Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
When it comes to being police, cops, and firefighters, I believe men have the right because a) They are the ones that founded those institutions,

In fact, they weren't. At one time these were functions performed by ALL the members of society. It's only in recent centuries that it became a "men only" institution.

and b) From what I understand, many of those proffessions have LOWERED the standards for women.

They do use different standards, yes. I should point out that this also allows smaller men of other cultures (Japanese, for instance) on the force.

Does this mean it's wrong? Hardly.

There are many times when a police officer who is a woman can negotiate a situation (and a male officer would cause fear or aggression.) There are many times when a suspect or a victim will relate better to an officer of one gender rather than the other.

Why ignore the victim's needs? Why should society give up this better system (officers of both genders and all ages who can relate to the people in their care) and return to an old "white men only" policy?

Women have better hearing and better reaction times than men do (which compensates for their lack of strength.) There are other gender-based physiological differences (which actually overlap but are more commonly found in women) that supplement physiological limitations that men don't have. Because of their better reaction times, they're 2.5% less likely to die in traffic accidents than men and are safer drivers.

And you would deny their male teammates the benefits of having a woman on their team.

A minority soo small that instituting legislation so that all women can feel better knowing that they can become a cop or something, when in fact, 99% of all women will not choose or be able to do so, seems assenine to me.

That's simply a leftover of the culture of the 1950's.

Justice tends to be something women are very interested in (view the number of organizations they start for children's rights, animal rights, and other justice-based issues.) We are seeing more women show an interest in this, and as they become more accepted, more of them show up.

The issues really are complex, and are not black-and-white.

We were once all equals in a tribal system and both men and women acted as protectors and invokers of justice; as people who ensured the safety of other members of their tribe. I see every reason to go back to this equality that we started with in our primitive times and no reasons to continue under a patriarchial system where one gender dictates to the other what is acceptable.

When you have any social group that is not allowed to be equal with the others, that group generally suffers abuse and has a much higher mortality rate than the other groups.

Hello All,

This topic is quite interesting. I agree that there should be equality, and that to state otherwise is sophmoric and sexist. Especially when one person is deciding what another person can or can't do based on gender.

That being said, I do have some problems with the stereotypical "femenist" stance, and I'd like to hear what people think about them.

My first problem, is with people like Maureen Dowd, who are considered outrageous and outspoken femenist spokesmodels.

For example, in her most recent book, "Are Men Necessary", she wrote the following.

Men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office.

now that women don't need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is ... you know we need you in the way we need ice cream, you'll be more ornamental.

As a species is it possible that men are ever so last century?

Deep down all men want the same thing: a virgin in a gingham dress.

if there's one thing men fear it's a woman who uses her critical faculties.

This is hate speech, pure and simple. Imagine for a moment if a white person had written these same remarks about a black person.

Black people are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office.

now that white people don't need black people to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is ... you know we need you in the way we need ice cream, you'll be more ornamental.

As a species is it possible that black people are ever so last century?

Deep down all black people want the same thing: a virgin in a gingham dress.

if there's one thing black people fear it's a white person who uses their critical faculties.

Would this kind of speech be tolerated if it was held in a context other than gender? So my first problem with femenism, is instead of seeking equality, there is a knee jerk and angry reaction to objectify and hate all things male, which to mean seems counter productive.

So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts there.

Also, I believe Maureen Dowd, and the feminist movement in general, have really failed women across the board. Instead of creating an atmosphere where women are allowed to do whatever they wish, be it become a powerful executive within a billion dollare company, or becoming a stay at home mother to their children, both worthy and admirable decisions which should be made by a woman as an individual, without societal or cultural pressure, they have simply traded in one rigid gender stereo type for another, which does not allow women the wide range of creative and personal desires, and in the end, has sabotaged the entire movement.

Source

Laws do prohibit the permanent assignment of Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force women to ships and aircraft engaged in a combat mission, and while there is no comparable statutory prohibition for Army women, policies adopted by the Army and the other services further restrict women's roles. Whether statutory, or a matter of service policy, these prohibitions bar women in many career fields from being assigned to positions necessary or advantageous to advancement and promotion. In the U.S. armed services overall, 50 percent of military jobs are open to women, but the percentages vary greatly by service.

Not to mention the draft thing.

