quote:

---

"Well, my mom's pro-choice...but she's going to vote Republican anyway because that's what my dad will tell her to do and she doesn't know any better."

---

I don't know about you all, but if my child ever said something like that about me, I would be livid.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Is it true?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Well, I've met her, and while I can't say for sure, it seems very, very unlikely. And I *do* know the kid who said this, and he's so full of it he can't smell it any longer. So all indications point to no, it's not true, and someone just needs a good smack upside the head.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Stargate, it's not *her* I'm criticizing!
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
I'm confused... Who exactly are you directing your distain at? Could you define your outrage a bit more please? And what does it have to do with feminism?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Hmm....

Well, if the kid's right - his mom has an opinion but still votes whatever she's told to - then it IS the mom you should be irritated at.

If he's wrong - his mom votes exactly the way her conscience tells her to and he's assuming she'd just obey because that's what women do - then it's the kid. The quote makes it sound like he's regretting what would happen more than anything, though.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 
The reason we need more feminism is that it's a breeding ground for lesbians.

If you catch my drift.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
katharina,

I guess I didn't capture the tone of voice of the kid well enough.

There was *no* regret in his voice.

He just laughed. More like "Hah! Please. My mom's useless!"
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I guess the connection with feminism comes more because that was a major argument that anti-suffragists used -- "Don't give women the vote! They'll just do what their husbands tell them!"

Clearly untrue.
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
""Well, my mom's pro-choice...but she's going to vote Republican anyway because that's what my dad will tell her to do and she doesn't know any better."

...Or maybe the mother just isn't all that bright..And the father is really persuasive. Maybe she is really gullible andhe was able to persuade her that Republicans are a "pro-choice" platform?...Not really seeing any feminist issue here.

edited to add: Maybe she is useless as far as being an informed voter is concerned. Not becasue she is female, just because she dosn't care?

[ April 26, 2004, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Being a child of parents myself, I'm here to tell you that at best children often exagerate bot reasons and effects.

Often people vote on one issue. For instance a pro-lifer may vote for canidates based only on their pro-life (or pro-choice) stance. But just being a pro-lifer or a pro-choicer doesn't mean that's your issue, or even that you have one. Perhaps she's pro-choice but is more concerned about foriegn affairs and thinks that the Democrats wont handle it was well. My point is, who knows why she's voting as she is? Do you really think a flippant remark from on of her children (no longer living at home) is the best indication of it?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Okay maybe I should just delete this whole thread, because my intent clearly isn't getting through.

I'm just saying that the fact that anyone (especially someone so young so as not to remember the suffrage movement) saying something like this *clearly* means that the feminist movement still has a purpose. It has nothing to do with the way the mother ACTUALLY votes or why she votes the way she does -- it's the fact that her son MADE this flippant remark to begin with, without thinking about it and with a scornful tone. THAT'S my issue.
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
You see Kasie, this is why I have a hard time taking feminism seriously. Many feminist take issue with things like this and assume a shovenist (sp?) motive where there isn't necessarily one. I firmly believe that the ideals of feminism have been largely achieved.

And therefore I submit that feminism is not still necessary. In fact, I would also contend that is potentially harmful. It polarizes groups of people on issue that largely superficial and not really linked to feminine equality. Such as, you guessed it, the issue of abortion.

Pal

edited: b/c I spell at a fifth grade level some days

[ April 26, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Hmm, what I don't understand is how that has anything to do with femanism. The kid probably just got the wrong impression from his parents conversations about politics. Maybe he saw his mother cave in once to often on political issues.

Or maybe he's right, I don't know. Perhaps his mother reall will vote whatever his dad tells her too.

I just don't see how this person's remarks about leads to a need for femanism.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
To reiterate:

quote:

---

I guess the connection with feminism comes more because that was a major argument that anti-suffragists used -- "Don't give women the vote! They'll just do what their husbands tell them!"

---

 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Just perhaps the mom is a bit traditional and so the kid assumes she's not liberated enough to make up her own mind? In that case, maybe he's heard too much of the wrong kind of feminism?
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
To reiterate:
"Many feminist take issue with things like this and assume a shovenist (sp?) motive where there isn't necessarily one."

"Don't give women the vote! They'll just do what their husbands tell them!"

The kid didn't say anything near that. He just said his mum listens to her husband. Not she was subserviant and ordered to vote a certain way. Not that she wasn't capable to make up her own mind... Granted, I wasn't there for the conversation to put in context, but is it possible that maybe that is just the way you heard it b/c, and I am just guessing here, you are a feminist and this is what you expected to hear?

And do you really think that womens sufferage is still such a controversial issue that it need feminism to protect it?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I think men and women living together and having opposing political views is EXACTLY what feminism is all about. James Carville and Mary Madaline (sp?) anyone?

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
(Incidentally he's the liberal and she's the conservative if I recall correctly)

Old article but cute.
http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/archive/98_10_15/top_story1.html

An article more political in nature.
http://www.prsa.org/conf2003/carville_matalin.html

AJ

[ April 26, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
chauvanist -

Kasie - I get it and I agree. Attitude and education. Age and experience. A little shocking, this child's statement. And one of the reasons that women's "right" to vote was in such contention for so long. It was a great unknown, how their vote would effect elections. Would they vote per their conscience or per their husband's expectation?

I don't think "feminism" invites a polarity of issues any more that "chauvanism" might - however, since we still (clearly) have the one, we might as well have the other.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Chauvinist, actually.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

I guess the connection with feminism comes more because that was a major argument that anti-suffragists used -- "Don't give women the vote! They'll just do what their husbands tell them!"

Clearly untrue.

---

quote:

---

I'm just saying that the fact that anyone (especially someone so young so as not to remember the suffrage movement) saying something like this *clearly* means that the feminist movement still has a purpose. It has nothing to do with the way the mother ACTUALLY votes or why she votes the way she does -- it's the fact that her son MADE this flippant remark to begin with, without thinking about it and with a scornful tone. THAT'S my issue.

---

quote:

---

And therefore I submit that feminism is not still necessary. In fact, I would also contend that is potentially harmful.

---

Paladin, I think that you are only half right. Really, any "-ism" is potentially harmful, because any philosophy whose goal is the empowerment of one group can very easily be perverted to antagonizing the "opposite" group. But it need not be that way. I can see no way that striving for the empowerment of women is intrinsically harmful or divisive. The problems with "-isms" only happen when the participants act and react based solely on bitterness or frustration (both of which are, in many cases, entirely justified emotions). Furthermore, I think that attitudes about women are not nearly where they should be.
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
See, the thing is, I'd like to consider myself moderately feminist and I hold the same view about my mother as does the "kid" you're talking about. My mom votes for the more "attractive" candidate. She also has no clue about their finances or retirement funds and generally could not get by in some areas without my dad. I find this repulsive, but I find it so because I am more independent and feminist. I'm sure some of it is my own jaded view of who she is, but I don't think it is anti-feminist. It makes me sad/disgusted that she is not more empowered. It doesn't make me think that she shouldn't have the right to vote, but makes me sad that she doesn't truly exercise it.

Edit: Wow, saxon said it SO much better!

[ April 26, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Christy ]
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
Mary Matalin is the one you are thinking about and yes, she's the conservative and he's the liberal.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Look, the woman has the right to do whatever she wants. It's not the woman I'm taking issue with here.

The issue is that someone would be willing to assume the exact same attitude as the anti-suffragists and believe that to be acceptable. That's all.

I just am a little bit afraid that people are forgetting because they never knew differently.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Except that, if the kid's right, the woman is the one with that attitude, and the kid's disgusted by it.
 

---

Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
 
"...- however, since we still (clearly) have the one, we might as well have the other."

Maybe it wouldn't so "clearly" exist if feminist didn't look for chauvenism (ty btw ) in all situations? And thereby perpetuate it's assumed existance.

Look are there chavenists, yes. Are the racist in the world? Sadly, yes. Will there always be people that treat other unfairly, yes. Does that mean we need a perpetual movement that places labels (chauvenist, feminist) on people to counteract a diminishing few people who beleive outdates rhetoric? I say, no.

Todays society treats women as equals and we are all tought that it is wrong not to do so. And that is good b/c it is wrong. Women have achieved many, if not all, of the issues that they were fighting for during the original feminist movement. Why still on the offensive? Why bring in fringe issues and label them as "feminist"?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
I don't see why what the kid said is a problem.... It's not a polite thing to say about one's mother, but kids aren't always polite, and it could very well be true.

Actually, that's one thing I think is wrong with modern feminism - it creates problems out of nonissues, and finds chauvinism where it is not.

[ April 26, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
*sigh*

Never should've posted this.

Tom, it's definitely the kid. But I can't exactly communicate that across Hatrack.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Oh, I'm so embarrassed - I misspelled chauvinism.
Ah well - it's the least of my sins. Thank you for the catch, TomD!

"Modern" feminism is a response to millenia of male-dominated culture and society. It does not "cause" problems anymore than the Quakers and Abolitionists caused problems with the institution of slavery.

The problems already existed. The "isms" are just differing frameworks with which to view/approach the current issue.

Edited to add: IMHO.

[ April 26, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Feminism is nessasary. Mainly for balance and for the fact that without it we'd be a lot worse off.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 

quote:

---

The issue is that someone would be willing to assume the exact same attitude as the anti-suffragists and believe that to be acceptable. That's all.

---

quote:

---

"Modern" feminism is a response to millenia of male-dominated culture and society. It does not "cause" problems anymore than the Quakers and Abolitionists caused problems with the institution of slavery.

The problems already existed. The "isms" are just differing frameworks with which to view/approach the current issue.

---

quote:

---

But whatever it may actually be, I don't think it should be a response to millenia of female oppression. It should be a response to female oppression now.

---

I absolutely agree with you!

I was not clear in my post. My apologies. I was just trying to show the roots of the movement and that the "ism" was merely a way of looking through the lens at the accumulation of many injustices - as with any other social problem.

And while it should be a response to the issue today, how can people learn to avoid the pitfalls of the past, if they don't know what the past contained?

So, yes - feminism CAN and SHOULD take on issues that are critical to the health, safety and liberty of women (and children) today - the answer of WHY they should do so lies in the lessons of the past.


 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I have no problem with feminism, to a degree. But I feel that things have gotten so that women HAVE the same rights as men. At this point there doesn't seem to be much left to do except education, and the best education around is to SHOW men that women kick butt. Make them see it.

Therefore, I believe that the most effective feminism is the one that teaches women to respect themselves, and to do their best and work their hardest. If I had my way, the basic premise of feminism would be encouraging women to put more clothes on. Make a name for yourself and show the world what you can do, but do it without using your "assets" even once. If you can do that, then you are truly equal.

Can we do feminism like that?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

But whatever it may actually be, I don't think it should be a response to millenia of female oppression. It should be a response to female oppression now.

---

Yes - the trouble is, there is not really much female oppression now, and hence there isn't much need for feminism. Instead of ceasing, though, feminism has taken to inventing new oppression to justify the continuation of the cause. It finds oppression when there is none.

This is not so much of a huge problem as it is an annoyance - causing trouble that is not necessary. The biggest problem with it, I think, is that it can promote discrimination against men by overstating the degree to which men discriminae against women.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Pornography.

Sexual Assault.

Trafficking.

Domestic Violence.

FGM.

The "Glass Ceiling".

Barbie.

Nope - it's all equal now.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
was is the thread about anyway?
I came to talk about feminism or abortion, and I don't see anything here other than "I'm a Freakin' republican" crap...
Well, I'm a Democrat.
Bush is really freakin' weird, and
I don't do Pro-choice.
Its wrong, its murder.
DOn't kill babies!!!
What has your unborn daughter/son ever done to you??
They didn't ruin your life, you did!!
Even if its a rapist's child, don't take it out on them, its not their fault...
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Wow. I feel enlightened.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Have you bothered to read any of the past posts are are you just spoiling for an argument?

You might try the other OSC website known as Ornery. They love arguing over there.

Edited to indicate that the above was for Altariel, not RRR.

[ April 26, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
And yet, so accurate...

(For Altariel, and not Shan)

edit: For spelling, and not Altariel.

[ April 26, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
RRR,


 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
Screw you Shan. People need to start sticking to the topic. Else people like me get pretty freakin' lost. As you can see, the posts before me have got almost nothing to do with the original topic...
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
And yours does?
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
It's not nice to badmouth folks around here, sweetie. I suggest you do as UofULaw suggested earlier today and take a breather.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
As you can see it does because I'm asking what the hell is going on and why people are so freakin off the topic, thats all.

(Ok, things seem to be getting out of hand here...)
I wanted to talk about feminism, and people are talking instead of Republicanism...
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
No really, you wouldn't be lost if you had read the posts. And if you HAVE read the posts, then why are you lost? We aren't THAT illegible.

And who is talking about republicanism? And what is that?

[ April 26, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

Screw you Shan. People need to start sticking to the topic. Else people like me get pretty freakin' lost. As you can see, the posts before me have got almost nothing to do with the original topic...

---

Look, hardly any topic here stays on the topic of the initial post for long. About the only one that does that I can remember is rivka's "Ask the Re-I'm-going-to-completely-screw-up-the-spelling-betzin" thread.

And there's nothing wrong with expressing the opinions you did,
but for the love of God and everything that's holy, please try to do it in a more intelligent manner.

edit: Oops, I forgot about that "Screw you Shan" thing. That's not okay.

[ April 26, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
Get a clue.
Yes you are
And BTW Stan...I'm not acting like this becuase I want to...
So far today, I've eaten 24 chocolate bars,
and drank at least 10 cups of express...
I'm not kidding, its not a joke...
I feel horribly dizzy....

[ April 26, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Altáriël of Dorthonion ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Then do yourself a favor and turn off your computer, and don't be calling OTHER people illegible, for CRYING out loud.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
My dear PSI,
I think its wearing off now....
My right kidney hurts...
I can't turn off my compy...
I'm addicted........
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

But I am a Republican, so I think her husband gave her a good advice.

---

This is the only reply mentioning Republicans before your post. It's from Stargate. Kasie's initial post did mention that the wife voted Republican because her husband did. But I don't think which party she voted for was the main thing. Her voting for anything because her husband told her to was the main thing. Did you just skip all the other posts before saying something? This thread isn't Republican vs. Democrat. It isn't about abortion. It's about feminism.

edit: changed "thing" to "reply"

[ April 26, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
You need some protein. Yikes.

(Yeah, I was talking to you, Trip! YOU need some PROTEIN!!!! GAH, I hate it when I post too late.)

[ April 26, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

Actually, I do need to eat something...
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
Trip?? Who's that?? Me???
I need protein????
God don't talk to me about any kind of food intake or nutrient!!
I'm about to puke...
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
*thinks better of saying whatever was going to say here*

Never mind.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, this thread was on topic until the derailment.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
So then ignore what I've just said, I feel better now..*flushing heard in the distance*
The bad stuff is out...
Ok, so lets post!!!!
^.~
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
*head spins*
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Kasie!!!!

We agree!



There is common ground to be had.

[ April 26, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by combustia (Member # 6328) on :
 
Shan is right.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Yup, Shan most certainly is right.

We live in a society were women are paid less for the same type and standard of work then men are. Women are more likely to be victims of sexual and physical assault. In both America and Australia, female rape victims can still be told 'they were asking for it' because they wore a skirt/went to a bar etc. In Australia, we don't have paid maternity leave so many women are forced to work after having a child even if they don't want to - and yes, I consider this a feminist issue.

Moving away from the Western world and gender inequality becomes less subtle - lower education, literacy, bans on types of jobs women can take, regulation on women's clothing, sharia law, rape of women in warfare, sexual slavery (actually this happens in Australia and America as well), fgm etc etc.

