Recently a certain poster , when I was explaining, at length, the detriment of this Administration's policy regarding the lack of providing education and access to birth control, and a new fundamentalist policy of allowing pharmacists to deny women their doctors prescriptions at counter based on that individuals religious beliefs, and an overall lifelong slant against womens rights to control their own reproduction and sexuality, government officials preaching 'abstinance only' to teens and grown women alike, wrote to me,



This was deeply disturbing, having some knowledge of womens lives worldwide, however...

Something that has bothered me on this board is, we can talk about race for 15 pages, or we can talk about Iraq, the war and its devastation, but womens issues never garner or attract the attention of any of the people who are so ademant about minority issues, race relations or the detriment of war.

While women are 52% of the worlds population, many are living in poverty, devastated by war, subjected to fundamentalist beliefs that include clitorectomies, being shrouded behind burkhas, dowry murders, denied education and basic human rights. Girls are murdered at birth and sold into prostitution, often by their own parents. Women are needlessly victims of HIV/AIDS and other diseases due to reluctance of governments to educate other than abstinance (including our own), subject to constant pregnancies by the religious factions which teach that contraception is 'bad' (the Pope, latin america), governments that make access to BC (birth control) difficult, expensive or impossible, and even here in the US, sex education in schools is taboo. Many health insurance policies do not cover BC, but do cover Viagra and other impotence related drugs, officials are appointed that believe birth control is demeaning to women and many officials advocate that women should be celebate until marriage, the government teaches this policy in schools, and as I said earlier, now a pharmacist can oppose giving a woman her birth control prescription, regardless of why she needs it, here in the first world, the biggest, baddest most powerful nation on earth. This does not even cover rape and violence that occurs as a matter of normalcy, that in a certain state in the US you can get a harsher penalty for cock fighting than beating a woman.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?
I mean, what women are going through on the planet beats all records of discrimination, abuse, physical tortures and lack of freedom. No 'race' or 'Iraqi death' debate could even come close.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

Because sexual politics is the arena of every single individual on the planet I guess. All the other topics you listed can be debated at arms length by the majority, but the same cannot be said regarding the relationships between men and women. Even in the race debate, the fact is most of us have not been affected by what we're debating except in an oblique way.

In order to change the relationship between men and women its going to take a global sexual revolution. It could be said that such a revolution had already gotten underway during the 1960's and the world we live in today is a product of that beginning and the backlash we see against liberal western society is a direct rebellion by conservatives against giving women equal rights and privileges.


I do not believe women control men as your anonymous poster describes, since I do not believe in such a 'mind control' theory, but I do believe that a great many men carry such scars inflicted upon them by women that they have little inclination towards giving women more power.

For my own part, my life has been dominated by women telling me what to do. All my teachers, most of my doctors, bank advisors, social workers, even my psychologist, were all women, and I have not really had any problem with that at all. Quite the contrary since I find it easier to confide in a woman than in another man (men simply don't listen). But, my perception of women is and always has been coloured by my love/hate relationship to my Mother so no matter how much empathy or sympathy I feel towards women, there is always the nagging doubt that they are essentially like my Mother and cannot be trusted.

Men can be trusted by comparison, because for the most part, they are predictable. They can be trusted to be men. To act as men and to believe in their own magnificent infallibility, even when all else points to the contrary.


In the big picture, women are treated like dirt. They are mistreated, taken advantage of, discriminated against, raped, forced into unpaid or low paid labour, often forced into motherhood, left holding the child and any other multitude of child care obligations. I think women have plenty to complain about, and not just in Africa and the Muslim country's either.

edited for spelling

Women and men are not equal. They are different.

In some ways, men are superior to women. Those ways usually boil down to things of a physical nature (although that's not true in all cases of course). But, in general, men are more physical, more aggressive (due to testosterone), and more prone to violence as a result.

Women, who are the givers of life, are more nurturing, thoughtful, socialized, and generally more suited to civilized behavior. In many areas, they are generally SUPERIOR to men... especially when it comes to the absolutely critical function of raising children. It pains me to think of so-called "modern women" who reject the concept of raising children as "demeaning" and who leave it up to the Hillary-esque "village" of professional baby-sitters, agencies, etc. I just don't GET that mentality.

In societies that are not advanced (much of the world), women are abused because they CAN be abused. In other words, in the jungle, the strongest, most physical, and most brutal come out on top.

However, in a modern liberal society like the US (and most of Europe), physical might isn't what rules the day. And in modern societies, women are in a very strong position. The criticism of the Bush administration with respect to "women" is just what I called it. Whining. Bush has appointed women to key administration management positions on a regular basis. He's far more "pro woman" of a president than the previous President and impeached-alleged-rapist who saw women as sex objects to be harassed whenever he felt like it. When you cut through the baloney coming from "women's groups" in modern societies like the USA about "conservatives" and presidents like Bush, it always comes down to one thing. Abortion.

I agree that women in the primitive (and Muslim) worlds are treated like animals. And THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING!

Bush is on the RIGHT SIDE of the war against radical Islam, terrorism, and the systematic oppression of women. Yet, the left still undermine his efforts and then simultaneously point out the end result of our enemy's world view. Sigh.

The poster that Artimise is referring to is your's truly. Of course, she left off her response to me which was quite a "good one" that I'll be saving for future laughs.

Of course, I can take it as well as dish it out so no offense was taken. Words are, after all, just "words". They have no impact if we don't personalize and accept their intent.

And what exactly does that have to do with ANY of the questions posed?

Womens equality was not even the subject , nor of any question. What era are you living in? And who brought up Bush anyway?

I refuse to allow you to hijack this post and make it something its not, by people reacting to you being reactionary. Enough is enough with your idiotic monologues.

Answer the questions or go troll elsewhere.

I don't care who or what you are talking about.

No one is superior to me!

I accept the equality of other people based on their worth as human beings, not because they are the same as me.

And beyond that, what you refer to as masculine 'strength' and 'aggression' are merely the product of hormones which can be found in all human beings and do not characterise who or what we are as human beings. I am not strong because I am in failing health. I am not particularly aggressive because I see no gain to be found in violent behaviour and only a slight advantage to be found in aggressive debating. On the whole, I find I have no similarity in opinions with either gender. I agree with members of both.

And thats the reason why you are so far wrong that its amazing LH. People, first and foremost are individuals. We are not autonomatons programmed by our hormones. All people are like me. Individuals who must make their way through life and answer in the end to the only ultmate court; our own conscience.

If you want to make a distinction between men and women then go right ahead, but all your doing is forming a mental barrier in your mind. An apartheid of your perception, as insubstantial and useless as its possible to be. For as long as you make that distinction of superiority, then you are no different from the Taliban, except in how far your willing to go to inflict your percpetions onto other people.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisible to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

For the most part, it is because of two things (at least here on ):

1. Most posters are male.

2. Most posters are not significantly affected by the things you wrote about.

In the United States, women are not subjected to burkhas, indiscriminate rape, or overt male dominance (such as walking three feet behind their husband). They are not forced to marry someone they don't want and are not sold into slavery.