Hello Athenion and welcome to the discussion.

Originally posted by Athenion
So I'm interested in hearing your thoughts there.

I believe if you'll read the whole thread (and I know that's a lot to ask) you'll get many of our thoughts on that particular issue.

Or, you can take my word that many modern feminists are moving away from the teachings of the 'older feminists' whose ideas were born out of resentment and in response and reaction to the male patriarchy that they experienced.

Any time an oppressed group breaks out of that oppression, there is a period of backlash against who they see as the oppressor before things settle down to an equalibrium. I said a couple of pages ago that male-bashing is so passe. And it's true. I hate it!

We're coming to realize that what's more important than whether or not we 'need' men, on an individual level, is that many of us really want men. We like men. We want men in our lives. But they must be men who support total equality of the genders.

I used to love that bumper sticker, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" Oh! I loved that thing! And the truth is, not every woman wants or needs a man, but as a society, it's stupid to think the we don't need each other. I don't actually need a man. But I want one. And thankfully, I have one.

I hope that helps answer your question. And yeah, read over the thread, it's actually been quite interesting the phases it's gone through. I know I've learned a lot.

Hope to hear more from you.

This has indeed been an interesting thread. The only real problem with Feminism is that it did come out of a communist or marxist origin. Both Steinam and Freidan both were active in CIA activities prior to their magazine or book careers. So what rings hollow today is the fact that although women have made some strides this 'movement' has succeeded in it's effort to destroy the American family structure. Just the other day in my local newspaper's birth announcements 11 out of 13 babies were born to unwed couples. This may be an anomally, but I doubt it. I believe the number of drop outs, teen pregnancies and children in foster care are a direct result of the family structure's dismantling. The feminist movement is somewhat like the immigration issue today, alot of false promises where in the end you're left holding the bag. It's just the 'used' getting 'used' again. Women deserved better!

Originally posted by Athenion
Hello All,

This topic is quite interesting. I agree that there should be equality, and that to state otherwise is sophmoric and sexist. Especially when one person is deciding what another person can or can't do based on gender.

That being said, I do have some problems with the stereotypical "femenist" stance, and I'd like to hear what people think about them.

My first problem, is with people like Maureen Dowd, who are considered outrageous and outspoken femenist spokesmodels.

Question: WHO picked these as "feminist spokesmodels"?

I think you'll find they're cherry-picked because of their extreme veiws that make them easy to set up as a political target.

Let's compare these to what you actually find in classes and in recommended literature on feminism:
www.uic.edu...

There's kind of a huge gap there. And read Beall's very entertaining "The Grand Coulee Damn" -- a classic in feminist studies but not mentioned outside people studying the subject. Or Angela Davis' essay on housework: www.marxists.org...

Question: Why aren't these women's writings ever brought up in a "discussion" of feminism.

Answer: You can't whip up angry sentiment against feminists with the material in her essay. Dowd's comments (taken out of context, I should add) are really great fuel for the fire. Her "you don't need a man to get a loan" sounds shrieks of outrage -- unless you lived in the 1970's, when women couldn't get bank accounts, loans, or even buy or rent cars (except under unusual circumstances) without a man/husband/brother cosigning or guaranteeing the loan.

Who selects the "examples of feminist literature"?

There are two groups. In the realm of "feminist literature" we have those pieces selected by extremist male conservatives -- pieces that are selected to cause the most reaction and the most outrage.

We also have the feminist literature that the feminists are writing and reading and recommending.

If you're ONLY reading the stuff selected by anti-feminist men, isn't this kind of like learning all about democracy by reading "Mein Kampf" or "the Communist Manifesto"?


Here's a few URLs with feminist writings recommended by feminists (both men and women) -- and not by anti-feminist males for those of you who might like to read more about feminism:

www.suite101.com...

www.historynow.org...

Marxist theory (systems of oppression - and it's not nearly as frothingly mad-dog as the title seems to suggest) and feminism:
www.marxists.org...

And for entertainment, check out the Feminist Law Professors blog:
feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu...

(like this one on watching tv!)
feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu...


So let's step away from the false picture of feminism generated by the books and writings selected by the anti-feminist group. What do you think of the issues raised by the feminist writers that are discussed by the feminists?

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Byrd]

Thanks to everyone for your responses to my questions.

