I don’t know if this will turn into a real debate or whether it will fall in to complete obscurity on this blog - but like all posts I add, your comments are most welcome.
If this should turn into a debate - all I would ask is that people play fair.
The Beadden asked me why I keep bringing up feminism in posts. I actually checked and it isn’t that many - but that said, she is a regular reader of this blog so it is something she has seen and wants to address this subject. And as she has asked I will post my comments.
Let me start with two definitions of feminism:
Cultural Feminism
Definition: Cultural feminism is a variety of feminism which emphasizes essential* differences between men and women, based on biological differences in reproductive capacity. Cultural feminism attributes to those differences distinctive and superior virtues in women. What women share, in this perspective, provides a basis for “sisterhood,” or unity, solidarity and shared identity.
* The phrase “essential differences” refers to the belief that gender differences are part of the essence of females or males, that the differences are not chosen but are part of the nature of woman or man.
Radical Feminism
Definition: Radical feminism is a philosophy emphasizing the patriarchal roots of inequality between men and women, or, more specifically, social dominance of women by men. Radical feminism views patriarchy as dividing rights, privileges and power primarily by gender, and as a result oppressing women and privileging men.
Radical feminists tend to be more militant in their approach (radical as “getting to the root”). Radical feminism opposes existing political and social organization in general because it is inherently tied to patriarchy. Thus, radical feminists tend to be skeptical of political action within the current system, and instead support cultural change that undermines patriarchy and associated hierarchical structures.
Both forms of feminism edges toward the refining of dominance in society - but for the supposed oppressed gender, that of the female. I will not argue that over the annals history we did find that women were assigned the kitchen sink and the bringing up of the children and upkeep of the household.
My view on that is we have to look at the suffragette movement of Emily Pankhurst prior to WWI - she and the other women suffered terrible abuse for wanting something we all take for granted, the vote - or the right to vote. The fact that it took a world war to aid these women in their cause must not be missed, and certainly not water down what they did for their cause. I was a just cause that should never have been fought by the establishment - yet, in addition to that, working people were only allowed the right to vote only a few short decades before this. In addition to this, and a greater cause was the way that the populace has been - and still to this day, subjugated by the few who stand at the top of societies tree and dictate to all.
Are women then any different from men? My argument is no. I fully believe in equality between all people. I do not believe that men should be given any more rights over women because they are born with a penis and a woman a vagina. I do not believe that colour or creed should come into the equation - yet, as we still see today that it does. What we do find is that we are silenced when we see the inequality and wish to speak out - whether this be an issue that a man finds wrong in the allocation of jobs for women only or affirmative action in its many guises.
The brashness of the issue of feminism is that it now takes on the roll of a power struggle and one where the power is being requested to be linked to femalehood and the dominance over men rather than what is started out as: Men and women are equal and should be treat so.
That is my part now all I can do is ask what do you think?
All Images designed by Alison Rhodes (LastingExpressions)
72 responses so far ↓
Sean // April 9, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Wasn’t radical feminism supposed to replace the patriarchal system with a matriarchal one? So much for equality..
thebeadden // April 9, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I’m going to do a short post about this on my site. And ask others to have a say. Then get my thinking cap on and be back. Thanks Will. I am so interested in what others have to say. I’m sure we can all be adult enough to actually say and let others have their say on this subject. I hope so, because I fully intend on being completely blunt in what I think, even though my views may seem a little “out there.”
A Debate Among Friends « The Bead Den // April 9, 2008 at 8:04 pm
[...] Here is where you can find Will’s post. LINK [...]
steve // April 9, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I had the misfortune of being around a radical feminist last night. She was full of nothing but hatred and self hatred. Naturalized citizen from Germany, openly admitted she’s voting for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, and said mccain is horrible because he’s a “white man”.
thebeadden // April 9, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I won’t post everything I think about this at once because it would be too long. Then no one would even read it.
I did look into it a bit before coming here and have read some things that really upset me. Some of the things women have had done to them were horrible. And it was here in the Western World!
But isn’t it true that men face the same issues? They go through many of the same challenges, only no one even thinks about it as a problem. There is no ism for it? Menism.
How about this:
A couple that both works outside the home. I agree that we should both share household duties and chores, that’s only fair. But on top of the husband helping in this regard, isn’t he also expected to do the “Manly” things around the house? Shouldn’t we women now have to learn those things, maybe mechanics, plumbing, roofing. All the yucky things we don’t want to do that is expected a man should just do, because he is a man.
And isn’t it true that we think less of a man that can’t do these things. I mean a man should be capable and handy, shouldn’t he? And what if he isn’t? ewwwww…. then he is somewhat less of a man.
And don’t some people look down at men who stay home to raise the family?
Don’t we women want to be equal, but also isn’t it great to be coddled, pampered and treated like a princess? Isn’t it great that men still are expected to take care of the family? If things go wrong everyone generally looks at the man. Just as when a house is messy, even though both work. It’s not the man people look at.
I think we are looking at feminism in the wrong way. We should be working together to make changes because both sides are effected by wages, work and problems we face. It isn’t so much gender as it is what class you are in.
dissfunktional // April 9, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Oh lordy don’t get me started. I don’t even want to think about this nonsense. I hate it that it still exists.
@ the workplace, and example:
A confident, intelligent man - is worthy of respect
A confident, intelligent woman - is a bitch
@ the personal level:
A man with many ‘partners’ is a ’stud’
A woman with many ‘partners’ is a slut
The difference in paychecks, not to mention workload and expectation (which is much higher for a woman IMO) really gets my gord. I can’t even deal with this subject.
