Conservative Myths and the Women Who Love Them

When it comes to thinking about the people who are ruining this country, I've always reserved a bit more disdain for women who do the very easy work of bashing feminism--often for little more than a patriarchal head-pat. (After all, what's easier than reaping the bountiful rewards of telling conservative men that women indeed are inferior, different, and desperately in need of their guidance?)

Organizations like the Independent Women's Forum, which exist solely to further conservative, anti-woman nonsense--like their insistence that the wage gap is actually good for women or that the biggest danger to young women on college campuses is The Vagina Monologues--piss me off like little else does. Perhaps it's unfair that women's anti-feminism irritates me more than men's, but there it is nonetheless.

The latest in anti-women diatribes comes from Wendy Wright, from Concerned Women for America. In a recent Fox News Special Report, Wright said that proponents of comprehensive sex education are encouraging young people to have sex because "they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions…You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed."

(For some perspective, Wright has also made the argument that the increase of women in prison is all feminism's fault, for teaching women that "they don't need to be dependent on a husband and they shouldn't have to depend on their family" which could lead them to "where they're forced to fend for themselves." So, yeah.)

While the idea of sex educators rolling in piles of dough made off the backs of sexually active teens seems laughable to most, Wright is playing on some truly hackneyed, but often-believed, anti-feminist myths: That comprehensive sex education causes teens to have sex; that all young women who have sex end up teen moms; that abortion providers make oodles of money, and--perhaps most dangerous--that sexually active young women are victims. Victims of educators, doctors, men, you name it.

Positioning the pro-choice and comprehensive sex ed community as benefiting from young women being sexually active is not only untrue, it also does a huge disservice to young women. (Let's not kid ourselves, when these folks talk about "kids having sex," they're clearly talking about women.) Young women benefit from being well-informed, they don't get knocked up from it. And if women like Wright really cared about kids, they'd be fighting to make sure American youth had accurate, comprehensive information about sex--not lying on television for conservative brownie points.

Comments (355)

1. WHEN do these dingbats (male and female) think that teenagers were NOT having sex?

   I re-read Stephen Ambrose's "Wild Blue" and Senator McGovern discusses their time at their base in Italy. He says that he was engaged and stayed true to his wife-to-be, but that the USAAF was CONTINUALLY warning "the boys" (mostly 18-20 years old) to use the condoms that the MILITARY was passing out to them with the native Italian girls.

   That was the early-1940s. So...when was this "Great Era of Teen Abstinance" that idiots like that think occurred? The 50s? Yeah, right. Think our dads (or granddads for you youngsters) didn't have access to condoms from "Ol' Man Jenkins' Drugstore"...or THEIR dad? Think the "good girls like Mom" were getting freaky and that when a condom broke, THAT's when they suddenly started planning the wedding?

   Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 1:12pm

2. JESSICA, I guess it is a little more to take when "one of you're own" tells you your full of it: Keep in mind that being liberated means living the way you want to, not the way feminists, who of course know better, think you should, so its quite possible that many women out there have looked at what, say the Eve Enslers of the world promote, and simply find their aspects wanting. So please lose the Chip from the Shoulder, and Smile in a photo or two!

   Chip Thornton

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 1:22pm

3. Jessica

   Is there a full clip of Wright's statements that we can view? I'd like to hear her comments in context. (The link has just part of the clip).

   Also...Wright does have a point that the breakdown of the family structure is leading to more "lost" kids. I think that part is fairly obvious. The problem though is that as feminism advanced and women became more self-sufficient, it didn't take into account men and our bull-headedness. Men aren't so willing to take the place as the primary care-giver, so we get left with two working parents and no one of consequence at home raising the children. To correct that, there needs to be two parents working together to determine the best situation for their family. Personally, I think the problem exists when both parents put their careers ahead of family (which should take precedence).

   Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

4. "Perhaps it's unfair that women's anti-feminism irritates me more than men's, but there it is nonetheless."

   Perhaps it is unfair, but I also cannot help but hold a little extra disdain for women who speak out against women's issues.

   Nice post Jessica, once again I thank The Nation for turning me on to another bright voice out there. I will be reading your own blog now.

   Posted by aarontaras at 01/07/2008 @ 1:30pm

5. USC1, I believe if you follow the link at Think Progress it leads to the full clip.

   To commenters who insist on remarking on my appearance, telling me to smile, or joke about whoring me out to their kids--thank you for reminding me how important my work is. The fact some people can't engage with women without bringing up the way they look is an important reminder to us all about the pervasiveness of misogyny and how necessary feminism really is.

   Posted by Jessica Valenti at 01/07/2008 @ 1:36pm

6. Right on, Jessica. And good on you for finally addressing all these creepy comments re: your looks.

   Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:45pm

7. JOMAMMA, you need to have someone edit your posts before sumbitting them; they're practically incomprehensible.

   What does it mean to "recommend" a person's beauty?

   Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:48pm

8. And if women like Wright really cared about kids, they'd be fighting to make sure American youth had accurate, comprehensive information about sex

   Probably another reason why sex education is so important. Abstinence education has it's place, I suppose, but it isn't realistic at all. This type of education should take place in the home between parents and children but let's face it, alot of parents are either too shy or embarrased to talk about it or they are mindless enough to believe that talking about it is a sin. Either way, the message doesn't get taught at home so school is the next best place.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/07/2008 @ 1:50pm

9. "You take yourself and your "Mission" too seriously...To admire ones beauty is natural, normal is still legal and to share it with another is not a sin..."

   Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 1:46pm

   Legal: yes. Appropriate and respectful given the context: no.

   Would you comment on a male bloggers appearance and ask them to smile? I highly doubt it. Now please stop posting.

   Posted by aarontaras at 01/07/2008 @ 1:51pm

10. Women are just as guilty as men are when it comes to the subject of looks.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/07/2008 @ 1:53pm

11. Ok, be miserable if you wish. But keep in mind the other 90% of the points in my post, you know, the important parts, the parts you couldn't respond to.

    Look forward to more of your work. Gives me a sense of purpose too.

    Babe

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 1:55pm

12. CHIP THORNTON, What is wrong with:

    knowledge of one's body, rejection of cunt shame, opposition to sexual violence?

    *That's* what Eve Ensler is promoting.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:56pm

13. Ok, be miserable if you wish. But keep in mind the other 90% of the points in my post, you know, the important parts, the parts you couldn't respond to.

    Look forward to more of your work. Gives me a sense of purpose too.

    Babe

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 1:56pm

14. I'm sensing some SERIOUS mixing up of priorities here. Have a good day, people I'm going to find a discussion slightly more relevant than one involving "cunt shame" which would be, oh, AlMOST ANYTHING!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/07/2008 @ 2:00pm

15. It doesn't take much wit to critique people's photos, JOMAMMA.

    I'm sure Jessica's father loves her for reasons that have nothing to do with her looks. Pervert.

    The fact that even your otherwise reasonable wife rejects feminism is proof that the anti-feminist movement has been very successful in it's propaganda. Up is down, black is white, war is peace, yada yada yada. And to think, if it weren't for the women's movement, she wouldn't be educated OR be permitted to vote.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:01pm

16. Uh oh! Someone thinks vaginas are dirty and unmentionable! The VM is relevant to the discussion. It's mentioned in Jessica's essay.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:02pm

17. JOMAMMA, while I disagree that you should "stop posting here," The Nation is not a government website. You don't have a "right" to comment here.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:04pm

18. To Jomamma,

    Thanks for resulting to name calling. Very intelligent response. It's also nice how it takes you two posts to respond to one of mine. Well thought out there Sir.

    And as for you commenting on male bloggers' appearance, I stand corrected. Although I find that equally creepy and inappropriate as commenting on appearance here... try discussing the issues at hand perhaps?

    I didn't ask you to stop posting because I don't think you have the right to. I ask you to stop posting to prevent you from further embarrassing yourself... too late for that i suppose.

    Cheers.

    Posted by aarontaras at 01/07/2008 @ 2:07pm

19. Maasch -

    You need to "chill out" and clam up at this point. The intent of your first post was quite obvious -- to be offensive. Your recent efforts to backtrack or seem reasonable are reaching the point of absurdity.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:11pm

20. Feminists are a diverse group, JOMAMMA. There is not one monolithic movement, especially in the blogosphere (where anyone can have a voice).

    "To find someone hot is not a Pevert" - That's true.

    But you are being a pervert by continuously calling attention to Jessica's appearance when it is not at all relevant.

    Like Jessica herself put it: some people can't engage with women without bringing up the way they look. That. is. sexist. And reflects poorly on your debate skills.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:15pm

21. fantastic post Jessica, and thank you. This reminds me of Coulter on fox news saying one of her greatest wishes was that women would no longer have the right to vote. The only example of such absurd self loathing can only be matched by Michelle Malkin and her "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror".

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:19pm

22. "..and she was educated because her father insisted as I insist that all my children are educated...and it had nothing to do with Feminism or any such movement(think bowel) that you seem to claim credit...

    she is educated because she was already very intelligent, entered school on her own abilitys, achievements, her own power and finished with graduations and succesfull life... all without set asides or head counts...imagine that!!!"

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 2:10pm

    Without the women's movements of the past your wife would not have the opportunity to attend most institutions of higher learning, regardless of her father's wishes...

    ..although it's rather telling that you attribute her education to her father's demands and not her own desires.

    Posted by aarontaras at 01/07/2008 @ 2:19pm

23. Jomamma- I think you only shout out that Jessica is "hot" is because you simply love the outrage that ensues. But hey, if thats how you get your jollies I won't stand in your way!! and we know there are so many posters here who will unwittingly indulge you.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:21pm

24. Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

    So, USC, we can assume your wife is a stay-at-home mom, who doesn't work, but is home for the kids, even when they get back from school?

    No attack (yet)...just asking.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 2:21pm

25. Craney-Some people can't engage with men without the subject of looks coming up.Both genders are equally to blame for being shallow and bringing up looks.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/07/2008 @ 2:25pm

26. JOMAMMA, I was QUOTING YOU here: "To find someone hot is not a Pevert." And I was agreeing with you and offering additional analysis.

    Didn't you initially state that your wife is NOT a feminist?

    I AM commenting on the first part of your post. Have I not been talking about the women's movement?

    Gah. Your comments are making me stupider.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:31pm

27. JO -- The pt is so fuckin' obvious....This thread is filled with comments about Jessica' s appearance while weeks and weeks of comment threads go by w/o similar remarks--for good or bad, right or wrong--on my blog or John Nichols' or one of the others. Why? I think two reasons: As Jessica and others say it's far easier to evoke outrage and annoyance with cavalier sexist cracks than it is to counter the arguments being made and also I think you're probably fairly juvenile in relating to women generally. But thank you to all of the other interesting commenters who are taking the time to discuss our new blog.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/07/2008 @ 2:31pm

28. Also...Wright does have a point that the breakdown of the family structure is leading to more "lost" kids. I think that part is fairly obvious. The problem though is that as feminism advanced and women became more self-sufficient, it didn't take into account men and our bull-headedness. Men aren't so willing to take the place as the primary care-giver, so we get left with two working parents and no one of consequence at home raising the children.

    Posted by USC1

    The two income family is a result of economic policies that drive wages, benefits down, forcing moms and dads to work simply to support their children.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:40pm

29. Everyone- ok, come off it now. The only reason there are sexist cracks at Jessica's appearance is because the nature of her posts. These jokesters comment how "hot" Jessica is because they know what kind of havoc it will cause. and here we are humoring them!! Please, let's stop talking about how Jessica looks and about what she says. Ignore any who choose to talk about looks and not substance- it really isn't that hard.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

30. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 2:16pm

    The first part of your post was your admission that you give condoms to your boys. So, great. I assume you agree with the "substance" of Valenti's post applauding the benefits to educating children about sex.

    The last part plainly was not a compliment. You did it for one reason: you knew it would either piss off Valenti or other posters. To antagonize and inflame. Don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming otherwise.

    Be a man and at least own up to it. ;)

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

31. Jessica, another great post :). How nice to have TWO places to read trenchant political commentary from you this month!

    Posted by annajcook at 01/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

32. Ah, conservatives and their short memories... (or did you not study history?)

    Jomamma you seemed to miss my point that not that long ago historically speaking, women were simply not admitted to most institutions of higher learning, regardless of test scores or ability to pay.

    And of goals... yes, we have come a very long way. There is still much progress to be made in the minds of many, myself among them. If the promised land had been reached already we would not be having this conversation right now.

    Posted by aarontaras at 01/07/2008 @ 2:44pm

33. The wifes entire paycheck, or the one of the two working familys check...goes to ....

    Taxes. The entire thing. Do the math sometime..

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    Oh yeah, that's right, if it weren't for the government, taxes we could all be millionaires.

    Living in a civil society requires taxes--schools, roads, libraries, police and fire departments, FDA, etc. The wages of the working, middle class have not kept pace. Buy yourself a calculator and do the math yourself (or continue listening to what shills like Limbaugh tell you).

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:46pm

34. whatever, Maasch. nothing you wrote had anything to do with Valenti's post.

    purely inflammatory.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:53pm

35. stick to failed political prognostications.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:53pm

36. Mask:

    We both work, made possible by the love, generosity and patience of my mother-in-law. But we have already decided that if God forbid something happened to her, I would stay home.

    (And if I see one more commercial or sitcom making the Dad/husband look like a doofus, I'm putting my foot through the TV.)

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:53pm

37. I don't know the percentages of how many two income families are that way out of necessity or just wanting to "keep up with the Joneses.

    Posted by USC1

    Ignorance is bliss.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:02pm

38. Oh well, back to the point Valenti made:

    Wright said that proponents of comprehensive sex education are encouraging young people to have sex because "they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions…You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed."

    Keeping people ignorant is a power. That's why the right hates anything that conflicts with their propaganda. Does anyone really believe that educating teenagers on the risks of sex promotes unsafe behavior? It's normal for teenagers to want to have sex--that's the prime age for humans to reproduce in the natural state--and it's only "common sense" to provide straight forward information regarding the risks of unwanted pregnancies and STD's through objective education.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:04pm

39. Nobody's "entire paycheck" goes to taxes. For chrissakes. Perhaps the equivalent of someone's entire paycheck is deducted between the two of you combined, but...

    Oh what's the use.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:05pm

40. If only you'd start making arguments, JO I'd consider my time communicating with you a major success. And thank you JRO for your all-too-sensible point and recommendation.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/07/2008 @ 3:06pm

41. Personally, I think the problem exists when both parents put their careers ahead of family (which should take precedence)----Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

    We both work, made possible by the love, generosity and patience of my mother-in-law. But we have already decided that if God forbid something happened to her, I would stay home.----Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 2:53pm

    So, unless your care-giver dies....you both "put your careers ahead of family"?

    Gotcha.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:06pm

42. We both work, made possible by the love, generosity and patience of my mother-in-law. But we have already decided that if God forbid something happened to her, I would stay home.

    (And if I see one more commercial or sitcom making the Dad/husband look like a doofus, I'm putting my foot through the TV.)

