Woman to Woman

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.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, if you said women are programmed to have kids, some women would squawk and call you sexist. But the fact is, we are individuals. Both men and women can have strong reproducting and parental urges. Many do not. I find no fault whatsoever with people who do not feel the urge or do not choose to do so. But I know a lot of people… MANY women I know wanted kids since their earliest memory. That desire drove their whole lives. Many men also crave children in the home, and at their bosoms, and to be srong protective fathers. Many men don’t. I NEVER wanted or planned to have children. Until it happened, and my instincts took over. That was MY experience.

I don’t think any of us should be ashamed, or required to justisfy, being who we are (as long as we’re not interfering with the rights of others.)

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Mara, Kimberly, Brian, 72John all get big cyberhugs today!

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Feminism supposed that men had secured power for themselves by claiming the authority to decree meaning. History, anthropology, sociology, psychology, religion, medicine, art, culture — all of life’s meaning was arbitrarily defined by men. Therefore, as the philosophy of feminism spread, it challenged society to make women’s experiences a reference point for determining life’s meaning.(MARY A. KASSIAN, Feminist Mistake).

By NetBanker

October 17, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

nor will I burn my expensive bras in protest! Kimberly…if you decide that you would like to burn a bra in protest of whatever I’ll take you to the Goodwill store to buy some cheap, used bra that probably should be burned anyway rather than worn.

you think more people should be on Boards etc- then why don’t you get on one?? Hello?! Do you think that you just decide to get on a Board? Just as in politics one must be ELECTED to a board. Since almost all boards are dominated by males it is harder for a female to break into this particular boys club that most would think. Additionally, it appears that for whatever reason our society has problems with women in power. Please refer to the story in the Sunday paper regarding the low numbers of women in our own Congress. If women really want to change society then they should band together to elect more women leaders instead of tearing each other apart.

I think Lozen pointed out how cruel women can be to each other, but I think that Madeline Albright said it quite well (I’m trying to remember this quote as best I can, but you know how that goes): “If you think the world would be a better, kinder place if women were running it, then you don’t remember how girls treat each other in High School.” So I’m going to pose a question (or three) before I run off to a 2 hour Federal Audit preparation meeting (UGHHHHH!!) Why are women so frequently mean to each other? What issues could all women agree upon (education, child-care, etc., for example) that should be priorities and why not focus on those? As a majority voting block, why don’t women speak with their votes by electing more women?

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

Kimberly: Thats fine, but it should also mean that those who DO choose to have kids have no particular right to complain about the consequences for their life choices. Whether you were acting on primal instincts or making a deliberate, rational choice… the fact is, nobody forced you to have kids.

So claiming that the act of reproducing somehow makes a woman a victim, or her life tougher, seems disingenuous. Nobody forced her to have them.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

By The72John Kimberly, did you ever say life was “gravyâ€? for men, because I don’t seem to remember it… Zero right in there 72! I don’t think she did and I know I didn’t. Some people have a way of hearing only what they want to hear though.

By Archie

October 17, 2006 11:34 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.

Yes Lozen I expect consistency from people. If you research back you will find that I mentioned the Naacp. Currently the local Naacp is boycotting SC because of the confederate flag so they had a governor candidate’s forum in Georgia,well, I thought Georgia had a part of the Confederate flag woven into their state flag even with the new design, so I could be wrong and it would not be the first time, but it seems inconsistent have your meeting in a place that does the same thing you’re protesting against. Since the Naacp is led by men I would say yes I expect consistency from men but once again since I am critical of some women it seems as if you’re unable to deal with it. If the topic were sportswriters I could really tell you some things that they are inconsistent with but since it’s feminism that’s my focus.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

John, you’re right. I never said life was gravy for men, only that it wasn’t gravy for women just because we’re allowed to work now. But I’m aware that some people will put words someone else’s mouth just so they can berate someone “on principle.”

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

And I know from previous posts of yours that you have no respect for women.

Your only correct in thatI have no respect for you; and you, out of denial, must transfer that to mean women in general. I do respect thinking adults, men and women alike - it is a shame that there are so few.

If what you said was true about respect, I would fire off on every woman no matter what their position - yet have not exhibited that;)

You and I will never have a meeting of the minds, and I am alright with that; therefore you should not start a conversation that knowingly leads to an impass - that is a sign of not thinking.

By Renee

October 17, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

What a senseless topic this week….

That being said, I see chuck is up to his eyeballs with himself. Chuck, once again, your view are, well, blatantly put YOUR VIEWS.

Let me give you an example of a fact.

Women are the only sex that can give birth

Now an example of a chuckism.

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

See the difference. One is fact, the other is purely based upon your belief that the book from which you read this, or the preacher who has taught you this, is true.

With facts, you need no faith.

Kimberly - good comments this morning!!

Hi John, Mara, lozen, kimberly, Brian and everyone else!!

By The72John

October 17, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

SO many Christians…SO few lions.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

You can’t rely on anyone to keep their word anymore…they say they are leaving and not coming back, and then they show up again.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

It’s also odd that anyone’s calling it “allowed to work,” as though it’s some sort of privilege be exploited. And the fact that singles and non-parents are in a better position be exploited for longer hours is also viewed as an advantage—they have more “career potential,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Don’t forget, folks—work sucks. That’s why they have to pay us to do it. If early feminists viewed the office as their gateway to Freedom and Fulfillment, they were doomed to bitter disappointment. Financial independence, maybe; but happiness and completeness? No way.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

NetB,

Why are women so frequently mean to each other? What issues could all women agree upon (education, child-care, etc., for example) that should be priorities and why not focus on those? As a majority voting block, why don’t women speak with their votes by electing more women?

I posed the same Q MANY months ago and was drilled that no such negative behavior exists.

I am curious: What do you honestly get from this blog? It seems that most of this crap would be inane and bore you as much as it did me.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

I quoted kim correctly, and extrapolated that if one is comparing the female condition; that they most probably are comparing it to the males.

Is there another way to aggragate the comment: 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!

The premise that life should be gravy (even if void of what your comparing it to) is in itself dumb. What reasonable conversation could ever come out of such a starting point? Of course your going to be unhappy in life if your belief is that it should be gravy.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

So claiming that the act of reproducing somehow makes a woman a victim, or her life tougher, seems disingenuous. Nobody forced her to have them.

DUDE! Funny how men often complain that women read more into a sentence than what was meant…. I never claimed to be a victim! I did claim that being a working mom IS TOUGH, because it actually freaking IS.

Our discussion was on FEMINISM, and I thought the argument was bogus because EVEN THOUGH THINGS ARE DIFFERENT NOW, WOMEN ARE STILL LIMITED IN OUR CHOICES AND THINGS ARE NOT NECESSARILY EASIER FOR MOMS JUST BECAUSE WE CAN WORK NOW! Geeeeeezussss Aiche Crisco, please remove the blinders from these men! You’d think I was asking you all to clean your rooms and brush your teeth as much as I’ve had to repeat myself to those who keep missing the point! It was a simple point. Stop making it into something it wasn’t.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

THINGS ARE NOT NECESSARILY EASIER

Was “easier” EVER a goal of feminism? I thought it was equality.

Geeeze is right.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Very good questions, Netbanker (and I send a cyberhug to you also!) Why are women so frequently mean to each other? Just like internalized homophobia, women have internalized the idea that woman are not worthy of respect, that women are inferior, silly, worthless, blah-blah-blah. I think I’ve mentioned before that up until I was about 25 or so, I did not read books written by women. I couldn’t stand women! I couldn’t stand myself! I had no respect for women. I was always trying to live up to the ideal of the superior male! I did not question the idea that men were the smart ones, the interesting ones, the important ones. At parties I talked to the men because they were interesting and talked about important things. Women talked about their kids and housework and unimportant things. Women were just my competitors for men! I know that way of thinking and I am ever so grateful that I lived in the 60’s, met women I respected, attended Consciousness Raising groups, and saw that women were very different from the stereotypes I had in my mind (definitely based on cultural biases) about females.

What issues could all women agree upon (education, child-care, etc., for example) that should be priorities and why not focus on those? Issues are different for different groups of women. That’s one thing we found out in the 60’s and 70’s!! I often wonder what the next wave of feminism (and there will be one: “Like Broadway, the novel, and God, feminism has been declared dead many times.”KATHA POLLITT), will choose as their issues. Many feminists I know work in the health professions and as teachers and social workers. This, of course, is both good and bad. Those jobs don’t pay much and aren’t valued highly although they should be.

As a majority voting block, why don’t women speak with their votes by electing more women? Again, I believe it’s internalized lack of respect for other women/ourselves. And the general alienation in this country towards government keeps many women from even wanting to deal with it at all. I know there’s a campaign underway to get the large group of single women in this country to vote in the next election.

By Archie

October 17, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

What issues could all women agree upon (education, child-care, etc., for example) that should be priorities and why not focus on those? As a majority voting block, why don’t women speak with their votes by electing more women

Netbanker you must be intimidated by women because you ask such questions.

So claiming that the act of reproducing somehow makes a woman a victim, or her life tougher, seems disingenuous.

Brian how dare you say anything that sounds like criticism? Brian you sound logical and that’s a bad thing(sarcasm).

FatMoose there are many intelligent people and although such people disagree you can learn something. There was a statistical term that was explained quite well by a lady named Jennifer months ago. I don’t like namecalling and spammers but you can really see why you need a balance of conservatives and liberals,libertarians,etc.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Kimberly: I’m sorry, but your point isn’t coming across. Could you try re-phrasing it?

By Mara

October 17, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Net - women pick at each other for the same reason men physically assault each other. Because it’s our nature. It’s socially acceptable tavern brawling, only we won’t break a nail or ruin our skirts :^P

Brian - I’m sad for you that you don’t seem to find your work fullfilling. I suppose that I must be one of the lucky ones that have a job that I enjoy and that I find meaningful. (Of course I liked it a lot more before I got promoted, but I suppose somebody has to mind the details…) I’d go flat bonkers if all I had to keep me busy was frivolities like shopping, lunchdates, and housekeeping. Blech!

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

FatMoose there are many intelligent people and although such people disagree you can learn something.

Can you apply that intelligent comment to the merry-go-round conversations that occur here? I cannot see any movement on here - except from a couple. We do learn what box most of the people on here put themselves in, but once that has been acquired there is little reason for interacting with them. The loooooove their defining box and will die miserable instead of changing it - all while calling foul.

Let me ask you. Why do you, netb, I and a few others not scream “foul, life is hard”?

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Haha! You’re funny, BC. I still love ya. Perhaps you’ll have some kids one day. The planet NEEEEEEDS intelligent, logical people to reproduce (but only if you want to), or at least to enlighten the next generation (I’ll tell my kids to sit down and shut up while you break it down for them.) {;->

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

Mara: Oh, I do okay at my job. I’m good at it, and it’s even interesting on occasion… but I don’t think it’s some kind of privilege to sacrifice most of my waking life to it.

I try never to lose perspective on that, lest I become one of those committed, hardcore Type-A workers who put in extra nights and weekends “just because they care.” Yikes. My job is NOT my life—it’s what I do to PAY for my real life.

But back to third-wave feminism….

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

“Perhaps you’ll have some kids one day.”

