There’s been surprisingly little notice of the passing of Betty Friedan, the 1960s feminist pioneer, and I wonder if that’s a disservice to history. Sure, it’s no longer politically correct to be a “feminist,” but Friedan, author of “The Feminine Mystique” and founder of the National Organization for Women, probably did as much to break down barriers and provide opportunities for women as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did for African-Americans.
Some will think that analogy is overstated, but look at the things Friedan championed — radical at the time — that now are mainstream and taken for granted even by many who reject feminism: the idea that women should be able to enter any field; political activism by women; maternity leaves; abortion and contraceptive rights; equal pay; child care for working families.
She helped spearhead a revolution in attitudes that has made women equal participants in public life and changed how we view culture and relationships, whether you’re a man or woman.
Sure, feminism had its blind spots and was due for a backlash. From what I’ve read, Friedan rejected the radical excesses of what she called the “bra-burning, anti-man, politics-of-orgasm school” that sabotaged the movement.
Just wonder if the obituaries and assessments gave Friedan her full due.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
107 Comments
Betty Friedan should have streets, highways, buildings, parks, stadiums, and anything else that could named, after her. She is the reason the glass ceiling is not quite as unbreakable as it used to be. She, more than any other woman, is the reason there will be a woman in the White House someday.
America lost two American treasures in too short a period of time.
Wow! People don’t know her history. She is a known communist and everything she said about her husband beating her and having to slave in the kitchen was all lies.
She came from a very wealthy family and never cooked and cleaned in her life. She had maids and even had other people raise her children.
She was also a stout anti-lesiban, so much for women’s progress as she shut out many women.
She also try to defect to the USSR, but they rejected her as a radical. No! She wasn’t a feminist, she was a hard core socialist and just wanted women to join her in that political cause.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558492763/sr=8-1/qid=1139488806/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9300475-5712035?%5Fencoding=UTF8
I have no respect for liers that use it for their ends. Sorry. She deserves nothing but the dirt on her grave.
Joe,Picky, picky, picky.
Walker. Telling the truth matters.
There is still no true equality between the sexes, because there is an inherent difference between the sexes, so says the Supreme Court.
That is why there are still laws that seperate men and women in many areas and especially in public accommodation. Laws that were considered unconstitutional when it came to seperating race are not for seperating sexes.
Only when society can accept the equalization of the sexes can there be truly equality.
Are you ready for men and women to share the same restrooms, locker rooms, being frisked by the opposite sex police officers, going co-ed in prison? These are questions that were ask from the Justices of the Sepreme Court in regards to equal treatment of sexes under the law.
Just because men and women have different bodies and most prefer to take care of toilet-related activities only in the company of their own gender, does not make unequal pay or any other discriminatory practices OK. But that was a good try, Joe.
Joe, how is it that a woman must cook and clean in order to have validity? So what if she came from a wealthy family? How does that diminish what she stood for? Who questions a man’s motives just because he comes from wealth and enjoys the perks that come along with it? How many successful men are the primary caregiver for their children? Think about it.
Amen, Cookie.
Dear Damoon,
“Who questions a man’s motives just because he comes from wealth and enjoys the perks that come along with it?”
I guess we’ll hear no criticism of Bush in the same sentence that you mention his wealthy upbringing!
Hank
I lost faith in the idea of true equality when the US Supreme Court said that women could not be subjected to the draft.
Women have proven themselves capable in just about every military function, but providing exemptions from military draft due to gender was a giant step backwards. It means, in essence, all the priveleges, without the responsibilities.
Dear Randy,
Poor old Betty was nothing more than an old, forgotten, bitter, pampered, dried up old socialist when she died. She lost what ever credibility her so-called feminist movement had when she allowed the militant, lesbian nitwits hijack it.
The woman that has done more for actual feminism in the US will never get the credit due to her because the liberals in the press like you and others are still bitter about her single-handed defeat of the ERA.
She was probably the the most influential woman of the twentieth century! She still remains a force to be respected in American politics without being a politician!
I invite yo to meet her:
http://www.eagleforum.org/
Hank,Just because a woman won’t go to bed with you doesn’t make her a lesbian. Maybe she just has good taste!
No Jed,
Just makes her stupid.
Hank
Raptor,I remember a quote from a British woman who went through the blitz. “Women have been dying in wars for centuries. Why shouldn’t we have the right to defend ourselves?”
Friedan was an evil talmudic-bolshevik and I hope that she burns in hell.
Printer friendly version Posted 27/07/2003 Email this article to a friend
Betty Friedan: “Mommy” was a CommieBy Henry Makow, Ph.D
“Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy … The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp.–George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.
Betty Friedan, the “founder of modern feminism” pretended to be a typical 1950’s American mother who had a “revelation” that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.
What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See “The Communist Manifesto” (1848). http://www.fathersforlife.org/cm.htm
Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority “seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals.”
Betty Frieden doesn’t want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her “revelation.” She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of “Red-baiting.”
Why? Because her book “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge — pretending to be just like us. This is the “Popular Front” strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.
Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920’s and 1930’s and referred to them as “my innocents’ clubs”. He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of naïve celebrities (”fellow travellers.”)
In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg “was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the ‘enlightened’ moral agenda of his era.” (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)
In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:
“You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don’t really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.” (Koch, p. 220)
Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave feminism, which is a classic “Popular Front.” The very name, “the woman’s movement” and claim to be for “equality” are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family “a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” (”Feminist Politics and Human Nature,” 1988)
The “Congress of American Women,” a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a “foreign agent” by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the “CAW’s agenda prefigured much of the modern women’s movement that emerged in the sixties.” (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)
The FBI kept tabs on the “Women’s movement” but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.
“Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women’s movement but couldn’t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women’s movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive.” (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history.” [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?