    Posted by USC1

    The wife makes more than you, huh? That must be galling for someone with a limited outlook such as yourself. No wonder you feel so insecure that a sitcom can drive you to assault a television.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:07pm

43. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 2:40pm

    That's the case for some but not all, but I don't know the percentages of how many two income families are that way out of necessity or just wanting to "keep up with the Joneses." I know of a couple of families that went from 2 incomes to 1 because the mom decided it was more important to stay home with the kids. Things were tight, but they just did without some luxuries (e.g.cable TV, cell phones) until "Dad" worked his way up. (Again, this is not to say that some two income families don't have to have both incomes to get by)

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:09pm

44. According to the economic theory currently in vogue, we should all put our career, money earning above and before anything else, right?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:10pm

45. MTspence- but of course. I think it has been effectively proven that teenagers engage in sex regardless of what approach is taken towards sex ed. The best thing to do is educate them on how to make safety first a priority. Abstinence and sex ed should be taught hand in hand- I don't understand why these two factions are fighting over this. You first say: Its best not to have sex. Then follow up with: but if you ever should... know this.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:10pm

46. We should focuse only on "self reliance" and building wealth...

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:11pm

47. Mask:

    Not exactly. Re-read my original post and you'll see what I mean.

    -------------------------------------------

    Ignorance is bliss.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:02pm

    If you know the percentages of two income families that are that way out of necessity vs. "keeping up with the Joneses", by all means, share.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:12pm

48. Posted by USC1

    Well, let's see: jobs are being moved overseas; illegal labor undercuts American workers; business is free to undercut efforts labor makes toward organizing; technological advancements eliminate the need for labor. Ever heard of supply and demand? The current economic practises flood the American labor market with excess labor, driving wages down for working Americans. Where is all that "common sense" the right is constantly blathering on and on about?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:19pm

49. Wright, and people like her, are utter failures in logic and reasoning.

    Proponents of comprehensive sex-ed "benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions…You have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed?"

    Geez. Where to begin? If comprehensive sex ed were taught in all schools, instead of abstinence-only "education," there would not be as many STDs or teenage pregnancies. The kids would know how to protect themselves!

    In contrast, kids who graduate from abstinence-only "education" don't bother to use condoms or other forms of protection because they're lied to about their (in)effectiveness.

    Teen pregnancies have increased w/ abstinence-only. Who really gains when kids have kids and remain trapped in a cycle of poverty and ignorance? "Have more babies. In 18 years the military will need them."

    These programs also define "sex" as "penis-in-vagina intercourse," as well, so in order to remain "pure," kids are having (unprotected) anal and oral sex. Is that what these idiots were hoping for? Will they acknowledge the surge in this type of activity?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:19pm

50. side note:: back when I was a young teenager (and thats only 9 yrs ago), I think the argument for putting off sex was very very poor. "You must wait until marriage, this is what the bible says". Thats basically all I got, and as I began rejecting my biblical teachings it was very easy to write off this reasoning as far as my sexual endeavors were concerned. If someone had said to me: " Sex is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and you should only share it with someone who is worthy and has proven their love for you", I think it would've greatly affected my self worth as a rebelling and often rambunctious teen. I think if we taught teens to respect sex, not treat it as taboo or "something not to do" (therefore making it "cool" to do it), we could make a real difference in teen pregnancies, STDS, abortions, etc. Just my 2 cents...

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:23pm

51. Okay, USC...here's the whole thing...

    "Men aren't so willing to take the place as the primary care-giver, so we get left with two working parents and no one of consequence at home raising the children. To correct that, there needs to be two parents working together to determine the best situation for their family. Personally, I think the problem exists when both parents put their careers ahead of family (which should take precedence)."---Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

    So, (A) assuming you're the male/husband, you're complaining about YOURSELF.

    (B) You say that this failure of men to accept care-giving, results in "two working parents and no one of consequence at home raising the children". Not sure how you CAN prove that. Also, it indicates that you and your wife (again assumption...it may be "you and your husband"...I know you're not gay) are working SIMPLY because you (or your husband) will not stay-at-home with the kids.

    Is this accurate? Or is it (in your third point) that...

    (C) "I think the problem exists when both parents put their careers ahead of family (which should take precedence)"????

    Bizarrely, you have established criteria in your attack on feminism ...that puts YOUR OWN FAMILY at odds with said criteria?!?!?

    The only possible case I think you can make at this point is...that you support Federal subsidies (i.e. "welfare") for families to allow their mothers-in-law to keep the kids...or hire somebody equally "generous" to do the job.

    Is that it? Please explain...in detail any and all of the above.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:26pm

52. JO -- The pt is so fuckin' obvious....This thread is filled with comments about Jessica' s appearance while weeks and weeks of comment threads go by w/o similar remarks--for good or bad, right or wrong--on my blog or John Nichols' or one of the others.

    ~Rothberg

    Thanks for the fiery slapdown of Johnny "the Monsta" Maasch.

    He's one of the more troglodyte of posters on these threads, which is why I generally just ignore him --but I put no one on the "ignore list" except Rese occasionally PRN to reduce scrolling.

    I think it would be great if most of us would resist the temptation to fire back, and simply ignore the troglodyte posts.

    But who am I to talk, I've given in to temptation enough times myself.

    Mother forgive me.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:32pm

53. The author asserts that conservative women are looking for "a patriarchal head-pat,"she adds: "After all, what's easier than reaping the bountiful rewards of telling conservative men that women indeed are inferior, different, and desperately in need of their guidance?"

    It is, of course, insulting to "conservative women" to assert, without any supporting basis, of course, that their beliefs MUST BE molded by a desire to please a man. Where in the hell did that one come from?! And it is equally insulting to suggest that "conservative men" want to hear women say they are inferior and in need of men's guidance. That is misandry in its purest form.

    The author is fomenting a gender war to further a cottage industry from which she financially benefits in order to convince her largely young female audience that they are oppressed by men (let's not pretend it's the "patriarchy" abstraction that is her enemy, it is MEN). The women who conspire with men are the worst kinds of women to her.

    Thankfully, these inane, hateful views are not taken seriously by the vast majority of thinking Americans, Democrat or Republican.

    Posted by Cranium at 01/07/2008 @ 3:33pm

54. JRO555, I don't think that message is appropriate either, though.

    I think a good message would be that sex is fun but can lead to unwanted situations, so it's imperative to use safe sex practices. I think kids can handle the message that sex is not necessarily "best" when saved for marriage.

    I am against telling kids they should wait until they are in love; they should wait until they are personally ready and have found a partner they trust.

    I also think kids should hear messages about masturbation; it's an OK option!

    I strongly believe kids also need lessons on sexual assault, rape, and sexual relationships. They need to be told it's unacceptable to coerce or force another person to do something sexually.

    Kids enter college today not having a clue about healthy sexuality. They don't know about their own bodies, the opposite sex's bodies, disease, pregnancy, or what constitutes rape.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:33pm

55. craney- good points and duly noted. Perhaps we differ in approach, but I think the bottom line we agree on. I have to argue though that sex has never been as gratifying as when its with my lover and probably life partner. All other instances pale in comparison, and I have not a single doubt its because of this deep and unwavering love I have for him. It goes beyond all physical limitations and if someone had told me how this is what sex really ought to be, I don't think I would've ever wasted my time on the handful of lucky bastards who proceeded him.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:41pm

56. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:19pm

    Thanks for the completely irrelevant information. Re-read my post and supply the requested facts if you have them.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:48pm

57. Posted by USC1

    How about you just google two income families yourself?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:50pm

58. Totally get what you're saying, JRO555.

    I think it's important that we not try to shield children from valuable life experiences. In these ab-only courses, children (well, girls) are taught that sex before marriage can lead to a broken heart - so they shouldn't do it. SO MANY things can lead to a broken heart. It's part of the human experience! Life would be incredibly boring and sterile if nobody ever suffered heartache, or loss, or disappointment. These experiences are important to the learning process, and the maturing process. Some sexual choices can lead to a better understanding of onesself. That is a GOOD thing.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:52pm

59. USC1, by posing your "question" the way you did, you were really making a statement: That couples make the decision to both work because they want to "keep up with the Joneses." Not you and YOUR wife, though. Oh no. Just all those *other* corrupt families.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:54pm

60. Off-topic, but not much...

    Interested in Ms Valenti's take on the fact that "The Naiton" is running ads (with a photograph of a young lady in plunging neckline) for Maxim, the pseudo-Playboy men's mag....as leader for some of its political posts under Campaign 2008?

    Is there no concern about some women (like Ms vanden Heuvel maybe) on the LEFT working against "the Movement" for profit?

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:57pm

61. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 3:54pm

    Which was my point to him/her, coming up on a half-hour ago....

    He (or she) set criteria for 'families who abandon their kids to daycare due to the influence of feminism and keeping up with the Joneses'...

    then admits that HIS/HER family ignore those criteria themselves!

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:59pm

62. craney- again, thank you for your insight. Perhaps the unedifying experiences of my youthful forays are precisely what makes my current situation so fulfilling. Still though...wish some had given me a better warning...2 of those 3 former boyfriends were without a doubt completely and utterly unworthy. ah, such a shame.

    in my instance, I wasn't taught sex "leads to a broken heart", I was basically taught it is FORBIDDEN. Engaging in such an unholy act would throw me into a fiery hell or worse...I'd be called a slut! That was my abstinence only education (thank you parents, church, and my prude classmates).

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:01pm

63. Well, MASK, apparently USC1 believes that *other families* should have known better than to start careers (or just take jobs that pay the bills) and have children without first securing generous grandmotherly types who watch the kiddies for free.

    It's OK for mom & dad to work full-time as long as they're lucky enough to have willing caregivers in the family. Otherwise, feminism has ruined everything and the kids are definitely going to be gang-bangers in no time.

    It's surprising to me that the Blame Everything on Feminism crowd neglects to account for the enormous changes that have taken place in the economic landscape in the last century. But none of THAT has anything to do with people and their employment status, right?

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:04pm

64. mask- I almost wish I was seeing those ads. Often I just see "free Coulter e-mails!" or some crappy ad for botox or some other "age defying cream" with a picture of a young women with very obvious photoshopped wrinkle "simulations" on her face (who happens to look somewhat like Jessica, which I find a bit amusing actually).

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:05pm

65. The wife makes more than you, huh? That must be galling for someone with a limited outlook such as yourself. No wonder you feel so insecure that a sitcom can drive you to assault a television.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:07pm

    To the contrary, I am extremely proud of my wife and enjoy the luxuries that her salary allows us.

    Why do I want to assault the TV? Every time I turn around, the TV portrays men as lazy, childish fools that depend on their wives to tell them how to find water in the kitchen...a sort of reverse sexism. Hell, when I got married, I knew more about cooking and "keeping house" than my wife did...thanks to my wonderful stay-at-home mother who made sure us boys knew how to take care of ourselves that way.

    And I can whip up one hell of a pot of chili.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:10pm

66. USC1, you might be interested to learn that feminists (at least the ones I talk to - including the ones at Jessica's site) are as fed up with TV sitcoms as men.

    They reinforce gender stereotypes and give men and women little credit.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:11pm

67. Luckily sitcoms are not the only entertainment options!

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:12pm

68. I never had an ignore list before jessica started blogging here. Thanks! Now I can weed out the loonies that troll around here rather effectively.

    120% in agreement with what you're preaching. I've been reading your blog for awhile before the nation got you on board for the month. It's really great to see "my" brand of feminism coming out in the (semi) mainstream. Far too often the media presents it as a two sided us vs them argument plus the in-fighting within the movement. It's a lot like protestantism: a bunch of very like minded individuals quibbling about phrasing and not able to mobilize on the main issue.

    Interesting side note. One of your links talks about how the conservatives believe the vagina monologues are killing romance and I have to say I'm dating one really awesome powerful woman and it all came about from feminism and a lot of the things in the VA that the crazies fear are killing romance.

    And about the appearance issue. I find a woman's resume to be far more attractive than pictures. Check out jessica's. She's pretty damn badass!

    Posted by dividebyzer at 01/07/2008 @ 4:13pm

69. Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 3:50pm

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:15pm

70. CRANIUM

    The author is fomenting a gender war to further a cottage industry

    Who do you think is making more money from their polemics, Ann Coulter or Jessica Valenti? Further, although Ms. Valenti's post may not have stated it with sufficient precision, there is a large and noisy subset of female/minority conservative commentators who make a living from simply being the relative novelty of female/minority conservative commentators.

    They enhance that by being loud and vacuous (do you honestly think the likes of Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin or Alan Keyes are anything but the "shock jocks" of political punditry?). There are certainly some female/minority commentators who are conservative by legitimate conviction, but they aren't the topics of Ms. Valenti's post, as far as I can tell.

    JOMAMMA, USC Whatever you meant by commenting of Ms. Valenti's appearance--it's just as inappropriate to comment on it here as it would be in a workplace; in addition to the forensic critique that it is a substanceless statement.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 4:15pm

71. Posted by USC1

    You didn't google two income families?

    And sure, it doesn't stick in your throat that your wife earns more than you. Of course it doesn't.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:19pm

72. Jomamma- what about this posting??

    "Oh yeah, that's right, if it weren't for the government, taxes we could all be millionaires.

    Living in a civil society requires taxes--schools, roads, libraries, police and fire departments, FDA, etc. The wages of the working, middle class have not kept pace. Buy yourself a calculator and do the math yourself (or continue listening to what shills like Limbaugh tell you).

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 2:46pm"

    What is your answer to this? Funny you ignore this post but answer Craney's.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:20pm

73. I'm appalled by the latent misogyny of some of these comments. . .as men, some of the loudest commentators, we should check ourselves on a topic which we do not directly experience (unless the commenter is an M-to-F identified person): the experience of being a woman in a male dominated society.

    Personal anecdotes, while educational, do not factually over-turn Jessica's premise (and one shared by most sane folks) that certain factions in our male dominated society want to dictate the role which women will play. United Statians live in a sexually dysfunctional society that doesn't want premarital sex but continuously objectifies women.

    Posted by somepocho at 01/07/2008 @ 4:22pm

74. It makes me sick, the way a new blogger is treated like a piece of meat. It's utterly revolting. Just ignore the shallow cads, Ms. Jessica. They have no true substance to their misogomy, so they must attack your image. Personal appearance is quite irrelevant. It is the mind that matters, and the truth that qualifies.

    Posted by Kristev at 01/07/2008 @ 4:22pm

75. Exactly...but NEVER comment on a picture of them in a public domain, good or bad,..for you will see rabid retorts......

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    Aahh, poor baby. He's derided so unfairly.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:22pm

76. All this railing at sitcoms, especially from the male perspective (Zero, USC1) makes me very curious as to whether the writers are male or female.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:22pm

77. Hard not to like Ms. Valenti. Unfortunately for both she and the Nation, at the end of the day she is simply another "New York feminist" telling the rest of us poor souls who aren't as enlightened as those that live in the self-described greatest city in the world (not just the country, mind you, the world) what is wrong with the rest of us and how we all get along in these gender wars. Really, this stuff's been retreaded since the early 60s, and that's pretty much exactly what the Nation has been doing ever since. You'd think they'd learn.