Not likely; I got sterilized at age 21, my own personal Declaration of Independence!

But thanks for the sentiment; I don’t think we need MORE people, we just need to better educate and provide for the ones we’ve got.

By On The Road

October 17, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Cyberhugs to all! Hang in there, kimberly. Single motherhood is hard work.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

BC, you do a great job of educating the bloggers of Georgia! I just wish more people would listen to you.

By On The Road

October 17, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

So, where is the W2W Christmas party this year?

By lozen

October 17, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

“If early feminists viewed the office as their gateway to Freedom and Fulfillment, they were doomed to bitter disappointment. Financial independence, maybe; but happiness and completeness? No way.” In my opinion freedom and fulfillment are not possible without financial independence! I guess if one has never been totally dependent on another person for every cent they spend, the roof over their head, the food they eat, it might seem that freedom and fulfillment don’t come from financial independence. I guess if no profession has ever been closed to one, it might seem that the office is not the gateway to freedom and fulfillment. In my job, people say please and thank you when I do something for them. My husband never did. What I did was just expected and never really appreciated. And financial independence! How can I ever say how much that means to someone who has always been financially dependent? How to explain the happiness of getting your first pay after years of dependence on a husband and buying what you want without having to explain why you want it to your husband? It was ecstacy! It was freedom! It was beyond fulfillment!

By lozen

October 17, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

I don’t think we need MORE people, we just need to better educate and provide for the ones we’ve got. I know that’s the truth!

By lozen

October 17, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

I am curious: What do you honestly get from this blog? It seems that most of this crap would be inane and bore you as much as it did me. So, why the f—k are you back? And I base my comment about you having no respect for women on your gross and tasteless jokes about women and your general negative attitude toward women on this blog, not your disrespect toward me personally.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Incorrect statements again lozen. Dont try to take your weakness out on me.

I dropped by just for kicks, I guess. You have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with someone who cares.

Use the ignore button in your head; works for me when reading your posts.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

2D - not fair! I wanted to make chuck wallow around for awhile trying to come up with examples fo monogomous biblicals! LOL! Good call though.

Hey Renee!

Brian - I’m sorta confused. You’ve always come across as a pretty intelligent person so why the obtuseness regarding women being “allowed to work”? Feminism was never about the actual work as it was about our right to make our choices for ourselves. Husbands and fathers ran the show in those days and if they wanted you to stay in the home, well, that’s where you stayed. While I would contend that making ones own life decisions is a right and not a “privelege” subject to being recinded, exercising that used to be dependant on the permission of a man. Surely you are enough a student of history to know this? So why the obfuscation?

Also, some people like their jobs and don’t in any way see doing them as a “sacrifice”. No, I’m not talking about Type A’s…I mean regular people who put in their 8 to 10 and then head on home. I personally have a great deal of fun over the course of a regular day so it’s no “sacrifice” to me. Except for the getting up before the crack o’ dawn a’course…that I could do without. :^P

By Renee

October 17, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Damn lozen! A little irritated, eh??? LOL

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you stated that: But I know what it’s like to be a man, FM, having raised a son.

I have two daughters, hence I REALLY know what it is like to be female.

Can you see the insanity of such a notion now?

By Caribbean Queen

October 17, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

Just joined. As a woman from the Caribbean (don’t know if I’ll be welcome or not!) I want to say that I find that it seems to be an American feminist thing to down-cry men and anything traditional as if there is no value in it at all. There tends to be such a tone of “woe-are-we” (a la Kimberley)in many of the messages. American men seem to be so “feminized” sometimes its just crazy, as if they are so afraid to be “politically incorrect” and offend women. I think American feminism is very anti-female itself to an absurd point sometimes - granted this is a blanket staement, so it will be inaccurate for some cases.

The truth is a third wave is needed because feminism has been too extreme sometimes - sometimes a bandwagon AGAINST as opposed to a MOVEMENT FOR.

(Recently watched “Barn Yard” a cartoon, and was amazed that the bulls had UDDERS. A friend said to me, “maybe they just want to be polically correct.

Yes, the world’s women have some serious issues to face. If more American women got over themselves and embraced their inherent femininity they would realize the world can be rough to men as well as women, and start to really pick out what are the real injustices worth screaming - and acting for.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Here You go Mara:

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.

Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides.

*The 10th Commandment ‘… You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular] …’ (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

The example of godly people is also important. Isaac and Rebekah were monogamous — they are often used as a model in Jewish weddings today. Other examples were Joseph and Asenath, and Moses and Zipporah. And the only survivors of the Flood were four monogamous couples.*

Polygamy’s origins and consequences A very important point to remember is that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated — first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the godly line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Gen. 26:34).

God also forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives; and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

What about godly men who were polygamous? Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife — note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42–43).

Why did God seem to allow it, then? It is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional ‘If he takes another wife to himself …’ (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

By 2D

October 17, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

Mara… Sorry to ruin your fun. I too would prefer to have Chuck squirm, but years of Bible camp immediately bubbled up with your question. I know that fact might make others immediately hate my very existence, so I beg for you to show me some mercy.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

Hmm…Chuck copied and pasted the musings of a 16-year-old…how unsurprising.

By A Ghost

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

Chuck seems to be confused about what “spirits” are (God is a spirit). While spirits may act upon us and influence us, we have to take final responsibility for our actions.

By lozen

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

Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating. ANDREA DWORKIN

By Mara

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

C. Queen - you have every right to your opinion. I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s okay. You find American men too “feminized”? Well I find the machismo of many foreign men to be brutish and contemptuous. What you see as emasculating fearfulness, I see as respect for my views and my opinions. You never quite say what your definition of what a “Man” is so I have nothing to debate you on. Nor am I positive on what you mean by “down-cry men”…

your writing style does seem really familiar though…

By The72John

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

woops. no…looks like the 16-year-old plagarized as well. Chuck used his favorite source of quick answers…answersingenesis.com.

Mara, don’t you know that people like Chuck have ready-made answers for everything? Answers that are constructed by people who see only what they want to see?

Admittedly, I’m no Biblical scholar and don’t care to be, but I’m sure that any Biblical scholar not engulfed in the hateful flames of extremism could tear this particular “article” to shreds.

Good to see that Chuck-the-schmuck remains true to his “Over 1 billion thoughts copied” format, though.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Mara: I’m just saying that work is not the key to freedom and happiness. And having to work is hardly a huge improvement over not having to work. Sure, you gain more independence, but you also sacrifice most of your waking hours.

Everything’s a tradeoff, and some of the earliest feminists’ claims that “men were hogging all the good stuff by working 8-5 or longer” ring false. There’s nothing “good” about that. It was our set of shackles, just as financial dependence and staying home with kids was women’s.

Women now have a greater range of choices on which shackles to wear… but that’s not the same as freedom.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Carribean Queen (?), can we take your talking points one by one and get some info. 1) American men seem to be so “feminizedâ€? sometimes its just crazy, as if they are so afraid to be “politically incorrectâ€? and offend women. Could you please give me some concrete examples of this? And please not a cartoon with udders on a bull! I’m sure a rabid feminist did that cartoon, right!

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Good grief! You lost me when you quoted a lunatic like Dworkin. She’s the epitome of what Shaunti derides as first-wave “man-hating” extremists.

There’s a great case to be made for equality, respect, and equal treatment—but Dworkin wouldn’t recognize it if it bit her.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Waving at Renee ;-)!!!! Yes, a little irritated at the reappearance of people who make us sign with relief when they say they’re leaving, but just have to come back to tell us how stupid the blog is and how stupid everyone on the blog is compared to them. Crazy, no?

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

My observation, Carribean Queen, is that “people of color” exhibit the greatest polarities between male and female (Black, Hispanic, Arabic, etc), Caucasians are less polarized. This is not to say either way is more “correct”, just an observation.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

John - Chuck copied and pasted the musings of a 16-year-old

ROTFLMAO!!!! Shame on you!

2D - About bible camp, I was sent many times myself. Didn’t actually learn much except that “Christian” kids can be as brutal as anyone else. I did find out that cruelty hurts more when you don’t expect it, so I guess that’s something…

Anyway…just pokin’ ol’ chuckie with a pointy stick.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Mara, you sneaky devil you! Writing style sure seems familiar! Yeeeyah!

By Mara

October 17, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

lozen - not a cartoon with udders on a bull

given how far we’ve come from our agrarian roots they probably thought nobody would know it was a bovine if if it didn’t have udders. Maybe we’re all mistaken though. Given the amount of hormones and steroids injected into livestock these days, it could have actually been a cow, albeit with an artificially deep voice…LOL!

By The72John

October 17, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Anyway…just pokin’ ol’ chuckie with a pointy stick.

Aim for the eye.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Brian, are you saying this statement, “Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny; it is the political defense of women hating,” is not true in your opinion?

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you stated that: But I know what it’s like to be a man, FM, having raised a son.

I have two daughters, hence I REALLY know what it is like to be female.

Can you see the insanity of such a notion now?

Why on earth would I think you (specifically) and most on here are unthinking machines that spew only what fits your sick mindset? Hmmm.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Brian - what would you do with your time if you didn’t have to work?

By 2D

October 17, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

John… The best way to poke holes in Chuck’s post is to simply say that he uses practices and traditions of other, non-Christian cultures (i.e. the Greeks and Romans) as a defense for something he claims is Biblical. Done.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

JOHN!! The eye?! Aim for the EYE!?? (choke) ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

While spirits may act upon us and influence us, we have to take final responsibility for our actions

Jose Cuervo is a spirit

(and I take NO responsibility for my actions when I am under that particular spirits influence LOL!!!)

lozen - CQ isn’t the only “new” poster with the same familiar style…

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Don’t forget the legend of Gilgamesh as well, 2D.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Ignoring all bulldogs!!!!

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

I hear you, Mara. I even ate the little worm at the bottom of the bottle once! ; > ]

By The72John

October 17, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

God help me for responding to the posts of the Troll, but what in the world does a Mesopotamian epic poem have to do with the officials of the nascent church conforming to the legal requirements of the then-prevailing Greco-Roman culture of the time? Because, forgive me if I’m incorrect, 2D, that was the point he was making. Roman law recognized only one legal wife, therefore the early Church leaders conformed to that standard.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Yes, I’m saying it’s untrue. More specifically, I’m saying it’s a drastic oversimplification that could become true if it employed qualifiers like “sometimes” and “in many cases.”

By 2D

October 17, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

John… I don’t know if he meant the early Church incorporated the one wife tradition b/c Roman law recognized only one wife. I thought he was using Roman and Greek tradition as other pieces of evidence to back his claim that the one wife claim is clearly a Biblical mandate.

Perhaps that is semantics. Either way, while I do believe in the one man/one women relationship in life, I can absolutely recognize that there are inconsistencies in the Bible when reviewing and discussing that particular subject.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Actually, I quoted:

*Dr. Jonathan Sarfati studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled “A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules�. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Dr. Sarfati was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).

Dr. Sarfati is also a former New Zealand Chess Champion. In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM).

Education B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted) Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)*

By Renee

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

Mara - I said weeks ago that DOG/GOD was FM…..

I’m assuming thats the similarities you are speaking of.

