Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Women's rights or societal blight?

It's Roundtable Wednesday, my wee minions, the day of the week that The Boys and I set aside to debate burning social issues. This week, the topic is feminism and already I feel the need to wonder aloud how Billy D and Shrub were able to type their views, given that their knuckles were all sore and bloody from dragging the floor. That's dedication, my friends.

So here you go.

Feminism: Good or bad. First, my view:

My 9-year-old daughter has a dilemma. She isn’t sure what she wants to be when she grows up. Lately she’s talked about being a biologist - a biologist who studies foxes. But she also likes to write, so she thinks she may be an author. Or possibly do both.

I can’t imagine looking down at those hopeful eyes and saying, “Darling, what are you talking about? Sure, you’re bright. But you’re a girl, and girls were meant to make and raise babies. That is all you should be thinking about. Now go pick up after your brothers. It’s good practice for how you’ll be spending the rest of your life.”

Not so many generations ago that was the message that many young girls got. If it wasn’t conveyed directly, it was conveyed through societal expectations, media and families that automatically funneled females towards a life of domesticity. Women who did pursue higher educations were directed towards traditionally female careers - secretaries, teachers or librarians. The common joke was that a woman women to college to pursue her MRS. Degree.

“Go through the motions of pursuing a career if you must,” society said. “But don’t forget your place.”

Then in 1963, a little book called The Feminine Mystique was published - a book that dared to utter the unspoken question in the back of so many homemaker’s minds: “Is this all?”

For a public raised on Donna Reed and Leave it to Beaver, the question bordered on the heretical.

But then, women began to respond and soon it was clear that the answer to the question "Is this all?," was a thunderous "It can't be. It won't be. We won't let it."

That acknowledgement of that collective unrest spawned the feminist movement that subsequently threw open doors for future generations of women to choose paths beyond hearth and home. But like any dramatic social change, it also inspired debate.

So has feminism been good for America?

If you’re a member of the Religious Right, the answer is a resounding, “No,” yelled as you thump a Bible conveniently opened to the passage where it says women should be “keepers at home,” and conveniently not open to Proverbs 31, which describes what sounds a lot like many of today’s working mothers.

The right winger has one image of the feminist: a hairy, man-hating lesbian who ends each praying that the Goddess grant her another pregnancy to abort.

But that's only because conservaties are bitter by nature. They like for people to know their place, especially if those people stand to challenge them for a piece of the pie they consider theirs by God-given right. Just when they thought they had it all wrapped up, here come the women and the black folk, mucking it all up.

Let's face it. No one likes to lose their bitch. It's even worse when your bitch becomes your equal. It's twice as bad when your bitch beats you out for that promotion and becomes your boss. Can you say, "Ouch!"

Personally, I don't think they'll ever get over it.

But ironically, the same right-wingers who rage against the “scourge” of feminism hypocritically enjoy its benefits every day. The stay-at-home mother who looks down her nose at her employed counterparts has nothing but praise for her child’s female pediatrician, and the conservative businessman who decries what feminism has done to society is all too happy when working women spend their money on his goods. And I doubt few churches who preach “traditional values” turn down the faithful tithes of its working, female members.

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. Don’t rail against what feminism has done to society and then turn around and enjoy its benefits. If you’re opposed to women working, then the only right thing to do is completely boycott women in the workplace. That means if you get T-boned at the intersection by an SUV, you should refuse aid if a female paramedic that shows up. If you’ve got a medical condition, make sure the drug you need to save your life wasn’t produced by a company that employs women. Don’t wear clothes designed by women. Don’t read books written by women. Don’t go to movies that feature female actors. Clean your own offices at work. Don’t eat at restaurants or shop at stores that hire women. The list goes on.

The primary argument against feminism is that it hurts children by robbing them of an at-home mother. But feminism didn’t pull unwilling mothers out of the home. The women’s rights movement simply opened opportunities beyond the home. This has led to varying dynamics. Some mothers went to work, either full or part time. Others stayed home. In some families, mom goes to work and dad stays home. In other cases, like mine, mom stays home but works.
The important thing to remember - the thing that critics of feminism would like you to forget - is this: The career opportunities women enjoy may mean more choices, but they are choices couples make together. And there are more than a few men who enjoy the higher standard of living that second income affords.

Do some women regret the choices they've made in the wake of feminism? Critics of feminism point at the angst of unmarried, childless women as evidence of feminism’s downside. There’s something to that. Indeed, some women, having put off childbearing to develop their careers, find themselves losing the race against the biological clock.

But is their fate any worse than the 50 percent of women whose “traditional” path to marriage and family ended up in divorce? I’d wager the childless, 45 year-old woman with a good career but who can't find a man to father her children is still better off than the single 45-year old single mother surrounded by guys who won't date women with children. And let’s not forget that life isn’t always rosy for men, either. There are plenty of middle-aged guys saddled with regret.

Regret often accompanies choices, but that doesn’t that everyone - male or female - should be denied choices.

Which brings me back to my daughter, the fledgling writer/ biologist. A career isn’t all she wants. She also wants to be a Mommy, and she’s never asked me if she'll have to choose. Why? Because she’s grown up with a mother who fully enjoys balancing the rewarding demands of a family with the rewarding demands of a career. She's seen how both my work and my family make me happy. And how they make me whole.

As a woman, a mother and a feminist, I want nothing less for her.

Here's Billy D's perspective. (Billy, Billy, Billy... I'm not saying a word. Yet.) :

Feminism. I hardly know where to begin. While I do think it probably had a useful purpose at some point, somewhere between the beginning and the pot of gold they originally sought, that whole scene kind of got turned into something resembling militant lesbianism 101.

I know many of you will vehemently disagree with what I’m writing, but, in my opinion, feminism has done far more harm for our society than good.

Yes, I know. Women can vote now, they’re in the workplace, they’re captains of industry… whatever. Look, let me try to explain myself.

Women should be home, procreating and raising children. Now, before anyone reads anything into that statement, let me explain. I do NOT mean barefoot and pregnant. What I do mean is, when the man is out at work, the woman runs the home. And I mean runs the home, not just vacuuming and baking cookies. I mean, schooling the kids, setting and maintaining a household budget, keeping the house clean, doing all those errands that need to get done during the day, while the man goes out and makes a living to pay for everything.

Now, before the rise of the wicked institution of feminism, this is pretty much how things were. But now, women need that extra-curricular "fulfillment". Why the quotes? Look, if your job gives you the fulfillment you don’t get from raising your children to be everything they could be, then it’s not fulfillment you’re seeking. It’s approval from someone outside your family circle.
A pat on the head from a snotty neighbor, or a nod of approval from your withered and dried nasty sister. Something.

Look, I’m not discounting the role females play in making the world go ‘round at all. But the ERA thing turned into a screw men thing quite some time ago. At this time, I know many, many more women who will tell you that the leaders of the feminist movement today do not speak for them, than those who say they do. Why do you suppose that is?

Because they don’t hate men. They’re told they’re supposed to, but they can’t seem to actually do it. They’re told they’re less of a human if they have children, and downright garbage if they decide they wish to stay home and raise them like they were born to. Yes, BORN TO. Men hunt and gather, women nurture. Sorry ladies, that’s just how it is.

Now, because a woman chooses to define herself, and her own role she’ll play in the world, her sisters will become angry and attempt to chastise and discredit her. Shout her down, shame her, and with any luck, get her to change her mind and abandon those kids to a day care to opt for the mediocre job where she will spend her days hating every minute and watching a clock, instead of laughing and loving her children, and enjoying and loving her husband. Makes no sense.

Is that new car or bigger house worth it? In a few short years when the children are gone and you’re left all alone, except for your job that you hate doing, will you still feel "fulfilled" and satisfied? I doubt it. Do you suppose your children will call you on Mother’s day and thank you for doing such a great job at "XYZ" company, and tell you it’s OK that you missed the plays and the ins and outs and ups and downs of their lives, because they understand children are a burden best left to day cares and extended relatives to raise?

No, in all likelihood, they’re going to act out and attempt to gain mommies favor and attention any way they can. Don’t worry though, eventually they’ll figure out that’s not going to happen, and find someone or something else to fill that void. Indiscriminate sex, drugs, booze… whatever.
Look, women are not equal to men. They’re not. And men aren’t equal to women in certain areas either. They’re not supposed to be. Each was designed for a specific purpose, and to complete certain tasks. That’s the nature of it, the way it was designed. When feminism fights this, we, and our children lose every single time.



Here's Shrub's take:

I love feminists, they’re such easy fodder. So, in order to further the debate regarding the unending virtues of the great unwashed I give you my comprehensive list of the different types of feminism and the basic tenets of each individual school of feminism. As a side note, I got the list straight from Wikipedia, lest you doubt my accuracy. So I did my normal three and a half minutes of research and discovered there are actually different branches of feminism…and there’s a lot…twenty five recognized disciplines within one movement.

Amazon Feminism-six foot tall blondes with big boobs standing around quoting Margaret Sanger.

Anarcha- Feminism-screw the rules and give me what I want…I’m PMSing so don’t mess with me boy!

Anti Racist Feminism-even the spicks, slopes, sand-niggers, jigaboos, whaps, and other ethnically diverse women are all equal.

Cultural Feminism-bitching about men with Mozart playing in the background.

Eco Feminism-let’s hug a tree, rub our crystals, and bitch about men. Equity Feminism-gimme my shit monkey boy!

Existential Feminism-huh?

French Feminism-can the French get any more feminine?

Gender Feminism-seems a bit redundant if you ask me.

Individualist Feminism-I am woman, hear me roar, or screech, or whine, or complain, you get the picture.

Lesbian Feminism-once again, redundant.

Liberal Feminism-we’ll elect the most hideously deformed troglodyte we can find.

Male Feminism-the Tony Awards!

Marxist Feminism-your vagina is now property of the state.

Material Feminism-I want nice stuff for all women.

Pop Feminism-Madonna is the Godess!

Post colonial Feminism-ah those kooky French & British. Those lovable little scamps just occupied half the globe’s surface, enslaving millions. Who cares when we can watch Desperate Housewives.

Post modern Feminism-now lesbian porn in one window and Gloria Steinem’s Revolution Within in another. The Internet’s a beautiful thing.

Pro sex Feminism-hey, I’m pro sex too. Bring all them ho’s on! Psychoanalytical Feminism-lie down on this comfy couch and we’ll tell you how perky your breasts are and how you’re a wonderful person.

Radical Feminism-bitches all!

Separatist Feminism-give us our own island…it’ll be call Titty Tonka.

Socialist Feminism-healthcare for all women…the men can go screw themselves.

Spiritual Feminism-my soul is mine…piss off!

Standpoint Feminism-I have no opinion on this one.

Third-world Feminism-bitch about men while sweeping my dirt floor, because, after all, my hut must be as tidy as my vagina.

Transnational Feminism-we can cuss men out in multiple languages and dialects.

Trans Feminism-is this the same as trans fatty acids, I hear they’re really unhealthy.

As you can see I find feminism fodder for my satirical energy. Now, I’m not advocating abolishing feminism, just retooling it a skoch.

First of all, in order to regain any semblance of credibility feminism may have once had a changing of the old guard and their philosophies is in order. The Naomi Watts, Gloria Stienem, Margaret Sanger cabal who would denigrate and vilify stay-at-home moms need a refresher course in tolerance 101. The theory forwarded by these so-called leaders of the “movement” that women who choose to forgo work and raise their children are intellectually inferior is reason one why mainstream feminism will be demonized as an intolerant and not worthy of anything other than disdain. Their shrill harpyesque whining serves only to alienate those they hope to gain allegiance.

Secondly, there tent is most decidedly small and not inclusive. Differing opinions than the deities of feminism are roundly dismissed as being, once again, intellectually inferior. Those who disagree in the slightest are labeled as misogynist and oppressors of the already down trodden. By employing such rhetoric they are, once again, doing a disservice to their own cause. Tone down the harshness and shut up and listen for a change.

Lastly, all things male are under continual assault by feminism. The Duke Lacrosse story is a prime example. There have been two separate rounds of DNA testing performed that have yielded not a single genetic match to the accused or any of the team mates. Yet the feminists insist the allegations are valid and that the accused players should be tarred & feathered. Here’s my point, if your contention is proven false, fall back and re-evaluate. Don’t hold to your position just because you want to fry a couple idiot macho jerks. And all this negativity towards predominantly male institutions is just so much conjecture. Take a breath ladies, acknowledge the male logistical superiority.

All feminism has to do is tweek its philosophy a bit and they might find acceptance where there was once blood hatred. Because, have no doubt you feminists out there, many out there hate you and all you stand for. But you’re reaping what you’ve sewn.

197 comments:

Billy D said...

Well, I bandaged up the knuckles, but still just used my forehead to type with.
As a pre-strike reply, let me say, my wife has a part time job in the evenings she does to get out of the house for a while. I'm not totally averse to women in the workforce, but only after their first priority, pro-creating and raising the offspring, are completed. Or, like in this case, part time when there is the dad available to watch the chillin's.
OK. Have at me.

Morgan said...

I bet that large, ridge on your big Neanderthal forehead helped you type. ;-)

(Now imagine a very sweet, syrupy Southern accent, accompanied by much eye-batting)

Why Mr. Billy! Thank you so much for not being totally averse to women in the workplace. As a walking womb, I do find I need something to do between popping out babies like some human Pez dispenser.

OK...back to my regular accent.

Dude. Please. Has it ever occurred to you that some women don't want to have kids? Why on earth would you want someone to have kids if they don't want kids?

If you do think every woman should be required to have kids, do you also think that every man should be required to father children?

And keep in mind I mean every man and woman, regardless of intellect, ability or income to provide for said spawn.

Morgan said...

Billy, among your comments, this one jumped out at me:

"Is that new car or bigger house worth it? In a few short years when the children are gone and you’re left all alone, except for your job that you hate doing, will you still feel "fulfilled" and satisfied?"

Tell me, Billy. How many men do you know who want the family income cut? I know quite a few women who'd be at home right now if their husbands would support them in doing it. But the husbands value that new truck or bass boat more than they value having a full-time mother for their children.
I find it curious how people pin the presence of women in the workplace on female materialism when often the husband is the one addicted to the extra income.

Are you willing to call for men to make the sacrifices it would require to have that at-home wife? And given your literal intepretation of the Bible, what would you say to a woman considering disobeying a husband who orders her to keep working?

I have a friend right now in this dilemma. She wants to be home with their year-old son, and could afford to be if her hubby sold a truck and his boat. But he won't. She's threatening to quit anyway. He forbids it.

What should she do?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Billy D said...

Heh-heh. I expected the beating.
OK. If a woman chooses not to have children, then by all means have at it. However, there are many, many jobs they should not be doing. (Don't put away your "Beating Billy" stick just yet)
No cops, except behind a desk, no fireman, combat soldiers,... the list is far too long. Flower shops, accountants, whatever. Light and feminine is fine.
Now, along with the woman's responsibilities in this, comes that man's as well. It's the mans job to provide. (Hunt and gather) It's his responsibility and his alone to feed and clothe them, etc. Your friends husband ought to be ashamed of himself. Money is nice, but it won't love you. His wife should be home with that baby, nurturing and raising it. He sounds like a douche-bag.

Morgan said...

"Flower shops, accountants, whatever. Light and feminine is fine."

Flower shops??? Accountants??? Light and feminine???

Lookit. I'm for women having any job she's fit to do - except combat soldier. I'll grant you that.

But if a woman is 200 lbs. and can beat out that 150 lb. man for the firefighter's job, why shouldn't she have it? If that burly girl proves herself capable of pulling someone from a burning building, who are you to tell her she'd be better off sticking flowers in vase?

I'll tell you that paramedic work is far from "light and feminine" and I know quite a few women who've earned the respect of their co-workers by keeping cool and level heads at the goriest accident scenes.

I also know some men who faint at the sight of blood.

My opinion is not that women should be given an extra advantage in non-traditional jobs, but that they not be barred from doing them if they are able to.

You haven't given me one good reason - other than personal prejudice - as to why a woman should be prohibited from doing a job she's fully capable of performing.

Morgan said...

"It's the mans job to provide. (Hunt and gather)"

Baby, we don't live in caves anymore. While biological differences remain, the species have adapted to perform functions outside of stereotype. I'm quite capable of providing for my family, because the prey (money) is something I can easily bring home through work. By the same token, my husband is a very nurturing father.

If you want to compare humans to cavemen, then please remember that you are speaking for yourself.

Shrubbery said...

Hey, I'm all for women in the workplace. After all, who's gonna strip for me as I eat my steak at the local Diamond Cabaret.

Seriously though...

Women should be allowed to work as long/hard as they want and shouldn't be encumbered by the "glass cieling". And women should vote early and often as our representative cannot truly be representative without full representation.

My problem with feminism is their sanctimony regarding stay-at-home moms and men.

Shrubbery said...

Morg, I posted this on my blog so this is in response to your comment over at FluffyBloggy...

I'm all for your right to choose your own destiny Morg, I just take umbrage with the deification of Friedan, Steinem, and Sanger. Yes, they were about equality. But they were also about villification and denigration of houswives, men, and society in general. They cultivated a sense of entitlement that permeates the debate even today. The world doesn't owe you anything by virtue of your status as a woman. However, society does owe you an even playing field. Sanger, Friedan, et al want a slanted field tipped towards women.