I don't see how anyone can think that feminism is unneccessary or that everything is equal. There are different issues today then there were 100 years ago - but that doesn't mean those issues don't exist.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
imogen said that beautifully.

Until the "average man on the street" in the developed world cares as much about stopping fgm as they do about stopping other human rights abuses and the average woman on the street can walk down that street without getting whistles and catcalls, we still need feminism.

It's not about putting up fences where there don't need to be any... it's about helping people see the fences that are already there. And it's going to take generations of strong women being loudly and visibly strong before we get a critical mass and attitudes change.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not about putting up fences where there don't need to be any... it's about helping people see the fences that are already there

---

Exactly.

Very well put.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I can see why you need want to pursue feminism for reasons of violence and chauvinism. I don't disagree with feminism, I just don't think women have less rights than men.
 

---

Posted by combustia (Member # 6328) on :
 
And that's why the oppression of women continues to this day.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
I think there's two ways of looking at that Nick.

The first is that feminism isn't just about strict legal rights, but rather social attitudes as well. So while it may be equally illegal for either a man or a woman to be raped, the social reality is that women are raped primarily. Why? Perhaps because of social attitudes towards sex, women's attitudes and responses ('she wanted it really') and the boys club mentality that often proceeds gang rape. And these are attitudes that need to be changed. They are a fence in themselves.

Secondly - equality does *not* mean sameness. Women and men are different in some ways - childbearing being a primary example. So in these examples the fact that women have the same rights as men doesn't mean much. If neither men or women are allowed paid maternity/paternity leave then the situation is the same. But because of differences inherent in the situation, it may not be equalitable.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Nick, if you can't use a right, do you really have it?

Or, how about this... there are guys I know who won't walk through a door if I'm holding it open. I'm not saying I want men to stop holding doors for me. If a man chooses to hold a door for me, I walk through it, and I say thank you. But if I'm walking with that same guy, and I get to the door first, I'm going to open it and hold it open for him to go through. It's common courtesy, and I'd do it regardless of the gender of the person I'm with. If you'll open a door for me but won't walk through a door I'm holding for you, how can you say you consider me equal? In some way, you consider me different, and different is never equal.

Note that I'm using the generic you. I don't know if you walk through doors women are holding. But I know that many, many men won't, so for this and other reasons I consider that the general climate in the United States is not one of gender equality.

Edit 'cause imogen posted while I was typing... Yes, there are going to be some differences based on biology. So if I stick hard to my statement above, men and women will never consider themselves totally equal. I just think we can get a lot closer than we are now, without being a bunch of grumps and without compromising our respective integrity.

[ April 26, 2004, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I think it's a matter of culture as well. Some people are raised on a steady diet of hatred, and sometimes, murderers, rapists, and other psychopaths are the result. I'm sorry this is so, but it is a reality.

quote:

---

The first is that feminism isn't just about strict legal rights, but rather social attitudes as well.

---

I know that. As I explicitly said, I'm not against feminism. Especially because my sister would beat me up if she thought I was. Seriously though, I know a few things about how women are treated. From a legal standpoint, they are treated equal to men (except maybe the draft, but that's a different topic), but culturally, there are still chauvinists. Which is why I think you should not stop, but continue on to fight the bigotry and chauvinism against women.

Also, I realize it's useful for disease fund-raising. I'm all for the breast cancer walks. 1 in 6 get it? I don't like those odds. I know women definitely don't like those odds.

I'm not against feminism, I just don't think it's right to say that you're out there fighting for rights that men have and you don't.

I understand that it's not as safe for a woman to walk down a dark alley alone as it is for a man. It should be, but it's not. But that doesn't mean somebody is infringing your rights.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 


gee - my honor is defended from virulent attacks and poeple think I'm right!

I'm framing this thread for posterity's sake . . .
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I will walk through a door that a women holds open for me, but I make a point to beat her to it.

quote:

---

Yes, there are going to be some differences based on biology. So if I stick hard to my statement above, men and women will never consider themselves totally equal.

---

quote:

---

I consider women to be totally equal to me and other men.

---

And at the moment, I believe you are in the minority among men. But every generation will have more, and every man like you who teaches his children that woman and men are equal increases the number exponentially. Because if boys just hear it from women, they will never believe it... it takes strong roll models from both sexes to make a sea change. And as I said, I believe we will one day reach critical mass, and the old ways will fade away and be nothing more than history. But I would be very surprised if it happened in my lifetime. Not that that means I won't work towards it to the best of my ability.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I don't necessarily notice that most men don't consider women their equal. Maybe that's just my peer group.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
It may have something to do with your age, as well. You mentioned in another thread that you are under 21... if your peer group is predominantly your age, they are probably among the most "enlightened" segment of the population in most social matters. Each generation is a little better than the one before. When I was in school, I didn't think there was much of a problem left. Sure, there were some jerks around, but most guys seemed pretty cool with considering women as equals. But when I graduated and got a job I was suddenly interacting with people from a range of generations, not to mention a range of educational backgrounds. And the problem was much, much more apparent.

I'm trying not to say "your opinion is invalid because you're young." I don't think that's true. But I do think that as you grow older your range of experiences will also grow (duh) and as the people you are exposed to expand you may see that there are more issues still out there than you see now.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

In Australia, we don't have paid maternity leave so many women are forced to work after having a child even if they don't want to - and yes, I consider this a feminist issue.

---

quote:

---

It's not about putting up fences where there don't need to be any... it's about helping people see the fences that are already there.

---

quote:

---

To be fair, it doesn't help when feminists cast fog. (The claim, e.g., that not offering paid leave is unfair certainly muddies the waters.)

---

quote:

---

Xap, you need to open your eyes to see the fences.

---

No, Feminism will tell you there are fences even if you keep your eyes closed. You just need to open your eyes to see that there are no major fences, that the Emperor is not really wearing any clothes (or fences ) at all.

quote:

---

You people who keep claiming that these fences don't exist are blatantly ignoring the wage gap.

---

quote:

---

Women tend towards fields that pay less

---

quote:

---

Thats wrong, most of the time, if a man feels challenged by a woman, he tries to put her down as much as he can, guess this is what is happening right now.

---

quote:

---

A genetic impulse to belabor the obvious.

---

quote:

---

Thats wrong, most of the time, if a man feels challenged by a woman, he tries to put her down as much as he can, guess this is what is happening right now. Why is it that men always want to rule women with the thumb? Why this need to show you're superior to us?

---

quote:

---

Exageration?? This happens MOST of the time, but not always. I see no exageration in that. You're a guy right?

---

quote:

---

You're a guy right?

---

If I said yes would it make my opinion on the subject of how guys act less valid or more valid?
 

---

Posted by Snark Police (Member # 6501) on :
 
AofD: I'd just like to put in my two cents as a woman...I agree with Xap.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
This turned into one of the funniest serious threads I have seen in a long while.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
From the 2003 Census Data, as a white woman 25 or over with a Doctorate Degree (which I hope to be some day), mean income is $59,678. If I were male, with the same age, ethnicity, and education, suddenly I'm worth $100,790.

Those are statistics for "alone or in combination." As a single female, I'd be worth almost an extra $100.

I'm sure it's all in my head. Maybe it's just that time of the month, right?
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Nice.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
Oh well, then I think you are a guy...
i didn't mean it to be sexist, I meant it in a way that shows how men's natural impulses are. We girls get it too, but generally are less obvious about it. Its the general stuff about Darwinism, survival of the fittest.
So therefore, anyone would naturally try to be his or her best so that they can show how superior they are or just to feel that way. And if its not abot how superior you are, its about just feeling that you're at least competent to those around you. If its not to feel more, its to feel or be equal at least.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Yes, Celia, we all already addressed that. Women are paid less. It's unfortunate, and it's something that everyone should strive against, but it's not like anybody here is ignoring that.

What we're talking about is that Altariel thinks that men must show their superiority most of the time. I think that is an incredibly naive viewpoint.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

I didn't mean it to be sexist, I meant it in a way that shows how men's natural impulses are. We girls get it too, but generally are less obvious about it.

---

You say didn't mean to be sexist, and there you spouting off sexism again!

 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Uh, Nick, 2 of the three responses directly after my earlier post contradict that statement.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Maybe I just grew up in a liberal area. Or maybe it was my mother (who, as a stay-at-home mom with an MBA, considers herself a feminist...and yet still manages to have a wonderful relationship with my father and wouldn't trade her kids or her decision to stop working for anything).

But I never really thought "feminism" was a dirty word. And that's how it's getting treated here. Honestly, people. Feminism works for women's rights. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Yes, there are certainly particular feminists (I would call them extremists, same way moderate Muslims call many Islamists extremists) who give the movement a bad name. But saying all of feminism is bad because of a few tainted voices is like saying every Muslim is as bad as al-Qaeda.

There are inequalities. There will always be inequalities. And as long as I'm around, I'm going to try and see it it that there is someone somewhere working to correct them. Just because things are "equal" now (which, honestly, I think we've proved they're not) does not mean they will always be equal. The ACLU slogan is "Because Freedom Cannot Protect Itself." Whether or not you agree with every stand/vendetta the ACLU takes, you must admit that their cause is a noble one: protecting civil liberties, the very foundation of our nation.

I believe the same attitude also applies toward feminism. As long as there are biological differences between men and women, there is someone, somewhere thinking he is better than the woman he works with or the woman he is married to or even the woman he fathered. The reason feminism is necessary is because our society has made these differences of opinion systemic -- we have institutionalized them. Yes, much progress has been made. But even if things do become equal, we are still biologically different, and therein lies the potential for abuse.

If you want the same sort of groups advocating men's rights, then by all means, go ahead.

But I would argue that feminism will always be necessary, and that it will never, ever be irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

From the 2003 Census Data, as a white woman 25 or over with a Doctorate Degree (which I hope to be some day), mean income is $59,678. If I were male, with the same age, ethnicity, and education, suddenly I'm worth $100,790.

---

quote:

---

How strange, I'm pretty certain I've seen studies of particular fields, such as academia, in which women are consistently paid less. More than 9 months (and less than that is taken) of not obtaining raises woudl result in.

---

quote:

---

Tres, I'm sorry but in engineering, even if you DON'T have kids because you don't want them, and never use an ounce of maternity leave and even if you have equal qualifications to a man, very frequently you get paid less.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but that ignores what field the doctorate is in. For instance, a medical doctor is likely paid more than principal, even though both have doctorates. And as I said before, females are more prevelant in many of the lower paying fields, so we should expect a much lower average.

---

quote:

---

Feminism works for women's rights. What could possibly be wrong with that?

---

Well let's put it this way: Pro-life groups work for the rights of fetuses, so what could possibly ever be wrong with them?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 


Haven't we been over this in the other thread?

Are you going to address my argument, or not?

P.S. -- I would note there are some pro-life groups who blow up abortion clinics/kill abortion doctors. Can't think of the last time a feminist group did that....

[ April 27, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

which, honestly, I think we've proved they're not

---

quote:

---

As long as there are biological differences between men and women, there is someone, somewhere thinking he is better than the woman he works with or the woman he is married to or even the woman he fathered.

---

quote:

---

Haven't we been over this in the other thread?

---

quote:

---

Haven't we been over this in the other thread?

---

quote:

---

Well let's put it this way: Pro-life groups work for the rights of fetuses, so what could possibly ever be wrong with them?

---

The issue on abortion is whether fetuses are people or not: pro-life says yes, pro-choice says no. Most of the people I've met are pretty clear about women being people.

Jen
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Haven't we been over this in the other thread?

---

quote:

---

The average salary for recent graduates in engineering is $41,300. Recent women engineering graduates earn $38,300 while their male counterparts earn a salary of $41,800.

---

quote:

---

1999 female graduates earn 85 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Female graduates in the fields of nursing, engineering and education, however, earn over 90 percent of the wages for males.

---

quote:

---

Why is it that men always want to rule women with the thumb? Why this need to show you're superior to us?

---

Men don't want to just rule women. They want to rule other men as well. And animals, and plants, and the weather, and the atom, and the human genome, and skynet, and ...

But then, so do women.

[ April 27, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
I would I had an argument with the rest of the quote, but included all the relevant parts.

So basically, the only reason that feminism is still around is because women are paid less (a good thing to fight to change), and to end the catcalls when you walk down the street?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
*clouts Nick over the head with a snow shovel*

*ends the catcalls*


 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

We have proven that men are equal under the eyes of the law.

---

quote:

---

I'm not talking about societal issues now, I know those are there.

---

Then WHY are we having this debate?

I am so confused!


 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Because women often enter fields that have been traditionally dominated by women. And fields traditionally dominated by women have been lower-paid because they have been dominated by women.

---

quote:

---

Take teaching, for example. In the United States, teaching is a relatively low-paid job that carries with it little prestige or respect (from the general public, anyway). In the U.S., teaching is a field that has traditionally been dominated by women.

---

quote:

---

What he needed was a kick in the pants and to have me snatch the next promotion from him.

---

And that would be breaking the law (assault).

Well, I'll check this later. I'm late for work now.

[ April 27, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Then there are more important reasons for Feminism.

Right now our country is recieving thousands and thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, from around the world, many from places where women's rights are much less, or even non-existant. They are coming from places where the debate isn't whether a woman should get to vote, but whether a woman has a soul.

These immigrants are setting up businesses in this country, building lives, sharing ideals. Rates of human trafficing (slavery) are up, especially in the "sex Industry" where truckloads of "mail order brides" and other prostitutes work abused by the men in their lives...men who see women as profit centers and resources and animals.

The women they import expect this treatment, and the men expect the women here to behave the same, accepting the beatings and the abuse because that is their place.

Whether John makes $50,000 and Jane makes $45,000 is not nearly as important. Whether a woman can become a Pro-baseball player, or earn money in the woman's basketball league, or become President, or CEO of Microsoft is not as important.

Where the basic humanity of woman is in question, Where the idea that women are less than men,
Where women work not for money but out of fear,
There is a place for Feminism.

That place is here, in America, not only in the boardrooms but in the fields and the tenemant houses, the brothels and the inner city sweat shops, its in the drug dens and the small businesses and the maid's chamber. Its anywhere a man says, "She's just a woman."
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 

quote:

---

What about teaching at the college level? It has always been male-dominated, yet it remains low-paying.

---

Wait, what? Faculty members here are treated like GODS, and are by far the wealthiest group of people in town.

Edit: According to monster.com, median salary for professors in my town is $97k. Median salary for a high school teacher is $45k, while median salary for an elementary teacher is $43k.

[ April 27, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
Nick--Equality is a right; women get paid less than men on average, and that isn't fair, and we should work to change it.

I don't understand what there is in that to disagree with.

Jen

(edit to cheer for Dan_raven, who has just posted the exact thing I was trying to think of words to express)

[ April 27, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Fyfe ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Thank you, Dan.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

I know the first thing you're going to say is "See, it's not that bad," but my problem is that it exists at all.

---

That just shows how a single factor - academic degree - influences the data. That alone reduces the difference to something "not that bad".

But consider other factors: Consider the research I alluded to earlier that women are less likely to negotiate aggressively for wages. That probably accounts for part of that difference. Consider differences in how men and women may be inclined to use their major - something I suspect may account for the difference in liberal arts wages in particular, as those majors can do a wide variety of things. Consider the chances of women being pregnant or having children or getting married and deciding on the more traditional role of housewife (a roll women take more than men.)

That whittles the difference down further. Now, even then there may be some difference, because in some companies there is still discrimination. But the truth is, I don't think it's really that big of a deal, or one we can fix with anything other than time. It's not a fence. It's a few chunks of wood sticking out of the ground from a time when there was fences, and that will soon enough be trampled over by the masses heading in a different direction.

Today normal people don't agree with such companies. But feminism is going further - too far, in my view.

