Questioning American feminists’ lack of action on behalf of women’s rights violations around the world, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum pointed to how nearsighted the movement has become.
“American delegates to international and U.N. women’s organizations are mostly identified with arguments about reproductive rights (for or against, depending on the administration), not arguments about the fundamental rights of women in Saudi Arabia or the Muslim world,†Applebaum wrote.
If the feminist movement wants to be taken seriously, it should start prioritizing it battles and stop piddling with nonissues (such as “nonsexist car insuranceâ€), focusing that energy toward attaining fundamental rights for all women.
Posted by Kristin Mehler
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
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Heckler on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Phinatic on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Phantom on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
112 Comments
I am a feminist and I agree with you. There are so many more important issues the movement could be addressing, especially in regards to our sisters in developing countries.
Unfortunately the movement is split on what issues to focus on. Heck, the feminist movement is just split, period. Being a woman is not enough common ground for a group of individuals who are from different backgrounds, different social classes and different generations.
I have asked this question of my wife and daughter or any female for that matter. To check to see where their thought process is on their view of life. “When you think of yourself, do you think of yourself first as a woman or a human being?”.
To think of oneself as a woman first means that you align yourself with all the “assignments” that go with be female. You have the babies, your duty is to do the “woman-ly things in life. You are limited by the social norms that society puts upon you.
To think of oneself as a human being means you are capable of doing anything that anyone else regardless of gender, race, religion or social status can do. You are not limited by being one thing or another and the only limits are those that your imagination and physical being puts upon you.
BUT as to the topic, this is not as much a matter of gender as it is society and the social structure.
That is something that an outside force can not control and may not even be able to influence depending on how strong a social norm is there. Just because you perceive them to be wrong, does not give you the right to force yourself and your concept of right on them. And yes (to start that bug-a-boo over again like it needs my help to start) this goes to religion, race, governmental structure or political alignment. Such changes can only occur from within by the desire of the people living under the norms.
If women can’t control their own bodies, they HAVE no rights. Reproductive rights are not trivial, yet Applebaum passes them off as incidental.
Perhaps if the radical “conservatives” in this country would spend less time and money trying to control women’s uterus, American feminists would have some time and energy left to spend on women in places like Saudi Arabia.
Oh but wait. What the hell am I thinking? NOTHING will change in Saudi Arabia – nothing – as long as we’re kissing their backsides for oil.
You know what. I don’t give one thin damn about the women of Saudia Arabia. The best policy toward all of those countries is to “leave those people alone.” Nixon said that, and it’s the BEST policy. They can screech to Allah and eat sheep brains all they want, and it won’t make one bit of difference to anyone in the west.
Once again Mehler creates the most well rounded threads.
American feminists won the battle of the sexes years ago. Today’s group goes far beyond watching for encroachment on those freedoms and equalities.
It’s great to see evidence of a woman who has grown up equal to not be full of the hatred of old ills that she never suffered under.
I am a feminist, and I am active in my organization- and I completely disagree with this! We do care a great deal about the women in other countries and we do stuff about it. We write letters to our lawmakers about policies that are affecting foreign women. Have you NOT heard me going off about how Iraq is getting WORSE for women? Have you not heard me going off about Bush’s anti-birth control policies for foreign women? Have you not heard me going off about Saudi Arabian treatment of women?
We do take women across the world’s plight-we are fortunate to have come this far while they are left behind, but we can also lead by example. The reason we spend SO much time on domestic issues, is because there are forces out there right now working to reverse women’s status in the USA, while we are trying to still get equality! It is our own backyard, and we need to take care of IT FIRST. It would be ridiculous to let ourselves slip back after all we have worked for.
That doesn’t mean we don’t care. We can still pressure our government to make good policy decisions that affect women abroad. But beyond that, it will be the women in those countries who will have to stand up as well and fight as we have, with help from policies that will enable them to do so.
why do we still work at home? Here, I’ll give you some examples.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/70724
Halliburton and CNN Categorize Gang Rape Allegation as a “Dispute
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1696718,00.html?xid=feed-huffpost-nation
Story about a woman who is in jail right now for refusing to give her child to her abusive, Ugandan ex. Read how the judge abused this woman by the courts!
And this kind of stuff happens EVERY DAY, just maybe not to this extreme. Kansas is horrible for judges who mistreat abused women in custody/divorce.
And of course, we have anti-women legislators sneaking in wording or legislation so we have to watch them so carefully every day they’re in session. I’m amazed at the going ons in our own statehouse.
Hey Tom, astounding points. Thank you.
I don’t know how to write this without sounding like a Jerk so please excuse me. which don’t get me wrong I believe in the right of the women to control her own body. and in that same arguement how can we be against prostitution. it is the womens right to do with her body as she pleases correct? I have been asked that question by other people and have not been able to disagree when you think about it. it is her body. like I said I sound like a sex offeder but think about it..
Nope, I believe that prostitution is one of those things that yes, if she wants to, she should make that decision. Nobody can know her circumstances more than she. The aim is to hopefully empower women to not need to take that step. That is one of the divides in the movement.