It’s mighty funny that FM and DOG have the same disdain for the same people lol. What are the chances??

By chuck

October 17, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

2D, you should probably learn to read before you write. The actual statement was:

It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

It is not a statement that the jews were following Roman and Greek customs, but rather a statement that NONE of the civilized cultures were still practicing polygamy. I guess you can poke yourself now?

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Many Biblical legends also come from Egypt—The story of Creation (Atum), the Devil (Osiris), etc. Even the biblical book of Proverbs was somewhat of a ripoff from the Egyptians. John might be interested to know that in the Hermopolis creation story, Atum stands on a mound in the sea of chaos, and releases the divine life within him either by spitting or masturbating. The Hebrew Creation story utilizes the more politically correct M.O. of “breathing”.

By Archie

October 17, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

FatMoose,everyone sorry for the delay in responding when addressed but I am working. I know I couldn’t say I know what it’s like to be a woman just because I have a daughter and a wife. FMoose many men have complained about life but we just don’t advertise it as loudly as some women. It is very difficult thing even for intelligent people to own up to their own inconsistency that’s why they find a way blame someone else or something else for things going bad. Back to my drink example you don’t need a man or anyone if you have money to buy your own drink but if you’re a little short on cash you complain about what someone’s not doing for you. Everyone doesn’t complain so please don’t suggest that I am saying everyone or every woman complains. When a person can separate what’s really their fault versus someone else’s fault then I think they can get their life straight or at least part of it.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

FM is definitely not DOG/GOD. He still can’t form a coherent sentence in proper English. Say what you will about DOG…insane chiropractor that he is…but he can turn a phrase.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Actually, I quoted:

Yes, and if you read down you would notice my correction. That still does not change the fact that, as usual, you ran straight for www.answersingenesis.com.

And really - educational credentials in BIOLOGY hardly qualify one as a biblical scholar. Christian Apologetics = Ready-made answers for people who have given their ability to think independtly up to Jay-sus!

In other words, it’s where would-be terrorists like Chuck get their “ideas”.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Incorrect.

I have never, nor would out of personal integrity, post under an alias.

Maybe these other posters dislike the same people for the same reasons? What are the chances you ask? Quite good if you acted in the same dumb manner.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Many Biblical legends also come from Egypt—The story of Creation (Atum), the Devil (Osiris

Fascinating. And all the time I thought that the devil was borrowed from the Persians and Zoroastrians. Sorry, Angra Mainyu, looks like OSIRIS inspired the devil, not you.

Snort.

By 2D

October 17, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Chuck… You still haven’t proven that it is a Biblical mandate for one man/one woman. At best you have shown that many cultures, including Jews, Greeks and Romans, began to practice monogamy.

The fact remains that while the Christian church follows the one man/one woman marriage tradition, it is not a clear mandate. There are fluctuations and inconsistencies in this practice throught the Biblical text (which have been discussed ad anuseum already). In fact, that is one reason why many denominations which still recognize sacraments, including my own, do not include marriage as one.

Does that mean I do not believe in the one man/one woman monogomous relationship??? No, I absolutely believe in it. I simply cannot make the statement that the Bible does not have substantial inconsistencies, when it is clear to me that it does.

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

So, how would YOU all spend your time if you didn’t have to work?? It sounds like a few of you would like to spend some time in Big Sky country.

By NetBanker

October 17, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

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. Chuck…where do kids living in a home with an INVOLVED single parent fall on the problem scale? Is it possible that is the key to raising a child is the involvement of the parent(s)?

Women were just my competitors for men! Lozen, thanks for responses. I think this is the item that nailed it for me and then was backed up by Mara’s comments. I suppose that I was very fortunate to have grown up with 3 generations of strong, intelligent, witty, well-read, women who debated around the dinner table just as strongly as the men in the family.

Mara…that went a long way to explaining why so many gay men are catty to each other yet one rarely witnesses an actual physcial brawl. ;>

Archie…What? Why do you think I’m intimidated by women from the questions that I asked? I understood your example of the drink because I see it also from time to time. I do wonder how much of the wanting to be “treated like a lady” is really a woman noting the general decline in manners. I get frustrated by people not acknowleding a held door with a thank you or even pausing to hold the door for someone approaching it. My impression is that the portion of the population that is taught to “Mind your P’s & Q’s” is shrinking with every generation.

BC…great attitude! American culture so frequently seems to value people based on what they do to earn a living. My partner owns his own cleaning company, but when asked his response is “I scrub toilets for a living.” The reactions are quite amusing especially from the more snooty set…whose tune usually changes when they find out he’s the owner.

FM…I don’t scream foul because life IS hard and I was never taught to expect it to be anything but. I come from an upper-middle/lower-upper class family, but was taught that “The easiest problems in life are solved with money. It’s all the other ones that are hard.” My experiences, which have included being jobless twice, confirmed those words of wisdom from my mother.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this

Archie,

Everyone doesn’t complain so please don’t suggest that I am saying everyone or every woman complains.

I know that and have only push the buttons of those that DO exhibit this behavior.

When a person can separate what’s really their fault versus someone else’s fault then I think they can get their life straight or at least part of it.

Agree totally and when one does not act that way on the board, I call them on it is all;)

It is very difficult thing even for intelligent people to own up to their own inconsistency that’s why they find a way blame someone else or something else for things going bad.

Again, I agreed. But I disagree that an intilligent person would persist in that behavior once they realize it is not getting them anywhere but deeper in the crappy trench. That is what I am witnessing from lozen, kim and a number of others - digging the hole deeper themselves and blaming others for their place in that hole.

Back to my drink example you don’t need a man or anyone if you have money to buy your own drink but if you’re a little short on cash you complain about what someone’s not doing for you.

Agreed, but its not much fun drinking alone, even if you can buy it yourself - and thats what their attitudes will get them: A bottle of great wine, bought with their own hard earned $ and no-one to share it with bc they are so displeasurable to be around due to misplaced anger. And, as you pointed out, having someone buy one for you is not a healthy option for these people, for they then attack themselves for not being able to be self-sustaining or, conversly, its some type of trap/control issue that the other is acting out.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

When a person can separate what’s really their fault versus someone else’s fault then I think they can get their life straight or at least part of it.

Archie, I totally agree! I say that to whining divorcees (men AND women) all the time.

With regard to “complaining,” I don’t think it’s “complaining” to share one’s feelings about being a working mother in a discussion forum about the need for “third wave feminism.” However, some people were VERY quick to make that presumtion and use it as a springboard for their own complaining. I’ll be more careful in the future to remember that sharing my opinions, or enlightening others to my reality within the realm of a pertinent discussion might be construed as “complaining” though, ‘cause that’s what we chicks are best known for anyway. {;->

By Mara

October 17, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Renee - actually I was refering to A Ghost, Carribean Queen, Blog Goddess and, perhaps, Elane. Elane and James are a little iffy for me, the phrasing doesn’t seem quite right, but…I’m pretty confident on the others. Who can tell though? A coward is always good at hiding but a troll by any other name leaves the same stench, if you know what I mean.

You could be right, though.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this

Here is what Jesus said about marriage 2D:

Matthew 19:3-6 (New King James Version) New King James Version (NKJV) Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?� 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.�*

If that’s not a mandate, I don’t know what you consider to be one.

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

I have sympathy for you, kimberly. All single mothers are saints in my book.

By kimberly

October 17, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Ghost! But as Chuckie will be quick to holler, I’m no saint. But I am very blessed with smart, healhty kids, and when I start to lose patience, I TRY to remember that my purpose and the rewards are much bigger than my exhaustion or frustration.

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

FM is definitely not DOG/GOD. He still can’t form a coherent sentence in proper English. Say what you will about DOG…insane chiropractor that he is…but he can turn a phrase.

Funny that this comes from a plagerizer that believes dinosaurs existed with humans!

Also, its odd that as complicated as my writing style is for some of you, and others have no problem with it.

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

Although, in your case, kimberly, I don’t believe you when you say you don’t want to get married again. “Thou doest protest too much”. ; > ] There is a soul mate for you, but he may not have the outward appearance you think he should.

By Mara

October 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Chuck - doesn’t the phraseology work just as well for polygamy as long as the man only marries one woman at a time? After all, there’ll only be the two of them getting married. Therefore “a man” will join his wife in marriage. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t have done the same thing yesterday nor that he’s not planning to marry another one tomorrow. Even the Commandment is ambiguous. If you neighbor has 3 wives and you covet them all, well…technically you aren’t coveting your neighbors “wife”, singular, you are coveting ALL his wives, plural.

anyway…hugs and air-kisses for all my cyber buds. C-ya tomorrow. :^)

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

You are a saint, kimberly. I think chuck believes that as well as all the others here on W2W.

By Julia

October 17, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

“But like a former Special Forces friend of mine who can’t give up carrying a weapon with him “just in case,â€? 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.”

Women aren’t victims anymore?! Here are some statistics:

â–  1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence during their lifetime (from the National Institute of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention).

â–  Domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness nationally among women. 92% of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives, and as many as 57% of women report that domestic violence was the immediate cause of their homelessness (from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty).

■ 74% of working abused women are harassed by their abusive partners while at work (from Turning the Corner). And 65% of respondents to a recent survey on domestic violence in the workplace noted that an “intimate partner harassed their coworker at work� (from the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence).

â–  Studies have found that child abuse occurs in up to 50% of families that experience domestic violence (from the Family Violence Prevention Fund).

â–  Intimate partner violence is a leading cause of injuries and homicide for women (from the Family Violence Prevention Fund).

â–  Over 40% of American workers have no paid time off work to attend to their medical, court, or other domestic violence related needs (from the National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women).

â–  5.3 million women are abused each year (from the American Institute on Domestic Violence).

â–  30% of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief).

By lozen

October 17, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

*I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.

PAT ROBERTSON*

By chuck

October 17, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

NetB, In my experience (20 years) in education, single parent kids usually perform at a lower level than their peers. The wierd thing is that even with divorced parents where both are involved in the kids life, they still tend to cause more problems with behavior and have lower performance than 2-parents-in-the-home kids. This of course is just anecdotal and it is certainly not universal. One of the most brilliant well-adjusted kids I ever taught was raised in a home with an absent father who left when he was 3 years old. He’s at MIT now. He did have a real close relationship with his grandfather.

By 2D

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

Chuck… The response was to a question about divorce. It was not a response to questions about:

The response was a clear and direct answer to a clear and direct question.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Actually Kimmie, not that you care, I did complement you rather profusely in that earlier post.

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 04:11 PM | Link to this

I will agree with chuck that children from broken homes often have more problems in life, however. I used to believe that such ghosts could be easily laid to rest, but they have a funny way of resurfacing when you least expect it.

By chuck

October 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

But when asked, He referred back to the Genesis plan for marriage. His description of marriage is valid whether in response to a question or not.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Actually Kimmie, not that you care, I did complement you rather profusely in that earlier post.

“Glad you didn’t kill your baby” is a back-handed compliment, at best.

Still having trouble with homophones, I see. Must be… homophobic.

By The72John

October 17, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

but they have a funny way of resurfacing when you least expect it

Or least want it. Or them.