In the United States, women have real power. It isn't the same type of power as men, who enjoy dominant positions in politics, business, and religious circles. However they do have power in social circles and have for centuries.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

No, those things are not true. However, women do have power that can only be described as "less than visible". But does anyone doubt that Laura Bush has power to influence policy? Or that Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi have power? Pelosi is the incoming Speaker of the House and Clinton could be Senate Majority Leader if she wanted it. They are both women and both have real power.

Now, in general, women have historically been discriminated against. There was (and is) a glass ceiling. There have been barriers to education and to many career paths (including politics, business management, and religious positions). But the gap is narrowing. It is narrowing because society is evolving.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

I think LH is being consistent when he decides that women in the United States have little to complain about. Sure there are barriers, but those same barriers (or worse) exist for poor people. LH's position is that people should not identify with groups such as race or sex, but instead on cultural grounds--like being an American. Are conditions for women in the US as bleak as those in Iran, or SE Asia? I don't think anyone will make that comparison.

I doubt many people are worried about the Bush twins succeeding in life because they are held back by men. So, like race, this debate is about a group that has not historically had power and is only now asserting itself in areas heretofore untouched by women: politics and business in particular.

To answer that last question: yes, some women have power behind some men. There are clearly some very powerful women in this country in their own right, but there are also matriarchs of powerful families that also have power. Even in the general sense, however, women in the United States have a lot of power as a group. Women in the United States have a little to complain about, but certainly not nearly as much as those women in the developing world, where they are treated as property or worse.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

Tough and thoughtful question Artemise- and very complex as well. I was raised by a single mom, who didn't make too good of choices, but she was not a bad mom either, and I love her very much, see her couple times a week. I have a sister, that has dealt with some abuse we both recieved as children, both from men and women. I seemed to have dealth with it far better than she. I have no idea why I came out better than she, we both had the same opportunities and problems- however, I love her very much, helped her raise my nephews when her marriage fell apart, and we hang out couple times a week. I have been married twice before, both to women that were, well, not too good of poeple, and had experiance dealing with courts that were so biased towards women it isn't even silly- it is almost farcical it is so silly. But, after spending a few thousand dollars anyway- it seems I may have won. Means I have two kids now, raising them as a single father. There is absolutely 0 help for single fathers compared to single mothers. Even churches have a hard time helping a single father- I was struggling with child care and making ends meet after all that money spent in court and having to work 100 hours a week sometimes.

At one point, I had a case worker say straight up to me "well, if you were a woman, we would have lots of programs for you, but we really arent' set up to help men at all".

No support groups, no assistance, no respite care, nothing.

Tends to make someone like me think much of what I hear AMERICAN woman "whining" about problems dealing with issues IN AMERICA , well, it tends to make me not have too much sympathy for them here in the US.

Abroad, whole different story- the situation is reversed in third world countries.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

In American, dealing with American women- yes, whining. NO doubt about it. Compared to a man in the same situation, seems women, from my perspective, get everything handed to them on a silver platter, and complain that the platter isn't shiny enough- not that I am bitter -

But, I have travelled worldwide, and I have been suprised to see power in muslim communities even- remember, Pakistan had one of the first women presidents- before America was even thinking about it!

Generally, I say, globaly, women have it bad- in America, the pendulum has swung the other way. A woman can make a unfounded allegation of rape for instance, and it is guilty until innocent for the man. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the man can have his life ruined for nothing. There is no such mechanism against women.

So, from my decidedly slanted and biased viewpoint. I would say women have it easy compared to men in our society. You have help, we don't. You have rights we don't. you have access to justice, we don't.

But, like I said, I am a different person in the last year and a half ago than I am now, and you can go ahead and take my life view with a grain of salt.

Because I have a daughter, and if she gets a leg up for being a girl, well, anything good that happens to her, well, I am all for it.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

Someone once asked Marlon Brando why he was so hyped about the plight of Indians over that of other groups. Brando replied, "It's not an ouch contest." Most straight people are not overwhelmed with concern about gays and most White gays are not overwhelmed with concern over Blacks and most Blacks are not overwhelmed with concern about the issues of middle-class White women and most middle-class White women are not overwhelmed with...and on and on.

Nobody is as interested in any given issue as much as the persons most affected by it. In a paternalistic, sexist society, the concerns of women are often shunted aside by the men running the show. Black women put aside their own interests for the betterment of the group as a whole. To this day, Black men and women have unresolved issues that are only now coming to light.

I understand your frustration Artemise, but you will rarely find men as motivated to address the dilemmas of women as women are themselves. Simple sexism partially explains it, but not totally. But in a male-centered world the most passionate advocates for the rights of women has to be women themselves.

For a man who has read feminist theory, taken Women's Studies classes and counts feminists among his circle of friends I believe I have some understanding of the issues you anguish over, Artemise, but with few, rare exceptions, it is difficult for someone not part of the oppressed group to truly identify with or articulate the issues. As a straight male I can "opt out" of matters that don't affect me directly. In another thread we have the scenario of a Black man being killed in a volley of 50 bullets from police officers. Where you stand on the issue can largely be attributed to whether you identify with the cops or the victim.

Simply put, most men cannot identify with the problems of women because A they are incapable of recognizing their role in the creation or perpetuation of the problem and B it is counter to their own interests to alleviate the problem.

Nothing revolutionary ever comes from the masses. All revolutions start with a few committed individuals and eventually they drag the masses kicking and screaming every inch of the way into making the changes that need to be made. Rather than waiting for the unenlightened to repent and change their evil ways, each one of us has to be the catalyst for the change we want to see in the world.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world?

I'd suggest any man who would suggest women control men spend a year living as a woman. They'd sing a different tune PDQ.

For some knuckle-draggers it comes down to, "I have a penis so I know more than you." Consider the source, Artemise. Anyone who thinks women run men and thusly run the world has no clue how the world works.

Sometimes it's not a life and death issue. It's just the little acts of hypocrisy where people get bent if a mother breast feeds her child in public but don't say anything about some shirtless guy mowing his lawn and his "man-breasts" are flopping around. Why should it be disgusting to observe a breast being utilized for it's expressed purpose but okay to watch Pamela Anderson bounce around with those two fake basketballs falling out of her blouse?

But then there's the exploitation of women as sexual playthings that there is no parallel experience. There are the women who suffer silently in loveless relationships where they are brutalized and humilated by men.
There are the women toiling away in illegal sweatshops making the designer gear for Americans to wear. There are the women whom men say shouldn't be able to make their own reproductive decisions without the input or permission of their husbands.

Put a face to who suffers most from acts of domestic violence and it's a woman's face. Women are disproportionately the target of serial killers, stalkers, rapists, workplace harassment, incest, child abuse, exploitation, and violence. Every day it's women ending up on a slab because some man beats her to death in America or burns her alive in Pakistan or rapes her in Darfur.

It's women whom are more likely to be subject to forms of mental and emotional violence by a dominating and controlling man than the other way around. It's the women whom are more likely to be the subject of a man's disapproving look, demeaning nickname and verbal threats. It's women who are more likely to find themselves seduced and abandoned by a man and left with nothing more than a sexually transmitted disease or unplanned pregnancy.

