistency in a movement made up of such diversity. Just as people have different political views and different religious views, people have different feminist views.

Lozen,you’re probably right but it sure does make it hard to deal with at times. I think equality and choice is a good thing but some seem to only want that when it’s in their favor. Here in SC I think the civil rights(Naacp) are confused,at least they confuse me with how they do things. Very inconsistent. Lozen I am being vague on purpose because I can’t call names but some women say they don’t need a man to buy them a drink but yet the same women become indignant when a guy does not buy them a drink. Feminism is not counterproductive and it can help some women as long as it’s not man-hating. I say go for it.

By The72John

October 16, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

No- You can always be both- obviously my MOM is a successful career woman AND a MOM

I.G., this is faulty reasoning. As someone (Mara or Kimberly, I believe) pointed out, there are always people who are above the curve. For instance, there were black slave owners in this country during the Slavery era. That doesn’t mean that it was equally possible for all black to be slave owners.

It shouldn’t be a question of “Are there female insert position here”, it should be a question of roughly equal numbers. All other things being equal, a crop of 100 25-year-old male MBAs and a crop of 100 25-year-old female MBAs should have basically the same distribution of succesful and not-so-successful people.

If there is a significant disparity of success between men and women of equal experience and education, then there is obviously still something to work towards.

By The72John

October 16, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Lozen I am being vague on purpose because I can’t call names but some women say they don’t need a man to buy them a drink but yet the same women become indignant when a guy does not buy them a drink

There’s a difference between social behavior and professional behavior - who doesn’t like to have someone buy them a drink? It makes you feel good to have someone make a gesture like that, and IMHO has nothing to do with feminism or anything else.

By 2D

October 16, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Mara… Neil French should have been fired for saying the things he said (not sure if that was why he was forced out).

On that note, I would say that it can be difficult, perhaps impossible, for a parent to give their job the maximum effort possible. That would only stand to reason, right? As a new parent, I routinely leave work at 5:00 rather than work late in an effort to see my family. That means I may not get the next big promotion, allocation of stock options or big raise at my next review. However, that is the choice I made when I decided to have a child and subsequently to make the child my number one priority. Putting my baby to bed is more reward than any raise or stock option the company could give me.

Perhaps your point is that in most relationships, it is the woman making that “sacrifice”. In your experience, that may be the case, but in mine, it is typically the person who has the “lesser” career or the one whose career is inherently more more flexible. Perhaps that is my generation, perhaps it is simply a coincidence, but it is my personal experience.

By JAMES

October 16, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Everyone on this blog seems so well educated. I’ve read all of the posts and I am completely lost. One of the last ones that I read was quoting some individual and the poster (Mara, I think) stated that the individual expressed a stereotype in his speakings but at every place i’ve worked, I’ve never seen any males “have” to leave work because his baby was at school with a headache. Or I’ve never know it to be important to anyone but a female co-worker that their child didn’t have their cell phone with them. OOOOOPS! Gotta leave work to get the phone.

Kimberly- The legal system is set up for women when it comes to divorce, custody and support. If you or any woman is only getting some of her child support…in the end it’s her fault. Child support enforcement works just fine.

I agree that there is no equality. There isn’t even a faie degree of equity sometimes. But, many examples given on this blog has more to do with women making choices without without realizing that some of their choices will have negative consequences, regardless of the reasons why they chose what they did. Domestic work, leaving work to ‘take care of the kids,’ even pregnancy has consequences. A woman shouldn’t be punished for these things but then again, from the other side, why should she make as much as, or have all the privleges of her male counterparts if he’s not doing these things (of course the housework has no place in this question)?

By JAMES

October 16, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

There’s a difference between social behavior and professional behavior - who doesn’t like to have someone buy them a drink? It makes you feel good to have someone make a gesture like that, and IMHO has nothing to do with feminism or anything else

Seems to me asking a woman to buy you a drink gets you nothing but a sneer.

By 2D

October 16, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

James… If you’re new, you know not what you’ve done. Be ready to be called every name in the book.