By Justin

October 17, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

There are many types of feminism…Renee, Mara, and certain others reflect feminism that promotes women’s rights while respecting men. Others, promote a type of feminism that is very negative towards men. You know who you are…

By NetBanker

October 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

I hope this isn’t a double posting, but I did time out so I’m going for it again…my apologies if this shows up twice

The mention of only one spouse for the couples Chuck cites would indicate that they were not in a polygamous marriage. Polygamy and monogamy are mutually exclusive concepts. Chuck and biblical scholars are extrapolating monogamy due to the lack of polygamy. Mara’s challenge question still stands!

By lozen

October 17, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

“The civil rights movement was hated because blacks were hated. Being against civil rights is a direct expression of rascism; it is the political defense of black hating.” Brian, anyone - disagree with that?

By A Ghost

October 17, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

BTW, chuck, have you watched Elmer Gantry yet? Even though everyone thought he was a charlatan, in the end, he WAS the real deal. You are too, in your own “literalist” way IMHO.

The puzzle you need to solve is one from Physics—where is the “edge” of the Universe? If there is a physical boundary, that introduces the paradoxical idea that there is something that is “outside” of the Universe. I believe scientists will one day discover that space-time is like a moebius strip, that it has no beginning or end, no inside or outside, and no “center” because everywhere is in the center. This is reflected within Christianity through the idea of Immanuel (God within).

By FatMoose's Ex

October 17, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

BS BS BS!!!!!
*By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Incorrect.

I have never, nor would out of personal integrity, post under an alias.*

Liar! He was DeltaX and Reality, who knows what else before or after

The fantasy that it is somehow gravy for men *This is FM’s go to statement about life and the reason why he truly hates women! * He thinks it is really hard to be a man and that women get all the breaks for just being a girl. Lozen you are dead on by calling him out on not liking women in general!

When confronted by men trying to educate you This, if you read closely, is what he is trying to do in every word he speaks (actually online and in person)! He truly believes he is above almost all people and it is his job to educate them!

I dropped by just for kicks Thought you were moving to Costa Rica?!?!?!

I have two daughters LIAR!! You are single, never married and your two daughters are OUR TWO FERRETS!!

A bottle of great wine, bought with their own hard earned $ and no-one to share it with bc they are so displeasurable to be around due to misplaced anger. This IS the definition of his life because of HIS misplaced anger He blames every misfortune in his life on someone else, never admits wrong, and holds a grude so long he will take it to his grave! Don’t let this Manipulator make you feel bad for one second, he doesn’t live any of the BS he is selling on this blog.

Every one of you on this board have him pegged without ever once meeting him. It really is amazing how spot on you all are!

So attack if you want FM. I just wanted the people on here to know how much of a BS liar you are.

By Brian Curtis

October 17, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Lozen: Yes, I disagree with that as well.

ANY time you make a sweeping generalization you’re going to be wrong… especially when it takes the form of “Anyone who disagrees with me is simply evil.” You see that attitude from zealots on every issue—Klan members, neocon cheerleaders, religious fundamentalists, and even radicals like PETA. When you oversimplify and make broad, sweeping accusations about anyone who doesn’t toe your line… you’re wrong.

That’s why Dworkin has about as much to contribute to a rational discussion as Rush Limbaugh does.

By lozen

October 17, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

*…it has no beginning or end, no inside or outside, and no “centerâ€? because everywhere is in the center. This is reflected within Christianity through the idea of Immanuel (God within).” IMO, it’s best reflected within Buddhist thought and wisdom.

I know the concept is there in christianity, but most people never get past the bibliolatry, the need to cling to a god who’s like a big daddy, and the pleasure of judging others to get to that concept!

By lozen

October 17, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

Wow! FM’s/DeltaX’s/ ex!!! Thanks for dropping by. This is such a great blog!

By FatMoose

October 17, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

I might have a stalker.

Heard that is a form of flattery. Is it still flattery if from a psychopath? Or just plain crazy?

By Renee

October 17, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

Too funny….FM was DeltaX…

Mara, I think your explanation was better, I’ll say I was wrong.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 08:15 AM | Link to this

Lozen… A couple of responses.

First, I would imagine that lots of folks disagree with your quotes directed toward BC. Some may agree, but many, like myself would disagree. Quite frankly, people can disagree with the Civil Rights movement without hating blacks and can disagree with the Feminist movement without hating women. Perhaps there is disagreement with the direction of the movement, with the severity of the movement, with the methods used to push the movement forward or with the repercussions that may be incurred due to actions taken.

Those quotes reflect sweeping genrealizations that folks like you typically shun on this BLOG. Ironic isn’t it.

Second, I believe you oversimplify when you talk of bibliolatry. Again, while some people may fall into your narrow description, many use the Bible for allegory and an ability to describe something that is beyond human understanding. You talk of God as a “Big Daddy” but, if you believe in God, how would you describe God? The image of a loving father is one that virtually all people understand.

As for the judging of others… Far too many people do that regardless of the socio-economic/faith-based group into which they fall.

By Betty

October 18, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Diane wrote: What conservative supporters of third wave feminism ignore is the big picture. Feminism — in all its phases — calls for free choice across the board, for men and women, for straight and gay, for everyone — not just corporate Jane who just really wants to shuck her job and raise the kids. Choice isn’t just about whether to wear a pair of stiletto heels. It’s about Johnny wearing those heels too – if he chooses.

Choice? Choice is taking responsibility for your life! Many here complain they were not given a choice when they became mothers—they had to work! Oh, pity the liberals who demand free access and education for birth control but don’t use it! My pity is for their children who are faced with a life with a woman too liberal to marry the man who impregnated her—for freedom. Maybe because he had no father in his home THAT is why Johnny is in heels, Diane!

Women are turning away in droves from feminism because it produced little value in their mothers’ lives! Victims of believing in feminism are those harried stressed out lonely women who had careers and kids never had the cash or time to take a vacation. It hardly takes a brain scientist to figure out that marriage is beneficial for everyone and society. Feminists wanted a male-less existence and tried their best to remove men from their lives and pretending their lifestyle choice would be best. Now they are part of a loosing-out group of women who complain at every instance how hard their life is—but never see it was THEIR CHOICE to have children outside marriage—it was their choice to work 70 hours and send children to be raised, taught and fed by childcare and teachers because they never had the time!

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Oookay, and there’s the other extreme on the issue.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

And I’m glad the other extreme came clearly from a woman.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this

I would tend to think that at this stage of a movement towards equality the individual groups needs to join forces to make truely impressive strides.

Explanation: Instead of creating policy that would, for example, alow swing shift for mothers; they implement policy that same notion for parents in general. That way mom and dad can take leave to pick up the child from school w/o worry of it effecting their job security.

What do you think about that type of notion? 2D,Archie,BC,NetB?

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Doesn’t go far enough. Everyone has responsibilities outside of work, whether they’re male or female, parents or nonparents.

As I’ve said before, the only sensible and fair workplace policy is one that offers flexibility (such as swing shifts, holidays, days off, etc.) to all workers equally.

By Archie

October 18, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

*Explanation: Instead of creating policy that would, for example, alow swing shift for mothers; they implement policy that same notion for parents in general. That way mom and dad can take leave to pick up the child from school w/o worry of it effecting their job security.

What do you think about that type of notion? 2D,Archie,BC,NetB?*

FatMoose there are places that implement such a policy. I am going to take a vacation day just for my child soon…

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

FatMoose there are places that implement such a policy. I am going to take a vacation day just for my child soon…

Curious, does that come out of your general leave time? For all the places I have worked it would, and leave time is already pretty skimpy most places.

Specific companies maybe, but its not in the social mindset yet. If fathers were allowed to take on more of the load w/o reprocussions, many would jump at the chance to spend more time with the family. Conversly, those fathers or mothers that did not take that time would have no reasonable excuse for shilting their responsibilities.

For example, I do not have the luxury of applying to only jobs that have such a policy.

Plus, that was only one example - the general idea of rights groups becoming inclusive instead of exculsive.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

FatMoose… Many companies do implement policies like that. I know most of the places I have worked /currently work for have flexible hours for just those sorts of things… Perhaps it is the type of work I do, perhaps I have been fortunate with my choice of company.

However, I am not sure that we should legislate things like. I reiterate not sure. Before I would agree to legislating things like that I would want to pour over the positives and the potential negatives. When I read about the negative growth and high unemployment in Western Europe. ideas like that make me take pause.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Before I would agree to legislating things like that I would want to pour over the positives and the potential negatives.

Totally agree. I am not suggesting that it is something that just flies thru congress and becomes policy; but more of a way to bring men and women to the same table for a united cause.

Your answer exhibits that idea of bringing more people to the table. If we were talking about an individual rights grp that you do not belong to, the option of even weighing in your thoughts would be limited or possibly null. I find this limiting/nullifying input as counterproductive given where we are now.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

BC,

I agree with your comment which is exactly where I was going with this idea.

I feel that anything else is counter productive except in the most extreme cases; yet most all cases could still be addressed with an inclusive rights grp.

By Archie

October 18, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

FatMoose I work for state government in SC so I have quite a bit of leave but they have family sick leave but I do agree with you that leave time in most private industry is skimpy and Brian I agree with you about equality. My first post didn’t make it so I will say again that I do like Lozen,Kimberly,Netbanker,etc. and I never said Netbanker was intimidated by anything but I was responding to Lozen and probably had a typo. Kimberly I understood what you were trying to say the past few days and I agree with 2d that people can disagree with the civil rights movement and feminist movements without hating anyone. It’s hard to disagree with something you really want to support but the local Naacp here in SC confuses me and sometimes feminism confuses me. I know women have different views but it helps to know what to expect especially if you want to do the right thing. I do like Netbanker and your posts.

By Renee

October 18, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Every company I have worked for has given the same benefits to mothers and fathers. And it should come out of your general leave time.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

It’s hard to disagree with something you really want to support but the local Naacp here in SC confuses me and sometimes feminism confuses me.

Me too. I understand that extreme grps will always exist, but when those extreme notions crop up in larger rights grps I get lost as well.

For example, I would support PETA’s general premise, but the extreme notions that are taken to the floor like the “fishing is murder” comic they marketed to kids causes an anti PETA feeling in me and there are no other grps with power to turn to besides them.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this

Renee,

Every company I have worked for has given the same benefits to mothers and fathers. And it should come out of your general leave time.

Where I worked was the same. What I am driving at is IF there is a movement to expand the possibilities, it should be inclusive and expand on those general rights and not applied to a specific grp. For that to happen, the current indi grps would need to meld as not to exclude; for that would be(is) counter productive in my mind.

By GOB

October 18, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

FM - I say go all in with the vowel dropping when you write. Just look how much room it saves…

M t. ndrstnd tht xtrm grps wll lwys xst, bt whn ths xtrm ntns crp p n lrgr rghts grps gt lst s wll.

Fr xmpl, wld spprt PT’s gnrl prms, bt th xtrm ntns tht r tkn t th flr lk th “fshng s mrdr� cmc thy mrktd t kds css n nt PT flng n m nd thr r n thr grps wth pwr t trn t bsds thm.

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

FM - I say go all in with the vowel dropping when you write. Just look how much room it saves…

Ill try that!