[ April 27, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Nick, I don’t think you can separate legal and societal issues quite so neatly. Laws are expressions of society’s values, and the fact that we, as a society, won’t say that women are equal to men is a problem, whether or not I can point to a specific instance that the law would have changed.

I was at some of the debates the last time Iowa tried to pass an equal rights amendment to the state constitution. There were people who were arguing that it was unnecessary, that we didn’t need it, because men and women are already equal under the law, and that when the constitution says “men” it really means “men and women.” But there were just as many that were arguing that we shouldn’t have it because men and women should not be equal under the law. I argue that the presence of the latter should have proved to the former that they were wrong, or at least that “‘men’ means both genders” is not universally agreed on. And since that is the case, what is wrong with clarifying by adding the phrase “and women”? Why were some people so vehemently against it?
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
Yay dkw!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I'd support an equal rights amendment if it made it clear that it would have no impact on the constitutionality of abortion. Given that the equal protection argument is starting to overtake the substantive due process argument for abortion rights, I'm not willing to take the risk.

Similarly, I won't donate money to or support in any way groups associated with abortion rights, no matter how peripherally. Which means NO mainstream feminisim group will ever have my support. Feminisim's entanglement with abortion rights is a serious problem for achieving equality in this country.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
[edit]: Never mind. I thought I had formed a brilliant thesis about abortion and feminism. I hope no one saw that.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Fyfe ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Dag, please clarify. You're saying you don't support adding the words "and women" to the constitution because you think it might be used to support abortion? Can you tell me how that argument would be made? I'm having a real hard time seeing it.

And I'm bothered by the idea of not stating something as clearly and plainly as possible out of fear that it might be twisted to say something else.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Question: Why is it such a huge problem that the statistics show men make more than women, and yet it is not a huge problem that women are admitted to college in greater frequency than men? (The latter statistic is often portrayed as a success by feminism.)

Or why should we protest negative female stereotypes in the media, but not complain about cartoons like the Powerpuff Girls or Kim Possible, which very clearly portray men as stupid? (The latter shows are generally considered good for feminism.)

This is what is wrong with feminism: By exaggerating the "plight" of the female, it downplays the male. It promotes discrimination and stereotyping, more so than it helps women in any real way, I believe.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Women are what? *looks around* I must be in the wrong college! You're going to have to show me that one.

And who said the second wasn't a problem or shouldn't be addressed? I'm sure I've seen it addressed by different people at this forum on different threads (Amka comes to mind). Saying that is also a problem in no way makes the issues being discussed on this thread less of a problem.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There is an equal protection argument in favor of abortion - it's been discussed in the other thread. If there's any chance adding the ERA would strenghen the case for abortion, I don't want it.

It's not a question of being clear: there's no place in the Constitution that says "Men" have any rights - it's always persons. So I'm wondering exactly where you want to add "and women" to it.

Dagonee
Edit: and as for concern about twisting, do you think the people who passed the 14th amendment thought doing so would prevent states from banning abortion?

[ April 27, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
See above post for an illustration of why feminism is still needed.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
http://www.time.com/time/education/article/0,8599,90446,00.html

quote:

---

Males now make up just 44% of undergraduate students nationwide. And federal projections show their share shrinking to as little as 42% by 2010.

---

44% to 56% is a big difference.

And I'd argue part of the cause for it is the sort anti-male stereotyping that feminism serves to promote.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
I have a problem with the way the words "feminist" and "feminism" are used, because they seem to be used to describe some very different movements, some of which I agree wholeheartedly with, and some of which I find very offensive. There should be a way to readily tell the difference between what kind of "feminism" is being espoused when the term is mentioned.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
See, I DO agree that women don't get treated equally in every situation. It's getting better and better, but it's not perfect. I just see it as a problem of education more than anything. People need to learn from the get-go that women should be treated equally, and changing a law isn't going to change how people raise their children. I'd like to see all kids raised to believe that the sexes are equal, but how would you do that? If it means the government gets any say in how a child is raised, then I would flush that idea. I don't want them coming within fifty feet of my kids, I assure you.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Dag, I think I was unclear. I was referring to an amendment to the Iowa State constitution, which contains language very similar to the Declaration of Independence. “All men are created equal.”

.

Edit: boy is my face red. I went to look up the exact wording and found out that the amendment actually passed in 1998, while I was out of state attending grad school, and I missed it. The state constitution now reads “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” Hurray for Iowa!

[ April 27, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Here's another interesting, although anecdotal, statistic: In my high school class there were 3 males that had higher than a 4.0 GPA. There were 26 females higher than 4.0. This sort of percentage consistently holds true there.

Why? Are we supposed to believe girls just inherently work harder at school than boys?

Or is it that movements like feminism are driving stereotypes into our culture that favor females unfairly?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There are other explanations than conspiracy.

For both issues.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
DKW:

Oh, then I think they should change it to persons.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
It's not a matter of conspiracy. It's a matter of unintended consequences.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Well, I tend to think that the curricula style is geared more to the way girls think. I can't prove it, that's just the way things seemed to me when I was in high school.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
And wouldn't that be a problem just as much as the "work world favors men" problem?
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
US Constitution for those who want to check for the word "Man" or "Men".

There was a time when men were paid more than women because it was assumed that the man was or would be supporting a family with a wife who stayed at home to care for the children.

Feminism has hurt women more than it has helped them. While I am all for equal pay for equal work, I do not stand for the other things the Womyn's movement stands for. It has diminished the role of the housewife. Women who CHOOSE the occupation of wife and mother are seen as unambitious or unmotivated. The whole role as domestic caregiver has been diminished, and not by men. This important role has been diminished by the feminists who claim that they are stifled in that role.

I thank them for opening the doors for equal pay for equal work, but now they are going too far. They want special provisions made for them in certain occupations and when they are not made, they cry discrimination. (I realize that I am making broad generalization here so lick the salt block please.)

I am a woman. I am grateful that I can vote. I work hard at being informed. I have an education that will enable (and has enabled me) to support myself, because I am capable of doing so. I did it to expand my mind and reach a potential that I am still working to reach. I am grateful for those people (men and women) who opened the doors so that I can have equal opportunities. But I don't want or need special circumstances.

And! AND, I want to stay home and take care of kids. I'm waiting for the day when I can quit taking care of other people's kids. I love my job, but it painfully clear who has parents who care and are involved in their lives, and who doesn't. Feminism has allowed more people to be careless with their parenting responsibilities.

Wow. That was a tangent I didn't mean to go on. The fact is that there are gender differences. That is just a plain physiological and psychological fact. Differences do not have to equal inequalities. I don't want to be like a man. I want to be in a traditional gender role. I have no problem with that. I'm grateful for the people who made it possible for those who don't want to be in that traditional role to do other things. But feminism is destroying those roles.

We don't need feminism. We need people to quit judging on the basis of gender, color, religion, hair color or any other silly thing people find to create more contention.

Edit: Stupid, stupid spelling mistakes.

[ April 27, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: aretee ]
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
Xap, Tom and I were just discussing this. There are all kinds of associations now to encourage girls into math, science, engineering and other typically male-dominated fields and it looks as though they're working. Working at the expense of the young boys. Now, I would still argue that these programs are a good thing, but perhaps we should be encouraging equally.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Oy, to be able to delete the posts of others....

Edit: Oh sure, make me look bad by changing your post... Now, where's that nail polish? I have to have, like, SOMETHING to do while I talk to my best friend about china patterns on the phone here at work... Like, ohmygod!

[ April 27, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
aretee, I can think of a few people off the top of my head who rail against women working outside the home and do so fairly regularly--Phillis Schlafly, Dr. Laura come to mind. I'm pretty sure OSC is in there,too. (edit: I should say, when kids are in the picture.)

I'm having a hard time thinking of anyone who rails against sahms, much less anyone who has any kind of media exposure. Can you give me a hand?

[ April 27, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Storm: THAT is something I come up against daily. I once talked to a woman who told me that my mother-in-law was wasting her life, because she had a Master's Degree and was sitting at home "babysitting" all day. (Her own children!)

I have people EVERY SINGLE DAY who state or imply that I'm so smart, I could be doing something more worthwhile with my time then just playing house. EVERY DAY! It's sickening.

edit: TOO many CAPS is TERRIBLE!

[ April 27, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Helen Andelin got a little bit of coverage a few decades ago. I've read Facinating Womanhood and there were some things I found distrubing and some just silly. But, the crux of her book is marriage is a partnership and it teaches women how to better do their part. Feminists hate it. There are some things she has written that I would have to agree with the feminist on. But if you can get past the dated material, it's pretty good. Her husband wrote a book for men. I heard about it because I am really good friends with 3 of her grandchildren.

Like I said, she got some media coverage a while ago, and you can still buy her books on Amazon.com.

I'll look for some others.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
(responding to PSI)
Granted. I'm not saying it's not there.

If you talk to some of the women with children who work outside the home, they get a lot of flack for working outside the home.

Who gets more? Who knows.

I just don't think you can blame feminist propaganda for people questioning sahms. I think you can blame the fact that there are peckerheads on both sides.

By the way, I, personally, find your statement suprising. Perhaps it's just one of those things that you only percieve when it effects you, but I hear far more people make disparaging comments about women who have children that work outside the home.

[ April 27, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Um, Stargate. I think Dr. Laura's language is a little more strong than that. We are talking about Dr. Laura.
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
how many here are Pro-life??
Don't you think that argument of the Pro-Choices, "Its your body, you can do whatever you want with it" is kindof retarded??
I mean, your child is ALIVE. Her or his cells ARE NEW, therefore they are even more ALIVE than you. Besides, it isn't YOUR BODY you harm. Its your child's. Their life. i mean, if you willingly *cough* opened your legs, its time for you to take the consequences of your actions. Give the child for adoption since there are so many unfertile couples who'd like to be in your place, instead of deliberatlely murdering her or him.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
aretee, I mean, what feminists have you heard or seen lately speaking out against sahms? (See my post above for why I don't think 'feminists' have anytihng to do with the conflict.)
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Her or his cells ARE NEW, therefore they are even more ALIVE than you.

---

Sor-*cough*...sorry. That is just about the most logical statement I've ever seen.
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 

Storm Saxon, I read your question wrong.

When I was in college I heard many disparaging comments about women who didn't want to have a "career." Why were they in school if all they were going to do was "babysit?"

Raising kids is hard. I don't have any of my own, but I'm about to become a step-mom and I've had to change my lifestyle quite a bit. It takes discipline and a broad knowledge base. I can't help the 12 year old with her algebra; good thing her dad can. I need my master's degree just to help them with their homework. I'm glad I have a degree in education, because I can determine when there is a comprehension problem or communication problem.

Anyone who says domestic work is easy has never had to clean for other people.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
No problem.

I think raising children is hard. I understand the need to have someone with children when they are at home. But, personally, once the children are in school, I think the woman should do her best to get outside the home and go back to school, be involved in the community. Something.

I just don't see sitting at home for 7 plus hours cleaning and cooking as a, uh, growth experience for the woman. Then again, I place a low priority on cleaning and cooking, anyway.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I actually agree with that. Women don't need that long for cleaning, unless they expect to have the president over for supper. I would agree that women with all of their kids in school should get involved in something during that time.

I plan on homeschooling though, so that's a moot point. (For me.)

[ April 27, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
And before someone jumps on me for it, I say 'the woman', but it can be 'the man'.
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Oh, I absolutely agree with that! Get involved with something to keep your mind going! I don't think mothers should do NOTHING but mother. I quilt. I never thought I ever say or write that. But I love it. I have plans on going to law school or getting a PhD. That won't happen for a while, but I have plans on doing it.

Oh, and I want to get into photography more. And I want to learn how to play the piano (I've started lessons and I take them every other Wednesday).

I don't want to become stagnet. I don't think women should. But, some like watching their soaps and doing nothing but cook and clean. More power to them! (My dad got hooked on General Hospital when he worked nights. )
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Quilting is great. I'm doing a king-sized quilt right now that is a mosaic of a Ninja Turtle made of one-inch squares. It boggles the mind.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
You ought to get together with Bana and compare notes on mind boggling quilts.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Oooh, does she do that?
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
*sigh*

My evil anti-feminism plot is accomplished! I have derailed the feminism thread to QUILTING!!
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Have any of you been to the quilting museum in Paducah, KY? Some of them are just amazing.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
This is going to sound really egotistical, but I rarely enjoy looking at quilts, only making my own. I find most of them to be boring.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
You say that now, but wait until you see them. I didn't think I could enjoy looking at quilts either.

They're just amazing artwork!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Christy, I can't help wondering whether ANYTHING we do will be "at the expense" of young boys, as long as sexual equality is measured numerically, by percentages.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
It is pretty impressive what some people can do with quilts. My Mom does some neat designs, nothing that will be hung up in museums, but she did make a an uber-cool log-cabin/tiger design.

I'm ashamed to say that the only "quilt" I ever made was a 1.5'x1.5' quilt, and thought it looked kind of neat, let's face, that's one small quilt.

Annie made me a quilt for Valentine's day, keeps me warm, vibrant and pleasing colors. I love quilts!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I'm absolutely speechless at the ludicrous turn this thread has taken.

I believe that anyone who invokes Dr. Laura would be better off invoking Nazis (is that Gould's law?) as far as credibility is concerned.

I freely support the stay at home parent, be they mother or father (Go Moose). However as Tom and Christy have discussed before, in this economy it becomes increasingly difficult to do have a parent at home and have a standard of living that allows you to pay for your children's college education.

My mother is a SAHM with a Master's degree. She chose to stay home because she wanted to, and my dad is an engineer so they could afford it. 25 years ago that was doable. Today, in a much cheaper standard of living area than my parents live, Steve and I have to earn over double the income my Dad made to afford a similar sized house. We are BOTH engineers and BOTH work full time.

Guess who is in the overall lower paid engineer in the family? ME. Guess who is in what is supposed to be the higher paying engineering discipline? ME. Guess who did negotiate more hard nosedly? ME.

Yeah real fair.

AJ
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
I'm sure it's only because of all that time you took off for maternity leave.

[ April 27, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Yes I quilt and needlepoint (mostly Cross stitch). We have to get the house together before I really start doing projects again though. I machine peice but hand quilt if I really want it to be nice though I have machine quilted as well.

I *don't* cook. Anything above box dinners normally eludes me. (We were just discussing one of my Epic Cooking and Home Improvment simultaneous disasters the other day that I was thinking of making into a thread.) Thankfully Steve is an excellent cook so we don't starve. I'm almost respectable at baking but it is much more mathematical in nature to begin with.

AJ

(oh yes, and add dropping babies on their heads to my maternal qualifications)

[ April 27, 2004, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 

quote:

---

i mean, if you willingly *cough* opened your legs, its time for you to take the consequences of your actions.

---

quote:

---

We don't need feminism. We need people to quit judging on the basis of gender, color, religion, hair color or any other silly thing...

---

quote:

---

Feminism has hurt women more than it has helped them.

---

Baloney. Spoken by someone who is able to be blessed by increased sexual harassment laws, title IX, and family leave. You speak as someone with the ability to make choices. Someone who, if she was raped, would not automatically be blamed for it. Someone who the right to not be dismissed before you open your mouth.

If nothing else, it has given you options that you never would have had before. You may not choose to excercize them, and you may not agree with the goals of NOW (I don't), but saying that feminism has hurt more than helped shows either an ignorance of history or a deliberate donning of rosy glasses.

[ April 27, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
((((katharina))))

[insert tangent]

For some reason, I really like it when we agree on stuff.

Must be because I have a lot of respect for you and think you're one cool lady

Anyway....I was really excited to hear you say that.



[/tangent]
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Kasie, I was ignoring that comment. It was imflammatory and was written to demand a response.