    Ms. Valenti should move to Cleveland, or Toledo, or Portland, or - great for me 'cause I might meet her! - San Diego. Maybe she'd learn a little bit of honesty regarding "feminism" then. Until then, she & her New York buddies are engaged in self-felatio as always, and who, really, in the end gives a flying wahoo about that at this point.

    And by the way, I wonder what "accurate, comprehensive information about sex" really is. Who is going to decide that? A bunch of feminists from New York? I wonder if the "accurate, comprehensive information" Ms. Valenti might give might be different than, say, a waitress in Bakersfield might give. Who knows. Just curious. I may be wrong in my implication. Either way, looking forward to more of Ms. Valenti & the femninist creed on high from New York. I mean, really, where else would it come from?

    Posted by Scrub at 01/07/2008 @ 4:23pm

78. 1. Certainly you will agree that abortion providers benefit financially from accidental pregnancies, since this is how they earn a living. If the rate of unintended pregnancies were to drop to zero, certain doctors might have to change their specialty. 2. If teenage girls are wise enough to decide on an abortion, why were they (and their partners, of course) not wise enough to use birth control in the first place? 3. If an unintended pregancy occurs and the male expresses a willingness to raise the child "on his own", the woman can override him and have an abortion. However, if the same occurs and the male wants no part of it, he will still be expected to support the child financially.

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/07/2008 @ 4:23pm

79. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/07/2008 @ 4:15pm

    Oh, you didn't read on? Maasch says it was a COMPLIMENT. So, if you ever run into Maasch's wife at a dinner party, be sure to comment on how "hot" she looks, and how you hope your teenage son "checks her out" - and, of course, brings his rubbers. According to Maasch, she will be all too thrilled to hear it. And Maasch will be so proud.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:26pm

80. Posted by JOMAMMA

    You're so much better than the rest of us! We should all be like you. Just like you.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:29pm

81. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 4:04pm

    Apparently USC must have written him/herself into a corner....several responses to SPENCE05 but none to either of us on OUR points.

    Frankly, this is quite common with the social cons. Limbaugh rails about divorce...yet divorced twice. Hannity lambasts Clinton for adultery...yet had no problem with Giuliani dillying with Wife-to-Be #3 while still married to #2. Gay rights...Mary Cheney ditto.

    And their common refrain of "Feminism ruined the family and convinced (sometimes it's "forced") women to go outside the home and get jobs!"....meanwhile, they're complaints from NON-parents like Ann Coulter or women spending 70% of their time outside the home speaking and engaging in conservative activism or...

    two income right-wingers who think "it doesn't apply to me, because MY kids are with my Mom and not some 'Federally-run daycare'"...

    though the argument they offer says NOTHING about the KIND of daycare the kids get, just a general lambasting of it. And if they were true to their view, they'd either favor tax cuts specifically targetted for daycare (they don't) or they keep their wives at home (they don't).

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:31pm

82. scrub:: jealous much? sky-scrapper envy? get over it.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:32pm

83. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 4:29pm

    Well, MAASCH, you brought it on yourself by commenting on Ms Valenti's looks.

    Frankly, it's of no import. Ms vanden Heuvel is an attractive woman, but...I'm married, she's married, and even if we were single, we live hundreds of miles apart, and regardless of her physicality, I wouldn't date her (as we share differing values) and she SURE wouldn't date me...

    so what's the point of such comments???

    I agree with Ms Valenti's point...I'll probably disagree with her on occasions...and she could look like Irene Ryan in full "Granny" make-up for all that matters!

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:35pm

84. Quite right, Mask, quite right.

    Posted by Kristev at 01/07/2008 @ 4:36pm

85. About this, I mean:

    Frankly, this is quite common with the social cons. Limbaugh rails about divorce...yet divorced twice. Hannity lambasts Clinton for adultery...yet had no problem with Giuliani dillying with Wife-to-Be #3 while still married to #2. Gay rights...Mary Cheney ditto.

    And their common refrain of "Feminism ruined the family and convinced (sometimes it's "forced") women to go outside the home and get jobs!"....meanwhile, they're complaints from NON-parents like Ann Coulter or women spending 70% of their time outside the home speaking and engaging in conservative activism or...

    two income right-wingers who think "it doesn't apply to me, because MY kids are with my Mom and not some 'Federally-run daycare'"...

    though the argument they offer says NOTHING about the KIND of daycare the kids get, just a general lambasting of it. And if they were true to their view, they'd either favor tax cuts specifically targetted for daycare (they don't) or they keep their wives at home (they don't).

    Posted by Mask earlier. I'm not very good with computers.

    Posted by Kristev at 01/07/2008 @ 4:36pm

86. Some of you sound like sociopaths. You mock and insult Jessica, and then as an afterthought, make a remark about how hot she is or how lucky you'd be to meet her (SCRUB). You sound like deranged stalkers or something. :shudder:

    And SCRUB, there are such things as "facts about sex." For example, it is a fact that HIV can be transmitted through PIV sex. It is not a fact that HIV can be transmitted through tears (actual info from an ab-only curriculum).

    Fact: Boys and girls are curious about sex Falsehood: Girls only have sex to gain the approval of boys while boys are horny 100% of the time (more actual info from an ab-only curriculum).

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:39pm

87. 1. Certainly you will agree that abortion providers benefit financially from accidental pregnancies, since this is how they earn a living. If the rate of unintended pregnancies were to drop to zero, certain doctors might have to change their specialty. 2. If teenage girls are wise enough to decide on an abortion, why were they (and their partners, of course) not wise enough to use birth control in the first place? 3. If an unintended pregancy occurs and the male expresses a willingness to raise the child "on his own", the woman can override him and have an abortion. However, if the same occurs and the male wants no part of it, he will still be expected to support the child financially.

    You're not taking into account the harassment (and occassional physical danger, that abortion providers undergo). Further, without solid information about the entirety of the practice of abortion providers, you can't really comment on how they earn their living. I suspect it's entirely possible that they are OB/GYN specialists who could continue to practice even without the business of which you speak. Further, Planned Parenthood clinics, for example, would still be giving family planning counsel and services.

    The difference between the male/female situations that you mention is that the forced childbirth option entails the commandeering of a woman's body whereas the child support provision doesn't. Having said that, the idea that such a situation should allow the man to not have to give support (provided that he yield ALL parental rights/prerogatives) if the woman wants to carry the fetus to term and raise the child and he doesn't if worthy of discussion.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 4:39pm

88. Whoops. There should be a period between the words "sex" and "Falsehood."

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:40pm

89. Posted by JOMAMMA

    That's rich coming from a war dodging coward.

    Let's have some more of the "oh, poor me" routine. You run your big mouth and then cry after getting slapped down.

    It's taxes period that you object to. You can't seem to wrap you brain around the fact that a civil society requires services, and services come from the taxes we pay. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:46pm

90. The wifes entire paycheck, or the one of the two working familys check...goes to ....

    Taxes. The entire thing. Do the math sometime..

    Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 2:41pm

    No I'm pretty sure having two paychecks is keeping my family moving forward rather than sliding into poverty. If just my husband worked while I stayed home to have babies we'd be on the streets. But, we also sacrificed and we work different shifts and turns out HE"S JUST AS GOOD AT LOOKING AFTER KIDS as ME, likely even better.

    Posted by asrai at 01/07/2008 @ 4:47pm

91. Anti-choicers get all their information from propaganda and email forwards that depict 8-week embryos as smiling, thinking beings who talk to mommy and can even ride a bike. So it's not surprising that DAN FARNKOFF thinks performing abortions is some sort of money-making endeavor.

    First of all, Planned Parenthood (enemy #1) does check-ups for both men and women. They provide safe, affordable medical care. They educate people about safe sex and counsel them re: their best options. SOME PP's perform abortions. They also provide pre-natal care.

    It is a non-profit organization that EMPLOYS people and provides a service - of course they have to CHARGE! If you think that conflicts with their non-profit status, you should educate yourself about the definition of "non-profit."

    Second of all, it is much more lucrative to deliver a baby than it is to perform an abortion. Abortions cost what? $300 - $500? Compare that to the thousands of $ it costs to get pre-natal care for nine months AND to deliver! Puhlease. Abortion providers are often passionate about women's reproductive freedom; they're not in it for the money.

    Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:49pm

92. Posted by KRISTEV 01/07/2008 @ 4:36pm

    Given the impossibility of both "staying at home with the kids" AND going out on the talk show circuit to promote "staying at home" (atleast until the kids are grown and gone)....

    almost NONE of the conservative activist women (and certainly none of the men) on the Right saying that...are "staying at home with the kids"! They're all on talk shows and SOMEBODY ELSE is watching the young'uns.

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:51pm

93. Posted by JOMAMMA

    Always talking tough. Talking tough and rationalizing.

    What'd you change your name for, old man?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:56pm

94. No, I don't think so..but life my be more fun that being you at this point.

    Posted by JOMAMMA

    Ignorance is bliss. I'm sure you're an extremely happy fool.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:57pm

95. a child born today will probably live to be 90 or 100 years old.

    yet we try to make them into adults by the time they are 12.

    and to send that child/adult into the midst of a hyper-sexed world,

    uneducated about their own sexuality,

    is just stupid.

    disease and pregnancy can't be prevented by casting a shroud of ignorance over basic biology.

    why is it so hard to explain to these child/adults that we're so fond of producing exactly how we produced them?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 4:57pm

96. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 4:49pm

    Here's the ILLOGIC of "Abortion people just want it legal and to promote it to enrich themselves"....

    Okay, then Federalize it. Make Federally-funded abortion clinics, with set wage and price controls, and a locked-in salary of no more than say...a local plumber's salary for a doctor, and a local civil servant's salary (Post Office clerk for ex) for any nurse staff and NO profit from the procedure.

    Now...if it's "just about making money to those 'baby-killers'"...the positions will go empty and nobody will be working those clinics and legal abortion, effectively, will be banned.

    IF...it's "all about money"! (Standby for any "pro-lifer" to immediately contradict that or fumble around trying to figure out how BOTH "they'd still do it for free" AND "they want to get rich off fooling women into killing their babies"...is true!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:58pm

97. If commandeering is forcing someone to do something that they don't particularly want to do, for the sake of securing the rights of others and in the interest of living together in a cooperative society, then I think we are all commandeered in one way or another. Human life consists of both freedom and responsibility, and unfortunately there is no escapong the latter.

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/07/2008 @ 4:59pm

98. and who cares about ms. valenti's picture.

    here's a hint: don't load images or use javascript in your browser.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 5:00pm

99. I like looking at Valenti's pic. She is an attractive woman.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:01pm

100. Well, MASK, most abortion providers would continue to practice even if they weren't compensated... because killing baybees is awful fun.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:02pm

101. If commandeering is forcing someone to do something that they don't particularly want to do, for the sake of securing the rights of others and in the interest of living together in a cooperative society, then I think we are all commandeered in one way or another. Human life consists of both freedom and responsibility, and unfortunately there is no escapong the latter

     Yes, but I suspect most restrictions on liberty don't involve making someone go through a nine-month biological process with health complications. I think the freedom to make that choice trumps the father's interest in becoming a parent.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 5:07pm

102. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 4:11pm

     Fed up with the male "big palooka" stereotypes or female sterotypes?

     As an experiment, ask your female friends if they notice the male sexism going one and if they get a good laugh out of it.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:10pm

103. ...however if you advise your children to bring his rubbers and try to get at my wife, then that seems to me to be a little different than commenting on my wifes looks...and would require, perhaps a straightening out of the son and then the father out behind the parking garage....:)

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 4:53pm

     I think this Jessica is hot and I would advise my conservative oldest son to check her out!!!!

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person

     And having condoms with, of course...

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

     Smiley face or not, I rest my case.

     And, Maasch, "IF I HAVE OFFENDED . . ." is not a great beginning to a genuine apology.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:14pm

104. Posted by HMAN23

     What do you expect from a rationalizing coward?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:16pm

105. The old, lying fool has been listening to Limbaugh again.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:18pm

106. Wow...as much as I'd love to get involved in this longwinded argument between the postees, I'll have to bow out and go my own way.

     The enabling device that "non feminists" use to bash defenders of women's rights (and give rhetorical cover to conservatives of all stripes) is a particularly annoying trend that is way too prominent on talk shows, radio call in shows, and so on. Call it the Camille Paglia effect: being contrary for the sake of being contrary, or to act as a shill for larger political interests. Or both.

     Of course, there is another explanation, one that is really superficial (and could probably be described as "sexist", itself) and that is this: women are catty, and take great pleasure in tearing down other women and their achievements or points of view.

     Posted by MikeRM5255 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:19pm

107. Hell did you know Maasch, that some people don't even HAVE dads?

     Posted by MADLIB

     I don't think it has ever occured to the old fool. He's thinks everyone is just like him, enjoyed all the same advantages.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:25pm

108. And sure, it doesn't stick in your throat that your wife earns more than you. Of course it doesn't.

     Posted by MTSPENCE05 01/07/2008 @ 4:19pm

     If you think it does, then you haven't been paying attention.

     There's no need to google the info because you won't find it. The topic is too difficult to define.

     As an olive branch, I never denied that there are some families that HAVE to have both parents working. What I wonder is how many do that because they want to have certain luxuries and thus give the kids to someone else. The example again being a family who gave up a second income so his wife could stay with the kids. He earned in the mid-upper $20000 range. Things were tight but they had everything they needed, just not everything they wanted. How many families out there aren't willing to make that sacrifice for their children?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:25pm

109. Posted by MADLIB 01/07/2008 @ 5:18pm

     ???

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:26pm

110. The Two-Income TrapSo we looked at the data for two-income families today earning an average income ... But that aside, a big part of the two-income trap is that families have ... www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/11/10_400.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages

     Three Hierarchies: Where Does the Money Go in a Dual Income Family?One good point the article makes is a single-income family can respond to a loss of .... The data can be summarized in a financial snapshot of two families, ... threehierarchies.blogspot.com/2006/01/where-does-money-go-in-dual-income .html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

     Are you worse off than Mom and Dad? - Sep. 11, 2003The authors also suggest that the rise in two-income families contributed to the rise in home prices, since two-income families could outbid families with ... money.cnn.com/2003/09/11/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

     Harvard Gazette: Middle-class income doesn't buy middle-class ..."The two-income family is like a speeding race car," says Warren. "It goes faster than its one-income counterpart, but if it hits a rock, it careens out of ... www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

     That's the first four hits when you google "Two Income Families."

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:27pm

111. USC1, I think I made it pretty clear that sitcoms negatively stereotype both sexes. I'm not friends with people who laugh at According to Jim or King of Queens type garbage. These shows paint men as helpless, incompetant, lazy babies. And they paint women as stern kill-joys who must "do everything around here!" in order to keep the family running. And of course the husbands are always fat and average-looking and the women slim and pretty.

     It really sends a bad message to everyone.

     Boys: It is not necessary to learn how to boil water or remember your children's birthdates. No matter how inept or inconsiderate you are, you will still land a hot babe who'll take care of you and bear the fruit of your loins.

     Girls: No matter how smart or driven or talented or wonderful you are, the most you can hope for in a life partner is a careless buffoon. Get used to it and accept it willingly.

