The Daddy State? No Thanks.

Firstly, I just want to thank The Nation for giving me the opportunity to guest blog. I've been reading the magazine since I was a teenager – obsessing over Katha Pollitt's columns much in the same way that other girls were swooning over their Teen Beats. (Though I never got my Katha pull-out, very disappointing.)

Since a lot of my feminism started here, I figured what better way to start my guest-blogging stint than to point out a bit of a sexist election trend.

We all know about the waxing misogynist over Hillary's hair or "cackle," and Chris Matthews' ability to insult women in the most ridiculous ways while keeping a straight face. But what I'm finding most interesting is the perpetual paternalism that's been driving the Republican candidates as of late.

In an interview with People magazine, Bush spoke about his daughter Jenna's engagement – specifically about how Henry Hager "asked for her hand."

"He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?' We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.' [Laughter] And I'm of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible."

I suppose it doesn't really shock me that Bush would think about his daughter's engagement as a "deal" or "sale," but it did make me think about how – even at a time where women's votes could make or break candidates – the Republican hopefuls seem hell-bent on making little girls of all women.

And no one screams Daddy State more than Mike Huckabee. Whether it's feeling the need to weigh in on Nickelodeon teen celebrity Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy ("…she's going to have the child and…that is the right decision") or making condescending remarks about women's ability to understand their own decisions--Papa Huckabee is on one heck of a sexist roll.

Just this past weekend Huckabee said, "I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor...I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about ... I consider her a victim, not a criminal."

Now, you have to love that Huckabee assumes abortion providers are men (I suppose that makes it easier to paint them as taking advantage of poor widdle women), but even worse is the assumption that women don't realize that when they get an abortion, they're getting an abortion.

And he's not alone. When asked about criminalizing abortion, almost all the Republican candidates scoff at the idea of punishing the women themselves--instead preferring to talk about how we've been victimized by doctors. Women, it seems, need to be protected from our own decisions. (Better to leave that to the menfolk.)

While the choice issue may be the easiest way for the candidates to flex their Daddy muscles, I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, none of the Republicans running will have a problem making other decisions for American women as well. So call me crazy, but I'd like a president who thinks of me as, well...an adult. Capable of making decisions. (But what do I know...I'm just a girl.)

Comments (363)

1. Pathetic piece of Fem BS!

   Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am

2. Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!*

   *(With apologies to Monty Python)

   Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:20am

3. Pathetic piece of Fem BS!

   Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person

   Typical vapid BS!

   Posted by brunowe at 01/03/2008 @ 11:21am

4. Great first post, Jessica! Looking forward to the next (and to the comments carnival sure to follow).

   Posted by pandanose at 01/03/2008 @ 11:29am

5. And he's not alone. When asked about criminalizing abortion, almost all the Republican candidates scoff at the idea of punishing the women themselves--instead preferring to talk about how we've been victimized by doctors.

   I agree with the gist of your piece. I would only add that it is easier to target providers, and by painting women as victims, they are not directly criticizing them. Probably an astute political move where there are significant voting blocks of women who have had an abortion - makes it seem more like a policy position rather than a direct attack on them.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 11:31am

6. Makes me want a "Don't Vote for the Papa" t-shirt.

   Posted by biancamarisa at 01/03/2008 @ 11:33am

7. Well said, Jess. Keep up the great work!

   Posted by feminist boy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:36am

8. Great points, Jessica. Glad to read you here at The Nation. If only these issues were brought up by the MSM. The sexism just goes ignored and unacknowledged by most people.

   What's with the anti-feminist comments? Got anything of substance to say? Or are you just putting down this entry because it's written by a feminist?

   Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:40am

9. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 11:40am | ignore this person

   feminism scares them. kind of like vagina dentata.

   Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:42am

10. This is supposed to be a liberal magazine. Not that liberal men are any less misogynist than conservative men, but I thought there'd be a certain level of open-mindedness on the part of readers. Does anyone care to argue with Jessica's points, or will it just be generic cries of "Fem BS!"

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:55am

11. great first post! i look forward to more. what is really scary is the amount of "I just dont know what it is but I just dont like her..." sentiment among male democrats. Like her policies or hate them, but its the sexism that is fueling that feeling. Its the worst kind too, because heaven forbid you bring that up as a possibility that maybe, just maybe, the way Hillary conducts herself is a bit disarming to men, could be part of this feeling... These men would deny that even if it is sorta true.

    -fellow katha fan...

    Posted by citylady at 01/03/2008 @ 11:56am

12. Oh, come on! No one, except someone who sees every event in life through a prism of gender conflict, believes that Mr. Bush "thinks about his daughter's engagement as a 'deal' or 'sale.'" A young man approached his fiance's father in an act of civility, and Mr. Bush, as he is wont to do, said something that didn't make a lot of sense. To purposefully misconstrue this as an indicator of the President's views on women is so outlandish that it detracts from whatever validity your other points might have.

    Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:00pm

13. Welcome to The Nation, Jessica! Now I can read you on my home page.

    Posted by Katha Pollitt at 01/03/2008 @ 12:02pm

14. The world sees people through a prism of gender, CRANIUM. Kind of hard to expect women to respond to that. Why is it considered "civil" to ask a woman's father for permission before marrying her? Until women start asking their boyfriends' mothers, it's sexist. And do men who receive a "no" from the fathers actually stay civil by not marrying their girlfriends? Or do they go ahead and do it anyway, proving the "it's good manners!" defense complete bull?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:05pm

15. Kind of hard to expect women to *not* respond to that. Oops.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

16. Posted by CITYLADY 01/03/2008 @ 11:56am

    Is it really that hard to imagine that people might not like Clinton, and it not be sexism. I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man. Same goes for Bush I, Bush II, Dole, McCain. It's a friggin' carnival out there, and Hillary Clinton is just as much a part of it as the rest of them.

    But apparently, unless she is held to a different standard, it's sexism. Here's the clue: double standards are sexism. Voting for a candidate merely because she is a woman, as plenty of Democratic women will do, is sexism. Sexism isn't just something men do - but oddly, I don't hear much criticism of the "let's vote for Hillary because she is a woman mentality" around here. Why is that, do you think?

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

17. All those that are dying to see the FIRST female POTUS, need to step back and think if THIS WOMAN, Hillary Clinton, is THE ONE you want to go down in history--BIG IF she can win in Nov.--to epitomize women's aspiration "To Be All You Can Be"!

    Go back in history and take a look at the many FEMALE FIRSTs:

    First Female (fill in the blank).....

    See their individual ground-breaking paths and compare them to your current dream `favorite'.....IF HRC is your `Shot at the Top', my guess is women, politically, still have to `Sleep with the Enemy' or at least, require the obligatory Casting Couch to `prove' they will DO ANYTHING to get to the top!

    Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:09pm

18. Pathetic piece of Fem BS!

    Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am

    Why does Happy's response to this not come as a surprise? He can't make any money off this issue, so it's a non-issue to him. He's all behind blowing people up in other nations for profit in the name of democracy, but letting women have a say in this nation is complete feminine B.S.? Happy should crawl back under the rock under his hedge funds where he belongs.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm

19. Maybe, SRJENKINS, that's because not many people actually subscribe to the "Vote for Clinton because she's a woman" viewpoint. Did Jessica promote doing that? I'm not voting for her in the primaries, but I'd vote for her in the general if it came down to that. She's far too conservative for my taste. But I cringe whenever I hear people insult her appearance, or make anti-woman remarks to put her down. I don't know that many liberals (or feminists) voting for her. But I constantly hear people voice hatred for her without giving reasons that have to do with policy. So wonder what the reason is?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm

20. Sexism isn't just something men do - but oddly, I don't hear much criticism of the "let's vote for Hillary because she is a woman mentality" around here. Why is that, do you think?

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

    Huckabee shouldn't be voted for simply because he's a jackass. If we end up with a southern baptist bible thumper type in charge, it'll be about the same as living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. One has to observe the religion of the leaders of that nation. Anyone thinking differently is subject to the full penalty of the law. Is that the kind of idiot we really want in the White House? We've already seen what idiot one (that would be W) did in the name of God and it's been pretty damn ugly.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:17pm

21. Thanks Katha, and everyone, for the warm welcome. Even the anti-feminist commenters are giving me some good laughs. ;) It never ceases to amaze me how the most misogynist comments always seem to crop up on in the most liberal spaces. But it's nice to see some friendly folks out there!

    Posted by Jessica Valenti at 01/03/2008 @ 12:18pm

22. ...I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man....

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

    Explains a lot about the little group by the Porta-Potty inside the Dem Tent! Surely your votes have helped Elections, at all levels, won by the Dems and may even be the difference this Nov. However, you have my sympathies of seeming stuck on that treadmill of voting for people you either don't like or don't trust. Hard to be HAPPY politically for an entire lifetime.....but practical if not soul-satisfying!

    I do the same thing, but in the world of investments! I think Edwards shares my philosophy on that....one doesn't have to buy into the `mission' to back the players....isn't that the Dems' "Support the Troop, Not the Mission" practicality?

    Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:19pm

23. Oh how I love the ignore function! Goodbye Happy, Empty Cranium, et al! : D

    Posted by Halfmad at 01/03/2008 @ 12:21pm

24. CRANEY808, it is a mark of civility for young men to ask the fiance's father to marry the daughter, just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats, not to mention any number of other small gestures that show respect for women. While radical gender feminism is bent on explaining gender differences as cultural phenomena only (the product of an evil patriarchy), innumerable, obvjectively verifiable studies have shown young men are biologically more agressive and have a much greater sex drive than young women. Mothers and grandmothers have, from the beginning of time, instilled manners in their sons in order to civilize them, in order to insure they treat women respectfully. The customary gesture of pretending to ask the fiance's father for her hand is nothing more than a manifestation of that civility. To read it as a sign of patriarchal evil is inane and suggests you are seeking to unnecessarily foment gender conflict where no sane person sees it.

    Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:23pm

25. Why thank you for the educaton re "chivalry!" /rolls eyes

    You are describing a model in which men treat women a certain way because they are women. Benevolent sexism is still sexism.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:26pm

26. And CRANIUM, the tradition you're describing is practically the definition of patriarchy. Yet ironically you're all, "Nothing to see here! No siree!"

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:27pm

27. I don't know that many liberals (or feminists) voting for her. But I constantly hear people voice hatred for her without giving reasons that have to do with policy. So wonder what the reason is?

    Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm

    I find it funny that the guys on the right side of the political spectrum seem to believe that voting for a candidate who backs blowing people up, starting wars, and trying to make other nations conquests for big business is manly, but it isn't manly to vote for a president wishing for peace instead of war. Any asshole can start a war or a fight, it's rather easy to do. Ending them is a different story.

    Hillary scares me not because she's a woman, but rather that she appears to be somewhat in the hip pockets of the very businesses that backed our present president who pushed us into the complete mess we are in now.

    This country needs a president who will defend the U.S. and it's constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. Huckabee would be one of the domestic enemies of the constitution and the nation as a whole as Bush has been.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:28pm

28. Is it really that hard to imagine that people might not like Clinton, and it not be sexism. I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man. Same goes for Bush I, Bush II, Dole, McCain.

    I have found this sort of argument to be common, but it doesn't really hold water. One of the nasty effects of being part of a marginalized identity group is that that aspect of your identity is always an issue. If male is the standard, it is possible for being female to factor into public perceptions even if being male does not. It is like how negative media portrayals of a racial minority may have a harmful effect on how people see that race, while a violent white man, for example, is taken to represent only himself. That's one of the benefits of privilege.

    Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 12:29pm

29. CRANEY808, you forgot the favorite phrase of angry radical feminists when they can't think of anything intelligent to say: "Ugh!"

    You need to pick your spots better, kiddo. There are real injustices going on -- women being objectified, men wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit.

    Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:30pm

30. Yours is a completely understandable reason for disliking Clinton, WOLFGANG1. They're the same reasons I don't support her. But they are not the reasons given by the majority of hysterical people out there bad-mouthing her. Hell, most of them think she's ultra-liberal (hah!). But they still don't attack her politics; they just attack her looks of the fact that she has a vagina.

    Excellent points, NEWBIE.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:31pm

31. Right, CRANIUM, because it's not possible to think about more than one injustice at once. Discussing sexist marriage traditions doesn't stop me from working on other goals you deem "more important." Do you work to stop the objectification of women? Or is it all rape denialism all the time?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:34pm

32. I couldn't agree more, Jessica. I also can't get over the hate-on everyone seems to have for Hillary. Politics aside, she's constantly characterized as a manipulative, obnoxious, nagging shrew... and don't even get me started on the cleavage debate. It says so much about the attitudes we have towards women in power.

    You have to ask yourself... how did Bill come out looking like the good guy?

    Posted by holly.kent at 01/03/2008 @ 12:38pm

33. Can we quit it with the hate speech about angry radical feminists? I am neither angry nor radical, and none of my feminist friends are angry or radical. Next thing you'll be calling us all hairy legged lesbians. Try to formulate your opinion without attacking the opposition!

    Oh and I'm super excited I have another excellent blog to read. Go Jessica! I can't wait to read your next book!

    Posted by onwisco at 01/03/2008 @ 12:38pm

34. It never ceases to amaze me how the most misogynist comments always seem to crop up on in the most liberal spaces. But it's nice to see some friendly folks out there!

    Posted by JESSICA VALENTI 01/03/2008 @ 12:18pm

    Jessica,

    I liked your article. I was attempting to augment your arguement against Daddy Huckabee. You see, as a guy, I don't want him as my dad either, or my daughters (does that make him grandpa then). We all deserve better than the likes of him.

    Being a father with daughters, I want them having choices not being dictated to them by a guy basing his philosophical political agenda on the old and new testaments. Something about separation of church and state keeps cropping up. Evidently our sexists friends here wouldn't like it if the tables were turned and they had to get permission from their pastor, priest, governor or president to have a vasectomy. Keep in mind that getting a vasectomy does kill future potential life, so any male getting a vasectomy is killing potential life in the christian right's mind.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:40pm

35. Re: the "civility" debate... Boys being taught to respect women shouldn't just be to remove their hats when a woman enters the room. I will bet you anything that there are hundreds or thousands of men out there who asked for their wives' hands from their fathers- being civil and all- and then went on to be domestic abusers. The notion of civility to women is itself sexist. You should be civil to all people, not just women. And when you are civil, it doesn't stop at the hat.

    Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 12:40pm

36. USC1, what are you trying to accomplish? What are you adding to the debate?

    Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 12:52pm

37. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm

    You'll notice I was responding to CITYLADY. I think is CITYLADY is correct in so far that there are some men in the Democratic party that use vague claims of not liking Clinton to hide sexism. But I take exception to the idea that all Democratic men who don't like her for vague reasons are hiding sexism. I also take exception to the fact that I think there are far more women who will vote for her than men that won't because of sexist reasons. Yet, you don't hear much discussion about women's sexism.

    Let's use a concrete example. Clinton has on her site that she will be "A Champion for Women". I couldn't agree more about income parity. But there is something I don't like when she positions herself this way. What about other ethnic groups that don't have income parity? Can we see other candidates positioning themselves as "A Champion for Blacks", "A Champion for Hispanics", etc? What about "A Champion for White Men", "A Champion for Christians", "A Champion for Mormons", etc.?

    Seems to me that in every context I can think of, this "A Champion for X" doesn't work, particularly if I'm not a part of group X. It offends my sense of equality, that the President should be championing everyone. I don't like her policies, but I can't deny that things like this don't sit well either - and would definitely give rise of vague "I don't like her" feelings. And we should be clear, she is making an appeal based in sexism with this positioning.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 12:17pm

    The horror show of the Republican party is the most convincing argument for voting Democratic - but we shouldn't fool ourselves that Democrats are THAT much better.

    Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 12:19pm

    Anyone outside of status quo, right-wing pro-business politics is stuck with less than satisfying options - conservative, liberal or radical. Congradulations on your HAPPY alliance with power - a choice that I can understand based on convenience but one that can hardly be described as soul satisfying.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 12:55pm

38. :-)

    Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 12:49pm

    Ditto that! Not quite a `10', but highest in TN I've seen in a year!

    Hehehe.....Gotta live up to our `stereotype'! LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:57pm

39. I'm glad SOMEBODY picked up on the joke.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:59pm

40. Awesome post Jessica and a topic that I feel is very important and needs to be brought to light. We aren't little girls and we are very capable of making our own decisions and accepting any consequences that accompany those decisions.