Morgan said...

Shrub, please.

If there was ever a sense of entitlement it was first among men.

It's particularly interesting that you bring of Sanger.

The male dominated society and religious of her time felt so entitled to condemn women to an endless cyle of childbirth that left women either dead or old before their time. How can a woman be a good mother if she's pregant with her 11th child at 30 and is too tired to enjoy the ones she has?

Sanger defied the authorities of her day to bring contraception to women. Good for her.

Do I diefy Sanger, as you suggest? No. Am I grateful she gave women freedom to enjoy their husband's attentions without having to worry about getting pregnant? Yes!

Do I feel entitled to birth control. Yes, I do.

Friedan said what women were thinking, and gave voice to the thousands of females who desired to contribute more than just children to sciety.

I don't consider Steinem's impact as significant as either Sanger's or Friedan's. As a feminist, I don't agree with everything she's said or written, but as a Christian I don't always agree with other Christians either.

I don't see this deification that you speak of, Shrub, and can only surmise that you're throwing it out there to have something to say on the issue.

scooterhawk said...

I have no problem with women in the workforce as long as they do not have children. If they do, then they should stay at home and raise them.
I know this is antidotal but my wife and I are having our first child in July. Once he/she arrives my wife will no longer work but stay at home and manage the household. We’ve cut our expenses to the bare minimum, no cable tv, no high-speed internet access, no second car and I’ve decided to take a second job. Why you ask? Simple, because I love my family more than any of those things and when Anna and I decided to have children we understood that it was our responsibility to raise them. Not the government, a daycare center or even our own parents.

scooterhawk said...

D’oh! I just realized that I typed antidotal when I meant anecdotal. Damn public education!

JohnR said...

Morgan: 200 pound women who are fit, and not fat, have got to be might rare.

My sister adopted 3 children from Guatamala. She brings them home and puts them right into daycare. If she or her husband quit their job they could afford it. All their extra income goes to Montessori schools and daycare. But she needs to work because...

Most women or men are not as lucky as you Morgan. You have work that is creative and fulfilling.

Damn few people will ever find that.

Most people work because they have to not because they want to.

JohnR

Billy D said...

"If there was ever a sense of entitlement it was first among men."

That's because men built the world. Women helped populate it.

I kid. But Shrub's got a point, in that, should a woman decide she'd like to be a housewife, she's immediately called to the carpet by the "womyn". So it's free choice, as long as the choice falls into certain N.O.W. guidelines.

JohnR said...

Oh, and come on, what did the deleted post say.

It must have been might snarky for you to delete it.

JohnR

thimscool said...

Scooterhawk,

Congrats Papa!

You're gonna love it. The most precious resource in the first year is sleep.

Good for you and Anna to arrange your lives around your child. Children are the future.

Morgan said...

"I kid. But Shrub's got a point, in that, should a woman decide she'd like to be a housewife, she's immediately called to the carpet by the "womyn". So it's free choice, as long as the choice falls into certain N.O.W. guidelines."

Yeah, but Billy, the feminists who call themselves "womyn" are so far in the minority their collective voices don't even register a blip with the sisterhood. If it did, stay-at-home motherhood wouldn't be on the rise. And don't think that all stay-at-home moms are anti-feministas. I know quite a few stay-at-home moms who are hippie feminists to the core.

Billy D said...

"But if a woman is 200 lbs. and can beat out that 150 lb. man for the firefighter's job, why shouldn't she have it?"

*It should be noted, for positions requiring physical feats, women take drastically different tests than their male counterparts. Now, if they can both pass the male version of said test, that's a horse of a different color.

Morgan said...

"JOh, and come on, what did the deleted post say.
It must have been might snarky for you to delete it."

It wasn't a debate post. It was spam for some match-making Web site. I beat the troll and sent him back under the bridge.

I have yet to have a post so snarky I'd delete it. You know me better than that.

Morgan said...

"Morgan: 200 pound women who are fit, and not fat, have got to be might rare."

They are rare. But they exist and are surely fearsome things to behold. The guy who runs the horsedrawn carriage business in our town is married to a lady farrier. She shoes all their draft horses and I know she could kick the ass of any man who encountered her.

I agree with Billy D, though. If women want a traditionally male job they should be held to the same physical standards, particularly if that job involves public safety. This is one area where Gloria Steinem - who wants to give female firefighters electirc axes - is way, way off base.

JohnR, you're right. I'm fortunate to have work that is fulfilling. Yes, many women do have to work. But so do many men. Opportunities come at a price, and that price is that the choices we make may lead us to a path we're disappointed walking.

But like I said in my post, that doesn't mean women should be protected from those choices. I don't want to be protected. I want to live.

thimscool said...

I'm sure it won't surprise anyone here to learn that I am a "Male Feminist", ready for a Tony award. ;)

I have a son, but I'm planning on more kids. If I have a daughter, I don't want to prejudge her path in life. I'll do everything I can to make sure she knows how to stand up for herself, take responsibility, and think independently.

I'll also do my best to teach her how to solve differential equations, do her taxes, and fix the lawn mower, if she'll let me.

But I will *not* raise a princess. She will scrub toilets and she'll know how to cook and do laundry too. Just like my son, Atticus. (Boy, I can't wait for the chores to start).

If she grows up and wants to dedicate her life to raising my grandchildren, then I know that she'll be that much more capable and dynamic of a mother if she knows how to get things done outside of the house. But if she wants to focus on a career, I want her to excell.

pattonjr5 said...

where in the hell did you get the idea that naomi watts had anything to say about stay-at-home-mothers?
putting her w/steihem & sanger? i have written several papers on watts & am in contact w/her mum, & i have not ever read anything about this. in fact, i am not sure where she stands on feminism.

thimscool said...

Having said that... I confess that I am a bit of a sexist.

Men only have one x chromosome, whereas women have two. Unfortunately, this means that men are more susceptible to certain genetic problems... However, in return we get the y chromosome. So while our cells can make the proteins that women's cells make, there are proteins we make that womens cells cannot make.

This does not make men superior, necessarily... but it certainly makes you wonder what the women are missing. What's on that y-chromosome?

Morgan said...

"I have a son, but I'm planning on more kids. If I have a daughter, I don't want to prejudge her path in life."

Oh, Luke, what you wrote here really resonates with me. One of the things that I always wondered when I hear people ranting that women should be nothing but breeders is whether they have daughters of their own.

I used to wonder this a lot when I was reading VP, especially in regards to Vox's rants about suffrage.

What kind of parent doesn't want the best for their children? And what kind of parent would encourage a daughter to deny her God-given talents because to pursue them might conflict with motherhood?

My creativity, I believe, is a gift from God. My brain is as productive as my uterus and I believe my Maker intended me to use both.

I wish equal happiness and fulfillment for both my sons and daughters. I can't see where it is right to steer a girl into a life of dependence on another adult that would leave her in dire straits in the event the man dies or leaves her.

Any parent who would do that to a child is a poor parent indeed.

tc said...

Before I comment on here, I need to know what the earliest thing each of you remembers seeing on television. It'll help me to formulate what I want to say.

Tom

Morgan said...

"where in the hell did you get the idea that naomi watts had anything to say about stay-at-home-mothers?"

Nothing, pattonjr5. I'm sure he meant Naomi Wolfe. But when men start bashing feminism, they are prone to writing ridiculous things.

It's Naomi Wolfe, Shrub. Naomi Watts is an actress.

thimscool said...

Sesame Street... of course.

Bert and Ernie are the ones that made me support gay marriage.

It was just the beginning of a lifetime of socialist programming.

Morgan said...

Night Gallery, Tom. I think it was night gallery. Karen Black had this little voodoo doll thing with a necklace on it. When the necklace fell of, the doll tried to kill her. She spent the rest of the episode trying fighting the doll off.

JohnR said...

tc: I am not trying to be a smartass here, but my earliest memory on
TV is seeing Kennedy's coffin lying in state. I remember this because they interupted Bugs Bunny to put it on, and I couldn't understand why I was looking at this coffin on TV.

Also, a few months later I remember seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.

I am 46. My mother had to go to work because my father abandoned the family in '63.

JohnR

JohnR said...

Morgan: I loved that episode!!!

Remember the one with the earwig?!?!?

JohnR

thimscool said...

I think we've made a real breakthrough here Morgan.

How did that toothy little doll make you *feel*, hmmmm?

Do you ever dream about the doll, dressed in an Arsenal jersey, chasing you around with a weed whacker and threatening to terminate your right to vote?

Morgan said...

I didn't see the one with the earwig, JohnR.

Luke, I just remember thinking that was one butt-ugly doll and being worried that it was hiding in the oven. Maybe that's why I don't like to cook.

I'm 40, John. My mother stayed home, but would have been better off, I think, if she had gotten part-time work. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard her say, "I could have done so much if I hadn't had you kids."

And my reply to her has always been the same: "You're an artist, mom. There was nothing to stop you."

I love her, but I refuse to take responsibility for her unfulfilled life.

Morgan said...

Sesame Street, killer voodoo dolls and dead presidents. I cannot wait to see how Tom builds an analysis around this rag-tag bunch of recollections.

Morgan said...

Sesame Street, killer voodoo dolls and dead presidents. I cannot wait to see how Tom builds an analysis around this rag-tag bunch of recollections.

Billy D said...

My earliest TV memory is Pink Panther cartoons. (I've only recently found the DVD set. Fantastic) Either that, or, "The Pig and Whistle Show" which was a musical/variety show set in an English pub.

Listen, I know I sound extremely old fashioned here, especially for someone who has yet to see 40, but I am. I have two daughters and a wife. You can imagine the browbeatings I take. (For the record, my 17 yr. old is going into nursing, BUT, is going to stay home once any children come into play)

JohnR said...

Morgan: The one with the earwig was about a guy who was going to put an earwig in the ear of someone he hated. The earwig can only go straight ahead, it cannot back up, so it would have to eat it's way through the guys head, killing him.

Unfortunately the guy who was supposed to plant the earwig put it in the guy's ear behind the plot. They were all staying in the same house for some reason. So the earwig eats it's way through the guys head and he miraculously survives.

The hook:

It was a female earwig and it laid eggs.

A classic episode, up with the Karen Black episode.

JohnR

JohnR

JohnR said...

Morgan: I don't argue stay-at-home or work. My mother had to work 2 jobs, 80 hours a week to support the family. By the time she got a job that would pay enough to only work 55 hours a week I was 14 and growing beyond her control. I think it was only out of respect for her that I was reasonably well-behaved, she was under enough pressure as it was.

It used to bug me when she had a vacation in the summer because I was used to her not being around and didn't want her cutting into my 11-year-old style, such as it was.

I know that I am an extreme case in this instance. But I think that my sister might have made some notes, as I did, about the manner in which we were raised and adjusted accordingly. Her brothers and sisters generally regard her(my sister) as somewhat selfish and spoiled. No one likes to be around her children because they are demanding and bratty. And the way she and her husband relate to one another in annoying, I honestly don't know if they love one another.

My mother did the best she could but I don't think it was very healthy for us(mentally) and her(mentally and physically).

I think the point I am trying to make(badly) is that there is a balance that needs to be struck. People tend to be all one or the other.

JohnR

eaglewood said...

Oh boy, look at all the fun.

I am getting out the popcorn and sitting on the sidelines I am waiting for the big guns to come out.

I am trying to decide if I should weigh in or if Morgan will be able to determine if my knuckles drag the ground before I type anything in on this subject. But then if she thinks my knuckles drag the ground she will think my wife’s do as well. Seeing as how most of my attitudes towards feminism were developed after I got married and listened to her.

So here we go, I am going to wade in after all:

1. Should women be allowed in the workforce?
Yes they should, I would go so far as to say there are jobs out there that are better suited for a woman than a man. The catch is a level playing field. A man and a woman should have to compete on the same physical and mental level if the woman is the better candidate then she should get the job, if she is not the man should get it and either party should not whine about unfairness in the end. There are also certain highly physical jobs I would prefer to see men in.

2. If a woman has a child what should be her primary focus?
For what should be obvious reasons the focus should be her child or children. If a woman has to work outside of the home her focus and devotion will be split. A woman that has children should stay home and raise them. Now that does not mean she cannot help bring in an income, but she needs to be creative in doing so. Morgan has found a way to do just that, while I do not agree with all of her choices, I do applaud that she has chosen a carrier path that allows her to be there for her children. Children are our future and if we decide to ship them off to daycare centers, people who do not love them, and situations where they will not get the individual attention they need they will be harmed in some way.

3. Should women be forced to stay home and be baby machines?
No. Now with that said if a woman chooses to stay home to raise the next generation then she should not be vilified as many in the feminist movement do. My wife has decided to do just that. From the time she was a little girl that is what she wanted to do. She is now living that dream. My daughter wants to be a mother first, and she wants to do something with animals. She has a natural touch with them. She thought about being a veterinarian, but then decided that the dedication to such a path would take away from her future children. She is only eleven, I am sure she will come up with a plan that will allow her to use her particular abilities.

My bottom line is that if a woman wants to work outside of the home that is fine, but if children come into the picture she needs to put her children first. Women who decide that a life of paper pushing than raising their children really need to reexamine her priorities. Does this mean that some opportunities will be closed for those who raise their children before thinking of their carriers? Yes it does, but then if I were in a hiring position and looking at hiring someone strait out of college or a woman who put o

eaglewood said...

I need to pay more attenton when I am coppying what I wrote. The last paragaph is as follows:


My bottom line is that if a woman wants to work outside of the home that is fine, but if children come into the picture she needs to put her children first. Women who decide that a life of paper pushing is more fulfilling than raising their children really need to reexamine her priorities. Does this mean that some opportunities will be closed for those who raise their children before thinking of their carriers? Yes it does, but then if I were in a hiring position and looking at hiring someone strait out of college or a woman who put off her carrier to raise her children I would choose the latter because she has proven a level of responsibility that could not be matched by the other candidate.

tc said...

Hi guys, home and reading your comments. The reason I wanted to know what you remembered was so that I would know how in depth I would need to explain things historically.

To put things in contrast, my earliest recollection was someone on the news in 1955 saying that the odds were that we'd have a nuclear war by 1960.

Be that as it may, I'm the one here who remembers real life in the 1950s vs Leave It to Beaver or Father Knows Best.

One of the most important things that people ignore on this subject is that the choice of working and staying home only existed then for the middle- and upper- classes. About a third of the women worked in the 1950s, it was just that (other than phone operators, schoolteachers and secretaries) they were lower-class. They would generally live in large urban areas and the kids would be watched communally by grandparents, other relatives or neighbors.

Walter Williams talks a lot about his childhood in the same projects that Bill Cosby grew up in in Philly.

Farm women, of course, did what they always did, worked 12-15 hours a day while watching the kids (or letting them roam, free range as I was able to--that was not neglect, that was WONDERFUL.)

I hold that feminism was not caused by the writers, but that it became inevitable because of technology (often you'll see this theme in my writing, with sociological changes being driven by technological ones.)

The Pill is what changed the world. When women were suddenly placed in the position where they could have the same sexual options as men, it completely changed society. I was 16 when I lost my virginity on the farm. It was a worrisome situation, with a purloined condom breaking in the middle and days of worrying about pregnancy.

I remember my first college girl in '70. I was overwhelmed in passion and was already in the midst of sex when I thought to ask about the situation with pregnancy (I was honorable even at 18, Morgan.) She said, "I'm on the pill" and flipped me over and attacked.

That was the hottest sex EVER.

When women were able to have sex like a man, they suddenly began examining other roles, wondering if there really was any difference between the genders.

In the early times (pre-PC) there were actually *very* few feminists--nobody bothered reading Friedan, they'd much rather be reading the Marquis or Playboy.

Now, remember the poor women? The poor urban women were part of those addressed by the Great Society. The government made it more profitable for them to stay at home, sans husband, then to work. This completely disrupted the family situation that prior to 1964 existed in the Inner Cities and working-class white suburbs.

Now, by the time the ERA was introduced (and nearly passed--it passed congress and was ratified by a LOT of state legislatures,) feminism had been grabbed by a lot of disaffected socialists and semi-mystics. I never particularly understood them, especially since, unlike the earlier feminists, they didn't have sex with men, instead, turning to women as a political statement. [Last sentence edited due to the fact that my Wife, Marcey wandered into the ManCave and critiqued my post--She agreed with everything else.]

I guess to sum it up, I have to say that it is a mistake to believe that the social changes were due to feminism. Instead, the social and technological changes *created* feminism.

Tom

Janet said...

Ahhhh, wonderous posts. :)

I agree with BOTH Morgan and BillyD...... is it possible? I think so. Shrub, I was a little lost on the impact of French Feminism but you were creative at least.

Morgan said, "Tell me, Billy. How many men do you know who want the family income cut? I know quite a few women who'd be at home right now if their husbands would support them in doing it. But the husbands value that new truck or bass boat more than they value having a full-time mother for their children.

I find it curious how people pin the presence of women in the workplace on female materialism when often the husband is the one addicted to the extra income."

This has been my experience as well! Its the men who are like "get back to work, woman!" and they're Christian men too...

Janet said...

"My problem with feminism is their sanctimony regarding stay-at-home moms and men. "

I am a feminist, and a stay at home mom. Shocking!