Bug Girl // April 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I think those are very academic definitions of feminism, Will.
I think most people would just say “feminism is wanting the same rights, pay, and privileges for men and women. Not more, not less.”
I know a lot of men who are feminists, in the sense they support the struggle of women to reach equality, and also recognize that many traditionally “women’s” issues are issues for men, too (child care, etc.)
As someone who has been the ONLY woman in the room for nearly all of my career, I have experienced all sorts of nastiness.
I’m with Disfunktional–it’s difficult to talk about, because it’s so closely rooted in my experience.
All I can say is that anyone who thinks the time for feminism is past should read the recent UN report on the status of women. And note that NO country has achieved gender equity.
Feminism has been so demonized that it’s become the F word.
Will Rhodes // April 9, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Emily Pankhurst put down her baton of equality once the first world war started - she actually wanted all the men in civilian cloths interned and or conscripted - she walked the streets with white feathers and handed them out.
After the war, and with the help of Lloyd George plus others - women won the right to vote.
What about the women in the third world who have no access to any medication, any employment, all the things that are taken for granted here in the west? What about the women of the west empowering those who are in real need in this day?
Crowing about a woman who chooses to wear a swimsuit and walk around calling herself Miss [add nation or world, universe] doesn’t stop one woman being stoned to death because she didn’t wear a headscarf.
Will Rhodes // April 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Add me to them - because I agree with equality at all levels not just the CEO.
thebeadden // April 9, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Bug Girl, I can relate. I am also usually the only woman where I work. And I admit that sometimes I have been treated differently because of this. Not in pay. Not in what job I am handed, but from the clients. Usually shock. Or a little comment. I’m good at what I do, so that usually ends any problem they might have. I don’t have to work harder to prove myself to anyone, I just have to do my job.
Sometimes, I get treated better than my male co-workers. Maybe I am just lucky. I DO understand that if it wasn’t for feminism I wouldn’t have this job.
But I am also in a position to see my male co-workers being treated like crap, getting paid less and having hard times too.
I’m not saying that we still don’t need to stay on top of this and to keep up the fight. But I honestly believe it is just another thing - a line drawn - to keep both men and women from working together in the workplace and in other areas. There are idiots everywhere, both genders. But there are many more who would, given the chance, work together to make changes.
steve // April 9, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Yeah Will, as I had pointed out, and you made a story about, women seem to only seek equality at the top levels. There’s really no movement to get more women janitors, or slaughterhouse employees. Equality is equality everywhere, not just the best jobs. I don’t see many men protesting that they don’t have to register for the selective service like I do. So I can be forced to die for my country but they cannot? Is that “equality”??
thebeadden // April 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Just the fact that so many people just cannot talk about this IS a problem. Maybe if both men and women could really open up they might see that we are all facing problems, many of them, the same.
I don’t know where you are Steve. But in the US a woman can be drafted.
By staying divided, we are all weakened. Together there is a chance for change.
withmalice // April 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Ferris Bueller:
Spot on.
I’m all for feminism, to a point. When any -ism gets to the stage where people get foaming-at-the-mouth crazy, that’s when I slowly back away.
sulz // April 10, 2008 at 5:47 am
Are women then any different from men?
personally, i believe yes. however, i don’t see why should the sexes not be treated as equals despite the differences. it’s like parents and their kids - no one kid of theirs is alike the other, does that mean they must be treated differently?
i don’t see myself as a feminist, but i do want women to receive equal treatment as what the men receive. i’m more of an equalist, i think.
dissfunktional // April 10, 2008 at 6:55 am
Steve said:
Women fought for their right to die for their country. It is a privilige to die for your country. Women have fought to be allowed to fight, and fight in the front lines right along side their male counterparts and not be treated any differently.
Forced?
No.
A privilege. Get it right.
steve // April 10, 2008 at 7:18 am
“Women fought for their right to die for their country. It is a privilige to die for your country. Women have fought to be allowed to fight, and fight in the front lines right along side their male counterparts and not be treated any differently.
Forced?
No.
A privilege. Get it right.”
Sorry, I see not being required to sign up for the selective service as being a privilege. I have to, they don’t. That’s not equality.
B0bbyG // April 10, 2008 at 9:05 am
I don’t see why feminism is such a dirty word. What it actually means is basically, “women are at least as good as men, and deserve to be treated as such”. That makes me a male feminist (and probably you as well), and proud of it. Female chauvinists and militant loonies are another kettle of fish entirely.
I think that regular, reasonable, pro-equality people should reclaim the term feminist.
Of course, masculism is a good thing as well - providing it doesn’t mean male chauvinism. Conscription, for example, is an oppressive system that discriminates against men. I’m certainly not pro Jessie Pope or those “white feather women” who ran around in the 1st World War trying to shame men into battle, whilst doing nothing themselves.
The point I’m making is that the idea behind feminism - that women have a right to be treated as equal to men - is good. It gets given a bad name by people who could probably be better described as bigots and idiots.