However, while I disapprove with its delivery, I agree with the principle behind it. If you have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy. It is the consequence of the choice to have sex. Reproductive freedom is the ablitly to choose when, where, and with whom to have sex. These choices have not been restricted by any law. Abortion is the ablility to rid oneself of the consequences of sexual freedom.

(I wonder how badly I'll be flamed for that.)
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
AJ- I do cross-stitch too. Very fun.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Probably a lot, but some of us will agree with you.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Actually, in terms of sexual assault, victim blaming is still quite the practice.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

Women are what? *looks around* I must be in the wrong college! You're going to have to show me that one.

---

Celia, I thought that Purdue had a higher percentage of women than men. Or did you mean engineering in partiuclar, or is it different for grad school.

<--*Seconds Celia's last statment*

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Christy, I can't help wondering whether ANYTHING we do will be "at the expense" of young boys, as long as sexual equality is measured numerically, by percentages.

---

quote:

---

Did you know that girls involved with sports get better grades? Are more likely to graduate? More likely to go to college? Less likely to get pregnant as a teenager? Less likely to have eating disorders? Have better self-esteem? Are healthier? In almost every way, life is better because of it.

---

quote:

---

Brigham Young said that if he had to choose between educating a son and educating a daughter, he would educate the daughter. Brigham Young. I absolutely love that.

---

quote:

---

Educating a daughter means educating the whole family. It's for the next generation. Quality of life for the family and the society as a whole is raised because of it.

---

quote:

---

And yeah, I love it because it means Brigham Young was smarter than the "educating a woman is useless" meme that was so prevelant at the time.

---

Not really... it just means he held an equally wrong but less popular view - that educating women was more useful than educating men.

[ April 27, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Wait, so educating the father doesn't have a positive effect on the family? Families only benefit from the knowledge of the mother? That doesn't make any sense, especially in the case where the father is the main breadwinner, and his education directly affects the quality of life for his children. Not to mention that fathers are far more involved with their children today, compared to the past, so that kids can directly benefit from their father's knowledge as well.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
*Once more, agrees with Celia*

The word has so many connotations that just fighting through the meaning is a hard enough task. Well I'm for female and male equality when it comes to treatment, I never call my self a feminist simply because I don't like what most of the groups do that are associated wth that name.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
You know, at age twelve I could sense the inherent evilness behind the Mia Maid teacher's assertion that my only function in life was to bear many babies and keep my husband's shirt ironed and learn to tie ties properly so that he could perform his all-important priestly duties. (insert gagging emoticon)

I offered a dissenting opinion to this woman and was informed that first off, if I really felt like higher education was needed, I could attend a 2-year college in homemaking arts to better prepare myself to be a wife and mother and secondly, I would never make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdome if I didn't get married in the temple and have a minimum of one baby.

Newsflash: a woman's role in life is NOT defined by her uterus or her breasts or her ability to support a man in acheiving success. A man's role in life is NOT defined by his penis, the strength of his biceps, or the paycheck he may or may not bring home.

People are defined by their ability to be decent human beings, no matter their gender, age, occupation, social status, paycheck, physical apearance, etc.

It should make no difference at all whether I am a female or a male. Note that I said "should" - the sad fact is that we live in a world that is still defining people based on their differences rather than their commonalities. What's worse, these differences are looked at in terms of power structure and who's bigger/badder/best, etc. How sad.

And before anyone points the "feminist rag" finger at me , know this:

1) I was paid more on the basis of my skill and willingness to work hard in a traditionally male-dominated field (this was pre-mommy days). Apart from the lingering curiosity by the men I worked with as to my sexual orientation (they decided I was straight because of my manicured fingernails and their belief that lesbians never paint their fingernails)I had a good working relationship with these gents. So, on one hand I broke through the proverbial "glass" ceiling, yet I was regarded as somehow less that fully female because I was strong, capable and tough. *Shrugs*
2) I absolutely agree that there must be consideration of how women are treated worldwide, what their status is, and come to some conclusion and decisions about how we as a nation will deal with such issues as sex trafficking, mail-order brides, child pornography/sex sales. (Thank you, Dan - I worked on these topics a couple of years ago. They're difficult to broach.) Health and safety need to come first. Frequently, they come last.
3) Personally, I resent the living heck out of the culture that has made it practically impossible (whether economically, social acceptability, etc) for at least ONE parent to stay at home with the "flesh and bone" of their own "flesh and bone." As a culture, we don't value children, we don't value women, we don't value family. Instead, we value arguing over the semantics of what these things mean in the context of both daily life and the bigger context of our communities. And that's sad, too.

*Steps off soapbox with sigh of relief*

Now that I have all that off of my chest, did you all know that I am a registered republican?


(Edited for one last spelling mistake and an emoticon add)

[ April 27, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

equally wrong but less popular view - that educating women was more useful than educating men.

---

quote:

---

If the goal is more educated children, it isn't automatically wrong.

---

quote:

---

Larger Issue: decrying feminism means repudiating the positive benefits as well as the negative ones.

---

quote:

---

you must pay men who desert their family less and give the money automatically to the mother of the children.

---

That's not too bad of an idea. I don't think you could enforce it, though. How could you without violating other civil rights? Hmmm.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
wow aretee, you clearly had a much higher standard of living during childhood than I did.
(and notice, as an adult I have made a conscious choice for a higher standard of living in a lesser location than where I grew up.)

I've seriously considered this point. I have some friends in Michigan, who live in a relatively inexpensive area. He actually is a truck driver working out of Indiana, and she works at Burger King. They have one child. Their cost of living is so much less it is sickening.

In Oklahoma and more rural parts of Illinois you can have a *much* higher standard of living with lower actual cost. People actually drive nicer cars down in Oklahoma than they do up here (unless they are truly *rich*) because the living to income ratio is so skewed.

But the fact is, that the reason why more people live in the cities and why there are more people in the larger more expensive cities, is because that is where the jobs are. An chemical engineer is either in a metropolitan area, or out in the middle of nowhere at a chemical plant with nasty stuff so far out of the way that no one will care if it explodes because it was a worthless area to begin with. But those jobs are much rarer than you would guess, exactly because of the cost of living thing.

I think in economics they are called "opportunity costs". I would be interested in seeing CT's statistics on where the children of the poor are actually healthier, in the rural poor, where medical care for the poor is more inacessible and there are lousy environments, or in the city, where there are lousy environments, even if you have to wait in line forever, normally you can get your child seen by a health professional.

If you were a poor family, with both parents working at low income jobs and no insurance which would you choose?

AJ

[ April 27, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Sure wish you had been my Mia Maids teacher, aratee

ah well -

Good work! Keep it up!

Edited to add: AJ, I don't know about where you live, but here in WA state, the poor in the rural areas actually have higher rates of medical home pacements, well-child checks, dental care than the urban poor. It's not a constant for any area - just thought I'd let you know!

[ April 27, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Tres: Yeah, that's not a loaded definition.

How about "relative to the second-class status to which they were relegated before"?

---

Same difference.

Either way it's about advancing women specifically, rather than everyone.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I take it Mia Maids is not some sort of orange juice...
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Aretee: That's just it. You can't. Since you can't make sure that the "reason" men are paid more actually happens, then you treat everyone equally and let them work out their social arrangements among themselves.

Tres: There are lots of causes worthy of work out there. Saying one needs attention does mean the others are useless.

Banna: The MIA maids are the 14 - 15-year-old girls.

[ April 27, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
AJ

In the case of my MM teacher, she was a definite FRUITCAKE!

(14-15? Gee, things change. Age 12-13 for us girls - back when I was a girl . . . eeeck - I'm so oldddddd)

[ April 27, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Shan I was speaking mostly from experience with Oklahoma which I'm more aware of, having lived there for a while. And hearing tales of what went on in the rural school systems where my roommate's parents worked. And Oklhahoma is I think much larger down the totem pole in terms of mean income compared to WA.

AJ

(yup just checked the US census bureau. Median income WA: 44K Median income for OK: 33K)

[ April 27, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Please tell me MIA doesn't mean Missing In Action.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Tres: There are lots of causes worthy of work out there. Saying one needs attention does mean the others are useless.

---

?

I didn't say other causes were useless...
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
well Celia I guess it depends on what kind of "action" they were missing from...
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 


exactly why i wonder....
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*insert a NOT in the sentence above*

Dang typing habits.

I just mean that because feminism as such does not address all social issues that need attention, it doesn't it isn't needed or is useless.

I'm worried as heck about the dropping rates of college enrollment and graduation for men. I've even seen in this generation of my family. The guys have all gotten married relatively young and didn't graduate from college. The only people with college degrees are the daughters. That's partly because my brothers are computer programmers and don't need a degree to do their job, but still, it's worrying. And it's representative of a larger trend.

MIA = Mutual Improvement Association
It's the old name for the Young Men and Young Women's (teenagers') group. The Wednesday night activities are still often called Mutual for no logical reason.

[ April 27, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
It goes beyond income, AJ. It is an issue that depends heavily on health insurance accessibility (private or government), doctor/dentist buy-in to providing services to the poor (who usually have government sponsored insurance which pays a fraction of the actual cost), transportation issues, education and community buy-in to the importance of providing services in an accessible fashion for low-income people.

Also, compare the cost-of-living to the median income to a "self-sufficiency" income. It's a rather fascinating thing to look at - I take Wa. State down to the individual county level for community needs assessments in my work, so this is just an area that interests me . . . I look for similar county structure in terms of demographics, economy, etc. Keep the apples:apples rather than apples:oranges idea -
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Yes, but the advancement of women in society entails the dropping of men. You can't have one without the other. And if women reach the equality line and feminism keeps pushing, that necessarily means it's going to be promoting inequality, and discrimination against men, if it succeeds.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I bow to your more incredible knowledge shan (even if I am a purple grape) I got off the topic of feminism I guess.

My point was basically women not getting paid as much in a two income working poor family is hurting the family. Feminism would espouse equal wages for the men and the women and therefore would elevate the poor even at the lowest levels.

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That has been the issue for, for instance, Title IX. Because the opportunities for women need to be more equal, if there is not an increase of money to the sports programs, some men's sports are being dropped.

But that HAS to happen. It's unfortunate for the men sport that is dropped, but it only existed in the first place because of an inequality that is being corrected.

In a year of corporate bombings and criminal CEOs, when the poster child for a Fall and the biggest object of schadenfruede is Martha Stewart, then feminism is still needed.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
You know most of these anti-feminist arguments, make less sense than an excercise I have seen done.

Try blaming the National Debt on Women's Sufferage and I bet you can come up with more convincing anti-feminist arguments than anything I've seen so far in this thread.

AJ
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
kat:"It's unfortunate for the men sport that is dropped, but it only existed in the first place because of an inequality that is being corrected."

How is this the case? In what way did inequality cause colleges to start up men's wrestling programs, as an example?

I agree with the rest of your statement; I just don't get that particular claim.

By the way, since you're a supporter of Title IX, I imagine you would probably hate Papa Joe Chevalier. He's a radio sports talk show host, and he's the most brilliant one out there (in my opinion). But he has a glaring flaw, and that is his view on women's sports. He can't let more than a handful of days go by without a big rant about Title IX.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm not going to take the extreme view of whether I like the sum total of Feminism or wish it had never happened. I think the question of Feminism today is whether it is helping or hurting. Whether backlash is driving more of the young and impressionable away from assertiveness. Whether Feminism addresses possible behavioral differences between the sexes.

Mack mentioned the problem of abuse. I don't know if it is worse for males or females, for perpetrators or victims That is, I heard a factoid once that most child abuse is perpetrated by women. (I use factoid here in the sense that the idea depended on a lot of never reported supposition). Is sex abuse worse than beating? Why? What does that tell us about the difference between males and females? I'm pretty sure a boy who has been beaten feels guilty as often as a girl who is raped.

I believe there is a difference between men and women, but I'm not sure where the feminist movement is acknowledging it. As a prospect for their philosophy, I feel they just want me to be successful by the measure that men have established.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I'm puzzled. I'm not arguing with you, AJ. Just sharing information. It's an issue that cuts across so many different areas and levels. And looks very different depending on region. But also looks very similar in many ways -
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Girls are beaten too. Boys are raped as well.

Victim blaming continues.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
No, I know you weren't arguing, Shan, but I realized that if the argument is going to be made, you are more equipped to do it than I am and haven't made it, so maybe it isn't as valid of an argument as I thought it was.


AJ
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Try blaming the National Debt on Women's Sufferage and I bet you can come up with more convincing anti-feminist arguments than anything I've seen so far in this thread.

---

I could say the same about pro-feminism arguments.

quote:

---

That has been the issue for, for instance, Title IX. Because the opportunities for women need to be more equal, if there is not an increase of money to the sports programs, some men's sports are being dropped.

But that HAS to happen. It's unfortunate for the men sport that is dropped, but it only existed in the first place because of an inequality that is being corrected.

---

quote:

---

Tres, saying that more boys want to play sports than girls, when the opportunity for the girls to play sports has not been there, is a circular argument. It takes time to build a sports program. You know that.

It's like saying that dropping enrollments in college for guys isn't something to worry about because obviously the girls want to go more.

---

quote:

---

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i mean, if you willingly *cough* opened your legs, its time for you to take the consequences of your actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope I'm not the only one who finds this sexist.

---

Ok, first of fall, I said if you WILLINGLY did it. In other words, if you were thinking like a whore. Not if it was rape, or any other situtation in which you unvoluntarily had sexual intercourse. Please read my posts carefully so don''t that you don't misunderstand them .
 

---

Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
 
I just have point up the difference I see in girls now from when I was in school. In the 80's and early 90's, most girls did not play sports much. Only a few of my friends were on sports teams. More got into cheerleading. It never occurred to me to play sports (another bookish, unathletic family here).

And now I work in the Young Women at church, and only a few girls don't play at least one sport. They all do swimming, basketball, field hockey, and...uh, stuff.

That's a direct result of Title IX and the encouragement of girls to play sports, and it's a good thing. I agree that it's been unfair to the boys--but how many schools would have instituted any girls' sports at all without Title IX to browbeat them into it?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tres, didn't you make up your example?

I have a friend here in Dallas who is on SMU's rowing team, on a scholarship. It only exists because of Title IX. She loves it, and the team doesn't take up the resources of, well, a stadium in order to play.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Tres, the article you cited suggests pretty strongly that the reason for the gap in admissions is that there are less men applying. Not that women are getting preference, but that women are the majority of people actually applying for admission.

quote:

---

Some private liberal arts colleges are making it easier for men to get in. At Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa., this year's freshman class is 43% male — up from 36% last year — in part because the school gave preference to "qualified male candidates on the margin," says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment and student life.

---

quote:

---

I said if you WILLINGLY did it. In other words, if you were thinking like a whore

---

quote:

---

That's a direct result of Title IX and the encouragement of girls to play sports, and it's a good thing. I agree that it's been unfair to the boys--but how many schools would have instituted any girls' sports at all without Title IX to browbeat them into it?

---

quote:

---

Tres, didn't you make up your example?

---

quote:

---

Tres, the article you cited suggests pretty strongly that the reason for the gap in admissions is that there are less men applying. Not that women are getting preference, but that women are the majority of people actually applying for admission.

---

quote:

---

If a woman refuses to cook for her husband or forces him into abstinence, and nags and criticizes and belittles him (lack of respect), can't expect him to be nice and kind to her.

This is what feminism has done to women, making them believe they can be that way and then blame men if they are not nice towards them.
And women keep feeling dissatisfied and never stop and think they (themselves) are the reason for their own unhappiness.

---

quote:

---

It's nice that you refer to him as a "male" and not a "man", if he would refer to you as a "female" you would get very upset about it.

This is typical of the lack of respect towards men in general.

---

Talk about trying to get us to see fences that aren't there.