The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization. The Rockefeller-Rothschild Empire own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a “new world order” (a.k.a. “globalization”) in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.
Betty Friedan, take a bow.http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=961
Pardon me, oh rulers of everything sacred and holy: Betty Friedman had to do what the United States failed to do: recognize women as equal to men. That women are not subject to the draft has nothing to do with it. John Hiatt answered that in a song by saying, “When women turn to be like men, we’ll be afraid to fight again.”
The fifties edition of the Betty Crocker mom was a sham. Back then men could beat their wives with no consequences. Men could molest their children and the nation turned a blind eye. Sorry, Joe, but the cave days are over.
Women deserve to be recognized, and Betty Friedman helped the ball to get rolling. You want to condemn her for her communist leanings, but what about the fact that the Government she lived under did absolutely nothing to help women throw off the carpet they were covered with? She turned to whom she thought would help her. Was she right? Ask the blacks in the south in the forties and fifties who were relegated to third class citizens with privilages of less than animals would receive. Many of them turned to communism for the same reason. Were they wrong?
What do you do, Joe, when your hung for looking at a white woman? What do you do, joe, when a wife is beaten nearly to death and her chuld molested; and they have no recourse whatsoever because their government could care less? Who ya going to turn to, Joe? Ghost busters? Or someone who promises change?
Predictably, the misogynist wing of the WEBlog comes about against Betty Friedan.
A bit threatened, boys?
I aggree with you JM!
I can remember America before poor ol’ Betty! It was a terrible place! Women staying at home and raising children. All of them barefoot, cowering behind the furniture when the mean ol’ father came home. He would then parade around acting like they were nothing but chattel to be used for his ammusement!
Thank God that Betty and her wonderful organization changed all of that! No one beats their wives anymore. No children are abused. They just shack up and have children out of wedlock! The government has taken the responsibiity of raising children over so now women can be fullfilled earning an income to help pay all of the new taxes.
Hank
Hank,Keep it rolling, dude. You might start believing your own bs.
At least women now have a chance to get out of the slave relationships they were in during the early years. At least the problem is now recognized. At least the monsters who use wives and kids as their private chattel are being exposed, and put where they belong.
Yes, it all still exists, but now people are doing something about it. Something that wasn’t being done forty years ago. But I expect you would rather have the good old Cleaver years.
There was a blog about dads who don’t pay child support. If they could be made to accept their responsibility to help raise their children, the government wouldn’t have to pay.
I am so glad, though, that you are out there, along with Joe, being the moral police for the rest of us. I can rest easy tonight.
Dear JM,
It’s a stange and dark world you live in. Hopefully another dried up old socialist will come along for you and your ilk to worship now that poor ol’ Betty has gone to her reward.
Oh, but wait! There is another dried up, bitter, angry socialist to replace her! Hilary!!
Hang in there, we’re pulling for ya,
Hank
It’s obvious your interpretation of a socialist is someone who thinks women should not be beaten, children should not be molested, and gender equity should be the norm. I quess that makes me a socialist in your mini-mind.
But where exactly does that leave you? In concert with the red neck, wife beating, child molesting snake charmers I assume. Phelps would love to have you join his cult.
Moderate feminism is fine with me. But when certain feminists like that politician from Sweden make statements like “any woman who sleeps with a man is a traitor to her gender.” There is cause for concern.
All feminists from Western nations should be exiled to Saudi Arabia and that would cure them of their nonsensical philosophy.
V.L.R.B!!
JM my friend,
Are you off your meds again? I know exactly what a socialist is. Poor ol’ Betty was a socialist. Her and her little rich bitch social club, NOW, has done more to hurt and degrade the American woman (and children) than any other factor. Phyllis Schlafley, on the other hand, has done more than any other person to expose the feminist movement for the incredible failure that it is.Your posts on this subject are borderline incoherent. Unable to form a cogent thought on any subject you resort to character assassination. However, I can tell by some of your references that you did read a little on the website I referred you to. Congratulations!
Every now and then I will post a URL. If you attempt to read them and study them, some day, (probably not too soon) you might be intelligent enough to carry on a serious discussion with adults.
Until then I remain,
Hank
Ian,Of course! Then we could build selective breeding farms where we could keep the women in cages and let them out only for copulation with men of their matching skin tone. Then we can award those women with bronze, silver, and gold medals for giving birth to x amount of children just like your beloved scumbag Hitler-worshipping Nazis did!
Cookie. I’m not advocating for discriminary practices against women or men. I’m just saying that “Public accomendations” are still seperated for the sexes.
In the south, they had seperate “Public Accomendations” for black and whites.
True equality only comes when this barrier is gone. Our society is not ready for that (so says the Supreme Court).
It probably evenutally will in the future.
And Dammon. You don’t have to cook and clean or raise children to be considered a mother or a woman. But Betty Friedan claimed she was enslaved and did these things. Only when she divorced was she liberated from doing those things. That we know is false. She never did to begin with, yet she wrote in books that she did.
Just another “Million Little Pieces” I guess.
Ever notice how conservatives fear strong women? But I guess wetting themselves in fear is a hallmark of American conservativism.
Strong American women existed long before abominable judeo-bolshevik feminist nonsense.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Hank, I don’t resent Bush because he came from a wealthy family, I resent him for his stupidity and the damage he’s done to our country (and others).As far as your opinion on the women’s movement, I won’t even dignify it with a response. Obviously you’ve never walked in our shoes.
Joe, for many women, being married, uneducated, barefoot, and pregnant was enslaving. Some even paid for it with their lives. Believe me, life was not better for women or minorities in the 50s.I’m glad I’m living in today’s world. I’m so grateful everyday for all the opportunities I’ve had as a result of the women’s movement. Things are much better today for women than they were 40-50 yrs ago.
Hank, Phyllis Schlafly? You’ve GOT to be kidding!!
Dammon. I agree.