Something I find interesting - before I started using the Internet, my experience of feminism was only as a positive movement seeking equality. It seems that online people tend to view it quite differently.
steve // April 10, 2008 at 9:45 am
BobbyG, because they tend to seek out the benefits but not the burdens of equality. I don’t see female outrage when women get much more lenient jail sentences. If Andrea Yates had been a male, she would have gotten the death penalty for drowning all of her kids. Some woman tried to cut her husband’s penis off in canada, and she didn’t even get jail time. Imagine if a man stabbed his wife? Why aren’t women lobbying to have to register for the draft? Why do women seek minimum quotas on boards but not seek minimum women quotas as janitors, as truck drivers? Why must they only be at the top? Equality is not just at the top, but at the middle and the “bottom”. If it were TRULY about equality, then I’d be a feminist too, but as I see it, and as it plays out, they only want the benefits, not the burdens or responsibilities, and I cannot tell you how many “feminists” who I know that complained about how there’s a glass ceiling, all this stuff, and then get married and quit working. A guy who does that is called “homeless”
steve // April 10, 2008 at 9:46 am
If that were his intention. It’s very rare where women will chose to support a man, whereas it’s expected a man will support a woman. The more feminist the woman tends to be, the less likely she is to want to support a man. I knew some pretty “independent” women that divorced their husbands at the mere prospect he was going to lose his job.
steve // April 10, 2008 at 10:13 am
OMg. Elton John said America is misognynist because Hillary Clinton is trailing Obama.
B0bbyG // April 10, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Of course they want the benefits - that’s human nature. You can’t expect women to start demanding to be mistreated. That’s why somebody needs to stand up for men’s rights, too (this is not an advocation of misogyny, btw).
steve // April 10, 2008 at 1:53 pm
With benefits come responsibilities and duties. I have responsibilities and duties. I accept it as part of life. When women seek out benefits, they also don’t seek out the responsibilities and duties, but rather only the benefits. And what is being mistreated? What are examples? I mean, for the love of God, women make more than men these days until women hit 30, and that’s around the age many start quitting working or going part time.
B0bbyG // April 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm
OK, let me make that clearer. There are, or at least have been in the past - and I think I can say this without fear of contradiction - a number of elements of society and culture that favour males over females. It’s hardly surprising that women took exception to that. It would, however, be pretty remarkable if men had started complaining about the inequality and demanding that they be treated just as badly as women.
Nowadays - and again, I don’t think anyone is likely to dispute this - there are elements of society and culture which favour women. It is to be expected that men would object to this. However, men can hardly expect the majority of women to demand worse treatment for women. To expect that would just be hypocrisy.
And the fact remains, it’s often harder for women to get jobs in positions of authority than men, women are judged based on their appearence a lot more than men, and there are numerous stereotypes attatched to women. That doesn’t mean men don’t come in for similar injustices in other areas, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Is this the kind of debate you wanted, Will?
museditions // April 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I am here at the specific request of my friend thebeadden, a person I respect. I generally don’t get involved in discussions about feminism. I’ve read opinions about it too on Will’s blog, and I agree with both Dissfunktional and BugGirl that it’s difficult to talk about. In the past I was extremely involved in the issues, but in being so I would realize I became unhappy in the discussions. Being unhappy for any length of time is no longer acceptable to me in my life, therefore my reluctance to engage, but I’ll make a rare exception for Bead and Will (a person I also respect). I apologize in advance for the terse nature of my response, contrary to my usual relentless cheerfulness!
My basic philosophical stance is that everyone ought to do whatever they wish. If there are laws which practically prevent a large minority of any population doing so, then it stands to reason I would not be in favor of such laws. I generally feel, however, that our status, condition, salary, level of respect, or just about any other condition one might name is internally generated; i.e. an “inside job”; i.e. a reflection of our own consciousness. Therefore if a particular person or group feels oppressed, it’s not because of something “out there” whether in society, or within “God’s laws” or because of years of tradition, but because of norms the person has been conditioned to expect. These conditioned expectations can be changed. When enough members of a society come to believe conditions can—and perhaps “should”—be changed, then often new laws are passed and/or old laws are repealed. I believe social activism in such areas is a worthy thing provided that the persons engaging in such activism can do so without blame or anger. (Well, at least that’s my preference. I wouldn’t want to step upon another’s path).
Regarding typical social objections to/about “feminism”, I’ll just address a few. “Women want all the rights, but they wouldn’t want to be drafted, would they?” Not able to speak for all women, I do say when asked (a rare occurrence these days) that, gosh no, I don’t think women should be drafted. I don’t think men should be drafted. A military draft amounts to forced labor; i.e. slavery—something that has been outlawed in many cultures. If I DID believe in a military draft, then I would not expect a class of citizens to be excluded based on the form of their reproductive organs, as is currently the case in the US, and most other western countries.
I do personally know of female electricians, quarry managers, janitors, truck drivers, and heavy equipment operators. I have family members and friends who are male models, kindergarten teachers, and nurses. I do not know any slaughterhouse workers of either gender.
The conclusion I’ve reached, for myself, is that I’m not a feminist, nor a masculinist, but rather a universalist (not in the religious sense). I believe all conscious creation is equally valuable, and that each individual is responsible for her or his own experience. I can’t imagine any individual capable of knowing what’s best “for women”, or “for men”, or “for turtles”.