Being a feminist does NOT mean we have to give up our sexuality. I can bat my eyes at my husband just fine- at the appropriate time. My husband is a feminist too, and I do so love that about him. Feminists love men who support them and respect them.
And yes, we have men in our organization too.
“Perhaps if the radical “conservatives” in this country would spend less time and money trying to control women’s uterus, American feminists would have some time and energy left to spend on women in places like Saudi Arabia.”- Tom
—————
Oh, brother! Pretzel logic. Pro-lifers are now responsible for the plight of Saudi women. I’m sure that argument will convince pro-lifers to cease efforts to save the unborn; so that these ladies can put on a burka (please!)and go save Saudi women.
http://www.now.org/officers/
Outlander,
There is so much wrong with your post on so many levels…
Why should American women wear a burka? How would that “save” Saudi women? Putting women in burkas does nothing more than reinforce the whole ridiculous notion that women are second-class citizens who aren’t to be seen in public. That you would expect AMERICAN women to take part in that kind of oppression says a lot about your views on womens’ rights.
Your mischaracterization of my comments about having to spend all our time and resources fighting the so-called “conservatives” in this country begs a question: If so-called “pro-lifers” are so concerned about human life, are so concerned about the rights of women, the unborn, and so on, why aren’t YOU spending more time working to liberate women in China and other forced-abortion, forced labor societies from the oppression THEY face?
I’ll answer that last question myself: For the same reason NOTHING will be done for Saudi women – the vested corporate interests have no desire to interfere with the nice offshore manufacturing gig they’ve got going. So-called “conservatives” will ignore every human rights abuse imaginable in the name of Walmart’s bottom line.
If so-called “pro-lifers” are so concerned about human life, are so concerned about the rights of women, the unborn, and so on, why aren’t YOU spending more time working to liberate women in China and other forced-abortion, forced labor societies from the oppression THEY face? _ Tom
Tom: Why aren’t spending more time protesting the genocide in Darfur, huh? I don’t think you are spending enough time doing that.
Ah, wouldn’t it be great, Tom, to be able to right all the world’s wrongs?
Unfortunately, our impacts are limited. So you have to do what you can where you are.
why aren’t YOU spending more time working to liberate women in China[?]-Tom
Tom,Prolifers are concerned about human rights abuses (including abortion and forced abortions) everywhere. Just because the only place we have a voice and a vote is in America, does not mean that we do not care or think about what is going on around in the rest of the world. Pro-life conservatives would love it if human rights abuses were banned in China, but what do you expect us to do about it? Would boycotting Walmart be the answer, you think?
Actually, most feminists are just garden-variety liberals who use feminist causes to get their favorite liberals elected or appointed.Hypocritical feminists also use their favorite causes to harm conservatives.In other words, the “crime” does not matter, the offense is not really the issue.The political leanings of “villain” and the “victim” are all that really count.
Clarence Thomas VS Bill Clinton!
There is FAR more evidence that Bill Clinton mistreats women.
Clinton is liberal. Clinton gets a pass from the feminists.
I feel that the women rights issues are legitamate but have been politicized by the gays claiming to speak for straight women’s issues. I think that gays should speak for gay women’s issues and straight women should speak for straight women’s issues. Gay women should identify themselves as gays speaking for women’s rights so that they don’t mislead the straight women and vice versa. I think the straight women that speak on women’s issues would be much more balanced and productive (no pun intended) than what we’ve heard in the past. Merry Christmas.
TomConcerned Women for America is the LARGEST female oriented political group in the USA.
CWA is a CONSERVATIVE group.
CWA speaks out against oppression in China and in Darfur and in Sudan.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14400/CWA/misc/index.htm
“Actually, most feminists are just garden-variety liberals who use feminist causes to get their favorite liberals elected or appointed.”
Posted by econ.
Really? Tell me what your garden variety conservative woman is doing about the plight of womens’ abuse in the world, baking cookies?
If it wern’t for those “garden variety liberals”, women would still not be voting, be treated as second class citizens, be denied wages equal to a mans, for the same job, and used as sex toys by dominating male bosses. Bet that ticks you off, doesn’t it. Damn, econ, no more cookies for you.
O, econ, by the way, your CWA’s first paragraph in their about is this: “We are the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 28-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.”
In other words, a neo-con right wing religious group wanting to infuse religion into politics. Something our founding fathers knew better than to attempt. And, in fact, made it against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
GOOD catch stumper!
“…a rich 28-year history”
Heh
Proudly at the forefront for women since 1979!
stumperFirst, you do not know what the word “neo-con” means.CWA is actually OLDER than the term.Also, CWA is LARGER than NOW.Is it YOUR position that women who hold religious views don’t count, and should not be listened to?Stumper, CWA is a HUGE prolife group, for women, run by women.CWA has said far more about human rights, world wide, than ANY pro-abortion “feminist” group.
And NOW has been around since 1966, that would be 41 years.http://www.now.org/
Actually, nearly ALL of the early feminists were prolife.
NOW corrupted the feminist cause.