Tres, that is a symptom of continued inequality. A continued emphasis on the difference of genders that leads to progress for one causing harm to the other. It isn't a necessity and it's something that a feminist who truely wants equality is disturbed by. Is the solution to continue to emphasis equality until people actually start to believe it, or to put women back in thier place?
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Okay, maybe I need to be hit with The Subtlety Stick but is this person for real?

quote:

---

I hate to disgree with you because there is a thing called condom which men practise putting on in a banana while they are still in high school. As for girls, there are pills and vaccines, and the ever powerful way to coerce their husbands into wearing those things I told you about called, once again, a CONDOM.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 1:27 NIV
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

---

 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Banna, really. Your using the word obviously shows both your misogynistic and misandric tendencies. And we all know how you beat him up. The truth is out.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Maybe Alt means Depo Provera? Not a vaccine, but it is administered with a needle.

It's shouldn't matter, Alt of D, but are you a male or a female yourself? I'm female, in the spirit of fairness.

P.S. As a recovering Dr. Lauraholic, I can tell you that Dr. Laura is NOT considered required reading for this board. Unless there was something I missed in the "required reading" thread which I've skipped to be contrary.

[ April 27, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Have you ever heard Celia or I say that men and women are identical? Absolutely not!

We very much enjoy the differences and I think I can speak for both of us there

However we do the exact same job and get paid less. Neither of us plans to have children or has take any maternity leave to this point.

Find out how unequally vasectomies are covered by insurance plans compared to tube tying and you will have a bit of an eye opener.

What is fair about that?

AJ
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Bravo Stargate, and these days it is taken to a entirely political extreme, the original moral basis of it are lost. These days things like lowering the admittance physical requirements for police, fire, and military units so that more women get in is insane! The whole point of the physical testing is that only the strongest most powerfully built people will be doing those jobs, thats the whole point!

BTW Stargate, you missed the Stargate SG-1 thread, best show ever!
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

I wasn't talking about the scenario you made up. I was talking about the actual effects of Title IX.

---

quote:

---

Are you really saying that equal pay for equal work is causing men to not apply to college? I'm not sure what you mean.

---

quote:

---

Tres, that is a symptom of continued inequality.

---

What is? The thread is moving too fast for me to see what you are responding to.

If it's that quote you included, that's not mine.
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Stargate

Oh, please. Are you deliberatly misunderstanding me, or am I just doing that bad a job. Obviously there are differences (I don't see too many men out there giving birth), but in the cases of opportunity (specifically educational, as that's what I was talking about), there needn't be. Home ec used to be the girly class, apparenlty we're reaching a point where math will be the girly class because we keep emphasising a gender association where there shouldn't be one.

[ April 27, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Rhaegar, most the cops I know are not in the top percentile for strength and fitness. I agree that a firefighter should be able to carry a person. But I reject the idea that it is the minority of men and the no women who are strong enough to do these jobs. I submit that two women can write a traffic ticket as well as two men. That said, I'm still not in the economic feminist boat.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Rhegar I would argue that any woman that CAN pass the physical tests (which should not be lowered) should be allowed the same positions as the men. And take a look at some of the female firefighters around. I'm positive they could haul me out of a burning building.

If the phsyical tests aren't necessary for the job (as in many military combat positions these days since they are more about computer interfaces than physical strength) then the women should be allowed to have them too. I am for women in combat, if they can perform their job to the standards specified regardless of gender. I understand that many women will not be able to meet the physical standards. That doesn't bother me. Some can. I could. So if they want to fight why not let them?

AJ
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
*Turns his agency to post in this thread over to Celia*

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Tres, it was a response to the last post of yours I saw before I started typing:

quote:

---

Anyways, yes, fewer men are applying. This is why I say feminist ideology is impacting the expectations placed upon men, and ultimately the way they see themselves.

---

I certainly didn't mistake what I quoted in my previous post as yours.

*is obviously still new at this serious discussion stuff*

[ April 27, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think the discussion is deteriorating...

[ April 27, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
 
Bannana Im not argueing that they shouldnt be allowed to do it, I'm simply saying that lowering the standards for politcal reasons is insane.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
OK, well I'm going to jump out of my previous statement for sec and post an actual brain-thought I'm having here.

A serious problem that could be inhibiting this discussion is not just the definition of feminism, but what are we talking about when referring to feminism? A group specifically designed to further feminist goals or just the general ideas and principles behind feminism? I'd be against 1 and for 2. I'm not sure what people mean when they're saying "feminism has done more/less good than it has done bad." or "feminism is (not) still needed today." Do you mean feminist groups or just general emphasis on it in our culture or what

[EDIT: for spelling as was requested]

Hobbes

[ April 27, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Stargate the required reading in this forum is the previous pages of the thread, which you clearly haven't read.

Re: Dr. Laura. I find it very hard to respect anyone whose basic representation of themself is other than truthful. As Dan Raven once said, her actual qualifications make her nothing more than a glorified gym teacher. Her doctorate is in physiology which has very little to actually do with psychology (other than the similarity in the way they are spelled) and she passes herself of as a expert psychologist.

And her job as a radio personality is to be an entertainer which requires no actual qualifications whatsoever. Truth does not actually come into play unless it is truth in advertising.

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Ok Rhegar I'll agree with you on that point. But I think disallowing women who can make those physical standards is injustice.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
(wow hobbes, that was painful to read. feel free to edit your post for spelling and typos)

* runs away from this crazy thread as quickly as possible *
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
See, hobbes, that's why when people ask me if i'm a feminist, i ask them what they think that means before i answer.


 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
I didn't read through all of these pages, but I always like what Dr. Laura has to say on the subject. Dr. Laura on the Women's Movement
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Sorry Sun, my roomates sleeping so all the lights are off and I've been spending the last hour and half either trying to read Stranger in a Strange Land in the dark or trying really hard not to doze of reading Stranger in a Strange Land in the dark.

Anyways, if it bother you that much I'll edit it for typos but I hate editing content after it's been responded to.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Ha! Good point Celia, it's such a vague word.

Ohh, and I wasn't dozing off because it was boring, I was dozing off because it's dark.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I HAVE READ HER BOOKS, several of them. And I think they are mostly rubbish.

I also listened to Dr. Laura regularly for several years due to being in a household with an avid listener, my mother. Though my mother listened because she mostly enjoyed disagreeing with her, though on a few subjects they happened to agree for entirely different reasons.

AJ
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
Go outside, dear, it's still daylight.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
It's cold and scary out there!

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
No, I think most of her advice is hogwash that takes advantage of desperate people to promote her personal agenda. (I would use stronger language but it isn't allowed on the forum) She and Jerry Springer live on the same ethical plane, making their fortunes from the misfortunes of others. And I think Springer actually probably does more good for the participants than Dr. Laura does. Actually Dr. Laura is worse than Springer because she is hypocritical about why she does it.

AJ

[ April 27, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Dr. Laura's dissertation was on diabetes. Do you know the difference between physiology and phys ed? Anyway...
:counts to 10:

I think I can see at least one unintended effect where feminism is undermining itself. Earlier it was stated that girls get better grades and represent a higher proportion of college students. And yet they are still dwarfed in the engineering profession. We've discussed before some engineering society's goal of 50% women by 2010 or something, and much laughter ensued.

The trouble is that the feminization of education is just leading to a higher quality of woman in already feminized fields like education, nursing, and - within medicine - gynecology. Meh, I don't know if this is a trouble, really, as I was saying on the last page that Feminists should embrace a different standard of worth than dollars earned.

I do agree in equal pay for equal work/qualification. And I don't see anything unfeminine about engineering. What fields do I see as unfeminine...? Can really think of any a woman shouldn't be able to do if she chooses.

On ERA and women in combat, I have some vague memory (keep in mind I was 7 at the time) of a feminist on the radio saying "without ERA we can never force a female soldier to have an abortion." Last I knew (as a 23 year old) women can opt out of their enlistment entirely if they become pregnant. If half your fighting force was female and being pregnant allowed them to leave the front... well, you see the logistical nightmare if not the compromise to actual readiness.

Of course, this was before Norplant and depo-provera.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
I wish I had the time to read this whole post and write long thought out responses, but RL is calling remorselessly today...

However, Kasie, I get your OP and why the boy's comment upset you. It makes me angry when women willingly give up their power to men.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
romylass, Kasie wasn't upset about the mom. She was upset that the boy would believe that about the mom. And I can see Kasie's concern on that. But, then, I usually tell my husband how to vote. Even the year he had an absentee ballot and I didn't.

P.S. I guess I see, ultimately, from how both men and women were willing to believe what the boy said, that some form of feminism is still needed.

P.P.S. Stargate, are you sure you know who Jerry Springer is? I don't, and so wouldn't call that comparison the height of hyperbole that you seem to find it. She is a qualified therapist, but performing on the radio is not giving therapy. I don't respect the character represented on Frasier.

[ April 27, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 

quote:

---

The trouble is that the feminization of education is just leading to a higher quality of woman in already feminized fields like education, nursing, and - within medicine - gynecology.

---

quote:

---

But somewhere along the line, black became white, up became down and good became bad

---

That's from your little Dr. Laura link, UTAH. (And, I'd like to point out, in the context of the article, there is no small racist overtone to that comment).

Oh, and I apologize to all of those women I have enslaved by being liberated. See?



I'll even cry for you!

I'm sorry, but I honestly pity those who want to go back to the 1950s and "Keeping Up with the Joneses."

Like....gah. This entire thread has floored me. I think it's pretty much time for me to step out of it, because...yeah. Seems to me Hatrack is a pretty good crossection of "Red America"...I don't know, but half of the world (the half I grew up in) sees the world a lot differently then most of you people (celia, ak, banna, and others, I'm sorry if I didn't mention you) excepted.

Honestly, people. Wake up and smell REALITY! The world is changing! Women are NOT stuck in the home anymore, and I'm sorry if that scares you! Grow up! Wake up! For your daughter's sake, if nothing else.

(Small note: the above is not directed at Tresopax, who is arguing against feminism because he believes it hurts *men*, not because he believes it hurts *women.* Different issue.)
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Why do they remain male dominated pooka? That is what celia and I are trying to figure out. Is it truly nature over nurture? Why DON'T we get paid the same? Why don't we have the same level of opportunity and advancement? Why are we just patted on the head and assumed that all we are good for is looking cute?

Why pooka?

If you can give me convincing whys I'll stop disagreeing with you.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 
*falls over and dies*
Seriously?! Dr. Laura?!!!

Deterioration is right. This poor thread.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

What you're saying shows that dr Laura is right , today's generation has been brainwashed by the media who is pushing a liberal agenda.

---

Okay, everyone, repeat after me... the... media... is... not... liberal.

Don't perpetuate lies.

edit: Okay, okay, so that was an overstatement. SOME media is liberal like The Nation, but there is no freaking way that things like CNN, Time, MSNBC, Newsweek and the like are liberal.

And if you think that Fox News is liberal... well, there's no hope for you.

edit again: Just to clarify, "some" means "very little"

[ April 27, 2004, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*hugs Christy and RRR*
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
::hugs Banna::

Now my post looks ugly with the edits, but I don't want anyone to reply calling me a liar because I implied that none of the media whatsoever was liberal.
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 

quote:

---

Honestly, people. Wake up and smell REALITY! The world is changing! Women are NOT stuck in the home anymore, and I'm sorry if that scares you! Grow up! Wake up! For your daughter's sake, if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

but there is no freaking way that things like CNN, Time, MSNBC, Newsweek and the like are liberal.

---

What? You're kidding me, right? Do you think having one or two conservative commentators saves a news program or publication from being slanted to the left?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Okay, I figured out why this thread is affecting me so much.

Throughout my life, I never realized there were people who actually thought they way some people on this forum apparently do (Stargate, Rheagar, UTAH). My entire life, my mom (a stay-at-home-mom with an MBA) has told me that I can do anything. Anything! Whatever I wanted, the sky was the limit.

My whole extended family told me that. My aunt single-handedly created the television department at Voice of America. My grandmother has a bachelor's degree, and in the 1940s and 1950s she worked as a social worker, one of the few professions open to women. My dad's mother was a nurse. My familly is full of strong women. My mom and grandmother were also SAHMs. And they taught me that could be a strong thing, too.

The point was that I could determine my fate, my destiny, and no one but myself could limit me.

That belief is absolutely intrinisc to my sense of who I am. I am not going to college *only* to broaden my horizons, to expand my mind. I am going to college because I want tools that will allow me to make a difference in the world. Whatever I might want that difference to be.

I can't imagine a future in which I don't at least try to use my talents to their very fullest potential.

The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be.

Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, the war in Iraq...yeah, I care about those things. But they are not essential to my person.

This is.

[ April 27, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I don't think that she meant staying at home wasn't an option. I think she meant leaving the home and getting a career was an option.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
aretee the key word in the quote above is
*stuck*

I don't think anywhere on this thread you will find denigration of stay at home mothers or fathers.

But being pro choice should mean that you are glad women are able to make the choice whether they stay in the home or not.

Unfortunately economically many that want to stay home can't afford it near the poverty line. And they are being further hurt by the fact that their wages arent equal to men's wages. Women trapped in low-paying jobs don't have a lot of *choice* either.

Staying at home with or without the kids has always been a luxury of the rich.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
artee,

I didn't mean to come off as saying that the path of rearing children is a bad one. I don't think it is, and I think it's up to the "standards of feminism". Please read my above post, and the article UTAH posted, and then see what you think.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Kasie that was beautifully written. My mother chose to be a stay at home mom. I do not denigrate her choice. She has a Master's Degree in Education, because her father told her she shouldn't major in chemistry when seh went to college since chemistry was for boys.

She always told me I could be anything. While she may not agree with all my lifestyle choices I know she is proud of me because I'm a chemical engineer and doing what I want and love to do.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
Hobbes: thanks. It was not a big deal, I was just amazed at the post. It was so unlike you! I even read it a few times just to see if maybe it wasn't you!

you're still cool, you and your smiley posts.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I've seen a few arguments about why you can't make the sky the limit (i.e. people, mostly feminists, talking about the glass ceiling and the like) but I don't recall anyone saying that women shouldn't try to use their abilities to their fullest potential. I think I missed something.

[EDIT: Thanks Sun
Ohh, and if you're reffering to the links Kasie, then I would certainly have missed something since I admit to having not followed them]

Hobbes

[ April 27, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*hugs Kasie* That's exactly it. That's exactly what I mean.

Telling anyone, anytime, that the gifts they have are wrong, that despite the desire, ability, and opportunity to make a fabulous difference, they are wrong and unfeminine for wanting to do it, isn't right at all.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you think having one or two conservative commentators saves a news program or publication from being slanted to the left?

---

quote:

---

That belief is absolutely intrinisc to my sense of who I am. I am not going to college *only* to broaden my horizons, to expand my mind. I am going to college because I want tools that will allow me to make a difference in the world. Whatever I might want that difference to be.

---

quote:

---

But being pro choice should mean that you are glad women are able to make the choice whether they stay in the home or not.

---

I am. I posted that when I first entered this thread.

I'm sorry. I overreacted to your over reaction. I have faced the opposite from what most of you are saying. I have been told that I am wasting my abilities and talents because I don't want a career. I want to be the best I can be...as most of us do. But I'm tired of defending my motives to people who think they are enlightened.

I'm sorry I over reacted. I think we are arguing over a semantics and issues. Again, Kasie, I'm sorry.