And, with respect, I’ll answer the questions thebeadden proposed in the April 9 8:33 pm comment: Perhaps some people would feel some of the ways you have illustrated. My friends most likely would not, and I can’t imagine many people I know who would, at least consciously and deliberately, judge a person of either gender on whether or not they knew how to wield a screwdriver, for instance. I don’t believe that a person is objectively entitled to preferred treatment, or more pampering, or more or less demanding tasks based on their gender. I think we all value pampering at times, just as we all feel a sense of accomplishment when learning a new and valuable task. I believe adults sharing a household have free will and free choice about how to maintain their households, and if their methods suit all the adults in the household I do rejoice in their domestic harmony. Anything further is not my business
PS, Bobby, thank you for your balanced perspective. Interesting that you find more unpleasant discussion of this topic online than in RL.
steve // April 10, 2008 at 3:42 pm
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=69362fc0-92ae-440a-b56d-13c5e10f8e66
No jail time served. If a man did that he would get at least 10 years. Why aren’t feminists complaining about unequal treatment?
Andrea Yates drowned all 5 of her kids. Before her conviction was overturned, she only got a life sentence. Had she been a man who did that, she would have been on death row. Why didn’t the feminists complain?
The question isn’t about whether there should be a draft, there is the selective service. Men must sign up, women do not. Why aren’t feminists up in arms about this? This is a burden of being a citizen, a male citizen. why aren’t women seeking this responsibility. Can you show me a single example of a responsibility women have been seeking out? Everything you can see is them looking for more benefits, but not the burdens. Why?
Will Rhodes // April 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm
@ Bobby - I opened the debate for people, well, to debate if they wished. I did say that people should play fair, and anyone who knows me knows what that means.
You are a very insightful young man, and I do respect your input - you see the world differently from the older generation i.e. me.
I think I have made my stand point clear(er) - I do not like the way that feminism has turned out. The original feminists were on the side of all people who were ‘badly’ done to by society. But, as with many things in life, you get a section of society who bastardise something to their own end, this is what I feel has happened with feminism - and that in itself has made what we see as feminism today, mute.
@ Muse - always the person to bring harmony my friend. Although tongue in cheek with the Britney Spears post - what has feminism done for that young woman? Nothing but attack her for who she is. But, where I find it distasteful, they leave her out to the pack of wolves that are the media, or sections of it.
I gladly support her, she is ill and needs help - not the banshees that call themselves feminist and say she gets everything she deserves.
Perfectly worded and I agree!
*Applauds*
@ Steve - You won’t get the feminists saying that a woman should be more heavily sentenced, they would simply blame society for her burden.
As I have said before, the true to the cause feminist is for equality not for the dominance over men as it has evolved.
Stonehead // April 10, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I was invited to join this soirée, but I’m not sure the invitation was entirely wise. My own particular take—combined with my somewhat combative nature—invariably means I annoy the feminists, non-feminists and anti-feminists equally.
Instead, I will say I have a fundamental problem with the coinage, adoption, dissemination and usage of “isms”. They are a useful tool for the genuine academic, researcher or polymath as they make it easier to identify groups, understand group behaviours and explore group psychology.
However, this is also the problem with “isms”. They make tribal identification far too easy, particularly for the lazy, the bigoted, the manipulative and, to be quite frank, the stupid.
Humanity is tribal. Tribes are about the survival, protection, advancement and aggrandisement of a group of people with shared cultural values. If you’re in a tribe, you’re “one of us” and not “one of them”.
Femininism is one of those tribes, while the definitions Will gives are those of two clans within the tribe (there are others).
As always, “Me and my sister against my cousin, me and my cousin against a stranger”.
I’m almost invariably the stranger as I’m not keen on membership of any tribe. They’re far too oppressive, stifling, self-absorbed and exclusive for my tastes.
I’ll leave it at that as I think I’ve said enough to make it reasonably clear where I stand with being too combative and argumentative.
thebeadden // April 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I have some errands to do, but had to pop in and say I am at a loss for words! How unexpected it was to come home and find such thoughtful, insightful comments. What a wonderful bunch of people we have here
The sun is shining, snow is gone and now this. Can my day get any better?
Thank you so much for doing this Will!
Will Rhodes // April 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm
No problem at all.
steve // April 11, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hey, according to Elton John, if Hillary doesnt win, it’s because of misogony. How low do people need to go get their way?
B0bbyG // April 11, 2008 at 9:02 am
What if Obama fans started claiming that if he didn’t win it was racist? What a stupid argument!
steve // April 11, 2008 at 9:33 am
Exactly BobbyG. And if Mccain doesn’t win, he can say because he’s a veteran, a former POW, or a white male. It just shows how selfish and immature people are, if thye don’t get what they want, they start making baseless accusations, like how a child would throw a hissy fit. Politicians are narcissists and while lie and do anything to get into power, and their supporters enable this by doing crap like this.
thebeadden // April 11, 2008 at 9:43 am
Will, about “the dominance over men as it has evolved” I know there people who go to the extreme but I think they are a small percentage of the population.
I have met one person like that in all my life. I’m sure she’ll never get her wish. I’d love to tell you about what happened, but that wouldn’t be fair to her for me to write about her in public. It was before I even owned a computer and was so shocked about it, it ended up like a soap opera! My husband and I still laugh about it. I get out more now, but I was quite young then (didn’t even own a computer) and was totally blown away. I never really took it as feminism, but as a young woman who was still trying to find out who she was and wanted to be noticed. I thought it was all for shock value. Have you actually met (other than on-line) anyone like that?
I know a few women who use the word feminism as an excuse for getting out of things, or for why they do things. Pulling it out like a card, when needed.
But then I think what if I did work somewhere and got less pay just because of my gender. Then I might be singing a different tune. But then it would be because of the view of that person running the company, not the whole world!