By Mara

October 16, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

some women say they don’t need a man to buy them a drink but yet the same women become indignant when a guy does not buy them a drink

Was I the only one picturing some hard-knock barfly wandering around a smoke filled tavern round about closing time snarling at the men “I said, buy me a G-d**mned drink, you a-hole”?

How very…biker bar. ROTFL!!!

By The72John

October 16, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

A woman shouldn’t be punished for these things but then again, from the other side, why should she make as much as, or have all the privleges of her male counterparts if he’s not doing these things (of course the housework has no place in this question)?

Yeah, because men never have to leave the office unexpectedly for anything? Ri-ight…

Seems to me asking a woman to buy you a drink gets you nothing but a sneer.

That’s OK, I’m not particularly interested in a woman buying me a drink.

By kimberly

October 16, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

James, with the exception of your divorce and child-support delusions, you make some valid points. (I get my CS, almost NO ONE else I know gets the full amount regularly, and BTW, you have to HIRE a lawyer to take your ex back to court in Georgia — hard to do when you have to work and have no spare cash. No, the cops will not go arrest your ex if he decides to bum off his new girlfriend and not work, or not report income. DUH!)

The issue put before us is regarding “third-wave feminism.” My stance is that the topic is a crock, and both Shaunti and Diane are full of it. Things ARE different for women now, and in many ways better, but they’re not gravy just because we’re now “allowed to work.” On the contrary, now we just have TWO full-time jobs, so don’t expect us to dance around from the joy of being “liberated.” I’m not saying we need to march for more liberation (who the heck has time?) but I just don’t feel liberated, nor will I burn my expensive bras in protest!

By Insurance Girl

October 16, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Like I said- I was just simply stating woman can do whatever they want- you think more people should be on Boards etc- then why don’t you get on one?? Who cares? And really she doesnt work for banking or finance- Headed up Customer Service for Etrade and now works for an Insurance company- where let me tell you- has a million men in it- so- I don’t get why everyone is stating woman need to start pushing feminism again- just live your life!

By The72John

October 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Like I said- I was just simply stating woman can do whatever they want- you think more people should be on Boards etc- then why don’t you get on one??

IG, how old are you? This is a silly and vapid statement if ever I heard one…

By lozen

October 16, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

…some women say they don’t need a man to buy them a drink but yet the same women become indignant when a guy does not buy them a drink. And what does this have to do with feminism Archie? ……it sure does make it hard to deal with at times. My advice Archie is stop trying to deal with feminism and deal with each individual woman you interact with!

By 2D

October 16, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Insurance Girl… I think working for ETrade and and Insurance company qualifies as banking or finance. Not sure why it matters, but I think it does.

Kimberly… You say women now have TWO full time jobs, but they don’t have to. They can choose to not have children. I know multiple couples without children. They can choose to not have a career. I know multiple couples where women do not work outside the house both with and without kids. They can choose to have a career, sock away cash, and have children later. They have tons of options.

I wonder… What choice(s) you would like to see? I don’t know if one exists where you can have children, be a mother and not sacrifice some aspect of your career. Being a parent (at least a decent one) is a job that requires sacrifice and I’m not sure there is really any way around it.

By lozen

October 16, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

That was exactly my next question for IG 72John.

“Seems to me asking a woman to buy you a drink gets you nothing but a sneer.” I wouldn’t know what asking a man to buy me a drink would get me James. I buy my own drinks and would never dream of trying to mooch off some strange man in a bar!

By FatMoose

October 16, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

The most problem I and other people have with Kimberly’s arguement, and those like it, is the vision one gets from her statements like: “Things ARE different for women now, and in many ways better, but they’re not gravy just because we’re now allowed to work.” Or that women have no choice bc certain ones may be mutually exclusive to others - even when the exclusion has to do solely with her capability of performing both jobs.

It is not gravy for anyone. The fantasy that it is somehow gravy for men, making it(life being gravy) the measure to rise to undercuts any real point to be made.