Janet said...

.... and I like men.

:)

Janet said...

scooterhawk, I completely agree with this:

"I have no problem with women in the workforce as long as they do not have children. If they do, then they should stay at home and raise them.
I know this is antidotal but my wife and I are having our first child in July. Once he/she arrives my wife will no longer work but stay at home and manage the household. We’ve cut our expenses to the bare minimum, no cable tv, no high-speed internet access, no second car and I’ve decided to take a second job. Why you ask? Simple, because I love my family more than any of those things and when Anna and I decided to have children we understood that it was our responsibility to raise them. Not the government, a daycare center or even our own parents."

However, you forget that the woman could work and the man could stay at home-- thus the government, a daycare, or even your parents would not be raising their children. Sometimes we are so uncreative. Some men want to stay at home, and some women want to be in the workplace.

Janet said...

eaglewood, I mostly agree with this:"2. If a woman has a child what should be her primary focus?
For what should be obvious reasons the focus should be her child or children. If a woman has to work outside of the home her focus and devotion will be split. A woman that has children should stay home and raise them. Now that does not mean she cannot help bring in an income, but she needs to be creative in doing so. Morgan has found a way to do just that, while I do not agree with all of her choices, I do applaud that she has chosen a carrier path that allows her to be there for her children. Children are our future and if we decide to ship them off to daycare centers, people who do not love them, and situations where they will not get the individual attention they need they will be harmed in some way."

I am seriously anti-daycare, but again I see the emphasis of the importance of the mother on raising children but not the father. This often leaves the mother doing all of the parenting while the man works more hours than is good for his family, comes home wiped and does not contribute. Children need their daddies too, and solutions need to be found that keep both dad and mom in the picture.

way2much said...

"*It should be noted, for positions requiring physical feats, women take drastically different tests than their male counterparts. Now, if they can both pass the male version of said test, that's a horse of a different color."

Mt husband is a police officer - this is so true. There are too many skinny, petite woman on the force and you know what? They are endangering my husband while he is at work. My husband admits there are a few woman that can kick his ass, but there are many more that can't hold their own. How did they get the job? They lowered the standards for minorities and woman. They reduced the height requirement, etc. This not only benefitted woman and minorities but other men that really are not capable of the job at hand. It is a joke. These people are supposed to protect us? I am all for equality, but equal means equal - not let's help them out so they can have the same job. If you are capable - go for it, if not - find another job! End of story.

Morgan said...

I pretty much agree with everything you said here, Eaglewood, but with a little tweaking.

For instance, while the ideal is a mother at home, I don't think dividing time between home and a workplace is *necessarily* an inferior mother to a woman who stays home.

My husband works quite a few hours each week, and our children are as close to him as they are to me.
No one says a father who works is less a father because his attention is "split." I've always found this curious.

Also, a mother's physical presence in the home does a child no good if she's emotionally somewhere else. A woman tied up in 'Sex in the City' reruns, Internet chatrooms or even lost in her own thoughts and longings can be as absent as a mother sitting in an office across town.

I think we have but to consider times when a spouse has been emotionally or physically distant through anger or inner turmoil to know how alone you can feel even with someone sitting right next to you.

I've known a few women who thought they would enjoy being at home, only to find that they were consumed by worry over money or loneliness over having no adult interraction. In their cases, parttime or even fulltime work made the time they had with their child more precious.

Some people criticize women who can't feel complete and happy with their little ones, but I will confess to understanding them completely. If I had no other life beyond raising my children, I would run mad. My creative work keeps me sane and connected with other adults. I'm quite fortunate that I can do what I do at home. I cannot imagine having to choose between staying home fulltime with my kids and my work. God forgive me for saying this, but I think it would be a difficult choice to make. It would be like ripping my soul into.

I think even if such a scenario existed, and I opted for some parttime work, I would still be putting my children first. I grew up with an unhappy mother, and I can tell you that she was always somewhere else, even when she was with us. I'm convinced some outside work for her would have done us all good.

Men grow up taking for granted that they can find their life's passion and pursue it. Women were - and sometime still are - told that they can't develop their talents and be good mothers, that they have to choose.

Eaglewood, you obviously love your spiritual work. Imagine if suddenly the roles were reversed and you were told that you had to put that aside to stay home with the kids. If you genuinely felt a conviction that you were called to be a prophet, you'd be torn and would likely want to find a way to fulfill both tasks. I think people who have never been put in this sort of position can really understand.

It's not about women being selfish, it's about finding a way to be a mother and still use the other gifts God gave you.

Morgan said...

I agree, Way2Much. My daughter's boyfriend is studying to become a police officer. The idea of gender politics putting his life at risk makes me sick to my stomach.
No one should get a special break due to minority status. That's just wrong.

Morgan said...

"I am seriously anti-daycare, but again I see the emphasis of the importance of the mother on raising children but not the father. This often leaves the mother doing all of the parenting while the man works more hours than is good for his family, comes home wiped and does not contribute."

Janet, I had a friend and co-worker who died of a brain tumor at age 37. I can't tell you how many nights he stayed late, hanging out at the office because he wanted to wait until his wife had gotten the kids to bed to go home so he wouldn't be bothered to help. He'd stay and talk to us night editors, answer emails, anything. We'd tell him, "Why don't you just go home?" but he'd just make a joke of it.

He regretted it so much. At his funeral, his dad said the biggest regret my friend had was not spending more time with his wife and kids.

There's defintely a double standard and men, I think, suffer for it. Maybe if there were more emphasis on the importance of fathers they'd realize time at home is just as important as time at the office.

eaglewood said...

“I am seriously anti-daycare, but again I see the emphasis of the importance of the mother on raising children but not the father. This often leaves the mother doing all of the parenting while the man works more hours than is good for his family, comes home wiped and does not contribute. Children need their daddies too, and solutions need to be found that keep both dad and mom in the picture.”

“No one says a father who works is less a father because his attention is "split." I've always found this curious.”

“Men grow up taking for granted that they can find their life's passion and pursue it. Women were - and sometime still are - told that they can't develop their talents and be good mothers, that they have to choose.”


I was trying to stay away from the other side of the coin in this but I guess I will have to weigh in on this as well.

In short I think the most ideal situation is where both mom and dad have the ability to raise the children at home. For most people this is just not an option. For Birdie and I that is the case. We are looking into starting a home business but it is still in the planning stages at best. Once I have a profitable home business I will have more time to spend with our children. Until then my life is indeed split between my obligations to my employer and family. Over a century ago it was almost unheard of for a father to work outside of the home, now it is the opposite.
You are right that men tend to grow up thinking that they can pursue their ambitions, but I am trying to instill a sense even in my boys that family is the most important thing. Employment will come and go but your family is your legacy and you only get one shot at it. My daughter also desires to make her family her first priority, but that does not mean she should not pursue her passions. She is an artist at heart and has an amazing gift with animals, especially those in need of rescue. I wish to help her and my sons to realize their ambitions and goals not to hinder them.

eaglewood said...

I forgot to mention that I think that emotionally and mentally women in general are better suited to the general raising of children than men. That is not to discount the role a father plays, just a simple fact of gender specific genetics. When it comes to who should stay home I think that if there are small children (5 y.o. and younger) the mother should be the one at home. This is an ideal and not practical for everyone. After they are older who it is at home is not as important as much as the fact that one parent can be home when the children are at home, and both parents are involved in their lives.

Morgan said...

Eaglewood,
You might want to encourage your daughter to pursue wildlife rehabilitation. I've been a bird of prey rehabilitator for about 13 years. Laws vary from state to state as to minimum age requirements for permitting, but she could work as an apprentice, either with an experienced wildlife rehabilitator or with a wildlife shelter.

I admire what you're trying to do with the home business. Larry and I are doing the same thing, for the same reason. He's cut back on his fulltime job to build our greenhouse business, and my income has allowed him to do that. Our goal has long been for both of us to work from home fulltime. It really is the way to go.

I also admire the fact that you're teaching both your son and daughter the value of family first. Good for you. And for them.

Shrubbery said...

Shrub, please.

If there was ever a sense of entitlement it was first among men.

It's particularly interesting that you bring of Sanger.

The male dominated society and religious of her time felt so entitled to condemn women to an endless cyle of childbirth that left women either dead or old before their time. How can a woman be a good mother if she's pregant with her 11th child at 30 and is too tired to enjoy the ones she has?

Sanger defied the authorities of her day to bring contraception to women. Good for her.

Do I diefy Sanger, as you suggest? No. Am I grateful she gave women freedom to enjoy their husband's attentions without having to worry about getting pregnant? Yes!

Do I feel entitled to birth control. Yes, I do.

Friedan said what women were thinking, and gave voice to the thousands of females who desired to contribute more than just children to sciety.

I don't consider Steinem's impact as significant as either Sanger's or Friedan's. As a feminist, I don't agree with everything she's said or written, but as a Christian I don't always agree with other Christians either.

I don't see this deification that you speak of, Shrub, and can only surmise that you're throwing it out there to have something to say on the issue.

11:55 AM


scooterhawk said...
I have no problem with women in the workforce as long as they do not have children. If they do, then they should stay at home and raise them.
I know this is antidotal but my wife and I are having our first child in July. Once he/she arrives my wife will no longer work but stay at home and manage the household. We’ve cut our expenses to the bare minimum, no cable tv, no high-speed internet access, no second car and I’ve decided to take a second job. Why you ask? Simple, because I love my family more than any of those things and when Anna and I decided to have children we understood that it was our responsibility to raise them. Not the government, a daycare center or even our own parents.--Morg

If mainstream feminists are not as bileful as those who do condemn stay-at-home mothers, why do they continually let the extremists hijack the debate. The so-called mainstream feminists are very quiet indeed.

Friedan was very critical of the role of stay-at-home mothers. She said repeatedly it was stifling. She was a petulant pain-in-the ass towards the end of her life and alienated many with her attitude that she should be given proper reverence. Pfft, blow hard. Plus she lied about being abused by her husband in her book and later recanted her statement. At that point she lost all credibility.

Sanger was a racist kook. Here's a quote..."It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets." She also villified jerking off. Heretic! She was also in favor of eugenics. Had Sanger had her way myself and your very own son Morg would've been prevented from reproducing. Sanger was in favor of, "A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

But thank you for proving my point. The light in which most feminists hold otherwise virulent and sanctimonious She-Gods is laughable. Friedan was a devout elitist and a proven liar and Sanger was a racist who held the disabled with contempt.

Please don't argue for an idolatry of Sanger or Friedan, they were not the shining lights you claim.

Morgan said...

"If mainstream feminists are not as bileful as those who do condemn stay-at-home mothers, why do they continually let the extremists hijack the debate. The so-called mainstream feminists are very quiet indeed."

If mainstream conservatives are not so bileful as those who condemn people who mistrust Bush, then why do they continually let the neo-cons hijack the debate. The so-called mainstream conservaties are very quiet indeed.

See how it works, Shrub. You hear what you want to hear to define the movement.

And Shrub, Friedan is dead. And long before she was planted in the ground she was passe in the movment. You might want to focus on people who are alive if you're serious about making a point.

Sanger is dead, too, Shrub. And I don't have to agree with all her views to support her opinion that women should have access to birth control. Are you suggesting that because she had kooky views I shouldn't have access to birth control pills?

I know you're capable of better arguments than this.

Morgan said...

"Please don't argue for an idolatry of Sanger or Friedan, they were not the shining lights you claim."

At what point did I ever argue for idolatry of Friedan or Sanger, Shrub? I thought you were slightly confused when you confused Naomi Watts with Naomi Wolfe. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you really think Naomi Watts is a leading feminist. It makes as much sense as what you said above.

Shrubbery said...

Don't get me wrong Morg, I love the fairer sex, they're perfect. I just detest the voices that have chosen to speak for all women when they, in fact, don't speak for all women. You can't deny that opposing voices are harshly shouted down as women-haters.

The sense of entitlement I spoke of is alive & well amongst feminists. Why else would European feminists advocate for, and eventually get, gender quotas for businesses in Norway and maybe soon in Sweden, Britain, and France. American feminists have advocated for the same. They've lobbied for lower physical standards for firefighters, the military, and law enforcement. That's an entitlement attitude. The feminists, at least the visible ones, feel women are entitled to those jobs. That's utter crap. I as a disabled man am no more entitled to be a sniper in the Army than any woman is, lest she prove herself worthy by the military code.

Shrubbery said...

At what point did I ever argue for idolatry of Friedan or Sanger, Shrub? I thought you were slightly confused when you confused Naomi Watts with Naomi Wolfe. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you really think Naomi Watts is a leading feminist. It makes as much sense as what you said above.--Morg


Sorry...did I really do that?

*slinks away with tail between legs and knuckles dragging*

Shrubbery said...

And Shrub, Friedan is dead. And long before she was planted in the ground she was passe in the movment. You might want to focus on people who are alive if you're serious about making a point.

Sanger is dead, too, Shrub. And I don't have to agree with all her views to support her opinion that women should have access to birth control. Are you suggesting that because she had kooky views I shouldn't have access to birth control pills?--Morg

Then why when Friedan died did every major feminist blog and web site mourn her like a true deity had passed? Had the feminists not had such a widespread reaction I might buy your point on Friedan.

Sanger was an advocate for birth control yes but her other stands left her void of credibility.

I said what I did about those two to demonstrate that through their eccentric and oft times vile utterances they destroyed their own credibility, and as such, their legacy. In debates like this it's all about credibility, without why should anyone take these two seriously. It's the same as Republicans looking past Jr's numerous shortcoming because he's their boy. They, in turn, also lose credibility along with their annointed leaders. The same has happened to feminism.

Morgan said...

"Sorry...did I really do that?"

Yeah, hehehe! Don't worry. It was kind of cute.

"Then why when Friedan died did every major feminist blog and web site mourn her like a true deity had passed? Had the feminists not had such a widespread reaction I might buy your point on Friedan."

Nice way to switch gears there, Shrub. Her passing was mourned because she did make a contribution to me and countless other women. Even though I did not agree with everything Friedan said, I am eternally grateful that she wrote "The Feminine Mystique."
I'm sure you've mourned the passing of people before, Shrub. Does that mean you agreed with *everything* they did? Or did you mourn them out of respect.
I've had relatives whose passing similarly affected me. My grandfather was a cad. But in his later years he imparted some wisdom us all for which I'm grateful. When he died, I mourned. That doesn't mean I supported the bad things he did. I did, however, remember him for the good.

Dude. You are are so off your game tonight.

Morgan said...

"Sanger was an advocate for birth control yes but her other stands left her void of credibility."

That's just nonsense. If I say to you, "Shrub. Don't roll over that pine straw on the ground. It covers a hole," and you listen and avoid falling to your death, does it destroy my credibility in hole-detection if later I say that hippos are reptiles?

A person can be wrong-headed about one thing and write about other. Sanger may have had wacky views, but she was right about birth control.

Morgan said...

"A person can be wrong-headed about one thing and write about other. "

That should have read, "right about another." Sorry

eaglewood said...

“You might want to encourage your daughter to pursue wildlife rehabilitation.”

It is funny that you mention that. It is one of the things she is interested in. She has been interested in animal rehabilitation since she was 5 and hand raised a kitten that the mother rejected. That was her cat until he died of “we do not know what” 4 years later. She nursed a dog that had given up on living for some reason got the dog to eat and she pulled through. She got interested in wildlife rehab after rescuing a baby bunny after watching a coyote kill the mother. We looked up what it would take to care for the bunny, and came to the conclusion she would not be able to keep the bunny alive. It was injured and too young to feed normal rabbit food. I looked up a local bunny rehabilitation group and they came and got it. I think the guy was surprised about the grilling he got from a 10 y.o. girl wanting to know every thing that was going to happen and what he was doing for the bunny right then. She was utterly fascinated.

Morgan said...

Eaglewood, if your little girl would like a 9-year-old pen pal, email me at morganofthelake@hotmail.com and we can set something up. It sounds like your daughter and my Alex have a lot in common. Alex has always participated with the animals we've had here and we've had plenty. I'm sure she'd love to share her experiences with your daughter.

Morgan said...

"It's the same as Republicans looking past Jr's numerous shortcoming because he's their boy. They, in turn, also lose credibility along with their annointed leaders. The same has happened to feminism."

I don't consider support of W. as a total besmirchment of the GOP, Shrub, because I realize that there are a lot of Republicans who do not like the way he's running this nation. I can separate the neo-cons from the mainstream Republicans, just as I can separate the True Christians™ from those serious about their faith.
There are subsets in every group. The only people who point to subsets as the example are people intent on sullying the entire group. I don't feel like you're the type of person to do that, which is why I find all this harping on extremists so frustrating. Just because people are shrill enough to be heard doesn't mean they represent the marjority. The fact is that most feminists today are busy working to rant and rave. The ones who do are more about activism and making noise than they are about exercising the rights we've gained.

Shrubbery said...

That's just nonsense. If I say to you, "Shrub. Don't roll over that pine straw on the ground. It covers a hole," and you listen and avoid falling to your death, does it destroy my credibility in hole-detection if later I say that hippos are reptiles?