In more so that women are taking the lead in my aspects of life. They are graduating in higher numbers then men from College and holding promient positions from government to corporations and let us not forget the many small businesses.
Yes. Things are much better now than they were 50 years ago.
Dear Damoon,
Serious as a stroke, dear.
Hank
Hank,You obviously missed the entire point of my writing. But that hardly surprises me, as your focus is so narrowly sighted by the neocon blinders you wear.
I am well aware of what a socialist is. I am also fully aware of the fact that when a person is backed into a corner, they will use any means possible to survive. Does that make them right? It all depends on who has them backed up. In the B.F. case, considering the outcome, I would vote yes.
Of course, you are so blinded by the swill being fed to you by your neocon handlers, that anyone using organizations such as that should be condemned to the garbage bin.
Betty Friedman’s tactics went against the grain of everything American, but it is something that had to be done because to sit there and do nothing would be to accept the status quo as it was then. Something she wasn’t prepared to accept, and something that is now the norm.
In the old days, she would have been burned at the stake. It appears that in some peoples minds, she still should have been. Keep your faggots and matches handy, Hank. You might still find a use for them.
Dear JM,
There was a point to your incoherent ramblings?
When one goes through your posts and edits all of the wrong assumptions, the misinformation, the petty character assassinations, the juvenile name calling, the idiotic inferences and moronic implications all one is left with is a little drool. Keep doing your homework and maybe take a course in manners and someday the adults may take you serious.
Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Socialism is a means for dictators and despots to keep people subjugated. There is no rationalization for praising a socialist. Socialism is a means to keep the ignorant under control. They do it by fomenting discontent and then changing the government and culture to gain control.
Now then, so that my point above is not so subtle that you miss it, let me be quite clear:
Socialism is a lie. Betty was a liar. The people that believed her and celebrate her life are fools. You sir, are a fool.
Love ya; you keep me amused.
Hank
“Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried.”
You mean in Denmark, which has the most socialistic government in Europe, the lowest crime rate, the highest life expectancy, and the most equal wealth distribution?
You mean in Venezula, where despite death threats and covert war, Hugo Chavez was elected by a vast majority to a second term?
I’m not a true socialist, so don’t pin that libel label on me, but just because pure socialism causes conflicts is no reason to reject the idea that government can help solve huge problems (homeland security, for instance).
After unfettered capitalism lead directly to the GREAT DEPRESSION, it’s not surprising that a lot of thinking people would turn toward other economic models.
That doesn’t mean they are traitors or hate America. It means they were idealists looking for something better for America.
And to all you I-love-laisse-faire-capitalists out there, explain to me why a box of cereal that cost 3.75 to me only pays the hard-working farmer that grew the grain 12 cents.
Justify that.
Dear ProudLib,
Denmark? That quaint little country that is attached to Germany like a cyst on a dog’s butt? That little country that makes its yuppie designer cheeses and watches under the defensive umbrella of NATO? (Read US) That little social experiment that is currently being over run by Moslems from Somalia, Turkey and Iran? That little country with a population less than Detroit that is currently on Iran’s nuke-first-as-soon-as-they-get-the-weapon list? Denmark? That’s the country that you are holding up for inspection as socialism’s great success?
Venezuela? (Notice the correct spelling) Hugo Chavez was elected? Surely you jest? You’re not really serious!? Saddam has never lost an election either! What part of dictator and despot do you not understand? Just because Hugo Chavez is a communist doesn’t mean that Venezuela is a successful social experiment. Your examples continue to make my point!
You, like JM, are a fool.
Love ya,
Hank
Dear ProudLib,
I buy my cereal in big bags (not boxes) at Super Wally World. I buy most of my food in bulk, on sale at discount prices and I bet I eat much better than you do! Because you fall for fancy packaging and marketing you are paying 10 times the price for cereal than it is worth.
Justify that!
Hang in there; we’re pulling for ya,
Hank
“Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried.”
Let this be a lesson for the moderate middle–I argue using example and evidence. They argue using invective and ridicule: “cyst on a dog’s butt.”
I ask why farmers get so little for the grain they produce when it costs so much to the consumer, and they say, “we eat much better than you because we shop at Wal-Mart.”
If that is the kind of reasoning that appeals to you, then by all means, vote Republican along with Connie Morris, Bob Corkins, and George W. Bush.
Come on ProudLib!
Denmark?
Hank,You ignorant slut; where O where did I say that I approve of socialism? Obviously, you have a problem interpreting anothers words. As such, I can only say that you should stick to Rush, emmulate his concepts, whatever they are, and spout choice words of nonsense, as you are doing here in this blog.
Being able to understand what I write doesn’t take a genius, but it does take someone with an IQ a bit higher than yours.
But you too stick around: humor in this blog is not something you come across everyday. And after reading you I can definitely say you leaves me chuckling
Hank,Yeah, you buy your cereal in bags, but that farmer still only gets 12 cents!
ProudLib,I resent that! I do not formulate arguments based on invective and ridicule. Well, except in Ian’s case, then it’s open season.
Oh my goodness…
Cereal…are you serious?
Yeah, the ingrediants cost around 12-20 cents per box.
You have supermarket mark-up of around 20%.
They have to mark prices up to be able to afford to operate the store, pay their employee’s and make some profit.
You have transportation and distribution costs at all levels.
You have the cost of the cardboard box.
Then for most name brands you have massive advertising. It cost money to put those famous baseball players on that box.
The Kellogg tiger doesn’t get his face on the TV for nothing.
And yes, I am sure the companies themselves make some profit.
If you don’t like those high prices then buy the generic brands like Hank and I do. It is much cheaper.
While you are at it, take an economics class or something.
That’s why I like farmer’s markets. When you cut out all those middle-men, both the farmer and customer are better off!