Byrd, I understand what you're saying, but the point I'm trying to get across is why there are so many negative ideas about femenism. I think most people (and I emphasize the word most) are not hateful, spiteful people. Just ignorant. If the ideas of femenism were explained in a reasonable and level headed fashion, I doubt many people would disagree with them. In the same way that most people wouldn't disagree with racial equality. And I can imagine that's why this topic was started to begin with, to find a forum for level headed discourse.

And it's nice of you to point me to some femenist literature that is much more mild in it's rhetoric (and yes, I've already read most of the books you've pointed me to), but that doesn't mean you can ignore the other people in the equation.

You can't simply sweep the writings of Maureen Dowd, Valerie Solanis (considered a pioneer in femenism with the SCUM Manifesto, which is still used in many University courses on femenism) and the rest under the rug like they never happened. So am I to understand that in order to know what femenism is, and to decide what they believe, I should only expose myself to what you think is appropriate? Are you saying I should entirely ignore the whole Gender Resistance Femenism Movement? And I like how you throw in a subtle jab that anyone who recommends reading any femenist literature that isn't bland and P.C. is a "anti-femenist male". Kurt Cobain, who was by no stretch of the imagination an anti-femenist male recommended that everyone read The SCUM Manifesto.

Dowd's comments (taken out of context, I should add) are really great fuel for the fire. Her "you don't need a man to get a loan" sounds shrieks of outrage -- unless you lived in the 1970's, when women couldn't get bank accounts, loans, or even buy or rent cars (except under unusual circumstances) without a man/husband/brother cosigning or guaranteeing the loan.

And so this is now somehow an excuse for what she's writing today? I'm sorry, but this is a very poor excuse indeed, and will do nothing but alienate a movement that has some wonderful ideas, and should be encouraged. I didn't live in the 70's, so when I hear this kind of rhetoric, it does nothing but make me feel sorry for people who are so angry.

And to BH, thanks for your response, and I have read the entire thread. I was just interested in your take on the effect these extreme femenists have on the femenist movement. Is the sensationalism of spewing man hate good because it attracts attention to the issue, or bad because it ratchets up the rhetoric and emotional reactions, as opposed to level headed debate.

Originally posted by Athenion
I was just interested in your take on the effect these extreme femenists have on the femenist movement.

Well, I personally think they have a negative affect on the movement today, just as Muslim extremists have a negative affect on Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionists have a negative affect on Christianity, just as any extreme or radical faction of any group has a negative affect on the base, core, majority of the group and their purpose.

(Please don't anyone take the Muslim extremist comment too literally. I'm not implying that radical feminists are chopping off the heads of men. I'm just making a point.)

Is the sensationalism of spewing man hate good because it attracts attention to the issue

No. Not in my opinion. I don't want that kind of attention.

or bad because it ratchets up the rhetoric and emotional reactions, as opposed to level headed debate.

I vote for that one.

The way I see it, people who are not in the movement or supportive of the movement, really need to look at the whole thing. It's good to know where we came from and why this all started and the emotions around it all. The more information a person has, the better decision and judgments they can make.

And yes. You have the purpose of this thread right.

Excellent! Then we agree, and I can officially label myself a femenist after the heart of the Benevolent Heretic.

Or is there some sort of application process and interview I need to do in order to join your organization.

Originally posted by YIAWETA
This has indeed been an interesting thread. The only real problem with Feminism is that it did come out of a communist or marxist origin.

As I've said before, and will no doubt say again, there is nothing instrinsically 'wrong' with communistic or marxist forms of government. Any form of government is about as good as the quality of people implementing it.

Both Steinam and Freidan both were active in CIA activities prior to their magazine or book careers.

So, is feminism marxist, or CIA?

So what rings hollow today is the fact that although women have made some strides this 'movement' has succeeded in it's effort to destroy the American family structure. Just the other day in my local newspaper's birth announcements 11 out of 13 babies were born to unwed couples. This may be an anomally, but I doubt it.

I have never seen any credible evidence that the goal of feminism is to destroy the American family. Granted, some families dispersed when the women members began to assert some independence, often as a result of the things learned due to the feminism movement. But I do not believe this was due to feminism per se, so much as the men involved not able to handle independent women, with their own minds. I speak from some direct experience here. My parents divorced due to this.