A person can be wrong-headed about one thing and write about other. Sanger may have had wacky views, but she was right about birth control.--Morg


So, if we're walking through the forest and I've seen you wrongly identify dozens of holes suddenly I'm supposed to find you credible the one instance when you MIGHT be right. Why should I listen to you if you've kookily wrong so often?

Same with Sanger. No one doubts her tireless advocacy for birth control but given her views on eugenics, race, and the disabled why should anyone take her legacy seriously. Besides, the Supreme Court in Griswold v Connectucut had far more positive influence on access to birth control, and Sanger's histrionics had nada to do with that decision.

Anonymous said...

That's just nonsense. If I say to you, "Shrub. Don't roll over that pine straw on the ground. It covers a hole," and you listen and avoid falling to your death, does it destroy my credibility in hole-detection if later I say that hippos a

Shrubbery said...

There are subsets in every group. The only people who point to subsets as the example are people intent on sullying the entire group. I don't feel like you're the type of person to do that, which is why I find all this harping on extremists so frustrating. Just because people are shrill enough to be heard doesn't mean they represent the marjority. The fact is that most feminists today are busy working to rant and rave. The ones who do are more about activism and making noise than they are about exercising the rights we've gained. --Morg


I'll ask the question again, and the same critique holds for the GOP...if the extremists are not representative of the mainstream, why are they the only voices being heard? The deafening silence is a tacit approval of the message.

thimscool said...

You know… I can’t get that freaky doll out of my head now, Morgan. I remember it vividly, and it was traumatizing. I think I had nightmares for a week after I first saw that skit (maybe age 5).