It's men who pimp women for their own enrichment. It's men producing the movies where women are hunted, brutalized, tortured and murdered for the sake of "entertainment." It's men making the creep who produces "Girls Gone Wild" videos rich. It's supposedly fiercely hetrosexual men who are darkly fascinated by the fantasy of lesbian sex. It's men patronizing the underage prostitutes in Thailand. It's men who enjoy the most demeaning, humiliating forms of pornography where women are objectified as warm, wet openings for their carnal lusts.

It is a total fantasy to suggest women control men and the world. If women are running this world they must hate themselves more than men do.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

How does pointing out the inequities, everyday slights and deliberate crimes perpetuated against women constitute "whining." The defenders of the status quo always say, "Everything's fine. Why don't you go to the mall and max out your credit cards like a good consumer?" But everything isn't fine and anyone that tries to tell you that pointing it out is "whining" is a adversary.

It's been said well-mannered women rarely make history. Mommys can lead movements. A woman can have a career and change the world.

If women wait for men to empower them it will never happen. Women have to be their own spokespersons and articulate their concerns. It's up to women to tell their stories and share there knowledge. Women have to hold up their sheroes such as Jeannette Rankin, Betty Freidan, Margaret Sanger, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robin Morgan, Emma Goldman, Flo Kennedy, Sojourner Truth, Abigail Adams and all the others who have been lost, hidden or forgotten by HIStory.

Once women lose their fear and demand to be taken seriously and take the power they have their potential to be a catalyst for change is endless.

Women in America may have it "better" than their sisters in other parts of the world, but that doesn't mean they have it "perfect." Women still are objectified and treated as nothing more than an object with holes to service the whims of men. Women are still treated as brainless Stepford wives who can be fulfilled by a new microwave or SUV. Women still find it a uphill climb to be taken seriously as politicians, CEO's and reading the evening news. Women still are more likely than men to be trapped in low-wage, no-skill, dead-end jobs. Women are still more likely to be subject to laws passed by men to regulate and control their bodies.

It's better to be a woman in America than Bangladesh, but it's far from being perfect. There are different challenges that come with the territory.

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat. --- Rebecca West

I find it a bit odd that several posters have made comments akin to 'Women have it better in the US than women do in Iran'. Well, of course they do. Iran treats women as second class citizens, AND they are actually one of the more progressive states in the area when it comes to women's rights. The worst is probably good US friend Saudi Arabia. But this is not the basis for any realistic kind of compairason, and it somewhat trivialises the situation of women in the US, as if to say 'is it as bad as Saudi Arabia? No? Then shut up!'

Obviously the role and position of women in the US is quite good, and thanks to the role of AA in righting the scales, women's place in society has absolutely leapt up to near-par with men in just 30 years. Women can be just about any position in modern society, (except submarine crew and all US special Forces units I believe).

Furthermore, women are not restricted to familial roles traditionally associated with them in the past. In most government jobs Paternity leave is a common as Maternity, and childless women no longer face an instant social stigma common 30 years ago. Some may see a 'modern' woman who chooses to forebear full time child care as baffling or grotesque, but people with those views are simply throwbacks.

All this said, there are still some playing fields to be levelled.

Women sytill make less than male counterparts in the same job on average, despite legislation preventing this. Mind you, tha gap has narrowed considerably in the last 2 decades.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Careers/10/22/e...eref=sitesearch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_i...rity_in_the_USA

And of course, despite some odd comments about 'women controlling men', the other issue is with spousal abuse and rape, overwhelmingly (99%) a male on female crime, and still often unreported due to social stigma, though again, huge strides have been made in the last couple decades. I think the 60% of rapes that go unreported balances out the... what, half dozen false-rape cases each year?

Women who seek to redress these balances are certainly not 'whining', and the issue of women's equality and rights involves a LOT more than just abortion. Its true women lack the crusade of equality that was mounted 30 or 40 years ago, but it also true that society is not quite gender-blind. Not yet anyways...

The US has still never had a female leader (or VP) or for that matter, non-white-male leader, though that may change in 2 years. Considering the number of other countries in the world who have, its an odd lag, but hardly a critical or particularily telling one. Two decades ago a woman simply could not have been elected as leader of the US. Impossible. Now, it is possible (probably) its just waiting for the right woman.


Yet one wonders, when a woman does run for the president, how many people will insult her for being 'too modern' and having given up her role as a full time mother by having babysitters and child-caregivers? Hopefully, very few...

Vermillion- you make a very good point, and I agree with this- but also- there are areas that the women have it much better than men- definately in child custody cases, were the "default" setting seems to be to the woman, no matter how awful she is, and how good the man is- and to be frank, once again from my own experiance- I couldn't give a fig whether a woman gets paid equal if she gets such a break when it comes to justice in court- it is the tax they pay for getting a free ride in court, as far as I am concerned.

And the commedian christopher titus used your stats once to make a point- "women raped and abused and reporting this crime "X" numbers- men raped and REPORTING this crime- 0. The stigma of being raped as a man or abused in a domestic situation is far higher than for a woman- don't you agree?

Still, the most ignored point here is that Pakistan has already had a female leader- the home of the Taliban- this implies to me that there is something about western perception

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

It was during Bhutto's rule that the Taliban gained prominence in Afghanistan due to her support. Bhutto and the Taliban were openly opposed to each other when it came to social issues. According to the Taliban codes, as a woman she had no right to be in power. However, she saw the Taliban as a group that could stabilise Afghanistan and then allow economic access to trade with Central Asian republics. Her government provided military and financial support for the Taliban, even as far as sending a very small number of the Pakistani army into Afghanistan. The Taliban took power in Kabul in September 1996.

I don't believe anyone has said anything even approaching this statement. Since I was the only poster to mention Iran, and yes there are a multitude of countries that are far worse than Iran in regards to women's rights issues that I did not mention, I take personal offense in your inference that I claimed that women should "shut up" about this.

A summary of my post would most closely approximate your assertion that



Your point that women lag men in comparable compensation is noted and is undisputed although also unqualified. Women make the same in all structured salaried environments (unions, government positions, etc.) and in unstructured environments, the causes are various and may be justified or unjustified depending upon your point of view. Women still lag men in experience at certain upper level positions. The chance of a woman missing significant amounts of work is also greater. Pay differences among childless men and women are negligible. Married men spend much more time working than do married women. This study has employed men using between 9.2 and 9.8 hours a day on work or work related activities while employed women spend between 7.2 and 8 (even childless women spend less time at work than childless men at 8 hours versus 9.2 hours). Curiously, childless men work less than men with children.

Men and women place different emphases on work versus home life. This, more than anything else, explains why the salaries of women lag those of men.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

I wouldn’t say they’re invisible. Speaking for myself, I find that my opinions on the subject usually wind up making me the target of other women’s anger. Similar to the race issues section of AD, nothing winds people up quicker and tighter than gender issues. That doesn’t mean I’m unconcerned. I AM concerned that young women don’t appreciate the struggles their mothers (or grandmothers) went through to provide the equities we DO have. If a group of strong, courageous women hadn’t fought for equal rights in the workplace and equal pay, millions of us working women wouldn’t be doing what we’re doing, or being paid what we are. It would be unheard of to have female engineers, firefighters, police officers, or any other traditionally “male” job role. We'd all be prim little secretaries, teachers, librarians and nurses, girdled in our proper little dresses, hosiery and high heels. Though there is still a long way to go, sexual assault rates have declined dramatically since the 70's, largely due to women feeling empowered enough to defend themselves and report rapes.