Nathan…The problem really is that all those middle people have raised their prices over and over again through the years. The farmers are still getting about the same as they got back in the 40’s. They are really at the mercy of the market!
And your point?
Dear ProudLib,
Invective? I’m afraid, my dear, my commentary does not rise to the level of invective. I prefer to think that it is merely colorful. And ridicule? I apologize, but your posts are ridiculous and therefore invite ridicule. Hell, in an age where the old liberals in congress are even ashamed to be called liberals because the great-unwashed masses realize they are no more than broken-down old Bolsheviks, socialists or communists your moniker even begs ridicule! I’m afraid the politically correct name for your brand of foolishness is now “secular progressive”.
No my dear, “cyst on a dog’s butt.” Is merely colorful. It meant to add a little interest and humor. It falls way short of the profane and nasty language that the average left-wing nitwit uses and celebrates on these BLOGs. CF’s rant of Wednesday morning comes to mind. Profanity for the sake of profanity. Then the liberal lap-dogs like you and others sit around and celebrate every hour that passes without Phillip Brownlee taking the time to come and clean your crap out of the sand box!
Do you remember your comments? Let me refresh your memory dear:
You wrote,
“CF–Touche.Reading that post was like jumping into the ice bath after you’ve been baking in the sauna. Refreshing!”
Then you have the audacity to pretend that you are outraged by my comments?
I repeat: you are a fool! That is not my opinion; it is a documented observation!
Hank
Okay, Hank, thanks for admitting in so many words that you can’t hold your own against a reasoned argument.
The answer to my question about the farmers and why they get paid so little is very simple, but not simple enough for you apparently.
The answer is that there are only a few huge corporations like Archer Daniels Midland that control the prices of everything the farmer produces.
It’s a virtual monopoly. When was the last time you heard the price of chickens on the farm report. They don’t even bother to tell farmers anymore because Tyson sets the price for chickens.
They mark up the prices to consumers and mark down the buying prices to the producers because . . . because THEY CAN.
It’s what always happens when government abdicates its policing role of fair markets, which is what we’ve got under the Bush administration in spades.
And btw, Hank, while you’re praying on the street corner like a pharisee, going on and on about what a “Christian” you are, you apparently forgot Matt 5:22:
“whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.”
But don’t worry too much about it, because as a real Christian, I FORGIVE YOU.
Dear ProudLib,
You forgot to explain your hypocritical, disingenuous and phony outrage concerning my language while at the same time congratulating CF on his profane rant.
I am a retired submarine sailor. If its profanity you want and so much admire, give me your phone number-demonstrations are free.
Please, give me an example of any time I have “gone on and on” about being a Christian? Like a typical liberal you forgive when forgiveness is not requested or required.
Thanks anyway,
Hank
Wow, getting back to the original topic here while avoiding the covert flame war between Hank and ProudLib: I wanna say that feminism has its good points and its weak points, but there are still some jobs where women get paid less than men, which makes me wonder about it’s effectiveness here in America.
Which seems to imply that there is more work for women to do for equity and some jobs are more tenacious in keeping the old boys club, right? What is your point?
Right Allie, you hit the nail on the head this time. Good job.
All this pissing on the trees is getting boring. Hank and Lib, go to your room.Regardless of what anyone thinks about BF, the women’s movement and the civil rights movement were the most important cultural transitions I witnessed in my lifetime. I feel very fortunate to have experienced the “before” and “after”. So many young woman nowadays take woman’s rights for granted, because they don’t know what it was like before everything changed.
I agree, Damoon. People unhappy with feminism talk about the big chill. I think there are valid complaints against where feminism went as it was gaining some of its very important ground, but I think women also quickly took for granted the rights won with such difficulty. Also, like with racism, it is much easier to change laws than to change institutions and biases. Movements have problems keeping momentum when their legal goals are won, but many more difficult goals remain.In my own family. My mother’s hs physics class was on a point system. She had the same number of points as a boy who got an A. She received a B. When she asked why, the teacher said she was a girl. She couldn’t disagree, so she took it and thought herself better off than my grandmother who was given a C because girls aren’t good at physics. I made sure to get an A. She and my father both dropped Mastercard because it would not allow her to keep her own card after she married him in 1970. Many women my age haven’t heard what it was like before, and take their grades, jobs, and freedoms for granted.
Some of the attitudes I grew up with were so awful, like women were responsible when they got raped because “a man can’t help himself” and the woman must have done something to “provoke” him, or that women shouldn’t get an education because then they won’t want to stay home and raise their children. That women don’t really enjoy sex, their satisfaction really only comes from pleasing their man. I can remember several incidents when women I knew had to promise they wouldn’t get pregnant before they could get hired for a job, or they got paid less for the same job because “a man has a family to support”. When I was in high school (an all girl Catholic school), the counselor encouraged us to be homemakers and never tried to inspire us to go to college. I could go on and on, and when I think about it, it makes me want to pull my hair out.When I see some young woman who doesn’t care about getting an education or believes she has no value unless she’s attached at the hip to some man, any man, I just want to shake some sense into her.
Damoon,that sounds terrible. i hope you’re not equating all Catholics with generally being knuckle-dragging neanderthals though, because there are many exceptions to the rule. However, what’s wrong with a woman being a homemaker? Is “home-making” a chauvinistic dirty word now? Now before you bust out the flamethrower on me, please understand that I have nothing against women having jobs. My mother worked 16 hours a day in a nursing home to support us. I just don’t agree with you that women being home-makers is a sub-standard kind of existence for them.
CF said it best and with brevity way up thread. I could not say it better.
By the way? CF is one of the most eloquent and well spoken posters these blogs have. And if “Hank” or whoever or how many incarnations of one or many dim small minds use that particular “nic” refer to any of CFs posts as “a rant” I want to see that post. I am sure it would be soaring with truth. I’m reminded of the old adage. “Pearls before swine” Clearly CFs words would be the pearls in this analogy…….and “Hank” …….well, Hank? Yours and the posts of such as you long ago confirmed you as, well, pigs. Here in this blog you and yours add the modifiers male Chauvinist.