Edit: RRR:

[ April 27, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: aretee ]
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Why are you rolling your eyes at me when I just reversed what you said? You should be rolling your eyes at yourself.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
(((artee))) I figured that's why you might be upset by what I said. I know that's what you're planning to do and I have ever bit of respect for you . I did make the mistake once of saying something, jokingly, to my mom about how I didn't want to be a SAHM. Big mistake, I felt terrible

But I learned....and now who knows, I might end up being one, I might not....we'll see But that's the beauty of it.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
(I apologize, I've only read about 10% of the posts, so this may be a repeat)

It's kind of like Mona Lisa Smile. Who was the incorrect one? I felt that the statement the movie was trying to make is what Kasie is trying to expound upon. Women and men should be free to make their own educated (educated in the sense of having full knowledge of their options) decisions in life. This should not be affected by the whims of societal condescension. In Mona Lisa Smile (spoilers?) the girl who chose to be a SAHM at the end was making the right choice, because it's what she wanted. She looked into herself and made that decision with full knowledge of her options. The other girl who played the perfect wife but then divorced her husband was not there to show us that SAHM is a wrong choice. She showed us that blind decisions can cause enormous damage to the self and to our loved ones.

Whenever you make a rude comment about how a woman or a man is incapable of making a decision solely because of their gender, you add to society's negativity, society's ignorant assumptions. You make it that much harder for someone to truly achieve.

A true feminist (IMHO) is one who shows how any person should strive to accomplish that which they desire. And no smugness or condescension from the public should stop them.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
aretee, I don't think Kasie was overreacting. I think you are underestimating the difficulties in the workplace that women face in non-traditional careers.

Having said that I support your choice to be a stay at home mom. I think being a parent is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. I freely admit it is a job that I, personally, don't want!

AJ
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
(Oh, I kinda knew it was covering the same ground as Kasie's post. But her post reminded me of mona lisa smile...)

* hugs Kasie *

Kasie has it right. I just wanted to expound a little
 

---

Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
 
Right, and I wrote in one of my first posts in this thread that I am grateful for those people (men and women) who have paved the way for more women to have those choices.

I'm believe that I'm about to quote Oprah, but here goes. She said that, "Women can have it all. They just can't have all at once." I think that is an important distinction to make.

Okay...thanks for not over reacting to my over reacting.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kasie H:"The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be."

A noble sentiment, but fundamentally wrong.

I am more in control of my destiny than anybody else is (in control of my destiny, that is). However, being a man does limit my destiny. Being six foot two limits my destiny. Being near-sighted limits my destiny. Having allergies limits my destiny. Being born in a specific time and place limits my destiny.

I get what you're trying to say, though. You do not wish to be bound by rules of society, past or present, telling you what you may or may not, should or should not, do based solely on your sex. I don't know that anyone here disagrees with that.

See, I don't really see any significant disagreements at all in this thread. I really don't. I think we all agree on the basic premises.

But some of us hear the others saying "I endorse feminism" and assume that they believe X, Y and Z, with which we disagree. And some of us hear the others saying "I do not support feminism" and assume that they believe A, B, and C.

So once again, I think we are completely missing out on what everybody else really is trying to say, almost solely because of misunderstanding of terms. And this is why I don't like the terms "feminism" and "feminist."
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
Yes, Kasie, the world IS changing, but not always for the better. The deterioration of the family is not a good thing. It spawns all kinds of ill in the world.
I by no means let my husband decide who I vote for, by the way, or what I wear, or what I do for a living. We give each other the freedom to fly, but he is the man, the bread-winner, the father, the head of our household, and my hero, with me standing right there next to him, not behind him, next to him - an equal.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"My family is full of strong women."

Do you believe that strong women can choose to be homemakers, or obey their husbands because they believe God commands it?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
As for the homemakers part, Tom, didya READ the last page?

Or even the rest of that post that you quoted, for that matter??

[ April 27, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
If you want to understand what Tom is getting at I think you're going to have to re-read your very post in this thread.

I think.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 

quote:

---

Dr. Laura's dissertation was on diabetes. Do you know the difference between physiology and phys ed? Anyway...
:counts to 10:

---

quote:

---

But being pro choice should mean that you are glad women are able to make the choice whether they stay in the home or not.

---

quote:

---

Why do they remain male dominated pooka? That is what celia and I are trying to figure out. Is it truly nature over nurture? Why DON'T we get paid the same? Why don't we have the same level of opportunity and advancement? Why are we just patted on the head and assumed that all we are good for is looking cute?

---

I don't think it's right for you to get paid less or overlooked for advancement. My husband is a massage therapist and it's a struggle for him to succeed in that. Most women and even more men would rather be worked on by a woman.

I guess we accept that separate will always result in unequal. Does different likewise result in being separate?

UTAH: Laura Schlesinger, Ph.D. only has one doctorate and that is in physiology. She is a certified counselor in the state where she resides (which is in California). I say it that way due to the tendency of California to be a little spastic. You know how many items say "this is known by the State of California to do such and such".

[ April 27, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
And Tom, as for the obeying her husband because God told her...I suppose so, if that's what she believes. That's way complicated, and it goes into who taught her the religiou and blah blah blah....so I don't know, I'd have to spend more time than I have thinking about it.

Then again, I don't see as to how it's *entirely* relevant, because it does assume that the woman should have the right to make that choice in the first place.

Which is what I"m advocating.

And Hobbes...
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Kasie, I'm asumming Tom is reffering to your orginal post (I don't know this is what he's doing, I'm not going to put a whole boat load full of words in his mouth) in which you thought that it was preposterous that your friend thought that his mother would vote for whoever her husband tells her to.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
Hobbes, he quoted a post of mine that's about halfway down page 7.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Hobbes, I think the family full of strong women appeared on the last page. While I don't know what Tom was getting at, I personally believe that a woman's commitment to God as she understands him may result in her looking subservient to an outside observer.

Those who feel persecuted as stay at home moms need to get over worrying what the others think of them. Unless you are doing it to be a martyr.

Oh, and someone asked me about required reading earlier. I'd think it was weird if someone hadn't read anything by Orson Scott Card, but as long as they weren't belligerent or obnoxious I guess I wouldn't mind them hanging out here.
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
So, in the seven pages since my last post in this thread, I think things have developed to more or less prove my point. This thread seems to have a pretty deep division, largely, in my opinion, because of the problems I mentioned within the feminist movement. Regardless of how any individual feminist may comport him or herself, the movement in general is seen by a rather staggering amount of people as being anti-male and anti-"femininity." In order for the movement to succeed it needs to do more to address these notions, to include everyone. People need to realize that a man can be a feminist, that feminism doesn't mean the end of family values, that being a feminist woman doesn't mean you have to stop wearing dresses or shaving your armpits. And until the movement does become more actively inclusive, until it does more to correct these false impressions that people have about it, I seriously doubt that it can really succeed.

Now, if I could just address a few things from before:

quote:

---

I believe the same attitude also applies toward feminism. As long as there are biological differences between men and women, there is someone, somewhere thinking he is better than the woman he works with or the woman he is married to or even the woman he fathered. The reason feminism is necessary is because our society has made these differences of opinion systemic -- we have institutionalized them. Yes, much progress has been made. But even if things do become equal, we are still biologically different, and therein lies the potential for abuse.

---

quote:

---

You're saying women are not equal to men. Well, they are. But there will always be chauvinists and people who pay women less for bigoted reasons. Has there ever been a time without bigotry anywhere in history? While is a valiant and worthwhile fight to try to end it, in the end, it's all rather futile.

---

quote:

---

Saxon, I know that dr. Laura advises against working outside the home because for us it's easy to fall into HURRIED WOMAN SYNDROME, and tend to forget our #1 priorities which are our Husbands and Children.

---

quote:

---

Honestly? Because of the thinking behind it. Educating a daughter means educating the whole family. It's for the next generation. Quality of life for the family and the society as a whole is raised because of it.

---

quote:

---

It should make no difference at all whether I am a female or a male

---

quote:

---

*mind boggles*
There are vaccines against pregnancy???

Do you know how much female birth control costs? Do you know that it ISN'T included in at least the State of Illinois health care package when Viagra is?

And if there is a vaccine against pregnancy please sign me up!

AJ

---

Its just something that you administer w/a needle and it somehow stops your reproductive mechanism from working to reproduce for I think about one month or so. An actually I don't think that birth control is something that can be considered THAT costly when you think about the concequences. You could end up pregnant and have to raise a child, which on avg. takes about 1/2 million to raise for 18 yrs., this makes birth control cost less than a nickel. Or the other option is to kill your baby and become a murderer. And if Illinois doesn't include birth control as part of their health care package, then its not my fault the state doesn't think about how such concequences could be prevented.
 

---

Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
 
I think (no, I'm positive) that she's pointing out your incorrect usage of the word "vaccine."

Vaccines are used to combat pathogens (generally, viruses) by using parts of the pathogen to incite your immune system.

Birth control works by inhibiting the menstration pathway, usually through a progesterone-like chemical.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Kasie, I know which post he was reffering to in the quote, I meant that I think where he was going with it was that you seemed so upset not that a wife may obey her husband in politics, but that someone even suggest that a wife obey her husband in political matters. That would be your story that started off this thread.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
Thanks for pointing that out dude.
I guess she was trying to do that, but that leaves me wondering how come she didn't mention that so that I understood that she understood what I was talking about.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Are you reffering to TomDavidson? Tom is defianitly a dude like me.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Prevent the 18-year virus! Get your Depo shot today!
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I think some folks' infertility works kind of like an immune response against either sperm or the zygote. But I'm not aware of research into turning that to birth control. For some reason that sounds really creepy, mainly because infertility is such a heartbreak for many couples.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Okay - a more serious post.

I was a "tomboy".

I grew up learning to wield a hammer, saw, pliers, measuring tape and various other implements of construction. At ten, I was carrying 4'x6' sheets of plywood (praying that a gust of wind didn't pick me up and fling me.) I grew up playing with trucks and climbing trees. I outdid the guys in sheer audacity on my dirtbike and skateboard. I wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking, cleaning, sewing and gardening. Except the results. Like my father and grandfather. Whom I worshipped.

And then I became 12. I developed breasts. Hips. Menstruation.

And my father and grandfather changed their tune.

The world was suddenly closed. The messages I received were along the same lines as referenced earlier by my MiaMaids teacher. Women were good for making babies and keeping house and tending their men. Period.

They are not not alone in their viewpoint. And that viewpoint and drastic change in how they looked at me and treated me were devastating. And I see it continuing. I see violence against women and children being normalized - from cartoons through snuff films. In magazines. In advertising. I also see some gains. More opportunities. But the work is not yet done.

So - on a personal note and on a professional note, yes, the belief that women are equal to men, the belief that all human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect are important beliefs and the framework by which I do my best to operate in this muddled world.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Man, go to work for 9 hours and the thread sprouts 6 pages. Incredible.

I actually read almost all of the posts. Even more incredible. There's just too much to try to respond to. But I just have to say, I don't think the only differences here are our definitions. I think the two sides are truly expressing wildly different world views, in regards to this issue.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Altáriël of Dorthonion I was trying to be polite and give you a chance to research the word "vaccine" and gracefully explain yourself.

Sorry I didn't realize you were so clueless.

Depo Provera is a hormonal shot that is injected once every 3 months. A vaccine is something that you only do once or twice, and the protection against biological disease last for years, though it may weare out after 7 or so years like teatnus shots.

Indcidentally if you hadn't figured it out yet Suneun and I are both female.

AJ
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

People need to realize that a man can be a feminist, that feminism doesn't mean the end of family values, that being a feminist woman doesn't mean you have to stop wearing dresses or shaving your armpits

---

Saxon thankyou thankyou thankyou. Also to Kasie, AJ and Katharina.

I consider myself strongly feminist. I also cross stitch. I like to cook nice meals for my fiance. (I also like to have them cooked for me ). The way I see feminism is about choice - that women have the right to choose their career path and destiny. For some women that is in the workforce, and for some women it is at home. But that choice should be free, and unencumbered of social pressures and expectations. Both paths should be supported.

I think the problem is a lot of people are stuck with the idea as 'feminism' as first and second wave feminism - the more radical stuff. I think the feminist movement has moved on, and I think that any reading of contemporary feminist thought will illustrate that. One of the articles I linked way back on page 2 is from a national feminist journal and argues that women should have the choice to stay home with their children, and that family values are in no way incompatible with feminism.

Unfortunately it is often the 'anti-feminism' (which personally I think is such a ridiculous idea - why would you be anti-choice and equality?) people who paint 'feminism' as a man-hating, housewife-denigrating movement. I don't think it is an accurate characterisation, and it's certainly not what I talk about when I mean feminism.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Is it just my obsessiveness and paranoia, or does Hollywood seem to find stories about women who kill men praiseworthy? "Chicago", "Kill Bill", "Monster". It just occurred to me watching the Oscars this last time.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
It all started with Farrah Fawcett and The Burning Bed, pooka -
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Shan - always a good source of rental ideas.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*smiles at Hobbes*

Thank you. That's kind of where I was going, although I was going to make a larger point, here, based on some of Kasie's own rhetoric. I'll go ahead and make that point now.

quote:

---

it does assume that the woman should have the right to make that choice in the first place.
Which is what I'm advocating.

---

quote:

---

Kasie H:"The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be."

A noble sentiment, but fundamentally wrong.

---

Um, I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to be telling me what about my sense of self is fundamentally wrong??

Back off.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
I think Tom as proven your point for you, Kasie.

For what it's worth, I don't think you are

quote:

---

hostile and reactionary and fiercely opposed to what you consider the backwoods, medieval provincialism of the "Red States,"

---

quote:

---

The "organization," the rhetoric and the branding and the us vs. them outlooks -- which, let's face it, are pretty much what you get in any Women's Studies department anywhere in the United States -- has become counterproductive to the goals that once drove it.

---

I did a feminist jurisprudence course last year and not once did I encounter an 'us v them' mentality, or a bias against people who chose to stay at home.

I agree with your point that is counterproductive Tom, but I don't think that is what modern feminism *is* about. I think it's how detractors like to portray feminism, but as I said before, if you read most modern feminist literature, that is not what is being propounded.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
What IS being propounded then?

What is supposed to separate it from the general public, which already believes women are free to live their lives for themselves, and already believes that they should be treated equally to men. Watering down the definition until everyone is willing to accept it does not make the feminist movement any more good in any real way. If feminism is just what everyone (except the rare exception) already accepts, then it really isn't necessary or useful to talk about "feminism" at all.

Maybe in THEORY feminism is just about the simple things that everyone already accepts, but at least in practice it is now something more radical. If it wasn't, it would simply not be able to find anything left to do.

[ April 28, 2004, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I'm wondering if Tom is turning in his "Head of Liberal Hatrack Cabal" card.

Tom, while I wouldn't consider myself a "rabid feminist" most of the ignorance (not displayed by you but others) on this thread about the treatment of women and women's issues in general has driven me farther towards the traditional "die-hard feminism" than I have ever been before.

Tom I also think you aren't being your standard logical self and you seem to be taking everything as a personal threat to Christy, who can hold her own, and posted in clearly support of one idea on this thread. I think you are having an expecant father reaction. Which is really quite normal and to be expected. It is actually amusing to see your dispassionate self get rocked so profoundly.

AJ

[ April 28, 2004, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Nope. You can ask Kasie; back when she did her feminism survey, I said pretty much the same thing: I believe feminism is dead, the evil zombified corpse of a movement, and feminists killed it. Moreover, I don't think it was killed by well-meaning feminists; I think it was killed by gloryhounds and professional activists who were looking for things to be active about.

I remember the first time I realized this, back when I was a passionate liberal and pro-choice activist, myself. My sophomore year of college, a group of feminists with whom I had worked on a "Take Back the Night" project -- a project, mind you, that in itself left me feeling rather uneasy, because there were definitely undertones of "fear men, who commit all rape" going on --were handing out fliers on the sidewalk. I picked up the flyer, curious, to see that it was advertising a massive feminist rally for the following month. It had a number of fairly interesting speakers and covered a handful of topics in which I was interested.