By FatMoose

October 18, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

GOB,

Or better yet, just use abrivations for all as well.

So: FM - I say go all in with the vowel dropping when you write. Just look how much room it saves

Would read: FM - I s g a i w t v d w y w. J l h m r i s!

By Mara

October 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Jeez, what’s up with that Betty person? Feminists hate men and want a man-free world?! My husbands gonna sure be shocked to hear that, especially since HE’S a feminist too! LOL!!!

It seems Betty has never seen a pregnant un-wed conservative either. Nor a pregnant liberal who’s married to her baby’s daddy. She’s never seen a pregnant woman who’s had her birth control fail, never met a feminist who loves men, and isn’t stressed out, frazzled, and lonely.

(head shaking in exasperation)

I wonder if she’s ever met any feminists. Her description of us is so skewed toward ‘crazy’ that I have to believe she’s either yankin’ our chain or she’s never been exposed to anyone other than the fellow members of her “Lib’ruls Hate ‘Murika” social circle.

I mean, is she serious? Really, where do these types of people come from and where do they get these stereo-types?

Hey Renee. Wasn’t that a nice thing for Justin to say in his 4:27 yesterday? He sounds like he’s getting things straightened out…not so stressed out. Good for him :^)

By GOB

October 18, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Geez, I make one comment and the tumbleweed starts blowing through the blog…

By Mara

October 18, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

Hey GOB! Long time no hear :^)

to all - The 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act applys to men and women equally. Men are extended the same protections for their 12 weeks of paternity leave as women are for 12 weeks of maternity leave. However, data suggests that the majority of men don’t use the leave time they’re entitled to.

Just something I noticed in passing…

By Renee

October 18, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Mara - that was really nice of Justin. Yes, he does seem to have “calmed” down. Time does heal wounds, and I’m glad to see that seems to be working out for him.

Also, Mara, excellent comment to Betty. I read that a couple of times and couldn’t figure out where to start or how to respond. Good job, as always……but then you know I am a suck up LOL.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Mara… Betty’s vision of Feminist is based on her interpretation or definition of Feminist. I have seen interviews with “Feminists” on TV that fit her description. That is not to say all are like that, but to say that none of them are is also not correct.

The problem is with her gross generalization. The same problem that others on this BLOG fall into when they generalize liberals, conservatives, people of faith, etc.

By kimberly

October 18, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

Mara, to answer your 10:51 in a word: F-R-I-G-I-D. Talk about “man haters!” Hahahaha! Pity the man who gets one of her hateful rants at night instead of a warm little zoom zoom, huh? Personally, I adore men! Well, most of them, anyway.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

I mean, is she serious? Really, where do these types of people come from and where do they get these stereo-types?

Rockmart. Seriously. She probably comes from Rockmart - scary place.

The problem is with her gross generalization. The same problem that others on this BLOG fall into when they generalize liberals, conservatives, people of faith, etc.

The difference, 2D, though I feel sure you will disagree and tell me I’m seeing things through some personal and distorted lens, is that “Betty” would have to dig deeply into the lunatic fringe of feminism to find women who fit her description. On the other hand, I could, in about five minutes, find examples of my generalizations about conservatives and, as you put it, people of faith.

Crazy man-hating feminists are few and far between, but I can close my eyes and throw a rock and expect to hit a right-wing “Anyone who isn’t with us is against us” “All Liberals are Terrorist-lovers” “You only say that ‘cause you hate the President” “You hate America” idiot or walk down the street a couple of blocks to find a church full of gay-hating creationists who think that scientists are Satan’s pawns.

Tell me I’m wrong - I’d LOVE to believe you. But the evidence doesn’t support you. I’m quite aware that there are conservatives and “people of faith” who don’t fit my over-generalized characterization of them, but it’s ALSO true that there are FAR more who DO than do NOT.

By WHY?

October 18, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

Why was this country so up in arms against the runaway bride?, demanding she get jail time, community service & pay back all money spent on her?

And John Mark Karr doesn’t have to pay back a dime & won’t get any jail OR community service?

By GOB

October 18, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Mara - I havent been able to keep up with too of the blog since school started. I have done more work in the past 3 months than I did in 6 years of my corporate job. I am loving every minute of it though, so I cant complain at all.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

John… I will agree with you that Betty’s depiction of “Feminist” may fall further into the fringe than your descriptions of “conservatives” or “people of faith”. That still does not prove or support the idea that either your or Betty’s views represent the vast majority of either group.

I could find a congregation of gay-hating creationists, but I could also just easily find congregations with gay pastors and with classes that explore the science and how it fits with their faith. You have made predeterminations because someone of a particular group said hurtful things to you, or made you feel very bad about yourself. That is an unfortunate thing. However, if I wrote off an entire group that ever offended me, or made me feel bad without examining individuals within that group, I would be absolutely alone in this world.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

John… One more thing. Attempting to justify your generalizations about conservatives or people of faith, simply makes it easier for others to justify their own generalizations about whatever group they don’t like. When you step forward and say, I’m going to evaluate each person individually, then suddenly you yourself have broken a sterotype others have about you and/or the group/groups you represent.

By GOB

October 18, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

I could find a congregation of gay-hating creationists, but I could also just easily find congregations with gay pastors and with classes that explore the science and how it fits with their faith.

You lose with the “just as easily” qualifier. There are probably 5 fundamentalist churches, especially in the south, for every 1 of the more liberal, science-minded ones.

By GOB

October 18, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

I could find a congregation of gay-hating creationists, but I could also just easily find congregations with gay pastors and with classes that explore the science and how it fits with their faith.

You lose with the “just as easily” qualifier. There are probably 5 fundamentalist churches, especially in the south, for every 1 of the more liberal, science-minded ones.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

GOB… Your key word(s) “probably” and “in the south” are very general terms. Therefore, I will clarify so as to ensure I am speaking to my own experience.

In the metro-Atlanta area, I can easily and readily attend a variety of churches including ones with a gay pastor (was once a member), with a female pastor (was previously and currently am a member) and with classes that explore science and how it fits with their faith (was previously, am currently a member and have visited multiple others).

It simply takes some research and experience to find the pastor or congregation that speaks to you. Charles Stanley speaks to many (I have visited his church) but he doesn’t speak to everyone. I live close to his chruch but attend somewhere much further away because a different congregation touched my heart more.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

You lose with the “just as easily� qualifier. There are probably 5 fundamentalist churches, especially in the south, for every 1 of the more liberal, science-minded ones.

I was going to respond with much the same, though I think you’re being a little generous with a 5-1 ratio. I would say more like 10-1.

2D, as I have mentioned before, my blog arguing is not to be confused with my behavior in real life.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

John… Then what is real? Your BLOGGING or your real life?

Also… Unless you have visited hundreds of churches in the South, you really have no credible platform to make a statement like that.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

It simply takes some research and experience to find the pastor or congregation that speaks to you. Charles Stanley speaks to many (I have visited his church) but he doesn’t speak to everyone. I live close to his chruch but attend somewhere much further away because a different congregation touched my heart more.

You’re missing the point…no one questions that progressive churches exist. Apparently, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker exists, too, but you’re still going to find a hundred of the common woodpeckers before you find the elusive one.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

John… Actually John, I believe you are missing the point. I pretty much agreed with your statement, but you wanted to hammer it home to the nth degree through unfounded hyperbole.

What I am saying is you can make the same generalizations about all kinds of groups, but until you, me and everyone else stops painting with broad brushes, our society will get NOWHERE fast. We will only continue down our bitter, partisan trail of despair. It’s not until you, me and everyone else is willing to see the good in all points of view, regardless of how little good we think exists, will we be able to make serious progress toward a better country.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

John… Actually John, I believe you are missing the point. I pretty much agreed with your statement, but you wanted to hammer it home to the nth degree through unfounded hyperbole.

This is why I get irritated with you very quickly, by the way. This is a very patronizing sentence. Just an FYI.

Now to the content - let’s examine this statement, shall we?

I could find a congregation of gay-hating creationists, but I could also just easily find congregations with gay pastors and with classes that explore the science and how it fits with their faith. You have made predeterminations because someone of a particular group said hurtful things to you, or made you feel very bad about yourself. That is an unfortunate thing. However, if I wrote off an entire group that ever offended me, or made me feel bad without examining individuals within that group, I would be absolutely alone in this world.

Now…where in this paragraph do YOU see “agreement” on your part? I certainly don’t see it. Looks to me like you’re saying “John…john…there are just as many good churches as bad” which, frankly, is Bull.

I’m SOOO sorry that you find my hyperbole “unfounded”. I believe that the actualy NUMBERS would prove me quite correct in saying that fundies abound and progressive do not.

But please, feel free to talk down to me some more.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Also… Unless you have visited hundreds of churches in the South, you really have no credible platform to make a statement like that.

You are kidding, right? Surely you aren’t suggesting that the only way to know something is to experience it? I don’t NEED to visit every church in the South to know what I do, in fact, KNOW.

There are polls, voting records, interviews, statements, letters, records and statistics, all of which CLEARLY indicate that fundamentalists far outnumber progressives in the South.

Where does YOUR “platform” get its substance, 2D? Some fantasy-land of what you would LIKE to be true?

By Mara

October 18, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

2D - Betty’s vision of Feminist is based on her interpretation or definition of Feminist. I have seen interviews with “Feminists� on TV that fit her description. That is not to say all are like that, but to say that none of them are is also not correct

but that is exactly what she’s saying. That all feminists are like that. She ignores the fact that there’re a lot of MALE feminists, as I saw when I was at the big Pro-choice rally in Washington a couple years back. Betty’s distorted definition of “feminist” rests solely on issues of the sexual act. What were her examples? Pregnant women. Almost every example had to do with how a woman deals with pregnancy. Even her example of why Johnny wears stilletos hinges on the premise that Johnnys mother was “a woman too liberal to marry the man who impregnated her”. The implication being that ONLY a liberal wouldn’t marry her baby’s daddy. A pregnant conservative woman would, I suppose, marry the guy whether he was a wife-beating pedophile or a prince among men. And to finish her quote ” - for freedom.” As if freedom, the foundation of our great country, is a selfish and self-serving cop-out used ONLY by liberals to evade their responsibilites. Though you say neither all nor none of feminists reflect this very distorted protrait you do defend her one-dimensional definition as “valid” by citing the fringy feminist or two you once say talking about how great it’d be if women didn’t have to deal with oppression by men, most likely as part of a television forum focused on that issue.

There are fringy feminists who think the world would be better off without men, but even they encompass more substance than sexual “oppression” of women.