I guess that makes my feelings fairly clear. But let me go further. I don’t know a lot, in fact next to nothing about Betty Frieden. So you “Hank” and Joe have actually for the first in a very long time posted something resembling a useful thought on these blogs. Clearly if such as you so violently attack this woman, she must in reality be someone I should learn about and learn from. Again the pearls before swine thing comes to mind.
Now “Hank” and joe? I let you out of ignore for this one. And make no mistake you are going right back there. Why Proud Lib even dignifies your presence let alone converses with you confuses me. Perhaps he is more “liberal” and tolerant than I.
But I am always directing back to the thread. So I’ll close doing that.
“Leave it to Beaver” (I’m honestly surprised the neocons haven’t forced change of that title; given that it could obliquely reference female genitalia) and “Father knows Best” and the “Donna Reed show” along with various other pictorials of life in the 1950’s are routinely available in re runs on Nic at Night. Now the good news is you conservatives can go there and watch those relics and immerse yourself in the visuals of a well dead age. Bad news (for you) is that those times are never ever coming back again.
I’m off to learn more about Betty Friedan.
Damoon, even in the 70’s women weren’t allowed to buy a home (with a mortgage) unless they were over the childbearing age or had proof of a hysterctomy. If it was at all possible to become pregnant, they were considered a bad risk.
I, too, grew up when females were not encouraged to do anything more than become a wife and mother. When I graduated from high school in 1969, the career choices for women were: nursing, secretarial, teaching, and cosmetology. If none of those appealed to you, there was always waitressing, for which college wasn’t necessary. Most girls had been encouraged to take Home Ec in high school (boys were not encouraged), where they learned cooking, basic nutrition, and how to make their own and their future families’ clothing.
Yeah, we’ve definitely come a long way, baby.
X, I have nothing against a woman being a homemaker, I think that it’s a very important vocation and it’s best for young children if the mom can stay home. The reality is, it’s a dangerous way to live if a woman has no other skills. A woman who doesn’t have the means to support herself and her family is allowing herself to be very vulnerable. Financial independance means freedom to make choices when it’s necessary. A woman who depends on a man to take care of her is taking a huge risk.I remember what my mom went through when my dad died, she had no marketable skills and suffered terribly for it. My friend who never had a job in her life found herself suddenly alone with two boys to raise by herself, she became suicidal with hopelessness. I remember the lady on my block where I grew up who stayed married to an abusive, alcoholic man because she had no way to support her four kids by herself. I vowed I would NEVER be in that position and I’ve tried to influence every young woman I encounter with the importance of self reliance, both for herself and any children she might have. “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best”, didn’t reflect reality in the 50s and certainly doesn’t anywhere today.
Da,I think the general idea is that by keeping women dependent, if they won’t be secretly promiscuous, at least they’ll have to be serially monogamous. Divorced or widowed and in financial trouble? You need to find a man!To the men out there, every woman I’ve ever loved has been able to make her own way in the world. She was there because she wanted to be with me, not because she had to! What greater complement can a guy get? Would you want a woman that only stayed with you because she had to?I like feminists! I would never consider a relationship with a woman who wasn’t one.
Strength and independence are admirable qualities in either men or women. I think learning to be self reliant is the key to self worth, and a person who feels confident and able will do better in relationships. I couldn’t be married to someone who was dependant on me to take care of him, and my husband feels the same way. Dependancy breeds insecurity and unhappiness.
Damoon,I see your point. No argument there.Randy,Like I posted before I believe feminism has good as well as bad points. Now allow me to identify the bad points: (I’m sure all the feminists here are ALL ears hehe.) Feminism is responsible for the idea of the “liberated” woman. This concept includes that women should be independent, which I think is good, and considering that women outnumber men in law schools around the country gives testament to that as fact. However, present-day culture, while no longer portraying the American woman as Mary Poppins as in the past, portrays modern American women as sex objects. In our culture sex sells, and indeed Hollywood and the Big Three television channels have taken notice. Just look at the portrayal of women in movies, television, music artists, and even the way women are portrayed in videogames (with um.. greatly exaggerated body parts) and almost all women are portrayed as nothing but eye-candy, and reduced to the idea that men should think of women not as intellectual but as sexually gratifying objects (its all about T & A). Just look at the way these teenage girls are dressing these days! What do you see when you turn on MTV? You either see some rock band surrounded with strippers dancing around poles, or you see some rapper gloating about how much he smacks up his bitches but they still love him for it surrounded by groups of scantily clad women shaking their butts right in front of the camera lens! the multi-billion dollar porn industry uses the feminist argument to justify their production of smut. In conclusion, I believe that feminism has benefitted the modern woman, BUT it has also been unwittingly responsible for today’s dehumanization of women from respectable intellectual individuals to little more than sexual objects for the sole purpose of male sexual gratification. (Now, my feminist friends, BRING ON THE PAIN!!)
HEY EVERYBODY! I FOUND OUT JOHN MALKOVICH AND TRUTHREGARDLESS IS REALLY IAN HIMSELF! HAHAHAHA!!
CruX,If you are judging women by what teenage girls do, You’re forgetting that one of the main reasons for adolescence is to outrage parents. My parents and grandparents did it, so did my generation and yours. It serves the function of making parents yell at the top of their lungs “You’re by god not living with me ’til you’re thirty!” With that bridge burned, they have to leave home and start their own lives.The Roman writer Juvenal decried the supposed degeneration of the youth of his day, as has every generation since (and probably before). So, either those Romans were some kind of gods for us to have degenerated this much and still be walking on two legs, or each generation manages to improve enough, and have convenient enough memories, to bitch about how bad it’s younger generation is!Me, I’m not worried about our kids; they’ll make it, just as we did, and all those generations before. Save your judgement for all those idiots in your own generation that blame their own shortcomings on their children!