    And I would also love to see some intelligent debate from those who disagree with Jessica on this topic instead of snide, three word comments that add nothing to the discussion.

    Posted by ravenfire at 01/03/2008 @ 1:01pm

41. I know who you were replying to, SRJENKINS, and I was replying to you. I don't think she was referring to Democratic voters so much as people in general (conservative men particularly).

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:03pm

42. ...hardly be described as soul satisfying.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:55pm

    Hold on....I did expect this retort! You call it "alliance with power"....fine....I call it my fundamental belief in capitalism and believe it or not, I find it highly "soul satisfying" to actively support, game, profit, and live off of it. With the profit and my time, it becomes even more satisfying to actually go out and make (a small) difference to the less fortunate (and leave the pie-in-the-sky waste of time to folks majoring in history, philosophy, human studies, and what Jessica degreed in).

    Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 1:03pm

43. I think this is an amazing post, and it resonates with people. You can tell that by all the scared men posting their well rehearsed propaganda of oppression. Huckabee is a vile excuse for a man, as are a lot of his supporters, and anti-feminist men throughout the world. So afraid of letting go of the patriarchy and the power it's given that they aggressively lash out and desperately seek to usurp more power over the opposite sex! It's a sad comment on our society when cries for equality are met with arrogant, ignorant arguments meant to demean and distract from the fact that they are losing this battle they waged so long ago... and it's about time!

    As for Huckabee seeing the woman as a victim, isn't our broken justice system the shining example for punishing the victim, and demonizing them? Especially in cases where the male dominance is being challenged? Maybe I'm thinking of some other justice system...

    Posted by angryhippie at 01/03/2008 @ 1:07pm

44. See what I mean.....my Apache & Anadarko stocks are setting new highs! Sorry if I don't waste time on pie-in-sky type of soul-UNsatisfying preaching!

    Oil crosses $100

    After an initial decline following the latest inventory report, crude pushes into triple digits.

    By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

    Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 1:08pm

45. ..."it is a mark of civility for young men to ask the fiance's father to marry the daughter, just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats, not to mention any number of other small gestures that show respect for women.

    Posted by CRANIUM 01/03/2008 @ 12:23pm ----

    CRANIUM: Chivalry is just sexism with a smile

    Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 1:08pm

46. we are very capable of making our own decisions and accepting any consequences that accompany those decisions.

    So, if a woman gets drunk and consents to sex, but regrets the decisons later, is it rape? Is she to be held accountable for her decisions and accept the consequences?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:09pm

47. Not to mention, AngryHippie - if women shouldn't be punished for getting abortions (what they call "murder"), what else can we get out of?

    Maybe a man coerced us into shoplifting! Arson isn't my fault! A cunning man tricked me into it!

    Seems like if we're too stupid to realize we're committing "murder," we can't possibly be of sound enough mind to break other laws.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm

48. USC1- in most states, if not all by now, no one may consent to sex if s/he is under the influence of any kind of drug- includings alcohol.

    Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm

49. Do women have to live up to the same qualifications and requirements as men in the military or is there a double-standard?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:12pm

50. Posted by BLOGTOPIA 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm

    So, if the man is drunk it isn't rape???

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:13pm

51. Shorter USC1: "Wahhhh! Feminists want to take away my god-given right to stick my dick wherever I want!"

    Regretted, drunken sex is not necessarily rape. Nobody's claiming it is. And it's not reported as rape any more often than false claims of theft (or any other crime). Fucking a girl who's CLEARLY unconscious or too drunk to CONSENT is rape. Now kindly move on.

    God you people are myopic.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:14pm

52. Yes, USC1, in the same way driving drunk isn't a crime because "I was drunk." Hah!

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:15pm

53. Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 12:29pm

    I'll grant that there is a general tendency where gender is not factored in for males because male is a norm, and men represent only themselves and a single woman often represents women as a body. But, the statement is a bit much: "One of the nasty effects of being part of a marginalized identity group is that that aspect of your identity is always an issue."

    Is it really? Are you saying that in every business transaction, office situation, co-educational opportunity, walking on the street, or whatever that gender is an issue - a real, significant issue? And that is always the case for everyone?

    If you aren't making that argument, then the original comment I made does hold water. And if you are making that argument, then you need to do a lot more work. Because it strikes me as absurd.

    Now, I think you could argue that it is a significant issue in Hillary's bid, but you don't get to assert that it is a significant issue for every voter, all male Democratic voters or even for many voters. It's a significant trend, but not a universal one, and possibly not even a general one in this particular case.

    Making some kind of claim that male Democrats aren't voting for Hillary out of sexist considerations, I simply don't buy. I think it is a weak play on politically correct sensibilities and a niave analysis of the problems in Clinton's campaign.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:19pm

54. Do women have to live up to the same qualifications and requirements as men in the military or is there a double-standard?

    Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:12pm

    Last I checked, there were women soldiers coming back from Iraq in body bags.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

55. So, then, you guys are saying that a woman is NOT responsible for her decisions (re: sex) when she is drunk, but a man is? (BTW, for the slower members of the group, we're talking "drunk," not "passed out.")

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:25pm

56. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

    True. But you want to take a stab at guessing how many are in the special forces, flying air sortees, or serving in combat units? Sure, women are more integrated, but let's not pretend that assuming the risks of military service have hit parity any more than incomes have.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:26pm

57. Last I checked, there were women soldiers coming back from Iraq in body bags.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

    I'm sure that pleases you, but that's not the issue. The question is...is there a separate set of standards/qualifications for women in the military or do they have to meet the same standards as men?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm

58. Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm:: of course there are different standards for men and women in the military - doesn't make it right. Personally I think a woman can shoot a gun just as effectively as a man, so why aren't women allowed on combat tours?? why aren't openly gay individuals allowed to serve? None of it makes sense.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:42pm

59. and where the heck is Zero?? must still be away for the holidays to let such a blatant feminist blog go unnoticed.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:44pm

60. CRANIUM -- I think you'd better stop spending so much time at Nation blogs and get busy looking into the huge social crisis of men being unfairly accused of rape you cite. Do some research, get it vetted, think about the issue and write it up and then send us the link.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/03/2008 @ 1:45pm

61. USC1 : As a female veteran of the US Army, who also managed to qualify as Expert with my M-16, let me assure that women are just as capable of serving in our military as men. Also, without women in our military, we might have to bring back the draft to make up for lost numbers... If you are talking about the different requirements as far as physical testing, the military performed extensive research to determine what the differences should be in determining "fitness" between the sexes. Because, NEWS FLASH, the genders are anatomically different... That is the only difference in requirements that I was ever aware of during my service to this country.

    Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 1:50pm

62. Jessica - keep it up! I look forward to reading more.

    Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 1:51pm

63. To me Bush's comments are the most telling...you can almost picture ol' George selling off "America" to a Saudi Arabian suitor in similar fashion with the same sort of laconic absurdity we've come to expect from him, with the same kind of laconic idiocy he slaps the back of his daughter's suitor with and talks of a "deal".

    I personally believe abortion is horrible business, so when Jessica proposes that women are simply treated as "victims" rather than "criminals"...well that's for some larger debate than the one initiated here. I know this world is big enough for all children and that God desires them all to help steward & love its Earth. The 'slash and burn' nature of abortion practices simply isn't in lockstep with God's desires or truth for us. Heck, any atheistic scientist will tell you there's no division in "life" between the frst trimester and the next. None whatsoever. It's all "life". Nothing could be more obvious.

    So maybe Jessica can, you know, worry about those women who actually decide to have their babies, and worry about how they will be able to raise them, rather than trashing political candidates who are faced with a series of impossible decisions when it comes to abortion, and the profound division it elicits in the American psyche no matter in what form it seems to be mentioned.

    Posted by Scrub at 01/03/2008 @ 1:52pm

64. men wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit.

    Posted by CRANIUM 01/03/2008 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person

    you think that's a big number? what percent do you think?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 1:53pm

65. just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats

    whaaat? what century do you live in? the kids never take their baseballcaps off, and certainly not when a female enters the room. you really ought to get out more often.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 1:57pm

66. Posted by TOKEN 01/03/2008 @ 1:50pm

    Did you serve in combat as part of a combat unit?

    I don't think anyone is saying women aren't capable. But I do agree that there is a problem with different standards, even if there are anatomic differences. Meeting the physical requirements necessary to perform the job, should be the same - just as combating billets should be the same for both.

    Different standards are the problem.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:58pm

67. Thank you for the feedback, SRJENKINS. I realize that i was treading in dangerous waters - not my intention. I was trying instead to convey the idea that claiming gender wasn't an issue for Kerry, Bush, etc. doesn't mean it isn't for Clinton. As for my statement that "being part of a marginalized identity group [means] that that aspect of your identity is always an issue": i don't mean to speak for everyone, but in my experience, yes, in every or almost every situation, i do notice race, gender, handicap, accent, and other apparent markers of difference/hierarchy, and i notice people noticing these things about me. Whether or not this fact changes how i or others act in any (obvious) way, my experience says that simply noticing and thinking about differences which are coded as hierarchical does matter. I don't think that sexism, for example, is inevitable, or that people can't legitimately dislike Hillary Clinton. But i do think that ignoring axes of privilege and oppression is really dangerous, and that acknowledging and dealing with them is necessary before we can get to intelligent debate.

    Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 2:00pm

68. SRJENKINS - I served on a tactical unit, which for my specific job was the closest to combat that could be expected. I think USC1 was referring to the differences in physical requirements as far as the number of push-ups required, etc. There are requirements that are specific to each branch of service as well as additional requirements specific to the job (or MOS) that the servicemember performs.

    Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 2:06pm

69. You'll note that it's feminists who argue that if we're going to fight wars, men AND women should be fighting them. So those of you who try holding the fact that there are different standards, or unequal requirements for women in the military, are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe you should take your anger to the anti-feminists who don't want women fighting in the armed services.

    USC1, get your mind right. If a drunk man rapes a woman, it's still rape. If a drunk woman forces a man to have sex, it's rape. If a drunk man and a drunk woman give meaningful consent to one another for sex, no rape.

    Not sure why you've gone off topic with this though, as the vast majority of men will never have to worry about being accused of rape (falsely or accurately). Most rapists are never held accountable.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:40pm

70. Welcome to the jungle, Jessica. Even though I don't agree with much of your post, you'll find the debaters here very spirited.

    One more thing, in order to get some "street cred" around here you'll have to match wits with Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)

    Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm

71. Welcome Ms Valenti....few words of warning-

    1. RESE. Don't mention "Israel", "AIPAC", "Dick Cheney", "9/11", "the Kennedy Assassination", or "Jesuits"...and you'll avoide sixteen 3000 word Cut & Pastes from www.mindcontrollasers.org.

    2. Not all the anti-feminists are going to be on the RIGHT! Look for ZERO (and maybe one other "progressive") to go after you for "falsely claiming women have it harder than men".

    3. I note you noted this "Chris Matthews' ability to insult women in the most ridiculous ways while keeping a straight face"....

    true...yet, your new boss (or mentor) Katrina vanden Heuvel makes it a point of appearing on the lecherous Mr Matthews' show quite often....might ask her "Why?"

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 2:44pm

72. Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)

    Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm

    Except JOMAMMA/MAASCH, ACOOK...lumping me with those other two is the worst insult you could throw at me.

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 2:45pm

73. you'll have to match wits with Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)

    Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

    four half wits add up to two wits.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm

74. "I know this world is big enough for all children and that God desires them all to help steward & love its Earth."

    This is completely false. The world is most definitely *not* big enough for "all children." In fact, it's all the humans in the world who are driving the planet to an early death. And it's we humans who will ultimately suffer for it (either us or our grandchildren). You think people aren't affected when the planet reacts to our destruction?

    Until you bring evidence that your notion of "god" even exists in the first place, it doesn't belong in this debate. You can refer to your imaginary friend to argue that women have no right to their own bodies, but most reasonable, logical people are going to laugh at you.

    "So maybe Jessica can, you know, worry about those women who actually decide to have their babies..."

    What makes you think Jessica doesn't concern herself with mothers? Educate yourself before assuming Jessica doesn't advocate for group X, Y, or Z.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm

75. "whaaat? what century do you live in? the kids never take their baseballcaps off, and certainly not when a female enters the room. you really ought to get out more often.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 1:57pm

    B, it's about respect. Perhaps your kids don't remove their head gear because you didn't teach them. But, my dad took off his hat when he came home and my husband and three boys do not come into my home with a cap on their heads. I will not tolerate it.

    Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:47pm

76. USC1, get your mind right. If a drunk man rapes a woman, it's still rape. If a drunk woman forces a man to have sex, it's rape. If a drunk man and a drunk woman give meaningful consent to one another for sex, no rape.

    you left out the most common one. a man forces himself on a drunk woman. and yes, it's rape.

    one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

77. Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 2:45pm

    No dearheart, I would never insult you. You and Peter are my favorites. I was merely stating to Jessica to debate you and the others on an individual basis.

    Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:51pm

78. one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

    Raped women can have orgasms, and so can raped men. Besides, men's sex-having parts are not only in the front (and neither are women's, for that matter).

    Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 2:53pm

79. To those of you "progressives" who don't think of yourselves as feminists: Would you even DARE say some of the things you're saying about women to people of color? Would you toss racial epithets at blacks and cackle about it, just to "get a rise" out of them? You'll claim sexism isn't an issue in 2008 (!) but since it's not aimed at you, OF COURSE you're not going to notice it! For most women, it's something we deal with in every aspect of our daily lives. From being harassed from cars while crossing the street to hearing inappropriate sexual remarks from superiors in the office. One of you had nothing more to say to Jessica than that she's "hot." Would you make an issue about a male blogger's appearance that way?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:54pm

80. "four half wits add up to two wits.

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm

    Based on what?

    Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm

81. Well, you know, BRANNIGAN, if he gets an erection but tells her he doesn't want to fool around but she does anyway. Erections are physiological responses, and are not necessarily indicative of whether a man WANTS to have sex.

    The overwhelming majority of male rape victims are raped by other men, but I thought I'd throw him a bone, since it IS possible.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm

82. Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 2:00pm

    Well said. My main objection is with this claim there is a necessary implied sexism with not liking Hillary Clinton. I don't think this is true, and I think we, more or less, agree on that point.

    Also, if we are going to talk about axes of privilege, then we also need to bring class into the discussion. Clinton went to Wellesley, Yale Law School, partner in Rose Law firm, etc. Interesting how class is also one of those axis that get ignored, like being male.

    Why do you think gender is such an important axis and class is a transparent one? Do you think that having blue-collar roots might be part of John Edwards appeal? Are people that like (or dislike) John Edwards for that reason, classist? Is that a bad thing? How does this work within the context that he is a white male?

    I understand the problems with things being transparent. My wife is a South Asian working in a professional, predominately male field. I was completely unaware of some of the types of problems that gender, race, class and so forth because I never encounter them.

    No one has ever asked me whether I speak English at the exit doors of a flight - much less in a false broken accent, aimed at my supposed understanding. My wife has, and she is better in English than I am. Examples like that are legion.

    It also goes the other way. My mother-in-law had a customer complain because they thought she was Hispanic and wouldn't speak to her in Spanish. She isn't Hispanic and doesn't know Spanish.

    Anyway, my point is that figuring out all the different axes for different situations is practically impossible. Fine to cultivate a sensitivity and an awareness, but we need to be aware of the flip side of being too sensitive and too aware, where we escribe something that isn't there - like saying male Democrats are just being sexist rather than factoring in that personality, class and so forth all have a part to play.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:01pm

83. "Would you toss racial epithets at blacks and cackle about it, just to "get a rise" out of them?"

    Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:54pm

    I sure would. And my family gets a kick out of it too. (hehehe)

    Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 3:02pm

84. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm |

    You know, "BRANNIGAN", you're a little TOO angry at local posters to be a "newbie"....care to tell us your OLD blog nick?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm

85. Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:51pm

    Oh, okay then.

    LOL!

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm

86. SRJENKINS, I think it's because unlike class, sex is almost always apparent upon first sight of someone. Our society doesn't have much tolerance for androgyny; people want to KNOW which people are male and which people are female, and many folks freak out when they're unsure of someone's sex.