And I am sure that were were many of the same things going on before women worked. If one job opening was up for grabs, there would have been others who wanted it, and many that were capable of doing it, but only one person can be chosen. I’m sure every man who didn’t get picked felt slighted. Everyone would feel a bit let down and look for reasons why that one got picked and why it was that they didn’t. And there would be talk. So what did they call it before women worked?
And maybe I am just kind of sheltered because I haven’t experienced things that other women have. I don’t know. I just think people do things that we may not like because they can. Because that is what they are like. Someone just can’t be so cruel, or controlling or whatever…….so to explain it we make words for it.
But I think it really is more like musEditions said:
“My basic philosophical stance is that everyone ought to do whatever they wish. If there are laws which practically prevent a large minority of any population doing so, then it stands to reason I would not be in favor of such laws. I generally feel, however, that our status, condition, salary, level of respect, or just about any other condition one might name is internally generated; i.e. an “inside job”; i.e. a reflection of our own consciousness. Therefore if a particular person or group feels oppressed, it’s not because of something “out there” whether in society, or within “God’s laws” or because of years of tradition, but because of norms the person has been conditioned to expect. These conditioned expectations can be changed. When enough members of a society come to believe conditions can—and perhaps “should”—be changed, then often new laws are passed and/or old laws are repealed. I believe social activism in such areas is a worthy thing provided that the persons engaging in such activism can do so without blame or anger.”
(doesn’t muse just blow you away?) I wish there were more MuseEditions in this world!
I think most people would rather be equal and live in harmony. I know I would. I take people for what they are regardless of gender. A good person is a good person….and then…the not so good.
Will Rhodes // April 11, 2008 at 12:25 pm
@ Beadden - It would be ideal if the feminism movement had stayed on that tack, but no. This is why you have your fragmented factions of feminism such as those I opened this debate with. There are many more. If you do a wordpress search for some of these factions you will find many - and it is not good reading. I have a link in the blogroll for a woman who is against feminism - reading her blog you can gain some insight as to how people feel - some more stronger than others.
There are many of us who do want equality between the sexes, millions in fact - but like most good causes they have been hijacked by the more radical and as so, have been diluted because of it.
Australia
And the debate continues. There are many feminists out there that, because of what they espouse, do down the cause of equality for the betterment of personal agenda.
steve // April 11, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Er, the Golda Meir example isn’t exactly accurate. In 1973, the arabs collectively attacked Israel on the holiest Jewish holiday, which happened to fall during Ramadhan. It was exactly like Meir wanted this to happen, though she accepted responsibility for the intelligence failure. To say she was some kind of militant war monger would be innaccurate. That would be like saying that FDR was a hawk because Japan attacked the US.
steve // April 11, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Also, why wasn’t Heather mills charged with assault Mccartney’s counsel? If she had been a male, she would have been arrested and likely charged with assault. Why do we hold women to lesser standards of civility, and dismiss it as her being hysterical? Is that equality?
Will Rhodes // April 11, 2008 at 6:10 pm
You ask questions that can only be answered by ‘feminists’, Steve - and so far none have joined this debate, and I fear none will.
thebeadden // April 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“why wasn’t Heather mills charged with assault Mccartney’s counsel”
I don’t know what you are talking about because I don’t usually read celebrity stuff. But she probably didn’t get charged because of who she is and who she was married to.
If it had have been A lower or middle class couple, you can bet it would have been different.
museditions // April 11, 2008 at 9:31 pm
thebeadden, you flatter me. I’m honored, thank you.
And Uncle Will is a very good, respectful host. At the end of the day if we live lives of integrity and treat each other with kindness, we’ll find ourselves surrounded by the most wonderful of companions. From that place we can change the world!
stevencoran // April 11, 2008 at 11:19 pm
thebeadden:
Heather Mills dumped a pitcher of water on Paul Mccartney’s attorney’s head IN THE COURTROOM! That’s assault! I realize likely the attorney would have to press charges outside of court, but in a courtroom, and crazy behavior is usually considered contempt of court! two different possible charges and none were filed! I think Paul realized she’s so crazy he might as well let it go.
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 12:02 am
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877725/posts
Mike Sweat’s family members were in the process of giving victim impact statements to the court when Mike Sweat<<< (A MALE), who was walking to the witness stand, suddenly turned and charged toward the defendant in a courtroom. Mike Sweat (A MALE) jumped the defendant.
Mike Sweat (A MALE) also attempted to grab the sheriff’s gun that was in a holster at the sheriff’s side.
No charges were pressed against Mike Sweat.
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 12:15 am
Israel Shapiro (A MALE) recently pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a child and one count of third-degree sex offense.
Mr. Shapiro is a Baltimore City rabbi who pleaded guilty to abusing little boys.
Jail time - none
Required to register as a sex offender? - no
thebeadden // April 12, 2008 at 12:24 am
diss are you serious? Abusing children and no jail time? What is it with these religions and children? How do they keep getting away with this?
Unfreakingbelieveable!
steve // April 12, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Holy cow, this one really takes the cake:
http://www.silive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-25/120793555157340.xml&storylist=simetro
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 4:23 pm
the screwing you get for the screwing you got.
thebeadden // April 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I don’t want to start an argument here, but seriously. We could all go on forever here, posting links and examples on both sides of the spectrum.
Take gender, race, colour, creed out of the equation. Think just human being. This happened to a human today. Then work together and try to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
We draw so many lines that it is near impossible to get people to work together to make changes where they are needed.