X, I don’t see everything you point out as a result of the women’s movement, I believe it’s a result of the backlash. Viewing women as an object of sexaul gratification to be used and abused is the invention of men who want to feel like they still have power and the upper hand when it comes to “keeping a woman in her place”. Our society has become saturated with this notion and a lot of men eat it up, plus sex sells. Unfortunately, young girls get the impression that in order to have any worth as a partner, you must be viewed as a sexual object. That’s the message our Hollywood culture has given them. This has happened despite the women’s movement, not because of it. The woman’s movement was and is about being valued as equals, not about exploiting our sexuality.
“Are you ready for men and women to share the same restrooms, locker rooms, being frisked by the opposite sex police officers,”
Joe, I am really ready for all that because..wait for it…IT IS ALREADY HERE!!!!! All those things already happen. And as for going co-ed in prison…that would make prison worse how? We already have co-ed guards in almost all facilities.
Hank said: “She lost what ever credibility her so-called feminist movement had when she allowed the militant, lesbian nitwits hijack it.”
Awwwww Hank…..arent you the one “who says calling names means you lose the argument? Would this be your famous christian charity for lesbians? Maybe this is how you really feel:
“Just makes her stupid.
Hank”
I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN!!!!!!!!!
They just shack up and have children out of wedlock!
Hank, um….are they all lesbians (I can only hope) or who do they shack up with and who fathers all those out of wedlock children. Yep, it is all the fault of evil women and their evil lust seducing all those hard working christian men.
LOL, are you sure you are not really phill klein? Oral sex is ok for men but not women? Geez Hank, where is the moral leadership of men like you to protect all those males from us husband eating women?
Hank, these are your words:
“Her and her little rich bitch social club, NOW,
liberal lap-dogs like you and others
When one goes through your posts and edits all of the wrong assumptions, the misinformation, the petty character assassinations, the juvenile name calling, the idiotic inferences and moronic implications all one is left with is a little drool.
Unable to form a cogent thought on any subject you resort to character assassination.”
Hank, it seems to me that you are the one name calling, character assassination, and all the things you accuse others of doing. And then you have the temerity to act like you are the keeper of logic and, lest we forget, that famous christian charity. HEE HEE.
I guess when logic and facts fail you, you are human after all and not above name calling and inflamatory rhetoric. It is ok when you do it but not when others do it? Like pre-marital sex is ok for men but not for women? Like lesbians are stupid for not sleeping with you?
Typical church goer. Do as we say, not as we do. How many converts did you make with these posts Hank? Or were you just grandstanding for your pastor?—–
Oh and by the way, google the term lavender menace. You and Betty agree on lots of things Hank, like hating lesbians. I think you are just jealous because I get more than you do!! I guess that is what happens when women tire of shacking up and having children out of wedlock with MEN!!!!
This has happened despite the women’s movement, not because of it.Damoon,I don’t agree with that. Look at the countries where the feminist movement was unsuccessful(the majority of the Middle East) and you do not see the same dehumanizing sexual objectification of women that is so rampant in our society. You say that such objectification is due to men’s backward understanding that they have an upper hand on women like the good ol days of the 50s, however in the middle east, men DO have the upper hand on women (positions of leadership both in socio-political as well as religious organizations are exclusively male dominated) a fact that I do not necessarily agree with. However, if you are going to blame culture alone, then you would inevitably be saying that western men and western culture have a more perverse concept of women’s sexuality than their near eastern counterparts.
Many men want to control women, in the Middle East they do it by suppressing them and making them into slaves. In our culture that isn’t allowed, so men have found another way to do the same thing. There is nothing about the women’s movement that promotes women into taking on the role of being someones sex object, just the opposite in fact. And the suggestion (not by you) that until we share bathrooms and locker rooms we won’t be equal is stupid. This is about being equal in terms of our humanity and our opportunites to succeed and be the most we can be.Blame the saturation of sex into our culture on Hollywood and the industries making money from the consumers (mostly men) of it, not the women’s movement.
Jed,If you are judging women by what teenage girls doI made no such judgment on the majority of women by the action of teenage girls. I used the example of teenage girls in my previous post only as an example of the effects of the feminist movement, I did not blame the entire female gender for American teenage girls dressing poorly. I do not make sweeping durrogatory generalizations about anyone based upon their race, religion, or gender, to do so would be tantamount to commiting a most grievous logical fallacy, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Also, please don’t resort to insulting me and my generation as being “idiotic” because we are concerned for the well-being of our children. And Jed, “one of the main reasons for adolescence is to outrage parents?” BULLSHIT! Adolescents become moody because of the biological hormonal fluctuations that take place during that stage. Psychological change that takes place from the transition from childhood to adulthood is one of the most critical stages of psychological instability that we ALL have to go through which initiates itself in adolescence. The perceived lashing-out by many teens is not just directed at parents but at ALL positions of authority, teachers, guidance counselors, etc. There are also exceptions to the rule, Jed. Not every single teenage girl dresses in an overtly sexual manner. Therefore you are guilty of making a hasty generalization that the sole purpose of “rebellion” in the teenage mind is for the sole purpose to outrage parents, while you do not take consideration for those teenage girls who are an exception to the rule. Please don’t equate pagan Romans with present day Roman Catholics, your smear tactics and cheap shots with character assassination is neither humorous to myself or to the modern Catholic mind, and (if indeed you intended that Roman example as a durrogatory remark) You would be guilty of anachronism and would have done so in incredibly bad taste.
CruX, you said “it has also been unwittingly responsible for today’s dehumanization of women from respectable intellectual individuals to little more than sexual objects for the sole purpose of male sexual gratification.”