Intelligent, independent, successful women still get called names, labeled as “dykes” or “feminazis” if they don’t stick to the traditional “lady-wife-mother” role.

Unfortunately, there is a trend among younger women to regress back to the 50’s “helpless female” type looking to “land a man”, get all the bright shiny baubles, drive that nice Beemer, have babies and live happily ever after in domestic bliss. (Ever seen that horrid show, “The Real OC”?) These women are turning their backs on all the hard work that went in to dispelling the “helpless female who needs a man to take care of her” stereotype.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and 2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

Oh, hell no.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

No. While Western women are lucky in comparison to women in other parts of the world, we still one of the highest rates of crimes against women, we still have pay inequities, and we still see powerful women held up for ridicule (Hilary Clinton, Jane Pelosi, and yes, even Condoleezza Rice), we still haven’t had a female president or vice-president, we still get judged by a different set of rules, we still have men telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies, and men still hold an unrealistic ideal of what a women should look and be like. We're still bitches or ball-busters if we speak our minds, we still are considered unattractive if we can hold our own in an intelligent conversation. Men still feel empowered to use their wives as their own personal brood mare, sex toy, cook and housekeeper, and frequently punching bag. Women are still victims of rape every 2 minutes in this country.

You are leaping down my throat for nothing there Amlord. Firstly, you are not the only person to mention that women are better off in the US than in fundamentalist Islamic nations. I used Iran as an example, I hadn't even noticed that you used it too.

Secondly, the rest of the paragraph was not attributed to anyone, nor was it intended to be. I was drawing a compairason about how that kind of argument is an unreasonable compairason what shuts down discussion regarding the role of women in American society. I never claimed YOU or ANYONE said they should just 'shut-up about it'.

Mind you, somebody on this thread did claim they were 'just whining'. I guess your angry response to them is still being written?




I've seen that argument before, and I have seen that argument opposed. Notably the CNN study I quoted accounted for childbearing, and simply assumed both work full-time, year round. Yes, I agree that your comment above about different priorities plays some part of the difference. I also think its pretty clear that inequity plays a part in it. Inequity that has always existed, but has been substantially reduced in the last 2 decades, and is is now far smaller than it has been...

Just a quick note about "different priorities." It may be salient to point out that this might not be the case, at least not completely. Sadly, women still do the bulk of household chores and child-rearing, even when both spouses work full-time. "Different priorities" is often more likely to be "different expectations." With both parents working full-time, who is expected to take off work to care for a sick child? Who is expected to cook dinner and do the laundry when they get home? Who is expected to leave work to attend teacher meetings or drive a child to practice or rehearsals? I posit that these roles are usually defaulted to women.

And our society still has a long way to go when it comes to how we perceive men and women who do not live up to their "traditional" roles. I am a man who does not have a job outside of the home (aside from volunteer ambulance work). I cook and clean, attend school functions, watch after the kids (well they're older now, but still), etc. My wife works full-time.

This situation is reversed with my wife's brother's family. Yet, to my wife's parents, my sister-in-law has made a fine choice, whereas I am seen as unambitious or lazy.

And women who make choices that are traditionally male choices, who approach their careers in ways that are seen as acceptable for men, are quite often derided. Clinton and Pelosi are prime examples. They are called all sorts of names, mostly because they are aggresive and powerful. When we see where this name-calling comes from, mostly, it makes me shake my head in wonder that any women align themselves with the Republican party at all.

What era am I living in? This one.

Who brought up Bush anyway? You did.



Hijacking this post? I was the target of this thread Artemise. You didn't like my response to the PM you initiated to me and started a thread in reaction to it.

Idiotic monologues? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? I certainly don't believe my ideas are idiotic. What specifically in my post (or others) do you find idiotic? Isn't that a fair question? We can debate that specific point if you'd like and I'll do so in the most polite and professional way possible.

Otherwise, aren't you just painting with a broad brush of defamation and personal attacks?

Answer which questions or troll elsewhere? Which questions are you referring to? I've read every post in this thread and if you hold everyone to the same standard you are holding me, you owe a few others some personal insults as well.

This thread was a initiated as a reaction to my response to your PM; sent to me unsolicited. What apparently got your blood boiling was that I had the downright audacity to suggest that women and men were not equal.

You sent me a long rant complaining about the state of women in this world as though I was personally responsible for oppressing them. That, plus a laundry list of personal insults which I obviously deserve because I don't think like you do. I don't think it's appropriate to repost PM's in public threads since they are "private messages". Yet, you are misrepresenting my role in this thread and your motivations for starting it. Given the watchful eyes from A-D that certainly scrutinize what I write, I really don't think it's fair for you to misrepresent my post in such a, ahem, dishonest way.

But, to be fair, here are my specific answers to your specific "questions".

1. So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisible to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

They aren't. Your premise is false. Nearly *everyone* in western civilization is concerned with such issues.

2. Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and 2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

Yes. Women hold tremendous power over men and have throughout human history. Do they control the "world"? Well, it depends on which world you live in. Ultimately, women produce offspring which is a feature that the species cannot survive without.

3. Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

No, I think YOU were whining in the PM you sent to me. I don't think you represent "women", I think you represent YOU.

So are women forced into these roles by society or by their family. Many times it is the mother who is the most judgemental about her sons/daughters choices in life. I recall my mother-in-law saying time after time that "that isn't how a lady should act" or "we would never do such a thing".

Who defines the expectations that you hold up? Society or the people actually involved in the logistics of caring for a sick child. I know in my situation we made the choice based on practicality: who could get the time off without losing dollars out of the paycheck (or losing the least number of dollars). I regularly did chores, including house cleaning, laundry and cooking. My wife made the choice to stay home even as I encouraged her to get a job.

Society only defines a relationship's boundaries if the participants allow it to. If you want something different then for God sake do something different. Don't blame society.

Amlord

I agree with you up to a certain point, though defining that point accurately is beyond me at the moment.

Most societies boundaries are seldom fixed so rigidly that they can be identitifed easily by an individual and when it comes to gender roles in modern western society, I think the grey area's are very large indeed and I agree there is plenty of space for an individual to find their own ways to live, but at the same time, I also accept that society at large, or possibly culture/tradition can be so over overwhelming as to render resistence by the individual into a life long struggle with no reward. At the same time, there is much to be said for conforming to social norms.

Looking only at contemporary Danish society, which has its similarities and differences to US society of course, I find that a great many Danish women, do conform to social expectations and very few have the urge (need?) to rebel against them since these are very liberal and open minded.

It could be that Denmark is too open minded. Women here do not really need to rebel against social expectations but can find the means to reform their lives within the existing social framework. I'd like to think so, but I at the same time as I am happy to see such a situation I must also admit that Denmark, as a result of increasing female emancipation, like most of Europe, is witnessing a catastrophic collapse in national fertility rates.