    Our culture is very heteronormative, and it still heavily relies upon the gender binary system. You're either a male, or a female, or you're simply not a person (in too many people's eyes). And you better "act" masculine or feminine in accordance with your sex, or else you risk marginalization. Without undergoing serious surgical procedures, it's not possible to change one's sex. Sex is a complicated thing - it's chromosomal, it's genital, it's mental...

    But it's entirely possible (if not challenging) to move from one economic class to another. Clinton was not born to upper-class parents. She changed her class, but not her sex.

    Americans still believe in The American Dream. They think they'll all catapult from lower-class to super-rich within their lifetimes. Some will. But most people remain in the same economic class their parents were in.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm

87. Posted by TOKEN 01/03/2008 @ 2:06pm

    Yes, I know. I served in the military as well. I know that women serve in tactical or support positions that can be as dangerous as combat duty - sometimes more so. The issue for me is about parity, what kind of physical standards are required for the job and make them the same. Same goes for other qualifications. You would not want your Expert qualification to mean something different because you were a woman. I think we can expand that to other areas as well - including even the physical and particularly combat billets. Until we do, people like USC have a point.

    Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:40pm

    Pointing out legitimate critques, even if we don't like them, doesn't mean the other person is angry - anymore than it means they hate America. Double standards are instrumental in sexism, and accepting them, even ones based on physiology, generally give support to those that oppose feminism.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:16pm

88. Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person

    my mood swings are from belligerent to bellicose.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:17pm

89. SRJENKINS, I think it's because unlike class, sex is almost always apparent upon first sight of someone. Our society doesn't have much tolerance for androgyny; people want to KNOW which people are male and which people are female, and many folks freak out when they're unsure of someone's sex.Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person

    say whaaat? where do you live, Kansas? you should really get out a bit more.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:19pm

90. SRJENKINS, thank you for bringing up class. I was going to talk about it, along with education level, attractional orientation, marital status, etc. - the list goes on and on - but since these things aren't always immediately obvious, they don't always come into play in the same way. Perhaps class seems to work differently than some other things because it can (sort of) change, and that change can be seen as admirable. I wonder what response Edwards would garner were he still working class. (He probably wouldn't even be visible.)

    Trying to navigate these things, and how they interact and intersect within a single individual or situation, certainly is sticky and damn near impossible - but still worth the effort, in my opinion. I appreciate your willingness to take part in the conversation.

    Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 3:21pm

91. Well, you know, BRANNIGAN, if he gets an erection but tells her he doesn't want to fool around but she does anyway. Erections are physiological responses, and are not necessarily indicative of whether a man WANTS to have sex.

    The overwhelming majority of male rape victims are raped by other men, but I thought I'd throw him a bone, since it IS possible.

    Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person

    nah, the man can just walk away.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:22pm

92. one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?

    Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

    Raped women can have orgasms, and so can raped men. Besides, men's sex-having parts are not only in the front (and neither are women's, for that matter).

    Posted by BLOGTOPIA 01/03/2008 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

    this does NOT answer the question

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:26pm

93. What is your deal, BRANNIGAN? I don't live in Kansas. In fact, I live near D.C. and used to live in Boston. I hang out with liberals, but I'm aware of the homophobia, transphobia and sexism that run rampant in most of this country. If you don't think it's there, it's YOU who needs to get out more.

    And what do you mean, the man can just walk away? Away from a man trying to rape him or a woman? Tell that to the men who have been sexually assaulted or raped (yes, as a feminist I care about rape victims of both sexes).

    Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:28pm

94. where's USC's 1:49 post? i imagine it's a stupid joke, but the censorship is troubling.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm

95. BRANNIGAN, it answers the question in the way that it points to how physiological reactions are not always in line with mental/emotional ones. There are a lot of factors at play when it comes to sexual violence, especially when it happens within pre-existing sexual or romantic relationships. Men cannot always "just walk away," just as women sometimes cannot.

    Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm

96. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm

    Interesting thesis. I suppose that applies to race as well?

    To me, class is almost as apparent on first sight as gender. Maybe in a college scenario it's more ambigious, but it fairly obvious to tell who has money and who doesn't - salon haircuts, types of shoes, accessories, etc. You get a whole different reaction when dressed in a suit versus jeans. It takes less than five minutes to get a sense of someone's experiences, and they all generally point to class.

    I'm not saying gender is not important. It certainly is, but I don't see it as central to identity as you describe it. While there are people that still dress their baby boys in blue and girls in pink and have Huckabee-like attitudes, I don't think of that mentality as normal. Perhaps it is, and I am out of touch.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm

97. hrc sucks -- if she were a man or a penguin, she'd still suck.

    women in the military -- i think it's shameful anybody's in the military, and find it troubling to see women lowering themselves to the stupidity of men.

    hand in marriage -- i asked. if i hadn't, i woulda been run out of the country. i sure like when my wife holds the door for me, though. means i can leave my gloves on.

    abortion -- leave the women alone for godssake. if the procedure were for men, we'd see it advertised between budweiser and chevytrucks on sunday afternoon.

    huckabee -- this guy is just too FISHY!

    rape -- this is violence, not sex.

    feminism -- well, good for them! unfortunately for many younger women, it has morphed into a hollywood packaged "powergirl" who is just as ready to put on the lycra and get the "blood-a-squirtin'" from any "evil-doer" (i.e. arabish types) as the male "action heroes".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 3:44pm

98. neither sex nor class are always easily discerned.

    with class, look at the shoes.

    Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:47pm

99. Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 3:21pm

    Again, I agree. It is important to wrestle with these issues - not to discount them as if they didn't exist and also not to rush to conclusions and easy answers either.

    And I appreciate both the conversation and your insightful comments. It's exchanges such as these that make posting here worthwhile.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:50pm

100. rape -- this is violence, not sex.Frost

     this is glib and inaccurate. rape is both violence AND sex

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:53pm

101. Men cannot always "just walk away," just as women sometimes cannot.

     Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

     until someone comes up with numbers, I would submit woman on man rape is extremely rare.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:55pm

102. My point was also that it's fairly common to change class, SRJENKINS. People get into Ivy League schools on scholarship and get rich. Rich people's houses are foreclosed and they lose everything. You can read clues about economic class in people's wardrobes/houses/cars, but when we're all NAKED it's sex and race that are apparent.

     Believe me, when I go out into the world, I'm a person who inhabits a female body. I know this because I'm treated as a woman. People assume things about me and judge me based on their gendered expectations. They also say and do things to me they wouldn't do to men.

     Sex and race are physical things (as well as social constructs, of course). Class is something that's changed more easily.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm

103. I am out of touch.

     Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person

     ya got that right.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm

104. BRANNIGAN, woman on man rape IS very rare. Nobody's arguing with you about that. But some men ARE raped by other men (or more commonly, little boys by grown men). They can't just "walk away," especially if they're being threatened.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:57pm

105. "Believe me, when I go out into the world, I'm a person who inhabits a female body. I know this because I'm treated as a woman."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm

106. Sorry folks hit the send button to fast.

     Crany, what did you mean by that comment?

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm

107. To me, class is almost as apparent on first sight as gender.----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm

     So you look at Eminem and say "Here's a poor white kid, with his sloppy jeans, hi-tops, and sweat jacket" and not a multi-millionaire?

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm

108. Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm

     Gotta say I'm curious on that one too. CRANEY ...WOULDN'T know she "inhabits a female body" if she wasn't treated like a woman?!?!?!

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:03pm

109. My point was also that it's fairly common to change class,

     this is a myth that has been debunked.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:05pm

110. posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person

     I never argued that.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:07pm

111. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 3:53pm

     well, perhaps.

     however, it just seems like the physical act is the weapon, just the same way the gun is in a homicide.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 4:08pm

112. ACOOK, I mean that men and women (as classes) tend to have different relationships with the world. Most men deny that women experience street harassment or frequent cat-calls out in public. Why? Because it's not a reality of their lives! That stuff isn't directed at them, so it mustn't exist (in their eyes).

     All one needs is a female body to experience that sort of stuff. THAT is what makes women targets. BELIEVE ME, it has nothing to do with how "hot" you are or what you're wearing.

     Men simply don't live with the constant hand-wringing about "protecting yourself from rape." [As though women had control over rapists' actions] Women are told we need to be safe, but "nice." Be cautious, but not paranoid. Have fun, but don't drink too much ("too much" being pretty fluid). Look sexually available, but don't *be* sexually available. Flirt, but don't be "slutty." Yada yada yada. And no matter what, society WILL find a way to blame women when they are victimized, or to minimize the experience alltogether.

     Point is, the world TREATS people differently according to sex. At restaurants, waitstaff assume *he* gets the check. The whole thing about asking for permission to marry! The list goes on.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

113. My syntax was sloppy in that post, Mask. But way to waste everyone's time by taking it literally. You're hilarious.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:11pm

114. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:11pm

     Well, I'm sorry. I assume people mean what they say textually.

     I'll try to take you more "symbolically" next time.

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:26pm

115. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

     BTW, you're in for an extremely frustrating life, if you think that the "societally enforced gender roles" are ever going to be washed away in some all-encompassing "revolution".

     The leading (for a while anyway, and maybe permanently) contender for the Democratic nomination for President ...is female. The Secretary of State is both female and African-American. Several Space Shuttle mission commanders have been female.

     This may not be "unisexual Utopia" (and may not be in your lifetime)...but it's not "1955" or pre-"Feminine Mystique" either.

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:29pm

116. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

     Crany, it seems to me the real issue is more about the lack of responsible behavoir than about one's gender characterists (although it plays a strong part). Yes, we as women need to be a lot more careful today.

     Respect is a two-way street out here. And it's up to good parents to teach their children what is acceptable and what is not.

     Now, as far as the idea about asking for "permission to marry", it was done mostly for younger girls in prearranged marriages. Asking parents to marry in the west is formality and shows sign of respect.

     BTW, my husband asked my father for my hand in marriage and I was 21.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm

117. It wasn't meant "symbolically" at all. My writing was sloppy. Here, I will spell it out for you:

     The world SEES people inhabiting female bodies, and treats them according to gender stereotypes.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm

118. look at Eminem and say "Here's a poor white kid, with his sloppy jeans, hi-tops, and sweat jacket" and not a multi-millionaire?

     Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person

     you're out of touch on the rappers. they wear multihundred dollar sneakers, expensive clothes and above all bling bling.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm

119. Give me a break on the "responsible behavior" bit. Women can be as responsible as the day is long, but if there's a rapist in her presence, she may be victimized. How about holding attackers responsible instead of placing blame upon victims? How about we stop attempting to restrict women's behavior when they aren't harming anyone, and instead tell MEN to stop drinking/leaving their homes/hanging out with women? Oh heavens no, we'd never dream of telling men such things.

     Asking parents to marry in the west is formality and shows sign of respect.

     So in order to properly respect your now-husband's parents, you asked for their permission to propose to him?

     Why are only men required to "respect" their girlfriends' parents? Why does treating girlfriends' fathers as their owners a "respectful" thing to do?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:34pm

120. Indications of class change with the times. For instance, fatness was once a luxury afforded only by the rich. If you saw a fat person, you could assume they were wealthy. Today, it's the opposite. The upper-class prizes thinness rather than fatness.

     Knock-off bags and clothing make it easier for the lower-class to appear rich.

     Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm

121. On a man asking for permission to marry a daughter: why is this an issue?? Of course the underlying connotations are inherently sexist- so is marriage! The institution of marriage is one that was born from patriarchal ideals in response to the pagan matriarchies of ancient civilizations. Anyone interested in a truly equal union with their loved one ought to consider naming their commitment to one another something besides "marriage".

     Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:42pm

122. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:34pm

     Craney, men who commit violence against women should be held accountable.

     "How about we stop attempting to restrict women's behavior when they aren't harming anyone?"

     Can you elaborate a little more on this one? I don't want to assume something that may or may not be correct.

     "Why are only men required to "respect" their girlfriends' parents? Why does treating girlfriends' fathers as their owners a "respectful" thing to do?"

     Are you married? If so, then you don't need an answer because you know it already. If not, then I'll respond after your next response.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:50pm

123. "Anyone interested in a truly equal union with their loved one ought to consider naming their commitment to one another something besides "marriage".

     Posted by JRO555 01/03/2008 @ 4:42pm

     I'm curious JRO555, what do you call your "situation"?

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:52pm

124. Attempting to restrict women's behavior:

     Telling them what to wear; telling them not to party too much; telling them not to own their sexuality

     Society uses all these things against women when men commit sexual violence against them.

     What does my marital status have to do with anything? Like, you have a wedding ceremony and all of a sudden you have epiphanies about all sorts of things? Why couldn't you just answer my question? Why are you so invested in denying the sexism in certain (almost all) marriage traditions (including marriage itself, as JRO555 pointed out).

     For all you know, I may be with my partner longer than you and your husband!

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm

125. Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm

     Nothing is perfect, Mask. You want to argue that you have never made a mistake on guessing someone's gender, race or ethnicity?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm

     Curious. What percentage of the kind of behaviors you describe are propagated by women themselves, such as female waitstaff, girlfriends, mothers, etc.? I find it interesting that I don't see much frank discussion on how women, and the culture of women, reenforce these types of behaviors. When it goes that route, it becomes society, rather than other women.

     I think everyone acknowledges that the male culture of sexual aggressiveness is a problem. These old-time attitudes are a problem. So forth and so on. Males are definitely a major part of the problem - but let's be real. No father, boyfriend or potential male mate is counseling the women in their lives to "Look sexually available, but don't *be* sexually available. Flirt, but don't be "slutty."" That's a woman talking.

     On a side note, I also think it is interesting that there are also those that say that society exposes men to violence because they encourage them to discount the very fears you describe. We have no idea how much male on male rape occurs because it gets reported much less than the sparse reporting of women who get raped. I must admit I never give a second thought to it - and think spending too much time on it would be unhealthy.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

126. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point?---Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm

     Feeling with BRANNIGAN, it's that...and a bit personality-driven. (Namely mine!)

     As for sloppy writing, you said I shouldn't have taken it "literally"...the opposite of which is "metaphorically", not that it was flawed elucidation of your point. A point of semantics, I suppose.

     BTW, just checked, and despite our 'female repressed society'...if George Bush got one more bad pretzal and Dick Cheney were to cash in from his last heart attack...a FEMALE would become President of the United States. Hardly the crushing weight of the Patriarchy to allow such a thing, hmmm?

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:01pm

127. SRJENKINS, women buy into patriarchy too. That is a sad fact. Women need to stop being complicit in this garbage.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:01pm

128. Mask, a female leader is not necessarily a victory for feminism. If that woman is an anti-feminist, militaristic, religious fundamentalist, it's more of the status-quo.

     Like I just said, plenty of women support male-dominance.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm

129. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

     SRJ, YOU're the one claiming that you can 'spot a poor person by their looks' and conflating "class" with sexuality and race. I never said that it wasn't impossible to mistake a biological gender or ethnicity.

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm

130. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm

     Again...you think that NANCY PELOSI would be "anti-feminist, militaristic, or a religious fundamentalist"???

     BTW, I don't argue that "there is no sexism" (nor racism or homophobia or any prejudice). I merely argue that to claim that this is a country where "women are held down by the foot of patriarchal men" paints the accuser as fringey or un-realistic.

     There is a GOOD possibility that in 2009, two feminists will be the leader of our Executive Branch and our Legislative Branch (Clinton/Pelosi). That's hardly an indication of whale-bone corsets and the need for a "new Seneca Falls"!

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:08pm

131. "For all you know, I may be with my partner longer than you and your husband!

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm

     I got 24 years under my belt. What say you?

     Anyway, I'll answer your question. I don't agree with the notion that fathers are "owners" of their daughters. Good fathers are protective of their children. And when they marry, it can be a difficult transition for parents when their children are no longer dependant upon them.

     As for asking to marry, like I said, it's a formality for some. It's another form of respect.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 5:10pm

132. Oh my dog, Mask. What I said: "a female leader is not necessarily a victory for feminism." Do you know what "not necessarily" means?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:10pm

133. I don't agree with the notion that fathers are "owners" of their daughters. Good fathers are protective of their children. And when they marry, it can be a difficult transition for parents when their children are no longer dependant upon them.