CruX, no pain here, but surely you dont think dehumanization of women and treating them as “sexual objects” came after feminism? I seem to remember stories about playboy clubs, porn, strip clubs, prostitution, “burly-q” shows, sex films, etc. long before betty and feminism arrived on the scene.
When in history have women NOT been seen as objects for male sexual gratification? To blame women for the way men view them is the same as blaming a woman because she got raped.
Ks,Sure, I’ll give you points that sexism has existed before the feminist movement, but it did not become culturally acceptable to the majority of pre-feminist society to have the kind of sexual objectification the likes of which I have extrapolated in my previous post as something that was ever held as “normal”. (i.e. culturally acceptable) One must wonder why the so-called “sexual revolution” that permeated the late 60s and throughout the 70s did so AFTER Betty and the Feminist movement, with ideas of “free love” that fostered a culturally destructive life-style that licensed everything from blatant drug abuse to unhealthy orgies and the loss of the desire of professionalism replacing it with listening to Hendrix and smoking pot all day and believing that doing so would “change the world” (using their own terminology at the time.) Although I am a Hendrix fan. :)Damoon,Hell, even I think of my girlfriend as a sexy vixen. But I do recognize the profundity of her intelligence.(which is why we get along so well) My point is that the feminist movement has fostered the objectification of women. I am not blaming women in general for the way men view them! I am saying that the Feminist Movement must also be held accountable for the sick portrayal of women today because of it’s ideals of the “liberated” modern woman as being completely without sexual inhibitions. If I had a daughter, I would not let her buy into such a radical belief letting her be used and abused by promiscuous horny teenage guys.
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
When did I ever indicate that I hated lesbians? If you have chosen that lifestyle and you can find love and fulfillment in a relationship more power to you!
As far as your lame excuse for not using your real name, that is just a bunch of hogwash. There are just as many nasty and violent people on the left as there is on the right! Maybe more!
No my dear, its not your chosen lifestyle that annoys me, its your intellectual cowardice.
Still love ya,
Hank
Good to see you again Ksfarmgirrl.!THis is the first I’ve seen you in awhile and if I earlier missed your return, again, welcome back.
Womens lib promoted the objectification of women……
CruX you are probably the only right winger whose posts I even remotely respect. I mean when your words are set against Hank nathans, one can see thought vs. dogma.
It’s ok HANKnathan Rush will be back tomorrow I think.
But Cru? Liberating women objectified them? That is a heck of a stretch. Women were little more than chattel not just in this nation but worldwide until just the last century. The first movements away from that came in this nation at the turn of the century. People like Susan B Anthony brought that about and there were folks like you…..concerned I guess with soemhow “protecting” women and folks like Hankathan who sought to maintain a patriarchal status quo back then too.
Now it is true that in your eyes the status of women has become…….less pure? But thing is they have a greater voice in it. They can choose. Now maybe you don’t like WHAT it is that they choose. But the important contribution that Bettty Friedan and others helped make was that……..who are YOU to judge?
Hey JR,
What ever happened about lunch?
Hank
CruX,Please try reading my previous post again; you obviously didn’t understand it first time around.
CruX, the only difference I see in sexual objectification from the 50’s through the 80’s is that it became more open with the SCOTUS ruling about pornography. It was always there, just behind closed doors. It was liberated, so to speak, by freedom of speech laws, not feminism. Like all vices, it thrives. Always. The only question is how dishonest will we be. Some people seem to think if it goes on behind closed doors, it doesnt exist. Like sexual abuse in churches.
Hey Todd, wanna come out and play with me? Come on son, bring that pea brain over here and lets have a real conversation. You snipey little bastard probably carry a sign for Fred.
If fred and company will picket the Hill City school system for having a gay ag teacher, you dont think they will picket the funerals of FAGs and their relatives? Yeah, fred and company certainly have no history of doing that. In fact they enjoy picking on people with no name recognition. But I must be wrong, you christians certainly have no long and well documented history of doing such heinous things to people with far LESS notoriety than I have.
I take back my previous posts. Todd, you are the one who is the best argument for birth control. You mama (and yes, I do mean it that way) shoulda left you in the forest at six days.
Hank, you are the best reason I could give for everyone to use screen names here. And with Ian threatening to shoot “would be” criminals, I think that is double reason.
I guess only you white christians are endowed (pun intended) with knowledge of which people are criminals. We could save a lot of money on the court systems if Ian just took over.
Hey, shoot ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out, right? Wont it be funny on judgement day when god shows herself to be a black, lesbian, single mother on welfare in a wheel chair? I cant wait.
Come on Hank, post again. Your christian fans think you’re are a real solid soldier, and the rest of us are just howling with laughter. With tears of laughter even. Please Hank, show us again what good christians should think and what an intellectual giant you are.
I dont have the energy today to copy all your “lesbian hating” posts. The fact that you deny posting such things just makes you look like the jackass that you are. Do you really think if you “deny ’till you die” it will make everyone who is different from you go away? How is that working for you? Brought anyone to jesus lately with that talk?
Please Hank, us poor lesbians need more recruits. Do post again soon.
Why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think, Ksgrl!! We missed you while you were gone. Hope you’re doing fine.
X, if there’s once area where the women’s movement failed, it was in changing the attitude toward viewing women as sexual objects. I guess you can’t undo a millon years of male evolution in 40 yrs. I’m just so grateful for the positive change it did bring to our lives.
Thanks Damoon. I enjoy your posts, and admire your ability to be classy and still not hesitate to get down and roll in the mud with the rest of us pigs! :)
Dearest ksfarmgrrl,
I don’t think you can find any posts where I implied that I hate lesbians.
Neither can you find a post where I have flaunted my Christianity. You will never find a post where I quoted scripture or used the fact that I am a Christian to make a point.
