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.

 

Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
I am surprised by your personal attack, it doesn’t seem to fit in with your “enlightened” views.

I made no personal attack, just a comment on your posts which I find to be generally lacking in content.



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.

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.



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…

The court system is defunct and does not provide justice. Solution? I'd encourage more women to arm themselves.



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.

The system IS flawed because there can be no real no justice for a raped individual when their whole personal life is exposed by the prosecution. Even if the rapist is punished, there is no justice. Rape is not like simple assault where a victim gets punched in the face and can testify without shame. In a rape trial, the nature of the event is sexual and very humiliating for a woman, particularly in a society where a woman who has regular sex is called a slut and a man who does the same is called a stud.



It is a primary goal of the United States to protect women. Can you offer any suggestions as to how we could improve this?

Not beyond what I have said already. Your comments reflect the mindset of most men, and demonstrate how futile that effort would be.


[edit on 1-5-2006 by smallpeeps]




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

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?

The thread is about oppression of women. I am saying there are subtle and effective ways to effect this oppression. Centering an exclusive-nexus of female satisfaction around the penis is one of them. Removing the female from the natural arousal path is another. Failing to provide adequate sex education is another. All of these three elements are suggested and implied in the subject of ED drugs. They make men feel that their penis is the prime gratifier of the female (it's not), they remove the female from the arousal process, and they encourage poor information about sex. None of these three items will ever be discussed in society. America is so prudish that the rest of the western world laughs at us.

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?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

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.


Yes, I understand that now. And I think you're right. The extremes of the older standards (and authors) are the source of men's (and some women's) impression of feminism. And I think they want to have that impression. They want to think of feminists as feminazis because that meets with their reasons for not liking the position women are taking in the US today. It meets with the anti-abortionists' and religious right's agenda.


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?


You are so right! Why do I as a female get tons of ads in my email box about these drugs? I don't need a larger, rock-hard penis, thank you! 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.


Sometimes I just shake my head and wish people would wake up...



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Nice thread. I came to it late, tried to read all the posts, but might have missed one or two, so if I am repeating...my apologize in advance.

Equality to me means a certain level of sameness: We are equal=we are the same.

Men and women are different, one is neither better nor lesser than the other just different. The creator, or evolution if you prefer, intended it that way.

Feminism, to my mind anyway, and feel free to disabuse me of my notions; has served women both in both good ways and bad. I will attempt to explain.

In working for legislation promoting equal rights in the workplace it has served women well. All to the good. Along with the other societal rights issues that the movement has endorsed over the past 3 plus decades. There are exceptions in my mind, but for the most part the good has far outweighed the bad.

But in attempting to, in my own views, push a certain stereotype of woman, they have served badly. IMHO, a woman who wants nothing to do with working in the professional world is looked down upon as having somehow failed her gender. Whilst the woman who assends to the pinniacle of success is the heroine of the movement. This may not be the case, I am open to that, but it just seems that way.

By the bye, I read with abhorence the attempts by some, who shall remain nameless, to call ED drugs tools of rape. Drugs are a tool, nothing more, there is no intent built in. The use or misuse of a tool lies not in the tool, but in the user. Oh, and another issue to address. Males can indeed be raped, and occurs far more often then you might realize. I once volunteered on a suicide hotline, and one night I spent over four hours talking a boy out of slashing his wrists. It turns out that 3 girls had spent the previous weekend taking turns with him. I managed to talk him out of the attempt long enough for the police to get to him. No charges were ever filed on the girls, because boys can't be raped by women. I am here to tell you otherwise. The trauma that kid endured, and probably still does, was as heartbreaking a thing as I have ever heard, and hope to never hear again.

Rape is a power trip, nothing more. The sex act involved is merely an aside.

Feminism has its good and bad, as does any organized group attempting societal change.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Hi seagull. Thanks for joining us.



Originally posted by seagull
Equality to me means a certain level of sameness: We are equal=we are the same.


I think we have to look beyond the strict meaning of the word 'equal' here. Sure 12=12, but 5+7=12, too. And (5+7) = (4+8). The two components of the equasion are different, but equal. Men and women are not 'the same', obviously, but we are equal in overall value, equal in worth, equal in contribution, equal as human beings.

Women have a 5 where man have a 4 and women have a 7 where men have a 8. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, and in that sense, we're different, but the overall value to society, to life is equal. Our species would not survive without the opposite gender. And we each bring to the table valuable qualities, essential to our survival and convenient to our happiness and contentment.

And there IS a certain level of sameness in some people. Especially if the people are in touch with the opposite-sex side of their personality.

When I talk about equality I'm not talking about taking one couple and saying they both have the same strength, the same opinions on everything, are equally creative, have the same potential for emotion, are equally talented... and on and on. I'm saying that if we made a graph of men and women's talents, potentials, values, characteristics, and added up all the numbers, they'd be roughly equal.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   

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.


So true BH. The only sexual based advertising is for men. Which is funny because the same idiots who control our culture in America will not show an erection in a movie! They can show the most vile scenes of rape and violence in a movie, but they won't show a male erection, which is alluded to dozens of times each day by these stupid ad-blitzkreigs from the ED makers. It is so hyprocritical, and yet if men are asked about it, they'll shrug their shoulders dumbly.