That is why CWA, the largest womens group in the country, started in the first place!
Amen.
Radical feminists — practically all with cushy jobs in academia — took the focus off the real problem in our society economic fairnes and replaced it with things that matter to academics, like the ridiculous “inclusive pronouns.”
The academic feminist looked out the window of her air-conditioned office at the construction worker making half her salary with one-tenth her time off, and she said, “how have we been repressed by the white, male patriarchy: let us count the ways.”
They succeeding in making a social movement that could have effected real change into one that became a parody of itself.
Well,
Islam is younger than Christianity.
Maybe we should afford them the time to catch up?
Christianity is only just recently treating women as marginally second class humans. A conservative woman is a proud warrior for her own mistreatment.
The speck in their own eye and all that…
Would boycotting Walmart be the answer, you think?
Posted by: rfl | December 22, 2007 at 10:20 AM
UH YES. Feminists do!
Islam, of course, has very little to do with it, IMHO.
The status of women was far better in the 12-14th century Islamic kingdom than it is today.
Mohammed the Prophet’s (PBUH) first wife, Khadizah, was a successful business woman. The woman’s veil was a chic status accessory of the time, not a mark of religiosity or repression.
As for women in Islamic society today, it varies widely. Turkey and Indonesia for instance allow a lot of freedoms for women.
CWA speaks out against oppression in China and in Darfur and in Sudan.
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14400/CWA/misc/index.htm
And then what do they do? They support the administration that does nothing for them, and works against flipping birth control in those nations. Nothing keeps a woman from gaining status more than loading her down with a ton of kids and a man who ran off. It is loathesome for these people-CWA, to act as if they are advocates for women in Darfur and Sudan, they are anything BUT.
A conservative woman is a proud warrior for her own mistreatment.-JR
JR,What experience do you have with conservative women?
Obviously none whatsoever.
pLOLSo, they have to agree with you or they aren’t doing anything?As opposed to NOW, which does nothing.
And how about that Hillary, and that Bill Clinton, taking campaign money from China?
And how about the Clintons taking Presidential Library money from the Saudis?
“They support the administration that does nothing for them,…Nothing keeps a woman from gaining status more than loading her down with a ton of kids”
-P mamma
Yes you are right, that is the Presidents fault. The POTUS has so much power, he is responsible for the family MIS-planning in foreign countries. All hail the supreme being the President of the United States!
“Men are the bosses. That’s God’s plan.”
THAT sums up a conservative American woman.
Somehow, I don’t see the poster, above, being very “equal” in his mind, to any “partner” —
I read mostly conservative women, when I have time to read opinion.
Mona CharenPeggy Noonan
Your own bias is comming through.Your conception (of reality) isnt true.
Lib women love beer-guzzling, pot smokers, that know every curse word in the book.
What says more about the “independent” woman who demands her right to scrape that parasite fetus right out of her body and sell the tissue on the stem cell after market.
I for one would like to see more women with stumps obtained by a visit to their nearest IED explosion. You know, so they can share the sacrifice.
America does have the equivalent of the “burka.” It’s called the Hawaiian Mu Mu for the 300 plus pounders with full mustaches.
You know, the heifers you see in supermarkets with their water tower sized bodies attached to telephone pole sized legs and flip flops on the end of their always swollen ankles and with those sausage-shaped toes.
Heh
Ya can’t beat when the other side makes your point for you.
“J R” –
I have frequently wondered if there might be something about religion that, fifteen hundred or so years in, the radical fundamentalists take charge. Christianity went through its fifteen hundred year radicalization with stuff like the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and, ultimately, protestantism. Islam is about fifteen hundred years old and its fundamentalists are embracing radicalized policies against heretics and infidels. (Look out around the year 3400 or so, when the Mormons or Scientologists go through their own period of radical fundamentalism!)
;-)
Religion — every religion — exists to try to explain the inexplicable. Ancient Egyptians worshiped the cycles of the flooding Nile and the sun because their livlihood and crops depended on them. The Aztecs worshipped the sun because beans and corn had to be planted at certain times to sustain their civilization. Today is the winter solestice… the shortest day/longest night of the year… and the Druid associated it with the beginning of a new cycle. That’s about all that was important to people in those days.
As humans became more “civilized” things got more complicated and religions developed to deal with those complications. Jesus’ ministry was an attempt to uncomplicate Jewish orthodoxy. Martin Luthor stood up against Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Every religious orthodoxy — i.e., *fundamentalism* — assumes its theology has all the answers.
But there’s this little thing called science that screws up religious fundamentalism. Religion exists to provide “answers;” science exists to ask questions. There’s the rub.
Galileo asked questions and was branded as a heretic. Socrates was all about asking questions and offended the religionists who assumed they had all the “answers.”
Men are, generally, bigger and stronger than women. Might makes right is a basic human concept and manifests itself in religious, cultural, and philosophical ways. But as humans have advanced, and a scientific approach to the conundrums of life forces humans to ask questions rather than assume answers, civilizations have come to realize that asking questions is more important than assuming answers.