That’s just my opinion and I’m not saying I’m right. It’s just the way I feel.
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 4:37 pm
exactly
that bs ’steve’ has been crying about isn’t about male/female. he has no basis for any argument started. not sure he even read the original post.
pretty sure I work with him. he’s typical.
steve // April 12, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Wrong. I agree with Will, who believes in real equality. Equal rights AND responsilities. Do you think in my latest link, that’s equality? She chooses to artificially inseminate herself, without the husband’s permission AND he now has the pay child support? That’s really abusive, and if the roles were reverse somehow, she would not be paying support to him for his decisions she had no input in. That’s NOT equality. That’s special privileges.
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 4:57 pm
where do you get this nonsense? are you 3? women pay child support. women get drafted. both men and women raise hell in a courtroom and no charges are pressed.
back up your statements or shut up.
Will Rhodes // April 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Both sexes have to take responsibility for their actions - I do agree there should be equality, but abuse is abuse no matter how we try to cover it up.
Muslim offender
This is another case in point - why did this person get treated differently?
This is simply wrong. When you go to prison it is the prison service that states what you do - not what religion you are.
thebeadden // April 12, 2008 at 5:20 pm
A person will generally use anything that they can, to help them in any situation on life.
If they can use something out there to their advantage, they will
If they can use something to give reason for why they did it, they will.
They will pull out any card that will work. Regardless if they truly believe it or not. It’s called survival. It’s called an excuse.
There are people getting away with things because of who they are, who they know, who they can pay off, blackmail…..whatever….fill in the blank.
What needs to be done is follow up these things to the top of the chain, demand the changes, work together, and don’t give in.
People do things because they can. No other reason.
steve // April 12, 2008 at 5:22 pm
That’s because of Political Correctness Will. I’m sure the Prison system had to change the meal plans and ban pork for everyone to accomodate muslims that way too.
steve // April 12, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“where do you get this nonsense? are you 3? women pay child support. women get drafted. both men and women raise hell in a courtroom and no charges are pressed.
back up your statements or shut up.”
Women in the US get drafted? I didn’t realize that. Could you please back that up.. pot… kettle..
dissfunktional // April 12, 2008 at 6:34 pm
you bet. clearly you are not familiar with dissfunktional.
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
thebeadden // April 12, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I too thought women could be drafted. I checked around and any link that had stated they could, was no longer available. I do know that a bill was introduced in 2007 to implement it. I can’t find out what has become of it yet. Still looking.
But in searching for this you should be happy to know that there are many women who are fighting for this to take place. So the women are trying to do something about it. Google it, you’ll find hundreds of links and women wanting this to happen.
I don’t agree with anyone being drafted, but you had asked where the women were in this regard. They are out there….
I’ll get the link to the bill from 2007.
thebeadden // April 12, 2008 at 6:36 pm
well, there you go. Diss must have posted while I was writing this.
Emily // April 13, 2008 at 9:17 am
I have to admit, the most I know about feminism is what I’ve simply happened upon while researching Louisa May Alcott and the obsessive ravings of misdirected anger and resentment by those who wish to misleadingly label said aggresssion as “feminism”, but there are a few things I would wish to add.
#1: There has been posted on here a few times this comment made by Elton John about America being a mysogynist nation in the event Hillary does not become President. There is no question to validity to the argument beyond the fact “If you don’t believe ‘x’, you must be ‘y’”, where x and y are not mutually exclusive, is a logical fallicy labeled “ad baculum”. Directly translated, that is “to the stick”, basically threatening you into agreeing with the arguer’s statement, disagreement resulting in a negative label. As mentioned before, that is a childish tactic.
Next: I am an avid Louisa May Alcott fan, and as I began reading more of her work, I realised that her earlier thrillers were a point of interest for feminists. The short stories seemed to “show the true, unshackled Louisa”, as though the smut she was writing (which she admits to herself) was what she truly wanted with her talent. Where I’m going with this is Alcott was, in fact, a feminist, but in the form that I think would now be more appropriately called an “equallist”. What feminism has transformed into today, I think she would be ashamed about. (another ad baculum, I apologise) Yes, women should not be concidered intellectually equal. However, I believe, and I’m not extending this to Alcott’s views, that woman are not physically equal. Woman should intellectually, or rather, in theory, be allowed to do all that a man does, but I do not think it should be required or an obligation. Honestly, I do not think I need to prove my worth as a human being by showing that I am in no way different from a man. Actually, as a heterosexual, THANK GOD I AM! ::laughs:: I am a rare female in that I want to be at home with my children, to raise them MYSELF (sorry, caps had to substitue for italics) not let some stranger do it for me (much less the government in the form of a public school system.) However, because of the “leaps and bounds” of feminism, women are required to work to survive in the American world. What is “not work” about raising a family and taking care of a household? It’s damned hard! And I want to be able to focus all of my energy on that noble task. Yet radical feminists would scorn that one! Barefoot and pregnant? ::gasp:: Women should be allowed to work, to vote, to have similar responsibilities to men, not be forced to do those things. There is nothing unworthy in doing those things “only a woman” should do, and I think it’s counter-intuitive to say that womanly persuits are demeaning to women. I think people need to just take pride in what they do, what they believe, and how they live their lives, however that may be. My two cents…
Emily // April 13, 2008 at 9:20 am
Correction :
“Yes, women should not be concidered intellectually equal.”
I meant they should be considered intellectually equal.