By Cindy

October 16, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Woman will always rule! Where else can you get a man to spend hundreds of dollars just to look at woman but America?!? Strip joints should be the next step in Feminism- you don’t see woman stupid enough to spend $976 on a man in one night without getting anything out of it! Think about it!

By lozen

October 16, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Here’s one for ya Kimberly: Nobody objects to a woman being a good writer or sculptor or geneticist if at the same time she manages to be a good wife, a good mother, good-looking, good-tempered, well-dressed, well-groomed, and unaggressive. ~Marya Mannes

By lozen

October 16, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Because women’s work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repetitious and we’re the first to get fired and what we look like is more important than what we do and if we get raped it’s our fault and if we get beaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices we’re nagging b*** and if we enjoy sex we’re nymphos and if we don’t we’re frigid and if we love women it’s because we can’t get a “real” man and if we ask our doctor too many questions we’re neurotic and/or pushy and if we expect childcare we’re selfish and if we stand up for our rights we’re aggressive and “unfeminine” and if we don’t we’re typical weak females and if we want to get married we’re out to trap a man and if we don’t we’re unnatural and because we still can’t get an adequate safe contraceptive but men can walk on the moon and if we can’t cope or don’t want a pregnancy we’re made to feel guilty about abortion and…for lots of other reasons we are part of the women’s liberation movement. ~Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, 14 September 1987 Old but still true in many ways!

By prom dresses

October 17, 2006 12:52 AM | Link to this

http://www.blog.newsjungle.com/promdresses/ prom dresses prom dresses

By chuck

October 17, 2006 07:43 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, How are you?

I have to disagree with a point that you made. You said:

I am a mother, was once a wife, and have always had to work. I NEVER HAD A CHOICE. EVER.

First, you had a choice as to whether or not to GET married. You also had a choice as to the person YOU DECIDED to marry. You had a choice as to whether or not to have children AND HOW MANY. You apparently made many choices throughout your life. Are you happy with the choices you made?

My wife and I were married for 9 years before we had our first kid. We were used to 2 incomes, but we DECIDED that she would stay home with our kids. WE decided. Did we have to make some sacrifices in order to do that? Sure we did. Living off of one teacher income was not easy, but family was the priority. Could she have gone back to work after the baby was born? Sure she could have if she wanted to. Her priority was to raise our kids and if we had to do without some things that was okay.

By Elane

October 17, 2006 08:32 AM | Link to this

There’s nature and then there’s nurture. At age 40-something, having seen the socio-political pendulum sway like mad in both directions, this female is going with nature. My basic temperament, bolstered by my parents, was that the mind, and what you do with it, is far more important than the body and outward appearance. That made sense to me. Feminism, in the early 1970s, made sense to me: Women’s minds are equal to men’s. You can set your goal and reach it. You’re not inferior to a man. To my thinking, an intelligent person is best suited to parenthood. I don’t get this notion that if a woman is smart and successful, the last thing she wants to be is a mother. We need more smart, successful parents, both male and female. If your head is on straight, emotionally, then go for it.

No matter which way the pendulum swings, I will always believe in my own abilities and potential. I would hate to have lived in the days when women were held back, not only by society but by the law. Therefore, I have very little sympathy or respect for women who don’t use their minds. And if things in my life don’t work out, I have no one to blame except me.

By 2D

October 17, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Elane… I am with you except for your next to last statement where you have very little sympathy or respect for women who don’t use their minds. What does it mean for someone “to not use their mind?” I am not sure exactly how you make that determination.

By BlogGoddess

October 17, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

Just recently, a poll came out regarding how marriage as an institution had slipped to less than 50% of the couples (straight and gay)living together in the USofA (gasp). Regardless of the flim-flam (women’s libbers, neocons…etc.) …women are judged according to how they fit into the marriage scheme - it’s just that in the recent decades, society has heaped another value in the mix - how they handle work, kids and husbands. So - women’s shoulders just couldn’t handle the strain any longer - something had to give - and, it appears it was the marriage thingey. It appears women are reshaping what society finds acceptable. However, if your only talent is your “girliness” - I guess you have to rely on that and call it “third wave feminism.” The rest of us couldn’t be bothered - we’re too busy fighting old stereotypes.