It’s taken humankind only a few thousand years to come to the realization that “other-ness” doesn’t automatically mean superiority and inferiority. Even though women are, generally, smaller and physically weaker than males, their brains are not all that different from males’.
Agreed, JR.
No wonder Jolly Golly posted over another nic . . .
Heh, dead-on nic, “info-pipe”! In operating systems, pipes take info in, spit it out, and retain none of it.
Though, for some reason, your comments remind me of some other pipes. :)
Very insightful as usual, MH.
Religon provides answers, science asks questions.
Got to remember that one.
Can someone tell me what is the point of the feminist movement?
BrunoI tried, above.The “point” of the feminist movement, as pushed by NOW, is to oppose any and all restrictions to abortion on demand.NOW has also adopted the gay rights agenda, including gay rights.Nothing else really matters to the radical feminists, except for the radical hatred of everyone who might get in their way.This is why NOW type feminists can attack Clarence Thomas and give Bill Clinton a pass, as far as personal behavior is concerned.
meant to say “including gay marriage”
One of the initial points of the feminist movement in the latter of the 20th century was to remove the “glass ceiling” barrier for equal opportunity advancement.
This has been partially successful, although “screwing one’s way to the top” hasn’t appeared to have been affected.
The Catholic Church as kept their “glass ceiling” in effect, while other churches have invoked their “Bless me mother, for I have sinned” Ministers.
The feminist movement hasn’t been entirely successful as the urge for “GI Janes” hasn’t been full implemented. As well, there hasn’t exactly been a run on the market for female proctologists who want to “stick it to the man.”
With breast surgery at an all time high, the bra-less society is even better than ever. Nipple jutting attire can be seen from Mall to Church. Breasts that once served as belt buckle polishers have now been lifted and separated much to the delight of both sides of the hormone driven society.
Although there is still “female genital cutting” in parts of the world, the feminist movement has focused their direction on turning vaginae into industry phallic symbol plowshares capitalizing on their piece of the pie.
Arabic based and Islamic driven societies are still using cloth to restrict the physical and philosophical movement of women.
Who knew that cloth was the solution to keep females in the kitchen and obedient.
So we have Flight Attendants rather than stewardesses, hu-persons rather than humans and we pray to an androgynous deity.
I still waiting for the uni-sex public bathrooms so hu-persons can let it all hang out regardless of their assigned gender.
Hey, one other thing I notice with libs, in general, and the Eagle in particular:
When the subject of women in the Arab or Moslem world comes up, the liberals will NOT bring up:
Honor killing of women in Gaza or Syria.Mistreatment of women, in Iran.Rape rooms in Saddam era Iraq!
Nope, the libs always mention Saudi Arabia.
Why would any other Moslem country want to be an “allie” of the United States?
The liberals only pic on our allies!
SOME of our “allies” don’t rate much defense.
“Info_Pipe” –
Uhm… perhaps you haven’t flown in a commercial aircraft. Uni-sex restrooms seem to work okay and have for the last sixty years or so.
Probably a lot of women want the privacy of a ladies only room. And some men too I’m sure.
But unisex bathrooms I think are going to become more common because of water use issues. I don’t have a problem with it.
MonkeyAirplane restrooms allow only one person at a time.Dont tell me that you want unisex public restrooms with dozens of people in them, all at once?
HUH”Water use issues”
I am thinking that urinals don’t use as much water as a toilet.
Also, I am not sure how use of the sink or toilet are affected, unless you mean that women will run the hell out of the restroom, as fast as they can, without using the sink afterwards.
Amazing!
I think male genital cutting is horrible also and like its female counterpart is often done for religious reasons also
Not everybody is hung up about stuff there paulieecon.
If women want their own bathroom I say fine. If they don’t mind using the same one as me also fine.
Ever been to a ballgame or other public event? Women wait online for a bathroom while the mens room toilets go largely unused. If I was a woman I wouldn’t be hung up about taking advantage of that.
What woman would want to use a mens room toilet?
I am not sure what games you are going to JR, but the ones I go to the mens room is so crowded that the men are peeing all over those toilets instead of waiting in line for the mass urinals.
I wouldn’t sit down on those things unless my life depending on it.
A womans perspective on the matter would be interesting.
At Riverfest, I don’t THINK they have mens and womens porta potties. I don’t remember any anyway.
JR,
Yeah, and unless it is a dire emergency, you won’t find very many women wanting to use those porta johns either.
http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/261746
Speaking of sitting down, here is an example of the kind of important issues that consume today’s feminist.
No wonder they don’t have time to address human rights issues for women in Saudi Arabia.
I just think it is unfair they have to wait in line. Sue me.
“econ 101″ asserts:
“…the liberals will NOT bring up:
“Honor killing of women in Gaza or Syria.”Mistreatment of women, in Iran.”Rape rooms in Saddam era Iraq!”
As usual, “econ 101,” you’re full of s#it. In fact, we liberals are the ones who brought the issue of “honor killing,” “mistreatment of women…,” and “rape rooms” to the public forum. Feminists objected to the Taliban’s treatment of women in Afghanistan long before 9/11. (Of course, back then, the Taliban *were* considered “allies” since they were fighting the Soviets and Ronald Reagan was funding the Taliban.