Will Rhodes // April 13, 2008 at 10:01 am
LOL - thanks for the correction, I was worried about that a little.
steve // April 13, 2008 at 11:20 am
thebeadden:
In the US, we currently don’t have a draft. However, all males, and males only, are required to register with the selective service, which is the group that would do the draft. You have to register by your 18th birthday, if you do not, you go to jail. Women don’t have to sign up, they don’t go to jail if they don’t sign up. That’s not equality. There has been absolutely NO effort by women to get women to have to register with the selective service.
thebeadden // April 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Emily, that was a great post. I agree with you about raising our own children too. I don’t think there is anything more meaningful or important in life than raising the next generation. I don’t even have children but I just have to look around to see that it is work, hard work!
Steve - I’ll have to look into that and get back to you.
thebeadden // April 13, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Steve, I found this for you:
Women and Uncle Sam
I don’t understand why, in these times, anyone would want to sign up to be cannon fodder. It would be different if it were on our own soil. But to sign up for greed and power is another thing. I can see why you are upset about having to register. I wouldn’t want to.
The concerned Mr. Treadwell // April 13, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Well I stumbled upon some delightful trashy mid 20th century Sci-Fi the likes of which when read today would make you laugh at the inaccuracy, however every so often they get it right or close to it.
The book in question depicted a world where superwomen outnumber men 5 to 12 the books title in-fact… now a few parts of it are ridiculous like whale farming yet a few things aren’t. Including a European wide single currency and longevity shots. The idea behind this book is that due to birth control women take over the world and make men second class citizens useful only for sex.
Now that there is the technology around the corner to remove men altogether from procreation I wonder whether the end is nigh for the chromosome Y?
steve // April 14, 2008 at 10:20 am
Exactly the beadden. If I’m forced to register for the selective service, why aren’t women? I resent that, and I resent that women aren’t fighting to be required to register too. Why is my life worth less? How is me having to register, but women not, equality?
Will Rhodes // April 14, 2008 at 10:53 am
Some say that women already have Mr Treadwell
thebeadden // April 14, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Steve, I wish I had an answer to that. You are not worth less. Things were different when they made those “rules.”
I can fully understand why you ask this question, just as I can understand why women would not want to put a a fight to be registered. I don’t think anyone would want to sign up for something where they risk coming home in a body bag.
And yes, it does seem unfair that women aren’t included. I see your point.
I for one, think that no one should have to register, no one should have to be drafted. It makes it that much easier for governments to decide to go to war.
It would be different if it was on our own soil. In our own back yard. I don’t think anyone (Canadian or American, Man or Woman) would walk away from defending their own Country and their families. You wouldn’t need a draft at all!
Even though you and I don’t always see eye to eye, I would be terribly upset if you came on here one day and said you had to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s just not right.
Maybe the changes that should be made, shouldn’t be making women sign up. Instead, that men shouldn’t have to.
Mr. Treadmill - That’s funny you said that. I have a terrible memory, but my husband said something quite the opposite the other day. It seems to be a growing epidemic of women who are infertile. I meet so many people dealing with this, it almost seems normal. People who have to try for years….when our G-Grandparents popped them out like crazy!
He said something about population control.
If there were 100 men and one women they could limit the population to “x” amount in so many years.
On the other hand if there were 100 women and one man, the population would soar! I wish he were home right now. He knew the numbers and years. Sorry if it doesn’t make sense
The concerned Mr. Treadwell // April 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Well in short it’s possibly quite apocalyptic for men any way…
Men useful only for sex I don’t think so. I’m sure the moving of furniture, taking the trash out and unscrewing of jars will remain in the domain of the males unless the women decide that the need to shave legs becomes redundant?
steve // April 14, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Beadden:
I’m too old to get drafted anyways unless they were incredibly desperate, however, it’s not limited to that. Not only can you get arrested if you don’t register, you also cannot take out student loans. So by being born with a penis, I risked getting killed, getting jailed, and being denied student loans if I didn’t register. I remember when I turned 18, girls would just say “thank God I don’t have to do that”, and It made me realize that either I’m more of a citizen, or I’m getting a really bad deal. Of course I don’t think there should be a draft, it’s a clear violation of the 13th amendment, but if there is going to be the selective service, women better be required to sign up or at least admit they don’t want the responsibilities that also comes with rights, it’s either that or tell me I’m a second class citizen.
Stonehead // April 15, 2008 at 8:32 am
There’s an interesting article on the BBC News website that reports researchers as having linked levels of testosterone and cortisol among market traders to “boom and bust” economics.
One wonders what changing from a male-dominated environment to a female one would have on economics…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7342923.stm
steve // April 15, 2008 at 9:41 am
Stonehead:
I would think a lot of the problems economically in the US are women-related. As we all know, women like to shop. Much of the time, they shop with credit. Every guy I know who is married has been pressured by the wife to get more house than they need, and to spend lots of money on silly things that cost a lot, such as granite countertops. I know there are guys who are spendthrifts, but I think a lot more women are. I was shocked when I found out how many women have massive debt and not really any legit means of paying it off. Some get married when they no longer can handle it, and the unknowing new husband just had his credit destroyed.
Fearnsy // April 15, 2008 at 4:10 pm
….so much to read!
Gender means sweet f**k all in my opinion….but learning about Marxist fems in Sociology was good for a giggle.
steve // April 23, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Saving Our Young Men
By Marty Nemko
This year, almost twice as many women as men will earn bachelor’s degrees.