     If they are protective of their children, why does the same rule about respect not apply to their sons? You keep talking in general terms about parents and children, but you only apply the rules to parents/children of specific genders. It. is. sexist.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:12pm

134. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm

     Like you say, pick a moment in time, and there are signs of affluence based on your culture. You can fake it and people make mistakes, but I think it is a mistake to pretend that it doesn't play a role similar to sex and race.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm

     Marriage is a spiritual and legal construct. Committing to someone in front of the community you are involved with is a very powerful act, and it changes the nature of your relationship. It means being around when your partner gets cancer, making hard health care decisions, etc. Without it, there is always this background that you COULD just leave. That's an important difference.

     I think this is why it is such an important issue in the gay community, and I think rightly. It's a travesty that when two people make that kind of commitment, and then something bad happens and the ill-partner's family marginalizes the other partner - and they have no recourse. Not having legal protections completely undermines that commitment.

     Imagine the Schiavo situation between a gay couple. It was bad enough in a heterosexual marriage with all the protections it affords. It would be a non-issue for a gay couple because the partner would just be pushed out.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 5:16pm

135. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 5:12pm

     It does apply to the sons and my boys know not to bring home a young lady that's questionable in my eyes.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 5:19pm

136. Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm

     Actually, I'm asserting that class can generally be determined - much as race and sex can. Not particularly controversial.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 5:20pm

137. Keep up the great posting, Craney! It's tough to introduce and elaborate on a lot of these ideas, especially in a forum such as this, but you're doing a phenomenal job. Unfortunately not everyone is aware of the kinds of things you're discussing, and I think it's amazing that you persevere in clarifying your sound arguments for some of these posters. I'm enjoying following this very spirited debate, though I agree with Jessica about the humourous aspects of it!

     Posted by CoCo at 01/03/2008 @ 5:23pm

138. SRJENKINS: I agree that legal protections are valuable. It's unfortunate that so much cultural baggage surrounds marriage. It's also a travesty that homosexuals aren't afforded the same rights straights enjoy in terms of those legal protections.

     COCO: Thanks!

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:33pm

139. It does apply to the sons and my boys know not to bring home a young lady that's questionable in my eyes.

     Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person

     antediluvian. those poor kids.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 6:10pm

140. Our species is doomed. With every passing moment I become more certain of this conclusion. The right is primarily the domain of knuckle dragging flat earth biblical literalists and avaricious robber baron wannabes, while most of the left is too enamored with their own personal niche resistance to see the forest. We're sitting on a timebomb while everyone sits around arguing about which demographic is most oppressed. Class, race, gender, and myriad other considerations all coalesce to determine one's degree of hardship in life. I agree with most of the original blog, especially that Huckabee is a fanatical dipshit, but the malevolence directed towards an entire gender by the legion of newbie posters is quite troubling, and reeks of cliquish, unreasoned thought.

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:27pm

141. Finally we hear from a feminist! Ms. Valenti, where have you been when we needed you? Slick Willy has been disrespecting women around the world, not to mention his wife and daughter, and not one feminist speaks out! Gavin Newsome is now following in his footsteps by sleeping with his best freind/campaign manager's wife ( ruining the marraige/ with friends like Gavin, who needs enemies? ), and we get nothing but silence from the left! The Evil GW Bush is warmongering against terrorists and dictators around the world who deprive women of thier basic human rights and........NOTHING BUT SILENCE from feminists and the LEFT alike! Oh wait, my mistake, they aren't silent on that issue, they just attack GW constantly and conveniently ignore the countless and henious abuses of women worldwide!!!! The bottom line is this: Today's feminists are actually just far-left liberals with a bone to pick with conservatives, and they use the tired old non-issue ( anymore ) of feminism to push their insanely seditious agenda! Ms. Valenti has admittedly read the Nation's propaganda for most of her life, therefore she is a lost cause that even a mushroom cloud over San Fran. couldn't enlighten! My wife and the majority of her co-workers make more than their husband's do, and I do pretty well myself! Ms. Valentri, we have more women in high positions of Gov't than ever before ( although some of them are pantsuit wearing, femi-nazi dykes with a deep-seeded hatred for the white male and a love for narcissistic sociopaths like Slick Willy regardless of how often he slaps them in the face with his philandering ways) so stop your whining, get a real job, and start actually producing something tangable with your time instead of all the pathetic, imaginary, feminist crap!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:30pm

142. barry25 is exhibit A in defense of my thesis regarding the demise of hominids.

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:32pm

143. Barry boy- did you get hit with a brick to the skull as a child? Is your inane rant even in English you dullard? I found it very difficult to dilineate a single cogent point in your entire ill conceived rant. When did the wonderful wacky world of dial up internet decide to grace your trailer park?

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:36pm

144. I think everyone acknowledges that the male culture of sexual aggressiveness is a problem. These old-time attitudes are a problem. So forth and so on. Males are definitely a major part of the problem....

     Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm

     Don't be so sure you speak for "everyone"! Throughout nature, male sexual aggressiveness is the norm, by a long shot, for very good reasons!

     Instead of just "Males are definitely a major part of the problem"--which btw, is quite accurate in the world of Islam--you would be more on the mark to just blame the human species for existing. Perhaps you are inclined to `breed' maleness out of males and shoot them up w/estrogen from birth?! or females w/testosteron?! or Both hormones to all to achieve that unisex `Utopia'?!

     Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:37pm

145. Entwerpy, talk about contradiction, my boy! This TWERP just complained about "malevolence" direct towards an "entire gender", as if he was against stereotyping, blanket discrimination etc. He states this right after he provides us with his own version of "malevolence" toward the "entire" RIGHT! Like i've always said about you loser scum on the left, " hypocrites of the highest order"!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:39pm

146. Very salient, point, great first article, Jessica. Don't forget to link this idea to the recent supreme court decisions on late-term abortion, (where the majority ruled that the woman probably didn't know what she was doing), as well as the the Ledbetter sex-discrimination in the workplace case - Ruth Bader Ginsberg read her dissents aloud from the bench, and the "Daddy knows best" arguments of the majority was the point of her unusual and articulate illumination of where this supreme court is headed with women's rights. It is scary, as are some of the comments on this blog.

     Posted by mhoney42 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:40pm

147. Entwerpy, your inability to read plain english proves why it's so easy for the left to brainwash your pathetic little sissy ass! Now go to your local bathhouse for a session with Barney Frank and you might just get out some of that frustration caused by BDS ( bush derangement syndrome)!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:42pm

148. Male sexual aggressiveness? What do you call the recent spate of female teachers sexually assualting our sons on the ultra-liberal campusus around this country and the disproportionate punishment they recieve compared to males convicted of the exact same crimes...MORON!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:45pm

149. Oh yah, the ol' late-term abortion! Liberals love this procedure! Bring the baby as close to full-term as possible, then kill it! You never know what the poor mother has gone through during that long pregnancy and it's so very hard to find a ride down to the local infant slaughterhouse, er....I mean abortion clinic, that she had to wait until the third trimester to kill the kid! It's the mother's right, after all, and the father has no say and no rights concerning that child, UNTIL IT"S TIME TO PAY FOR IT, then ol' dad get more than he bargained for! The left has it right though, they fight as hard as they can to defend the RIGHTS terrorists, pedophiles, murderers, dictators etc. and at the same time, they fight equally as hard to kill INNOCENT life right here in the good ol' USA!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:52pm

150. barry 25 is obviously quite insane- I only hope that the resultant psychotic rampage triggered by my derision only claims his family.

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:56pm

151. B, it's about respect. Perhaps your kids don't remove their head gear because you didn't teach them. But, my dad took off his hat when he came home and my husband and three boys do not come into my home with a cap on their heads. I will not tolerate it.

     Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:47pm

     I know what you mean. My wife and daughters had better wear their veils and all skirts, at least, to the ankle when they come in my house.

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 6:58pm

152. CRANEY808,

     Thank you for your diligent postings.

     Yea, what she said.

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 7:00pm

153. shoot any ob/gyn's or blow up a planned parenthood lately barry boy? Did you suffer a stroke while "typing" that frothing, insipid gibberish?

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 7:00pm

154. Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 6:37pm

     I'm a masculinist as well as a feminist, HAPPY - although the former has a bit of a bad name these days. It is possible to recognize and appreciate the differences in sex while at the same time promoting equality between them. A unisex world would be a boring world.

     Still, we shouldn't use differences as an excuse letting men off the hook for violent behavior or societial customs that give preferential treatment to women. I'm a critic of both.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 7:01pm

155. Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2008 @ 6:45pm

     Compare the rates of incidents and tell me which is the bigger problem.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 7:02pm

156. Posted by MALCONTENT 01/03/2008 @ 6:58pm

     beautiful, eric!

     :)

     Posted by loveloki at 01/03/2008 @ 7:02pm

157. thanks, ms. valenti. it was like an extra holiday gift to check in at the nation and find your article.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/03/2008 @ 7:05pm

158. If anything that rampage would begin and end in San Fran. sweetheart, but I'm far too important to ever waste my time, or endanger my freedom by ridding the earth of oxygen-thieves like yourself. I'd much rather sit here and watch history prove you morons wrong concerning Iraq and the " greatest hoax ever perpetuated upon mankind " known as GLOBAL WARMING! Do yourself a favor punchy, read what the creator of the weather channel, along with another oh... 400 climatologists worldwide have to say about you, Al Gore, and the hoax of Global Warming! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! History will prove me right, as if it already hasn't started proving me right! We haven't been hearing much out of the war we had supposedly lost ( see: Harry Reid/Dem. party ) in Iraq now have we! That's funny, I thought the MSM was conservative, yet when things start going our way, those neo-cons at the NYT won't report it! Why those capitalist bastards!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:06pm

159. Srj, the male problem would be bigger. When it comes to crime, the african-american and hispanic problems are also bigger than the white, asian, indian etc. So what do you say about that?

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:09pm

160. Did any of you liberal nutjobs hear of that asian man , I believe Cambodian, that was charged with killing his wife by crushing her scull with 50 strikes from a claw hammer because he thought she was having an affair? Guess what the defense was? It was cultural!!!!!!!!!!! Guess who came up with this heartfelt, ultra-tolerant, deep-thinking approach to this case? A LIBERAL defense attorney( i know your all shocked )! Can anyone tell me where all or any of the FEMINISTS like Ms. Valenti were during this trial? Conveniently silent as usual!!!!!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:16pm

161. BARRY 25- The creator of the weather channel and 400 climatologists have something to say about ME?! I'm quite flattered- I had no idea. It must have been in regard to the piece I just published in Nature entitled- "Congenital cognitive defects: Incipient Insanity and the Goat Fellatio Connection, or, a Study of Barry25." You are self parody, and I will no longer waste any time responding to you. Unfurl that mission accomplished banner like your fearless leader, and trumpet your victory for all to hear in the form of more inanely idiotic, inarticulate posts. You do more to advance leftism than anyone else here, by serving as prima facie evidence of the insipid cognition of the american far right.

     Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 7:19pm

162. Man I'm good! In no time I clowned a feminst, multiple liberals and a TWERP! Looking back, those are all such easy targets that it's not really worth bragging about!!!! See ya losers, i'm paddlin' out!

     Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:20pm

163. hello loki,

     Hope you had a good new year.

     Do you think that craney808 person may have scared zero away?

     She covered pretty much everything except picking on acook.

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 7:20pm

164. HAPPY: Anxious masculinity is not the same as maleness. There is nothing wrong with maleness. That you conflate "maleness" with "male dominance" & "masculinity" is problematic. There is a difference.

     BARRY25: How the hell would you know what feminists have been speaking out about? Do you frequent feminist blogs? Because Jessica and a whole host of feminist writers have been calling attention to the injustices women suffer all over the world. How convenient of you to (barely) cloak your racism in feminist language.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:20pm

165. I apologize if I have posted too frequently on this blog entry. I have not commented at The Nation in a *really* long time, but I heard Jessica would be kicking off this series so I came back. It's nice to meet you all. Those of you who've been civil, anyway. :)

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:22pm

166. "Unfurl that mission accomplished banner like your fearless leader, and trumpet your victory for all to hear in the form of more inanely idiotic, inarticulate posts."

     Posted by ENTROPY 01/03/2008 @ 7:19pm

     "Man I'm good!"

     Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2008 @ 7:20pm

     Your wish, apparently....

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 7:23pm

167. "I apologize if I have posted too frequently on this blog entry."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 7:22pm

     I dunno about anyone else, but you sure saved a me bunch of typing.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 7:25pm

168. ...plus, you seem to annoy mask.

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 7:26pm

169. happy new year to you as well eric. peace!

     you read my mind about zero.

     and thanks craney808. great posts.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/03/2008 @ 7:31pm

170. Anyway, how do we get the MSM to call out sexism, as is evident in the examples given by Jessica? Or will non-traditional media sources have to pick up the ball forever?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 7:37pm

171. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 5:10pm

     And what I said, CRANEY, was that you're in for a frustrating life, if a female President (a feminist, not Phyllis Schafly) and a female Speaker of the House (a feminist, not Ann Coulter)...

     are not "good enough" for you or a "drop in the bucket".

     This is the absolutist stance of any activist group or special cause that ends up isolating them, as they see their more moderate supporters as "sell-outs", and want a Utopian dream in five minutes and anything less is "massive oppression".

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 7:57pm

172. Anyway, how do we get the MSM to call out sexism, as is evident in the examples given by Jessica? Or will non-traditional media sources have to pick up the ball forever?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 7:37pm

     Hey, Craney808, I have an idea. How about start by boycotting journalists who ask "can a woman can be president?" -- unless they also start asking "can a man can be president?".

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 7:59pm

173. Mask, please develop some reading comprehension skills. I support feminist female leaders. Where you got the idea that I don't is beyond me.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 8:07pm

174. Posted by MALCONTENT 01/03/2008 @ 6:58pm

     Didn't know you converted.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 8:08pm

175. KIM, can you imagine a segment on NBC/CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN asking, "Can a Black person lead as well as a White person?"

     Hah. They act like all our male presidents have been superb. Is it possible to lead any WORSE than our current president? White men are not the epitome of great leadership.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 8:08pm

176. CRANEY808, true that! Can you imagine the uproar??

     I just predicted [url] Obama/Huckabee. Unfortunately gender and race are still trumped by RELIGIOSITY! Ick.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 8:16pm

177. "White men are not the epitome of great leadership."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 8:08pm

     I'm curious, do you think white women are?

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 8:20pm

178. ACOOK: Um, no.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 8:31pm

179. ACOOK: Not necessarily; she didn't say the only alternative was white women. And clearly the multi-racial 12 sitting women presidents and prime ministers around the world prove that. There are many examples of leadership beyond the middle-aged white man. We just don't see much of that in our MSM. Male leadership is assumed in the is country because it's frequently we see represented in the media.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 8:32pm

180. Got distracted, please forgive typos...

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 8:35pm

181. Posted by KIM MANCE 01/03/2008 @ 8:32pm

     Thanks for the clarity. Now, I do agree we could use more women in Presidential roles, but they have do a much better job then they're doing. One of the reasons we take hits from the MSM is because we come off as not being sure of ourselves.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 8:53pm

182. I am not even going to reply to FREIHEIT's disgusting, dismissive comment. He is a prime example of a man who values women primarily for their appearance.

     ACOOK: What do you mean they have to do a much better job than they're doing? We haven't had a woman president, so upon what evidence are you basing that judgement?

     Women come off as not being sure of themselves? Clinton is incredibly sure of herself, but because self-confidence and power are considered "male" traits, she is constantly criticized for it. She's called power-hungry (aren't all aspiring presidents hungry for power?), "mannish," a ball-buster, aggressive, etc., etc.

     We're in a pretty harsh catch-22. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 8:59pm

183. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/03/2008 @ 8:48pm | ignore this person

     and this thing with getting paid less for the same work is just tough luck?

     how about the number of women murdered by spouse or spousal equivalent? no problem?

     sexual harassment at the workplace? all in their mind?

     if ya gonna make such asinine statements, wouldn't it be better if you shut up?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 9:01pm

184. ACOOK: Yes, women are often the harshest critics of themselves, and that's unfortunate. Again, one of the problems with the images of leadership represented in the media.

     FREIHEIT: Why would feminists have to invent an enemy when they have you? And a well-informed person wouldn't be as dogmatic as you were in your remarks as to the status of women in the US. The glass ceiling will soon be a memory, but it was never a myth.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 9:01pm

185. vagina dentata. no bites? pun intended.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 9:02pm

186. Clearly he takes women's position in society very seriously, what with the joke about seeing up women's skirts. :eye roll:

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 9:05pm

187. "Women come off as not being sure of themselves?"