And 11 babies born to unwed couples? What is the significance of these couples being unwed? Is a blessing by The State required to form a strong, loving, lifelong relationship? Does such a blessing guarantee one?

I believe the number of drop outs, teen pregnancies and children in foster care are a direct result of the family structure's dismantling.

I agree with this, if 'a direct result of' is changed to 'contributed to by'. There are many contributing factors, including inadequate sex education, self-centered parents, crushing economic factors. Feminism, not so much.

The feminist movement is somewhat like the immigration issue today, alot of false promises where in the end you're left holding the bag. It's just the 'used' getting 'used' again.

Again, I agree to some extent. Although it is not the feminist movement making false promises so much as the resistance to the feminist movement and what it really stands for making progress exceedingly difficult.

Women deserved better!

Hear, Hear!. I totally agree...

Originally posted by WolfofWar
so wait, women = Child molestors?

All I gottasay is I'd like to be a stay at home dad.

I could do freelance graphic design work from my office, take care of the kids, not have to dothe 9 to 5 stuff.

Sure.

why can't you do that now?? even without the kids as an excuse? I mean if that is your dream, why not go for it, unless of course your graphic design skills are as crappy as mine...then well....what can I say, ever hear of the starving artist...

if it is you know that money will be short for awhile, well, why not expect your wife to pitch in in that respect.....as long as you are willing to pitch in with the children and household chores of course.

of course, what you will more than likely both find out is that there just aren't enough hours in the day to earn your living, plus take care of children and home, and enjoy life also....no matter how you devide all the various responsibilities up.

but, what the hey, that's life!!!

by the way, the original feminists, the Susan B. Anthony's and Elizabeth Stantons, ummm.....they were there before marx, or communism I believe. and well, even if I am wrong in that respect....they worked long and hard for the equality and voting rights of the black man before the proceeded to obtain it for themselves...so if feminism is bad, and marxist, I guess having the black man being equal and having the right to vote is also marxist??

[edit on 2-6-2006 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by dawnstar

why can't you do that now?? even without the kids as an excuse? I mean if that is your dream, why not go for it, unless of course your graphic design skills are as crappy as mine...then well....what can I say, ever hear of the starving artist...

because I'm not married and I'm still in college. And I'm sure my skills arent as crappy as yours.

starving artists are really more those in the fine art fields. Theres a wide rangeo f application for graphic design, from web design to industrial design. If you live near a big city like New York or Philadelphia theres plenty of design firms looking to hire.

if it is you know that money will be short for awhile, well, why not expect your wife to pitch in in that respect.....as long as you are willing to pitch in with the children and household chores of course.

Ah, but my wife would be working the 9 to 5 in the office, because I'm at home taking care of the kids. And thats a full time job, and in my freetime, I'd freelance in my office.

So thats one steady full time income from my wife, and then any extra money I make freelancing. Money wouldnt be short. And I would be afull time dad, if that was the situation. So really it would be my wife chipping in on chores, because I would be at home doing them.

of course, what you will more than likely both find out is that there just aren't enough hours in the day to earn your living, plus take care of children and home, and enjoy life also....no matter how you devide all the various responsibilities up.

I'm not earning a living in that situation, my wife is. How hard is that to understand? I'm just getting extra income, the equivilent of a homemaker wife doing telemarking at home.


feminism is bad, and marxist, I guess having the black man being equal and having the right to vote is also marxist??
[edit on 2-6-2006 by dawnstar]

True, but then again, women never had seperate schools and seperate drinking fountains. When women protested they were not shot with high pressure hoses or bitten by police attack dogs. Susan B Anthony was never assasinated because of what she preached. And Women today are not lynched in southern areas simply because theyre women.

no, bu they were sold on the auctionblock in new orleans at one time....

abigail adams taught her daughters at home, while her sons were sent away to schools....which was typical for her time.

and women were locked in factories (wonder if they locked the men in their workplaces also) their pay was given to their husbands...

and, depending on just where you're at in the world, you could concievably witness a women being buried in the sand up to her neck and her head being used for target practice while the villagers stone her...





[edit on 3-6-2006 by dawnstar]

Remember in Huxley's "Brave New World" which word was outlawed. Which term was never to be said aloud? That word was "mother".