I blame you when I wake up tonight screaming about grabbing a thick blanket and a bucket of water.
~~~

Shrub,

I hear you. There is no end to the damage done by certain theosophists. Sanger begat much more than sexual liberation through birth control... these things need to be discussed openly.

OTOH, Morgan is right in that shooting the messenger is not necessarily going to damage the message. Sanger was a turd. But birth control *is* good, no?

I very much support the spirit of your argument that the vanguard of feminism, today and in the past, is virulently anti-male. Not only does this belie any expressed wish for equality, but it also denies the overwhelming weight of historical evidence for the economic productive capacity of human males (as VD likes to point out). Nevertheless, it is valid to point out that we wouldn’t ever know the potential value of adding women to the money economy without so doing.

Here’s the rub: I would argue that women have already contributed much more than just pushing paper around. In my experience, properly placed women are a boon to the efficiency of many organizations, in ways that most men would never be able to replicate. Moreover, I have met a few women that were clearly thinking more quickly and comprehensively than I was. Laugh, if you will, but this was during a Q&A session in a class on a Hamiltonian approach to Quantum Field Theory (for bound states). The woman in question, who incidentally was a mother of a one year old, asked such piercing questions of our maverick professor that the rest of the class was left to the role of spectator.

Anecdotal? Yes. But any libertarians here should see that the exception proves that you shouldn’t make a rule.

Let women play, if they’re qualified. Why not?

Roland said...

Morgan - How many men do you know who want the family income cut?

I'm one.

Janet - However, you forget that the woman could work and the man could stay at home

True. But the breastfeeding is a lot tougher on the man, and the baby stays hungry. ;)

Eaglewood - I forgot to mention that I think that emotionally and mentally women in general are better suited to the general raising of children than men.

I fully agree. I am a bad tempered lout way too often. My wife is far more nurturing. Mind you, this is a generalization, and the roles can be reveresed, but not usually.

Morgan - I also admire the fact that you're teaching both your son and daughter the value of family first.

Right on!
I have a job to support my family.
I don't have a family to support my job.

-------

I don't think anyone here disagrees with anyone else, all that much.

Everyone here thinks that a woman should be able to get a job if she can perform up to standards.

Most of the differences are because we view feminism differently.

Men look at the rabid femi-nazi.
Women look at the freed "slave".

Men tend to get too controlling. Women just got tired of the abuse of power men had. (Morgan's right about the 50's-60's woman)

I couldn't beat Billy with a stick. It would be like hitting myself in a way too.

Well, I'm done slamming my neanderthal brow on the keyboard.

(knuckles dragging while going to find hutn and gather food from fridge, "Ungh")

Janet said...

"If mainstream feminists are not as bileful as those who do condemn stay-at-home mothers, why do they continually let the extremists hijack the debate. The so-called mainstream feminists are very quiet indeed."

Personally, I feel I am quite loud. *8)

Janet said...

"I'll ask the question again, and the same critique holds for the GOP...if the extremists are not representative of the mainstream, why are they the only voices being heard? The deafening silence is a tacit approval of the message. "

And I'll answer again, I am quite loud. The thing is, people love the extremist message. Why is it all we hear about Christians are the extremists? Same reason. People like a story. About a month ago I wrote a post about how feminism is about choices, to stay at home or to not stay at home in response to Linda Hirshman who is one of those loud feminists you speak of. Why was she on the news? People love a story, simple enough reason.

Roland said...

Good point, Janet. The story seems to drive a lot of things nowadays. (

*tummy full, now, feel better*

Your vocalizations are not good "news".

Keep talking, though. Some people listen.

BoysMom said...

Seems like some folks think the man is supposed to focus on the career/job and the woman on the family. Family should come before career/job for both men and women.
Ideally, if both parents could work from home or include their children at their workplace, that would be best for the children. (Assuming, you know, good, sane, responsible parents.)
This is best for the children because they get to learn and mimic good adult behaviors. A child in a group of other children with just one adult such as we see in daycares or schools isn't getting to learn good adult behavior. The adult does not have time to model good behavior because he is so busy with everything else he has to be doing.
If we can't have both parents at home with the children, or the children with the parents, then obviously we want to come as close as we can, and I think that's what most of us around these parts do, each family in their own way.
When I say 'at home', I don't mean that families should stay physically in the house. I mean that home should be the center fixture in the family's life. From whence they may or may not frequently depart to do other activities.
Morgan, it sounds like your friend's in a pretty difficult position. Has she calculated everything her salery goes to (pre-preped food, gas, second car and it's expenses, professional clothing, taxes in higher bracket, childcare) and shown that to her husband? They might find, if she's not working a particularly well paying job (I've heard $40K or below in general) that she's not making anything beyond work-caused expenses, truck and boat notwithstanding. If the truck's a third vehicle, has she suggested selling the other two, since the truck sounds like it's part of his identity? Maybe she can find some other expense to get rid of besides his toys, since he's so attached. Maybe, too, he's thinking that if she stays home he'll have to make all the sacrifices to make it work while she sits around doing nothing all day. She's seeing that he values his truck and boat more than her staying home with their child, but I wouldn't be surprised if he sees an entirely different picture.

Morgan said...

"Same with Sanger. No one doubts her tireless advocacy for birth control but given her views on eugenics, race, and the disabled why should anyone take her legacy seriously."

A broken clock can be right twice a day, Shrub. Shanger's harsher views aside, her opinion on birth control was absolutely correct. I believe if you say the name "Margaret Sanger," and ask people what her legacy was, they will say, "She's the one who advocated for a woman's right to control her reproduction."
That's because the birth control fight is what she's remembered for. That's her legacy. The fact that you're frustrated that her uglier views aren't tied to her legacy (except by people who try to do so) doesn't change anything.

Morgan said...

"I'll ask the question again, and the same critique holds for the GOP...if the extremists are not representative of the mainstream, why are they the only voices being heard? The deafening silence is a tacit approval of the message."

But is it the mainstream feminists "approving" of the message or a slanted media, Shrub?
The ability of someone to get facetime on CNN or an interview in "The Boston Globe" isn't an indication of public approval.
It's an indication of media savvy.
It's a bit like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton appointing themselves the spokesmen for blacks. I can't tell you how many black people I know who are embarrassed to pieces by Jesse Jackson's showmanship, and are quick to say he does *not* represent them.

Janet is exactly right. The extremists get the play because the media loves a story.
If the silence is *deafening* Shrub, it's because mainstream feminists don't even bother to respond to them anymore. We're too busy working and raising our families.

Morgan said...

"Maybe, too, he's thinking that if she stays home he'll have to make all the sacrifices to make it work while she sits around doing nothing all day. She's seeing that he values his truck and boat more than her staying home with their child, but I wouldn't be surprised if he sees an entirely different picture."

We haven't talked a whole lot about it, but from what I gather they're pretty heavily in debt from their purchases. Both of them are big spenders. She's at the point she's ready to cut back, stay at home and live frugally; he's against it. I think part of it, in his defense, is that he realizes she's not just going to be able to stop shopping, and he'll be stuck paying for everything.

Morgan said...

"Here’s the rub: I would argue that women have already contributed much more than just pushing paper around."

Amen. I have to roll my eyes when Vox starts on his rants about women wasting their lives with Power Point presenatations. But I've realized it's trasferred frustration. It's not just women who put years into work that turns out to be deemed largely insignificant, and it's always easier to focus on others insignificance than your own.

Janet said...

"If the silence is *deafening* Shrub, it's because mainstream feminists don't even bother to respond to them anymore. We're too busy working and raising our families. "

Preach it now.... ;)

Shrubbery said...

If the silence is *deafening* Shrub, it's because mainstream feminists don't even bother to respond to them anymore. We're too busy working and raising our families.--Morg


That's the problem. I denigrate the extreme elements of feminism because they deserve it. You mainstream types, in my estimation, are far too passive in your approach. Have no doubt, you're fighting a culture war against many foes. Fuck the winning hearts & minds tact, employ the scorched earth method and clean your own house. Until the exteme voices are silenced or you've made it perfectly clear they're not representative your credibility as a feminist is perceptually weakened. I outlined what I percieve the three major problems with the movement are and you've said nothing that leads me to question my hypothesis. You are a stay-at-home mother Morg raising a beautiful family and to think there are those of Friedan's ilk who would say you're stifling your potential by doing so is maddeningly frustrating. The sad thing is the Friedans, Sangers, and Steinems are the most visible voices of feminism and until a more rational, less militant voice is heard the good work of Susan B Anthony and other rational minds will be drowned out. I'm fully in favor of women's suffrage, right to work, and for a level playing field but if I have to listen to shrill ass harpies I'm gonna blow a gasket.

Shrubbery said...

A broken clock can be right twice a day, Shrub. Shanger's harsher views aside, her opinion on birth control was absolutely correct. I believe if you say the name "Margaret Sanger," and ask people what her legacy was, they will say, "She's the one who advocated for a woman's right to control her reproduction."--Morg


Now that's just dumb. If a clock was only right twice a day would you still hang it on your wall? Hell no! And given Sanger's caustic beliefs you have to examine why Sanger fought so tirelessly for freedom to use birth control. Some of what I've read leads me to believe her rationale was centered on ensuring women had the same freedom to shag as men did, not for freedom's sake but because she viewed sexuality as a weakness and contraception was a method to tame the beast. In my not-so-humble opinion Sanger was not as much a women's rights advocate as she was a social engineer and atheistic evolutionist.

Morgan said...

"You are a stay-at-home mother Morg raising a beautiful family and to think there are those of Friedan's ilk who would say you're stifling your potential by doing so is maddeningly frustrating."

Shrub, it's only maddeningly frustrating to you. What you keep refusing to acknowledge - despite being told by two SAHM feminists - is that women like us no longer consider the fringe elements of feminism worth dignifying. We've put them on ignore, Shrub. And the only people whose attention they get now are people like you, Vox and other men who feel some need to identify feminists by the fringe elements.

"In my not-so-humble opinion Sanger was not as much a women's rights advocate as she was a social engineer and atheistic evolutionist."

And yet in the end, your opinion doesn't matter as much as her work does. She didn't succeed in implementing eugenics now, did she? But she did succeed in getting birth control into the hands of women. I personally am satisfied with both outcomes and am not about to dismiss her attempts in the latter due to her attempts at the former.

Sorry, Shrub. Your argument continues to fall flat. Boo for eugenics! Hooray for condoms!

Shrubbery said...

And yet in the end, your opinion doesn't matter as much as her work does. She didn't succeed in implementing eugenics now, did she? But she did succeed in getting birth control into the hands of women. I personally am satisfied with both outcomes and am not about to dismiss her attempts in the latter due to her attempts at the former.--Morg


It wasn't Sanger, it was the Supreme Court who made access to birth control legal. Sanger fought for it but ultimately her efforts had little to nothing to do with the legislative environment at the time and even less effect on the minds empaneled who decided Griswold v Conn.

Shrubbery said...

So, by your rationale, Jr, our illustrious president, should be looked at as a great economist because he was right about tax cuts even though the rest of his tenure has been a dismal failure. How is Sanger any different than the Dunce-in-Chief?

Taylor said...

Feminism has weakened the family unit, which has weakened the individual, which has weakened society, which has weakened the country. Its overall effect has been disastrous. That is indeed a high price to pay so that some females may *feel* fulfilled.

In order for the ideals of feminism to be achieved, the standards of just about everything have been lowered. Not only that, but men, the same men who built this great country, are being made to look like, at best, idiots, at worst, monsters. They have almost been neutered, rendered powerless. The very traits of masculinity are not to be tolerated. Little boys get medicated for such displays. Big boys get lawyers sicced on them.

From movies to TV, the same twisted message pervails – men are bad, stupid, evil - women are good, smart, heroic and can kick men’s asses to boot!

Feminism has taken the feminism out of women and the masculinity out of men. What you get is a really screwed up mess that is far from God’s design. And when you get away from that you end up with disaster.

Morgan said...

"It wasn't Sanger, it was the Supreme Court who made access to birth control legal. Sanger fought for it but ultimately her efforts had little to nothing to do with the legislative environment at the time and even less effect on the minds empaneled who decided Griswold v Conn."

Susan B. Anthony didn't win the women the right to vote, either, Shrub. But her work certainly paved the way, didn't it? Same with Sanger.

Man but you are grasping....

Morgan said...

"Feminism has taken the feminism out of women and the masculinity out of men. What you get is a really screwed up mess that is far from God’s design. And when you get away from that you end up with disaster."

My husband just came home for lunch, emanating testosterone and sweat. As he stood over my shoulder to ogle my voluptuous Double D, I asked him if - my being a feminist and all - whether he considered himself less masculine or me less feminine.

He said no, and would have surely ravished me right here had not the kids been in the room.

So there, Taylor.

Morgan said...

That should have been "Double D cleavage." I was, of course, referencing my impressive feminist rack. ;-)

Taylor said...

Ooh, now that's the way it's supposed to be. I'm talking overall, Double D woman.

Morgan said...

Taylor, I have the same complaints about culture. Yes, there's some hardcore social crusaders trying to convince us that women are the Dominant Species.

But in the end, people are more savvy than that. We all realize that men and women have their talents and strengths.

Fortunately, feminism gave us females the opportunity to exercise those talents rather than just being shuffled to the mommy path.

If you would rather go back in time and have your life decided based on gender, speak for yourself.

In the meantime, successful women still love the idea of a strong guy capable killing spiders *and* giving her a Triple X throwdown. Why do you think my fiction sells so well?

Some things just can't be changed.

JohnR said...

Morgan: that's what doorlocks are made for.

Or would all the noise upset the children?!?!?

JohnR

thimscool said...

"I'm fully in favor of women's suffrage, right to work, and for a level playing field but if I have to listen to shrill ass harpies I'm gonna blow a gasket."

LOL. Nice. I have to agree that fingernails on a blackboard are more sonerous than a young, self-obsessed feminist attack drone. I just fake Tourrets and then make for the rest room.

prettylady said...

If mainstream feminists are not as bileful as those who do condemn stay-at-home mothers, why do they continually let the extremists hijack the debate.

Janet has already answered this question, dear Shrub, but I will second it; because 'feminists' such as myself, who have gotten nearly all the way to considering themselves complete human beings, are far too busy living their own complete lives to have time for sandbox squabbling.

I think the issues so eloquently discussed here have far more to do with the steps any human takes on the way to maturity, than with 'feminism' in particular. For millennia, women's lives were circumscribed by reduced social responsibility, in comparison with men's. Thus they did not learn what true social responsibility actually entails, and have made some extreme mistakes on the way to acquiring it. All the egregious extremes that have been explored by the 'feminist' movement can, in my opinion, be compared to the rebellious extremes advocated by any seven-year-old who resents parental authority, and has not yet discovered that the parents are the ones (usually) feeding, clothing and housing him.

BillyD, I am most fond of you, but your rhetoric makes me laugh. Take all of Morgan's comments as coming from myself, as well.

Recently I have been thinking about the fact that personally, even though Pretty Lady is about the most glamorous, independent Career Woman in this group ;-), if I were to have a child, and a decent husband, there is no question in my mind that I would be a stay-at-home mother, if this were at all economically possible. It is self-evident that women have the nurturing, care-taking genes.

However, one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of 'feminism's' extremes has been to make a large number of the males of our generation into ridiculously irresponsible, immature, selfish bastards. Males (forgive me) have always had a tendency in this direction, even when society held their feet to the fire to a greater extent than it does now, and this fact was undoubtedly one of the goads of the original feminist movements.

But the sad fact is that I have rarely encountered a man who was willing and prepared to shoulder the financial burden of providing for myself and a theoretical family, preferring instead to indulge in all sorts of emotionally abusive, perverted hi-jinks as an alternative to being a Real Man. I acknowlege that I have not met All Men, and am intellectually and emotionally compatible with far fewer. But I feel that I, myself, have had little option but to shoulder all responsibilities in my own life, whether these be rightfully the man's or the woman's.

Billy D said...

Alright. Maybe we need to, going forward, distinguish between feminists, and feministas.
PL - you have just met a man who wants to shoulder the entire financial burden of his family. What's more, I have no idea what's in the bank, as my wife handles all of the finances. This is one part of running the household, which, IMHO is the females responsibility.
Yes, I am very old fashioned. Don't for a second think I go around disrespecting women. I believe they are beautiful and perfect, and should be treated like they were made of glass. Fragile and delicate. I hold doors, I don't curse around women (unless they do it first), etc. The term "the fairer sex" didn't originate by itself.
However, I do, on occasion, indulge in perverted hi-jinx with my better half.

Janet said...

"Shrub, it's only maddeningly frustrating to you. What you keep refusing to acknowledge - despite being told by two SAHM feminists - is that women like us no longer consider the fringe elements of feminism worth dignifying. We've put them on ignore, Shrub. And the only people whose attention they get now are people like you, Vox and other men who feel some need to identify feminists by the fringe elements."

Yes, and furthermore if someone like me posts at Vox I pretty much get insulted and bashed as best as possible. Is that the type of group I have *time* to waste with? No way. I don't have time to change idiots, so I will spend my precious time only where it will be worth while. So if the people over at Vox thing the only Feminists are ones who say women can't stay at home, then they need to open their eyes and look around-- and not just on this issue.

Morgan said...

"Alright. Maybe we need to, going forward, distinguish between feminists, and feministas."

Ah, finally. A breakthrough. I can see the ridge on your head beginning to shrink, my Neanderthal friend.

I'm glad you've stumbled from the darkness that still traps my beloved Shrub.

It is important to draw distinctions, and having a debate on feminism that focuses on the extremist man-hating faction is much like having a debate on Christianity that focuses on The Backwoods Snakehandling Church of Christ, or those folks who protest outside of funerals with signs saying "God Hates Fags."

Kooks are given a wide berth by sensible people, and feminists are no different. The reason the kooks are so shrill these days is because they know they're losing their audience, and feel they can compensate by talking louder and louder. But higher volume doesn't mean higher numbers. It just means higher volume.

"I believe they (women) are beautiful and perfect, and should be treated like they were made of glass. Fragile and delicate."

Oh, please don't. Some of us enjoy rough sex too much. ;-) Nice and respectful will do, thank you very much.

Morgan said...

"However, one of the unfortunate unintended consequences of 'feminism's' extremes has been to make a large number of the males of our generation into ridiculously irresponsible, immature, selfish bastards."

I agree completely. There are men -and women - out there who will look for any excuse to be less than noble, and the growing independence of women has been perceived by some men as permission to knock them from whatever pedestal females perched on in the pre-feminist era.

But I'd argue that men of quality and character are men of quality and character regardless of what social movements swirl around them. The feminist movement did nothing to persuade my husband to be anything less than a responsible, protective provider. There are lots of guys out there like him, I think, but I believe you're more likely to find them in smaller towns.

prettylady said...

There are lots of guys out there like him, I think, but I believe you're more likely to find them in smaller towns.

Why smaller towns, particularly? My experience with the smaller-town sort of person, unfortunately, is that they ask questions like, "oh, yer an artist? That's nahce. Do you paint portraits, or landscapes?"

Thus endeth the conversation, on any level that might be conducive to forming a long-term partnership with someone who actually gets where I'm coming from.

Morgan said...

"Why smaller towns, particularly? My experience with the smaller-town sort of person, unfortunately, is that they ask questions like, "oh, yer an artist? That's nahce. Do you paint portraits, or landscapes?"

Perhaps we're falling prey to mutual stereotypes here, Pretty Lady. I'm from a small town and surely hope my phone doesn't sound quite as you've described it here.
Also, a lack of understanding of art does not make someone stupid. I've told you about my neighbor, the woodworker. His understanding of art would likely be like you describe, but I'd put his hand-turned furniture up against your paintings any day. Just because something doesn't end up in some gallery being started at over a wine glass doesn't mean it isn't "art."

And despite his lack of whatever a true artist (whatever that is) considers "artistic" acumen, my neighbor is a good husband to his wife.

A good man with solid core values and a respect for women may be taught to appreciate art. A man with an artistic eye who disdains women is going to be a bit riskier proposition.

If you're looking for someone to park his shoes under your bed permanently, it would be great to find an artist in town who appreciates women. If you can't, don't be so quick to dismiss the men who know little about art but love the ladies. ;-) I know quite a few of them.

Morgan said...

I'm going to clarify my last post a little because after reading it I realized I came off sounding a bit bitchy to Pretty Lady, which wasn't my intention.

I think what bothered me about what she said is that women are off to write off people who don't share their interests or fully appreciate or understand what they do.

But the best thing I ever did was marry a guy who is a non-writer. I know quite a few writer-marriages that ended up tanking because both parties were just too much alike. Creative people can be mercurial, high strung, idealistic, manic and moody. Not all of them and not all the time, but we have our moments.

Larry doesn't really 'get' what I do, but he appreciates it the same way I've always appreciated his interests. For instance, I appreciate the plants and love gardening, but I don't 'get' it to the extent he does.

I think there's a reason opposites attract. The energies play well off of each other.

I just hate to think that some of those guys Pretty Lady passed off as intellectually beneath her may have been potentially good mates that she judged unfit based on a narrow criteria.

A remedial knowledge of art doesn't mean one is a dunce or can't learn. I've enjoyed expanding my remedial knowledge of plants under Larry's watch. I can now keep orchids alive all by myself. Who knew? And he's developed an appreciation for writers and writing under my watch.

So there you go.

Shrubbery said...

I'm glad you've stumbled from the darkness that still traps my beloved Shrub.--Morg


You disapoint me Auntie Morgan. I didn't denigrate the entire movement, just the pagan idolatry of a few wing nuts. Feminism has been an invaluable tool in the fight for gender equality. But I point out three glaring strategical failures on the part of feminism and suddenly my hips dislocate, my achilles' tendon shortens, and my knuckles leave trails in the sand. Amusing. You'll find no more vocal critic of Vox's anti-universal suffrage theory than me. I went toe to toe with him for nearly a week about his illogical bias. So please don't label me a mysogynist (sp?)

But your and PL's, and Janet's reaction was sadly predictable. Feminists, almost without exception, can't tolerate criticism of their icons. And disagree with the extreme elements within your own movement but if you continue in silence you're endorsing the message. Every woman here is fiercely intelligent and could grind those over at Feministe.com into mulch yet you and others don't fight to be heard. And all this talk of life getting in the way is bunk. If you truly wanted to change the direction of the movement you would, you've just chosen not to. Yes, I'm being an ass but when I see gifted and sensible voices sitting on the sidelines it frustrates me. I watched my mom toil for 30+ for shit bosses making 75% of her male counterparts and I heard the same defeatist attitude in her voice I've heard you and many feminists put forth. I'll be frank ladies...put up or shut up.

Morgan said...

"Feminists, almost without exception, can't tolerate criticism of their icons. And disagree with the extreme elements within your own movement but if you continue in silence you're endorsing the message."

Conservative Christians, almost without exception, can't tolerate criticism of their icons. Why, just today it was reported that Pat Robertson said the U.S. is going to be hit by tsunami. I went on your blog, Shrub, and you didn't have a damn thing refuting it. I can only interpret your silence as an endorsement. Your reaction was sadly predictable.

If you don't want to be defined by Falwell, Robertson and Swaggart you need to either put up or shut up. If you don't devote your time to defending your faith against the radical elements, I can only surmise that you agree with everything they say.

Janet said...

Shrub, if you want to be treated with respect, I suggest you treat others with respect. I don't believe the tone of your post dignifies a response. You are exactly the kind of person I don't have time to deal with.

Morgan said...

And Shrub, no one said you're a mysoginist. We've only pointed out that there's a shred of something in you that wants to demand that feminists accept the extreme elements as the face of the movement - and spend our time defending our views against theirs - because you tell us to.
I think what we're saying to you - nicely - is stuff it.

Morgan said...

Janet,
Hey now. I can't speak for Shrub entirely but he's a nice guy. He's just got his back up. We've rolled around in the mud throwing punches like this before and shook hands afterward.
Tones can be misinterpreted and while there are some true troglodytes in this world, Shrub isn't one of them.
He's my homey. ;-)

Morgan said...

"I watched my mom toil for 30+ for shit bosses making 75% of her male counterparts and I heard the same defeatist attitude in her voice I've heard you and many feminists put forth."

This gets the Misdirected Indignation Award of the day.
Shrub, if she was getting 75 percent of the pay her male counterparts got, feminism wasn't her problem.

Your synapses must be misfiring.

Shrubbery said...

Conservative Christians, almost without exception, can't tolerate criticism of their icons. Why, just today it was reported that Pat Robertson said the U.S. is going to be hit by tsunami. I went on your blog, Shrub, and you didn't have a damn thing refuting it. I can only interpret your silence as an endorsement. Your reaction was sadly predictable.--Morg


Are you mad? The difference is I've never identified myself as being part of any movement, save the Democratic party which I've since registered Independent. You however, have identified yourself as a feminist. If you can't see the difference then nothing I can say shall make any headway. If I was indeed a devout member of the Christian faith and a conservative your criticism might ring true.

Shrubbery said...

Shrub, if you want to be treated with respect, I suggest you treat others with respect. I don't believe the tone of your post dignifies a response. You are exactly the kind of person I don't have time to deal with.--Janet


Fair enough. My last post was a skoch confrontational and mean. My apologies if I offended, t'was not my intent.

Shrubbery said...

And Shrub, no one said you're a mysoginist. We've only pointed out that there's a shred of something in you that wants to demand that feminists accept the extreme elements as the face of the movement - and spend our time defending our views against theirs - because you tell us to.
I think what we're saying to you - nicely - is stuff it.--Morg


Once again, fair enough. You've fought admirably. I still won though. ;)~

Shrubbery said...

Janet,
Hey now. I can't speak for Shrub entirely but he's a nice guy. He's just got his back up. We've rolled around in the mud throwing punches like this before and shook hands afterward.
Tones can be misinterpreted and while there are some true troglodytes in this world, Shrub isn't one of them.
He's my homey. ;-)--Morg


AWWWWWWWW...thanks Auntie Morg.

Oh, Janet...how you like me now *hides behind Auntie Morg's double D's*

Shrubbery said...

This gets the Misdirected Indignation Award of the day.
Shrub, if she was getting 75 percent of the pay her male counterparts got, feminism wasn't her problem.--Morg


Just trying to draw a parallel. T'was awkward I admit.

Morgan said...

Sorry Shrub. I got you confused with Billy. ;-) Testicle Tuesday should have bought me a clue that you weren't a conservative Christian.

I guess I'll have to identify you with Ross Perot instead. I mean, I have to identify you with someone, right? Once you identify yourself as being anything - even a political independent, it leaves you free to be defined labeled and stuck in whatever slot I chose to stick you in. Of course, that's provided they have no other way to make a point. ;-)

The point is, Shrub, that you're wrong in this argument all the way around and as a lawyerly person, you have to know this.

Like I said, our ignoring the shrill extremists in the feminist movements is no more an endorsement than the majority Christians ignoring of Pat Robertson's latest wackjob pronouncement.

But you've got your back up because your whole argument against feminism was based on an element that's been pushed to the fringe. The only way you can win is to either get us to agree with the fringe or acknowledge or make us apologists for it. But the extremists are in the rear view mirror now, surrounded by dust.

And so is your argument.

Morgan said...

"Shrub, if she was getting 75 percent of the pay her male counterparts got, feminism wasn't her problem.--Morg"

You should just sit under them instead. In case it rains or something. ;-)

Morgan said...

Blah, I copied from the wrong post in respond. The above was in reply to Shrub's gratuitous titty comment.

Morgan said...

Once again, fair enough. You've fought admirably. I still won though. ;)~

Nuh-uh

thimscool said...

I dunno Morgan. I just reread Shrub's post and I have to say he's been pretty consistent throughout. He seems to be saying that he agrees with the rational goals of feminism, many of which have been achieved. But he thinks that in order to move to the next step (un-arguable widespread acceptance) that feminism must repudiate it's excesses in the past.

Every major political movement has, at its core, extremists. And ultimately, in order to become mainstream, the movement must visibly shed it's rebellious trappings.

I'd also note that Shrub has been quite eloquent in his support of this thesis, even if his point is interpreted as an attack rather than an endorsement.

I recommend a reread from that perspective...

thimscool said...

*miss*interpreted as an attack...

Shrubbery said...

I dunno Morgan. I just reread Shrub's post and I have to say he's been pretty consistent throughout. He seems to be saying that he agrees with the rational goals of feminism, many of which have been achieved. But he thinks that in order to move to the next step (un-arguable widespread acceptance) that feminism must repudiate it's excesses in the past.

Every major political movement has, at its core, extremists. And ultimately, in order to become mainstream, the movement must visibly shed it's rebellious trappings.

I'd also note that Shrub has been quite eloquent in his support of this thesis, even if his point is interpreted as an attack rather than an endorsement.

I recommend a reread from that perspective...--Thimscool


Whoa, you just crystalized my point most succinctly. You did it better in one fell swoop than I've done in a litany of posts. Well done and thanks for the props.

thimscool said...

"I point out three glaring strategical failures on the part of feminism and suddenly my hips dislocate, my achilles' tendon shortens, and my knuckles leave trails in the sand."

Well noted. But I belive it is "strategerical" failures...

Morgan said...

"Every major political movement has, at its core, extremists. And ultimately, in order to become mainstream, the movement must visibly shed it's rebellious trappings."

Well, to an extent that's true, Luke. But let's look at what it would take for that to happen. Someone - a spokesperson - would have to denounce the Dworkins and Steinems of the movement. And that message would have to be received. Sort of like a parishoner going to a priest. ;-) (You guys will probably like that analogy)

But here's the problem. Feminism has evolved into such a way of life for women that very few of us feel we're participating in an active movement anymore. With few exceptions, we're on equal footing for education and employment. There's little left to fight for, unless you're an extremist looking for a fight.