It is a basic control technique to keep a society dumb by limiting what they know. The ignorance in regards to sexuality, in America, is fostered, planned and profited from. My friends in Sweden and Holland shake their heads at us Americans and our obsession with sex while being controlled by it. In those countries, it is known that the female is in control of sexuality, and those cultures tend to raise more aware children who are more prepared for the complexities of human relationships, IMO.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
smallpeeps,

You protest much, but offer no solutions to the problems.


Originally posted by smallpeeps
Condi Rice is exactly what I said and I don't feel like finding a link.


Dr. Condi Rice is not "an oil shill", in fact as I have stated she is one of the more intelligent and powerful people in the world. I find it shocking that you so try to discredit her, I’m so sorry she spoils all your feminist fun.

You can’t provide a link showing that she is an “oil shill” because none exists.


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.


While your personal opinion is highly entertaining I feel that most people would disagree with you, especilly Sen. Hillary Clinton!

Opinions are not facts my friend.


Not just anyone can become a US senator.


Ah! Now your catching on, yes, only powerful men and women are U.S. senators.



The system IS flawed because there can be no real no justice for a raped individual


Of course we all agree that rape is a horrible and disgusting crime. The United States justice system can’t go back in time and prevent rapes that have occurred. The justice system does the best it can; we are a nation of laws.

The job of putting a rapist in jail to prevent him or her from raping again, nobody says “this is perfect justice”, but it is the best that humans can do.

Again, you complain much but cannot offer a better solution. You say that women should “arm themselves”, that doesn’t seem to cover it. But I do agree that more people should own and carry guns, the crime rates would indeed go down, and women would be more protected.

If their can be no real justice for a rape victim then it is not the justice systems fault, it is the fault of the RAPIST!



Not beyond what I have said already. Your comments reflect the mindset of most men, and demonstrate how futile that effort would be.


No, my friend I am always open to intelligent and convincing view points, but I have found none from you; only complaints and accusations of little merit.

-- Boat

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Benevolent Heretic. Thanks. Just sorry it took me so long to find this. Your views on equality chime very closely with mine. Though the phrase, the same but different does sound a little wierd. When you understand the thinking behind the phrase, it makes perfect sense. Vive la differance.

I have held to the notion that we should celebrate our differences, not divide ourselves via our differences. But that pesky little thing called the "fear of the other" keeps interfering.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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)


Many women who are in loving relationships, do need and want their lover to be able to have sex with them. I'm sorry to say, but this requires a erect penis.



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.


Many drugs and products are advertised on T.V. Thats how T.V. works. Many men may be extremely uncomfortable bringing up these type of problems with his doctor. The T.V. ads help many men find the "guts" to ask their doctor.


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).


This is the most absurd statment I have ever heard. Rapists are guilty of rape, not some pill. Men may acheive an erect penis with out the help of a woman. Most do not need a pill to do so.

--Boat

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Boatphone]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
smallpeeps,

You protest much, but offer no solutions to the problems.


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.

I don't agree with everything smallpeeps says, 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.

I'm not saying that other men haven't done this, they have, my husband among them. And many men are in some form of transition. But I'm afraid that the majority remain in a position of staunch denial at least to some degree. And that is the problem.

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. Three doesn't exactly make your point. Granted we are inching in the right direction, but to claim that we have arrived at equality because Condi Rice was appointed to her position is missing the point entirely.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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....


I wouldn't call a man who would like to see vibrators (a penis replacement) advertised on TV, a pig. In fact. I think a 'pig' of a man (I do NOT usually use that term and I'm a little uncomfortable using it here even in jest) would feel quite threatened by vibrators being pushed the way Viagra is pushed.

Trust me, the ED drug commercials are anything but erotic or stimulating to women. They're stupid. And I can only imagine vibrator ads would be, too. If they would even be permitted at all. Which of course, they wouldn't.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

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.


Ha!

I respect and care for women as much as anyone -- All smallpeeps has done is complain about the American justice system and then offer zero ways to make it better. Then he falsely accused Dr. Condi Rice of being a big oil shill. And then he also claimed that ED drugs are tools for rape, and that men cannot be raped.

Smallpeeps arguments are absurd and he offers nothing to back up his claims.


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.



So, the goal of the feminist movement is to change men’s view of women?



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.


I don't have an "us vs. them" mentality. I respect women, as much as I respect any other group including men.


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.


My point in nameing three very powerful women was in response to smallpeeps ridiculous claim that “no women could hold real power in America”.

Also, there are thousands upon thousands of powerful women in the U.S. government.

-- Boat



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
So, the goal of the feminist movement is to change men’s view of women?


I would say yes, that's one goal. To change men's (and women's) ingrained views and therefore treatment of women is certainly an important goal of the movement.


Originally posted by Boatphone
I respect women, as much as I respect any other group including men.


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.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
including men??? Sorry...


Yes, I respect women as much as I respect men. They are both awesome.