By Elane

October 17, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

2D,

Well, let’s see. Dropping out of school (either as a prelude to, or a result of, unwed teenage pregnancy). No awareness of anything in the world that does not relate directly to peer group. Seeing parents, not as authority figures or role models, but irrelevant money machines. No interest in news, history or current events.

Do I know anyone like this? Oh, yes. Five years ago, as my husband and I sat in his sister’s home watching the devastation in NY and DC, her daughter was giggling loudly on the phone about (best I could tell) male classmates and MTV. Finally, we could stand it no longer and asked her to keep it down. We pointed to the TV and said “Don’t you care about what’s going on?â€? She shrugged and said “Huh?â€? She did graduate high school, very pregnantly. She works in a warehouse when she feels like it, but mostly sleeps in while her mother or sitter cares for the baby. Every possible advantage and opportunity was available to her, yet she’s going absolutely nowhere in life and doesn’t care. You can’t blame any politician or her parents. She DIDN’T USE HER MIND.

Would you have sympathy for someone like this? And if so, why?

By 2D

October 17, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Elane… I am not sure who you have an issue with. Is it with the daughter or with the parent? Quite frankly, mine would be with your husband’s sister, not with the young girl. You say parents are not the one to blame. I sya they are absolutely the ones to blame.

In general, young people these days are not being taught to be critical of or interested in anything going on in the world today outside of MTV and the latest Family Guy episode. Unfortuantely, my sister-in-law raises her children in the exact same fashion. That has nothing to do with boy vs. girls, but with a lapse of judgement by the baby boomers raising children today (I apologize for the gross exageration, of course not all fall into that category).

By lozen

October 17, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

There is noone better at tearing down a woman than another woman who has decided she’s the exceptional one. This to me is one big sad situation. And it’s why the women’s movement takes a few steps forward and then slides back until another generation gets mad enough to try to work together to bring about change! The Queen Bee syndrome is nothing new and it seems it will never die.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Chuckie, I can feel the Christian love oozing out of your pores. Not that it’s any of your business, but I answered the call of nature — the one the Great Programmer of us all hard coded in my brain, to ensure the survival of the species. My child was a, um.. untimely surprise. I chose to keep, bear, and be responsible for this surprise. THIS should come as no surprise to someone like YOU though: The cruelest, rudest, least understanding people I encountered were the anti-choice folks like YOU. Had I chose to abort on the basis of NOT having nine years of dual-income Christian marriage with which to bolster my financial state, YOUR kind would have called me a murderer. (Am I right?) But I chose to take responsibility for my actions, and YOUR KIND called me other names.

As for the choices of women in general, I’ll refer back to our Great Programmer and Creator: He MADE us to fall in love, and not always with the most responsible, trustworthy individuals. HE MADE that little thing called passion, and HE MADE the maternal instincts that drive some women to bear children even under the worst circumstances. (Chuckie, are you saying the Great Programmer makes mistakes?) I think there are reasons for the drives within us that defy logic. (Just like some of our friends were hard-coded to play for the other team — I think there’s a reason, and I don’t think it’s to give YOU someone to take target practice on, but I’ve strayed off topic.)

In any case Chuckie, and all you other NON-females who don’t understand, it’s easy for you to sit there and say “you made the choice to have kids.” This is HALF correct. The other half of that decision was made by the voice of the Great Programmer in my head. The decisions I made after that say much more about me that the spontaneous combustion that involved no thought, but I’m sure YOU will only think of how you can snicker and call me names. *Feelin’ the LOVE!….NOT.” Go back to preaching hellfire & brimstone, Dude. Your opinions on motherhood mean nothing to me.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Kim, you are a hell of a woman! Your response to Chuckie was great. Yes, it does seem to be the easiest thing for his kind to sit back and judge anyone who doesn’t live their life exactly as he has decided they should. I bet he goes around stressed out all the time in disbelief that others just don’t follow his shining example! Just remember Kimberly, stress kills but sometimes not fast enough!