By Betty

October 18, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Funny here how when people do not agree with an argument they make personal insults toward the poster. While I may not be swinging on the liberal side, I find it tedious how such liberated women still lament they are oppressed because they chose to have children and have no free time or begin parenting on welfare as standard lifestyle procedure—instead of planning for their children, having enough money to afford medical care, having a secure home environment that nurtures their children and the family. That is the difference between most of them and myself. We had children when we were certain we could afford children, I knew my husband would be a good father and accept his responsibilities as an adult—he believed the same of me—this included our finishing college prior to being married so that we could live happily ever after. Finishing my own education was paramount for indeed there are many pitfalls that could have occurred and rose-colored glasses don’t work in reality. We did not have sex until we were married because we knew accidents occur and we were not ready. Fidelity helps keep the zest in our marriage. My fairy tale comes with hard work and while the resentful feminist mothers bay at the moon to bemoan their own lost freedoms, I do not regret one hour of my happy married life. I honestly believe the woman’s liberation hurt more people than it advanced, certainly did not change a woman’s pay still is less than a mans (to this day!). When someone can tell me the benefits of the lib. movement I will at least listen and not denounce them as sluts (as opposed to my being frigid). But their denial does not mask the fact women are turning away from the selfish-super-mom ideals of having everything to become mothers, turning away from career paths to be there for their children and husband. I am not ashamed of my traditional role—indeed I am enjoying life probably more than all those liberal single working moms. My children are thriving, my husband is happy knowing he is valued and appreciated for being father, husband and friend.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

That’s great, Betty, really. Now get off the computer and get back in the kitchen where you belong.

By 2D

October 18, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Mara… I agree with you. Betty’s wrong to make the gross generalizations that she made because they aren’t true in the broad stroke sense. I said as much in the post of mine which you quoted.

Please direct your anger toward her and not me.

By On the floor in tears

October 18, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Hahaha! Sounds like Chuckie sic’d his wife on us! Why no, Dear, no one took YOUR comments to be personal insults! I mean anyone who doesn’t live her life exactly as you have done is just PURE SCUM! And if she talks about her reality: PURE MISERABLE SCUM. You must be such a good Christian. Will God be mad if I kill myself now and start over again as YOU?

Yes, Betty has a firm grasp on all things. Let’s ask her advice for everything! I mean afterall, “Fidelity helps keep the zest” in HER marriage. HAHAHAHA!

By Renee

October 18, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

ummm…a better laugh would have been

Mwahhhmwahhhhmwahhhahahahaaha

(only if my assumption was correct on who the 2:56 posting was by) LOL

By Mara

October 18, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Betty,

Did you enjoy getting an college education? Thank a feminist.

Were you able to choose to study whatever you wanted to study? Thank a feminist.

Did you enjoy being allowed to finish college before you got married? Thank a feminist.

If you, and not your father, chose your husband, thank a feminist.

Were you grateful for the family planning information that allowed you to choose when to get pregnant? Thank a feminist.

Do you vote? Thank a feminist.

You can be a policeman, firefighter, investment banker, porn star, soldier, shrimp boat captain, physicist, doctor, lawyer, backhoe driver, or even a traditional wife and mother. It’s all open to you. So thank a feminist.

Were you allowed to play sports in school? Thank a feminist.

Do you have a bank account or credit card in your name? Thank a feminist.

Can you legally sign a contract? Thank a feminist.

Can you choose to wear skirts or pants? Thank a feminist.

But because we haven’t been successful at closing the pay gap, you say that feminism has failed. Go ahead and reap the rewards while bad-mouthing those that did the hard work. Personally, I am eternally grateful for the opportunities, the possibilities and the freedoms I now have that my grandmother, and even my mother, never had. And I am glad your happy with the choices that you made for yourself. And there, my dear, is the key phrase you should remember every time you start to berate feminists…”the choices that you made for yourself.”

FYI - most people don’t think, as you seem to, that yearning to be free is a dirty, disgusting, shameful business used only by liscentious liberal sluts as an excuse to abandon their babies and the caring gentle man who impregnated her. Most people believe that freedom is the birthright of all peoples, including women.

By Cindy

October 18, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Mara, I don’t think you are giving credit to just people in general. It’s not all feminism that got us to where woman are today. Plenty of males helped as well. Especially the males that taught the woman once woman were given the right/choice. So- I feel you should spread the thanks!

By Renee

October 18, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Cindy, Mara is not giving credit to only feminists, she was responding to comments by Betty. Without reading the entire text of the conversation, the interpretation could be incorrect.

By The72John

October 18, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Mara, I don’t think you are giving credit to just people in general. It’s not all feminism that got us to where woman are today. Plenty of males helped as well. Especially the males that taught the woman once woman were given the right/choice. So- I feel you should spread the thanks!

One need not be female to be a feminist, any more than one needed to be Black to fight for civil rights. One need only believe in the inherent equality between men and women, and believe that neither man nor woman is more valuable than the other. One need only believe that everyone has the right to choose the path he or she takes in life without impediments imposed only because of one’s gender, whether that path makes one a doctor, a lawyer, an artist, a construction worker, a chef, a CEO or a housewife or househusband.

So, I would think Mara has certainly given credit where credit is due, and done it right eloquently as well.

By Cindy

October 18, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Point taken John72- just got in- trying to catch up! lol Sorry Mara! Knock Betty out for coming up with such out-dated arguments.

By halloween costumes

October 18, 2006 08:21 PM | Link to this

http://www.anyboard.net/suggest/posts/3924.html halloween costumes halloween costumes

By Lex

October 19, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

http://www.blogcityusa.com/blog/onlinecollege online college [url=http://www.blogcityusa.com/blog/onlinecollege]online college[/url]

By For the record

October 19, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Just for the record

Abortion Birth control Violence against women Female genital mutilation Sexual harrassment Poverty War Pornography Advertising Beauty Eating disorders Walking alone at night Domestic violence Political representation Sexuality

AND equal pay

are all feminist issues. To name a few.

By The72John

October 19, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Poverty and War are feminist issues? I had no idea - and here I was thinking they affected everyone. And frankly, I would think that a REAL feminist would believe that a woman has a perfect right to participate in ponography if she CHOOSES to do so…since feminism, at its heart, is about women having the right to make CHOICES just like men.

Of course, maybe you mean militant feminism - that particular version of feminism that attacks men and blames all the problems of the world on them…hmm…sounds suspiciously like someone we know…

By Mara

October 19, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Won’t be able to post much today…busy, busy busy don’t ya know. But I did want to pop in for a second and point out that every right we women take for granted today was once a concern for feminists of yesterday, female & male.(John thanks for letting Cindy know that feminists aren’t exclusively female) And thanks all of you for the nice compliments on my writing.

For most of human history women (and children) were considered property of the man. He had the right to beat her, starve her, lock her up. He could legally pimp her out or offer her to his friends as an after-dinner treat. Any properties or moneys that her family paid him to take her off their hands (dowery) belonged to HIM. She was nothing but chattel in the eyes of society and the state. A commodity to be used, traded or sold for the worth of her own charms, her womb, or the property that she was dowered with. It was feminists who changed this.

The male powers that be didn’t just wake up one morning and say to themselves, “You know, we haven’t been fair to the women of our world. Maybe we should acknowlege their rights.” Oh, no. It took determined men and women, each one dedicated to the idea that women should be afforded the same rights, the same opportunities, and the same protections that men were granted. History shows us that they were harrassed, ostracised, vilified and shunned. They were beaten, spit upon, screamed at, called un-natural, un-womanly, and disgraceful. But they did not allow these barriers to deter them from what they knew was right. Early feminists would probably be shocked at the breadth of rights we women have now, like property ownership, the right to work, personal autonomy, and legal protections. Progress has always been made in baby-steps, slowly and even slower. But we have progressed and we will continue to do so, regardless of the brick-bats flung by the un-informed and ignorant.

But it just infuriates me when someone sneers “what’s feminism ever done that’s improved the lives of women?” Well, if you want to see what a society with a dearth of feminists looks like, google “Afghanistan”, “Taliban”, and “womens rights”. That should give you a glimpse of what life without feminism is like. I would also point out that research has shown, overwhelmingly, that the status of women’s rights directly correlates to the state of a country’s social, ecomomic, and political health. The freer the women, the stronger the state.

M’kay. That’s all I got for now. Off to meetings for the rest of the day. Caio for now :^)

By 2D

October 19, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

John… Amen to that. Virtually every issue mentioned is a SOCIETAL issue, not a feminist issue.

I know several men who would be afraid to walk alone at night, have seen more tales of male eating disorders, violence against men and their sexuality and even a few that have been sexually harrassed (albeit a very low number).

By lozen

October 19, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Mara, your 3:58 response to Betty yesterday was so good! Where is that tiara?

And ByFortherecord: Right on Sister!

By The72John

October 19, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

2D - it seems to me there are two types of feminists, those who believe in the empowerment of women to live completely equal lives, and those who paint woman as a victim of society. I much prefer the former.

By Brian Curtis

October 19, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Also keep in mind that throughout most of history, pretty much everybody was considered property, male OR female.

It’s just that the few property “owners” tended to be male as well… not that it made much difference to your average serf.

By lozen

October 19, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

Virtually every issue mentioned is a SOCIETAL issue, not a feminist issue. Of course these are societal issues; they are also feminist issues. Saying something is an issue for feminists (who make up a large part of society!) does not mean they aren’t also issues for everyone (which includes feminists!).

By Archie

October 19, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

2D - it seems to me there are two types of feminists, those who believe in the empowerment of women to live completely equal lives, and those who paint woman as a victim of society. I much prefer the former.

Me too. My only point of reference is the South so yes I say the churches seem to be more conservative than progressive but I have not attended every church in the South. Men are sexually harassed more than is reported and I can’t imagine what women go through. If you go through people touching your hair,commenting on your posterior,etc. I imagine it would make you jumpy around certain people.

By lozen

October 19, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

“To be a feminist…is to be critical - to ask questions about how society functions, about how women live in society. Feminism is a process of questioning rather than a ‘dogma’ or a set of proscribed positions or answers.” - Jackie Brown

By bloglurker

October 19, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

“…it seems to me there are two types of homosexuals, those who believe in the empowerment of gay people to live completely equal lives, and those who paint themeselves as victims of society. I much prefer the former.”

By The72John

October 19, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

“…it seems to me there are two types of homosexuals, those who believe in the empowerment of gay people to live completely equal lives, and those who paint themeselves as victims of society. I much prefer the former.�

It’s easy to snipe at people anonymously, isn’t it, coward?

By The72John

October 19, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

“…it seems to me there are two types of homosexuals, those who believe in the empowerment of gay people to live completely equal lives, and those who paint themeselves as victims of society. I much prefer the former.�

By the way, coward, the fight for gay rights is still nascent. It’s not playing the victim to be angry that you can drive down the street and see a sign on a mainstream church that says “Sodomites burn in hell”. It’s not playing the victim to speak out angrily against legislation targeted at you.

Obviously, you missed my qualification about living completely equal lives. While women have reached the point where they ARE legally equal to men, we have not. So you’ll forgive me, coward, if I continue to fight the fights that need to be fought.

When you get done lurking, coward, join the discussion. Until then, STFU, you pathetic POS.

By Renee

October 19, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

what a dumb a*!!!!

By kimberly

October 19, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

So you’ll forgive me, coward, if I continue to fight the fights that need to be fought.

This flaming hetero chick is totally with you on this, Dude! Discriminating against you because of whom you love is b-llsh-t. There’s not a single thing in the Constitution or anywhere else that justifies having a separate set of “rights” for one subset of citizens while denying them to another. How DARE these bigots try to use the Bible as justification to do so? They are a disgrace to all that America stands for.