War is conceived, birthed and fostered with loving attention. It takes months of planning and effort at very high levels, for a war to be pulled off. Overcoming the people's desire for peace takes work and deception. All wars are conceived on lies, at the beginning.

Marx was a failed newspaperman, whose "manifesto" suddenly and out of nowhere became the idealogical equivalent of Beatlemania. Where did he get the impetus and backing? Who advised Marx to write and publish? To say that feminism is marxist is absurd. Egalitarianism doesn't mean cutting off michael jordan's arms (for example), it just describes a mental mindset where the hungriest get fed first. Where the needy and weak get care and attention first.

Anyway, communism and capitalism are two sides of the same engineered coin. The male oligarchs in America funded and supported Marx, Lenin and particularly Trotsky. This last was hidden in New York and Quebec until being sprung into Russia with millions in German gold, to begin the revolution. This set the stage for Germany's industrial rise (and Russias) and the eventual brawl between the two of them with the US and UK ringside. Then, after the war was over, more crazy fellas decided to roast hiroshima and nagasaki just for the hell of it. They claim to have saved 300,000 fighting men by using nukes, but when nukes get exchanged in the future (which they certainly will), then this sort of faulty math will be exposed, painfully.

Take a close look at the root words "SOCIAL" and "CAPITAL". Really, either system could give a person their freedom, because in "capitalism", it's fine if you are your own capital (as opposed to being state-owned capital). Conversely, humans are social creatures and so "socialism" seems like it would work, but usually, the state steps in and begins to define for the people, what "society" will be. So in either case, the state will take a good and make it a tool for control. In the US, the taxpayer becomes fuel for the oligarchs. In socialism, same thing.

Finally I want to add this: We humans share as much DNA with the Bonobo, as we do with chimps. Common chimps are violent and combative with a male power-center. Bonobo society, however, is run by the females (males cede the power, in order to have a better life) and the bonobos spend most of their day humping and having fun. Essentially, chimps are conditioned to fight and struggle to get vagina, whereas bonobos have advanced beyond that silly challenge.

Now one could say, "yes but the bonobo half of our DNA must continue to be de-emphasized because we're surrounded by evil chimps and gorillas who are violent and who will kill us if we don't become like them!" This sort of thinking says that we must become violent in order to survive. But, notice how technology acts as an equalizer? That a beam weapon can be held by even a small frail human, and still roast hundreds of larger humans? That the internet can put humans in touch with each other, and therefore the state must attack that concept of free communication? The point is: technology makes EACH HUMAN more powerful and thereby able to accomplish either peaceful acts with that technology, or evil acts with it. The main question is, who controls the technology?

Technology could actually deliver us into whatever sort of wonderful future we could imagine, If only we humans could put our fingers on the buttons that control technology and the methods by which it is developed and used. Fortunately for the male power brokers, they have de-emphasized tech when educating their female children, and this creates girls who are not interested in tech to the same degree boys are. This is planned via our worthless education system which reinforces stereotypes and creates drones. As long as women never collectively understand or desire tech, the male power structure knows they are safe to use tech for war and death before healing and peace.

Harnessing technology for the people (instead of the military industrial complex) would allow us to choose whatever world we'd like to live in. Since we live under a sort of "globalization" these days, why can't we globally reconnect with our closest and most peaceful genetic ancestor, the bonobo? To direct society along those lines would mean much more nookie for the males, and a more equitable balance of power.

Bonobo Sex and Society


[edit on 3-6-2006 by smallpeeps]

I think you probably don't care much, but...

You have voted smallpeeps for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
As long as women never collectively understand or desire tech, the male power structure knows they are safe to use tech for war and death before healing and peace.

And something I notice along these lines is that the male power structure, specifically men who don't support equality, are terribly threatened by powerful, intelligent and techie women. They see them as the enemy (naturally). It's almost as if, at some level, even if subconsciously, they understand the 'threat' of integration of women into the tech world.

Thanks BH.

I am not certain how many people will make it to the bottom of that Sci Am article I linked so I'd like to quote a key passage here:

Human family life implies paternal investment, which is unlikely to develop unless males can be reasonably certain that they are caring for their own, not someone else's, offspring. Bonobo society lacks any such guarantee, but humans protect the integrity of their family units through all kinds of moral restrictions and taboos. Thus, although our species is characterized by an extraordinary interest in sex, there are no societies in which people engage in it at the drop of a hat (or a cardboard box, as the case may be). A sense of shame and a desire for domestic privacy are typical human concepts related to the evolution and cultural bolstering of the family.