How this translates to your point is in the consequences of individuals going against accepted social boundaries. In other words, by not 'blaming society, but by largely making their own rules, the women of Denmark (and most of Europe) are rapidly depopulating the entire sub continent in their drive towards greater freedom. There is a point at which it may prove disastrous for a state to ignore society's pressures and the individual cannot be expected to eguate their lves in accordance to national interests.

Society must change in order to preserve the rights of the individual, not the other way around. Women should not be forced into having children, but neither should they be punished for doing so, and that is what is happening here where the price, both economically and socially of raising a child in Denmark (as well as most of Europe) has sky rocketed into the heights of the absurd.

For ethnic Danish women, living in modern Danish society, there is little social pressure to have children. These women are afforded the right to decide for themselves both by law and by custom. Those women in Denmark who live in the various sub cultures and who are not subject to this freedom, produce far more children.

I should add that Danish men have the world record in child rearing and sharing responsibility. That numerous studies have found Danish men put in more work in sharing the burden of bringing up children than in any other nation on Earth, but that this sharing the burden, has not made the slightest difference in our declining national fertility rate.

In other words, Danish women, having reformed society and 'done something different', having been granted every freedom it is possible to get, have shirked their responsibility to their society and are in the process of slowly destroying it as a result.

I'm curious; how is it that Danish women have "shirked their responsiblity" and are "destroying" society? By choosing not to breed? Because, if that is your answer, then all the so-called advances Danish women have made have been for naught, because they are still expected to fulfill their roles as baby incubators to satisfy a male's desire to procreate. The cost of raising children has always been high; most people don't make a decision to have or not to have children based on cost (I offer this family as an extreme example).

I wil try to anser that a bit Daffy- I think, and my Russian family pointed this out- that, in western society- the mother IS NOT the most prestigous profession, and that is a problem.

A woman SHOULD be able do anything she wants- INCLUDING being a stay at home mom, and, IMHO- the mother should be a pinnacle of prestige, just as being a good father should be at the top as well.

For us breeders - you get a bit of perspective into your mortality, and your finite aspect on this planet. I am a much better person now as a father than I was a careerist.

In western society- NOT having children is better than having children, and raising happy, healthy children.

This is bad for a society- and, all that liberal stuff get's overwhelmed by women as breeding factories of, say, middle eastern societies. What happens to women's rights when a liberal society is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of a non-liberal society? This is a valid question, that the west needs to answer soon.

There SHOULD be the same prestige placed on a Mom or Dad as a CEO- material consumption and free time has got out of whack in balance to home and hearth.

I know a great deal many working women that WISH they could stay home with the kids, of course- but can't.

I would LOVE to stay at home and raise kids- NOT a possibility of course.

I am not sure if you have children DG- but I know Moif is a new dad- and, things like "duty" and such get a whole new meaning, and the life your children will have becomes very important. Certainly did for me anyway- every single decision I make on a day to day basis is qualified with the question of my children.

It is not neccarily dollars and cents in cost- but in what happens to you as an indivudual- you lose alot of that to be a parent. Not a bad thing- but a cost nevertheless.

I don't think moif was trying to say "keep 'em home and barefoot and pregnant"- but rather speaking as a parent, and the emotion that comes with that, and the since of duty.

It seems to me this statement trivializes the sheer amount of work many women, and men, have put into making sure women get recognized as equal counterparts to men in the U.S. Surely you don't think women had voting rights handed to them on a silver platter?

Yes, women in the US have it much better than in many other places in the world--thank god. But don't we strive to hold ourselves to better standards? Is it really the majority opinion that since women here aren't subjugated to honor rapes and the humility of walking three steps behind a man, that everything is peachy? Dissent and dissatisfaction with the status quo is a cornerstone of this country and I'll be damned if I let anyone call working for women's rights whining!

Expected by whom Daffygrl? As I already said, for ethnic Danish women, living in modern Danish society, there is little social pressure to have children. I also pointed out that the costs of raising children in Denmark are absurdly higher (and rising steadily), and that the record breaking child rearing contributions by Danish men have not made the slightest difference in our declining national fertility rate.

It is not a question of forcing women to have babies. Merely of the facts speaking for themselves. Greater living standards have given rise to greater prices and people have had to work harder and longer hours and equality for European women has meant a drastic lowering of national fertility rates.

No one is suggesting women relinquish their freedoms however. Quite the contrary, as this topic points out in its questions there is no debate regarding this matter at all.

A long time ago I had a head teacher, a religious man, who would gather together the whole year, all in our English school uniforms, at assembly each morning and give a short sermon. It was an amazing bore for young teenagers but once (and only once) he said something which I have never forgotten. He was rattling on about duty (as he often did) when he made the point that freedom is not free. That with rights, come responsibilities.

This, in my opinion with regards to female emancipation has nothing what so ever to do with subjecting women, or any one else to being 'baby incubators', in point of fact nature has already done this, but rather pointing out that whilst women enjoy great freedoms in Denmark, they have as a consequence of those same freedoms, neglected their biological purpose in life, which is to have babies.

I understand that many women resent this perspective, but to that I reply. Do as you will. I will not force any woman to have a baby I will merely point out that no society can survive once its fertily rate drops below the replacement point and such a society will falter and fail and be replaced by other cultures and society's. Ones that do not extent to women the same rights as they are accorded in Denmark.

The logic is simple. Not having babies destroys a society. Only women can have babies, ergo, women must have babies for a society to survive. Do you disagree?

Thanks for the link. Here is another in return for yor reading pleasure.

Link.


edited to add:

CR I see your wearing the T shirt

CR, I never meant to imply that being a mother isn’t a tough job or not admirable. I think being a mother (or father) is the hardest job in the world. The point I was trying to make was that, whether a woman decides to have kids or not should not define who she is. Moif made a comment about Danish women not having kids and somehow not fulfilling some sort of debt to society – that I do not understand.

By choice and by chance I do not have children. My family is so messed up, I didn’t feel right passing on familial dysfunctional genes. Plus, I never felt that overwhelming desire to be a mother. Plus, I was never with a man I felt right having a family with. Eh, now that I’m (ahem) of an age where it is not an option, there are times when I wonder if I made the right choice, but those times are rare. I enjoy being an aunt to a most wonderful young man whose father (my brother) retreated from his life long ago. My heart swells with pride that he and I have more in common than he and his father.

I believe women should have the opportunity to be what they want to be and do whatever they want to do with their lives, without some ephemeral obligation put upon them by society. That in no way takes anything away from the women who decide they want to stay home and raise kids. But, it is a choice vs. an obligation, and it should remain so.

I do have a problem with women like Mrs. Duggar, who breed vast litters of children they cannot support and their “heartwarming” stories are exploited by the media to the gullible public as an incentive to help them build the huge house, buy the massive amounts of food, clothing, and appliances that are needed to sustain a nearly 20 person household on one income. To me, it’s irresponsible, and arrogant. And she still plans on having more.

I realize we are doing a diservice to the nations of the world. Our duty to provide , in the case of the USA, more canon fodder for war, in the case of Europe more white babies than brown babies to combat immigrant influx, we, as white women are acheiving equality at the risk of being lax in our duties to provide a continual river of babies to be used for political purposes. How women shall be to blame for the end of society itself as we know it! We must pay for a freedom, who's freedom? something we never really achieved? By this discussion alone.