     CRANEY808: I'd love to agree with you there, but when they get into high-levels leadership tend to start second-guessing themselves, because they're over-scrutinized once they get there. I've had a lot of women executives and elected officials tell me this--and a Brown U Study about women running for office backs it up (url was too long to include). But the good news is, simply encouraging women is extremely effective! Thankfully, we have strong, confident women like Hillary and Madeleine, Merkel, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. But we still need for the MSM to represent all of humanity instead of just 48% of it.
     

     BTW, looks like my Huckabee prediction [religiarchy.wordpress.com] was correct... Ugh.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 9:13pm

188. women in power are like everyone else, see Margaret Thatcher

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 9:16pm

189. Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2008 @ 6:30pm

     did you use your brain or your spleen to come up with such hate-filled nonsense?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 9:17pm

190. "Women come off as not being sure of themselves? Clinton is incredibly sure of herself, but because self-confidence and power are considered "male" traits, she is constantly criticized for it. She's called power-hungry (aren't all aspiring presidents hungry for power?), "mannish," a ball-buster, aggressive, etc., etc."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 8:59pm

     Craney, who cares?! How do you think Margaret Thatcher and Benazir Bhutto and all the other female leaders got elected. It wasn't because they played nice. They turned the tables on the press. If women aren't able to withstand any and all criticism that the press can throw at them, then she doesn't deserve the job.

     I think it's the job of the press to test the fortitude of anyone who wants to sit in the oval office. Do I think it's fair, no.

     "We're in a pretty harsh catch-22. Damned if we do and damned if we don't."

     Then why give a damn? I say go for it.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 9:17pm

191. Posted by BARRY25 01/03/2008 @ 6:52pm

     been sniffing solvents again?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 9:19pm

192. Posted by KIM MANCE 01/03/2008 @ 9:13pm

     You were doing good until you mentioned HRC and Madeline Albright in the same sentence. Both rely too heavily on slick Willy.

     Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 9:20pm

193. Women come off as not being sure of themselves? Clinton is incredibly sure of herself, but because self-confidence and power are considered "male" traits, she is constantly criticized for it. She's called power-hungry (aren't all aspiring presidents hungry for power?), "mannish," a ball-buster, aggressive, etc., etc.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 8:59pm

     actually, ms. clinton is a hypocritical asshole, it has nothing (at least for me) to do with her gender.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 9:26pm

194. BRANNIGAN: You're right about Thatcher. Just goes to show that women in power do not necessarily advance women's rights or leftist ideals. Thatcher sucked.

     ACOOK: I am just trying to show the sorts of challenges women face when aspiring to leadership positions. If they play sweet and try to please everyone they're "weak" and not fit to lead. If they exhibit strength and take a stand they're called "cold" or "aggressive." [I always go for the latter approach because I don't much care what backwards mouth-breathers think of me.] And women's appearances are constantly picked apart. See the myriad articles/stories re: Clinton's outfits, hairdos, wrinkles, neckline, ass...

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 9:28pm

195. Want a cookie, Frosty?

     If it doesn't apply to you, maybe I'm not talking about you.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 9:29pm

196. ACOOK: I hear that. And I can't vouch for Hillary, but I've personally been working with Madeleine (after out of office). She doesn't need to rely on anyone. She could win a battle of wits with f'ing anyone, even at her age now. And her ability to take in info, comprehend, summarize it and make recommendations is almost freakish. Too bad she, like many women got over-scrutinized in the media. I suppose she would've been better off being appointed by a woman president. Oh wait, we've never had one... :) --------- Bhutto also said that women who get into public view are often criticized for the men in their lives. And indeed a husband (Bhutto), brother (Thatcher), son (Aquino) are almost always cited as women politicians' weakness. But take that argument in reverse. Would you say that Bill relied too much on Hillary or Madeleine? No, because culture demands that we assume the man is able to lead autonomously and a woman is not. Gawd forbid we assume a woman can make an important decision without consulting her husband.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 9:35pm

197. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 9:28pm

     CRANEY808: You're dead-on there and there's tons of research to back that up.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 9:37pm

198. Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 8:07pm

     I didn't say you didn't support them (neither did you).

     But you acted like a "President Hillary" (a bit more unlikely tonight it seems) and a Speaker Nancy were insignificant to the "Movement"...which is ridiculous.

     Hard to talk about "The Patriarchy" as much, or certainly get incensed about the "Glass Ceiling" when the two most powerful people in America...are females.

     Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 9:48pm

199. Want a cookie, Frosty?

     If it doesn't apply to you, maybe I'm not talking about you.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 9:29pm

     sorry to have interrupted YOUR blog.

     and yes i want a cookie. not a salty one, though.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 9:52pm

200. cookies?

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 9:53pm

201. cookies?

     Posted by MALCONTENT 01/03/2008 @ 9:53pm

     i'm as confused. still gotta love cookies.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 10:00pm

202. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/03/2008 @ 10:00pm

     I complimented her writing...but do I get a cookie?

     Noooo.

     Fine.

     Posted by Malcontent at 01/03/2008 @ 10:11pm

203. For the last time, MASK, I said nothing about Pelosi. I was referring to conservative female leaders. God damn.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 10:12pm

204. Thank you, MALCONTENT. Here is a ginger snap. :)

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 10:13pm

205. Is anyone else shaking in their boots right now? Huckabee is the projected GOP winner in Iowa. There's no reason to feel schadenfreude, as there's no guarantee that the GOP candidate will lose. And the possibility of President Huck is horrifying.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 10:14pm

206. and the possibility of President Huck is horrifying.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 10:14pm

     yep.

     watch mike's ignorance in action! [youtube.com]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 10:35pm

207. Until we do, people like USC have a point.

     SRJ: Thank you. It's an easily identifiable double-standard if one has the courage to open one's eyes to it...which explains why many here won't own up to it.

     Because, NEWS FLASH, the genders are anatomically different

     Token: Thanks for clearing that up. So there is no sexism in believing that women are better suited for child-rearing because science can back it up? Better lock your doors...you just pissed off NOW.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:09pm

208. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Mask

     nonsense. how many Ceos are female? how many governors? how many mayors. you are far too glib and far too ignorant, to be some kind of sage here.

     when it's 50/50 then you can talk.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:25pm

209. Brannigan, How many ceo's/governors/etc are female you ask? Less than 50% as you mention but the number is growing and will continue to do so. Society has been progressing, the numbers of CEO's for example still lags as it takes 20-40 years to make CEO at a large firm. How many women were in college in the right fields in the 60's-70's? Quite a corrolary between female college enrollment and jobs like CEO down the line. Where do you stand on females outperforming males across the board in all education to include higher, its more than 50/50 in their favor.

     go obama!

     Posted by dananddanica at 01/03/2008 @ 11:45pm

210. Regarding asking a father for his daughter's hand in marriage...

     I did ask my future F-I-L for his daughter's hand and am glad I did. I knew how much my now-wife respected her father's opinion and how important it was to have his approval. Plus, I think he respected me more for it (a few brownie points never hurt). Only an overly-sensitive,PC-puking fluff monkey would be offended by this gesture or call it sexist. If this was the year 1908, you might have a point. However, it's 2008 and women are no longer considered "property" of the father. These days the custom simply represents a recognition and respect of the father's role as being the primary male influence in his daughter's life and the future son-in-law's intentions to assume that role. I, for one, am glad to see the tradition making a comeback amongst some of the youngsters. We need more courteous gestures in this society, not less (So ACook, keep telling your sons to doff their hats indoors and stand when a women enters the room. It sounds like you're raising some polite young men).

     Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:46pm

211. Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 11:

     and a woman should never leave the house without a a hat and wearing gloves.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:49pm

212. Where do you stand on females outperforming males across the board in all education to include higher, its more than 50/50 in their favor.

     it's by default. many young men are complete, self destructive jerks

     Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:51pm

213. it's by default. many young men are complete, self destructive jerks

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 11:51pm

     being sexist, brannigan?

     Posted by frosted zoom at 01/04/2008 @ 12:26am

214. The whole business of saying the doctors are responsible while the patient is not responsible for the abortion is nothing more than the kind of dishonest hoops the Fetus Christers have to jump through. If they admitted that they wanted to imprison or execute women and girls who get abortions (remember, the fundies think birth control bills are the same as abortions) they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of winning elections. This sophistry isn't so much Huckabee's patronizing attitude towards women as it is and effort to avoid showing his true colors.

     By the way Jessica, did you know that you are a fan favorite on a science fiction website? SDNet

     Posted by Jelperman at 01/04/2008 @ 12:36am

215. Oops! The link:

     http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=107363

     Posted by Jelperman at 01/04/2008 @ 12:38am

216. Last I checked, there were women soldiers coming back from Iraq in body bags.

     Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

     I'm sure that pleases you, but that's not the issue. The question is...is there a separate set of standards/qualifications for women in the military or do they have to meet the same standards as men?

     Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm

     No one coming back in body bags pleases me. I don't know about the special forces, but the regular forces have women in them. Keep in mind that a good portion of the people being killed are support personnel in the regular Army, Air Force, Marines and the Navy.

     There are also women pilots flying missions via helicopter and fighter jets. You are probably correct in saying that the military doesn't like sending them into harms way, but statistically there are more guys in the military than women anyway, so the bulk of those being killed will be male.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 07:49am

217. I'm sure that pleases you, but that's not the issue. The question is...is there a separate set of standards/qualifications for women in the military or do they have to meet the same standards as men?

     Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm

     what a disgusting smear from a cowardly promoter of war.shame

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 07:59am

218. Am I getting to heavy, Ms Valenti, sitting on your shoulder?

     Chip

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/04/2008 @ 08:01am

219. what a disgusting smear from a cowardly promoter of war.shame

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/04/2008 @ 07:59am

     Brannigan, That is typical of USC1.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 08:02am

220. It is just another scary piece of information about the next theocratic leader of the free world. He is a misogynist, anti-science, and a born again christian...sounds like he has the election in the bag. I wonder if England is taking visa applications...

     Posted by openyoureyes at 01/04/2008 @ 08:50am

221. No one coming back in body bags pleases me.

     Wolf:

     That's a relief, but you're still avoiding the issue. One last time...are there or are there not different standards for women in the military. To help you out, Token already answered in the affirmative. Now, how do you feel about that double-standard? A little sexist, don't ya think?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 08:54am

222. Posted by OPENYOUREYES 01/04/2008 @ 08:50am

     Good grief! Just pack up and leave already!

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 08:56am

223. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=usc1

     you owe an apology, you creep.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 09:38am

224. USC1, what makes you think feminists support different standards for men and women? You really need to learn more about feminism. Stop confusing the anti-feminism/traditionalism that *seems* to benefit women with feminism.

     You are incredibly disingenuous to insist that requiring MEN (but not women) to ask their parters' FATHERS for permission to marry is not sexist. It's a model in which there are different standards for men and women. It's a model that upholds the notion that marriage is the transfer of property from one man to another. Support it all you want, but stop denying that it's sexist.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 09:41am

225. this issue has been addressed not only by the military but also by police and fire depts all over the country. women mostly are smaller in size and cannot perform the feats of strength that larger men can. yet there are many jobs in those fields that do not require physical strength. also many small men cannot achieve the feats of strength that a much larger man can. does that mean that there are no jobs for smaller people in the firehouse? of course not.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 09:43am

226. Because, NEWS FLASH, the genders are anatomically different

     Token: Thanks for clearing that up. So there is no sexism in believing that women are better suited for child-rearing because science can back it up? Better lock your doors...you just pissed off NOW.

     Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 11:09pm

     *blink*

     How does being anatomically able to bear a child translate to "better suited for child-rearing?" You don't need a vagina to take care of a kid.

     You'd swear you anti-feminist men didn't want to perform stereotypical "women's work" or something. /snark

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 10:00am

227. Over 200 comments for Jessica Valenti's first post. That's pretty impressive. Lots of folks coming out of the woodwork on this.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 01/04/2008 @ 10:14am

228. The same crowd of MRAs/anti-feminists that whines about the wretched injustice of women getting child custody also consistently argues that women are better-suited for child-rearing. So... while men aren't "biologically" capable of being primary caregivers to children (hah!), they should get custody in divorce proceedings. Got the best interests of the children in mind, right?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 10:15am

229. welcome to the nation, jessica. great post and looking forward to the next 29. sincerely, anna

     Posted by annasussman at 01/04/2008 @ 10:43am

230. Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 10:00am | ignore this person

     a woman is more than her sexual parts. that women are more nurturing than men has been a biological imperative for as long as mammals have been on earth.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 10:52am

231. Then perhaps men should not be left alone with their children (or any children) or awared custody of them in divorce proceedings, BRANNIGAN. Don't mistake socialization for biological fact.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 10:54am

232. Please note my new nation user name in regard to the succeeding comments. Way to go, Jessica! After last night's caucus, we need all the protection we can get from the 'Daddy State'! Hillary in New Hampshire!

     Posted by fembsbuster at 01/04/2008 @ 10:57am

233. That's a relief, but you're still avoiding the issue. One last time...are there or are there not different standards for women in the military. To help you out, Token already answered in the affirmative. Now, how do you feel about that double-standard? A little sexist, don't ya think?

     Posted by USC1 01/04/2008 @ 08:54am

     USC1, I understand exactly what you are saying. For example, your average guy should be able to do around 40 or 50 push ups and you aren't going to find very many women able to do that. Men are naturally stronger than women are, but don't confuse that with intelligence.

     What I was pointing out is that is that women soldiers are in the line of fire. Period. It doesn't matter if they only have to do 10 push-ups off their knees versus guys doing 40 for physical training exercises. In the end, it's how well one performs in the heat of battle, or in bad circumstances.

     I've known some guys when I was in the military that my sister could have kicked the crap out of. These guys would have wet their pants and curled up like a kitten if the proverbial shit were to hit the fan. So, just because somebody is born a male, doesn't make them a warrior, brave or strong, it just makes them male.

     Most jobs in the military have specialties. Some people work in logistics, security, information systems etc., but all of the them can be close to the front lines or in areas of risk. Just because people aren't out doing patrols with an M-16 doesn't mean they aren't taking risks.

     Back to your point of double standards, they exist everywhere you go. Depending upon the situation one finds themself in, it's hard not to notice double standards and the way people tend to discriminate in their own favor. It's so blatant in most places that I think I start to think that maybe it's a natural human trait.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 11:26am

234. Mike Huckabee terrifies me. His message terrifies me and his version of "America" terrifies me. I keep waiting for someone in mainstream media to show that the Emperor wears no clothes except they seem to be enthralled with how personable he is. Isn't that how we got into this mess? Bush was the guy you could have a beer with. Is Huckabee the guy you could hang out with an abortion clinic protest?

     Jessica: I really like your thoughtfulness. You point to something concrete in the smokescreen of righteousness the Fundamentalist Right keeps wafting at the rest of us: abortions are wrong but it is the doctor's fault. I wonder if this is our real defense of abortion rights - present legislations that puts women who have abortions in jail and then see how their moral stand crumbles.

     Shoot. If that actually happened, I'd turn myself in.

     Posted by memoirgirl at 01/04/2008 @ 11:42am

235. Oh Jesus, FREIHEIT; you have three girls?

     How will you feel when, as your daughters grow up, they are valued primarily for their looks instead of their ideas/accomplishments? The way you spoke to Jessica on the previous page was demeaning and dismissive of what she said?

     How will you feel when, as your daughters enter the work force, they are taken less seriously than their male peers (the way YOU are towards women in your not-so-witty glass ceiling remark).

     Not even being a dad to daughters can help some men see women as fully human.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 11:42am

236. FREIHEIT: If you're so concerned about the media's depiction of women, why don't YOU take a stand (something Jessica and her peers are already doing every day)?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 11:44am

237. Did Jessica mention that? How about gender roles in entertainment? That is where I think women should take a stand. MTV and portrayal of women. There's the threat.

     Do you have any idea how many women are laughing all the way to the bank because of the entertainment industry and culture in general? Porn in the US brings in more money annually than professional football, baseball and basketball combined. Does the left feed this industry too, or is it sex-starved macho men with a penchant for contradiction like the bulk of your paisanos?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 11:45am

238. The problem, FRIHEIT, with saying that the glass ceiling is a myth is that hard facts like pay differentials for the same work, management status, etc. while getting better still skew very much against females in the workplace.

     Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/04/2008 @ 11:51am

239. CHIMICHENGA, I agree with your very last point, but I have to say that while many women may get rich by exploiting themselves, doing so is ultimately harmful to women as a class. Yes, individuals get rich by portraying women as gold-diggers, or promoting the virgin/whore dichotomy, or pretending to be stupid to impress boys, but in the end women are worse off because of it.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 11:55am

240. "Not even being a dad to daughters can help some men see women as fully human."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 11:42am

     Craney, I think Freiheit's daughters will turn out OK. I seriously doubt the crap on the tube or the jerks in the street are going to damage their "humaness".

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:00pm

241. ACOOK: Of course it won't affect their humanness. That doesn't mean they won't be viewed and treated as though their purpose in life is to please men and have babies.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:02pm

242. Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 11:55am

     Wait a minute Craney, you sound like your trying to have it both ways. You cannot say women are "victims" and then turn around and say women are worst off because of the "choices" they make. Which is it?

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:04pm

243. Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

     No doubt it hinders women in a society which would be so much more salubrious under their influence. I suppose many women who feed the declining culture dominated by male viciousness only become as vicious as those they benefit from, hastening the overall decay so glorified by the shysters who are running it - into the ground...

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 12:10pm

244. ACOOK: Point me towards the instance wherein I claimed "Women are victims." That's a really simplistic statement to make about a complex issue. Women as a class are worse off because of the individual choices *some* women make. Some women buy into patriarchal bullshit and, by promoting stereotypes and damaging ideas about women, harm all women.

     You really need everything super dumbed-down, don't you?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

245. Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:02pm

     Craney, those girls won't give a flip about how some jerk views them. You need to give women more credit than that.

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:12pm

246. ACOOK: I'm not talking about "some jerk." I'm talking about FREIHEIT. Dads have a lot of influence on girls' sense of self-worth. With a father who views women the way he does, they're gonna deal with a bit of self-loathing.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:14pm

247. Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

     No, your snide comments speaks volumns. I don't need to read or hear double-speak. I get enough of that from politicians. Don't get pissed off at me becuase I see things differently.

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:21pm

248. You really need everything super dumbed-down, don't you?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:11pm

     What these guys don't realize is that most religions or the practice of religions place women on a lower echelon to their male counter parts. Eve made from Adam's rib etc. These people never question that men wrote the bible a long time ago, God didn't, and that there may not be any validity to the Adam and Eve story to begin with. If women wrote the bible, I'll bet the Adam and Eve story wouldn't exist, or it would be one hell of a lot different.

     If people buy into these stories and further buy into the fact that the almighty God is a man without questioning the point of reference their views came from, you can't discuss topics like this logically with them. They believe themselves superior because God ordained it to be so because it's so written in the Bible (by men).

     Look at how women are treated in most 3rd world countries. It's a shame, but it goes on. It wasn't too long ago that here in the good old USA, men could beat their wives with clubs if their wives were insubordinate.

     I just saw on the news recently where some religious nutcases believed in wall to wall counseling for children. You know, the spare the rod, spoil the child routine. These people just took it a little to far when one couple killed their child. These are cases of people taking advantage of their position to inflict dominance over other people and nothing more. Religion is nothing more than a tool for them to use to their advantage much like a gear or lever arm.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

249. With a father who views women the way he does, they're gonna deal with a bit of self-loathing.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:14pm

     Either that or end up hating their dad like my sister did.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:30pm

250. ACOOK, your inability to understand nuance or complicated issues is going to be an obstacle for you when it comes to issues like this. You don't acknowledge when you've put words into my mouth, and then you just ignore my explanations when I elaborate. It's too bad I've wasted any time on you at all.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:39pm

251. WOLFGANG1, I truly believe that Abrahamic religions and the Adam & Eve story are the main contributors to misogyny in many cultures. I mean, the creation myth states that men are the default human beings while women are merely an afterthought. That way of thinking has poisoned the way so many people think about sex, gender, relationships and sexuality.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:41pm

252. I think if there were a higher rate of penis-chopping by women fed up with the brutes who keep them down then the world would find a way to medicine many problems. Sure, it's a violent and extreme remedy, but what male ape would sleep soundly knowing women and sharp objects might conspire during the night to curtail their situation?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 12:45pm

253. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/04/2008 @ 12:29pm

     Wolfie, this is why the left gets no traction in this country. Everyone is wrong but you guys. Nothing is ever practical unless it comes from the left.

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:47pm

254. "ACOOK, your inability to understand nuance or complicated issues is going to be an obstacle for you when it comes to issues like this. You don't acknowledge when you've put words into my mouth, and then you just ignore my explanations when I elaborate. It's too bad I've wasted any time on you at all."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:39pm

     No, I do understand very much. I find it quite amusing when someone questions a lefty's thinking, especially a radical one as yourself. You guys have nothing new to say, just the same 'ol worn out words and nobody's listening.

     Posted by ACook at 01/04/2008 @ 12:55pm

255. Posted by ACOOK 01/04/2008 @ 12:47pm | ignore this person

     And your point is? It's the right that flaunts the droves of religious cooks and cornpone imbeciles that take mythology and folklore for truth and history.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 12:56pm

256. you owe an apology, you creep.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/04/2008 @ 09:38am

     To whom and for what?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 12:59pm

257. ACOOK: What are you even talking about? Throughout this discussion you've misinterpreted more than one person, utterly failed at reading comprehension, and made a series of illogical assumptions based on shoddy reasoning. You don't understand; you demonstrated that quite well when you incorrectly summarized my viewpoint (which I've thoroughly expanded upon) as "Women are all victims" and accused me of "wanting it both ways."

     I'm doing all this writing about women who defend the male power structure and female misogynists and women who rush to defend patriarchy, blah blah blah, and all this time I could have saved myself the trouble and suggested you take a look in the mirror.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:00pm

258. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 11:25am | ignore this person

     you are denying that women are generally paid less for the same work?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 1:01pm

259. I'm sure your daughters are brighter than I am, but you're not.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 1:01pm

260. That way of thinking has poisoned the way so many people think about sex, gender, relationships and sexuality.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 12:41pm

     Agreed.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:02pm

261. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/04/2008 @ 11:26am

     I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, but again this is about physical standards and requirements. If a woman "qualifies" with 10 push-ups from the knees, then why is that not acceptable for men? Think back to before women were in the military. What were the standards for acceptance into various branches/special forces? Should those standards have been changed to accomodate women (careful...that's sexism)? Which military would you be more comfortable with...the one with higher standards for everybody or the one with lower standards?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:07pm

262. Craney:

     what makes you think feminists support different standards for men and women? You really need to learn more about feminism.

     I never said I did, did I? But why all the bitchin' and moanin' about asking a father for a daughter's hand when there are real issues of inequality? Kinda trivial in the grand scheme of things.

     You are incredibly disingenuous to insist that requiring MEN (but not women) to ask their parters' FATHERS for permission to marry is not sexist.

     First, I didn't say it was required. It is, however, a nice gesture. I've already explained why I believe that is so. Part of the problem is your trying to apply 19th or 20th century thinking to a custom existing in the 21st century. The act might be the same, but the reason for doing it has changed.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:16pm

263. How does being anatomically able to bear a child translate to "better suited for child-rearing?" You don't need a vagina to take care of a kid.

     No, but having two mammary glands built specifically for that purpose does give women a distinct advantage. Quit trying to deny nature.

     You'd swear you anti-feminist men didn't want to perform stereotypical "women's work" or something. /snark

     Barking up the wrong tree. I asked my wife if she would take my name, we discussed it and I left the decision to her. She works. She earns more than me. If one of us had to stay at home, we have already decided that it would be me. We split household chores. We are raising our two daughters to believe that they can do or be whatever they want, but they had better earn it.

     However, feminism has so skewed my wife's thinking that she doesn't believe motherhood is a worth-while occupation. Whenever we discuss with our daughters their goals, she always leaves that one out. I am quick to remind her and them that there is nothing more worthwhile {or frustrating ;)}than raising children properly. It's kind of a sad consequence of feminism, IMO.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 10:00am

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:30pm

264. USC1- out of curiosity, did you think to ask the mother of your wife-to-be for permission?? I would find it very honorable and respectable if a young man asked BOTH parents for the privilege of marrying their daughter. But somehow I doubt you did indeed ask both parents...please correct me if I am mistaken.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:31pm

265. Anyway, I'm not anti-feminist. I'm anti-retarded feminism. Stick to things that actually matter, not some BS-pseudo-affront complaint like "I can't believe he asked my father for my hand in marriage. Oh, the HORROR!"

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:34pm

266. JR055:

     Nope. Go back and read my previous explanation to Craney for the reason.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 1:36pm

267. So, if a woman gets drunk and consents to sex, but regrets the decisons later, is it rape? Is she to be held accountable for her decisions and accept the consequences?

     I think that this may have already been answered by now but if a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol they can't give consent, male or female. And just because a person chooses to drink doesn't mean that gives anyone an open invitation to take advantage of them. That's like turning things around on a rape victim because she was wearing "inappropriate clothing" by saying that she chose to wear those clothes so now has to own up to the consequences. Your analogy here doesn't hold up.

     Posted by ravenfire at 01/04/2008 @ 1:41pm

268. "I know this world is big enough for all children and that God desires them all to help steward & love its Earth."

     This is completely false. The world is most definitely *not* big enough for "all children." In fact, it's all the humans in the world who are driving the planet to an early death. And it's we humans who will ultimately suffer for it (either us or our grandchildren). You think people aren't affected when the planet reacts to our destruction?

     Until you bring evidence that your notion of "god" even exists in the first place, it doesn't belong in this debate. You can refer to your imaginary friend to argue that women have no right to their own bodies, but most reasonable, logical people are going to laugh at you.

     "So maybe Jessica can, you know, worry about those women who actually decide to have their babies..."

     What makes you think Jessica doesn't concern herself with mothers? Educate yourself before assuming Jessica doesn't advocate for group X, Y, or Z.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm

     If you think the world isn't big enough for all children, you've been sold a bill of goods.

     What? Is this one of your reason to have an abortion? 'casue the world ain't big enough for us big, bad humans? It seeems to be what you're implying. What are you? A eugenist?

     What? I have to "prove" God exists before I can use it in a debate. What planet do you live on? I feel bad for the lack of depth in your life, and your fear of things you have no comprehension of.

     So you think most "reasonable, logical people" are going to laugh at me when I say there is no difference in life between the first trimester and the next. Well, they may laugh at me, but since even you know that to be true (unless you are anti-science just like you're anti-God), what the heck is your point besides spouting off a bunch of silly platitudes and arguments from the 1970s? Grow up, you'll get through life a lot easier and make a lot more friends.

     I don't know if Jessica cares about mothers or not who decide to carry their baby to term. It was clear from this article, anyway, that it was more important for her to call a politician "a sexist" for his abortion stance, rather than stick up for the single women who desires to raise a little child of God. (Oops, there I go, conjuring up my "imaginary friend" again. Sorry.) I don't know what Jessica cares about, but clearly her priority in this case was to rip a politician rather than worry about mothers who actually went through with their pregnancy.

     I do agree with you, however, Jessica seems like a fine person. I'm sure she's worried about single mothers too. I wasn't really trying to argue otherwise, and if I did, I apologize.

     And I know you don't want to hear it, but simply from the tone of your post, you need an "imaginary friend" in your life too. Believe me, you can still be a progressive, feminist, whatever you want, if you're lucky enough to acquire such a friend. In fact, I'll put in a good word for you though I'm sure you believe my kind thoughts will simply be like so much blowin' in the wind and that you're just fine with "your body, your self".

     Otherwise, cheers.

     Posted by Scrub at 01/04/2008 @ 1:41pm

269. So, if a woman gets drunk and consents to sex, but regrets the decisons later, is it rape? Is she to be held accountable for her decisions and accept the consequences?

     I think that this may have already been answered by now but if a person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol they can't give consent, male or female. And just because a person chooses to drink doesn't mean that gives anyone an open invitation to take advantage of them. That's like turning things around on a rape victim because she was wearing "inappropriate clothing" by saying that she chose to wear those clothes so now has to own up to the consequences. Your analogy here doesn't hold up.

     Posted by ravenfire at 01/04/2008 @ 1:42pm

270. Come on, people. Too much pettifogging going on now.

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 1:45pm

271. I know USC1 wasn't asking me, but until Wolfgang gets back from lunch, I hope he doesn't mind me putting my two cents in. (Is this the point where I say "long time reader, first time poster"?)

     If a woman "qualifies" with 10 push-ups from the knees, then why is that not acceptable for men? I was under the impression that the qualifications were to ensure fitness. You know, because Uncle Sam hates fatties (j/k). I know, and this will come up later, that for certain jobs where the physical strength, etc, is integral to the job, that the qualifications exist irrespective of gender. But, for example two computer programmers, where strength is not integral to the job, the military just wants fit officers. Given biological differences, generally, a woman who can only do 10 push-ups is at a different fitness level than a man who can only do 10 push-ups. This is a guess as to the reasoning but for the "why" – because the military says so.

     Should those standards have been changed to accommodate women (careful...that's sexism)?

     When a standard is set so high as to be a barrier for an entire class – that is discrimination (as applied to gender, sexism). Unless, of course, there is a corresponding reason for the barrier – as with the requirement to lift 50 lbs. to work as a UPS deliveryman/person/whatever. Accommodation of a previously excluded class is not automatically sexism – it all has to do with reasoning. Lower requirements for Navy SEALs so as to include women? Given that the requirements are closely tailored to the job – that is sexist. SEALs must be more than fit – their job is predicated on that fact. Lower physical requirements for a female JAG officer – not sexist since the only reason for physical requirements is to ensure fitness. Lower educational requirements – sexist.

     Which military would you be more comfortable with...the one with higher standards for everybody or the one with lower standards?

     Higher standards, of course. Physical, mental and emotional. Best of the best. But note that more push-ups does not a better military make.

     Posted by Just Lurking at 01/04/2008 @ 1:48pm

272. wolfgang and craney

     long before the bible, there was the story of the goddess nin-ti, lady of the rib. she used her extra rib to make the first man out of adamah, bloody clay.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 1:48pm

273. So, USC1, you are the one who decides which aspects of sexism are "real?"

     Having two mammary glands gives women a distinct advantage over men WHEN IT COMES TO BREASTFEEDING. How am I denying nature? It's hard to deny that only women can give birth and breastfeed. That does not mean women are "supposed" to be primary caregivers for children. You are the one making leaps here.

     If being a mother is so worthwile and important, how come so few men who make that claim are willing to do the same work? It's the folks to chant "Motherhood is the most important job in the world!" who are the most reluctant to support actual mothers or perform childcare duties themselves.

     SCRUB, acknowledging that the earth can't sustain an endless supply of humans and their wasteful lifestyles (in the developed world) has nothing to do with eugenics or abortion.

     Would you consider my arguments sound if I referred to The Tooth Fairy to back them up? It's entirely possible to have a rich life without depending on belief in a deity for comfort. If you think I have no knowledge of religion or spiritual beliefs you are dead wrong. In fact, most atheists are atheists precisely because they've spent a lot of time studying and thinking about religion.

     "I don't know if Jessica cares about mothers or not who decide to carry their baby to term." - that is because you failed to do your homework before making ignorant claims. Motherhood is not the topic of her essay here, so she's not required to discuss it.

     LOVELOKI: the thing about goddess nin-ti may very well be true, but her story is not the basis of three of the world's religions right now.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 2:04pm

274. USC1, are you as outraged that the military has been accepting people with mental illnesses and criminals as you are that they accept women?

     At this point, NOBODY has defended unequal requirements as just. Why you continue to argue against strawmen is beyond me.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 2:08pm

275. USC1- Right. Yes, I did notice in your previous comment that you ask the father for permission because you are essentially replacing him as the most important male figure in your wife's life. correct? Am I to assume then, the mother will always be the most prominent female figure in her life? why the separation of the sexes? does this mean that you and her mother are now on the same playing field? I would think committing to a husband and starting a family would effectively put both parents in the backseat and make you the primary figure in her life. Forgive me for prodding to deeply into your personal life, but I still fail to see why you would only ask one parent for permission.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/04/2008 @ 2:11pm

276. Peter, does Katrina earn more than you?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 2:08pm | ignore this person

     this really stupid. does a lieutenant earn more than a general?