But men were specifically not invited. In fact, the rally organizers explained themselves in length on this issue, saying that the presence of men would produce a "threatening environment" to women in general, and that they would rather not hold the rally at all than allow guys to attend. But if any man "sympathetic to the cause" really wanted to help, "any assistance in providing and/or setting up audio/visual equipment prior to the event would be appreciated."

I was flabbergasted. Not only was this blatantly sexist, it even fell back on stereotype. So I asked some of the women involved about it, and a number of them explained that, due to years of oppression or ill treatment and the innate male tendency towards hostility and dominance, they simply didn't feel comfortable sharing themselves with men there. It became obvious to me that this wasn't so much social activism as it was a huge form of group therapy coupled with affirmation -- a kind of origin story for the free woman, complete with evil empire.

Because here's the trick: a real feminist has to learn how to hang out with men, or the terrorists win.
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
I have to say that, for once, I agree with Tom here. Tom, thanks for giving me a de facto reminder not to categorize people and judge by their groups (since you've expressed liberal viewpoints on other aspects, I was surprised by your opinions on this subject and on the abortion thread. That was my mistake, though.)

And Banna, I think it's rather condescending of you to ascribe all of Tom's motives to an emotional defense of his wife and an "expectant father reaction." He certainly wouldn't disagree with you if he were thinking logically, right?

My thoughts are mostly the same as Tom's and Tres's: the reason feminism is defined in many people's minds by its radical elements is because that's the only thing that separates it from the mainstream anymore. Most people don't think you have to call yourself a feminist to think men and women should have equal rights. They just think that's a given.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
See I would view that as "rabids" vs, the "moderates". Why can't they both be feminists?

AJ
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
btw pooka, I'm confused about something (even if it is mostly irrelevant) You tore Dr. Laura's qualifications more apart than I did, and yet you still like her?

AJ
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Can I make a suggestion re: thread format?

fallow
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
While Tom may disagree about the "rabid feminism" aspect, and I totally agree with his example, things exactly like that are why I'm *not* a member of the Society of Women Engineers,
I still don't think he agrees entirely with Tresopax. But maybe I'm wrong.

I guess what bothers me as demonstrated on this thread, is that people think women's equality is a given and has already been accomplished, and yet the facts don't support that reality any more than it supports the "Rabid" feminists variety of reality either.

AJ
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

If feminism is just what everyone (except the rare exception) already accepts, then it really isn't necessary or useful to talk about "feminism" at all

---

Or perhaps "everyone" is a feminist. I don't see a problem with that.

But I still think is useful to talk about feminism - because there still are issues that need to be worked out! Shan made a great list of them early on - but the fact is there are still fences and there is still inequality. I think anyone who can see that and wants to eradicate it is a feminist.

Maybe the problem is people have become so used to the portrayl of feminists as rabid, man-hating and extremist that that protrayl becomes the definition of feminism. You're not a feminist if you're not extreme - anything less is simply an 'equalitist' or someother name. It's shame that the name has become so associated with an extreme minority.

Tom - with regards to the demonstration - I don't agree with the exclusion or the stereotyping. However I venture to suggest that on campus nowadays (am I making you feel old? ) that women's societies wouldn't operate like that anymore. I know the one at my university doesn't - in fact, men are actively encouraged to become involved.

[ April 28, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Wow, Tom, are you ever wrong about what there is left for feminists to do.

1) Domestic violence is a horrific huge problem, against which we have only begun to make the tiniest advances. Still 40% of the women who are murdered are murdered by their boyfriend or spouse.

2) Sex slavery is a terrible problem even here in the United States where you can buy a Mexican or Russian "wife" practically anywhere, (you've all seen the ads), and it's even worse (if any sex slavery could be less bad than any other) in places like Southeast Asia, where a 12 year old Thai girl sold into slavery by her parents in is typically sold to up to 40 adult men each night. When these girls test positive for HIV they are dumped on the streets to die.

3) Rapes of female soldiers in the military is an awful problem. And who can doubt that for every one that's reported, several more, maybe dozens more, go unreported? Also for each actual rape, how many more acts of harrassment must occur?

4) Date rape on college campuses is widespread, sometimes involving drugs administered without the girl's knowledge or consent. At other times relying on the time honored method of plying her with alcohol until she passes out.

If those examples don't move you. If they are so quotidian and historically familiar to us that we don't feel they constitute actual social problems, then let's look worldwide.

5) Young brides in India die in statistically improbable numbers in suspicious kitchen fires after their husbands have collected huge dowries from their families, only to marry again. A few wives like this and a young man is set up for life.

6) Girls who were denied the right to be taught to read in Afhanistan under the Taliban desperately need remedial education, health care, and all the other things they were denied under that totalitarian and misogynistic regime.

7) Young girls who have all external genitalia removed, and their vaginas stitched shut, at great health risk, in Africa, to guarantee their virginity at the time they marry, and to discourage them from unfaithfulness to their eventual husbands by removing all possibility of sexual pleasure.

These things only are a drop in the bucket. What percentage of women worldwide are allowed to choose how many children they want to have? Whether to have sex with their husbands? (Rape of one's wife is not against the law in many countries.) Even whom they will marry or at what age? Women are virtually domestic animals in many cultures of the world.

There are very many reasons that feminism is needed in the world today. I have only mentioned a bare beginning.

[ April 28, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Anna Kate - don't forget the practice in India where widows (NOT widowers) are encouraged to throw themselves on the funeral pyre of their husband because their life is no longer worth living.

Plus of course there's sharia law under which a woman can be stoned to death for being raped. The penalty for men for extramarital sex is nothing.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Anne Kate,

A lot of the atrocities you enumerate may have had a pronounced and important role in keeping a society together and moving forward.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 

quote:

---

You're not a feminist if you're not extreme - anything less is simply an 'equalitist' or someother name. It's shame that the name has become so associated with an extreme minority.

---

quote:

---

No one is arguing that those problems need to be addressed. We're just arguing that you don't need to label it "feminism" to do it. Most people call it "human rights."

---

Kamisaki - why can't they be called feminist issues if they disproportionately (or soley) affect women?

In fact, it's important that they are separated from 'human rights' as a whole, otherwise they have a tendancy to be forgotten. In fact, in international law women's rights are considered fourth generation human rights - because they weren't acknowledged at the time of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in some countries still aren't.
 

---

Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
 
I am a little surprised that no one has distinguished the difference between gender and equality feminists. Most people in the Westernized world would not contest equality feminists. Equality feminists are basically those who are interested in social and political equality between the sexes; equality-feminists aim to foster a fundamental equality and respect for women in human society. Equality feminists include women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the Grimke sisters. In other parts of the world, particularily in Asia and the Middle East, a good dose of equality feminism would do the women in those societies much good.

On the other hand, gender feminists radically take the fundamental concepts of feminism to places the social movement should not go (I believe); gender feminists wish to abolish all distinction between the sexes, meaning that they believe there are no existing differences between men and women and that gender is actually a product of socialization. Gender feminists also believe that women in the United States are still victims of a male-dominated patriarchal society, despite all the previous limitations that women have already surpassed. In addition, gender feminists embrace the notion that because women have been so oppressed, they are better “knowers,” meaning that overall, they “feel” more deeply and understand reality better than men.

Gender feminism is considered the radical branch of feminism. It has very arguably hijacked the original tenets of feminist doctrine to include such issues as the erasing of gender, abortion, and homosexual privileges. To me, it has become painfully obvious that the movement has forsaken and lost its virtuous foundation.

Unfortunately, the majority of outspoken feminists today fall into this category; they have continued to push themselves so far from the mainstream, that I do not think they can possibly have a real or lasting impact upon the culture.

I consider myself to be an equality feminist; women have the fundamental right to political and social equality, but this is due to their humanity and not their sex. I do not consider myself to be a gender feminist, because I cannot bring myself to concur with their ideas of gender, sex, and various other social platforms they actively embrace.

Christina Hoff-Sommers discusses this subject extensively in her two books, Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. I have read all of the first book and parts of the second. I would recommend her books to anyone interested in hearing an alternative perspective on the state of feminism. Her most compelling criticism of gender feminism is that because gender feminists have made the fatal mistake of being so unwilling to listen to genuine criticism of their ideas, that the movement cannot possibly be considered academic, or in anyway, a reflective portrait of women in America.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Anyone ready to tackle "Barbie" yet?
 

---

Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
 
@FIJC,
Yeah. What she said.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*adjusts tackle*

whaddya mean by that?

fallow
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

gender feminists embrace the notion that because women have been so oppressed, they are better “knowers,” meaning that overall, they “feel” more deeply and understand reality better than men.

---

quote:

---

"Yeah. What she said."

---

Christina Hoff-Sommers is a great intellectual and speaker on this subject; I would like to see her take on Susan Faludi, Susan Griffin, and Catharine MacKinnon, in an all-out debate.

She's working as a fellow at American Enterprise right now.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Actually I think MacKinnon sometimes has valid stuff to say.

Sometimes.

Actually, my all time favourite feminist legal theorist (and just plain theorist I guess) is Hillary Charlesworth. She focusses on feminism in International Law and boy does she rock.

[ April 28, 2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
 

quote:

---

"I'm curious as to whether you've done any reading on the ethics of care v ethics of justice debate. It's one I find quite fascinating.

On the one side are feminists theorists who argue that women have more 'ethics of care' (ie the nuturing side) while men have more 'ethics of justice' - the legalistic/ratoinal side.

The theory argues that both ethics are equally valid - just because someone is better at nurturing does not make them less valuable then someone who is more talented in the rational way of thinking. The classic example is a child care worker vs a lawyer.

When this theory was introduced it was quite contentious - not least because it rehashed old gender roles and stereotypes that most feminists had been fighting against. I think it has benefit in that it equates equal weight and value to both different ethics. However I do think it is wrong to say that women are intrinsically more emotional and caring then men, and men are intrinsically more rational and logical than women."

---

Only as passing references in a few political journal articles. I definately do not know enough to have a fair discussion about it. I suppose that one could make a comparison of this theory to the necessity of justice and mercy within the legal system.

If you have any book suggestions, pass them by, if you don't mind. I am always willing to look into reading interesting books.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
FIJC - I've got some articles I'll dig out when I get home and give you the citations if you want.
 

---

Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
 
Great, thanks. I will do likewise, should I run across anything interesting.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Excellent!

And so the first cross discipline academic feminist cabal of Hatrack is formed.


 

---

Posted by FIJC (Member # 5505) on :
 

quote:

---

"And so the first cross discipline academic feminist cabal of Hatrack is formed."

---

LOL, how true, but kind of funny for me, since I consider myself to be a conservative of Burkean, Straussian, Augustinian, Aquinas, stripes.

Edited to add: And I also have a penchant for 19th century Russian men--Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; their writing and thoughts are just really nice to read. Why can't Russians write like that anymore?

[ April 28, 2004, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
That's ok. You can be the conservative-Burkean- Straussian-Augustinian-Aquinian-Feminist.

(Try saying that three times fast!)

I'll be the Moderate-Critical-Legal-Theory-withaPositivistslant-Charlesworthian-International-Law-Feminist.

I'm sure it will catch on.

[ April 28, 2004, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Anne Kate, the problem with the list you just gave me is that the ones which actually apply to this country -- and I'll readily agree that there are plenty of countries out there that could stand a bit more feminist activism, mind you -- are not, as a general rule, truly "feminist" issues.

Date rape, for example, is not a feminist issue. It's a RAPE issue. It's a crime of assault. If someone were to drug me and rape me, I would want that person prosecuted to the limits of the law, too. If I were out with a few friends and one of them, driving me home, pulled to the side and pretended to be out of gas until I did some "favors," I'd react with disgust and fury.

The issue here is not that men rape women; it's that PEOPLE rape other people, and this should stop.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kasie H:"Um, I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to be telling me what about my sense of self is fundamentally wrong??"

Well, if you said that your "sense of self" depended upon the belief that you lived on a planet around which the sun orbited once every day, I would also say you were fundamentally wrong about that.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Anne Kate, I'm with Tom in that a lot of the feminism I have been exposed to is about men all being evil rapists and not that rape is a crime that should be reported. I also pick up the message that the rape of one woman is the rape of every woman. Maybe that's just because I am crazy.

Banna;

quote:

---

btw pooka, I'm confused about something (even if it is mostly irrelevant) You tore Dr. Laura's qualifications more apart than I did, and yet you still like her?

AJ

---

quote:

---

Altáriël of Dorthonion I was trying to be polite and give you a chance to research the word "vaccine" and gracefully explain yourself.
Sorry I didn't realize you were so clueless.
Depo Provera is a hormonal shot that is injected once every 3 months. A vaccine is something that you only do once or twice, and the protection against biological disease last for years, though it may weare out after 7 or so years like teatnus shots.
Indcidentally if you hadn't figured it out yet Suneun and I are both female.

---

quote:

---

Well, if you said that your "sense of self" depended upon the belief that you lived on a planet around which the sun orbited once every day, I would also say you were fundamentally wrong about that.

---

quote:

---

The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be.

---

I think the sentimental idea of "destiny" is at odds with the reasoned approach that gave us "all [persons] are created equal". Or born equal. I don't know, do you believe in a feminism that excepts women from logical rigor?
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
could you explain that for me pooka please?
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
pooka, I"m afraid I don't really understand the question..."destiny" is at odds with "all persons created equal"? Maybe I'm using the word destiny differently than you are...would you mind clarifying? *honestly confused*

UofUlawguy,

Okay, well, then *your* sense of self is fundamentally wrong because Jesus couldn't *possibly* have come to the United States, and everything your religion ever told you was wrong, and I"m sorry but that's just how it is.

If I were serious, would you be pissed off yet?

I hope so.

Feel free to challenge the idea itself and say you think *that* is wrong. But don't *ever* challenge my sense of self. That's NOT fair game, just like your religion shouldn't be.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Alt, what's really troubling about what you've written is that you seem to be getting your information about this "vaccine" that works on someone's "mechanism" from your brother's girlfriend. You're a girl near the end of your junior year in high school, 16 or 17 years old, and you lack even a fundamental grasp of what birth control is or how it's used. This indicates, to me, a really scary lack of education from your schools, teachers, and parents on what it means to be sexually active... and by all means, please do choose abstinence over any other possible course of action.

However, women who HAVE been taught what sex is, what birth control is, what abortion is, and make an informed decision that premarital sex would be okay for them, shouldn't simply be dismissed as "whores".
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Altáriël of Dorthonion, all shots are not vaccines by any stretch. The depo provera injections are NOT vaccines.
from www.m-w.com

quote:

---

Main Entry: vac·cine
Pronunciation: vak-'sEn, 'vak-"
Function: noun
Etymology: French vaccin, from vaccine cowpox, from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae cowpox), from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow; akin to Sanskrit vasa cow
1 : matter or a preparation containing the virus of cowpox in a form used for vaccination
2 : a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease

---

All kinds of injections are given that aren't vaccines for various purposes. By your logic you could call a Botox injection a "vaccine" against aging. This is horribly incorrect. Pregnancy is by no means a "disease" either.

I'm sorry, but I have several friends who are doctors and nurses and am accustomed to using correct medical terminology at all times as much as possible. To me, it wasn't obvious at all what you are talking about. A vaccine has a specific definition for a specific purpose. You can call me unimaginative, if you wish when I can't think outside the box of that definition. I'm sorry if I'm out of touch with your vernacular, but I have never heard vaccine used in that way in any sort of every day speech either. I was actually trying to be nice by not coming out and telling you how blatantly wrong you were. I apologize. Next time I will be more blunt, if it is what you prefer.

AJ

[ April 28, 2004, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Shush, alr, you're ruining my favorite part of alt's posts. That being how everyone just summarily ignores her when she's being stupid. I love that.