EVE was to blame for original sin, the fall as it were. If so, we are already doomed by her. If one doesnt believe, than we should rely on science, which says we are making too many humans to support our life on the planet.

Besides that, there are women who love to make babies-and there are women who dont. There are plenty of babies being made in the world. I think what is upsetting here is that those babies are both brown and possibly Muslim, or in the US, Latino or Black. This contention is about white women no longer making babies, because the facts are, we have plenty of babies the world cant take care of already, theyre just the wrong color, born in the wrong places.

We dont need more baby makers, we need more women in politics and as CEO's, corporate policy makers and heads of state to make a difference. We need the 52% of the power as the population that we are.
Obfuscating, Moif, your theory that our 'duty' is to have babies for the nation is just , well, sutupifying.
You speak as if 'it's not an idea but, then again it is.'
Baby making is just as much a job for man as it is for woman. We just get the bigger part in creation and delivery biologically. It is a personal decision, not a duty, certainly not to governments, or nations or races.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

But not completely ignored. I don't think that the lack of topics on this board shows that people here ignore the huge problems listed. You've made a move to bring this all up, and others are making the move of addressing the problems in ways that we can here, which is to consider the problems and perhaps suggest solutions.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

I don't hold such a belief. I do know that in personal relationships, there's always a power struggle that goes on. I've had trouble with both women and men, and I've had good balances with both women and men. Who controls the world? I don't think anyone does. Humans don't have that capacity, we only sometimes delude ourselves that we do. Then the world comes by and slaps us silly.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

Everyone has something to complain about, and in some societies complaints are dealt with severely. I am glad that we don't have such a society except in the microcosm sense of personal relationships, some organizations too. Here's one of the reasons I don't belong to clubs of any sort that use bylaws. I'd rather read a book with my spare time. I put up with plenty of laws otherwise and find this not so much fun.

Technology now allows childbirth outside the womb, and as societies develop, the birthrates drop off--just a couple of facts. A woman headed HP and got canned, then wrote a book about her suffering and it got published by a big house. You know, even after a multi-million dollar golden parachute deal. Just another fact. Raising kids is a lot of work and expense, undeniable. Wages have stagnated. The rich get richer, the poor expand. All facts.

What to do about it all? I don't know. I do know that my sphere of influence is pretty darn small. I also know that life ain't fair, or maybe it is and the fairness can only be seen from a long distance without direct involvement.

Bill Gates is throwing money into Africa to help control AIDS. I'm worrying about making this month's bills and whether or not the current gig is at all solid. My worry capacity is full, and I do know that worry is a pretty big waste of time and energy. So, I decide to keep my capacity low on purpose.

I am sorry women around the globe are treated so badly. If I could do something about it, I would. Then I think about the men living in the repressive societies and how if they don't tow the line, off go their heads. Or they get blasted out by some person, male or female now, with a body bomb. I think about our soldiers fighting an enemy who, if it were up to me, ought to be abandoned and shunned from ever touching foot on US soil.

I think about people wasting their short times on Earth doing harm to one another, or grasping for a piece of the action, or wallowing in money and desiring ever more, or bragging that their children made the honor roll, or cautioning that a baby's on board -- as if anyone else really cares. I think about wild animals outside in sub-freezing temperatures going about their lives as they have for millions of years while the suburbs encroach on their rightful territories under the artificial and incomprehensible laws of human beings.

I think until the thoughts burn themselves out. Think I'll read a book, see what someone else thinks.

Life is short and getting shorter. That's a problem everyone has, and it ain't fair. Or maybe it is.

Oh wait, what about mistreated women rising up and revolting? All in one big mass? Well, a last little fact:

People aren't all that gutsy most of the time. Sometimes we get this way for brief periods in relationship to all time.

Anyway, off to the book.

And who is free of social obligations Artemise? Am I?
I'd like to think my daughter will grow up in a nation where she has every right and freedom, but I'm guessing she will probably be subject to the same social constraints and expectations that I am, as lax as they be.

The duty of which I speak is not a social obligation. I thought I'd made that clear enough, but apparently you can see deeper into my words than I can myself. Obviously my motives are suspicious too since I lament the gradual decline of my nation in favour of a 'brown skinned' Muslim state. So not only am I a sexist, but a racist to boot. How dare I feel anything but joy at the gradual over throw of Scandinavian society in favour of a sharia society!


Well I'm sorry to break your bubble Artemise but Muslims are not 'brown skinned people'. Islam is an ideology, not a skin colour. There are plenty of 'brown skinned' immigrants, as well as 'brown skinned' natives in Europe who do not threaten to over throw the existing social order for politico religious reasons, but I guess this factor doesn't matter in your perspective?

And Denmark, which is of my primary concern, has by far and away one of the greatest records on female emancipation. It has also had a stable population count at a steady 5 million or so for close to a hundred years. There is no question of Denmark being 'over populated'. Quite the contrary in fact. One hundred years ago both Denmark and Egypt had comparable populations. Today Egypt has a population approaching 90 million and in Egypt, women do not have the rights and freedoms they have in Denmark. If you want to talk about over population then talk about it where it's happening!


Obfuscating indeed! The duty to the nation is a personal choice Artemise but if you want to live in a state that nurtures you and gives you freedom and even social power then you have to give something in return. You can't have total freedom from responsibility whilst expecting everything be given to you. Life just doesn't work like that.

As I already said Artemise, Danish men share the burden of child rearing to a greater degree than in any other nation. I would guess that we are talking about on average of 40% of the time any Danish child spends with a parent is spent with its father. In society, Danish women are taking on more and more power for each day that goes and of the five main politcal parties three are headed by women, one of whom is tipped to be the next prime minister. The freedom you say women don't have is already present in Scandinavia and has been for many years now. It is not perfect, I won't argue that, but we're further ahead than any other place you care to name.

And we are paying a heavy price as a result. It cannot be ignored, or argued away. The Scandinavian birth rate is failing to replenish the Scandinavian population. The Germans, our southern cousins, are already in fertility free fall. It doesn't matter what you think about an over crowded planet, or my perspective on 'brown skinned people', the simple fact is no state can offer women more than those states which are being depopulated as a consequence of female emancipation, and all your arguments regarding sharing the burden of child rearing have been proven false by the facts on the ground. Sharing the burden has not checked the dropping fertilty rates. Giving women more power has not stopped the decline either. On the contrary. Sharing the burden and the power has hastened the decline.

Perhaps you don't care about all this. Perhaps it doesn't fit into your political agenda or your perspective on gender issues that women, if they want equality and freedom, have to pay for them, but I'm afraid the women of Scandinavia are learning the hard way that all their hard won freedoms won't mean a damned thing when their nations are repopulated by a Muslm majority with a sharia agenda.

And for my part I am probably not long for this world and I shall leave behind a single daughter. How do you suggest I should feel about the prospect of her growing up under a Muslim majority?

You asked why gender issues are not debated more often. Well, look at your answers to know why. What is the point of debating with some one who immedietely adopts the position that any opposition is an act of ill minded aggression? Does it not occur to you that there is more to debatting gender issues than just parroting what a hard time women have/are having?

