It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Boatphone
I am surprised by your personal attack, it doesn’t seem to fit in with your “enlightened” views.
I fail to see how Dr. Condi Rice is an oil company shill.
Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate by the voting public.
Of course women who have accused someone of rape suffer in court. Nobody said that court was fun, for anyone; the person being accused of rape doesn’t have a great time either. Take the Duke Lacrosse guys for an example. They are bashed in the media all the time and are viewed as criminals. Of course the accuser is shown in a bad light as well, the point is both sides will be…
Again, if you so strongly believe that the justice system in America some how doesn’t protect women from rape, then the burden of proof is on you to at least provide a simple idea of a better system. This is so because you are the one charging that the system is flawed.
It is a primary goal of the United States to protect women. Can you offer any suggestions as to how we could improve this?
Originally posted by Damocles
i will still disagree with you over your view that these drugs are essentially weapons for rape. (i know those werent your exact words, im paraphrasing) that may not be what you meant to say and i could be misunderstanding, but ill finish this post under that interpretation.
saying that is like saying all guns are evil tools for a murderer. murder is not the act of a gun, it is the act of the person holding the gun. if guns were outlawed and i wanted you dead, id find a way. what then? outlaw louisville sluggers?
Originally posted by Beelzebubba
I didn't wish to discredit feminism by mentioning those authors. I just wanted to show some examples of authors who still influence academic study of feminism today, authors who perpetuate a common view of the movement to most men.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
What I am saying, is not that these drugs are bad, but that the marketing of them and the pushing of them while our society is purposefully kept ignorant of sex, represents an ignorant, hypocritical, male-centered society.
As I said in my first post, could you ever imagine vibrators being advertised for women on TV?
Originally posted by seagull
Equality to me means a certain level of sameness: We are equal=we are the same.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I never see anything sexual advertised for women on TV except how to keep myself clean and fresh... The one ad for warming gel is advertized by the woman reading aloud about it until it gets her husband's attention. Once his attention is received; once HIS value is made clear, all is well.
Originally posted by smallpeeps
Condi Rice is exactly what I said and I don't feel like finding a link.
Hillary was positioned for her senate seat because she kept her mouth shut about Mena Arkansas, the Clinton body count and other scandals which she was party to, or knew about.
Not just anyone can become a US senator.
The system IS flawed because there can be no real no justice for a raped individual
Not beyond what I have said already. Your comments reflect the mindset of most men, and demonstrate how futile that effort would be.
Originally posted by smallpeeps I will say this: It is one thing to create a drug, and it is another thing to market it. If you do not see anything odd or different about the frequency with which these drugs are advertised, and the manner in which it is done (making the woman look like she's FINALLY been given what she needs and wants)
In short, Viagra makes billions for pfizer. Why do they need to advertise it? Let doctors push it if they want to, but leave it off TV.
I would like to clarify the danger of these drugs. For example, a rapist, in the act of rape, may become shamed or otherwise mentally distracted during the rape, and thereby lose his erection.
A: allowing sex to happen (arosual) and B: preventing rape (removal of arousal from rapist).
Originally posted by Boatphone
smallpeeps,
You protest much, but offer no solutions to the problems.
Originally posted by Damocles
As I said in my first post, could you ever imagine vibrators being advertised for women on TV?
LOL well, the pig of a male part of me would like to....
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Boatphone, smallpeeps IS the solution to the problem... A man who truly takes the time to understand women and the problems that exist in our society IS the answer.
If every man would do what smallpeeps has obviously done, let down the guard of false masculinity for an unfettered view into the female psyche, then I dare say we'd have no need for a feminist movement.
but he has let go of the 'us vs. them' mentality. He has released the need to be superior. He has educated himself and looks at situations with an open mind. It's clear he has an enormous amount of respect and honor for women.
And I'm sorry, but naming 3 women who you think are in positions of power proves nothing. There are hundreds of positions of power in our government.
Originally posted by Boatphone
So, the goal of the feminist movement is to change men’s view of women?
Originally posted by Boatphone
I respect women, as much as I respect any other group including men.
Also, there are thousands upon thousands of powerful women in the U.S. government.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
including men??? Sorry...
Do you respect a woman's right to choose abortion?
Also, there are thousands upon thousands of powerful women in the U.S. government.
Really? Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that one, too.