The extremists, lacking anything to fight about, are running around trying to create something to fight about. The Duke rape allegations are an example. Even before the facts were out, campus feminists were running around saying the guys were guilty. But I don't know of a single one of my mainstream feminist friends who's ready to see those boys convicted before the evidence is in. What's more, I don't see a single one of my mainstream feminist friends who *hopes* this rape happened. I have heard some left-wing feminist kook sound pretty hopeful that it happened.

The thing is, Luke and Shrub, that if you polled most women who support what feminism has done for this country, they'd disagree with what the extremists say.

But the mainstream feminists don't have a "spokesperson" because we don't feel the need for one. We've all sort of blended into society and don't consider ourselves warriors for a cause.

You guys seem to think that unless we appoint someone to speak for "us" who runs out and counters everything the extremists say, we're extremists, too. That's just ridiculous.

Morgan said...

I left out something. Remember when I said any collective denouncement by mainstream feminists of the radicals would have to be "received"?
That's the rub in all of this. People who're determined to saddle feminism with the stigma of its extreme elements *really* enjoy the Catch-22 mainstream feminists are in. Why? Because conservatives they don't want the mainstream feminists to have a way to denounce the extremists. If they did, they couldn't hold the extremeists up as the face of feminism and demonize it for political gain.

The conservatives ask for something impossible to qualify, and then claim victory when they don't get it.

It's clever, in a completely dishonest way.

Morgan said...

I kind of had a brain glitch. There is one mainstream feminist who's done more to spark debate than any other: Christina Hoff Sommers.

Years ago, I read her first book, "Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women."
Sommers is a feminist and her book was one of the first really hard-hitting critiques of the old guard.
She's since written one called "The War Against Boys" about how the pro-girl classroom environments are detrimental to male youth.

I'd recommend either book; she's an impressive writer and desptie criticism from the extremists, both her books sold very well, if that tells you anything.

But I still don't consider Sommers a "spokesperson" for mainstream feminists because intergrated people don't feel they need one, and most feminists feel integrated. The only people who want us to get a spokesperson are the ones who want to marginalize all of us.

thimscool said...

“Someone - a spokesperson - would have to denounce the Dworkins and Steinems of the movement. And that message would have to be received. Sort of like a parishoner going to a priest. ;-) (You guys will probably like that analogy)”

How about the “Lizard Queen”, as Vox-a-saurus-rexie likes to call her?

Yes, it will take a spokesperson, and a significant gathering. Why is this difficult to understand? There is clearly unfinished business. Would you rather leave it ambiguous?

Let’s hash it out.

Morgan said...

"How about the “Lizard Queen”, as Vox-a-saurus-rexie likes to call her?"

Such imbecilic name-calling is just one of the ways Vox has chosen to embarrass himself.

"Yes, it will take a spokesperson, and a significant gathering. Why is this difficult to understand? There is clearly unfinished business. Would you rather leave it ambiguous?"

Who's calling for a spokesman and a gathering, Luke? You? Shrub? Other men who agree with you? What's this "unfinished business?"
Whom are we supposed to be satisfying?

Like I said, mainstream feminists haven't mainstreamed in some world separate and apart from men. We've mainstreamed into what used to be a man's world. We're the person across from you in the conference room, the paramedic who intubates you at the accident scene. We're the person who teaches at the local school. We're the scientist researching a cure for cancer.
Most women would tell you they appreciate the gains made by feminists, the gains that put them there. And you're going to sit here and tell me that they have to appoint spokesperson to denounce some extremists so you'll be satisfied? And to what end?

While you're at it, could one of you guys appoint a fellow white person to apologize for slavery? We white people don't have A Spokesman, so how can anyone take us seriously if we individually denounce it now? Luke, if you tell me you think slavery is deplorable, I simply can't believe you. Not until you've gotten a spokesman to speak for all of us. Only then will you be credible.

Yes, by all means, let's hash this out.

prettylady said...

yet you and others don't fight to be heard.

Gracious, Shrub. Ye of Little Imagination. I handle my extremist feminist friends in exactly the way I handle Vox; I tap them intimately upon the shoulder and say, "sweetheart, you are BRILLIANT. But have you QUITE considered..."

Most effective. 'Fight to be heard,' indeed. There are other ways, infinitely superior to your masculine 'fight' paradigm.

You boys, yet, do not fully understand the Power of Woman. Much as you pretend to espouse it, you are powerless beneath its sway.

And Morgan, re: your 'bitchy' comment--intelligence is an elastic concept, you are quite correct. And I have no desire to marry another artist--most male artists are irresponsible and improvident by nature.

But baseline cultural literacy is a priori if one is to pretend to the hand of Pretty Lady. Failure to be Quite Up on the current Chelsea exhibitions is forgiveable; total ignorance of art history for the last one hundred and fifty years is not. I, at least, am passingly familiar with the fact that World War II occurred, even though I was not a History major.

thimscool said...

"Who's calling for a spokesman and a gathering, Luke? You? Shrub? Other men who agree with you?"

Me. Maybe others, if they want peace.

"What's this 'unfinished business?'"

There is no "separate but equal". Women and men are different. How should this be reflected in society and law?

Whom are we supposed to be satisfying?

Sigh. Did you support ERA?

thimscool said...

"While you're at it, could one of you guys appoint a fellow white person to apologize for slavery?"

I smell a burnt motor.

I think slavery has been thoroughly repudiated by numerous white male authority figures. Does that stop racism? No. But it does relegate it to Al Bundy world. I wish that old-school feminsts like Morgan would get the point.

Meanwhile, when are women in authority going to speak out against eugenics?

Mmmm. Loaded question, eh Morgan?

MikeT said...

Feminism has a long way to go toward telling girls that if they want to be scientists and engineers that they will face a hard academic road ahead of them. Science and engineering are not well-suited to women because they can often be demanding enough to force a woman to decide between knowing her kids and advancement. I have yet to meet a feminist that has a clue as to why that is.

Well, it's really simple. The years where you get the experience to make something of yourself are the years that you would be having babies. Unlike most fields, you can't leave for a few years and expect to come back as anything other than maybe what you left as--if you're lucky. In any engineering pursuit if you leave for five or more years you can basically disqualify yourself for anything beyond entry level or just under intermediate level work unless you left with a significant amount of experience.

And why should that change? "Good effort" doesn't mean much in those fields. Knowledge, experience and expertise do. A 35 year old woman who has 5 years of engineering experience from 10 years ago doesn't deserve the same money as a man with 5 years of current experience, no matter how good she was "back then."

Women have just got to accept it that if they want these jobs, chances are they will sacrifice a lot more than they're bargaining for.

thimscool said...

"You boys, yet, do not fully understand the Power of Woman. Much as you pretend to espouse it, you are powerless beneath its sway."

Boys?

I don't know where I pretended to espouse the Power of Woman.

But as long as I am held powerless, why not enlighten me about the nature of this PoW...

Morgan said...

"Mmmm. Loaded question, eh Morgan?"

No, just a silly one. I doubt most women even know about Sanger's stance on eugenics. It was eclipsed by her birth control advocacy, which is what she was known for.

And while racists are relegated to "Al Bundy" status by most white men, radical,man-hating feminists are relegated to relic status by today's women.

If there was an ongoing feminist movement, you might actually have a point, Luke. But the movement is largley over. There is no wholesale feminist movement today, just feminists. To define all of them by the radicals is ridiculous.

Labeling is a dying male authority's last attempt to keep women in their place.

Morgan said...

"Sigh. Did you support ERA?"

I was too young to even comprehend the ERA debate when it took place. It's not even ongoing. I guess the crazed majority of radical feminists that lurks in your imagination just hasn't gotten its act together, huh?

And if they did revive the ERA as it was, I would not support it.

Morgan said...

"Women have just got to accept it that if they want these jobs, chances are they will sacrifice a lot more than they're bargaining for."

You are exactly right, miket. There are jobs better suited to men. I know some brilliant women engineers and one brilliant woman mathemitician (believe it or not, I met the mathemitician through my sewing group). But there are far more men in the field because men generally do excel in math and science.

That said, isn't it wonderful that women who do have the talents to pursue these fields aren't shut out because of their gender?

The demands of their chosen career may indeed be such that they never see motherhood, but such is the burden that comes with the *choice* of determining one's own destinty.

I've heard plenty of people (almost always men) wring their hands over how dedication to career has "robbed" so many women of their fertile years. These men blame feminism, but it's misplaced. I've made decisions in my life - some good and some bad - but they were my decisions to make. I can't blame the feminist movement. I can only blame my choices. But I would not ever wnat to go back to a time when I didn't have the choices to make.

Morgan said...

"But as long as I am held powerless, why not enlighten me about the nature of this PoW... "


She'll tell you, but then she'll have to kill you.

Morgan said...

"There is no "separate but equal". Women and men are different. How should this be reflected in society and law?"

Don't you think this is an evolving process at this point, Luke? I do. I see a lot of debate, but no marches in the streets, no groups of sign-wielding women holding press conferences.

And remember, this societal evolution has benefits for men, too. As the playing field levels, it's no longer a given that a woman can walk out of the marriage and automatically take the kids. I know several custodial fathers.

"I wish that old-school feminsts like Morgan would get the point."

Oh, yes, here I am working at home waiting for my youngest to wake up so we can fingerpaint and go to the park. I am SUCH an old school feminist. ;-)

JohnR said...

Morgan: The Lizard Queen reference, I believe, comes from Jim Morrison's "The Celebration of the Lizard" poem.

"I am the Lizard King.
I can do anything.
I can make the Earth stop in it's tracks.
I can make the blue cars go away."

The 'I can do anything' line can be taken to refer to Hillary's arrogance in Vox's mind. Only through her can the necessary goal be met. How savior-like of her.

When you refer to certain Christians as "True Christians(with trademark)how are you different than Vox? It is name calling is it not?

Men getting custody of the kids? I would guess any research would show that women by far get custody most of the time. The woman would have to really be the worst kind of person to lose custody.


The level playing field here has only made it easier to destroy families from both ends. And don't women still come off worse economically from divorce. I have not heard anything different on this lately.

JohnR

Morgan said...

Sorry, JohnR. Vox's "Lizard Queen" references are about as sophmoric as his referring to Maulkin as "Me-So." Of course this is a matter of opinion it's obvious that my True Christians™ strike you as much the same, so there you go.


"The woman would have to really be the worst kind of person to lose custody."

That's not necessarily the case anymore. I've seen a few instances where they mother and father were both good parents but the father edged her out. The reason I think more mothers get custody is that so few fathers really fight for it. A lot of divorced dads not to be saddled with the kids, especially if they ended the marriage.

"The level playing field here has only made it easier to destroy families from both ends."

So then, John, would you roll back the clock on us women if you could? Would you limit access to jobs and education if you were appointed King, or Lizard King? Yes, not all the choices have been good for women or society. Does that mean women shouldn't have choices? Other choices are bad for society, too. The choice to drink leads to alocholism and broken homes. You want to take away the choice to drink? Think of how many families you'd save....

Just how far are you willing to go, John?

prettylady said...

"But as long as I am held powerless, why not enlighten me about the nature of this PoW... "


She'll tell you, but then she'll have to kill you.


Not at all. Pretty Lady has been playing poker with all of her cards face up upon the table, and all of you dear gentlemen still remain clueless as to her methods. It is so very cute and endearing, and it is why we ladies are so desperately fond of you.

Janet said...

Ahhh, this moves too fast and I can't keep up:

"He seems to be saying that he agrees with the rational goals of feminism, many of which have been achieved. But he thinks that in order to move to the next step (un-arguable widespread acceptance) that feminism must repudiate it's excesses in the past."

Is this what is going on? All I know is its pretty frustrating when you're doing your best to do the "right" thing, live accordingly, and clear up misconceptions only to be told that you are doing a completely useless job at doing so.

I do what I can to fight extremist feminism just as I fight extremist Christianity, and I'll start right here at home by raising a feminist non-excluvism son (and more, should I be so blessed) O:)

JohnR said...

Morgan: Lighten Up!!

I was referring strictly to divorce. Divorce laws were liberalized and the results were not as advantageous for women, were they?

Despite claim to the contrary there is no golden age and I have no desire to go back to any imagined past.

Oh, and my brother's ex-wife might be charitably called a whore but she got the kid, and my brother got stuck paying child-support for her son from a previous marriage for about 2 years. And he fought for custody, so did my father but that was back in the early 60s.

Stop looking for a reason to be pissed off at me.

I like you, really I do.

JohnR

Morgan said...

"I do what I can to fight extremist feminism just as I fight extremist Christianity, and I'll start right here at home by raising a feminist non-excluvism son (and more, should I be so blessed) O:) "

Amen, Janet. That's all any of us can do. I have three sons and two daughters and have taught them that they should develop their skills and passions into work they love. We've never taught our kids that housework is "woman's work" or that earning an income is a "man thing." Running a family takes two people, and it doesn't make a woman less feminine or a man less masculine to share the burden in all areas.
We've never pampered our kids or taught them that they should get special favors, or told them that the world owes them a living. I've never wanted to unleash a "Mama's boys" or "Daddy's princess" into the world, but mature people capable of making their own way while respecting themselves and others. That's really all any of us can do, and just by doing that we counter extreme Christianity and extreme feminism right there.

"I was referring strictly to divorce. Divorce laws were liberalized and the results were not as advantageous for women, were they?"

Yes, divorce laws were liberalized, but I don't think you can necessarily lay this at the feet of feminism, or say that it's always a bad thing. Yes, it made it easier for guys like Newt Gingrich to dump their wives, but it also made it easier for women to get out of a marriage where she's treated like a slave.
The downside is that people also use the laws too readily, but again, do we toughen things up or do we allow people the freedom to make their own mistakes.

People who say they value marriage would be better off fighting for tougher divorce laws, but they're too busy attacking gay marriage.


"Stop looking for a reason to be pissed off at me. I like you, really I do."


I like you, too, JohnR. And I wasn't pissed. Just adamant. People want to blame feminism for divorce, but it takes two people to make a marriage work. Usually when it comes to and end there's enough blame to go around.

Again, to me, it comes back to freedom. With enough restrictions, the trains would run on time, kids would be obedient and we'd all be perfect wives and husband for fear of breaking the law. But I don't think I'd want to live like that, not even for the sake of order.

Roland said...

Do I change diapers because of the feminist movement?

If so, heck yes we should wind back the clocks! ;)

Oh well, gotta go fold laundry. ;)

Are my knuckles still dragging?

Morgan said...

"Are my knuckles still dragging?"

I never said you knuckles were dragging. And it's a good thing. You'd get blood on the laundry.

Besides, it's not so bad if the guy's knuckles drag a little bit. I kind of find my husband's primal protectiveness endearing. When the dogs start barking all at once and he goes outside to check things out, it makes me feel very good indeed. He'll have a better chance against what's out there, being bigger and having better aim
On the other hand, I have better insight into our child's mind. As I reminded my husband just yesterday, if you see a three-year old trying to cram a Lego up his nose, you just take it away. You don't stand there asking the kid why he's trying to stick a Lego up his nose. There's no good answer to be gained because there's no good reason to stick a Lego up one's nose. It's just something that kids *do.*

Roland said...

Hmm...
My son got gum up his nose. Went to the doctor for it too. Glad I wasn't there!

My wife pulled a bead out the other day.

The little bit of toilet paper got sneezed out.

We must suck at parenting! ;D

Morgan said...

Roland,

Get this: One of my best friend's sons stuck a piece of dried rabbit poop so far up his nose they had to take him to the ER.

It's amazing they make it out of childhood. Heck, it's amazing *we* survive their childhood.

Geesh, listen to me prattling on about children. I almost forgot I'm an old-school feminist. Pardon me while I go look for some balls to bust...;-)

Roland said...

:D
Great Morgan! If my son wouldn't have held still they would have taken him there. My 7 year old, Sequoia, got to hold the light while the doctor pulled the gum out of Quillan's nose. (I think they enjoyed it too much!)
Why he put it there in the first place is truly a gifted thought: His nose was runny.

He is very inventive. At 2 he was dismantling the child gate with a screwdriver I left out.
*Men! Put your tools away!*
*Yeah, those ones too.*

And don't bust balls, you crazy feminist. Just watch us men do it to ourselves! :)

thimscool said...

“If there was an ongoing feminist movement, you might actually have a point, Luke. But the movement is largely over. There is no wholesale feminist movement today, just feminists. To define all of them by the radicals is ridiculous.”

I see… ists without isms. How interesting.

So the goals were all achieved, and now women are so empowered that they can focus on choosing their lives, rather than on gaining the power to make choices. We’ve won, so now we can all ride off into our sunsets.

If I saw things that way, then I would no longer call myself a feminist. But I do call myself a feminist. Rather than taking my criticism so personally, you may want to reflect that I am also criticizing myself.

thimscool said...

“I was too young to even comprehend the ERA debate when it took place. It's not even ongoing. I guess the crazed majority of radical feminists that lurks in your imagination just hasn't gotten its act together, huh?”

Geeze. Why so bitter, Morgan? And Janet, nobody said you’re doing a “completely useless job”.

I was also too young to have a clue at the time. But yes, that was the high water mark, and the gold standard of the movement. Why do you think it failed? Because of the entrenched patriarchy? No. It failed because a certain percentage of otherwise reasonable folk were scared shitless by the same people that were galvanizing the movement.

But those days are long gone now, and maybe Shrub and I are just stuck on retro mode. Meanwhile the real feminists are out living it up without their ism. Sorry to rain on your parade. By all means, carry on with the celebration…

thimscool said...

“Don't you think this is an evolving process at this point, Luke? I do. I see a lot of debate, but no marches in the streets, no groups of sign-wielding women holding press conferences.”

I don’t know. I think that women still need a strong advocate, and a political voice. I grant that the days of marching in the streets are over, for now. But there is still a purpose for the League of Women’s Voters, and I think that there will continue to be high-profile women’s issues for years to come.

But leaving aside politics and law, my future daughter will be better off if the attitudes you are espousing become more widespread. And to become more widespread, some of the hard edges need to come off of "feminism", as it is perceived by those who are not yet converted (not you, Janet, or me).

You may say that you don’t give a darn what the troglodytes think, but that is defeatist. You don't have to suffer trolls, but you should try to change hearts and minds. If there are some (I'd contend many) that cannot get past the barrier of the agressive "better than you can" feminista stereotype, then you've gotta find another way to meet them and ply their conscience.

That's all I'm saying.

thimscool said...

“all of you dear gentlemen still remain clueless as to [Pretty Lady’s] methods. It is so very cute and endearing, and it is why we ladies are so desperately fond of you.”

I think maybe you’re just trying to lure me into the woods so you won’t have to drag the body as far.

thimscool said...

"Geesh, listen to me prattling on about children. I almost forgot I'm an old-school feminist. Pardon me while I go look for some balls to bust...;-)"

I formally, humbly apologize for calling you an "Old school feminist". I utterly retract that sentence. Sorry.

Having said that, you are a bit of a ballbuster!

Morgan said...

"I see… ists without isms. How interesting."

You don't think people can identify and appreciate a struggle even after it's won, and be prepared to fight to keep their rights if someone does try to roll back the clock?

"Geeze. Why so bitter, Morgan?"

When women get irritated over ridiculous questions, why is assumed that we're bitter, rather than irritated? The ERA question was lame, Luke.

"No. It failed because a certain percentage of otherwise reasonable folk were scared shitless by the same people that were galvanizing the movement."

It also failed because many women were opposed to it. You'll note that the failure of the ERA didn't stop women from making inroads, did it? That was because - just as now - the mainstream feminist forged ahead as an extremist feminist cause was left to die. And yet you and others continue to judge the mainstream feminists by where we are and what we're doing today, but by a bunch of harridans from the 1970's. This is why I get irritated, Luke.

"I don’t know. I think that women still need a strong advocate, and a political voice. I grant that the days of marching in the streets are over, for now. But there is still a purpose for the League of Women’s Voters, and I think that there will continue to be high-profile women’s issues for years to come."

Um, Luke. Issues that women care about the most are issues that affect not just them but their families - health care, childcare, etc. More men today realize that these issues aren't just women's issues, but their issues, too.

That's why - while the League of Women Voters and such groups certainly do good things - having men and women work together is far better than making issues and advocacy groups gender specific.

As a man who also calls himself a feminist, you should understand this more than anyone else.

"But leaving aside politics and law, my future daughter will be better off if the attitudes you are espousing become more widespread."

This is true, but the best way for that edge of those attitudes to be removed is not to sharpen it with too much attention, and nothing will dull that edge rather than to ignore it and let it fade away.

There will always be extremists, but you only have to look around to see how quickly they are dismissed. Remember the Cynthia McKinney incident on Capitol Hill? She tried to turn that into a civil rights issue and everyone distanced themselves from her, including other liberals. Extremists have a way of imploding, Luke, especially when they have to create their own arguments.

I'm not even listening to these people; I have to wonder why you pay them so much attention.

Morgan said...

"Having said that, you are a bit of a ballbuster!"

Thank you, but I think I've been reformed after Roland's advice. He's right. It's more fun watching you guys bust your own. ;-)

Morgan said...

And yet you and others continue to judge the mainstream feminists by where we are and what we're doing today, but by a bunch of harridans from the 1970's."

I left out a key word here. The above should have read: "And yet you and others continue to judge the mainstream feminists NOT by where we are and what we're doing today, but by a bunch of harridans from the 1970's."

Roland said...

I forget.
Is feminism good or bad?
Or should I quit trying to figure it out and stick something up my nose? :D

Morgan said...

Perhaps we should put this to a voice vote.

I'll go first.

Feminism has been good for me. I wouldn't want to go back to the way it was in the 40's.

Roland said...

As much as I hate not being lord and tyrant in my home, I wouldn't want it to go back to the forties either.
Of course, I don't like all the "my body, my life" stuff either.

I guess it comes down to treating others like people and not slaves.

Feminism can stay.
(Magnanimous of me to allow, huh) ;)

Morgan said...

"Feminism can stay."

It can!! Oh, I am so happy, hon. It must have been hard work deciding to let feminism stay. Here, sit down. Let me get you some iced tea...
*wink*

dlkjdfsa said...

What the hell happened>?

Morgan said...

"What the hell happened>? "

I decided to let the men decide if we could keep feminism. Roland said it could. Isn't that grand? Now we're celebrating. Would you like some iced tea, Southside Rabbitslayer?

thimscool said...

“When women get irritated over ridiculous questions, why is assumed that we're bitter, rather than irritated? The ERA question was lame, Luke.”

How charming. Bitter taste, no doubt. But I’ll persevere on behalf of the cause. I know that will bring you joy to hear.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


Lame indeed. It’s practically embedded in our culture anyway, since we ‘won’. Who really cares that such an amendment would constrain the Supreme Court? Everything’s cool. Look, we can do what we want to! We’ve signed on 35 of 38 states necessary, and damn that sounds like it’s almost a passing grade. Gold stars all around.

For any remaining conversational rubberneckers, check out www.equalrightsamendment.org. Its what comes up eighth on google when you type in “ERA”. Two slots under “Introduction to the Mesozoic Era”. Stranger than fiction.

dlkjdfsa said...

You let the men decide? Are you out of your mind. Yes, I would like some Iced tea, thank you!

Janet said...

Feminism needs to stay, because its work is not yet finished. Its not going to be overnight and its not going to be easy but it will happen. And I'm not going to riot to cause it to happen because I think works of this sort are slooooowwww.... attitudes don't change overnight, and there are still a lot of negative attitudes towards strong women, women in the work place, etc.

Roland said...

Wow! I love iced tea!
Can't wait to tell everyone how great feminism is!

*sip*
Hey! What's in this tea?!
*choke*
*gasp*
*thump*

Whew! That's good tea! Quite a kick, though.
May I have another?

Roland said...

Hey, Janet.
I don't have anything against strong women. My wife even bought me a Xena poster once. ;)

Morgan said...

"Lame indeed. It’s practically embedded in our culture anyway, since we ‘won’. Who really cares that such an amendment would constrain the Supreme Court?"

Thanks for the info, Luke. As one of the many feminists who hasn't Googled the equal rights ammendment, it doesn't surprise me that more people are Googling ERA real estate listings than the equal rights amendment.
I'm not sure what kind of point you are trying to prove by pointing out it's eighth on the search engine. An ardent fringe interest can still generate Google hits. I just typed in "sex" and "animals" into Google and the first hit was an entry about whether you can get STD from a sheep. I'm prone to believe sheep-fuckers are in the minority, but by using the Google Pulse of America test, I'd have to believe anything listed on the top ten of a Google search must represent a mainstream interest.

I'm glad you had fun perusing the ERA site, Luke. Like most other feminists who considers the whole movement a relic, I've never thought to consider Googling it. I believe I'm in the majority.

As the women here (of course, what do we know being women) keep pointing out, we're busy living our lives, building our careers and raising our families in post-feminist America. We aren't paying a whole lot of attention to fringe mysoginists or man-haters. But as soon it looks like *either side* is moving forward with an agenda that is not good for us, our daughters *or* ours sons, we'll be happy to step up.

Morgan said...

"And I'm not going to riot to cause it to happen because I think works of this sort are slooooowwww.... attitudes don't change overnight, and there are still a lot of negative attitudes towards strong women, women in the work place, etc."

I don't really know if there are that many negative attitudes. I know that when our paper recently hired a new managing editor, everyone was very happy with the choice, who happened to be a woman. I think when businesses are looking to put together a team, they want to get the candidate that will best add to the corporation or business. Businesses are so competitive these days, and the bottom line comes first. Also, it doesn't do a company any good to get a reputation for discrimination, considering that men and women are both consumers now. No one wants to alienate their client base.

I don't know many supervisors who would choose an incompetent man over a competent woman. Now, there may be situations where to equally qualified people - male and female - go up each other and one gets the job based on the hirers gender preferences. But such discrimination can't be proven if both are equal, and the jilted party shouldn't even try.

thimscool said...

"Like most other feminists who considers the whole movement a relic, I've never thought to consider Googling it. I believe I'm in the majority."

Glad you had a chance to google the animal sex, then.

My point, since you asked, was to note how little mindshare remains behind the ERA. Apparently you think this is appropriate for such a 'relic'. Personally, I'd like to see it pass.

But I'm lame.

Morgan said...

"Like most other feminists who considers the whole movement a relic, I've never thought to consider Googling it. I believe I'm in the majority."

I don't consider the movement a relic, just the ERA. Feminists as individuals continue to make inroads, just as Janet pointed out. But it's gained it's own momentum. The ERA is a relic. It failed because the majority of people - men and women - had problems with where it might lead.

I don't think that any legislation that may mandate women being drafted into combat roles would be good for national security, do you? But if there are no exceptions for gender, that's the sort of thing we might be looking at.

There are differences in the sexes, and public safety and the military shouldn't be compromised for a political agenda.

Women in this country have made great strides without the ERA, proving it can be done without such a broad and potentially problematic legislative mandate.

"Glad you had a chance to google the animal sex, then."

Well then, I'm glad I could give you the ammunition you needed to take such a cheap shot, Luke, although I'm disappointed to see you so readily pull the trigger.

Morgan said...

"But I'm lame."

Luke, I never said you were lame. I said I thought your argument was. Even brilliant people can make lame arguments. I do it all the time. ;-) If you told me my argument was lame, you could count on me not to take it personally.

thimscool said...

Whatever. It stinks in here.

"I don't think that any legislation that may mandate women being drafted into combat roles would be good for national security, do you?"

I'm against a draft on principle, but as far as women in the military, they would have to pass the same physical tests as the men, according to the terms of the ERA.

I think your argument is cowardly, Morgan.

Morgan said...

"I think your argument is cowardly, Morgan."

I don't think it's cowardly at all, Luke. The military, I think, stands to be a real sticking point for the passage of ERA, and with very good reason.

There are biological differences in men and women, and men are wired to protect women in dangerous situations. Even if a woman proved that she could physically handle combat, I'm have real concerns that the dynamic of men and women fighting side by side in a combat situation may not be a good one.

Also, I worry that the ERA might push legislation to lower standards for combat fitness, such as been done now on some police and firefighting forces. Surely you aren't in favor of that. But the ERA could very well set the stage for mandating that a percentage of combat troops be female, whether they were fit or not.

Of course there are arguments on the other side, but we're free to disagree.

I hardly think having the courage to look at where such an amendment may lead is "cowardly," Luke.
And if it stinks in here, check yourself. I'm not one bit angry with you and still like you just fine. I can easily separate individuals from their arguments and still call them "friend." Can you?

dlkjdfsa said...

I'm a big fan of strong women, especially smelling :)

Morgan said...

"I'm a big fan of strong women, especially smelling :)"

Eeewww.

That reminds me of what I once read about Napolean, who apparently felt the same way and sent a note to Josephine before heading back from battle: "I'll be home in seven days. Don't wash."

Morgan said...

No wait, it was three days. But something tells me Josephine was still a strong woman by the time Napolean reached her.

Janet said...

"I don't really know if there are that many negative attitudes."

Then you must just not spend much time around conservative Christians. The negative attitudes abound! Hey, I know, go spend some time over at Vox. That should remind you of the negative attitudes..... lol

thimscool said...

“There are biological differences in men and women, and men are wired to protect women in dangerous situations. Even if a woman proved that she could physically handle combat, I'm have real concerns that the dynamic of men and women fighting side by side in a combat situation may not be a good one.”

There are biological differences between men and men. Soldiers are trained to protect each other in dangerous situations. Only woman that have proved that they could physically handle combat should be there (more on that in a second). Dynamics between men and men aren’t always great either. But if it came to a battle for survival, and every gun counts, you can be sure I wouldn’t send a woman into the mess tent to cook up some brownies in case we win. This is just one more aspect of human nature that commanders will need to anticipate. There won’t be very many women there anyway if the physical requirements are set reasonably.
~~~