So the survival of the species is now a "sexist" behavior? Baby incubators? Men's desire to procreate?

Isn't that the essence of "natural" and "normal" behavior?

I have run across comments similar to this in many economic articles and I agree with you.

Many times as living standards change, so do the pressures to balance work with family.

Unfortunately if living standards erode, any action taken to enact new programs of questionable or unproven effectivenss causes a run on the middle class. Minimum wages increase at this point and cause a contraction of available jobs in the region causing unemployment.

If the working middle class constricts and the tax base shrivels - say as in France, we enter social unrest. The size of the family is a good indicator of disposable income. Small family, little disposable income.

Well I find it extremely unfair to place blame at the feet of all women. From my own experiences I would say that societies treat, prepare and encourage motherhood very differently. It is a social issue, not a woman's issue.

When I lived in Europe I know of friends of mine who were asked at interviews how they planned to care for their children while at work, do you think this same question was ever asked of male interviewees? Doubtful. I also know that many Swiss women found the laws that regulated employer contributions to pension funds, penalized them , by requiring higher contributions, to make up for any time taken off for mothering. Why would an employer hirer a woman who chose to stay home for a few years with children when one who was only career minded, came with less worries about who would mind the children, was also cheaper. Then there was the issues with the fact that Swiss schools do not provide lunches and so all children return home in the afternoon to eat, and many men too, as it is a cultural tradition. So again another social pressure for mama to be home. Plus childcare is very expensive.

So fine moif I can understand your points about little pressures for women to make babies, but I found from my own experiences that once the babies are had, the pressures to adhere to a set of rules and guidelines is far, far greater.
I think far too often women feel like they only have two options. Men are never finding this conflict of fatherhood and career as men have held this multifaceted image of who and what they are for a long time. And perhaps this pressure to pick one or the other is what makes women opt out. Why make a choice that will forever allow society to label you and place even far greater expectations upon you? I think for some time women felt that not entering the mother realm helped free them from so much restriction.

I do think this is changing but I am not so sure it is for the right reasons.

I never considered the fate of my civilization when I had my children. I loved my husband and I so desperately wanted to make that love grow and spread. Perhaps that is a personal projection of repopulation, but I think to have children without that love, commitment and desire is a far greater selfish, or shirking or responsibility thing to do, than to not have any children at all.

bucket.

I fully agree with the points you raise.

I just want to say that I don't want to place blame on all women, or even some women. Its not any one's fault as far as I see it. Rather I think what we are seeing in Europe today is the consequences of imbalance and there is a real problem with those who continue to have so many babies for these are the people who are putting so great a strain on the planet that the eco system is breaking down. Europe needs to return to its equilibrium. The place is already over crowded but the politicians are so scared of even the hint of European poverty that they will do anything to avoid it.

So, why are women's issues and women's terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisible to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

This is a somewhat stronger statement of the situation than I might care to make. It cannot be denied that there are many women and men who are very concerned with the status of women, both in the extreme form of oppression seen in less socially advanced nations, and the much more subtle inequalities seen in more socially advanced nations. There are many male feminists, and they are to welcomed as allies.

However, it might be safe to say that women's issues do not draw the same amount of attention as other issues. To understand why, let's step into a parallel world.

In this hypothetical world, the species homo sapiens sapiens is often called "Womankind." Teachers of biology sometimes refer to "testicular cancer in Woman." The United States of America reveres a document which includes the statement "All women are created equal." All college students start off as freshwomen. After about six years of higher education, a student (female or male) may have her Mistress of Art or Mistress of Science degree. Your local newspaper has a section of "Men's News" that it runs once a week. This includes not only sports, but stuff like politics and war and crime. (Some liberal newspapers have stopped calling it "Men's News" and now call it "Lifestyle.")

I think I make my point. The sexism in human society runs very, very deep. It is extraordinarily difficult to eradicate it from the human heart and mind. The fact that the English language uses "he" to refer to the third person human of unspecified sex is very telling. Deep inside human psychology is the idea that the species is divided into people and women. Given this fact, it is easy to see why "women's issues" do not draw as much attention as other issues, which are seen as "people's issues."

Does anyone really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

Many years ago I heard the right-wing pundit David Horowitz say something very revealing. This is almost an exact quote:



Consider; in order to make his point (that there was no need for feminism,) Horowitz had to choose an example of female power which never existed in the real world, and which only involved the "power" of physical beauty to lure a man to abduct a woman, and for other men to fight a war over her abduction.

I will never forget these words. I will never forget the fact that we often talk how women can balance a family and a career, but almost never how a man can do the same. I will never forget the fact that we often ask if a woman has a "duty" to bear a child, but almost never ask if a man has a "duty" to father a child.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

Obviously I do not. Nor do I think that men are whining when they make very legitimate complaints about their sufferings in a sexist society. In the United States, feminism has had remarkable success as the most benign social movement of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Women have made enormous progress. It's time to reach out to men as well, and for all of us to march forward into an even more egalitarian society.

A sexist society? What would you replace it with? A society that has NO genders? We'd all me one sex? An asexual society? What you call "egalitarian" is inherently unnatural. Women are NOT equal to men. Furthermore, all humans are not equal. What you imply is that all humans are to be guaranteed equal results. Since such a thing is unnatural, creating a situation that results in everyone being equal, requires an unnatural force. In other words, the heavy hand of a federal government to force us all into a situation where we are all equal.

This is the essence of a totalitarian society. That is what lies at the nuclear core of feminism (and socialism).

I can't think of anything less natural, and when one considers the totalitarian nature of feminism/socialism... I can't think of anything more evil. There are men and there are women.....and there are the confused.

The differences between men and women are inherent and rooted in biology. In other words, they are natural. Millions of years of human existence has led us to the point we are at now. It was not a mistake.

I hear two logically incompatible positions simultaneously from the "feminists". One is that "women are victims". The other is that "women are equal to men".

Both can't be true at the same time. Feminists have to decide which alternative they want to champion. If women are "victims", then they are inherently inferior to men. If they are "equal", then they can't be victims since men are equally likely to be "victims" of women.

Frankly, I vote in favor of the school of thought that holds men and women of superior value to men. And I do so on biological grounds. One man can impregnate multiple women. However, a woman is required to carry that child throughout the gestations process which lasts 3/4 of a year; a process that is essential for our species' survival. In other words, men are expendable... women are not. And that's the view that most of human society has taken due to these biological factors which cannot be changed by feminists, the National Organization of Women, or Hillary Clinton no matter how many bras they burn.

Calling our society a "sexist society" is silly. It's like criticizing humans for being "addicted to oxygen".

Women have plenty of advantages over men. As I said, men are more expendable. They die sooner. They have more accidents as a result of stupid behavior driven by the male hormone testosterone. They have more heart attacks, strokes, and other illnesses that cause premature death. They have to fight wars to protect one's nation and usually do the dirty work associated with maintaining a civilization's rule of law. They have to work harder in the professional world and can't take off a year to "have a baby" without sacrificing their jobs. In a divorce, the woman usually gets the kids and 50% of the man's total wealth.... even if the divorce is a result of the woman's adultery or similar bad behavior.