Edit: That goes for you too, Banna!

[ April 28, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
It's nonsense to say those issues are not feminism but something else. Just as imogen rightly said above, those issues primarly affecting women often get lost or take backseat in overall human rights agendas.

The fact that people think there are no more issues to address just shows how desperately we need feminism. These things are not only horrible, they are beneath many people's radar.
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Kasie H:"If I were serious, would you be pissed off yet?"

No, I wouldn't be. Sorry to disappoint you. I've heard a lot worse, and very serious, without ever getting upset or offended about it.

I'm not sure why you are so upset, though. I didn't dispute your philosophy, just the way you expressed it. I said that the statement "I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny" isn't literally true, but that the sentiment you seem to be getting at is a good and valid one. I think I was pretty complimentary, actually.

Don't you agree that there are a whole lot of personal characteristics we all have, including our sex, that do in fact "limit our destiny"? There are all kinds of natural and unavoidable limits on our "destiny," that weren't put there by anyone else, so they can't possibly be unjust or a violation of our rights.

I want to reiterate that i AGREE with the sentiment behind your words. Within certain natural limitations, we each should be free to follow our dreams and aspirations, to fulfill the "destinies" that we set for ourselves. We should not let the blind traditions and prejudices of others stop us from trying to achieve great things, or pursue our own happiness. I applaud this philosophy, and I think that everyone that has posted in this thread would also agree with it 100%.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I believe the idea of "destiny" is at odds with the idea of free will. That is how I'm defining it.

Thomas Jefferson, who wrote "all men are created equal" (I'll leave the quote alone for now) didn't believe in destiny as far as I am aware.

If you are using destiny just to mean a goal of personal fulfillment, I guess that's alright. But repeatedly the feminism proponents in this thread have implied that if you repudiate feminism then you repudiate all the gains from it. I'm saying that if you embrace superstition, you can't also embrace reason and logic. I don't think tolerance of softheadedness should be one of the defining virtues of the cultural feminism I keep talking about.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
BtL, the problem is that I think she actually believes she is correct. And, what if someone else comes along even younger and more naieve and they believe what she says because they read it on Hatrack? I don't do it all the time, but sometimes I feel that rebuttals are obligatory even if the post by rights should probably be ignored. Skewed facts (that don't involve statistics which we can all argue about til we are blue in the face) do a disservice to the greater Truth that we are all trying to find.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
pooka,

Okay, I see. Yeah, I think I'm using it a little differently. I didn't mean it in a superstitious way. I said you are able to "choose your own destiny" -- which implies reason/logic/equality. Perhaps "future" would be a better word...I just meant that being a woman shouldn't impact the choices available to you.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Banna, I figured you were going to say that. And I agree with you, but it's already been pointed out quite clearly that she's wrong. When someone's obviously more interested in disturbing shit than learning anything I'm quite content to let them wallow in it.

And yes, I'm pretty sure she does understand that she's wrong and yes, I think she is primarily here to cause a ruckus. Props for gently correcting her once, but there's no point in entering a discussion with her at this point.

Just thought I’d try and spare you this crusade.
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
To say those issues are feminism is to ignore the men and boys who get raped and abused. It's just not accurate. They are not issues about women's rights. They are issues about rights in general.

There is a feminist take on the issue, which tries to cast the rape issue as an example of how our culture works against women and argues that we should consequentially fix our culture to make rape go away. I don't think this take is a particularly good one, though, in contrast to other non-feminist takes. It mainly scares women without doing much to fix the problem beyond vague claims that they should be "strong".

But, that certainly isn't the only view on rape. For one thing, you've got the anti-feminist take - arguing that men have a responsibility to protect women.

Thus saying feminism is not needed is not to say that rape isn't a problem. It's just to say feminism isn't the thing that's going to fix it.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*hugs* BtL you are a wonderful person. Too bad I'm already taken, because otherwise I might be casting lacivious eyes in your direction, even if you aren't an engineer. Though I guess you room with one...


AJ
 

---

Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
 
*is having a hard time imagining AJ casting eyes at someone who isn't a civil*

You must really be something, Bobble.

And, Tres, way to set a trap. Let's see who falls in.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

However I do think it is wrong to say that women are intrinsically more emotional and caring then men, and men are intrinsically more rational and logical than women.

---

quote:

---

And, Tres, way to set a trap. Let's see who falls in.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and I apologize to all of those women I have enslaved by being liberated. See?



I'll even cry for you!

I'm sorry, but I honestly pity those who want to go back to the 1950s and "Keeping Up with the Joneses."

Like....gah. This entire thread has floored me. I think it's pretty much time for me to step out of it, because...yeah. Seems to me Hatrack is a pretty good crossection of "Red America"...I don't know, but half of the world (the half I grew up in) sees the world a lot differently then most of you people (celia, ak, banna, and others, I'm sorry if I didn't mention you) excepted.

Honestly, people. Wake up and smell REALITY! The world is changing! Women are NOT stuck in the home anymore, and I'm sorry if that scares you! Grow up! Wake up! For your daughter's sake, if nothing else.

---

quote:

---

Kasie, I see something missing in the picture, where is the example and influence of men in your life? (father, brother, husband, uncles, grandfathers, etc.)
They were useless, I guess, as feminists would consider them just "sperm donors", just something needed to procreate.

---

I'm not a smart man, but I figure she probably focused on the women in her life because this is a thread about feminism.


 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
It's so apropriate Kat I'm quoting it again.

quote:

---

Did no one read Kasie's post? She whole-heartedly admires the women in her family who got all the education they could and then chose to stay at home and raise the next generation. She isn't looking down on those who did that - that's what the women in her family did, and I hear nothing but respect from her when she speaks of them.

If you hear scorn, it's coming from other sources or inside of you. It's not coming from Kasie.

---

PSI I think you are mistaking frustration for scorn there is a distinct difference. I don't think that frustration was directed at you, especially considering you aren't in the specific list mentioned by Kasie.

AJ

I am personally getting frustrated by the fact that being passionate on hatrack is becoming less and less socially acceptable regardless of the subject matter discussed. Anytime anyone expresses passion they get shot down unless it is Lalo who refuses to curb his passions.

AJ
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Sorry, AJ, it may have been passionate, but when is passion a good excuse to say hurtful things? "I'll even cry for you"...?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
PSI if that is hurtful speech we've got major problems at fundamental definitions. This actually may explain why we sometimes keep talking to each other but neither of us can figure out what the other is saying.

I don't see that as being hurtful at all. She is expressing a personal sentiment. There is nothing wrong with that. She is not singling you out. She might be using a little bit of sarcastic hyberbole, but Mark Twain was far more cutting in most of his writing. If that is what you percive as "hurtful" speech, then most of what I write must be downright "hateful" speech to you.

This makes me because I don't know what to do about it or how to change my own communication and interpret yours to make it so that we are communicating on the same wavelength, since I like you and want to get along.

AJ
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Banna, I disagree. I think we're definitely seeing some scorn.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Eh, maybe. I don't think it's scorn for the choice, though. More like scorn for thinking it's the only possible feminine choice.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I think it is mostly frustration. Expressing frustration can easily come out in a scornful fashion, but I really don't think it is scorn. I think if Kasie was actually expressing scorn she would have been far more cutting and contemptuous in wielding her words. I know she's a good enough writer to do so.

AJ
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
[meta-rant]I don't tend to read posts that contain quotes that don't fit on one screen, FYI. I put in enough time reading this thread and I'm not afraid to go back and reread stuff I need refreshing on. But I won't have someone else pick for me which parts of this 9 page thread are *really* worth paying attention to.[/meta-rant]

Tres brings up an interesting point. I think this is the aforementioned trap. He seems to be saying that if a woman isn't strong she needs the protection of a man.

But as mentioned, men are sometimes raped as well. So it isn't physical strength of the victim at issue. It is the pathology of a rapist that will use the threat of deadly force to overpower someone. Or the relative that twists familial ties into overpowering someone. Or the person who uses rohypnol to knock someone out to overpower them.

Stargate, I don't think getting drunk is asking for rape any more than leaving your car unlocked is consenting for it to be stolen. Giving someone the keys is. I don't know what that would translate to.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
/tangent

Pooka what size do you have your words set aton the screen? Everyone has their screens set differently, so how are you supposed to know what quotes will fit on one screen and what won't when you are posting?

/end tangent

AJ
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 

quote:

---

Tres brings up an interesting point. I think this is the aforementioned trap. He seems to be saying that if a woman isn't strong she needs the protection of a man.

---

quote:

---

Alt, what's really troubling about what you've written is that you seem to be getting your information about this "vaccine" that works on someone's "mechanism" from your brother's girlfriend. You're a girl near the end of your junior year in high school, 16 or 17 years old, and you lack even a fundamental grasp of what birth control is or how it's used. This indicates, to me, a really scary lack of education from your schools, teachers, and parents on what it means to be sexually active... and by all means, please do choose abstinence over any other possible course of action.
However, women who HAVE been taught what sex is, what birth control is, what abortion is, and make an informed decision that premarital sex would be okay for them, shouldn't simply be dismissed as "whores".

---

quote:

---

Tres, I fail to see exactly what your point is as related to feminism.

---

Well, Anne Kate suggested that we need feminism because rape is a problem, and I was pointing out that feminism is only one of different ways to battle rape - and that the uniquely feminist elements of that feminist approach are not very useful methods of battling it. My point was that you don't need to be a feminist to oppose rape.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Wait, why can I only be annoyed by things that are directed at me?

All I was saying was this: When she gets inflammatory, I begin to ignore her posts, and I think she's better than that.

I wouldn't waste my time saying it if I didn't think she had some good points that needed to be said. I just don't want her to get overlooked because she's acting up.
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
Alt, I want you to know that I don't think you're stupid. I never said you were. From the look of your work, it seems like you're pretty smart and talented, really.

I do, however, think that you're woefully UNEDUCATED regarding birth control, to the degree that I wonder how much you've been told about sex beyond "don't do it". I don't see this lack of information as something that indicates your level of intelligence, but instead the choices made by the adults in your life regarding what to teach you. It seems that they have chosen not to teach you much at all, and that's what I find troubling, seeing as how I think it's essential that everyone get a thorough grounding in the facts of sex and birth control well before they need to rely on their knowledge of them.

Edit to add "instead" for clarification.

[ April 28, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Ayelar ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
ok PSI that makes sense, I think see where you are coming from now. I knew I didn't understand which is why I prolonged this discussion.


AJ
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
We really DON'T understand each other, do we?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
There are more than one way to combat rape, yes. Because more than one way exists doesn't mean that the ways you do not choose are wrong for existing.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you're saying that feminism is irrelevant because one of the social needs they are addressing has more than one source?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
No, because the ONLY important issues they are still fighting are fought equally well, if not better, through other means. Those issues are not really feminist issues at all, but general issues that feminists take a slant on.

[ April 28, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
 

---

Posted by jehovoid (Member # 2014) on :
 
He's saying that feminism is not necessary specifically when it comes to rape. Nothing to do with the general relevancy of feminism. His point is exactly what he said his point is in his previous post.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
You have shown that there is more than one approach, but not that the other approaches are more effective.

The "be a nice human being" approach didn't work for a couple thousand years before. "Treat us equally or we'll sue for everything you've got" is marvelously effective.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I wouldn't say that rape is an issue for feminists, UNLESS inadequate measures were being taken to stop it, or punish those who do it. Does anyone have any ideas about the way rape is handled by our law enforcement?
 

---

Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
 
You are in SERIOUS need of a wedgie, Stargate. An atomic wedgie.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Alt, you say you aren't ignorant about birth control and don't wish to be treated as such. Fine, prove to me you can be an adult. Find me a list of the statistics of failure rates of various kinds of birth control and post the link here. Rebutt me with facts, don't rail at me and I will respect you.

Please note the interchange I just had with PSI in order to understand her position better. Make me want to understand you better. That is what hatrack is all about.

AJ
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
[tangent] I have mine set to largest because my glasses aren't calibrated for use with a computer screen. Still, in the case of the last page I think it was Stargate who used too long of a quote. PSI's was borderline, you and Beren were fine. Using quotes is often good in a fast moving thread like this. But huge quotes that are picked apart at variables are not things I enjoy reading.[/tangent]

Stargate, do you live in an Islamic country? I don't consider a woman traveling alone to be an irresistable temptation to turn an otherwise innocent man into a rapist. Granted if a rapist is already present, he will probably pick on a woman alone rather than one accompanied.

P.S. kat, I don't see that "Treat us equally or we'll sue for everything you've got" is marvelously effective. Isn't the argument that there is still too much rape and domestic abuse? Who do you sue if your friend is being beaten and won't get help?

[ April 28, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Yes but a carrot is so much more effective pooka if there is the possiblity of a stick behind it.

In fact that is the only way my mother ever got me to eat carrots other than carrot cake.

AJ
(There is a point in there relevant to this discussion I swear, I've just been reading Bob's pun thread and it is rubbing off)

AJ
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It is effective. There's the scenario of no recourse at all, it's a family affair or the woman deserves it. And there's the scenario of unacceptable behavior actually has consequences for those who do it.

Stargate, you've got to be kidding me. You have to be a troll.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
It's possible that more rapes have occured because more women are alone at certain times, but you certainly can't blame feminism for the actions of opportunistic psychos.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I blame feminism for the lack of interest in fat guys with hairy bellies.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I hate to say it, but it's possible. It's harder to attract someone who has options than someone who really doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 



 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I wasn't going to say it.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
decides to spare dkw and not invoke Bob_Scopatz, even though he does appear to be rather hirsute.

AJ
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Storm, it depends on if the belly in question is a good conversationalist.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*scrubs THAT mental image out of her brain*
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm up *here*, Pooka!
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Oh, sorry. Nice pot you got there. What? Why can't they ever take that as a compliment?
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
You know, I don't typically like to sound like I'm agreeing with Tres, but I don't think that items 1, 2 or 4 on Anne Kate's list are problems that have to do with women's rights. It's true that the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men, but these men do not just assault women. They also assault other men, as well as girls and boys. It's possible that in a world with social equality to match the strides that feminism has made in legal equality there would be fewer rapes, but I'm not really sure. Given that the proportion of the male population that rapists constitutes, I think that it's entirely possible that that sort of violent and aberrant behavior would manifest itself no matter what the rest of the world were like. Obviously this doesn't mean that feminists should not work to end rape, but that's different from saying that it is a feminist issue.

As for items 5, 6, and 7, they by definition don't apply to the US. Now, I had been under the impression that our discussion was limited to conditions in the US, but the amount of atrocity in the world is certainly something that needs to be noticed and addressed. Many of the issues I raised with the feminist movement here evaporate when we start talking about the rest of the world.

-----------

Regarding passion: Whether or not we are becoming more intolerant of passionate posting, it's my opinion that passion basically never helps make a point. If the most important thing to you (the hypothetical you) is to persuade someone to come around to your point of view, then you would be well served by reigning in the passion and remaining calm, collected, and rational.

-----------

And finally, many of the women who have commented in this thread have said that modern feminism is not antagonistic toward men, women who choose domestic lifestyles, or "femininity." Now, I will grant that my experience does not constitute data, but the vast majority of women that I know who self-identify using the term "feminist" or "strong woman" are, in fact, antagonistic toward men as well as women who don't follow a "liberated" lifestyle.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Ah, beware generalizations and specious arguments . . . .
 

---

Posted by Scythrop (Member # 5731) on :
 
This is imogen...

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However I do think it is wrong to say that women are intrinsically more emotional and caring then men, and men are intrinsically more rational and logical than women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imogen, what do you mean by this? By "wrong", do you mean inaccurate, or do you mean that it is a morally wrong thing to do?

---