Genital mutilation of females has long been an issue of the feminist movement and, since the males who mutilate Muslim women tend to own a lot of oil, the issue has been marginalized by western conservative males.
George WMD Bush waged war against Saddam Hussein because of “weapons of mass destruction” which he knew did not exist; against terrorists which had no significant ties with 9/11; to “promote democracy” iin the middle east; to “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here;” and *never* ever to promote the rights of women in Muslem societies.
We “libs” mention Saudi Arabia because it’s a fact that Osama bin Laden rallied al Qaeda specifically because female American military personel were allowed to drive trucks in the same nation where Mecca is.
Here’s an issue we “libs” would appreciate if you would consider: religion is a highly personal consideration and should remain highly personal… not a matter of governmental policy. Here or there.
I don’t care if you choose to worship a guy who was executed unjustly at Calvary in 30 AD, or a “prophet” who says he spoke to Allah in 600 AD, or another “prophet” who claimed to know the Garden of Eden was located in a suburb of Kansas City… Thing is, whatever your religious beliefs might mean to you, the Constitution of the United States of America specifically and implictly declared that your relious beliefs are irrelevant to civil law and government.
What’s private and personal is, or should be, just that: private and personal. What’s public — in America, anyway — is free from religious orthodoxy.
Civil government in the United States simply does not allow you to play the God Card. For better or worse, the Constitution of the United States of America dictates that we’re not allowed to play with a full deck.
Did Econ correctly state the point of the feminist movement?
I truly don’t know what they are about.
If men formed a masculane movement, we’d be criticized for forming a male chuavanist woman-bashing movement.
So is that what feminists are? A woman chavanistic bunch of man bashers? Do the feminists hate men? Do the feminists think they are in some elite superior group?
I don’t get it.
Yeah, “Bruno” –
You really don’t get it.
Are you always so brilliant Monkey?
So why are you a feminist?
Am I “always so brilliant,” “Bruno?”
Yeah, pretty much.
It’s not that I’m just a feminist, “Bruno,” I’m a *people-ist.* When institutions of power try to reduce individuals’ status and portray them as sub-people, I tend to come out on the side of people.
I see a society that tacitly exploits racism, sexism, xenophobia, religious prejudice, and class warfare. All these wedge issues appeal to what Abraham Lincoln would have called “our lesser angels.”
I fully admit I am inferior to a lot of people, but none of that inferiority is due to my pigmintation, my gender, my theology, or my income. At the same time, yeah, I assert I have some gifts, achievements, and assets that make me superior to some people. But none of those attributes are due to my gender, my pigmentation, my citizenship, or other accidents of birth.
Too often in forums (fora?) such as WEBlog I see people proclaim superiority based on nothing they can truly attribute to personal achievement. It’s not so much that who and what I am and what I believe in makes me “always so brilliant.” Rather, those who so consistently prove themselves to be always stupid makes it seem that way by comparison.
Look at it this way Bruno, put yourself in a woman’s place and then maybe, just maybe you might get it.
John Lennon didn’t call us the “nigger of the world” for nothing.
All it takes is to open your eyes.
Y’know guys, almost 30yrs ago, I had the pleasure of meeting and talking with Gloria Steinem. Seldom have I met a kinder more caring, more authentic person. She is anything but your apparition of a “feminazi.” Get over it!
Just maybe, if you can get past your “I’ve got balls and women don’t” complex, you might discover that feminism liberates you too!
Actually, “Mary Caruso” –
It was Yoko Ono, not John Lennon, who said, “Women are the niggers of the World.”
I’ve always thought hers was a profound insight. For all the world’s racism in history, nothing quite comes close to what Americans conjured as “nigger-ness.” The Japanese are most certainly as racist in their way as just about any culture in the history of humankind.
But it took *Americans* to come up with “nigger-ness.” We’ve amended the Constitution and come a long way from the 18th Century mindset that established this nation, but it will always be a scar on the United States of America that it couldn’t even get started without declaring a sub-set of the population as 3/5ths human.
Indeed, without even explicitly addressing the specifics, the Constituion of the United States of America created a nation in which women were non-persons.
I’m frequently reminded of Winston Churchill’s observation that “democracy is the absolute worst form of government ever imagined… except for all others.”
The root of the word “prejudice” is about pre-judging people. Before there is any evidence, too many humans pre-judge those of lighter or darker pigmentation, of religious beliefs, of anything that can be conjured up as a rationale for other-ness.
The principle difference between so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” is, from my observation, this: conservatives look for differences in humans and liberals recognize how much we all have in common.
Well said, Monkey! I should have known that a woman would have come up with that insight..it’s still true unfortunately.
That doesn’t mean we don’t care. We can still pressure our government to make good policy decisions that affect women abroad. But beyond that, it will be the women in those countries who will have to stand up as well and fight as we have, with help from policies that will enable them to do so.