Yet no degree of moralizing can make sex disappear from every realm of human life that does not relate to the nuclear family. The bonobo's behavioral peculiarities may help us understand the role of sex and may have serious implications for models of human society.

Just imagine that we had never heard of chimpanzees or baboons and had known bonobos first. We would at present most likely believe that early hominids lived in female- centered societies, in which sex served important social functions and in which warfare was rare or absent. In the end, perhaps the most successful reconstruction of our past will be based not on chimpanzees or even on bonobos but on a three-way comparison of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.

I would like to argue that the "human family" is the primary tool through which humans are manipulated economically. One can read "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" to understand the logic of viewing each family unit as like a battery for the economy. William Cooper claimed to have found a photocopy of a portion of this book in a military surplus copy machine.

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars - Breakthrough

The greatest hurdle which theoretical economists faced was the accurate description of the household as an industry. This is a challenge because consumer purchases are a matter of choice which in turn is influenced by income, price, and other economic factors.

This hurdle was cleared in an indirect and statistically approximate way by an application of shock testing to determine the current characteristics, called current technical coefficients, of a household industry.

Shock testing mentioned above, is when the supply of a particular commodity is directly altered to create scarcity (like gas, for example) so as to see how each of the families of rats will scurry and spend. The families will either solve the shock to their economic life, or they will compensate with cigs and booze, etc. Fascinating read SWFQW, even if Cooper wrote it himself. The man who claims to be the original author says that the original book was meant to be a practical manual for modern husbandry before the world actually created such a need.

Here is another quote from this very interesting document, under the heading "Enforcement". I have replaced the p-word of course:

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars - System Analysis

Factor III - Mother

The female element of human society is ruled by emotion first and logic second. In the battle between logic and imagination, imagination always wins, fantasy prevails, maternal instinct dominates so that the child comes first and the future comes second. A woman with a newborn baby is too starry-eyed to see a wealthy man's cannon fodder or a cheap source of slave labor. A woman must, however, be conditioned to accept the transition to "reality" when it comes, or sooner.

As the transition becomes more difficult to manage, the family unit must be carefully disintegrated, and state-controlled public education and state-operated child-care centers must be become more common and legally enforced so as to begin the detachment of the child from the mother and father at an earlier age. Inoculation of behavioral drugs [Ritalin] can speed the transition for the child (mandatory). Caution: A woman's impulsive anger can override her fear. An irate woman's power must never be underestimated, and her power over a [vulva]-whipped husband must likewise never be underestimated. It got women the vote in 1920.

And here is a link which claims to be an interview with the original author of this work:

www.the7thfire.com...

SWFQW is a collage, an overlay and paste-up of the works and words of many authors. I was the author only in the sense that I compiled and linked the gems of other writers. The book is not a hoax. Wassily W. Leontief proved the content of SWFQW by his article in the September 1980 issue of Scientific American, entitled "the world Economy in the Year 2000." Leontief was the father of the Silent Weapons System, and was awarded the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics long after his creation (1948) became recognized by the elite to be a weapon (1965).

Years passing do not change the invariant truths of science, not even of economic science. The elite were never fully named in SWFQW. It was not necessary to name them specifically. They are always among us, and they always will be among us.

SWFQW was a study in human nature; of motivation, psychological impulse and momentum, and force of habit; of control of social energy by influence, suggestion, and hypnosis; of the use of sociopathic processes to induce paranoid behavior; and so on. That is enough description of the theme and conceptual content of SWFQW. We now move on to a presentation of information sources.

[edit on 3-6-2006 by smallpeeps]

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My girlfriend happened to be looking over my shoulder, and she asked "who's Rommel?" No lie. The kicker is, she's German.

So what do y'all make of that? Is it enough to provide equal employment when there's such a huge gap in the educational regimen? Do certain fields and subjects fall outside of feminine interest (for the most part) naturally, or does it take conscious manipulation to keep that norm in place? Should this be changed, eliminated, protected?