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozie! I’ve always been astounded by the hypocrisy of those who say they “trust the Lord to guide them” in all their decisions, yet they condemn others who follow their heart, or instincts instilled within them by the Creator. AS IF the Creator does not instill a compass within us, and can only speak through, or be defined by, some book written thousands of years ago, and broken up and re-pieced together a zillion times by a bunch of robed politicians. That’s not having much faith in the Almighty, IMO.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this

“To my thinking, an intelligent person is best suited to parenthood. I don’t get this notion that if a woman is smart and successful, the last thing she wants to be is a mother.” Some smart, successful women don’t want to be mothers because they see how difficult it will make their lives. The institutions in this culture are far behind the present reality of single parenthood. There is very little help for smart, successful women who want to be mothers. And if they don’t want to get married, and want and need to be the family breadwinner, they are giving themselves quite a challenge if they have a child. The old, outdated notion (IMHO) of family still drives our lives. Mara, I believe, hit on some of the problems yesterday. Very few companies offer flex time, many companies expect a 50 hour work week or more if you want to be successful. That just doesn’t leave much time for family life. I could go on and on but you either get it or you don’t.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

I am astounded by those who are always ready to judge others without ever walking a step in their shoes (not to mention a mile)! Human beings make mistakes all the time. We aren’t perfect. Our hearts and emotions rule our minds and intellect much of the time. We do stupid things… every single one of us … except Chuck, of course, with his exemplary life! People like chuck have so little compassion for others. “If you make a mistake, you should suffer and suffer and suffer for it.”

By chuck

October 17, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, here’s the problem with what you said:

As for the choices of women in general, I’ll refer back to our Great Programmer and Creator: He MADE us to fall in love, and not always with the most responsible, trustworthy individuals. HE MADE that little thing called passion, and HE MADE the maternal instincts that drive some women to bear children even under the worst circumstances.

The problem is not with the ‘programmer’, it is with the operator. It doesn’t mattewr how good the plan is if we screw up the implementation of it.

I agree with you as to how we are “programmed”. God’s plan however was one man for one woman for LIFE. When we step outside of that plan we have problems. Often it is through no fault of our own that we end up in a mess. A wife for instance cannot prevent a husband from walking out on the marriage and force him to do the right thing (and vice-versa). When things happen that we have no control over, we have to turn to Him for the solution. In my own church, there are many women and a few men whose spouses walked away from them and their children. The role of the church is to come along side of them, encourage them, and help them when they need help.

I admire your decision to keep your child rather than killing it. You didn’t take the easy though very painful way out of your situation, you took responsibility. I think that’s great and I applaud you for it. The question is this…wouldn’t it have been great if you had been surrounded by a loving church family to support and encourage you through the rough times? No, not every church is like that but many are.

I think the difference for me, growing up in a Christian home with a Mom and Dad committed to each other and studying God’s word, I learned that divorce was not an option. My wife and I both went into the marriage with that off of the table. Our marriage hasn’t been perfect, but we have made it work because we committed to it 100%. God didn’t “program” you to marry the wrong person. I don’t know if you are a Christian or not…though some of your comments have led me to believe that you are not (that is not a judgement of you, just an observation. I could be wrong and if so I apologize). If you are not a Christian you kind of set yourself up for making poor choices. How can you expect to run such complicated machinery (your life) without the owner’s manual (the Bible), and tech support (the Holy Spirit living in you, and the Church)? It’s kind of a cheap shot to blame the programmer when we drop the computer on the pavement or spill a coke on the computer tower.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

kimberly - we usually agree on pretty much everything but I not sure that I agree with your opinion that you did not make the choice to have a kid, to keep it, to raise it, etc. Of course you chose to do so. You certainly could have put it up for adoption. You could have aborted it. You could have given your ex custody to raise it. But you didn’t. You chose to raise it.