That’s the whole problem You presume your values are the world’s. Let them work out their own issues.
Yes, many women in those countries don’t believe they are repressed…maybe that’s because they’ve never known what freedom is.
Mary put yourself in a man’s place.
Working his tail off while the wife sits home and has babies and cooks.
Or the ex-wife sits home and collects alimony and child support.
That’s why so many men don’t get married any more.
The 90-day term limit rule is not such a bad thing.
Poor women.
Monkey, this is YOUR prejudice:—–”The principle difference between so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” is, from my observation, this: conservatives look for differences in humans and liberals recognize how much we all have in common.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 22, 2007 at 05:23 PM
And monkey
Faith is not irrelevant to politics, it is only irrelevent to government in that church officials can not dictate civil or criminal law.
“”We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.”
Sits at home and cooks and takes care of the kids…and that is unmeaningful? That is a job in of itself. Women generally run circles around men. If I were the kind of woman to marry a man who expected me to stay home and cook and take care of HIS mess…no thanks buddy. 50-50 or no deal.
Monkey, I’m so very glad you were here today. I always love reading what you’ve got to say.
outlanderI will stand, in protest, with you!
Paul, obviously doesn’t know this subject well enough to even discuss it. He’s made a complete fool of himself, again.
Well, in seperate stalls, of course!
“Would boycotting Wal-Mart be the answer, you think?Posted by: rfl | December 22, 2007 at 10:20 AM
UH YES. Feminists do!”political mama
They made the mistake once of requiring me to have a written “Plan of action” concerning attendance.I turn in a three page critique of how Wal-Mart’s attendance policy discriminates against women and single parents. They expected a promise that the associates would not miss three days in a rolling six month period.
But it does not take into account personal illness, a sick child (as anyone with a child is well aware of, no one will watch a sick child in a day care or even a private baby sitter) and injury. The reaction was one of surprise and I was asked if I was sure I wanted to turn this in? Of course I did and never heard anymore about it. With over seventy percent of all associates being female and most of them being single mothers.
There are no guarantees in life and not taking that into account is shortsighted and wishful thinking.
Monkeyhawk, I must give you credit that was one of the most eloquent ways I have ever read of calling someone a dumb-azz!
Bruno, the woman movement is far more then has been stated here. Though the pay scale has been getting better. It is still acceptable in most business to pay women less then men for doing a equal job. What was seen as “protecting” women from the obscenities of life, in a effect restricted them from become all they were capable of. This made women wether that was the intent or not second class citizens in this country.One of the most profound statement I heard during the late sixties-early seventies was “I think it is nice of women to want to lower themselves down to men’s level.”.
LOL more then once at a game or a drive-in I have witness when it becomes standing room only in the women’s room. That the men’s room suddenly becomes uni-sex and yes the response is generally mixed with some beating a hasty retreat while other simply ignoring the urgent woman rushing pass them to the first open stall. Nathan I would say give the choice between a few droplet or totally wet pants. You too would sat there and worry later.
pmamaA very large segment of the population agrees with me.In fact, most candidates run away from radical feminists.
Liberals are capabable of prejudice.All you have to do is look at the opinions that liberals have, of conservatives, and you see lots of prejudice.
“outlanderI will stand, in protest, with you!”
Uh I don’t think outlander is into that there pauliecon.
Try Larry Craig maybe?
Weirdo.
Well well
A liberal on the Blog wants unisex bathrooms. In his mind, we can have unisex bathrooms, but we cant protest silly feminists who want to outlaw urinals, while we are in those restrooms?
LOL
This is humorous.
Hey I said have both unisex and mens and womens rooms. I didn’t say anything at all about urinals. They save water.
I aint the one with hangups.
But proudly shouting you’ll share a stall with another guy?
That may be carrying the whole male solidarity bit a tad far.
No I don’t want unisex bathrooms. But family restrooms are a good plan…where there is a child changing table and a mom or dad can take their child in there together.You see these a lot more recently. and that’s really more of a MAN’s right’s issue. Because single dads with little girls have a very hard time when it comes to using a restroom in public. I guess they could say “close your eyes” and guide the girls in past the line of penises facing the wall, but that’s still akward.
I worked at a manufacturing plant with unisex bathrooms. It was no big deal.
Oh and Paul, they run from the OR groups and radical right if they have half a brain.
I lectured at a university that had unisex bathrooms as well as sex specific ones. It’s just one of those things that society will adjust too like women wearing pants or Archie Bunker saying ‘toilet’ on the television. There are individual stalls so nobody has to watch you, unless that upsets some people and that’s why they are opposed to unisex bathrooms.
I’ll tell you why I”m opposed to unisex bathrooms, because stalls are see through, and some men have been known to put cameras and stuff in the woman’s restrooms already. I don’t want a peeping tom perv in the stall next to me.
Never said I would “share a stall” and you know it.Rather odd that a leftie gets away with calling others homosexual here, as an insult!
However, I did say that the feminist urinal ban is stupid.
And, I said I would stand in protest. We dont even have to be in the same country (This was in Germany and Australia, I believe) — let alone the same stall.