I don't understand that idea.
The study of WWII is part of a history class required to graduate high school, isn't it? I don't think they have special requirements for male and female graduates

A little late, but I'll explain why I didn't know the name Rommel.
Simply put -- in all my years of history classes, I (*honestly*) never knew that WWII involved anything beyond Europe and Russia. Rommel was never brought up. So, yes, it was required for graduation... but we never learned the full story, I guess.

Originally posted by Diseria
A little late, but I'll explain why I didn't know the name Rommel.
Simply put -- in all my years of history classes, I (*honestly*) never knew that WWII involved anything beyond Europe and Russia. Rommel was never brought up. So, yes, it was required for graduation... but we never learned the full story, I guess.

Welcome Diseria. Did WyrdeOne's comments prompt you to join this thread? If so, glad to have you. If it helps any, the Germans I know personally, are way smarter than me.

Originally posted by Byrd
In fact, they weren't. At one time these were functions performed by ALL the members of society. It's only in recent centuries that it became a "men only" institution.

And you are correct, which is the reason that I was careful in choosing my words, and which is why I used "institutions". As a matter of fact I know that those functions were once carried out by all members of humanity, but we have moved beyond that.

They do use different standards, yes. I should point out that this also allows smaller men of other cultures (Japanese, for instance) on the force.Does this mean it's wrong? Hardly.

See, here I think we will have a difference of opinion. In my mind, if a 5'1 Japanese person (not trying to say all asians are of short stature, as a matter of fact I know plenty of 6'0 Japanese people) can do the job of a police officer, than why can't a 5'1 African American? I do believe it is wrong, and I do believe it is preferential.

There are many times when a police officer who is a woman can negotiate a situation (and a male officer would cause fear or aggression.) There are many times when a suspect or a victim will relate better to an officer of one gender rather than the other.

Why ignore the victim's needs? Why should society give up this better system (officers of both genders and all ages who can relate to the people in their care) and return to an old "white men only" policy?

Now, this has actually made me re-think my whole policeman stance (see BH, I can contemplate real reasons )). You have a point here, and there are definitely situations where a woman would serve better than a man. However, I do believe this to be the exception, escpecially considering that most crime is perpetrated by men.

If I were to offer a solution it would be similar to what the army does now with women, which I know is not in the "feminist" best interest, but it would be a start, no?

Women have better hearing and better reaction times than men do (which compensates for their lack of strength.) There are other gender-based physiological differences (which actually overlap but are more commonly found in women) that supplement physiological limitations that men don't have. Because of their better reaction times, they're 2.5% less likely to die in traffic accidents than men and are safer drivers.And you would deny their male teammates the benefits of having a woman on their team.

As a previous poster already said, we have already gone over the whole equal but different angle Ad Nauseum. Yes women have some abilities that men do not have and vice versa. I am not about to list the abilities that men have though and have a tit for tat debate whether or not all those attributes equate to men, women, or neither being better police.

That's simply a leftover of the culture of the 1950's.

How so? Are you comparing it to white america's arguments concerning the civil rights struggle?

The issues really are complex, and are not black-and-white.

I agree, which is why I like to think of myself as a progressive chauvinist. The issue isn't just black and white, which is why I do not think that it is either complete and total equality or nothing at all. I am not the one preaching complete equality though. You (not you per se, feminist in general) can not preach total equality (black/white stance) then when undesirable situations arise, fall back on the "either or" fallacy.

We were once all equals in a tribal system and both men and women acted as protectors and invokers of justice; as people who ensured the safety of other members of their tribe. I see every reason to go back to this equality that we started with in our primitive times and no reasons to continue under a patriarchial system where one gender dictates to the other what is acceptable.

I do not know if I would entirely agree with that though. True their inherent value was equal, as was the role of the individual to scold someone when seen acting out of line, however, their roles in the society as a whole were not equal. You are the expert so correct me if I am wrong, but, every tribe I have ever read about has had gender specific roles. Sure sometimes they are reversed, however, as a rule of thumb, every tribal culture I have studied, has had things that men do, and things that women do. If you have examples of a truly egalitarian (and not matriarchal) tribal system, I would really appreciate the name of it so I could check it out, thanks.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by phoenixhasrisin]

double post

[edit on 4-6-2006 by phoenixhasrisin]