     What I'm saying is that if it is true that employers can get women to do the same work at a lower cost of labor, why would any good business person with a goal of profit for investors hire any men?!

     because it's an old boy club. the society has been patriarchal for almost all of history. there has been some change, but not ass much as there will be.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 2:17pm

277. it wasn't so long ago that women were relegated to secretary jobs, if they were hired at all.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 2:19pm

278. Frie, what you are suggesting is that women are paid less because they are worth less.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 2:20pm

279. "What I'm saying is that if it is true that employers can get women to do the same work at a lower cost of labor, why would any good business person with a goal of profit for investors hire any men?!" :: This is an interesting point. It makes me wonder also, why then after WW2 ended, did most employers toss their female workers for the men returning home?? why did rosie the riveter posters change from "we can do it!" with muscles flexed, to stay at home mom in the kitchen? I also wonder what the hourly pay was for the female workers too...wonder if they were in fact cheaper than their male counterparts returning from war...then it would REALLY make no sense at all to have exchanged them for male workers.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/04/2008 @ 2:25pm

280. The problem with this issue is thoroughly evidenced here on this post - every angle, alley and interpretation is dominated by men, the bulk of which boast varying degrees of idiocy and display a gulf that stretches between their dingy domains and the Great Society they claim to work so hard to produce.

     Where are the women?

     Posted by chimichenga at 01/04/2008 @ 2:41pm

281. really, craney? you mean the three main world religions aren't goddess/nature centered? wow, learn somethin new everyday.

     :)

     the active suppression/denial of the goddess archetype is a big part of our cultural ills.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 2:48pm

282. USC1, are you as outraged that the military has been accepting people with mental illnesses and criminals as you are that they accept women?

     Depends. How many push-ups can they do?

     At this point, NOBODY has defended unequal requirements as just. Why you continue to argue against strawmen is beyond me.

     I'm arguing against strawmen? You and Valenti are worried about a man who asks his future F-I-L for his daughter's hand in marriage! Who cares about that when there are REAL examples of discrimination out there? Focus on what matters.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 2:08pm

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 2:58pm

283. FREIHEIT,

     I'm just curious: Saw your comment about Sexual Harrassment training being mandatory in corporations in your state. Mind me asking which State?

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/04/2008 @ 3:10pm

284. long before the bible, there was the story of the goddess nin-ti, lady of the rib. she used her extra rib to make the first man out of adamah, bloody clay.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/04/2008 @ 1:48pm

     Don't forget the earth goddess.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/04/2008 @ 3:31pm

285. USC1, are you as outraged that the military has been accepting people with mental illnesses and criminals as you are that they accept women?

     BTW, I almost let this slide, but just in case people get the wrong idea...I'm not opposed to women in the military, I'm opposed to lowering standards just to make things "seem" equal.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 3:34pm

286. I'm opposed to lowering standards just to make things "seem" equal.

     Posted by USC1 01/04/2008 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person

     how about lowering standards to meet recruiting goals?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 3:59pm

287. And that free market market competition prevents discrimination.

     yeah right. those good old laissez faire days, nobody discriminated them. you are ludicrous.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 4:01pm

288. discriminated then.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 4:01pm

289. Are you familiar with the definition of the word "strawman," USC1?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:03pm

290. Many colleges and universities have begun lowering standards for male applicants because the ratio of women to men on campuses has grown so large.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:05pm

291. So convicted theives and rapists, along with people suffering from mental illess are fit for military service as long as they can do lots of push ups?

     Why are push-ups the be-all, end-all? Let me guess: Because men can typically do more than women can.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:07pm

292. Thanks, Freheit, guess we'll have to disagree on that, though. I consider any kind of "re-education" classes totally anathama to the concept of free thought and individuality in this country. Don't need lackeys telling me how to behave, and all that. But that's just me.

     Nice surprise, though. I thought you were going to tell me "Massachusetts" :)

     Have a good weekend

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/04/2008 @ 4:07pm

293. Lackeys are perfectly free to tell you how to behave when you're working for *their* company, Chip.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:17pm

294. Yes, I know CRANEY808, at least, theoretically private companies. Which is why I'll never go to California to work, as I will not attend such an indoctrination class.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/04/2008 @ 4:35pm

295. Sexual harassment training does not force you to change your thoughts (god forbid!); it's intended to keep people from harassing each other. Why should people have to deal with harassment from their co-workers?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:38pm

296. Are you opposed to education in all its forms, CHIP?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:40pm

297. Where are the women?

     Posted by CHIMICHENGA 01/04/2008 @ 2:41pm

     i wonder too, chimi. hope you're having a good 2008. your presence here is one of the reasons i've remained a loyal reader. i wish i had saved some of your past comments.

     for nearly a year, when i first began commenting here, all the other guys thought i was a man. do you remember that? everyone was shocked when zero really pissed me off and it became obvious i was not a man.

     since then other women have become regular posters. i'm always happy to see that. in the past, someone here said they thought there were so few women posters because women are too busy. perhaps they are so busy since lots of them now work outside the home but are still doing most traditional "women's work."

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 4:44pm

298. LOVELOKI: I was going to say the same thing! I am a woman, but perhaps women aren't commenting as much on this thread because they're too busy working the "second shift" after a long day of work.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:46pm

299. No, guys ? I'm not opposed to education. I do however regard many of the sensitivity training type classes as more reducation than education. Perhaps its just that I was taught to respect others early on, yes I pushed the limits sometimes when I was a kid and full of testosterone, but overall I've never done anything to degrade a woman. So I don't feel I need education from people who think they've got the bead on things and who probably had just as much testosterone-run-amuck as I did once.

     A lot of companies do this now to protect themselves, which is just another example of PC gone wild. A better form of education would be to sit women down, since they are mostly the victims of it when it happens, and tell them how to handle it when they see it.

     The way its done now, the original intent, which was to keep males from exacting sex from females as the price for employment, has turned into "You can't ask for a date on the job without you're lawyer present", and that's sad: Its turning us all against each other.

     Sorry for the length.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/04/2008 @ 4:52pm

300. And the role of women in the workplace and in education, as students, proves that women are playing ever more on a level playing field.

     the playing field is not level as long as women are paid less.

     laissez faire does not end discrimination. laws and court cases do.stop posting nonsense and you will not be called on it.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 4:54pm

301. the original intent, which was to keep males from exacting sex from females as the price for employment,

     no chip, that wasn't the original intent. read the law. its easy to find.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 4:56pm

302. CHIP, you have no idea what many women face in the workplace. Sexual harassment is just men asking women on dates? Please. It's like standing outside in the rain with an umbrella over your head. Just because you are not getting wet doesn't mean it's not raining. You would not believe the stories I've heard from women about what they've been subjected to in the workplace.

     How are employers supposed to determine who "needs" the training and who doesn't? They're just going to take your word that you're "respectful of people?" It's much more efficient to just train everyone and get it over with.

     But your suggestion that it's actually the victims of harassment who need education is cute. Typical victim-blaming. Dog forbid we ever focus on the perpetrators.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 4:57pm

303. you are commiting the fallacy of composition chip, when you say the intent was to stop men from purchasing sex from women with their employment.

     okay, chip?

     chip

     chip

     chip

     remember when you used to sign your name like that at the end of your posts?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 5:00pm

304. how about lowering standards to meet recruiting goals?

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/04/2008 @ 3:59pm

     Depends. Are the lowered standards applied equally to men and women?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 5:11pm

305. who are you talking to freiheit? you said you agree with chip. and then you mention running a business. do you think it is a good idea for coworkers to date? i know if i have two great employees, and they begin to date, i am going to be worried about losing one or both of them if they break up. and that's only one of the many concerns i would have regarding the situation.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 5:14pm

306. The issue of whether or not employees date each other is moot. This is about sexual harassment. It is not a curtailment of one's free speech rights to insist that they do not sexually demean their co-workers.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/04/2008 @ 5:16pm

307. Are you familiar with the definition of the word "strawman," USC1?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 4:03pm

     Uh-huh. Are you? You must be. Case in point...

     Why are push-ups the be-all, end-all? Let me guess: Because men can typically do more than women can.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 4:07pm

     Oh, wait. Maybe you just missed the joke. I gave you a little too much credit. Next time I'll include a little emoticon such as

     ;P

     to help you out and indicate where "funny" is intended.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/04/2008 @ 5:33pm

308. hi freiheit, hope you're having a good new year too! i think the sexual harassment law is a good one. i don't know about the training. an employer should be able to read the law themselves and ensure their employees understand it and behave in accordance.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 5:53pm

309. the will of a free people? I'll pick the people.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person

     segregation now and forever.

     it was not the people who ended this, it was the courts and the gov't. discrimination at the workplace? same thing.

     you live in a dream world of your own making.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 6:30pm

310. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/04/2008 @ 2:48pm

     There is the cult of Mary.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 5:16pm

     Ever been to a sexual harassment training? Doesn't it ever strike you that it is a gigantic exercise in covering the organization's ass? I'd also be curious how effective such trainings are. I haven't read the literature, but based on my experience, I'd guess not very.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2008 @ 7:13pm

311. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 6:22pm

     How many times have you seen a female poster talk about how hot Nichols (or pick random male writer) is? Now, there is no accounting for taste and surely some of them may think this....but don't post it. Ever consider it might not be appropriate?

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/04/2008 @ 7:19pm

312. There is the cult of Mary.

     the cult of Mary is nothing but the great mother cult that is tens of thousands of years old. they couldn't make a religion without it. that is why ews have the sister of Moses, Miriam. see Joseph Campbell

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 7:24pm

313. ...why jews...

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 7:25pm

314. you did notice where i said the "active suppression/denial of the goddess archetype," didn't you srjenkins? if you worship mary as a goddess, you are damned to hell and excommunicated by the roman catholic church.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/04/2008 @ 8:18pm

315. in my world the courts and the government ARE the people.

     I was just going to say the same thing.

     I am a high school student at one of those bootcamp schools.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 9:53pm

316. the reason I don't answer those questions is that they are irrelevant.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 9:55pm

317. what about this statement: I always lie. am I lying when I make that statement, meaning I don't always lie?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/04/2008 @ 9:57pm

318. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 6:22pm

     Like your approach to the arcane sisters and pseudo brothers Frei. Observing the "brothers" here it's no wonder that many of the sisters, in my part of the world, have defected in favour of the joys of motherhood and the excitement that only male chauvinists can bring into their otherwise dreary lives.

     Yeah you are a bit of a connoisseur.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2008 @ 10:05pm

319. 1 Huckabee is the lunatic fringe, and no offense to lunar goddess types... 2 Here in NY, at a demo against the "Thought Crimes bill pending before the Senate, I heard Hilary "cackle".. it is sexist, but moreso indicative of a superficial nature of the process, Barack's race, colors, etc, and Edwards hair cuts, Kucininch's height, etc etc... 3 As a reader, I can't help but note that this guest writer, so far a good writer, has a photo that indicates a form of what would be considered in society of great beauty, model-like

     Posted by smartreader at 01/04/2008 @ 10:10pm

320. Observing the "brothers" here it's no wonder that many of the sisters, in my part of the world, have defected in favour of the joys of motherhood and the excitement that only male chauvinists can bring into their otherwise dreary lives.

     Yeah you are a bit of a connoisseur.

     Posted by LRJONES4 01/04/2008 @ 10:05pm

     glad to see you've launched another brown-eyed mullet into the sea of wisdom, dr.figjam.

     hope the garbologist comes round real quick to shovel up today's liquid laugh.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/04/2008 @ 10:14pm

321. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/04/2008 @ 10:14pm

     No need to be arcane FZ.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2008 @ 10:23pm

322. Posted by LRJONES4 01/04/2008 @ 10:23pm

     just trying out some of the aussie slang you linked to.

     o.k. how's this:

     don't be a sexist idiot.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/04/2008 @ 10:52pm

323. don't be a sexist idiot.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/04/2008 @ 10:52pm

     I noticed this thread a few hours ago, FZ and was pretty impressed with Frei's fortitude in presenting his case. I did notice your stumbling attempts with slang and I got the message even if your idiomatic use of it needs a little brushing up.

     I don't have particularly strong views on this topic except to note that American feminists are still locked in a bit of a time warp and are unlikely to gain too many adherents by that sort of confrontational rhetoric. That is no longer the sort of feminism that attracts customers in this part of the world. Frei's experience in the work place wrt this issue mirrors mine.

     Having said that it is interesting to observe how leftists generally think through this issue, including "brothers", some here who in fact have turned out to be sisters. Knowing your history FZ, you are obviously not one of the psuedos but more an enabling brother.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/04/2008 @ 11:45pm

324. freiheit, the superbowl thing was a falsehood. but that doesn't change the fact that domestic violence is a huge problem in this country.

     i don't know what you're referring to with the forced rape statistics. but rape is also a huge problem in this country.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/05/2008 @ 12:14am

325. FREIHEIT, all rape is forced. And according to RAINN [rainn.org] (among other sources; what's yours?), rape is extremely common. Child molestation and sexual abuse (of both sexes) are extremely common. Chances are, a number of women you know have been either sexually assaulted or raped. Just because they haven't told you about it doesn't mean they're not haunted by it. The vast majority of rape victims don't report their rapes. You would not believe the horrific stories I've heard about child sex abuse when I worked with the child welfare system in my state. It happens, and it positively FUCKS people up for life. To make light of it, or deny it's prevalence, is disgusting.

     You made a remark about Jessica's appearance in a post in which you made light of her opinions and put down her writing. It was condescending and smarmy.

     And there are enough appalling things about Coulter's viewpoints/attitudes; it's not necessary to pick apart her looks. Whenever I hear people doing so, I call them on it (as it's a sexist, lazy tactic).

     Posted by craney808 at 01/05/2008 @ 12:15am

326. I love it when people, in an attempt to discredit feminists, say, "Well I bet YOU do the same thing?!"

     Actually, no; I don't. I really try to live by feminist ideals.

     The women you generalize about are most likely NOT feminists.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/05/2008 @ 12:21am

327. How am I denying nature? It's hard to deny that only women can give birth and breastfeed.

     Yup. Key component of child-rearing, particularly in the younger years. Nature (evolution) has dictated what men and women are best suited for. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions, but the generality holds true. If you lived in sub-saharan Africa or even colonial America, you would likely be giving birth and raising children, while the men would be out hunting, farming, etc. It's not sexist. It is just a recognition of a genders specific strengths/capabilities. No "leaps" necessary. Face it. Feminism is just a luxury of a developed society.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/05/2008 @ 01:10am

328. At this point, NOBODY has defended unequal requirements as just.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/04/2008 @ 2:08pm

     Actually, no; I don't. I really try to live by feminist ideals.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/05/2008 @ 12:21am

     So, does this mean you are against unequal requirements in the military...there should be just one standard?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/05/2008 @ 01:17am

329. Welcome to the Nation, Ms. Valenti. Beware of the trolls who post after your articles. Thanks for the warnings about Huckabee. Personally, I think Hillary should ally with one of the others, Obama probably. A female VP is nearly as good as a female P. It's not about reverse sexism, it's about making history and catching this country up with the civilized world. Even Britain had women leaders, for goodness sakes. I must say that I believe the theocrats are the ones who intend to capture this country, and if they get their way, the world really will become a nightmare. I really wonder when women we get back out there in the streets and fight back to regain everything they've lost in this age of darkness and war-fever. Boy, if any country qualified to be Babylon or revived Rome!

     Posted by Kristev at 01/05/2008 @ 02:48am

330. Posted by LRJONES4 01/04/2008 @ 11:45pm

     didn't think it'd come out fluent; just funnin'.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 02:58am

331. If you lived in sub-saharan Africa or even colonial America, you would likely be giving birth and raising children, while the men would be out hunting, farming, etc. It's not sexist.

     Posted by USC1 01/05/2008 @ 01:10am

     "In many peasant farming communities, men make women do much of the hard work. Among hunter-gathering folk, men usually bring fewer calories than women, and have a tiresome tendency to prefer catching big and infrequent prey so they can show off, rather than small and frequent catches that do not rot before they are eaten. But the men do at least contribute."

     http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 03:06am

332. Anne Quindlan said it best about ten months ago in Newsweek: Something about how the Republicans can't afford to make criminals of women surrounding abortion. The damned Republicans will never be able to seriously change the abortion laws because of that.