Wow, lighten up!—–Yes, the changing issue is terrible.
Me? I have changed diapers in the hallway, in public, where no changing room was available.
However, with the predators out there, we do not want to make it easy for pervs to plant cameras and the like.
Unises bathrooms, outside of the family room or changing room idea, are usually single occupancy.
Anyway, I thihk Outlander did a service by bringing up the lastest feminist cause: banning urninals!
How can you expect to be taken seriously when you propose stuff like that?
inverting way too many letters.
Guess I wore myself out pushing people out of the snow.
I am done for awhile.
“I am done for awhile.”
Why stop now when you have already shown so much about yourself?
Have another drink or two and post more. It’s educational as to the neocon mind.
“Mary put yourself in a man’s place.
Working his tail off while the wife sits home and has babies and cooks.
Or the ex-wife sits home and collects alimony and child support.
That’s why so many men don’t get married any more.
The 90-day term limit rule is not such a bad thing.
Poor women.”
Posted by: Bruno
Sorry Bruno, you’re not describing any woman I know. Most of us take most of the responsibilty at home AND work hard to bring home the bacon.As far as unisex bathrooms, my first encounter with them was in Europe in the 1970s when some guy stood outside my stall waiting for me to finish..talk about feeling weird! I like my privacy…unisex bathrooms have nothing to do with equal rights for women Beisde, there are too many male pervs out there to think it’s a reasonable idea.
Unisex toilets aren’t the issue; unisex rights and paychecks are! If Pall wants to share his stall, that’s a strictly personal issue and not up for discussion.
Bruno, the woman movement is far more then has been stated here. Though the pay scale has been getting better. It is still acceptable in most business to pay women less then men for doing a equal job. What was seen as “protecting” women from the obscenities of life, in a effect restricted them from become all they were capable of. This made women wether that was the intent or not second class citizens in this country. writerdog | December 22, 2007 at 08:31 PM
——————————————————————–This is BS. Maybe 50 years ago there was a glass ceiling and lower pay for women, but I see more women executives today then men. I work in a large corp with 50,000 employees, and in other companies I’ve been in over the years, and knowing many colleagues in my line of business at other companies, there is actually now a majority of females in all levels of management.
Feminists, like any other discriminating special interest groups seeks not EQUAL rights, but SUPERIOR rights through the courts and through legislation.
You want SPECIAL rights and SPECIAL treatment. In the guise of seeking protection from those who allegedly discriminate against you, YOU are discriminating against others.
And YOU are shirking your personal responsibility and accountability for your own achievements (or lack of) by blaming others.
Thank God my two daughters have been successful through their own efforts, and have not been raised to constantly blame others who might stand in their way.
Guess what, EVEN MEN have obstacles in our way! It’s a competitive world out there, and yes women, you face the very same competition that everyone else faces, every day.
Good luck in your success feminists. May you achieve something on your own someday, without constantly crying “poor me”.
And if and when you are successful, you can take credit for your own achievements.
Did Hillary Clinton say: “Without the feminist movement, I wouldn’t being running for President today.”?
Heck no. Even those who don’t care for Hillary, see that she’s risen to her level on her own.
(Or maybe Bill helped her.)
Women, you can’t achieve something on your own, can you?
“Max” –
I suspect you were really trying to hide your utter contempt for women from your recent post. And I suspect you don’t realize just how badly you failed.
Sometimes in this forum, when dealing with so-called “conservatives,” there just doesn’t seem to be any point to addressing your arguments. They’re strawman conjectures of what “libs” supposedly believe, or wild-eyed optimism of what “conservatism” supposedly advocates, or just blind prejudice you guys are constitutionally incapable of recognizing.
Please tell me Max, how do I expect “special” treatment? All I want is to be given the same opportunities that men have taken for granted for centuries.To imply that there isn’t a double standard for men and women is showing how out of touch you really are.I have worked hard for eveything in life that I have achieved, and I’ve never allowed any man hold me back, even though some have tried. I was born in the 50s, and it’s only been recently that things have changed for women and we still have a ways to go, but we’re getting there. Right now women are outnumbering men in college and there are as many women as men in medical school, so it looks like we’re more than willing to take responsibility for our futures.Please be specific…how do I expect to have “superior” rights?
BTW, I fully expect in the next 50 years that more women will hold public offices than men. Watch out guys..we’re taking over, and it’s about damn time!!!!!
“Feminists, like any other discriminating special interest groups seeks not EQUAL rights, but SUPERIOR rights through the courts and through legislation.
You want SPECIAL rights and SPECIAL treatment. In the guise of seeking protection from those who allegedly discriminate against you, YOU are discriminating against others.
And YOU are shirking your personal responsibility and accountability for your own achievements (or lack of) by blaming others.”
“Women, you can’t achieve something on your own, can you?”
How much you want to bet that Max won’t come back and answer my question? I love it when people make blanket statements and then can’t defend their position. What a moron you are, Max.