Women in the Senate
Rebecca Latimer Felton (D-Georgia), 1922
Hattie Wyatt Caraway (D-Arkansas), 1931-1945
Rose McConnell Long (D-Louisiana), 1936-1937
Dixie Bibb Graves (D-Alabama), 1937-1938
Gladys Pyle (R-South Dakota), 1938-1939
Vera Cahalan Bushfield (R-South Dakota), 1948
Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine), 1949-1973
Eva Kelley Bowring (R-Nebraska), 1954
Hazel Hempel Abel (R-Nebraska), 1954
Maurine Brown Neuberger (D-Oregon), 1960-1967
Elaine S. Edwards (D-Louisiana), 1972
Muriel Humphrey (D-Minnesota), 1978
Maryon Allen (D-Alabama), 1978
Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-Kansas), 1978-1997
Paula Hawkins (R-Florida), 1981-1987
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), 1987-
Jocelyn Burdick (D-North Dakota), 1992
Dianne Feinstein (D-California), 1992-
Barbara Boxer (D-California), 1993-
Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Illinois), 1993-1999
Patty Murray (D-Washington), 1993-
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), 1993-
Olympia Jean Snowe (R-Maine), 1995-
Sheila Frahm (R-Kansas), 1996
Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), 1997-
Susan Collins (R-Maine), 1997-
Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas), 1999-
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York), 2001-
Deborah Stabenow (D-Michigan), 2001-
Maria E. Cantwell (D-Washington), 2001-
Jean Carnahan (D-Missouri), 2001- 2002
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), 2002-
Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), 2003-
Link...
MEMBER AND PARTY STATE YEARS OF SERVICE
Jeannette Rankin (R) MT
03/04/1917 - 03/03/1919;
01/03/1941 - 01/03/1943
Alice Mary Robertson (R) OK
03/04/1921 - 03/03/1923
Winnifred Sprague Mason Huck (R) IL
11/07/1922 - 03/03/1923
Mae Ella Nolan (R) CA
01/23/1923 - 03/03/1925
Florence Prag Kahn (R) CA
03/04/1925 - 01/03/1937
Mary Teresa Norton (D) NJ
03/04/1925 - 01/03/1951
Edith Nourse Rogers (R) MA
06/30/1925 - 09/10/1960
Katherine Gudger Langley (R) KY
03/04/1927 - 03/03/1931
Pearl Peden Oldfield (D) AR
01/11/1929 - 03/03/1931
Ruth Hanna McCormick (R) IL
03/04/1929 - 03/03/1931
Ruth Bryan Owen (D) FL
03/04/1929 - 03/03/1933
Ruth Sears Baker Pratt (R) NY
03/04/1929 - 03/03/1933
Effiegene Locke Wingo (D) AR
11/04/1930 - 03/03/1933
Willa McCord Blake Eslick (D) TN
08/04/1932 - 03/03/1933
Virginia Ellis Jenckes (D) IN
03/04/1933 - 01/03/1939
Kathryn Ellen O'Loughlin (McCarthy) (D) KS
03/04/1933 - 01/03/1935
Isabella Selmes Greenway (D) AZ
10/03/1933 - 01/03/1937
Marian Williams Clarke (R) NY
12/28/1933 - 01/03/1935
Caroline Love Goodwin O'Day (D) NY
01/03/1935 - 01/03/1943
Nan Wood Honeyman (D) OR
01/03/1937 - 01/03/1939
Elizabeth Hawley Gasque (D) SC
09/13/1938 - 01/03/1939
Jessie Sumner (R) IL
01/03/1939 - 01/03/1947
Clara Gooding McMillan (D) SC
11/07/1939 - 01/03/1941
Frances Payne Bolton (R) OH
02/27/1940 - 01/03/1969
Margaret Chase Smith (R) * ME
06/03/1940 - 01/03/1949
Florence Reville Gibbs (D) GA
10/01/1940 - 01/03/1941
Katharine Edgar Byron (D) MD
05/27/1941 - 01/03/1943
Veronica Grace Boland (D) PA
11/03/1942 - 01/03/1943
Clare Boothe Luce (R) CT
01/03/1943 - 01/03/1947
Winifred Claire Stanley (R) NY
01/03/1943 - 01/03/1945
Willa Lybrand Fulmer (D) SC
11/07/1944 - 01/03/1945
Emily Taft Douglas (D) IL
01/03/1945 - 01/03/1947
Helen Gahagan Douglas (D) CA
01/03/1945 - 01/03/1951
Chase Going Woodhouse (D) CT
01/03/1945 - 01/03/1947;
01/03/1949 - 01/03/1951