     You must consider that the majority of these shows are based on the protagonists' comedy routines. The men are the stars of the show while the women are merely playing "the straight man." Most Hollywood writers, producers and directors are male, as well.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:38pm

112. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 5:38pm

     Agreed.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:41pm

113. Yeah, and mommy and daddy was able to pay the tuition that kept your sorry ass out of Southeast Asia. (Oh yeah, that's right, everybody was doing it.)

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:42pm

114. but I did come from conservatives.

     Posted by JOMAMMA

     And you lack the mental capacity to think for yourself.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:44pm

115. So, USC1, are you going to stop (wrongly) assuming that, as a feminist, I am some sort of female supremacist who cackles with glee whenever men are stereotyped or boxed into narrow roles?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:46pm

116. It seems like a bunch of you have a lot of experience with one another. Just how old IS JOMAMMA? Because I've been operating under the assumption that he's 30. Had he not mentioned something about having kids, I'd have guessed 17.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:47pm

117. Posted by CRANEY808

     There's no need to google the info because you won't find it. The topic is too difficult to define.

     Posted by USC1

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:47pm

118. Ms. Valenti,

     Pathetically HAPPY checking in! Proud to have been the first (by time stamp) to greet your very first post on our Daddies!

     Been blogging here just over a year and your current thread w/almost 160 comments in 4-hours...and Daddy has almost 400!

     What else could it be but Rock Star `HOT'? To knee-jerkers everywhere, interpret at will!

     Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 5:48pm

119. Just how old IS JOMAMMA?

     Posted by CRANEY808

     Let's see what he says this time.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:49pm

120. Dan Farnkoff--the difference is that in no other case does a person have the right to use another person's body for his benefit. we don't require anyone to donate a kidney to someone who needs one to survive; why should a woman be required to house an unwanted fetus in her uterus?

     Posted by riles at 01/07/2008 @ 5:51pm

121. ...after reading through the (excellent) article and all four pages of this - for me bizarre - discussion, I really do not want to sound patronizing or anything like that...

     ...but I - sitting here in the Netherlands - simply cannot help wondering, why the USA, the front-runner in so many different fields of science, education and God knows what more....

     ...is so desperately lagging behind Europe when it comes down all issues related to gender relations!!! I mean, the above discussion would fit perfectly in the 80s, or early 90s at the latest in Europe - how come, the US is so much behind the moon on this???

     Posted by elziax at 01/07/2008 @ 5:52pm

122. Posted by JOMAMMA

     Oh, and play like you, exploiting Third World labor?

     Young men without a mommy and daddy to pay their tuition had to go fight; you didn't, and, yet, you are incapable of recognizing the acute unfairness of such a system. And now you're such a red, white and blue "conservative."

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:53pm

123. And I always come back to the fact that you dodged the war because that speaks to your core values.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:54pm

124. Posted by HAPPY 01/07/2008 @ 5:48pm

     Nope. A feminist blog entry is sure to bring out the trolls looking to antagonize! And folks playing with the trolls, which I am guilty for myself.

     If ZERO wasn't on vacation, there'd be 175 posts.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:55pm

125. Mask:

     Avoid you? Never!

     My post was a little muddled with several thoughts crammed into one paragraph...hazard of hurried typing at work.

     The point was that family is taking a backseat when it doesn't necessarily need to. And yes, I think it helps if one's extended family such as a grandmother is there to help out...at least you know they love and care about child as much as you do with the bonus of having the same values (except my M-I-L is a democrat. **sigh** she's not perfect, but we're working on her). As far as the two income families, I was specifically referring to families that don't necessarily need to have two working parents, but do so and have an "uninterested" third party essentially raise the children. I think it's better to have family involved if possible. That's what I was trying to say.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 5:59pm

126. Well, since you answered me, JOMAMMA - I am 25.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:00pm

127. USC1, do you and your wife both work because you need to or because you are trying to keep up with the Joneses?

     There IS a third choice, you know: both partners are fulfilled by their careers and enjoy what they do for a living.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:02pm

128. and if they don't, it really doesn't matter...it is a human responsibility to teach the next generation SOMETHING that might make survial a little easier..and I hope we have done so in the home.

     Posted by JOMAMMA

     Like how to dodge responsibility and allow others to fight wars for you?

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:02pm

129. If ZERO wasn't on vacation, there'd be 175 posts.

     Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 5:55pm

     LOL!!!Guess that why Maasch is working so hard!

     Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 6:02pm

130. They come out of our schools having no idea about anything of value and are prepared for nothing, not the work force , barely prepared for McDonalds...

     and you expect the same institutions that fail on a massive scale to educate your children on the facts of life?

     Are you kidding?

     Please...

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 5:16pm

     well, we do o.k. here. my parents NEVER once talked to me about sex. i learned about it at school.

     and it's a good thing, too. just imagine how many frosties there would be skittering about.

     what, isn't america good enough to get the job done right?

     don't you want to invest in good schools?

     aren't you ready for intelligent school funding?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 6:07pm

131. MT

     I know you're trying but the question specifically was how many of the two income families really needed to have two incomes. There's some anecdotal stuff that I found about two income families and how they are going into debt because they are overspending, but no specific numbers about how many families could actually get by on one salary.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:08pm

132. Way to represent, Jessica. Love your work at Feministing; love it here.

     It's always amazing to me how abstinence-only advocates decry sex education because it enables kids to have sex - since when have we as a nation considered MORE education (in any respect) a bad thing?

     Thanks also to those commenters whose posts contain generally accepted standards of grammar and usage. Makes reading easier on the eyes.

     Posted by pseudo at 01/07/2008 @ 6:08pm

133. Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 5:59pm

     I don't think that is a fair position to take. First, there are legitimate reasons beyond finances that a parent may choose to continue working in some capacity. Second, many are not fortunate enough to live near family to help. And in situations where help outside the family comes into play, ask around a bit before you make assumptions about the quality of care. If you do, I am quite sure you will find many people who find their sitter, nannie, etc. quite "interested." Sure, they get paid, and some just go through the motions, but in many cases a bond is formed and many would characterize such a person as almost a part of the family.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:12pm

134. the reason many families don't have dads partially lies in the fact that someone's dad or HIS dad or his dad's dad never talked to him about sexuality and the ensuing responsibilities.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 6:14pm

135. sloppy editing . . . remove "almost" from the last line.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:14pm

136. And you are a fool.

     Posted by JOMAMMA

     Yeah, sure I am. And you are a rationalizing coward.

     And it's just all anecdotal, huh, usc? You obviously know nothing about what the working class in this country is going through.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:18pm

137. LESSON NUMBER 1.... YOU NEVER LEARNED....LIFE AIN'T FAIR. WHEN YOU FAILED THIS COURSE, YOU FAILED EVERYTHING AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE STRUGGLING TODAY.

     And cowardly scum like you is a prime example of this fact.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:20pm

138. HAPPY,

     I think part of the reason there are so many posters on this thread is that given the current focus on campaign coverage, people just want to type about something different.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 6:37pm

139. My numbers could be wrong...I am not sure ..

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 6:15pm

     From what I found, your numbers are generally correct. But, before you draw the conclusion that it is because people aren't being "responsible," keep in mind that one cause of this increase could be that fewer people are getting married after finding out that they are pregnant. This is a little dated, but click through to the statistics in the tables. A 37% decline from a peak in the early 1960s.

     Trends in Marital Status of U.S. Women at First Birth: 1930 to 1994

     Increases in the proportion of premarital births may result not only from increases in the rate of premarital childbearing but also from declines in the propensity of couples to marry before the birth of a premaritally conceived child in order to avert an out-of-wedlock birth.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:40pm

140. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/07/2008 @ 6:37pm

     Yes! Avoiding METT's Obama spam is a good thing!

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 6:41pm

141. "Young women benefit from being well-informed, they don't get knocked up from it."

     Oh yes they do Jessica (at least in this country). As an ICU nurse, I hear all kinds of stories from my collegues who work in OBGYN and Pediatrics. There are young girls and women who are informed but for whatever reason, they throw all caution to the wind. Fulton and DeKalb counties (Atlanta) have a wide range of services available, and many do take advantage, however it's particularly sad when many return with a second and even third pregnancy.

     Now, I would say it appears Latino girls and women have the most difficulty in obtaining and maintaining birth control measures because of the pressures their boyfriends or husbands put upon them to have children.

     And from my own experience, I can say this, my sisters and many female cousins were informed but decided not to use BC because they felt some of the available methods (condoms, pills, diaphram and IUDs) were more hassels than they were willing to put up with.

     And on that note, my youngest sister had her fouth child this summer and it's by a different man, just like the other three.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 6:53pm

142. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 4:15pm

     Ha, Ha, JM you are a noble life saver for the more radical ladies because they see you as a stereo type of a masculinity they delight to bash.

     If it were not for you and one or two others willing to "grab the tiger by tail" or "put your head in the lion's mouth" many, including the (possibly male) poseurs plus fellow (in a generic sense of course) travelers, would read Ms V's inspired writings, say their prayers and we would never hear from them.

     But you and a few others have unselfishly propelled Ms V to stardom on this forum.

     I noticed a female academic from Oxford UK, observing contemporary society, recently claimed that men had not been feminized but rather women had been maculinized and thus were now equipped to enter into a man's world.

     Thus which ever way we look at it, whether as a stimulus for certain women who generally wouldn't respond on forums like this or as a role model for all women you are heaven's gift to that better half of the species.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/07/2008 @ 7:27pm

143. If ZERO wasn't on vacation, there'd be 175 posts.

     Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 5:55pm

     That's for damn sure.

     Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 7:40pm

144. "As far as the two income families, I was specifically referring to families that don't necessarily need to have two working parents..."----Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 5:59pm

     Okay, as someone else asked (Empty?)....point to the demographic/ecnomic information that shows HOW MANY families "don't necessarily need to have two working parents".

     I assume you are relatively lower middle-class and MUST work.

     Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 7:42pm

145. ACOOK: Your post illustrates the need for not only education re: birth control, but education re: owning one's sexuality. No matter how many condoms a young woman has at her disposal, if she does not feel empowered to assert herself within a sexual relationship, she is at a disadvantage.

     Girls, especially, must be taught that they absolutely have the RIGHT to use protection during intercourse. If they do not, they have the most to lose.

     Especially within the Latino community, the "macho" culture prevails. Boys and young men feel that using a condom is an affront to their masculinity. It's a badge of honor to get a woman pregnant. Because women are trained to accept it, they often give in to their partners during sex.

     Additionally, there is an economic factor at play. Women on the low end of the socio-economic ladder do not have as many opportunities available to them that other women do. In cultures wherein motherhood is considered the greatest achievment for a woman, many young women figure that if they won't be going to college or traveling the world, they might as well become mothers.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 8:06pm

146. Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 6:53pm

     Actually ACOOK, my question is....so you think we should NOT have sex education?

     Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 8:23pm

147. MAASCH and CHIP exposing themselves as the dinosaurs they are.

     Great family values.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/07/2008 @ 8:32pm

148. There is no greater enemy than ignorance.

     "Abstinence only" programs fail miserably.

     Adolescents are ALWAYS going to have sex, they should be given every tool available to them so they can make informed decisions.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/07/2008 @ 8:38pm

149. JM, CHIP, if I ever have the opportunity to meet your of age daughters, I will be sure to make running commentary about their physical attributes and my desire to bend them over the nearest table. I am confident they will take it as my recognition of Gods blessing them with great racks.

     and I am sure you won't take any offense.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/07/2008 @ 8:43pm

150. who the heck said anything about getting in Valenti's pants. not me. you can accuse me of "skycraper envy" for my New York rant, but believe me, i'm pretty damn happy here 2 blocks from the beach, global warming or no. besides, i was born in new york city, i know all about new york city. why should i give a flying wahoo about new york city?

     i got 5 woman chasing me and 2 already in bed with me. i don't need valenti. i disagree with her on just about everything though i like to think we come from the same compassion in our dream. she clearly has a great mind and believe me, i know there's a million things she could teach me, so you're damn right i'd like to meet her. jus' 'cause you live in an eternally perverse world, don't lay your crap on me. that's your own stuff. deal with it in your own way.

     valenti's right on one thing: no one knows how to think about sex. most of all when they're trying to lay their stuff on someone else a la the conservative troglodyte of her story, or your own petty neurosis. we all suffer the same fate. i hope you don't make the same assumptions about the signficant other in your life as you make about me, exclamation point or no.

     Posted by Scrub at 01/07/2008 @ 8:47pm

151. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 8:06pm

     The funny and sad thing about your statement on "owning one's sexuality" is that many of them think they know already.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 9:03pm

152. "Actually ACOOK, my question is....so you think we should NOT have sex education?"

     Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 8:23pm

     Mask, I think what we need is a more comprehensive program than the ones that are out there now.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 9:09pm

153. Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 8:23pm / Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 9:09pm - et al

     I think a good comprehensive sex education would include not only contraceptive use, but body image issues.

     Of course what will never be addressed in sex ed is the oppression of women through religious guilt (especially if they've attended church from childhood). When 44% of Americans polled say they attend church weekly, that's a pretty large influence. It's called repeat advertising. "Sex is dirty; sex is bad. Don't talk about it or do it, or you're a whore...Unless you're a wife, then you have no choice, don't say no." Don't believe me, read the Bible.

     It can be a huge factor in women either not being allowed to express their sexuality or, being pressured to have sex to please men instead of their own pleasure. A woman empowered by her sexuality often protects herself. A woman trying to please her 'partner,' especially her husband (out of guilt/obligation) is far more likely to be harmed or impregnated by the act.

     School is a sanctuary for some young people, and the only place they might hear straight talk about sex.

     Religious or not, it affects us all.

     Posted by Kim Mance at 01/07/2008 @ 9:31pm

154. Girls, especially, must be taught that they absolutely have the RIGHT to use protection during intercourse....

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 8:06pm

     There you have it, Folks! THE DIFFERENCE between Cons and Libs!

     Us conservatives teach RESPONSIBILITY as in:

     Girls (and Boys), both must be taught that they absolutely have the RESPONSIBILITY to use protection BEFORE (NOT during!) intercourse.

     Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 9:36pm

155. I agree with you, Kim, and with most others here who at least perceive the lack of comprehensive/accurate sex ed in the public schools as a major missed opportunity, if not an outright endorsement of willful ignorance (with the usual negative results for themselves and those with whom they associate).

     Movies being the quintessential art form, IMHO, and too, believing in the late Neil Postman's view we're transitioning all too fast from a literacy-based learning culture, to an iconographic-based educational paradigm, I highly recommend every concerned citizen's viewing the movie "Kinsey." Fascinatingly thought provoking, it gets pretty close to the nub of our Puritanical hypocrisies regarding the fact we are and will continue to be sexual creatures who become far less attractive to anyone, consequent to fear-based moralizing and/or the projection of latent, unrecognized, or unacknowledged neuroses.

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/07/2008 @ 9:48pm

156. Oh give me a break, HAPPY. Way to take the statement out of context. Are you unable, or unwilling (?) to argue against my actual analysis?

     HAPPY; you teach that girls have the responsibility of being gatekeepers of sexuality while boys are responsible for coercing girls into "giving it up." You have a sex-as-a-commodity view while I, at least, have a sex-as-mutually-pleasurable-activity view.