Please tell me Max, how do I expect “special” treatment? All I want is to be given the same opportunities that men have taken for granted for centuries. Mary Caruso
You already have the same opportunities Mary. Your statement proves you want something MORE then equal opportunities.
Give me one example where you don’t have equal opportunities as men.
I bet you can’t do it, can you Mary.
Can’t defend your position can you.
Just like you Mary to run away from the blog when you can’t answer the question.
Dang it Mary, you are supposed to be blogging 24/7 and give immediate answers.
Sometimes in this forum, when dealing with so-called “conservatives,” there just doesn’t seem to be any point to addressing your arguments.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | December 23, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Then don’t. There’s no point to your blather anyway.
I am having second doubts about you Max.
Do we know you in another nic?
Everybody has a special interest group JR. Isn’t that special?
I’ve hired a lot of people over the years, and I’ve yet to see any discrimination against women.
I did like your post that was for the birds, by the way.
It was a good reminder, I only had 2″ left in my bird feeder.
Max is either an idiot, completely unknowing in how it is for women, or just being a dick in trying to keep women in their place.
Women still make 77 cents to the dollar that men make. With the same everything. That’s just ONE.
“Did Hillary Clinton say: “Without the feminist movement, I wouldn’t being running for President today.”?
But it’s TRUE. Feminists efforts for the last 100 years did put her there. And it’s about time. IF we had equality it wouldn’t have taken this damn long.
How were YOU discriminated against P Mom?
Max, sorry I didn’t get back right away..it is Xmas you know, and women tend to take on a lot of the resposibility for making the whole holiday thing happen.
Yes, I’ve been discriminated against because I’m a woman. It’s better now than it was in the 70s and even 80s..but I know what it’s like to be told I shouldn’t be doing something because of my gender.
I don’t have a lot of time, but one example that sticks out in my head was in the late 80s, when I tried to get a loan for a house I wanted to buy and flip (back before it even became fashionable to flip houses). I was told by the banker that even “guys who know what they’re doing” lose their shirts on these deals, and that he “was surprised that my husband was “letting” me do it”. He also couldn’t believe that my husband hadn’t inspected the property before I bought it. When Dave told him he trusted my judgement, the banker rolled his eyes.Do you think he would have said and done those things if I was a man?After I “proved” myself, he told me he’d be glad to do another deal with me..but I had already made up my mind he wouldn’t get anymore of my business with his condesending attitude toward women.Now I have a banker who, when I call and say I need money for a project..he just says “How much?”
I could go on with the big and the little things that have happened to me…and believe me, just because the law has changed, many attitudes haven’t. From the things you’ve said in your posts, the resentment many like you still feel for women is pretty apparent.
P-Mom,”I’ve hired a lot of people over the years, and I’ve yet to see any discrimination against women.”Posted by: Max | December 23, 2007 at 10:44 PM
Of course he hasn’t! He’s kept his eyes and wallet tightly shut to avoid such a possibility. I’d certainly like to hear from some of those women he says he hired- I’d bet a buck to a bean they’ve seen him discriminate.
The feminist movement has been a cruel joke ever since it started by denouncing men for treating women as sex objects and then to prove how much it u set them they whipped off their undergarments and started engaging in the very promiscuous sex that every misogynist yearned for.
They then started glutting the labor markets, transforming us from a society where one paycheck could support a family to one where at least two had become mandatory.
Then to demonstrate just much more tender and loving they were they proceeded to kill 50 million of their own babies in the worst Holocaust the world has ever known.
Congratulations, feminists have taken the most morally up lifting society the world has ever known and transformed it into a haven for the politics of infantile, baby killing neurosis. In essence they’ve conclusively proven just the opposite of what they started out to show.
Dark,I’m old enough to remember the 1950’s, and I’m sorry your perfect little society got screwed up, but maybe that was because it was most people’s hell. Surely you can find a nice remote cave to fester in away from all those sins of the world, and I’m sure a great many women will thank you for going. Bye.
Maybe it’s just me, but I suspect “The Dark Humor of Feminism” has posted before on this forum under a different nym.
Forgive my cynicism if I suspect “The Dark Humor of Feminism” might be a regular poster who has recently claimed he’s sworn off blogging. He was lying, of course.
To get back to the topic of this thread, people are people regardless of gender.
I suspect “The Dark Rumor of Feminism” is one of those types who thinks he has a superior brain because he’s equipped for spelling his name with piss in the snow. (Unless, of course, the rules are No Hands.)
The difference between having a penis and not is that men rationally try and control the world while you woperdaughters are emotionally controlled by the moon.
I agree “Dark” is a well known poster here hiding under a different nic.
Their are clearly bitterness issues. Likely “Dark” was left by a wife or lover.
JR,”Likely “Dark” was left by a wife or lover.”
Any guesses as to why?
Hey Max..where ARE you? running away again?Dark..you need some serious help.
“The difference between having a penis and not is that men rationally try and control the world while you woperdaughters are emotionally controlled by the moon.”
And I’d say too many men are controlled by their egos, penises, and the testosterone flowing though their blood. That’s why there is so much war in the world and so much chest thumping on this blog.