No dear, you would be better off responding to the things I actually post rather than the preconceived notion that you have of any conservative that dares to have an opinion that differs from your poor twisted unhappy worldview.
Most BLOGs that I post in (not all) I generally merely respond to the Eagle editor that started it. I think you’ll find that almost all of the times I post something specifically to you it is in response to some tirade against me.
I can only imagine why you pick me to flame. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything to provoke you other than to be a perfectly happy heterosexual male with conservative opinions.
I Love ya, you too make me look good!
Hank
More mud, mixed with a little pig poop, from Hank:
“There are just as many nasty and violent people on the left as there is on the right! Maybe more!”
Ya, right Hank. I plead guilty to nasty :) I give as good as I get, but violent? You wanna give some examples of how we lefties intimidate you righties with violence?
When did we picket one of your funerals? When did we last bomb one of your bars, shoot one of your doctors, beat and leave one of your folks on a fence to die in Wyoming? Was Eric Rudolph one of ours when he bombed and killed people, or one of yours?
Just wondering. Intellectual coward? Hardly. Sane person protecting their safety from the likes of you? Definately.
“I can only imagine why you pick me to flame”
Just like other straight men. I bet you do imagine things about lesbians.
That’s a good start, FrmGrl, but you might also ask how many bosses fired their employees for having a Bush sticker on their car?
How many liberals support torture for people they disagree with?
How many liberals dragged a black man behind their pickup truck “just because” until he was dead like what happened in Texas a few years back?
You also left out that huge liberal, Tim McVey when he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma in the worst act of “Christian terrorism” before the “Islamic terrorism” of 9-11.
Proudlib, I doubt that is you posting.
Let’s see a link to the bush bumpersticker firing, and I’ll provide links to our firings. Oh, and lets talk about my friend in Houston who got run off the road while the guy gave her the finger then pointed at her “no w” sticker!
Liberals support torture? Like forced church attendance? LOL. Liberals killed James Byrd? LOL harder. I know Jasper, Tx, I lived near there for three years. Liberals are even harder to find than democrats in Jasper.
Tim McVeigh a liberal. ROFLMAO. That is really good. Who are you? Jay Leno? You sound like Ian or maybe Nathan. Did you get banned and hijack another name? Let’s hear more, until the real Proudlib comes back and kicks your hiney.
Sorry PL, now I am the one who is irony impaired. I get it. I couldnt imagine you posting that seriously :) Mea culpa
Children , children,
Lets get in a contest to see who can post more violent losers that the other.
Instead of me listing a bunch of nitwits, why don’t you do a GOOGLE search for “environmental terrorists” as a start.
I repeat, jsust as many if not more violent people on the radical left as on the radical right!
Hank
Lesbian terroists exist too my bitter little saphic friend:
http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/cucumber.htm
Okay, I have to concede your point on PETA-types. They are wacko.
Hank, see my post at “Depends on definition of everybody.” I think I got the language worked out on our deal . . .
That link was truly odd, Hank.
It was neither right nor left, funny nor serious. It was just very . . . odd.
Well, in my opinion so many things about lesbians is … well, … odd.
“Officials say there is preliminary evidence to suggest a group of lesbians may be using the basement shower stall as a nighttime meeting place to perform satanic sex acts with the phallic vegetable discovered by JoLarson.”
Stop Hank, yer killin me. Oh my god, this link is too funny. Damn lesbian terrorists, leaving their “odd” cucumbers in the shower to frighten women at a bible college.
YOU MUST GO TO THIS LINK!! But caution, it is not for the faint hearted. If you dont want to be offended, dont go, but you sure will miss out on a good belly laugh.
Hank, buddy. I confess. You finally busted me and my odd lesbian agenda. I do have an organic vegetable business out here, and, well, cucumbers are my specialty. I “sold” thousands of them this year. And you should see what I can do with an heirloom tomato!!
Did you google this without reading it? Did you go to the home page? You win the humor award today. I am humbled.
Dear ksfarmgrrl,
I merely thought it was as serious as anything else in this BLOG.
Being a poor old heterosexual male I thought it was a good example of ‘lesbian terrorist activity’!
Hank
PS Tomatoes!? I don’t want to know!
LOL, CUCUMBERS! I remember seeing a sex ed videotape on condom usage back when I was in junior high. The woman host on the tape applied a condom onto a foot-long cucumber, which left the rest of us guys feeling pretty damn insecure at the time.Jed,I thought I interpretted your post fairly accurately, but if I have misconstrued any of your thoughts then I sincerely apologize. However, would you care to explain what you meant in your previous post then??
CruX,
While I have no particular qualms about offending the catholic (or any other) church, and indeed take pleasure in such endeavors from time to time, to take religious umbrage from the post in question would require an enormous stretch of my words and your logic.What I was speaking to were the evolutionary functions of adolescence. Providing the mechanisms by which these functions operate hardly refutes them.And yes, it’s an oversimplification, but apparently I didn’t oversimplify it enough for you to understand. Don’t worry your little head about it!
Jed,Ah! I see! So those “evolutionary functions” you speak of take place to deliberately “outrage parents” I didn’t know that hormonal fluctuations we experience as teenagers were the result of our subconscious deliberately trying to outrage our parents. Thank you for the enlightening clarification. Also, I would have no qualms about offending people who offended my religion, but I’m a nice guy.
CruX,There you go! You’re thinking now. Keep after it, and add observing life around you, and in a few years, you’ll get it!
Loved the link, Hank. I thought it was hilarious!!!!!
Jo Williams has made the best post on this page. The sexes are not equal until they compete and enteract on an equal level- as do ethnic groups who were once considered equal- this means competing physically, using the same restrooms, sharing locker rooms, making legal to hit a female- as it is a male, and making everything else that they do seperate- do on a equal and same basis