     We must arm our children with knowledge if we expect them to make responsible, INFORMED decisions.

     Getting rid of gender-essentialist double-standards would help, too.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 9:48pm

157. ..but I - sitting here in the Netherlands - simply cannot help wondering, why the USA, the front-runner in so many different fields of science, education and God knows what more....

     ...is so desperately lagging behind Europe when it comes down all issues related to gender relations!!! I mean, the above discussion would fit perfectly in the 80s, or early 90s at the latest in Europe - how come, the US is so much behind the moon on this???

     Posted by ELZIAX 01/07/2008 @ 5:52pm

     that's because certain posters here are still living with their 1950s attitudes regarding women.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 9:54pm

158. Speaking of sexist, I just read an article that HRC cried during one of her little rallies...

     If she wasn't before, she is now. Stick a fork in her...

     Posted by usc1 at 01/07/2008 @ 9:59pm

159. HAPPY; you teach that girls have the responsibility of being gatekeepers of sexuality while boys are responsible for coercing girls into "giving it up." You have a sex-as-a-commodity view while I, at least, have a sex-as-mutually-pleasurable-activity view.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 9:48pm

     I take your statement "out of context"? Reread your own post! You made a categorical statement in response to ACOOK!

     Yet, you turn right around and make attributions to me w/out any shred of evidence:

     I have never taught girls.....as I have two sons, an adult and a 17-yrs old!

     As for your pinning "sex-as-a-commodity view" on me, show me HOW I accomplished that?

     Careful w/your response.....stop playing `victim' and show us all some actual `crime'?????

     Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 10:00pm

160. Posted by KIM MANCE 01/07/2008 @ 9:31pm

     Kim, I have to disagree with you on some of your assessment. Religion (in this country) plays a part, but the main culprits are the print and television media. Women aren't so much oppressed as you would think. I've heard young people use the term "friends with benefits".

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 10:01pm

161. Adolescents are ALWAYS going to have sex, they should be given every tool available to them so they can make informed decisions.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/07/2008 @ 8:38pm

     You Puritan Americans should get around more. Young women and men get their kicks out of doing rebellious, exciting and daring things, like unprotected sex and playing the odds with STDs.

     For those who indulge in spur of the moment sex the things learned in sex education are unlikely to be anywhere on their radar.

     "Raincoat" sex, in our societies, is mostly for those in perhaps boring, longterm relationships and where family planning is an issue.

     Here's an interesting stat from Aus. The lowest rate of STDs is found in "Working Ladies" (who have to have medical certificates based on 3 monthly STD tests). They also are required by law to do a brief "medical" on their client's tackle. Test not passed means no sex. Probably does not pick up things like herpes, at certain times of its course, but eliminates some of the other nasties.

     The highest incidence of STD transmission comes via young women getting picked up at dances, rave parties and pubs.

     The WLs perhaps show the advantage of sex education but that is mostly in fairly passionless sex. The same cannot be said of those young women and men who go looking for sex in the other venues. Education is not much use when the more relevant blood flow is happening a fair bit below the brain.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/07/2008 @ 10:05pm

162. I'm curious on a particular point that many of you may or not agree with...

     How can one reconcile wanting teens to be responsible for their own sexuality and yet, in the same breathe, don't feel that teens should not be held accountable for acts of violence they commit because their brains are not fully developed? Of course I'm speaking of the 14 to 17 age range.

     Am I making any sense to anyone?

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 10:15pm

163. ACOOK: Having consentual sex is not a crime. Murder is.

     Oh noes! Kids these days are having sex with their friends!

     Posted by craney808 at 01/07/2008 @ 10:21pm

164. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/07/2008 @ 9:54pm

     FZ, in case you didn't google this, the Netherlands out-of-wedlock birthrate has been rising at a steady 2.5 percent each year for the last 9 years. That's more than any other Western European country.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 10:31pm

165. Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 10:21pm

     That is indeed true, but my question is...we want them to act like adults when it comes to sex and yet we treat them as "children" when they commit crimes and we attribute their behavior to their brains still being developed? That makes no sense to me. Either they act as adults in all aspects or they don't.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 10:39pm

166. Either they act as adults in all aspects or they don't.

     Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 10:39pm

     can that truly be said of any "adult"?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 10:45pm

167. Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 10:31pm

     sex and violence, but especially violence and especially violence and sex together have become the easy way to sell shampoo or dvds or ford pickups.

     all this appealing to our base instincts is reaching people at a younger and younger age. combine that with all the hormone laced meat and dairy products and you've got what we've got.

     our children (not mine!) are watching CSI for breakfast.

     and we wonder why.........................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 10:57pm

168. It is perfectly reasonable and achievable to wait until marriage to be sexually active. To do otherwise is simply a reflection of a lack of good parental morals, guidance, and discipline.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 10:58pm

     what happens if you're gay?

     no sex, ever?

     'cause you sure can't get married.

     well, not most places......................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 11:06pm

169. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/07/2008 @ 10:57pm

     FZ, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there. I have not seen any conclusive studies showing there's a correlation between hormone treated meat/dairy and violent behavior in today's youth. IMHO, I would attribute the behavior to poor parental discipline.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 11:14pm

170. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 10:58pm

     LL, I think the "reasonable" and "achievable" part is what the left is unable to commit to.

     Posted by ACook at 01/07/2008 @ 11:17pm

171. The IWF's mission doesn't seem to be anti-woman. Advancing economic liberty, political freedom, equality under the law, greater personal responsibility -- all of these are feminist issues!

     Is feminism solely a progressive liberal movement? As progressive liberals must we disrespect conservative women that promote equality but happen to disagree with us over the role of government?

     Also, I think you're being truly well, stupid, with respect to your gratuituously ugly comment about comments about photographs demonstrating misogyny.

     When you see misogyny everywhere, you discredit the many advances that your mother and her mother and all of us fought for. And you discredit yourself, and make it hard for anyone to take you seriously.

     You're wearing a sleeveless top. Your hair is attractively arranged. Those were ALL conscious fashion decisions by you. As was your decision not to smile. Conscious, political, and disingenuous.

     You demean the Nation and the Nation's readers with your phony baloney holier than thou message. You have been blessed with good genes and good looks and you use it to pretend you are some sort of victim.

     Well here's hoping you never find more misogyny than having people comment on a photograph that you yourself submitted.

     You promote divisiveness, you promote anger, and what does that usually lead to? Violence. Basically you're an enabler for hatred, and so, I find it hard to swallow any amount of your message. I'll take the conservative IWF any time over you, I may disagree with the majority of their politics, but they aren't nearly as full of shit as you.

     Have a nice day.

     The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and educational institution. Founded in 1992, IWF focuses on issues of concern to women, men, and families. Our mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF builds support for a greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to some of the nation's most influential scholars--women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

     Posted by feh at 01/08/2008 @ 12:06am

172. To do otherwise is simply a reflection of a lack of good parental morals, guidance, and discipline.

     Not necessarily--to do otherwise may easily be a reflection of wanting to share intimacy with someone where the relationship merits it but doesn't merit marriage.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 12:20am

173. You're wearing a sleeveless top. Your hair is attractively arranged. Those were ALL conscious fashion decisions by you. As was your decision not to smile. Conscious, political, and disingenuous.

     Oh I get it, if a woman dresses a certain way, she asked for it. You have a lot of nerve complaining about other people promoting misogyny.

     You promote divisiveness, you promote anger, and what does that usually lead to? Violence.

     So rapists and wife-beaters are pushed over the edge by feminism? Gee, their behavior wouldn't possibly have to do with anger issue with women would it?

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 12:21am

174. Brunowe, please take your e-psychiatric views of me and stuff them. I never said anything like what you are attributing to me, so blow it out your ass.

     Jessica submitted that picture. Jessica dressed as she did. She arranged her hair as she did. And she consciously chose not to smile. This is her picture for the Nation, and stop pretending that it is some random snapshot. It is a picture intended to send a message, and the message is anger. When someone remarks on that, what does Valenti do? She claims that the person that remarked on that is a misogynist.

     But if you look at the other pictures in the Nation, how many people have a picture anywhere close to Valenti's?

     Not Nichols. Not Pollitt. Not Van den Heuvel. Not Rothberg.

     Remarking on her non smiling angry pose is an obvious read of an obvious signal she is intentionally sending.

     Your defense of Valenti is quaint, condescending, and patriarchal. Her playing the victim card demeans actual victims and is distinctly anti-feminist. This, sadly, is typical of Valenti's brand of so-called feminism.

     Posted by feh at 01/08/2008 @ 12:32am

175. FZ, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there. I have not seen any conclusive studies showing there's a correlation between hormone treated meat/dairy and violent behavior in today's youth. IMHO, I would attribute the behavior to poor parental discipline.

     Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 11:14pm

     i was actually trying to make a point about accelerated physical maturation combined with effects of hollywood style viosex.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 12:36am

176. Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 12:32am

     maybe the other pictures look different because they were taken at a different time by a different photographer.

     "This, sadly, is typical of Valenti's brand of so-called feminism."

     so, what is the FEH brand of feminism?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 12:40am

177. so, what is the FEH brand of feminism?

     It's a feminism that fights to remove the constraints of gender based roles on everyone in society. It's a feminism that fights for gender free laws. It's a feminism that encourages women and men to achieve whatever they wish to achieve, free from gender based discrimination.

     It's a feminism informed by historical context. One that realizes how far we've come.

     It's a feminism that realizes that the majority of fathers were born AFTER Title IX, and that the vast majority of fathers have at least one daughter, and so it's a feminism that stops pretending that most men hate women when in fact most men are well aware of gender discrimination and fight to stop it.

     It's a feminism that is pro-sex and it's a reality based and scientifically based feminism that refuses to pathologize men when they express their sexuality using many of the same behaviors we see in the animal kingdom that we have evolved from.

     It's a feminism that pays attention to science and just doesn't willy nilly postulate unscientific, untestable theories, or bash scientific studies or whole fields even that may disagree with some of the preferred interpretations of feminist theory.

     It's a feminism that agrees that in a world with no fault divorce, that that needs to be accompanied by a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody. It's a feminism that goes back to its roots and realizes that NOWs calls for sole custody are discriminatory, and hurt children and fathers.

     It's a feminism that realizes that if two people are completely shitfaced and cannot remember what happened the night before, then it is not the default assumption to assume a rape occurred and arrest the man. Why? Because women are sexual beings just as much as men, and if two people are completely shitfaced and got that way through their own efforts, than it is gender discrimination to assume a rape occurred.

     It is a feminism that strives to stop domestic violence, regardless of the gender of the initiator. It is a feminism that doesn't make claims that there are no false allegations of rape or domestic violence or child molesting, or that the rate of such allegations is so low as to be ignorable.

     It is a feminism that believes strongly in Benjamin Franklin, who said that it is better that one hundred guilty go free than jail one innocent.

     It is a feminism that believes in free speech, and understands the solution to ugly free speech is not censorship, but is more free speech. It is a feminism confident in itself so as to encourage free speech and stop encouraging censorship.

     It is a feminism that demonstrates that women and men are equal in law and society.

     And frankly, my name for that should be a liberal, progressive, feminism. But that's not what I read at Feministing and that's not what I read when I read Valenti excoriating a reader's misogyny because that reader remarked on her obviously chosen glare in her picture.

     Posted by feh at 01/08/2008 @ 12:58am

178. feminists need to take just one page out of the republican playbook. women need to stick together no matter what. strippers, whores, women who say stiletto heels are comfortable, those who wear make-up, stay at home moms....and the most difficult of all: the mentally and emotionally retarded sisters like malkin and coulter. granted there's not much we can do but sit back and wait for them to ask for help...much like dealing with a drug addict. maybe we could use creative visualization to aid them in developing a detectable conscience? who knows?

     the bright side is there are lots of feminist men around. many of these beautiful souls post here.

     and to be fair to maasch aka jomamma: he does comment on all womens' physical appearances. he does this more than anyone else who posts here. he has done it for years. most of the time he needs no photo--just the mention of a name will do. and his comments on appearance are always limited to whether or not they are sexually attractive.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 01:06am

179. feh, there is no glare. there is no anger. there is a slight hint of a smile. you suffer from projection you sickening moron.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 01:09am

180. Loveloki, while you berate me for being a moron, I am not the person that Valenti lashed out at. I am not the person that Valenti felt was misogynistic for mentioning her lack of a smile.

     You may want to ask yourself why other people do not share your interpretation of the photo. You may also ask yourself why it is so important to you that they do share your interpretation that you must decry them as morons if they do not. It shows a lack of respect, trust, and integrity on your part.

     You may also wish to ask Valenti why she felt the need to lash out in anger, and how finely tuned her misogyny detector is for it to go full-scale over one comment regarding her obvious lack of a smile.

     Or you may just wish to hurl more insults at me.

     Whatevah!

     Posted by feh at 01/08/2008 @ 01:16am

181. "Jessica submitted that picture. Jessica dressed as she did. She arranged her hair as she did. And she consciously chose not to smile. This is her picture for the Nation, and stop pretending that it is some random snapshot. It is a picture intended to send a message, and the message is anger. When someone remarks on that, what does Valenti do? She claims that the person that remarked on that is a misogynist."

     Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 12:32am

     How is it that merely not smiling conveys anger? When I look at her picture I don't see anger at all. She's not smiling, but her expression is relatively pleasant. My guess is that, if anything, she was be trying to appear serious. If she really WAS putting that much thought into her appearance.

     I'm a serious person, I don't smile much. And its not like I'm walking around angry all the time. Your first thought when someone is not smiling is that they're angry? Or perhaps some other negative emotion? Do you smile all the time, except when you're angry?

     I'm inclined to agree that misogyny, i.e. hatred of women, is not quite the correct term to use here...but it certainly is sexism.

     "Your defense of Valenti is quaint, condescending, and patriarchal. Her playing the victim card demeans actual victims and is distinctly anti-feminist. This, sadly, is typical of Valenti's brand of so-called feminism."

     Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 12:32am

     How is she playing the victim card? What victims are you referring to? What exactly is her brand of feminism? Does each individual get their own brand or something?

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 01:19am

182. but it was a fun day..

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 10:48pm

     Yeah sure was. If this site was run by capitalists your check would be in the mail.

     Just told my three daughters, late teen, early and mid twenties to beware of Crabs.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/08/2008 @ 01:24am

183. you know,

     i've come up with a more umbrella term:

     StopTreatingMeLikeCrap'CuzMyMoleculesAreArrangedDifferentlyThanYoursism.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 01:28am

184. Just told my three daughters, late teen, early and mid twenties to beware of Crabs.

     Posted by LRJONES4 01/08/2008 @ 01:24am

     i think you should have warned them of the dangers of smiling or not smiling while being photographed.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 01:31am

185. Make sure you warn them about the dangers of independent thought and asking too many questions!

     Posted by feh at 01/08/2008 @ 01:46am

186. Make sure you warn them about the dangers of independent thought and asking too many questions!

     Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 01:46am

     There's certainly too much of it FEH. However I must say, as one who is more on the "keep it your pants" side of things, that your contributions are a refreshing embrace not only of the world as it is but the reality that all sorts of people from very different ideological and "philosophies of life" backgrounds have contributed to the improvement in the status of women, at least in Western societies.