“I worry that the ERA might push legislation to lower standards for combat fitness, such as been done now on some police and firefighting forces.”

And how were those standards originally set? They were inconsequential or simply didn’t exist until someone died or got maimed on the job due to a weak fireman. Upon review, they created and then strengthened the standards to a level that was reasonable and achievable. If women firefighters, through feebleness, demonstrably fail to prevent deaths and injuries, then they better hit the weights because it’s time to strengthen the code. But the same code should apply to all, and that is not inconsistent with the ERA.

I confess I have idea whether there are different codes for women and men aspiring to be firefighters/police, or whether there is one code that is enfeebled. I guess if that were the case, there must be a significant increase in the number of injuries and fatalities in these professions, in rough proportion to percentage of women that managed to make ‘inroads’. Do you know that to be the case, Morgan? Or are you just ‘worried’. Because on those grounds you are justifying that, while “all men are created equal”, women should be stuck on another standard.
~~~

“Of course there are arguments on the other side, but we're free to disagree.”

Yeah. You are free to believe that having the constitution extend to women the guarantee of equal rights under the law is both worrisome and a lame argument in any discussion of feminism.

And I’m free to think that anyone that calls themselves a ‘feminist’ but doesn’t support equal protection under the law is at best a coward, and possibly a traitor.
~~~

“But as soon it looks like *either side* is moving forward with an agenda that is not good for us, our daughters *or* ours sons, we'll be happy to step up.”

Sounds great. Maybe that will be a good time to revisit the ERA, instead of being able to use it to defend your daughter.

“I'm not one bit angry with you and still like you just fine. I can easily separate individuals from their arguments and still call them "friend." Can you?”

How do you like me now? I’m perfectly capable of abstracting friendship from argument.

thimscool said...

“Women in this country have made great strides without the ERA, proving it can be done without such a broad and potentially problematic legislative mandate.”

You’ve come a long way, baby.

However, the ERA is not a legislative mandate. It is a proposed amendment to the constitution, and its primary direct effect would therefore be judicial.

Nor does it supersede other parts of the constitution, or force congress to make sure all our soldiers can crochet.

It is worth noting that some feminists fought the ERA because they were concerned that it would be used to erode some of the ‘victories’… they were worried that having the constitution mandate equal standards between the sexes would kill affirmative action. It sure would, and I don’t hesitate to call those women cowards, too. Note that I’m not just stating that their argument is cowardly, but I guess I could if that would make them feel more empowered.

The ERA is an attempt to sort out gender problems from first principles, and further strengthen our constitution’s guarantee that this should be a nation of laws that apply equally to all citizens.

Morgan said...

"It is worth noting that some feminists fought the ERA because they were concerned that it would be used to erode some of the ‘victories’… they were worried that having the constitution mandate equal standards between the sexes would kill affirmative action."

But I thought...I thought...I thought the ERA failed because the proponents scared the mainstream folk. Now you're saying the extremist feminists killed it. But then you say the ERA is alive and well as proof that extreme feminism lives. Did I miss something? I'm not saying this to be sarcastic. If I got my wires crossed here, please let me know.

Also, if you think I support affirmative action, you are wrong. I do not. I am foursquare against quotas. I believe people - male or female - should get jobs based on merit, not race or gender.

That said, though, I do think women should be restricted from combat roles, not because they can't do it, but because the dynamic created by women in combat situations could make life-and-death situations even more dangerous for the reasons I stated earlier.

There are already many protections on the books to prevent sexual discrimination. I don't really think that the ERA is needed. If we are to work to end quotas, there has to be a better way than tinkering with the constitution.

thimscool said...

“But I thought...I thought...I thought the ERA failed because the proponents scared the mainstream folk. Now you're saying the extremist feminists killed it. But then you say the ERA is alive and well as proof that extreme feminism lives. Did I miss something? I'm not saying this to be sarcastic. If I got my wires crossed here, please let me know.”

No problem, Morgan. I think I can help you sort it out.

First of all, the ERA failed because fewer voted for it than against, in 15 states in the union. There were many causes for these failures, including ingrained conservative fear of radicals, as well as craven opportunism by those women that I consider cowards, and not ‘extremist feminists’. But the story isn’t over, and you’d do well to reflect that the majority in 35 states ratified the amendment.

That’s a lot of ‘extreme feminists’, Morgan. Maybe that’s a good place to start unraveling your tangled understanding… coming to terms with what is really mainstream, what is extreme, and what is just giving up.

And speaking of not giving up, there is in fact some basis in precedent to consider that the 35 ratifications are still valid. In that case, only three of the remaining 15 states (of which NC is a proud member), would theoretically need to ratify to get passage. And that’s when all the fire-people will start dying in droves. Damn those extreme feminists.

~~~

“Also, if you think I support affirmative action, you are wrong. I do not. I am foursquare against quotas. I believe people - male or female - should get jobs based on merit, not race or gender.”
That’s what I’d expect, which is why I’m taken aback as to why you don’t see the full wisdom of fighting for what really matters.

~~~

“That said, though, I do think women should be restricted from combat roles, not because they can't do it, but because the dynamic created by women in combat situations could make life-and-death situations even more dangerous for the reasons I stated earlier.”

Are you running for office? Sheesh. In the event that a gung-ho young woman wants to go to the front and kick ass, and feels that she is denied from doing so due to nothing other than sex discrimination, then let her sue and win the right to go to the front. Non issue.
In the mean time, commanders should continue to do what’s best for their constitution, fellow citizens, and soldiers, in that order. Field commanders need to worry about soldiers first, and they should have broad authority to set the rules for the grunts they are given. And if they’re given that gung-ho woman, their responsibility is to put her to the best use they can muster, in a way that minimizes any such issues. Sorry if that’s a tough assignment, Lieutenant, but she can shoot, climb, carry, and persevere so you figure out where she fits on the team.

As far as some social dynamic goes, I tend to think that is more of an issue in the barracks than when bullets are flying, but I’ll confess I’ve never been in combat. I don’t feel too strongly about defending my future daughter’s right to fight, but I certainly don’t see this as a show stopper. Let the gung-ho woman sue, win, maybe even die. And let reality keep the statistics for women in the military reasonable (low). Meanwhile, we can still have a constitution that explicitly spells out that gender is not a factor in law.

~~~

“There are already many protections on the books to prevent sexual discrimination. I don't really think that the ERA is needed. If we are to work to end quotas, there has to be a better way than tinkering with the constitution.”

Gay marriage talking points were last week, Morgan.

Morgan said...

"That’s a lot of ‘extreme feminists’, Morgan. Maybe that’s a good place to start unraveling your tangled understanding… coming to terms with what is really mainstream, what is extreme, and what is just giving up."

I like your comments, Luke. They always make me think harder - often about what I think I know. In this case, I know less than I thought, and have much to mull over.

Your points about the military are especially provocative. I understand where you are coming from, and would agree with you 100 percent if I didn't consider the military a cut-off point for social engineering. A compromised mission might not just end up with a dead female soldier, but dead comrades-in-arms and civilians. You're so right that the guys should just learn to get over themselves and except that if a woman can fight she should be allowed to do so. I just think there's a primal protectiveness at play in the dynamic that could compromise the kind of fraternal interaction that I've been told by military types these operations rely on.

It just seems like a Catch-22 to me.

"Gay marriage talking points were last week, Morgan."

Ouch! And touche. I've been clearly bested. This time. ;-)

thimscool said...

Aha!

Tom Sawyer always gives in once the whole fence is white.

And by the way... I know you aren't a coward, and nor is the ghost of feminist past. I don't blame women for applying their gains, making their choices and living their lives... who can argue with the life you've chosen morgan?

I just don't want anyone to forget that we aren't finished yet. We don't necessarily need to crusade like in the past, but steady as she goes, heart by heart, mind by mind.

Morgan said...

"I just don't want anyone to forget that we aren't finished yet. We don't necessarily need to crusade like in the past, but steady as she goes, heart by heart, mind by mind. "

And I've never suggested we rest on our laurels, Luke, only that the days of sign-wielding protests is over. Sign wielding is the stuff of the oppressed, and while we need to build on our gains, women aren't an oppressed class anymore. The extremist rhetoric makes us look greedy and vindictive, and those espousing it often want to punish men, not build on the natural advancements of women.

No one has forgotten that, least of all us women. I don't think we really need to be reminded and can be counted on to tell the difference between standing up for our rights and protesting for the sake of protesting.

Don't think we're stupid just because we're beautiful. ;-)

thimscool said...

"No one has forgotten that, least of all us women. I don't think we really need to be reminded and can be counted on to tell the difference between standing up for our rights and protesting for the sake of protesting."

Acknowledged.

For obvious reasons women are the heart and head of feminism. But we men should have a voice too, since we also have to live with the consequences of inequality. Also, we might have some insight about the 'enemy'. But ultimately, to avoid hypocracy, I must bow to your (women's, not just Morgan's), control of their own choices, and that is what it's all about. That includes the collective choice of what defines the movement.
~~~

"Don't think we're stupid just because we're beautiful. ;-)"

Never crossed my mind. On the contrary, I'm attracted to wit and charisma at least as much as physical beauty. Don't take it the wrong way, but that's why I'm here.