For the same work, women typically earn at least as much as men.
Yet society continues to do more for girls and women, usually at men’s expense.
By Marty Nemko
Twenty years ago, when I began career counseling, my male and female clients were equally upbeat about their future. Today, for the most part, the girls and women are confident, feeling the world is their oyster, while the boys and men more often are despondent, scared, or angry. The phrase that best defines my male clients is “beaten down.”
What happened? Most of the guys can’t put their finger on the cause, but having had 2,800 clients over 20 years, I believe I’ve pieced it together.
Starting in elementary school, boys are made to feel inferior. Take Your Daughter to Work Day implied to boys that they count less. Endless lessons highlighting the contributions of women (from Pocahontas to Rosa Parks to Hillary Clinton) and the evils of men (from Hannibal to Hitler to McCarthy) make boys feel inferior. That inferiority is reinforced when they come home from school and see TV shows and movies with Doofus Dads or Scuzzball Sams being put in their place by Wise Women. In the effort to boost girls’ self-esteem, boys’ are destroyed.
When boys start to look into college, the very first thing they see are the colleges’ brochures and websites, with far more pictures of women and minorities; the subliminal message: we don’t care about white males. Application essays often ask students to describe a hardship they overcame. “Hardship” is often code for “overcoming the disadvantage of being a woman or a minority.” Many white males, if only unconsciously, feel this is just one more thing discouraging them from applying.
If and when they arrive at college, young men find the anti-white-male juggernaut continues, from the very first day. At orientation, they hear of endless clubs, mentoring programs, and other opportunities for women and minorities, almost none for men, let alone for white men. In the classroom, the denigration of white men accelerates. Lysistrata often replaces Lear, The Doll House displaces Homer, with the writings of dead white European males disproportionately used as whipping boys, deconstructed in anti-male ways. More broadly, the “white male hegemony” is presented as society’s worst cancer, one which must be extirpated at all cost, with constant vigilance required to stamp out any area in which men are ‘overrepresented.” Yet, it’s ignored or even extolled when women are overrepresented. For example, women dominate the highly influential book publishing world, putting out an endless stream of pro-woman/anti-male bestsellers such as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s Are Men Necessary? and Dee Dee Myers’ just-published, Why Women Should Rule the World.
So, far fewer men are going to college, and those that do, drop out at much higher rates. In the 2007 college graduation class, 58% were women, 42% men, a dramatic reversal from just two decades ago. Today, with a bachelor’s degree being the minimum requirement for most decent jobs, this is a disaster for men. And a disaster for half of our population is a disaster for us all.
When young men apply for jobs, they immediately see the anti-white-male bias continue: the want ads so frequently feature an EEOC statement encouraging women and minorities (but never white males) to apply. They see the photos on employers’ websites disproportionately highlighting women and minorities.
If a white male gets hired, he’ll likely quickly learn that women’s approaches to work– collaborative, team-oriented, exploratory of feelings–is viewed as superior to men’s competitive goal-orientedness. If a man dare says, “Enough of this processing of feelings, let’s just get on with it,” he’ll usually be viewed as Neanderthal if not fired for “not fitting in” or for not being “a team player.” White men hear of mentorship programs created for women and minorities, but not for them. And they’ll soon find out about reverse discrimination promotions that occur because of the organization’s diversity committee pressures, because the employer fears a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton running to the media claiming the organization is racist, or because the only group not an EEOC-protected class is young white men.
And dare a white man object, even if he doesn’t get censured or fired, he will likely receive either or both of two invalid and invalidating refutations:
– Women earn 79 cents on the dollar. This statistic is terribly misleading. According to the book, Why Men Earn More, based on a decade of research using government statistics, for the same work, women earn at least as much as men do.
– Fewer women than men are in top positions. That implies that the reason is sexism, a glass ceiling. The far more frequent reason is that many more women than men care more about work/life balance and/or want to be more involved with their children. (Ironically, we genuflect to women’s rights to work less so they can raise children at the same time as we worry about global warming–and environmentalists agree that the greatest threat to the environment is overpopulation.) Getting promoted to a senior position usually requires willingness to work evenings or weekends, to spend discretionary time doing professional activities, and to move family across the country, Women may wisely not want to do all that, but cannot legitimately claim they’re not being promoted because they have two x chromosomes.
A final assault on men’s self-efficacy is that that they’re made to feel like the disposable sex. They see an endless array of pink ribbons to fight breast cancer. But where are the ribbons for prostate cancer or for early heart attack, which kills, early, many more men? Men die 5 1/2 years younger than women and live their last decade in worse health, yet only pink ribbons proliferate. And the heart disease ads I’ve seen are all about women and heart disease.
So millions of young men have become depressed, insecure, and scared. They’re rarely angry–they’ve been told so long that they’re inferior, they just blame themselves. So, they return to their parents’ sofas, sleeping late, playing video games during the day and getting wasted at night.
What’s the answer? It reduces to one word: fairness. In our attempt to lift up girls and women, we have destroyed boys and men. Just as we are assiduous to avoid unfair treatment of women and minorities, we must do the same for boys and men: in school curriculum, television and movie programming, college admissions and programming, hiring, promotion, and workplace culture, and health research funding and outreach.
Until then, guys, the advice is the same as so many Black parents have given their kids: “No use complaining. You simply gotta be twice as good to get half as far. Eventually, the pendulum will swing back into balance.” Maybe.
Leave a Comment