     "Crabs" is my nick for Crabwalks and I thought it was OK on this thread to be a bit of a smart arse.

     My girls follow a family tradition of involvement in maths and engineering and the older two are studying at Melbourne University. The oldest is into Lagrangian Transformations and is doing an MA having done a BA in pure maths, which I guess is more an English university tradition for those who are serious about mathematics.

     The youngest is interested in medicine. We did console her with the thought that if her entrance marks were not adequate she could always do something in the humanities, (say like Women's Studies).

     She wasn't impressed so I'm not too sure how she would respond to your advice 8-) if I were to pass it on.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/08/2008 @ 02:35am

187. i think you should have warned them of the dangers of smiling or not smiling while being photographed.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/08/2008 @ 01:31am

     Look I sort of agree with JM. Where I differ, (having had vast experience of women, as you have heard) is that I would withhold judgement until I saw a shot of the lady first thing in the morning. That and reasonable BMI are part of my evaluation criteria for truly beautiful women.

     I have recently discovered, something that I have long suspected, that beautiful women get more beautiful with age.

     Inner beauty can only be discovered in a lifetime of intimate friendship under the stresses of life. I think one's response to that is called love. Lust (aka being in love) has more to do with the hormones and is, it seems to me, to be more in view in this uplifting thread.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/08/2008 @ 03:00am

188. Brunowe, please take your e-psychiatric views of me and stuff them. I never said anything like what you are attributing to me, so blow it out your ass.

     I think that says volumes about the anger issues you clearly have.

     Jessica submitted that picture. Jessica dressed as she did. She arranged her hair as she did. And she consciously chose not to smile. This is her picture for the Nation, and stop pretending that it is some random snapshot. It is a picture intended to send a message, and the message is anger. When someone remarks on that, what does Valenti do? She claims that the person that remarked on that is a misogynist.

     Again, you're pretty much just making that up. It's a conclusory statement that speaks volumes about your attitude. Incidentally, it simply is her picture for her blog so it's use at The Nation is clearly just a matter of convenience.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 04:36am

189. Posted by LRJONES4 01/07/2008 @ 10:05pm |

     LEeRoy, you could not possibly imagine the hue and cry that would ensue in the great freedom loving USA if the idea of decriminalizing prostitution and regulating it was even mentioned in political circles. The Luvvies and Acooks would scream bloody murder.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 10:48pm

     So I can comment on your daughters ass in front of you?

     John, the ONLY comment I can remember about the men of the Nation, was some stupid inanity one of you cons made about Rothberg looking stoned. Your comment was right out of the stone age and totally inappropriate considering the topic. As I have seen on the telly...

     "Hey bubba, the conversation is happening above my breast line".

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 10:58pm

     LL, I think the "reasonable" and "achievable" part is what the left is unable to commit to.

     Posted by ACOOK 01/07/2008 @ 11:17pm

     You guys live in a fantasy world.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2008 @ 07:37am

190. True, but even worse to them is the thought of self-discipline and morals. Those are fighting words to the left.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 11:23pm

     Luvvy, I have more ethics in my little finger than most of the cons here have combined. What a crock.

     Just told my three daughters, late teen, early and mid twenties to beware of Crabs.

     Posted by LRJONES4 01/08/2008 @ 01:24am

     Why, because I want to act like Maasch in public?

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2008 @ 07:44am

191. It is perfectly reasonable and achievable to wait until marriage to be sexually active. To do otherwise is simply a reflection of a lack of good parental morals, guidance, and discipline.

     This thread is such a sad commentary on America.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 10:58pm

     Sure it is reasonable. It is also unrealistic, as demonstrated by the history of mankind. To connect the natural urges of sexually mature humans to the lack of parenting skills is ludicrous. An awful lot of "good girls" get knocked up by the sons of nice conservative parents.

     Once again, abstinence only "education" is an abject failure. Christian "virginity" programs are a joke. The neo-cons are living in a fantasy world, unwilling to accept the real world and to make policy based on the real world.

     what works is sex education, access to birth control and relevant information. backed up by authority figures that don't lie, treat adolescents like people and are able to, yes, instill a moral code based on real world experience.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2008 @ 07:56am

192. Sex is only for the married?

     dinosaurs!

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2008 @ 07:58am

193. BTW, JM, I do commend you for helping your sons obtain condoms. It is another sign that you have liberal tendencies.

     A little more effort and you could come to the Side of Light.

     Posted by crabwalk at 01/08/2008 @ 08:08am

194. Sex is only for the married?

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/08/2008 @ 07:58am

     does that mean i can covet my neighbour's wife?

     after all, we're all married.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 09:05am

195. woops, hit enter by accident. but let me finish my thought. What is up with the Christian fascination with virginity? Shouldn't you marry someone for their beautiful character, not their adherence to an obsolete sex conduct code?

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:06am

196. oye, now my first post is missing... I'll try again.

     It is perfectly reasonable and achievable to wait until marriage to be sexually active. To do otherwise is simply a reflection of a lack of good parental morals, guidance, and discipline.

     This thread is such a sad commentary on America.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/07/2008 @ 10:58pm

     LV: I don't plan on getting "married" until 26 or older. A lot of my peers are tending to wait now, especially after watching some idiot 20 yr olds get married and divorce 5 years later (with two little ones to share custody with of course). Think anyone is going to wait until their late twenties to experience sex? ridiculous.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:10am

197. John, the ONLY comment I can remember about the men of the Nation, was some stupid inanity one of you cons made about Rothberg looking stoned. Your comment was right out of the stone age and totally inappropriate considering the topic.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/08/2008 @ 07:37am

     actually, that wasn't a "con" who made that comment.

     no, it wasn't me. (although i did make a comment on the comment; sorry peter!)

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 09:10am

198. what works is sex education, access to birth control and relevant information. backed up by authority figures that don't lie, treat adolescents like people and are able to, yes, instill a moral code based on real world experience.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/08/2008 @ 07:56am

     now, THAT'S reasonable.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 09:13am

199. LV: I don't plan on getting "married" until 26 or older. A lot of my peers are tending to wait now, especially after watching some idiot 20 yr olds get married and divorce 5 years later (with two little ones to share custody with of course). Think anyone is going to wait until their late twenties to experience sex? ridiculous.

     Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 09:10am

     you know,

     mom always told us, "if you get married without having lived with your partner for a few years, you're crazy"

     i got married when i was 35 and my older sister married when she was 38.

     what's the hurry?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 09:17am

200. "You're wearing a sleeveless top. Your hair is attractively arranged. Those were ALL conscious fashion decisions by you. As was your decision not to smile. Conscious, political, and disingenuous."- FEH

     OK, why does everyone keep mentioning "sleeveless top"- what is so scandalous about a frigging tank top?? katha is also wearing a tank top in her photo- big deal! "attractively arranged"? Its thrown onto one shoulder! you think thats "fashionable"? better thumb through that Cosmo again and get on with the latest spring fashions my dear. And for a self professed "feh-branded feminist", your obsession with Valenti's looks and total disregard for anything she wrote is quite telling.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:20am

201. Since the subject of the Independent Women's Forum has come up, I'd like to reference Media Transparency's page [tinyurl.com] on it.

     "The Independent Women's Forum is neither Independent nor a Forum. Not independent because it is largely funded by the conservative movement. Not a forum, because it merely serves up women who mouth the conservative movement party line."

     Rather than being independent, it's leaders are mostly the spouses of high-ranking Republicans such as Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell. It gets the lion's share of its annual funding from Richard Mellon Scaife, a well-known neo-con sugar daddy.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 09:40am

202. Rather than lion's share, it would be more accurate to say about half.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 09:41am

203. ACOOK: Maybe committed couples in the Netherlands don't feel they must get married before starting a family together.

     FEH: Everything you said about the IWF is a complete lie. It is an ANTI-feminist organization. It mocks and seeks to obliterate feminism.

     "It's a feminism that fights to remove the constraints of gender based roles on everyone in society. It's a feminism that fights for gender free laws. It's a feminism that encourages women and men to achieve whatever they wish to achieve, free from gender based discrimination."

     That's funny. Jessica's feminism (and my feminism) is exactly that.

     It's a feminism informed by historical context. One that realizes how far we've come.

     It's a feminism that realizes that the majority of fathers were born AFTER Title IX, and that the vast majority of fathers have at least one daughter, and so it's a feminism that stops pretending that most men hate women when in fact most men are well aware of gender discrimination and fight to stop it.

     Most men fight to stop gender discrimination? Fathering a daughter does not turn men into feminists. If it did, we'd all be in a much better place; but it doesn't.

     It's a feminism that is pro-sex and it's a reality based and scientifically based feminism that refuses to pathologize men when they express their sexuality using many of the same behaviors we see in the animal kingdom that we have evolved from.

     What do you mean by "express their sexuality...?" Since when is, "They do it in the animal kingdom!" an excuse to treat one's fellow human beings as lesser-than? What are you even talking about - RAPE?

     It's a feminism that pays attention to science and just doesn't willy nilly postulate unscientific, untestable theories, or bash scientific studies or whole fields even that may disagree with some of the preferred interpretations of feminist theory.

     If only you'd actually give some examples of WTF you're talking about.

     It's a feminism that agrees that in a world with no fault divorce, that that needs to be accompanied by a rebuttable presumption of joint shared custody. It's a feminism that goes back to its roots and realizes that NOWs calls for sole custody are discriminatory, and hurt children and fathers.

     In a world with no-fault divorce, some divorces are NOT no-fault. When divorce is the result of adultery, or physical abuse, there should NOT be an assumption of equally shared custody.

     It's a feminism that realizes that if two people are completely shitfaced and cannot remember what happened the night before, then it is not the default assumption to assume a rape occurred and arrest the man. Why? Because women are sexual beings just as much as men, and if two people are completely shitfaced and got that way through their own efforts, than it is gender discrimination to assume a rape occurred.

     Good thing Jessica's feminism doesn't assume that drunken sex = rape. If one person who is completely shitfaced forces him/herself on another person, s/he has committed rape. If a person forces him/herself on a person who's shitfaced, s/he has comitted rape. It's really not that hard. You'd swear women were clammoring to report their regretted sexual experiences as rapes. Yeah right. "God, I wish I hadn't slept with him last night. I think I'll subject myself to additional scrunity and slut-shaming by accusing him of rape even though the chances of getting a conviction are slim."

     It is a feminism that strives to stop domestic violence, regardless of the gender of the initiator. It is a feminism that doesn't make claims that there are no false allegations of rape or domestic violence or child molesting, or that the rate of such allegations is so low as to be ignorable.

     See above.

     It is a feminism that believes strongly in Benjamin Franklin, who said that it is better that one hundred guilty go free than jail one innocent.

     How convenient for the rape denialists & apologists.

     It is a feminism that believes in free speech, and understands the solution to ugly free speech is not censorship, but is more free speech. It is a feminism confident in itself so as to encourage free speech and stop encouraging censorship.

     Can you point me towards the brand of feminism that endorses censorship?

     It is a feminism that demonstrates that women and men are equal in law and society.

     What does this mean? Demonstrates that women and men are equal? Men and women are NOT considered equal by society yet.

     And frankly, my name for that should be a liberal, progressive, feminism. But that's not what I read at Feministing and that's not what I read when I read Valenti excoriating a reader's misogyny because that reader remarked on her obviously chosen glare in her picture.

     So condemning misogyny is actually worse than misogyny. Got it. A feminist you ain't.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:46am

204. Posted by CRABWALK 01/08/2008 @ 07:37am

     Well Crabs a lot of us did protest at citizens meetings before prostitution was legalised in our state of Victoria commencing in about 1986 with further legislation introduced in the 1990's.

     It seemed to me at the time, as a young man with three small children - one boy and two girls then, that the law could have a moral didactic dimension. i.e. if the government says it is legal, is it not reasonable for my children as they grow up to equate that legality with moral acceptability? I gave a little impassioned speech along those lines at a local Catholic church at which the state attorney general and about 1000 anti as well as pro citizens rolled up. So we tried.

     There were a few reasons cited for decriminalising and regulating prostitution.

     Two that were mentioned in the report by Professor Marcia Neave, a brilliant female jurist, was the desire to get criminal elements out of the illegal industry and to get prostitutes off the streets and into safe government regulated brothels. Brothels that were required to pay licensing fees to the government and meet a range of health, building and management requirements.

     Professor Neave convinced the left wing government of the day that passing legislation, consistent with her report, (she was the Chair of the commission) would see the criminals out and the prostitutes off the streets.

     Today there are about 200 legal brothels in Melbourne and up to four hundred illegal brothels and many street prostitutes still ply their trade, more openly than ever, just out of the Melbourne CBD.

     Don't know how many times I've had very pretty young women, some younger than my girls, come up to me in a near the city street, early in the evening and ask for a cigarette. I don't smoke and use that as an excuse. But have often thought I should carry a few hundred dollars on me (I'm a credit card man) and give the girl the money and tell her to get off the streets for the night. The police do some raids but it doesn't seem to have reduced the numbers of girls. Some are there because they don't want to split their service fee with the brothel owners and hence make more money and others are so stoned out of their minds that brothels wouldn't want then scaring the customers off.

     My experience with trying to help one now 28 YO WL, who was involved with my son a few years ago, suggests that like her, many of the sex workers suffer from personality disorders such as Borderline PD and Bipolar PD. This makes them hyper sexual in the maniac episodes or phases but devastatingly depressed when the mood swings. That's when I get text msgs from "Destiny" at all hours of the night and morning telling me she is only shit and how ashamed she is etc and could I "lend" her some money to buy food for her and her ten year old profoundly deaf son; born when she was a heroin addict.

     So it's not all beer and skittles when prostitution is legalised.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 01/08/2008 @ 09:47am

205. Thanks for your work Jessica -- I look forward to reading more. I'm completely distraught by the "Obama surge" as I believe race will trump gender in this country. I wonder what type of paternalistic hopes voters are projecting onto Obama. Is he offering "hope" and "change" for a "good daddy" after 8 years of a "bad" one? Are we hoping that a newer, younger paternalism will rescue us from a bankrupt paternalism so that we can delay admitting women into the power equation? This reminds of something my father used to say -- "there's nothing wrong with a dictator as long as he's a good dictator". Are we just longing for that good daddy?

     Posted by markie at 01/08/2008 @ 09:49am

206. Hey HMAN....I think ZERO finally showed up-

     Posted by FEH 01/08/2008 @ 12:58am

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 09:52am

207. Posted by MARKIE 01/08/2008 @ 09:49am

     So they should have voted for Hillary ...to avoid charges of "paternalism"?!?!?

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 09:52am

208. markie- voters should be voting for their candidates according to their records and policies, not their gender or race. Your post is baffling- are you suggesting that the corruption in washington/politics is a result of "good daddy" and "bad daddy" politicians, as if female politicians are immune to corruption and poor decision making?? You turn sexism on its head and this is precisely what you get, and its just as offensive and stupid.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:10am

209. MASK You're one to talk about ZERO! You are certainly in the top five as far as number of posts on this thread....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/08/2008 @ 10:37am

210. To commenters who insist on remarking on my appearance, telling me to smile, or joke about whoring me out to their kids--thank you for reminding me how important my work is. The fact some people can't engage with women without bringing up the way they look is an important reminder to us all about the pervasiveness of misogyny and how necessary feminism really is.