Helen Douglas Mankin (D) GA
02/12/1946 - 01/03/1947
Eliza Jane Pratt (D) NC
05/25/1946 - 01/03/1947
Georgia Lee Lusk (D) NM
01/03/1947 - 01/03/1949
Katharine Price Collier St. George (R) NY
01/03/1947 - 01/03/1965
Reva Zilpha Beck Bosone (D) UT
01/03/1949 - 01/03/1953
Cecil Murray Harden (R) IN
01/03/1949 - 01/03/1959
Edna Flannery Kelly (D) NY
11/08/1949 - 01/03/1969
Marguerite Stitt Church (R) IL
01/03/1951 - 01/03/1963
Ruth Thompson (R) MI
01/03/1951 - 01/03/1957
Maude Elizabeth Kee (D) WV
07/17/1951 - 01/03/1965
Vera Daerr Buchanan (D) PA
07/24/1951 - 11/26/1955
Gracis Bowers Pfost (D) ID
01/03/1953 - 01/03/1963
Leonor Kretzer Sullivan (D) MO
01/03/1953 - 01/03/1977
Mary Elizabeth Pruett Farrington (R) ** HI
07/31/1954 - 01/03/1957
Iris Faircloth Blitch (D) GA
01/03/1955 - 01/03/1963
Edith Starrett Green (D) OR
01/03/1955 - 12/31/1974
Martha Wright Griffiths (D) MI
01/03/1955 - 12/31/1974
Coya Gjesdal Knutson (D) MN
01/03/1955 - 01/03/1959
Kathryn Elizabeth Granahan (D) PA
11/06/1956 - 01/03/1963
Florence Price Dwyer (R) NJ
01/03/1957 - 01/03/1973
Catherine Dean May (R) WA
01/03/1959 - 01/03/1971
Edna Oakes Simpson (R) IL
01/03/1959 - 01/03/1961
Jessica McCullough Weis (R) NY
01/03/1959 - 01/03/1963
Julia Butler Hansen (D) WA
11/08/1960 - 12/31/1974
Catherine Dorris Norrell (D) AR
04/18/1961 - 01/03/1963
Louise Goff Reece (R) TN
05/16/1961 - 01/03/1963
Corinne Boyd Riley (D) SC
04/10/1962 - 01/03/1963
Charlotte Thompson Reid (R) IL
01/03/1963 - 10/07/1971
Irene Bailey Baker (R) TN
03/10/1964 - 01/03/1965
Patsy Takemoto Mink (D) HI
01/03/1965 - 01/03/1977;
09/22/1990 - 09/28/2002
Lera Millard Thomas (D) TX
03/26/1966 - 01/03/1967
Margaret M. Heckler (R) MA
01/03/1967 - 01/03/1983
Shirley Anita Chisholm (D) NY
01/03/1969 - 01/03/1983
Bella Savitzky Abzug (D) NY
01/03/1971 - 01/03/1977
Ella Tambussi Grasso (D) CT
01/03/1971 - 01/03/1975
Louise Day Hicks (D) MA
01/03/1971 - 01/03/1973
Elizabeth Andrews (D) AL
04/04/1972 - 01/03/1973
Elizabeth Holtzman (D) NY
01/03/1973 - 01/03/1981
Link...
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
Another example: Short people, men and women, get paid less for the same job than taller people (Source). So, if one is to claim that wage difference between men and women constitutes oppression, then I submit that wage difference between tall and short people of the same gender also constitutes oppression.
"Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire at any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon" - M. Frye, The Politics of Reality Berkely: The Crossing Press, 1983. pp. 4-5
Originally posted by godservant
AND... whenever anyone feels like I do, we are condemned for having such an opinion.
It is my opinion that men and women are NOT equal, but different. We have our own roles which are separate from each others.
Proof lies in todays divorce rates and the way our children are growing up today.
Oh! So it's better that a woman be trapped in a marriage due to divorce laws completely favoring the man? It's better to have children grow up in a home where a man and a woman are married but in name only due to unhappiness? You are blaming women for divorce rates... as if equalizing divorce laws were a bad thing. As if keeping women in unhappy and/or abusive marriages was a good thing...
Originally posted by parrhesia
And just so you know, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying a point, and illustrating it further.