By sean

October 19, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

Thes women are idiots

By Why

October 19, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

We might not have so many poor kids in this country if poor women could get birth control when they want it. But for the first time in the history of Medicaid, states can deny contraception and family planning services to these women. There is no doubt that this foolish policy will increase unintended pregnancies, the public cost of which far outstrips the dollars saved by not providing protection. Meanwhile, millions of federal dollars are spent on erectile dysfunction drugs, until recently even handed out to men in prison

Martha Burk, Money editor for Ms Magazine

By Rosharon

October 19, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

Yes, men and women are LEGALLY equal, just as African-Americans and Euro-Americans are LEGALLY equal. Now we have to battle deeply in-grained discrimination. It is disturbing to me that the things that feminists fought for is being disregarded by some younger women. For instance, in most families, wives and husband have to work, but the woman often bears much more responsibility for household chores and child-rearing. Women and Blacks are underrepresented in the government and the Board room. Women and Blacks are often paid less than white men. Parents often have different rules and expectations for their sons than their daughters. These are all cultural biases that are not affected by legislations.

I agree that gays need to fight for legal rights but cultural assumptions also need to change, and with the religious right and politicians using us as fodder for votes we have an uphill battle. We are in the unfortunate position of working to change people’s opinions before laws will become more equal — the same challenges that women and people of color face now and faced before favorable laws were enacted. For example, black men were granted the right to vote soon after the civil war, but by practicality were prohibited from voting especially in the South. Blacks are still viewed unfavorably by many whites, as are women and gays. Another analogy between gays and blacks is that laws are now being passed especially to discriminate against gays, just as post-Reconstruction laws (Jim Crow) were enacted to discriminate against black people just as the constitution was equalizing black men with white men. When women got the vote, started working and delayed marriage, society started to emphasize marriage and family, urging women to stay home.

In a nutshell, what I’m saying is — let’s not talk about anyone being a victim, but know that the sucess of any social movement lies in winning the hearts and minds of “others.”

By Real history

October 19, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

July 19 and 20 marked the 150th? anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, site of the first women’s rights gathering. Had it been a gaggle of men declaring their independence from England, say, there would be a national holiday or something to mark the occasion. So why so little recognition for the founders of modern feminism?

By Renee

October 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

We are in the unfortunate position of working to change people’s opinions before laws will become more equal

I disagree. A person’s opinion of an ethnic group, sexual preference, or of males or females, should not affect equality. One does not have to have a good opinion, much less like blacks, females or gays, to offer them equal rights. I think the problem in our government today, is too many personal opinions are getting in the way of law making.

By Lily Toad

October 19, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

And why was Susan B. Anthony taken off of the dollar coin? It wasn’t her fault it was designed to look like a quarter. I think Andrew Jackson should be taken off of the $10 bill and replaced with Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Andrew Jackson was directly involved with the genocide of American Indians. Stanton and Anthony are at least as important in American history as Benjamin Franklin (another non-president on currency).

By The72John

October 19, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

July 19 and 20 marked the 150th? anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, site of the first women’s rights gathering. Had it been a gaggle of men declaring their independence from England, say, there would be a national holiday or something to mark the occasion. So why so little recognition for the founders of modern feminism?

In all fairness, the beginning of a rights movement and a seminal moment in the founding of a nation are not comparable events. There are no national holidays commemorating the early days of any civil rights movement - the groups involved tend to celebrate those days accordingly. This seems like another attempt to say “Men get recognition and women get none.”

By 2D

October 19, 2006 01:06 PM | Link to this

Real History… My math might be fuzzy, but if the Seneca Falls Convention took place in 1848, wouldn’t this be the 158th anniversary?

By The72John

October 19, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Stanton and Anthony are at least as important in American history as Benjamin Franklin (another non-president on currency)

I would have to disagree with this statement…not to take away from the accomplishments of these two women, but Franklin’s contributions to this country are arguably more substantial than those of anyone else currently pictured on a piece of currency. His impact on the formative years was tremendous, and that doesn’t even begin to take into consideration his contributions to science, etc.

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t expand our currency to include some other important figures.

By Rosharon

October 19, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

A person’s opinion of an ethnic group, sexual preference, or of males or females, should not affect equality.

Renee, I agree personal opinions should not affect equality, but don’t you think a lot of anti-gay sentiment keeps people from accepting marriage equality? Wasn’t it the personal opinion that women can’t think for themselves the basis for opposing their right to vote?

By Lily Toad

October 19, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Franklin’s contributions to this country are arguably more substantial than those of anyone else Could you elaborate?

By Renee

October 19, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, you are correct. My disagreement, was not necessarily with you. However, I think the wrong tactic, is to try to change people’s minds on gays, blacks or whatever. Personal opinions should not sway a governmental decision, however, on one aspect it is human nature.

By The72John

October 19, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

Franklin’s contributions to this country are arguably more substantial than those of anyone else Could you elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

By Rosharon

October 19, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

Renee, but if we don’t try to change people’s minds about homosexuality then how can we get people to not vote for these vile marriage amendments?

By The72John

October 19, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Rosharon, I think Renee’s point is that we shouldn’t have to change people’s minds. Civil rights shouldn’t be handed out as prizes in a popularity contest, they should be guaranteed regardless of how much someone “likes” or “approves” of you.

By NetBanker

October 19, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Renee…while I agree with what you are saying the reality of politics today is that social conservatives (i.e. Republicans) have invoked “the will of the people� when it comes to rights discussions…and the people seem to agree that their collective will be imposed upon minority populations. Look at how they’ve managed to pass so many state constitutional amendments regarding equal marriage rights for gays by taking the issue to the people. While I still believe in the ideal that our laws are intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority the political climate is one in which the minority is used as a scapegoat, scare tactic, smoke screen. Unfortunately, given the lack of spines in legislatures across the nation that enables them to do the right thing (which is often at odds with ‘the will of the people’ ) it would seem that any social movement must capture the hearts of the populace in order to ensure that at a minimum that social movement won’t have to undue a bunch of mean-spirited scape-goating legislation.

By What the heck

October 19, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad, If Jackson was ever on the $10.00 bill, he’s already been replaced by Hamilton.

By NetBanker

October 19, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Civil rights shouldn’t be handed out as prizes in a popularity contest, they should be guaranteed regardless of how much someone “likes� or “approves� of you.

While true in sentiment the reality today is that our legislators are too namby-pamby to actually guarantee rights for minorities when it goes against ‘the will of the people’ because politics IS a popularity contest. People are elected based on whether they are liked and how much they had to spend on their campaign rather than whether they are qualified.

By Lily Toad

October 19, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Even Bill Clinton, who urged gay people to come out because people who know gays are more likely to approve of gay rights, signed the Defense of Marriage Act that deprives Mass. couples of federal protection or rights in other states. And Kerry, who called the DOMA discussions “gay bashing,” said he was against gay marriage when running for Pres. Our state sodomy laws had to be struck down by courts because legislators were too timid to propose they be repealed.

By Renee

October 19, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

John, that was exactly my point. No matter what, you tend to make my points better than I do, lol.

Net, you bring up some very good points (as usual).

By Lily Toad

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

Ooops! I meant $20 bill.

By The72John

October 19, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Renee presents us with what should be, and Net hauls us back to reality with what is. Then, Lily Toad reminds us of the latest assault by the far Right to make this country a bastion of intolerance. Not content with legislators acting as craven tools of popular prejudice, the Right wants to cripple the last group with the power and courage to stand up to the masses who believe that “majority rules” is the end-all and be-all of democracy.

By Clare

October 19, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, “She doesn’t have what it takes.” They will say, “Women don’t have what it takes.” ~Clare Boothe Luce

By 2D

October 19, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

NetB… Why do you think politics has become a popularity contest rather than one based on ability? Have the masses been dumbed down and numbed out to the point that they can be herded to vote for whoever has the best commercials?

By Brian Curtis

October 19, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

We do have a lot of duplication on coins, I note.

Washington is on both the $1 and the quarter. Lincoln’s on the $5 and the penny. Jefferson’s on the $2 (yes, it still exists!) and the nickel.

Surely there’s room to bump one of these duplicates and commemorate someone else… and no, I DON’T mean Reagan.

By Kevin

October 19, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

72John,

There is no need to be upset. You give the far right too much power. The President is a conservative, both Houses of Congress are controlled by republicans, and the Supreme Court is now somewhat right-leaning. Despite all of this so-called power, we have seen little, if any, meaningful movement on far right issues such as a balanced budget, securing our borders, abortion, or the marriage amendment. We have heard a lot of rhetoric, but we have seen no tangible results. After the republicans are swept out of office in November, none of those issues will have any traction.

By Lily Toad

October 19, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Balanced Budget??? ROFL — Bush has driven the deficit sky high. Now the Republicans are saying if the Dems get back in the majority they’ll do away with the tax breaks. Seems like that issue has switched parties.

By Kevin

October 19, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Lily Toad,

I agree completely with your 4:35 post. That is but one of the many reasons why you can stick a fork in the republicans for the upcoming midterm elections - their done!

By Kevin

October 19, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Oops - I meant they’re done.

By YES !

October 19, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

After receiving a petition with signatures from over 100 Iranian women’s rights activists and 4,000 concerned individuals, Iran Ayatollah Shahroudi has acted to stop the execution of Ashraf Kolhari, a mother of four who was sentenced to death by stoning for having sex outside of marriage. Kolhari’s sentence was protested by human rights and women’s rights organizations across the world, objecting to the cruel and unusual punishment to which she was condemned for having an affair. In response to Kolhari’s situation, over 5,300 Feminist Majority Foundation activists sent emails to Ayatollah Shahroudi and the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner to protest Kolhari’s execution and the practice of stoning.

By NOW

October 19, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

We need to drill it into the mass consciousness of America that there’s a form of Apartheid in this country based on gender. If any country anywhere treated a group determined by race or national origin with such hatred and violence people would march in the streets. Call a bigot a bigot and a misogynist a misogynist - let’s not let domestic terrorism against women be dismissed as a private family matter anymore. Demand that we be counted, and that our voices be heard.

-NOW

By Tumblin' Tumbleweed

October 19, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

Don’t you people have jobs? Honestly, I don’t care for feminism, racism, sexism, any -ism. Why not be for everyone? Judge behavior, not people. Why be for women’s rights…why not be for everyone’s rights? I don’t get it. You’re making me tired. Get to work!

By NetBanker

October 19, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

2D, I think that there has been a dumbing down and numbing of the population. The volumes of information and myriad delivery methods have us overwhelmed on a daily basis just trying to keep up with the normal flow of life. There is also an increase in the sophistication of the packaging of messages so that what is attention getting tends to stick with us. For example think about the increase of email with pictures and graphics we receive today vs. the plain text we used to get. I believe that we’ve become a sound-bite nation that wants simple, easy to understand answers…the kind of black/white answers that make it easy to think you understand someone’s position. Goodness knows the devil is in the details (aka the grey areas of issue) and we just don’t have time for those details in our over-scheduled, over-achieving, stressed-out, plugged-in, fast-food kind of lives.