     Posted by JESSICA VALENTI 01/07/2008 @ 1:36pm

     Jessica,

     Good job. There are always going to be idiots out there who think only men should have a place in running the world and that women belong barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Don't waster your time trying to argue with these folks. Their minds are closed to any logical points to the contrary of their thinking.

     These guys don't put themselves in others' shoes. If they did, they wouldn't be so crass. I wonder how some of these guys would respond to their posts if they were women. Ten to one they'd have different points of view. It would be a laugh if Karma came around and bit a few of these people in the ass in their next life.

     Then, there is Ann Coulter who is really a sexist redneck man in women's clothing. I have no idea how women can think that way, but then again, I don't know how people can get off on war either, but there are a lot out there who do. If war was on their front doorstep, once again, I think their point of view would change drastically. Everything is relative to ones present state evidently.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:41am

211. BTW, JM, I do commend you for helping your sons obtain condoms. It is another sign that you have liberal tendencies.

     A little more effort and you could come to the Side of Light.

     Posted by CRABWALK 01/08/2008 @ 08:08am

     Don't hold your breath on that one Sir Crab.

     This doesn't have anything to do with JM, but one thing that kills me is that it's fine for boys to be boys and be promiscuous and carry condoms just in case, but if girls get birth control they are considered whores. Nothing against the boys carrying condomes mind you, but why is it alirght for guys to go around trying to nail girls, but girls are supposed to wait until they tie the knot? What kind of B.S. thinking is this?

     I'd wager that about 99% of these "religious types" were out trying to get into bed with any girl they could when they were younger. Then, they were born again, and knew better....what a bunch of crap. Evidently we have a people posting here who suffer from selective memory.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:55am

212. WOLFGANG1, keep your eye out for a new book Jessica's working on about double-standards.

     There was a fantastic thread on the topic a few months ago (at her website, I mean).

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 10:57am

213. i went to school at unl for awhile in 94. while i was there, a professor in the sociology dept. spoke of a longitudinal study that found teen moms purposely chose to get pregnant because they were depressed and believed they were creating a constant source of unconditional love. i always wish i would have taken notes on who did the study and whether it was found to be valid.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 11:11am

214. LOVELOKI: That speaks to what I talked about before. Many girls think a baby will improve their lives.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 11:19am

215. Margaret Sanger, in 'Birth Control Review' 1921: 'The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.'

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/08/2008 @ 11:36am

216. Thanks for another excellent post.

     What are these conservative, sexist people doing reading The Nation anyway?

     Posted by calliehb at 01/08/2008 @ 11:53am

217. what's your point honestliberal? is it that sanger was a freak so we should outlaw all birth control? i've heard that one before. if that's the case why don't you choose a more "honest" blog name--theocracynow!

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 12:05pm

218. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 01/08/2008 @ 10:37am

     I think the point, ILP....that HMAN made too, was that ZERO would be all over (multiple posts) a thread on feminism, decidedly in the "negative column".

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 12:11pm

219. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 12:05pm

     As a matter of point, that's what the anti-contraception/"pro-lifers" DO think. Sanger was a racist, therefore anybody who supports contraception and abortion rights....is supporting "racist policies".

     Now...apply that same logic and say that since David Duke is a racist, and supports tax cuts...any support of tax cuts is "allying yourself with a racist!"

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 12:13pm

220. Oooh I'm gonna have fun with this one!

     LVLIBERTY1: [Your name is ironic. Do you realize what the word "liberty" means?]

     3 of my 5 sons were able to walk the walk and stay pure until marriage.

     As far as you know. Why is it considered "pure" to be sexually inexperienced? I'm not even saying experience is preferable to inexperience, but I hate that inexperience is conflated with purity. Why?

     My oldest son is the perfect example of how a man or woman can be happy and successful in life and relationships by doing the right thing.

     That is certainly true. Why "waiting for marriage to have sex" is considered "doing the right thing" is beyond me, though. Rape is morally wrong. Sexual assault is morally wrong. Having sex with a willing partner you're not married to is not wrong unless you're cheating on someone. It's like consent doesn't even enter the picture when you people decide what's "the right thing" and what's "the wrong thing."

     He remained a virgin until he married 2 1/2 years ago at the age of 33. He got multiple college degrees, served in Khazikstan as a missionary, and has a great career. He told me after his honeymoon that he is so glad he waited and that he married a woman who shared his values. They have a wonderful life and and beautiful family.

     That's nice. What does it have to do with other people's sex lives?

     Everyone has impulses and desires. That doesn't mean that we must act upon them. Here is a another reason why Christians and Orthodox Jews argue agains the liberal line of evolution. By portraying mankind as simply another animal in a line of animal linkage, you remove the "God created in His image" conclusion. Therefore, moral self-discipline and restraint in order to align with God and His moral standards to the evolutionist is simply an arcane and irrelevant argument. Man is free to act just like the animals and follow animal impulses.

     I know it terrifies you folks, but humans are animals. (I think this is why so many hard-core Christians are freaked out by public breastfeeding. It reminds them that we're mammals.) We are animals with conscious thought and the ability to use logic and reason. That's what separates us from other animals. If you can't imagine being an ethical person without an imaginary god threatening you to, then it's YOU who is morally bankrupt.

     Thank you for setting up the heart of the debate on the true root of morality; are we created to govern ourselves as children of a Holy and Righteous God; or are we simply animals who can and will do whatever our impulses lead us to do.

     That is a false dichotomy.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 12:35pm

221. Why is it when teenagers want to engage in sex, liberals chalk it up to "normal natural behavior" and think it is ridiculous to expect them to live up to a certain standard of behavior,

     yet

     when men exhibit normal, natural behavior of noticing a woman's looks, and maybe even *gasp* commenting on them, liberals all of the sudden want to enforce standards of behavior?

     Posted by usc1 at 01/08/2008 @ 12:53pm

222. LVLIBERTY1: It impossible for me to debate you logically when your entire belief system is necessarily illogical.

     Thanks for completely ignoring my responses in favor of moralistic preaching.

     Though I do have one question. Do you refuse to take anti-biotics or to get the flu shot?

     USC1: Here is the difference. Teenagers who engage in consentual sex are not hurting anyone. Men who dismiss women's words in favor of critiquing their looks are hurting those women.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:10pm

223. "It is not surprising given this that you cannot comprehend the value or significance of how or why moral self discipline matters."

     Moral self-discipline does matter. I never said anything to the contrary. My morals stem from basic human ethics, supported by reason. Yours do not.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:11pm

224. LL

     Evolution and its study is a science, not a religion. Further, the idea that we descended from lower animals doesn't require that one believe that there are no moral imperatives. One can easily infer them from the existence of human free will, which suggests a natural right to liberty, and the logic of restrains on that will that a society needs to function.

     The idea that one is in a moral vacuum if one isn't a Judeo-Christian is the type of chauvinism that makes me glad that the likes of Huckabee and what he represents won't get near being in the White House.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 1:20pm

225. I live my life through natural health practices and prayer.

     Worked well in the middle ages. Not.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:21pm

226. BRUNOWE: I thought my sign-off, "This is a false dichotomy," might get the point across. But I suppose I should have known better than to use reason in an argument with a wingnut, as they have no respect for reason, only blind faith.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:23pm

227. craney, luvstogiveuphisliberty is a fascinating case. any of the regular posters here could provide you with a different standpoint on his twisted mind. my personal favorite is when he said he wanted george bush to hunt down and especially kill the terrorists. he used the word especially right before the word kill. that was the moment when i began posting here. i had to comment on a four-square preacher who salivates at the thought of murder.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 1:23pm

228. Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 09:46am

     hey, thanks for dissecting FEH's answer to my question. frankly, i was too tired to even begin last night.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:32pm

229. LVliberty:: "My oldest son is the perfect example..." Listen, I'm glad your son has a great life and did all the wonderful things he did and that he is happy with his choices- but his lifestyle is not a lifestyle that would make everyone else happy- especially not me. You sound like all the reasons I left church and Christianity behind- preaching from your bully pulpit, like an inflamed Jonathon Edwards screeching "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", its your way or the high way isn't it?? I think Craney summed it up quite neatly, I don't see any point in elaborating on your reply to my post.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:33pm

230. "Interesting concept that you think it somehow immoral to want to kill someone who is trying to kill you rather than let them kill you." lvliberty:: someone once said "turn the other cheek"....crap, who was that? Its on the tip of my tongue... but no matter.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:35pm

231. We are animals with conscious thought and the ability to use logic and reason. That's what separates us from other animals.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 12:35pm

     whoa, nelly!

     just because a crow doesn't make an SUV, doesn't mean it doesn't think consciously or use logic and reason.

     perhaps arrogance is what separates us from the other animals.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:37pm

232. I used to think it was the ability to have compassion, sympathy, and love that separated us from the animals...unfortunately not all of us humans have any respect for these noble traits.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:42pm

233. Men who dismiss women's words in favor of critiquing their looks are hurting those women.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 1:10pm

     First, I didn't say anything about dismissing a woman's words.

     Second, WRT this thread, when JM made his comment on JV's looks, it was after he commented on her article. As he pointed out, no one mentioned his response to JV's post, just his compliment.

     Regardless, why are standards of behavior acceptable in one instance and not in another? Why not let "men be men."

     Posted by usc1 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:43pm

234. I live my life through natural health practices and prayer.

     Worked well in the middle ages. Not.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 1:21pm

     didn't really work well in the middle ages. people died really young. but we have learned a few things from their mistakes.

     perhaps prayer can be seen as serving the same role as meditation in maintaining health.

     it's great that we can treat horrible diseases with modern medicine, but the best thing to do is to not get sick. and from past conversations with lvliberty, it seems he understands the importance of eating and living healthfully.

     prevention is way better than cure.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:48pm

235. A few thoughts:

     LVLIBERTY1 mentioned two political systems as a way to criticize me - anarchy and majority rule. Meanwhile, his preferred system is rule by dictatorship.

     Empathy is foundational to a person's moral nature and tendency to make ethical choices. While fear of a god's judgment may have a small effect on some, and self-interest in terms of social pressure may have an enormous effect on all, the degree of empathy a person feels towards others is also a reliable motivating factor in a person's consistency in making moral choices. Morality doesn't have to come from religious formalities. It seems to best come from a healthy development of empathy.

     We all have the capacity to feel pain and happiness. We all want to avoid pain and increase pleasure and happiness. We also all know this is true of one another (empathy). This is enough to provide us both a compass for ethics/morality.

     An innate "moral sense" in the human species evolved through natural selection.

     Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice–all of these things, the things that hold society together, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis.

     The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain, which occupies a small region in the forehead, causes a diminished capacity for social emotions but leaves logical reasoning intact.

     Steven Pinker asked,

     "How can we tell which theory is preferable? A thought experiment can pit them against eachother. What would be the right thing to do if God had commanded people to be selfish and cruel rather than generous and kind? Those who root their values in religion would have to say that we ought to be selfish and cruel. Those who appeal to a moral sense would say that we ought to reject God's command."

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:48pm

236. Who decides what is a basic human ethic? Answer that one and you will indicate whether you line up with the majority rule or the anarchist school of moral relativism.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 1:22pm

     being nice works for me.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:49pm

237. You have heard of the idea of survival and self defense? Perhaps you ought to explore those terms in a good dictionary.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 1:32pm

     see, the problem is that THEY think YOU are trying to kill THEM, too.

     a feedback loop of blood.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:51pm

238. Crows do not possess consciousness, logic, AND reason.

     Please. Arrogant? I am not claiming that humans are "better" than any other animal. We are merely different.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:51pm

239. I used to think it was the ability to have compassion, sympathy, and love that separated us from the animals...unfortunately not all of us humans have any respect for these noble traits.

     Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 1:42pm

     and many animals have compassion, sympathy and show love.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 1:52pm

240. Who decides what is a basic human ethic?---- Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 1:22pm

     Woo, woo...I know! I know!

     A 1900 year old, politically edited work, easily interpreted to both support peace AND war, from a small bunch of Bronze Age male Eastern Mediterraneans, citing both their exaggerated youthful experiences with a mage and their tribal folklore morality?

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

241. frosty- so we're getting a little off topic...but, how do animals show compassion? I understand animals showing love, its very evident in a well-cared for pet,but compassion and synpathy? Another thing to take note of- domestic animals and wild animals behave very differently!! perhaps the influence of humans affect their nature? compassion, sympathy, and love are pretty lacking in the wild.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

242. Posted by MASK 01/08/2008 @ 1:55pm ::: NAILED IT!

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 1:56pm

243. Crows do not possess consciousness, logic, AND reason.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 1:51pm

     ever been a crow? so how do you know what a corvid is experiencing? humans tend to make intelligence tests for animals to see if the animal can act like a human.

     "[The Western scrub jay study] is some of the best evidence going that one animal can understand what another is thinking," he added.

     http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1209_041209_crows_apes_2 .html

     We have seen corvids "cache" food morsels in literally thousands of spots on our property, and have observed these same morsels being retrieved days later by either the same crow or raven or a "robber" corvid who saw the food being cached and decided to steal it. We have observed them as they drop walnuts from the sky onto asphalt surfaces to crack the shell. We have watched them fall in love, court, mate, and raise young, year after year. They are monogamous and young male and female corvids must pass many tests before being accepted by a member of the opposite sex for a lifetime commitment.

     http://www.fundwildlife.org/crows.html

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 2:00pm

244. compassion, sympathy, and love are pretty lacking in the wild.

     Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

     perhaps if you're a human looking for it in the human form.

     why does a seagull call his buddies to share the french fries if he could just gobble them all up for himself?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 2:08pm

245. LVLIBERTY1: I thought it'd be pretty obvious, but apparently you're not so bright. The fact that you root your values in religion is indicative of your preferred system. "God" is a dictatorship.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 2:16pm

246. Oh, and could you please re-write your last line (2:12) in English?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 2:17pm

247. Martin Luther King 3 April, 1968, at Mason Temple (Church of God in Christ, Inc. - World Headquarters)

     '...I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain! And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. And so I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. My eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord!...'

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/08/2008 @ 2:29pm

248. HONESTLIBERAL: What the fuck's your point. Doesn't take a genius to rely on quotations to do the talking for him.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 2:37pm

249. Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person

     Couldn't have put it better myself.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 2:38pm

250. Christopher Hitchens -- 'God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'

     '...There are four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking. ...

     The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made. Even the men who made it cannot agree on what their prophets or redeemers or gurus actually said or did. Still less can they hope to tell us the "meaning" of later discoveries and developments which were, when they began, either obstructed by their religions or denounced by them. And yet--the believers still claim to know! Not just to know, but to know everything. Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what "he" demands of us--from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words, in a vast and complicated discussion where we know more and more about less and less, yet can still hope for some enlightenment as we proceed, one faction--itself composed of mutually warring factions--has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we already have all the essential information we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough on its own to exclude "belief" from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted. ...