Anonymous said...

The problem is, Morgan, is that most feminists don't share your honest attitude toward these careers. They flat out lie to the girls and tell them that they can "have it all," when they can't in most cases. I have no problem with girls going into these professions, provided that they accept the limitations that their biology imposes on them. Either they are a good mother or a good engineer, but both is very, very rare.

What a lot of us want is an end to the inane "you can have it all" rhetoric. No, you can't have it all.

Scientific and engineering disciplines typically aren't for women. They're not very "rewarding" in the sense that most women use the term. You're typically underappreciated or worked together (or both). The only good that comes out of it is the flexibility of having a genuine skill beyond glad-handing other people in nice suits and making business deals.

I think that most women should be encouraged to marry young. If a woman doesn't show any promise for a technical or artistic career by the end of college, she ought to look for a stable marriage. That would not only go a long way toward ending the cult of political correctness in corporate America, but make a lot of women happier.

I hate working in an office. I can't imagine how a woman could prefer it to staying home with her kids. Hell, if I were a woman, I'd be practically jumping up and down with joy at the thought of not having to go to the office.

Obviously, as a libertarian, I support equal civil and property rights for women. It's just that I don't think most women are served at all by the "go find yourself in the corporate office" bull$%^& foisted on them by feminists today.

Roland said...

Morgan I'm prone to believe sheep-fuckers are in the minority

Possibly, but they haven't been allowed 'out of the closet' yet. When they do 'come out', their voices will be hea-ea-ea-eard.
I know, I know, last weeks discussion can still affect this one. ;)

Morgan I have real concerns that the dynamic of men and women fighting side by side in a combat situation may not be a good one

I agree. Don't want that 'foxhole' to look to good to go into now, do we? Sorry, it's just one extra reason to agree with your point Morgan. Luke does have good reasons for women in combat, but there are still good ones for not doing it also.
The whole "don't ask, don't tell" thing stems from this.
Pretend you got into a relationship with someone else. Pretend you had to be in the near vicinity of that person during combat. Are you going to worry about the objective or the individual more? I know that there are friendships. But, it makes it even harder to separate out the difficulties involved.

Luke I confess I have idea whether there are different codes for women and men aspiring to be firefighters/police, or whether there is one code that is enfeebled. I guess if that were the case, there must be a significant increase in the number of injuries and fatalities in these professions

Is that what it takes? Proof that something is not good.
How bad should it get before we change it, if it does happen?
Should we notice the little steps of change compared to the previous step, or the original step?
Or will we attribute the increased risks in the profession to something else, just so we can keep everything 'fair?'

Luke The problem is, Morgan, is that most feminists don't share your honest attitude toward these careers. They flat out lie to the girls and tell them that they can "have it all," when they can't in most cases

Now that is true. Look at a lot of the "True Christian" stuff and see what women are supposed to learn. Sewing, cooking, cleaning, etc. It makes things look worse for men and not better when this kind of stuff keeps being proliferated. And, sadly, the women in relationships with men like this, follow it. Just to keep the peace.

I'd better quit, or I'll rant too long.

thimscool said...

“Is that what it takes? Proof that something is not good.”

Hmmm. I’d say that’s wrong if the legislature seeks to deny the rights of women or men based on their gender. That does not imply that I support affirmative action.

However, if you think that there is a strong argument against having lots of women firefighters, I’d say you might want to get some statistics to back it up. I doubt that injuries and fatalities have increased. I think the interesting statistics to examine would be per-capita cost of fire/police services. Of course many factors would weigh in.

I acknowledge that would be a quite a research project, but I don’t need statistics to prove any points I am making about feminism. So I’ll leave it to you.
~~~


“How bad should it get before we change it, if it does happen?”

Same as always… there is internal review, the department should have broad authority to set appropriate standards. If there is a conflict, the woman could sue and would need to prove that the standards are not appropriate for the job, *and* that she had been denied equal opportunity for employment in a *public sector* job. In such a trial, the judge should carefully consider the ramifications of lowering the standard, and the department should be given the time and resources to demonstrate those ramifications. I bet this is what is happening now, and if not, it should be.
~~~

“Or will we attribute the increased risks in the profession to something else, just so we can keep everything 'fair?'”

What are these increased risks to which you refer?
~~~

BTW. Anonymous was not me…

Now that I’ve answered your questions, do me a favor and follow up on my awkward compliment to Morgan so I don’t feel like such a ham.

Morgan said...

"Now that I’ve answered your questions, do me a favor and follow up on my awkward compliment to Morgan so I don’t feel like such a ham."

Don't feel like a ham, Luke. What you said was kind. Besides, I took it not as applying to just me but to the other ladies here. Janet, Pretty Lady, Mitzibel, Your Silly Girl. Even Gene with whom I disagree on just about everything -all the women here bring very interesting, well-spoken perspectives.

Morgan said...

"The problem is, Morgan, is that most feminists don't share your honest attitude toward these careers. They flat out lie to the girls and tell them that they can "have it all," when they can't in most cases. I have no problem with girls going into these professions, provided that they accept the limitations that their biology imposes on them. Either they are a good mother or a good engineer, but both is very, very rare."

I disagree with you somewhat, Anon.
You won't get any argument from me that men are suited better to some fields. But there are certainly exceptions to the rule.

I do think that the "you can have it all" message is a Pied Piper's song to an abyss of endless frustration for a lot of women. But not for the reasons you state. Just as a man can have a career and be a good father, so can a woman have a career and be a good mother. I'd argue that for some women, career satisfaction makes them happier people, and therefore better mothers than some of those bored, angst-ridden homemakers popping Prozacs between afternoon reruns of Sex In the City.
The cave of frustration I speak of comes not through losing out on attention to career and attention to family, but losing out on attention to self. I know a number of highly successful women with wonderful, well-adjusted children. But they're so busy giving their best to their families and careers they have no time for themselves.
I think nurturing one's body, mind and spirit is extremely important and these harried women who look at their successful families and careers and still feel disatisfied shouldn't have to ask why they still feel something missing: it's time for themselves.

The women I know who successfuly balance career, family and time for themselves are the ones who have a key ally: husbands who see raising a family as a joint effort.

A woman who is expected to work *and* do everything else is going to have a difficult time and is going to be divided in a way that's detrimental to her work, family and self. A woman with a husband actively involved in running the house and raising the kids will have a completely fulfilled life.

So the feminists who tell girls they can "have it all" aren't lying. But they are only giving them half the advice. They can't have it all unless they have a husband who's going to treat them as a partner, not a babysitter and maid.

Morgan said...

"I think that most women should be encouraged to marry young. If a woman doesn't show any promise for a technical or artistic career by the end of college, she ought to look for a stable marriage."

I shudder to hear this. Anon, people should develop themselves fully before they go looking for a partner. Most 21-year-old's don't have a full concept of who they are yet.

That's not to say, again, that they aren't exceptions. I know about five couples who married quite young and have wonderfully, stable marriages. And there is the danger of waiting too long, becoming selfish and narrowing the criteria so that by the time you do know what you want it's not available.

But marriage is no magic-bullet for happiness. Just because a woman doesn't show promise for an artistic or technical career by the time she's 21, I can't see how it's going to improve her life to hook up with a 23-year-old man who's still hasn't outgrown Nintendo.

Morgan said...

"Now that is true. Look at a lot of the "True Christian" stuff and see what women are supposed to learn. Sewing, cooking, cleaning, etc."

I love to sew, and have turned my hobby into a parttime business. But it's one of those things that you either like to do or you don't. I've met a few True Christian™ women who felt like failures because they weren't particularly domestic. That sucks because not everyone is interested in cooking, cleaning and crafting as a way of life. I don't think God wants square pegs stuck in round holes. If he didn't he would have made everyone round.

The whole pre-prescribed life path thing for women - and men, for that matter - is ridulous, whether it's being sold by True Christians™, feminists or any other outside group.

We're individually and wonderfully made. If one's passion is to stay home, knit and raise babies then that's what they should do. If their passion is to balance career with family, they should do that. But no one should feel guilty for being who they were intended to be.

Roland said...

To help out Luke, because he asked.

Morgan, you have a beautiful mind.

And reading between the lines, I saw:
Your hair is like wheaten tresses,
we should cut it, thrash it and make it into buns.
I could be wrong on that part, though...

I think it comes down to people not really disagreeing THAT much on this subject.
Everyone thinks women should have choices. Some just don't like to give up everything.

As a side note, I heard a very well versed christian feminist bring up this point:

Scene: Garden of Eden

God: Adam, don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You do it, you will die that moment.

Adam: Uh, okay.

(later)

Adam: Eve, don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If you do, we'll die. As a matter of fact, best not to touch the thing either. Yeah, avoid it, I'll take care of it.

Eve: Okay, sweetie!

(later yet)

Serpent: Eve, c'mon eat...

Eve: (Now imagine a very sweet, syrupy Southern accent, accompanied by much eye-batting)
No! We can't! Why sir, if we even touch the tree, we'll die.

- Eve touches tree and doesn't die.

Eve: Hmmmm.... C*R*U*N*C*H

Adam: *Wow, she ate it and is still here!*

Eve: Adam, try this fruit.

Adam: C*R*U*N*C*H -
Uh oh....

(fade to black)


Take note that I love the syrupy sweet accent thing, and since it's your blog, I had to use it. ;)

JohnR said...

Roland: Interesting interpretation of something that isn't in the Bible.

God doesn't tell Adam he will die at that moment.

I have heard an interpretation faulting Adam for not cluing Eve in on the mandates God set down for them.

Also, a close reading of the story quite clearly say Adam was there with Eve while the serpent was tempting her.

...and did eat , and gave also to her husband with her... Gen 3:6

The Fall rests on both man and woman's shoulders.

JohnR

Roland said...

JohnR: I didn't say it was 'exactly' what happened, but when you read this it makes more sense:
1 Timothy 2:14
"And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

I saw a study on this in a book called Every Man's Battle, and they pointed out that the woman was deceived.

They pointed out that Adam was not deceived. Which means
*drumroll*
He did it with his eyes wide open!

Women gets tricked.
Man stupidly copies woman.
(sigh)

I don't know if it went down quite like that. Adam might not have recognized the fruit (hard to believe, but possible).

But realizing the kahoneys he had when he blamed God for giving the woman to him. Man, talk about balls of steel. Makes you think he was not talking to the creator of all things, and just some guy.

Jim said...

A couple of observations:

1) If your marital unit doesn't have children, it is the same as if you never lived. Unless you are a major contributor to society, you will pass nothing on; ergo, to my untrained eye, procreation is the one and only biological imperative. This is especially true for the workin' dogs, since - thanks to tax and welfare policy, the problem-makers are out-breeding the problem-solvers and we solvers need some goddamned help. Now.

2) The militant feminists need to lose that, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" crap. It just makes them look like churlish lesbians and their already small credibility goes to zero.

3) I didn't invent biology. Women still have the children and there's nothing you can do about it. And if they don't, in one generation there are no feminists or anybody else. So "I'm a man-hater and I ain't havin' no kids" is a self-limiting disease.

4) It's a woman's world. Besides the old saw about controlling 90% of the wealth and all the pussy, women have something men do not: a choice. Their biggest problem is choosing which part of "having it all" they want. Not so their husbands. Men's roles are set, they don't change, and they have NO choice. They're either worker bees or they are nobody. And I can tell you, there are times I don't like it much, but it is my ROLE. The difference between me and the feminists is that I understand and accept it. Without bitching about my misspent life.

Morgan said...

Jim,

Wow, you are digging into an older post but you raise some interesting points and I'd love to have a go at them.

1.) With six billion blessings in the world, I'm not so sure if it's a real contribution to bring more in at this point. Now, I saw this as a total hypocrite, having five kids. But good gracious, man! Where is it written that a happy life - even the life of an idiot - isn't in some way a contribution in its own right? My son John will never procreate; he's autistic so that's a good thing. But he will leave a legacy to his siblings who grew up with an appreciation for those who are different and vulnerable that many don't ever get a chance to realize.
And problem solvers can breed all they like, but they are still capable of throwing duds. There's more to turning out a good contributor than popping out the kid. I've seen some successful parents with worthless kids, and some humble, simple people whose young went on to do Remarkable Things.

2.) I don't know many women who actually use that line save for some Andrea Dworkin types that no one wants to fuck anyway. Next.

3.) Um. Again, I don't think you have to have a kid to make a contribution. My sister never wanted kids, and people who never wanted kids are the ones who should never have them. I don't see any merit to implying that she should have done her Reproductive Duty or some such nonsense.

4.) This one I agree with completely. Men are really hamstrung, and it's not fair. And women don't often appreciate their choices and spend an inordinate of time whining when they decide they made the wrong one (yes, Mom, I'm talking to you.)
On the other hand, no one is dragging a man to the altar. Men don't have to marry and could choose a more minimal life full of creativity IF they don't get sucked into societal expectations. Will people look at them funny? Yes. But so what. It would only be because they're jealous.

Morgan said...

Oh, and one more thing. You might want to look around you a bit more. Among my generation and the ones following, I'm seeing more fluidity in roles. I know at least three families in my small area where dad stays home and mom goes off to work. I know more guys who are breaking free of the fear of being or acting gay. I know more women who are entering male-dominated scientific careers (my younger sister Carla is an engineer and a damn good one.)

I don't think anyone's choices are set in stone anymore. Give us another fifty years and the men will be whining as loud as the women about whether they made the right one.

Jim said...

Points well made, but as they say, but...

I appreciate the point about the plethora of blessings on this earth, but that can be fixed. The problem is one of quantity AND quality. A good start would be to eliminate the system we have now - one that supports reproduction without responsibility, and is CAUSING the imbalance. Secondly, people like Bill Gates need to not use their money on projects to immunise children, thus saving their lives and allowing them to produce six or seven kids each, all of which in turn have to be fed, and they in turn... the Gates' need to use their fortunes to promote birth control and abortion, the Religious Right be damned.

Also, as for problem solvers throwing duds, yep, that happens. But as W.C. Fields used to say, the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet. It is now well-established that the completely unpredicted drop in crime during the nineties can be traced to readily available abortion during the seventies. Educated, responsible families produce educated responsible offspring. Crack moms produce more crack moms. Just be glad they are smart enough to abort, and realize that paying for it is the best money you ever spent.

And lastly, call me old-fashioned, or something worse, but I believe there IS a reproductive duty among the fortunate. The problem, as I said, is one of quality AND quantity, and as populations get more one-sided, the burden grows on the workers of each generation, who are supporting everybody else. As the Murphy's Law corollary goes, "Work flows to the competent man until he submerges." I'm going down for the third time; god help my children.

Morgan said...

I'm kind of split on this. I can see your concerns about the rapidly reproducing underclass, but I can't see simply funding abortion and birth control while leaving children to die of preventable disease.

The latter position makes you sound like every other conservative boob in favor of an Elitist Only Breeding Club.

Yes, the smart money is on educated, intelligent parents reproducing similar offspring but when I look around I see an awful lot of stupid people with degrees, Jim, and don't necessarily thing a diploma guarantees intelligence in offspring.

My father is the result of the town drunk and a woman who didn't finish sixth grade. He never went to college but was successful enough to teach everyone of his daughters the value of work and education.

Some of us have gone on to produce children who, in turn, have gone to college to complete degrees. But my sister, who has two degrees and a educated lawyer husband has a girl who dropped out of high school to get pregnant and marry her two kids' loser father.

And I stlll can't agree with your last point. You know how much I respect you, but it's just silly to imply that people who don't want kids still have a duty to have them if they were fortunate enough to be blessed with brains and an education. You're forgetting the mental health element - people like my sister with an aversion to kids , end up producing troubled little fuck-ups. I hardly think the world needs more of them. We're all full up form what I've seen of society.