(sorry about the “it” ref, no offense meant. just couldn’t find a reference to your childs gender…)

I’ve never felt this all consuming desire to reproduce that you allude to but I’ll agree that there might be a biological factor that encourages women to want to be a mother. But even so, a biological imperative can’t actually force a woman to gestate without her consent. That’s a choice. Maybe all your choices at the time were unacceptable, but I don’t see how you can deny that you did have a choice on whether to continue through the pregnancy and raise the child.

By Archie

October 17, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

My advice Archie is stop trying to deal with feminism and deal with each individual woman you interact with!

The drink thing was just an example of how some women act and I mentioned because I think it does have something to do with feminism in a sense because with equality you want equal choice and opportunity which means you should not expect things from people that you’re not willing to give. 72John is right that there is a difference between social and professional behavior but he missed the point in the example, I was pointing out inconsistencies whereas one lady wants something from a man but another has this I-am-woman attitude and claims to not need a man. I discussed feminism since the topic is feminism and I do deal with women as individuals but it is interesting that both sides conservative and liberal, paraphrasing Kimberly can be full of it. The liberal side of feminism seems unable to take any criticism of women,whereas the conservative side wants equality except when the going gets tough or anything unpleasant comes up. For example you want shared housework but when the woman is slack on her part of it criticism better not come from the man. There are many male allies to the feminist movement that have different views but they are still allies but if you are so in to complaining you miss out.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

BTW, If the creator programmed your maternal instinct, wouldn’t He also have designed the BEST environment for that child to grow up in? Why yes He would. What is that environment. A Mom and a Dad who love each other AND their children. Not a “primary care giver” or a “nanny” who raise OTHER people’s kids, but a Mom and Dad who raise their own children. Study after study has shown this to be the case. Anecdotally I see it every day as a teacher. Very few kids living in the home with an INVOLVED Mom and Dad have the kinds of problems or cause the kinds of problems that kids in single parent homes have or do.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

(snicker, snicker…)

chuck - God’s plan however was one man for one woman for LIFE

Well, lets assume that there is a god and this is the plan…evidently it isn’t one etched in stone, so to speak. The men of the bible most certainly weren’t monogomous. Jesus had no problem with polygamy. Abraham, Jacob, David had plural wives and hordes of concubines between them but they were favored of God. So, name a single non-celebate who was “scripturally” verifiable as monogomous. And this stuff happened when God was still speaking to us, so I can’t imagine that he’d forget to admonish his child’ens if they were screwing his plan (no pun intended). So really, give me an example.

Go ahead…I’ll wait.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

By The72John

October 17, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

If you are not a Christian you kind of set yourself up for making poor choices.

Yeah, that Ghandi guy REALLY cocked up his life. And the Dali Lama? WHEW, what a LOSER. Mohammad Ali - total waste of human life. George and Ira Gershwin? Hah! Their lives were JOKES! Etc. Etc. Etc.

Seriously, Chuck - do you ever stop to think before you type out the clap-trap nonsense that passes for thought among your Fundy Zombie set?

By The72John

October 17, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

Mara, sometimes I just want to hug you.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

I am astounded by those who are always ready to judge others without ever walking a step in their shoes (not to mention a mile!

Although yours and kims whole premise rests on judging and determining men’s life is gravy. When confronted by men trying to educate you on what it is like for us individually(difficulties and pleasures), you scoff.

I, and most men, could CLAIM we had no choice to set ourselves up to have a career in order to provide for a family..etc.

Seems to me that many women do not know what it MEANS to be a woman and are struggling to come to terms with the fact that one (male or female) cannot be everything; and when confronted with a either/or choice they call foul. So, in the end, they make decsisions based on instant gratifacation - not long term happiness. I believe this is the non-thinking that elane refers to.