Crying about a "sexist society" is what I labeled it initially (and what started this thread in the first place).

It's whining.

It's time to stop the whining and get on with life.

Women don't control men. See...

http://www.glumbert.com/media/women

Don't laugh. There is a lot of truth in that little video.



So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?

Perhaps its because most cultures and societys are paternalistic.

Does anyone,( except the person who wrote me), really believe, 1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

I think it is possible that some women control and are the power behind the man. Leona Helmsly comes to mind. So does Eva Peron, Margret Mitchell (lol) and Hillary Clinton. But do I think all women are the power behind a man? Absolutely not. I think in general most women are conditioned whether intentionally or unintentionally to think they are inferior to men. The women in the US are no exception.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?
No, I don't think women are whining when they express concerns about their lives or other women. But I have noticed women in the US are fearful of speaking out on women's issues for fear of being labeled a Women's Libber or a 'feminist' as if that somehow implies a 'man hater' or not a real woman or ....just "whining".

Not at all. I would replace it with a society with more freedom of gender. I welcome feminine men and masculine women to my world, along with all other possible combinations.



Not at all. I want a world where people have more choices. There's nothing wrong with the stay-at-home Mom; there's nothing wrong with the stay-at-home Dad. There's nothing wrong with many other ways of running a household.



These differences are statistical. They say very little about individuals. And here is the wonderful good news: You are not a slave to biology. You can rise above it and become a whole human being.



These two statements, although much too simplistic for my taste, do not contradict each other. One might select countless examples of similar statements from history. (Persons of faith have often been victims of Communist regimes; I hope this not imply that they were somehow lesser human beings than their oppressors.)

But as I say, these two statements are far too simple. I would rather say that "Society is unfair to men in some ways, and unfair to women in some ways." I would rather say that "Men and women have the right to become whole human beings."

Joanna Russ expresses this beautifully in the title of her novel The Female Man, with a nice use of the inherent sexism of the English language. The woman simply wants to be a "man" (in the sense of a whole human being, not a male.) Is that so terrible a goal?



Not at all. It's more like saying that humans beings suffer from cancer. We have made great progress against cancer. We have made great progress against sexism.



Not at all. It's celebration. Feminism, in the modern, technologically advanced, progressive part of the world, is a wonderful success story. Just as a sane society, in the long run, grows more and more liberal over time, it grows more and more feminist and egalitarian. The "conservative" of 2006 is not much different from the "liberal" of 1906. This is true of any free society, and this fact gives me great joy.



This is all terribly unfair, and proof that men are in desperate need of the blessings of feminism.

So, why are womens issues and womens terrible living standards and subjugation nearly invisable to normally concerned individuals, and nearly completely ignored?
I mean, what women are going through on the planet beats all records of discrimination, abuse, physical tortures and lack of freedom. No 'race' or 'Iraqi death' debate could even come close.

Most of the time these terrible living standards and the subjugation are not covered to the same extent as other issues because an editor deems them less newsworthy. Lately I have been seeing an ad on TV where Americans are reading accounts of what is happening to the people of Darfur, particularly the women and children. The purpose of the ad is to get viewers to try to contact our president so he will make it a priority.

I have tried writing to this president before regarding other issues and have gotten zilch, zippo, and bupkus as a response. There must be someone else to whom there is recourse.

Does anyone, (except the person who wrote me), really believe,
1.) that women control men and
2.) therefore control the world? Do you believe WE really have the power behind the man?

With the exception of some individuals with whom we have been in contact during our lives, the order of the day in this world is not matriarchy. I believe it is far more within our power to lend support to a man who is our significant other than it is to compel that same man, under different circumstances, to pay child support on a regular basis if things don't work out.

I firmly believe that if women could "control men and therefore control the world" there would be far fewer armed conflicts.

The fact is that women exert as much power over men as men allow them to.

Do you think women are 'whining' when they express concerns about their lives or the lives of other women? Like maybe we have nothing really to complain about...in the big picture?

Whining has never been restricted to one gender. Sometimes it is for a legitimate reason, and sometimes it isn't. When we perceive that someone is whining, however, we can surmise that the person is unhappy about something. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people who are so quick to judge and dismiss others first took the time at least to see what was wrong and whether they have something to do with it or could help in some way?

There will always be someone who is better off than we are, and worse off than we are. If we feel our concerns are legitimate, then we should try to rectify the situation. I have been reading a lot of resentment in this thread. If we're honest about it, a lot of this resentment boils down to the unspoken question, "What about me and the problems I'm having?"

Being less dismissive about the problems others are expressing might just make it possible for us to share our burdens and not be dismissed in turn.

Whining is done when a person perceives a lack of power or control in their own life. I think we can all relate to that feeling from time to time. For the person who feels that way, it is legitimate.

Looms, thank you for the video, it lent a nice humour to the thread.



No, actually there are women being abused all over the planet because 'there are men (in power) and there are women' with none. I am not talking about inherant equality of human beings, which keeps getting you confused, on every thread, I am talking about reality, not abstract theories. The facts of equality, while different are a given, at least to me, the reality of life on the planet shows up differently.
The purpose of the thread is to find out why these blatant abuses of 52% of the poulation are mostly ignored. I think treatment of women on the planet is mean spirited and basically evil, even though I dont like to use the word but there is no other word to describe it.



First of all, lets deal with 'feminists' , who fought for the vote, not an easy task (100 years), and also for equal wages, professional status, access to birth control and birth control education (still a fight and much the reason for this thread), but also, we are not speaking only for the US, at least in my mind, Im not just a US citizen.
Women of the world ARE victims in : India, dowry murders, burning and acid throwing, Northern/Central Africa: clitorectomies, Afghanistan: Burkhas, seclusion, lack of education, inability to move about, have a career or receive health care. New Iraq: seclusion, inability to have education, work, health care. Nigeria: stoning. Ruwanda and lower Africa: Rape, genocide, kidnapping, induction into guerilla wars. Latin America: despite extreme poverty, no access to birth control, overt religious indoctrination, China: forced abortions. USA: pharmacists may refuse birth control based on personal beliefs. Asia: girl children sold into prostitution, infantacide. This isnt even the half of it.
Fights for property, representation, hieracy (as in hawaii, or other indigenous), witch burning, rape and especially rape during war.

This is not anything other than victimization at the hands of religious clerics, male enforced society and deeply entrenched ideologies which have nothing to do with the inherant fact that women are as completely worthy to live life as independant human beings, lest society deem them not, most often the case in 2/3 of the world.

It is something to really be amazed by when you take a moment to think about it . And if given deep thought, it's just insane.
The sheer amount of abuse is unreal on any scale, to any one at any time. Everyone can claim discrimination and abuse, but no other cases are as sustained and throughout as the abuse of women, yet, it is the least recognised and the most ignored.

Mostly I think because women themselves cannot deal with the reality of the issue. To examine it would be too devastating. To look at why we have in history, bound our childrens feet, cut off our childrens clitorises, sold our girls into prostitution, killed them because they werent boys, taught them to bow down to men, covered ourselves, bought into oppressve religions and political parties that took our lives and rights away,
sold out to the status quo, is just too much to bear. So we keep lying to ourselves and hoping someday it will all work out.