Do you respect a woman's right to choose abortion?

I think abortion is wrong, but I respect that women have the right to choose.




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...


I could go on but i'm out of room. But don't let the facts get in your way...

-- Boat



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
The only person I ever heard "seriously" use the phrase "feminazi" is this dude:
www.cbsnews.com...

If you want to go along with this doped-up, gun nut, you go right on ahead.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Enkidu]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:36 PM
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.


Ah!
Thank you for saying that. It allows me to expand on something.

Wage difference between men and women in itself does not constitute oppression!

I hate to use a quote here, but it can't be said better:


"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


Oppression is not just one thing. It is the wage gap. It is social images of women that are hammered into our heads from the day we are born. Those images are hammered into yours too. You see them on television. You see them in magazines and advertisements. You read of them in books. I look at my own daughters children's books and I see these images of women in them - females limited to roles as mother, secretary, elementary school teacher. Far too few of them include images of women in jobs traditionally held by men. I see it in her school, too, where most of the teachers of grades Kindergarten to Grade 8 are women. In fact, the only male teacher teaches grade 8. There are affirmative action programmes at work in my provinces Teacher's colleges attempting to change this. They want more women in science and math positions in high schools, and more men teaching the lower elementary grades.

What I am trying to say is that women's oppression is not just one thing. It is a huge variety of things implicit in every day actions. It's in our language. The girl is a whore, the guy a player. One is negative, the other positive when it's the same thing. The only difference? Sex. There seems to be no equivalent, and I think here is where oppression can be demonstrated perhaps most vividly for you.

Very rarely do you hear of a guy "giving it up" or being a whore. For females, on the other hand, if she "gives it" she's a whore, loose, easy, etc., and on the other hand, if she doesn't she's a cold, frigid bitch. Pricktease, anyone?

You can't win for losing. But the guys? Well, hell... boys will be boys... it's expected.

Let's just continue the double standard. It's never hurt anyone.

This is part of the cage. This is part of the oppression. But only a small part of it. It's much bigger than this.

Did you also notice who benefits in this situation I laid down here? It wasn't the woman, and that's a common thread. The winners of this situation and a myriad of others surely must be getting big heads and inflated egos because damnit, I'm hard pressed to think of situations where women are valued the same as men, regardless of other factors that may play against men, such as race, sexuality, height, etc.


And just so you know, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying a point, and illustrating it further.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
AND... whenever anyone feels like I do, we are condemned for having such an opinion.


I'm not condemning you. I just want to discuss it.


It is my opinion that men and women are NOT equal, but different. We have our own roles which are separate from each others.


Who determines those roles? Who rightfully should?

No one is saying women and men are the same. We are saying women and men should be equal under law - economically, socially and politically. We are not yet, despite what you may think. Different does not mean unequal.




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...




posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   


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...



I am speaking about Uk law here so forgive me if it isn't the same in the states.

Why are you only referring to women? Many men also live in abusive marriages. In this country divorce laws favour the women, they usually get whatever they damn want. the amount of men that get completely detroyed is unbelievable. I mean the children issue is a classic, many men are having virtually all their wages taken and they aren't allowed to see their children. Even though they are good parents, that is favoritism towards the women.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
And just so you know, I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying a point, and illustrating it further.


And well done, too!



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Had some thoughts on the discussion between Benevolent Heretic
and Beelzebubba regarding having read or not read various feminist authors.

When I was first exposed to the idea of 'feminism', it made total sense to
me... like breathing. I read some of Gloria Steinam's (sp?) work; some
articles by and interviews of her in Time or Newsweek or something (I was 15
at the time... it's been a while).

But I didn't really see a need for 'education' on the subject. My reaction
was more like "well, duh. of COURSE women should be treated the same". Since
that time, I have lived a 'feminist' lifestyle. Being human, I am not
perfect, but I have striven constantly to increase my conciousness in this
regard for the 35 years since my first exposure.

BH and I are today living that ideal. At least I think so. As
it happens, our arrangement closely resembles a 'traditional' situation - I
bring in the money, she manages the home - but this was a mutually agreed
upon arrangement that makes maximum effective use of our separate talents,
interests and abilities. We still have an egalitarian relationship - if she
as the home manager needs money, she tells me the money person and then she
has it. If I need something related to the house that is in her department, I say so
and it is done. That is our agreement. Any large decisions regarding jobs, or the house or
new vehicles, etc are discussed fully and openly. She is the better designer, so she plays
Architect for our construction projects. I'm better at the mechanics of carpentry, so I'm the crew boss for that stage. Again, each of us adds the value that we are best at, with wonderful synergy as the result.

So, we may not be educated on all the big names in Feminism, or the
extremists, and we may not have read the books, but we are none the less
walking the walk, and setting examples for the younger generation that we
are involved with. Who are, in fact, ardent feminists.

This is by no means meant to denigrate reading and formal education on the
subject.
It is meant as a demonstration that such formal education is not always
necessary in order to live a 'feminist' oriented life. As with most aspects of life, different strokes for different folks...




[edit on 1-5-2006 by Open_Minded Skeptic]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join