     Posted by steve clase at 01/05/2008 @ 04:20am

333. didn't think it'd come out fluent; just funnin'.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/05/2008 @ 02:58am

     No worries we male chauvinistic idiots love a bit of aggro… in and out. Thus had I been a sheila I probably would've done all right in the sisterhood.

     I reckon Frei is a cheeky bugger and a great iconoclast who aims in the right direction.

     About 8.30pm Saturday here and still 37C (99F). Be interested to know what the cookie was like. Child rearing is one thing. Making cookies is another.

     Before I entered the state of wedded bliss (he said you can have her but you'll be sorry), I found that some of the fems who chased me were all talk and no action. Hope you get your brown nosing cookie.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/05/2008 @ 04:50am

334. Feminism is just a luxury of a developed society.

     Posted by USC1 01/05/2008 @ 01:10am | ignore this person

     yeah, like human rights is just a luxury of a developed society. feminism is human rights

     Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 09:43am

335. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/05/2008 @ 03:06am

     Hence, my statement about exceptions, but thanks for proving my point.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/05/2008 @ 10:57am

336. Great post, Jessica. I only wish it were longer. Apparently Huckabee missed, like so many others, the idea that Christians shouldn't judge others.

     Wow, I am so disappointed with 1/2 of the responses. Sexism is alive and well among liberals. Great posts Craney and Co.

     Posted by calliehb at 01/05/2008 @ 11:42am

337. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/04/2008 @ 8:18pm

     But surely Mary, in the approved version, is a manifestation of the goddess archetype, if not technically a goddess. That's my point.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/05/2008 @ 11:43am

338. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/04/2008 @ 9:57pm | ignore this person

     yes, the problem started when they agitated for equal rights. you are blaming the victims.

     everything is just peachy keen in your fantasy world.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 12:47pm

339. incidentally, the girl is not that pretty, you've all lost your marbles.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 12:48pm

340. Posted by USC1 01/05/2008 @ 01:10am: "Nature (evolution) has dictated what men and women are best suited for."

     I really take exception with your assertion that biological evolution dictates (as you said with exceptions) what people are best suited for. Because implicit in that assertion is that the selection made by biological evolution is the best possible solution. That it is "right." If that were the case, then we, as a species, would never deny our natural state because it is the best possible choice. I deny my natural state every day: mass transit, indoor plumbing, food from agriculture, glasses, birth control. Why? Because my biological evolution offers inadequate solutions to my life. I would say that in general, our cultural evolution has far outstripped the pace of natural selection (take for example obesity: we don't need to store fat as our ancestors did - so we diet and exercise. Something that would be anathema to a hunter/gatherer). I fail to see how it is acceptable to compensate for the evolutionarily unforeseen consequences of our modern life by denying our "natural" state - except for child rearing.

     To explain myself a bit better, in more concrete terms let me put it another way. Out species' population growth is dependant on the population of females. So, evolutionarily speaking, men are more expendable. In our species, they became stronger and were used for more perilous activities. Ok, I get that. The women did less perilous activities, including raising the children - the population's survival was dependant on it. That was evolution's solution, for us and many other social animals - and it worked for that moment in time. But it is no longer "the best" solution. Our circumstances have changed. Raising a child is no longer just feeding it and keeping it from the wolves. Men are not facing perils as they once did and, as a species, we are not as concerned with expanding the population. If, in other parts of our life, where cultural evolution/change outstrips the pace of biological evolution, it is preferable to deny our biological solutions of the past, then it should also be preferable to deny our biological solutions of past child rearing. Biological evolution may inform our choices, but it by no means dictates them.

     So I guess what I am saying is that we are nature and nurture. To argue based on one alone is missing part of the picture.

     Posted by Just Lurking at 01/05/2008 @ 2:16pm

341. By sampling the author's website and by paying attention in the media to people who refer to themselves as "feminists", one can accurately define today's "feminism" in one sentence. "Women are not smart enough to think for themselves, so they need the government, run by liberals, to do it for them".

     Even women still do more housework, it must be the "patriarchy", because apparently women aren't capable of reaching mutually beneficial agreements with their husbands. If college educated women elect to disproportionately work from home, obviously that can't be because they have intelligently made decisions that are best for themselves. They must be victims of sexism. That is just two representative examples.

     With the author's usual blog postings, she takes the stereotypical women who can't take care of herself without a man and simply replaces the man with the liberal nanny state. Now she expects to be credible as she laments an alleged "Daddy State". All while being completely oblivious to the clear hypocrisy.

     While not being anywhere near as insightful as she thinks she is, the author is quite amusing.

     Posted by Enter Sandman at 01/05/2008 @ 2:18pm

342. Lurking:

     I think we are arguing the same side of the coin. You were just more articulate. Craney seems to want to deny that nature has dictated that women in general are better suited to be the primary care-givers. It is technology and as you say culture that has allowed us to move past that. Is the direction we are moving better? I don't know, but it begins to delve into a much deeper, more philosophical question.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/05/2008 @ 3:47pm

343. hmmm,

     seems the intense discussion of feminism has been interrupted by wildcard football.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2008 @ 5:29pm

344. Yes! Excellent articulating of what I've believed for the longest...racism is nothing to sexism; though both are abhorrent.

     Another epigram with at least as much relevance from the South: "them that has gets."

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/05/2008 @ 6:47pm

345. Very thought-provoking discussion.

     Bravo.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 01/05/2008 @ 7:53pm

346. Posted by USC1 01/05/2008 @ 3:47pm

     Think you're in the wrong country mate. This is where feminism is at in the country that was first to give women the vote, first to have a 40 hour working week and every other social breakthrough, Even bred Germaine Greer over here. Well here we go again:

     BLAME WOMEN FOR THE DEATH OF FEMIMISMl

     Karen Murphy

     December 4, 2007

     I imagine when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 to the sound of general rejoicing, there still might have been some observers watching on with saddened hearts.

     Not at the loss of the Iron Curtain or totalitarianism but because then they would have known, without doubt, that the revolution was over, that the dream of a socialist utopia would never happen.

     I know how they feel, because I believed in the feminist revolution and now I believe it is dead.

     In fact, I feel like a slave released from a plantation after the American Civil War, who struggles to adjust to freedom only to see my fellow slaves creep back into servitude.

     One by one they go back to what they know, because it's easier and all the while claiming that it is not about greed or fear but the right to chose.

     And I can't even comfort myself with the notion of the backward steps as a form of sleep-walking. More and more Australian women are marching with eyes wide open back into slavery, holding up their slender arms to receive the shackles that some of us tried to remove, and taking their daughters with them.

     Only 30 years, and the revolution is dead, not because of the enemy but because of ourselves. (After all, the plantation owners -- read men -- would be unlikely to send away willing slaves. Why would they?)

     We just gave up, and now to describe yourself as a feminist has almost the same effect as if you had farted in a crowded lift.

     And I blame women because winning equality and respect was always going to be our fight, wives and mothers, sisters, friends and colleagues, but we seem to have walked away before serious battle was even joined.

     Capitalism lurks somewhere behind it, of that there is no doubt, the notion that earning money is without a moral component. But it goes deeper than that, as if we have all been sold the emperor's new clothes of sexual glamour.

     No, ladies, it's not glamorous, it's just naked.

     In particular, I hold to account:

     All the lap dancers, strippers, topless barmaids and well-educated prostitutes who do it for the money.

     Women participating in pornography.

     Women who post tawdry "raunch" photos of themselves on the internet.

     Women who model in degrading advertisements (think Windsor Smith shoes) who do it for the money.

     Women who have cosmetic surgery just when their faces are becoming interesting, and breast enhancements to make themselves desirable.

     Women who claim they have Brazilian waxes for themselves.

     Women who refuse to have an argument with their male partners over the sharing of household duties.

     Women who have caesareans so that their vaginas remain tight.

     Women who claim stiletto heels are comfortable.

     Mothers who give their daughters make-up or hair dye before they turn 10, and are more likely to ask if the child has a favourite boy at school rather than a favourite subject.

     All the women who participate in soft-porn music clips.

     All the women who do pole dancing instead of a non-sexual gym workout.

     All the actresses that strip when their careers are in trouble.

     All the female sports stars that strip to raise money.

     Those women who still believe it is more important to be beautiful on the outside than the inside.

     Women can say no to sexualisation but they don't because the boys won't like them if they do, and besides, they say, they enjoy it.

     Maybe they do, but at what cost?

     The feminist revolution was serious, important, but now it's just a joke.

     Let's face it -- the sleazing of society, where pornography has become mainstream, could not have happened without female participation.

     We hear so many stories now of men getting addicted to pornography, of relationships under threat, but nothing about the hundreds of thousands of women willing to demean themselves in the delusion that they are being glamorous.

     It is heart-breaking.

     Still, we do not have parity of wages, women are still over-represented in the low-paying, highly casualised workforce, still our female politicians are judged by their maternal instincts over their political ones.

     And now we are meant to be some kind of weird amalgam of Linda Lovelace, Martha Stewart and the Madonna, while bringing in a wage, propping up the local school and operating as a psychologist, nutritionist and environmentalist.

     And, by and large, we have done it to ourselves and to each other.

     Years ago, when I first went into the world and embraced feminism as an equalising movement, not one based on hatred, resentment or superiority, my mother expressed doubts.

     She said that she foresaw a time when women would be under more pressure, rather than less, with less respect rather than more, falling further behind rather than stepping out in front. Then I thought her fearful and reactionary. Now I think her wise.

     I have no doubt that I will offend countless women by this story, but I don't care. Countless women have offended me.

     You would think that after millenniums of being treated as second-class citizens we could have put up a better fight. The revolution is dead -- bring on the fluffy handcuffs.

     Karen Murphy is a Fairfax writer.

     http://tinyurl.com/yrbzvb

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/05/2008 @ 8:47pm

347. The first unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights (women were not initially permitted to stand for election) in a self-governing, still-independent country was granted in New Zealand. Following a movement led by Kate Sheppard, the women's suffrage bill was adopted mere weeks before the general election of 1893. The state of South Australia granted both universal suffrage and allowed women to stand for state parliament in 1895.[6] The Commonwealth of Australia provided this for women in Federal elections from 1902 (except Aboriginal women).

     from Wiki. the other sources I checked confirmed New Zealand. stupid jingoist oz. same with 40 hour workweek, New Zealand.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 9:45pm

348. the nanny state? as opposed to the orphan state?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/05/2008 @ 10:38pm

349. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/05/2008 @ 9:45pm

     The comparison was not so much with Australia and NZ but with your country, which may also be a little behind in what's happening with feminism.

     The following article, picked at random, shows that the women's suffrage movement and improvement in women's rights was helped no end by the activities of the Women's Christian Temperance Union and other like minded groups. Groups that had a moral perspective.

     The problem with feminism today is it is all over the shop here, with some of its advocates, sex negative and others sex positive, which touches on the complaint of that Fairfax journalist. In other words without a religious or rational moral position feminism is on a hiding to nothing and will never improve women's lot as those early reformers did.

     Frei makes the valid point that capitalism is interested in outcomes and if women are up to it, they will have no problem competing with men for wage parity in an economic environment where the bottom line is the priority. That is not the real issue in our advanced societies.

     Could anyone say women are not more sexually exploited now than ever before despite the insights and activism of the feminist movement?

     http://tinyurl.com/yux5fg

     (In fact, as you noted, though NZ (700,000 population in 1900) was a couple of years in advance with the women's vote, Sth. Australia went the whole hog by allowing women to stand for political office as well. NZ was and is almost a defacto "colony" of Australia. Occasionally there is talk of it joining Australia (as a large number of its residents have already done to get superior Aussie welfare benefits) so you are talking about two countries that are very close in many ways. So if it you are a bit obsessive about detail how does an AusNZ first sound to you.

     Incidentally I mentioned 40 hour working week (which was introduced into a Queensland award in 1935 and has been claimed as a world first), which is not the same thing as an eight hour day. That depends on how many days per week one works.)

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/06/2008 @ 12:05am

350. Jones and Murphy notwithstanding, I consider myself a feminist because I believe in equality of opportunity and, especially in this information age, equal pay for equal effort/productivity.

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/06/2008 @ 12:11am

351. Posted by LEWWELGE 01/06/2008 @ 12:11am

     Lew what's wrong with it being a fair go issue. One doesn't have to be a "feminist" to have a commitment to wage fairness. An expression used here by unionists is; "a fair days pay for a fair days work " which expression certainly predates feminism and is more likely to have had its origin in something like CWTU during it campaigns for women's and poor family rights.

     There are feminists who do not believe men can be feminists, fundamentally because of the different tackle. Though one subset do have doubts about whether the basic wiring as issued by nature is compatible

     Then there are anti-feminist, feminists and there are dozens more variations. So it's a bit of a category minefield where one needs to watch one's step. You may make it for a cookie or even a ginger one but you still may not even get close to being a bona fide feminist.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/06/2008 @ 12:53am

352. Great column! It might seem that you were stating what's obvious, except that no one else seems to be noticing. Thanks for helping to open some eyes.

     Posted by RubyB at 01/06/2008 @ 03:59am

353. USC1, women in pre-industrial societies work/ed right alongside the men. They just carry babies on their backs while they do it.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/06/2008 @ 6:33pm

354. The spitter messages are probably from Ann Coulter. That's all she seems to be capable of.

     Posted by Buck E at 01/06/2008 @ 9:42pm

355. Ignore the brainless cheapshots, this is good information.

     Posted by kenns at 01/06/2008 @ 11:17pm

356. If the morons who make these idiotic, woman-hating comments and "arguments" are men, I ask them to, as comedian Ron White says, "next time they have a thought, let it go". They are making the rest of us sensible fellows look bad.

     Posted by winthrop at 01/06/2008 @ 11:31pm

357. Jessica, put some clothes on. It is Winter, you know.

     Posted by HiRoller at 01/07/2008 @ 12:33am

358. Chiming in: great post!

     Winthrop, I'd say the woman-hating comments come not from men, but from whiny, bigoted cowards who probably wet themselves whenever they feel threatened.

     People of courage welcome change and are not threatened by people who are different from themselves.

     Posted by klevenstein at 01/07/2008 @ 12:58am

359. Jessica, put some clothes on. It is Winter, you know.

     Posted by HIROLLER 01/07/2008 @ 12:33am

     hiroller, lothinker

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 12:59am

360. Hopefully your next post will be about something other than abortion (equal pay, gender discrimination, health care, paid maternity leave, the plight of women in third world countries, domestic violence) Abortion is feminism's weakest issue, both morally and politically. Because there is another human life involved in the woman's decision, the arguments made for abortion's legality do not hold. The pro-choice movement has hijacked feminism and the left.

     Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/07/2008 @ 09:38am

361. great blog. some people seem to be afraid of feminism and still think of women as "those little homemaker people". enjoyed your views and look forward to more. by the way...can i get a "vote for daddy" t-shirt, too?

     Posted by Gary Privit at 01/07/2008 @ 09:55am

362. Great post Jessica. I look forward to reading more from you. you are obviously gifted with insight and the intelligence to articulate it. I am sure you are perfectly capable of validating yourself, but if in a moment of weakness you find yourself in need of out side validation just read some of these posts. The more stuttering, personal, off topic attacks there are the harder you have rocked their world and made your point.

     Posted by bascaville at 01/07/2008 @ 10:55am

363. Welcome to the liberal terrordome, Jessica. We lefty guys may (?) know enough to not say "Chick" out loud, but the same ol' sexism runs as rampantly on the Left as on the Right. Waa! Women scare me. Waa! Their genitals and "female problems" scare me. Waa! Feminism scares me. Where is June Cleaver when we need her most? (As she vacuumed in high heels and pearls, no doubt wacked out on Valium.) Waa! Don't even suggest that I might evaluate my use of pornography (with it's oh so realistic depictions of females and of males). Waa! Abortion. If women would just stop getting themselves pregnant, there'd be no problem. Oh, my tedious brothers, most of those who keep us in our sad, reactive place are other males. Women don't have the power over us backed up with a history of physical and verbal abuse that males do. So it remains easier to attack women as our enemy because they are a safer enemy. Jessica, thank you for your bravery and willingness to open yourself to the fearless (fearful) masculinity defenders. Joe Weinberg

     Posted by dumbbush at 01/07/2008 @ 2:01pm