Understand that there are loads of guys that operate on this level too - and to both groups the only advise is grow up and look at the big picture; for your own happiness as well as those around you.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

God’s plan however was one man for one woman for LIFE. When we step outside of that plan we have problems. That wasn’t god’s plan; that was the plan of men who wanted to make sure they weren’t raising another man’s child! That was the plan of men who wanted to own women just as they owned cattle. And that’s why your whole theory falls apart for many of us.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

…one lady wants something from a man but another has this I-am-woman attitude and claims to not need a man

Yeah, how dare different women want different things?! How dare some women want to be put on pedastels and other women reject being dependant on some man?! How dare feminists not agree on what “equality” means?! It’s all so damned confusing…how’s a man supposed to know which kind of woman he’s gonna meet in a bar? HUH? HOW?!

most of the Archie post is pretty incoherent and quite beyond my limited understanding so maybe I just misinterpreted his whine.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Come on Archie. You expect consistency from women? Let’s just leave the feminism out of it. Do you expect consistency from men? Do you expect consistency from human beings? If you do, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. Human beings are not consistent. We are complex and have an unconscious that drives most of us that we have little conscious awareness of. I think you’re intimidated by women and by feminism and your discomfort causes you to want a consistency in this one area that doesn’t exist.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

I wonder how well it would’ve gone over for a man to say “women are programmed to want/have kids.” That strikes me as a very odd comment.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Chuck, what part of “Your opinions on motherhood mean nothing to me” did you not understand? Not even reading your hate-filled judgmental crapola, Dude. You lost my trust, like, a year ago. No trust… no trust in your words….Brother Chuck. Guess you lost your soul-winning edge. So sorry.

Mara, yes I CHOSE to have and keep the baby. I’m a staunch supporter of choice. This is hard to explain, but I’ll try. When I saw the little plus sign on the test thingy, I KNEW what I had to do. It was a feeling from inside my heart, and a voice inside my head, and there was never any doubt. In that moment, feeling all warm and tingly (and a bit nauseous) I was overwhelmed with a sense of timelessness, as if glimpsing the future of my genes over a vast time and space… It was there inside of me, what I had to do. Now, I had a college degree, and a good job, and was self-sufficient, so I can’t say that everyone would have those same feelings, but the overpowering knowledge I felt that day left me no question. The decision was already made. (That was MY experience, and I’d never endorse the government forcing that on anyone else.) So YES, it was my decision, but it’s not as simple as, “Shall I go blonde on Saturday?” or “Shall I pay $100 per month to join LA Fitness?” So yes it was, AND no it wasn’t. Does that make sense?

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

72John YEAH! All those screwed up Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

<<<>>>

cyberhugging is allowed :^)

By 2D

October 17, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Mara… To the best of our knowledge, Mary and Joseph would be an example. Joseph had no other wives or concubines that we know of (I stress the that we know of). Moses also, I believe would fit that example. Not sure of some of the others right off the top of my head.

That being said, many of the greats (David, Solomon, Abraham) had multiple wives and/or concubines, and those men did get admonished for their “sins” (David and Bathsheeba lost their son, Solomon’s kingdom was destroyed, Abraham’s family was nearly destroyed). However, their problems did not lie in the fact they had multiple women in their lives, but who those women were and how they were attained (adultery, murder, worshippers of other Gods). So you are correct, the scriptural references we would have concerning one man / one woman is through the New Testament letters, which clearly contradicts many of the Old Testament characters.

One more thing… What I find interesting in your quoted website, however, is the fact that it quotes Matt 5:17-18, a verse that many folks on this BLOG, and many Christians who want to justify their lifestyles, ignore.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, did you ever say life was “gravy” for men, because I don’t seem to remember it…

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

FM, what are you doing back? Do you have your daughter sitting there laughing at Kimberly’s ideas and posts now? I really don’t want to try to have a discussion with someone I don’t find to be very rational. But I know what it’s like to be a man, FM, having raised a son. I know the problems he’s had trying to live up to the idea of “maleness” in this culture. And I know from previous posts of yours that you have no respect for women.