That is my quickie analysis of the general population. When it comes to those who do express more of an interest in politics I believe that the explosion of talk radio and blogs has made it extremely easy to find others of like mind. It is validating to hear/read someone else who thinks the way we do and we tend to gravitate toward sameness of thought rather than pushing ourselves into more uncharted waters. I think the ease of access makes us complacent to a degree so that we do not more actively seek out the other side. And for whatever reason the ‘art of compromise’ seems to be a dying art. I’m not if the competitiveness underlying our society has quietly pushed us toward a collective position of requiring ‘all or none’ in order to declare success, but it certainly does feel that way.

Lily…very good observations there on the whacky way fiscal responsibility has gone out the Republican window. I don’t care who is in control of the next congress, they absolutely MUST address our national deficit. That is almost as much a matter of national security as is energy independence. At this point in time the Chinese have us by the financial balls.

By Mr.MobileCreator

October 19, 2006 11:59 PM | Link to this

Hi! Try this! [b]Premium Unlimited Ringtone Downloads[/b] for You : —>[url=http://freenokiaringtone.mobland.info]Free Ringtones For Nokia[/url] —>[url=http://freeringtone.mobland.info]Free Ringtones[/url] —>[url=http://freeringtonedownload.mobland.info]Free Ringtones Download[/url] —>[url=http://mobileringtone.mobland.info]Mobile Ringtones[/url] —>[url=http://motorolaringtone.mobland.info]Ringtone For Mototrola[/url] —>[url=http://samsungringtones.mobland.info]Ringtones For Samsung[/url] Enjoy!

By Nike

October 20, 2006 01:41 AM | Link to this

Cool Guest Book.

By 2D

October 20, 2006 09:15 AM | Link to this

NetB… Great anaylsis. I would also add that I do not believe our educational system (and I mean the SYSTEM including teachers, curriculum, parents, etc.) do not turn out individuals who want to know all sides or truly learn anything other than a list of facts. There is far too much emphasis on test scores and progression than actual thinking and learning. Of course this is a just comparison between my own recollection of school (nearly 20 yrs ago) and what I see from nieces/nephews/children of friends.

While ‘No child Left Behind’ has definitely exaserbated this situation, I in no way think it is the sole culprit. If you could add overhauling our educational system to the reduction of the debt/deficit and energy independence, I think you have a great platform for any new Congress.

By lozen

October 20, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Come on youse guys, it’s Friday. It’s joke day!

Brokeback Mountain wife A successful rancher died and left everything to his devoted wife. She was a very smart, good-looking woman and determined to keep the ranch, but knew very little about ranching, so she decided to place an ad in the newspaper for a ranch hand. Two cowboys applied for the job. One was gay and the other had a reputation as a drunk. She thought long and hard about it, no one else applied, and she decided to hire the gay cowboy. He proved to be a hard worker who put in long hours every day and knew a lot about ranching. For weeks, the two of them worked, and the ranch was doing very well. Then one day, the rancher’s widow said to the hired hand, “You have done a really good job, and the ranch looks great. You should go into town and kick up your heels.” The hired hand readily agreed and went into town one Saturday night. One o’clock came and he didn’t return. Two o’clock, and no hired hand. He returned around two-thirty, and upon entering the room, he found the rancher’s widow sitting by the fireplace with a glass of wine, waiting for him. She quietly called him over to her. “Unbutton my blouse and take it off,” she said. Trembling, he did as she directed. “Now take off my boots” He did as she asked, ever so slowly. “Now take off my socks.” He removed each gently and placed them neatly by her boots. “Now take off my skirt.” He slowly unbuttoned it, constantly watching her eyes in the fire light “Now take off my bra.” Again, with trembling hands, he did as he was told and dropped it to the floor. Then she looked at him and said, “If you ever wear my clothes into town again, you’re fired.”

By Bruce

October 20, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

“If any country anywhere treated a group determined by race or national origin with such hatred and violence people would march in the streets.”

That is such a true statement. They would march in the streets to the nearest possible way out of that country and stright to the US border.

By The72John

October 20, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

That is such a true statement. They would march in the streets to the nearest possible way out of that country and stright to the US border.

Believe it or not, Bruce, people actually immigrate to OTHER countries other than the United States. I realize your rather insular understanding of the world limits your knowledge, but that is a fact.

By Lily Toad

October 20, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

The only time I felt like I was living in a sexual apartheid system is when my girlfriend and I went out to dinner on Jekyll Island. This man walked up to us in the restaurant lobby and said “what are you girls doing out alone?” I felt like I had to show some papers allowing me out without a male escort.

By Lily Toad

October 20, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

A man walks into a bar with his dog. The bartender says “No dogs allowed.”

“But this is a special dog,” the man said. “She can talk. Buffy, what do you call the thing over the house?”

“Roof!” Buffy replied.

“And how does sandpaper feel?”

“Ruff!”

“Who’s the best baseball player ever?

“Ruph!”

The bartender jerked his thumb toward the door “OUT!”

The man and dog walked toward the door, then Buffy turned around, shrugged, and said, “DiMaggio?”

By lozen

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

25 Reasons why its great to be Male 1. Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat. 2. Film nudity is virtually always female. 3. You know stuff about cars, guns and tanks. 4. A seven-day holiday requires only one suitcase. 5. Saturday and Wednesday Night Football. 6. You don’t have to monitor your friends sex lives. 7. Your toilet queue lines are 90% shorter. 8. You can open all your own jars. 9. Old friends don’t give you hassle if you’ve lost or gained weight. 10. Dry cleaners and haircutter’s don’t rob you blind. 11. Your a* is never a factor in a job interview. 12. All orgasms are real - always!. 13. A beer gut does not make you invisible to the opposite sex. 14. Guys in nylon masks don’t attack you. 15. You don’t have to lug a bag of useful stuff around everywhere you go. 16. Your last name stays put. 17. You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness. 18. You never have to clean the toilet. 19. You can be showered and ready in 10 minutes. 20. Sex means never worrying about your reputation. 21. Your underwear is €10 for a three pack. 22. You don’t have to curl up next to a hairy a* every night. 23. If you’re 34 and single nobody notices. 24. You can write your name in the snow. 25. You can get into trivial p** contests on internet blogs with other guys you never have to see face to face!

By lozen

October 20, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

Harry met Sandy at a nightclub one evening, and after a few drinks and some fast talk, she finally invited him back to her apartment to spend the night. Her roommate was out of town, so this was the perfect opportunity. The couple went back to her house, and after a few minutes the pair proceeded into Sandy’s bedroom. When Harry walked through the door he immediately noticed all of these stuffed animals. There were hundreds of them - stuffed toys on top of the wardrobe, stuffed toys on the bookshelf and stuffed toys on the window sill. There were more on the floor, and of course, stuffed toys all over the bed. They cleared off the bed, jumped in, and went at it. Later, after the sex, Harry turned to Sandy and asked, “Well … How was I?” Sandy replied, “Well, you can pick anything from the bottom shelf.”

By Mara

October 20, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

lozen - what am I not getting in the “You can pick anything from the bottom shelf” joke?

(How embarrassing to have to need a joke explained. I must be ready for the week-end)

By The72John

October 20, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Mara, I think it’s a reference to carnival games - the stuffed animals on the lowest shelves are the prizes you get to pick “just for playing”.

By Renee

October 20, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

ummm….Mara….thank goodness….I thought it was just me ;-)

By Bruce

October 20, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this

That is a true statement also, John. But another fact is that there are more immigrating to the US than any other country in the world. I wonder why that is?

By Mara

October 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Ooooookayyyy then. As the song said “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” LOL!

It was the first day of school in Marietta, Georgia, and a new student named Suzuki, the son of a Japanese businessman, entered the fourth grade.

The teacher said, “Let’s begin by reviewing some American history. Who said ‘Give me Liberty, or give me Death?’”

She saw a sea of blank faces, except for Suzuki, who had his hand up. “Patrick Henry, 1775,” he said.

“Very good! Who said ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth’”? Again, no response except from Suzuki. “Abraham Lincoln, 1863.”, said Suzuki.

The teacher snapped at the class, “Class, you should be ashamed. Suzuki, who is new to our country, knows more about its history than you do.” he heard a loud whisper: “Fu** the Japs.”

“Who said that?” she demanded. Suzuki put his hand up. “Lee Iacocca, 1982.” At that point, a student in the back said, “I’m gonna puke.”

The teacher glares and asks “All right! Now, who said that?” Again, Suzuki says, “George Bush to the Japanese Prime Minister, 1991.”

Now furious, another student yells, “Oh yeah? Suck this!” Suzuki jumps out of his chair waving his hand and shouts to the teacher: “Bill Clinton, to Monica Lewinsky, 1997!”

Now with almost a mob hysteria someone said, “You little sh*t. If you say anything else, I’ll kill you.” Suzuki frantically yells at the top of his voice, “Gary Condit to Chandra Levy 2001.”

The teacher fainted. And as the class gathered around the teacher on the floor, someone said, “Oh sht, we’re fu*ed.”

And Suzuki said, “The Taliban! 2001”

By Monica

October 20, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Mara. Now I have to explain to my students why I just fell out of my chair and snarfed my water! :)

By NetBanker

October 20, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

2D…thanks for the compliment. I do think you have a good point about education. I’m a product of public schools in the 70s-80s when the focus was on critical thinking. We also were very politically incorrect back then because students were actually segregated into classes based on test scores.

Lozen, great jokes today! And I even got the one about the stuffed animals the first time around…not that I’ve ever had that actual experience or anything.

there are more immigrating to the US than any other country in the world. I wonder why that is? Because we never bother to kick anyone out once they get here, even if they overstay their visa, we offer access to free health care, we’ll educate their children for free, and then we’ll offer them amnesty including a fast-track to citizenship?

By Lily Toad

October 20, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

I’m a product of public schools in the 70s-80s when the focus was on critical thinking. My girlfriend is teaching an introductory freshman class at GSU and her students HATE her emphasis on critical thinking. They just want to be given the information and spit it back out. They don’t get reading an essay and trying to decide what the author is saying, who her audience is, and the purpose of the article.

By NetBanker

October 20, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Lily…that must soooo stink for your GF! Critical thinking has been the key to my success as an analyst and has served me well in many other ways in my life. Although sometimes my BF will tell me that I can over analyze what he thinks is a simple decision. After 14 years together you’d think he’d know to just back off and give me a blessed minute or 10.

By Elaine

October 20, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

When women are depressed, they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country.—Elaine Boosler

By Lily Toad

October 20, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

NB — Yep, it’s driving her crazy. She’s used to teaching higher level classes and not a bunch of sullen seventeen -year-olds.

By The End

October 20, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

JOHN KARR IS A FREE MAN & LIVING NEAR CHASTAIN?????? What a female/child friendly country this is. Way to go ! ! ! Why don’t they just let all the rapists & child molesters free then? Most of them aren’t locked up anyway. And certainly don’t make John Karr pay back all the money he cost all the taxpayers. EXCELLENT JOB FOLKS !

By Pseeh

October 21, 2006 04:47 AM | Link to this

http://nekromants.net BK [url=http://nekromants.net]BK[/url]

By Nike

October 21, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

http://www.blogigo.de/Pharma Online Pharmacy [url=http://www.blogigo.de/Pharma]Online Pharmacy[/url]

By sada

October 22, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/pharm/ Tramadol [url=http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/pharm/]Tramadol[/url]