     I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition--which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing. As I write these words, and as you read them, people of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything....'

     Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/08/2008 @ 2:42pm

251. when a member of a pack of wolves dies, they mourn. they do not engage in their regular play for weeks and weeks. the omega female begins the play again when the mourning period is over. if she dies, they mourn for an extraordinarily long period of time.

     in the documentary "grizzly man," a group of grizzlies adopted that troubled man like he was their retarded child.

     i agree with ya frosty. we don't know much about animals. and most of what we think we know is probably wrong.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 2:46pm

252. Crows do not possess consciousness, logic, AND reason.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 1:51pm

     I'd have to disagree. They possess all three and the corvid family excels in logic and reason.

     Compassion is subjective but I'd have to say most animals in the wild exhibit compassion, as least as far as our limited human understanding of true animal behavior goes.

     But I'm no expert. I just know what I've seen.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 01/08/2008 @ 3:01pm

253. JOMAMMA, you come across as someone who was dropped on his head as a child.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:12pm

254. "have shared with others here over the past couple of years that I have my faith views and I have my views as an American citizen...you want to deny us our citizenship rights to contribute as somehow mandated to be linked with our faith beliefs." lv- I don't want anything of you lvliberty. But these statements do not jive with your earlier contentions that abstinence only education should be taught and not comprehensive sex ed, and I have noticed your posts before in other threads on abortion and your Christian self and American citizen self are practically indistinguishable. So, which way is it really lvliberty??

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:23pm

255. "why does a seagull call his buddies to share the french fries if he could just gobble them all up for himself?" - I don't know what kind of seagulls you hang out with Frosty, but all the ones I've seen only start squawking when he's gotta fight his "buddie" for the french fry I just tossed.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:24pm

256. Jomamma- I think you only shout out that Jessica is "hot" is because you simply love the outrage that ensues. But hey, if thats how you get your jollies I won't stand in your way!! and we know there are so many posters here who will unwittingly indulge you.

     Posted by JRO555 01/07/2008 @ 2:21pm

     You are, of course, correct...Jessica is...very average.

     How is that.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 2:37pm ::::::::::::::

     so which is it jomamma?? sincere compliment or just a ploy to rile up all the obviously sensitive posters on this thread?? You first call her hot for nothing more then the attention that it would gather, than admit Jessica is "average", and now you again say she's hot?? Make up your mind man!

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:28pm

257. JOMAMMA, you have no idea. All you know is my age because I revealed it yesterday.

     _____

     LVLIBERTY1: I notice you have not addressed any of the comments I've recently made.

     1. On sex education-I do not endorse public education to begin with. I encourage Christian families to home school or to enter private schools thus keeping them out of the subject and the debate.

     And what about non-Christian families? And Christian families who are not able to home-school their children or afford a private education?

     2. Abortion- while it is clear that I am against abortion, I have stated that I believe this fight must be waged to change hearts and not by legislating. Furthermore, because I hold like many others who are pro-life (ie Huckabee), I believe that this is central to what our Declaration of Independence states in holding that our lives our endowed by the Creator, not man. That since life is sacred, even as it took a long time to mature the nation to abolish slavery, it will not happen overnight that people value the infant in the womb as much as they do the right to pursue "lifestyle choices".

     Yeah, I'm suuuuure you're not a member of some anti-choice organization that lobbies to take away women's reproductive freedom.

     My differences in foreign policy are shaped to a great extent by:

     1. The recognition that as the supreme world power, we have an obligation to do what the UN has demonstrated itself incapable of doing in being an overall force for good in the world. Liberals and conservatives (and even within those ranks) may disagree on that or even what it means; but it that we have that status is undeniable.

     Wait a few minutes. Soon you'll be speaking Chinese.

     2. The threat of terrorism and it's implication not just for the US but the world has changed our foreign policy views whether we like it or not. Jihad did not come as a result of GW Bush and Republicans and it will not end because of a progressive Democrat.

     Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are more alike than you are different.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:51pm

258. "Feminism was hijacked decades ago and led directly to "Girls Gone Wild" videos."

     Feminism hasn't led to GGW videos. The pornification of our culture is not something feminists celebrate. It's misogyny wearing a "empowerful!" mask.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:53pm

259. lv- "The issues of enumerated powers as limiting on the Federal government and expansive towards state and local governments is keeping with the Founders philosophy of government." The Founders weren't some monolithic group, and soon after the revolution the differences were magnified. So which founders do you identify with- Jefferson and the Virginians, or Hamilton and the Federalists? Because I don't think both of these groups fit neatly into the above assertion. And the first half of your post again illustrates how you cannot separate your Christian self from your libertarian/republican self, they are knotted and intertwined and to pretend otherwise is just plain silly.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 3:54pm

260. What is the deal with porn, "girls gone wild"?? Isn't it obvious the real group being exploited are the men buying it??? Granted, female porn stars only cash in so much, the top earners are still the male producers in the porn industry but I would contend that the group that is exploited the most is your average male looking for some satisfaction.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:00pm

261. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/08/2008 @ 3:56pm

     What's your point?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:05pm

262. in the documentary "grizzly man," a group of grizzlies adopted that troubled man like he was their retarded child.----Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 2:46pm

     Then they killed and ate him and his companion.

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 4:06pm

263. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/08/2008 @ 4:04pm

     So how come the men themselves (whom you seem to think are naturally barbaric and exploitative) never get any criticism from you?

     Women are not responsible for men's bad behavior.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:06pm

264. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 3:40pm

     Yes, you guys need to understand that LVLIB takes St. Augustine and just war to a whole new level, by which the Christian can both "love thy enemy as thy self" and....."nuke the bastards!"

     BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

     3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.-----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 4:07pm

265. Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008

     You have GOT to be kidding me. Why, oh why, are men never expected to take responsibility for anything? You are constantly depicting yourselves as helpless, sex-obsessed idiots but it's FEMINISTS who hate men? Someone have a gun to your head when you buy your porn?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:08pm

266. Posted by MASK 01/08/2008 @ 4:07pm

     Wow, never realized....just a few more days and the "LVLIB Strategy For How We SHOULD Have Won The Korean War" will be a year old!

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 4:09pm

267. LVLIBERTY1: Earlier you expressed your opposition to public education. If public education were abolished, where would the NON-Christian children be educated?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:10pm

268. Frei- Girls Gone Wild is a special case- they're all spring breakers, mostly college students, acting like drunken retards. In this case, a lot of those girls are exploited. They aren't getting paid the rates real porn stars make (professionals, not amateurs) and they're in a very compromising situation. Regular porn though- all business as usual.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:10pm

269. they did not, mask!!

     :)

     they were hibernating. this poor poor troubled man videotaped a strange starved lone male grizzly, one he'd never met before. winter was setting in. he videotaped the poor bear for days. the bear kept looking over at him....a few hundred yards away. all the while the dumbass videotapes, at one point saying, "look how desperate he is, diving to the bottom of the lake in search of dead fish!" of course he ate him. if i was the bear, i wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:10pm

270. craney- I'm a female, and I actually don't buy porn, I'll search the net for freebies if I'm ever in the mood. Which is seldom, I have a bf who knows how to please.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:15pm

271. yes maasch, a new neighbor bear (singular) ate him. and when his girlfriend tried to stop him, he ate her too.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:19pm

272. good one, maasch

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:26pm

273. keep your eye out for a new book Jessica's working on about double-standards.

     There was a fantastic thread on the topic a few months ago (at her website, I mean).

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 10:57am

     Thanks. Do you know the title of the book?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:27pm

274. lvliberty- why would you want to separate Christians from non-Christians in schools? Isn't that just setting up future generations for even worse misunderstandings and violent clashing of ideas and politics?

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:27pm

275. Jomamma- You are just never gonna let go of the "hot" thing are you?

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:28pm

276. WOLFGANG1, I think it's something like, "He's a stud; she's a slut: 50 double standards" or something like that. Just google her or visit her website and do a search. :)

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:33pm

277. I love it when animals attack humans who mess with them. The boys who were attacked by that Tiger in CA had been shooting at it with a slingshot. Sure showed them!

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:34pm

278. Jomamma- You are just never gonna let go of the "hot" thing are you?

     Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 4:28pm

     Here's the thing about saying she's hot. JM disagrees with her and tells her she takes herself too seriously, and then proceeds to tell her she's hot.

     That would leave one to come to the conclusion that the positive JM sees in Jessica is her good looks, but not her brain power. If that's not derogatory, I don't know what is.

     I was just in the auto parts store Sunday when a guy saw my daughter and said, it's better to have boys than girls because the prettier they (the girls) are, the more expensive they are. Now I know the guy was trying to flatter my daughter and be funny, but all he managed to do was piss her off....and she's only seven.

     My point is that what one person may consider a flattering comment may be seen by another person as an insult. It's all from one's perspective.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:42pm

279. i think ms. valenti is incredibly beautiful. i think all of the nation writers are incredibly beautiful. i think most people i see are incredibly beautiful. if ann coulter shut her eyes so i couldn't see the seemingly bottomless abyss of illness, i'd think she was pretty too.

     by the way, ann (aka barry25, libzsuck, loonielibs and all your various blog names), did you have to pay extra to get your photo next to ms. valenti's thread?

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:46pm

280. great points as usual, wolfgang.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:47pm

281. great points as usual, wolfgang.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 4:47pm

     Why, thank you. Usually I just get yelled at, or actually typed at violently. It's nice to get some positive feedback now and then.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:53pm

282. my daughter turned 4 on sunday. yesterday, when i was getting her ready for school, her eyes welled with tears and she said, "i'm not pretty." she explained that her face was too squarish near her temples.

     this broke my heart and made me sick.

     there is something wrong with our obsession with looks.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

283. It simply would no longer be an issue if Christians were not in the public schools.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 4:18pm

     LVLIB, would that include public UNIVERSITIES too? No more Christians at Harvard, University of Georgia, U of Nebraska, Gonzaga, UCLA, Stanford, UNLV?

     Only Regent, Bob Jones, and Liberty?

     (I know Brigham Young U would be RIGHT OUT...right?....heheh)

     Posted by Mask at 01/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

284. i like the "typed at violently" wolfgang. that was funny.

     :)

     Posted by loveloki at 01/08/2008 @ 4:57pm

285. Who would yell at you? Unless these blog comment threads (of a left-wing publication) are typically populated by knuckle-draggers, in which case there is no hope for the world.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:57pm

286. "So rather than stay at each others' throats over it, Christians should provide their own education where they are free to follow the dictates of their own conscience." lvliberty- But isn't that what sunday school and bible study is for? Why can't you let kids attend both and draw their own conclusions?

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 4:59pm

287. Bingo, JRO555. You'd swear kids didn't have the opportunity to pray and learn creation myths at home/church. Why must every aspect of public life revolve around your particular brand of religion? Didn't Jesus condemn making a public spectacle of one's faith? Nobody's gonna stop your kid from silently praying to himself before a math test. But it's not the praying - it's the official endorsement of YOUR religion you're after.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:12pm

288. this broke my heart and made me sick.

     there is something wrong with our obsession with looks.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

     Well said.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:13pm

289. "And I also believe that by the time children are ready to attend a university or college, if their family fundamentals are sound, they will already have determined to a great extent what they believe on these issues and will choose their school accordingly."

     By "family fundamentals," do you mean "brainwashing?"

     Parents must instill their children with critical thinking skills. If they decide, on their own, that religious faith is bunk once they get to college, that's up to them.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:15pm

290. "vliberty- why would you want to separate Christians from non-Christians in schools? Isn't that just setting up future generations for even worse misunderstandings and violent clashing of ideas and politics?

     Posted by JRO555 01/08/2008 @ 4:27pm

     Because I don't believe there is a means of resolving the religious and political differences on issues like prayer, and evolution v creationism in the public schools. I agree with the left in some respects with this debate. So rather than stay at each others' throats over it, Christians should provide their own education where they are free to follow the dictates of their own conscience. "

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 4:39pm

     YES. When people are different, when people disagree, we should definitely segregate them. We certainly wouldn't want Christian boys and girls to be exposed to things that may cause them question their parent's religion. That would just be too horrible.

     Separation and segregation will certainly lead to rivalry and intolerance. What children learn in school is not just what is taught during class. It is also a social experience. I am atheist and my best friend is Christian. We will argue about it every once in a while...(I ask her how it makes her feel that, according to her religion, I am going to hell) but she is still my best friend. I have a friend who is Catholic, another who is Morman... If we went to different schools according to our religions, my best guess is that we would believe whatever we had heard or had been taught about those religions and the people who believe in them, since we lacked actual experience with people of different religions.

     Of course, its a bit difficult to speculate. I just firmly believe that segregation is rarely a good thing. On the day that evolution is taught to your kids, can't you just "set them straight" when the get home?

     "For those Christian families that keep their children in the public education system, they can opt out their children from the sex education classes. That is what my parents did with me and I did with my children."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 4:08pm

     Good idea. If I ever have kids, I'll make sure they don't have to be subjected to the abstinence-only BS that they typically feed kids in those classes. I'll just teach them what they need to know myself.

     I will make one short comment about the comment about Ms. Valenti's appearance. Here is what was originally said:

     "I think this Jessica is hot and I would advise my conservative oldest son to check her out!!!!"

     Now it seems to me, that if someone genuinely wanted to give her a compliment, as opposed to wanting to stir up trouble or attempt to reduce her to merely her appearance, you would have phrased it more politely. If I felt the need to compliment her appearance, I would have said something like:

     "By the way, I think you look very lovely in that picture."

     Not that I would be commenting on her appearance anyway, I'd be praising her intelligence and achievements...

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 5:15pm

291. YES. When people are different, when people disagree, we should definitely segregate them. We certainly wouldn't want Christian boys and girls to be exposed to things that may cause them question their parent's religion. That would just be too horrible.

     LOL

     That was awesome.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

292. People notice attractive and unattractive people..it is not PC, feminist, liberal or conservative..it is ..human nature.

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/08/2008 @ 4:22pm

     That's exactly what I was talking about when I asked my question, JM (which no one answered, BTW).

     You notice how attractive a woman is which is perfectly natural for you as a man and the liberals want to impose all sorts of standards of behavior on you (How dare you say she's hot!). Yet, when sex education comes up, they insist that teen's sexual behavior is natural and it's unrealistic to expect them to act in a certain acceptable manner.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:23pm

293. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

     Isn't suspending the teacher "dictating acceptable beliefs" (or however you put it)?

     And anyway, the teacher got suspended. S/he was punished. What more do you want?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:33pm

294. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

     It is not the state's problem that scientific fact interferes with your irrationally-held religious beliefs. Why should your beliefs be treated as some sacred cow nobody can touch?

     There is such thing as scientific consensus. They're gonna teach it in science class.

     Got a problem with that? Keep your kids ignorant.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:35pm

295. Jessica, great to have your well-articulated thoughts here at The Nation. I'm glad to have discovered you, and now will be a regular at Feministing as well.

     Posted by mosassy at 01/08/2008 @ 5:37pm

296. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/08/2008 @ 5:28pm

     Yes, let's continue to focus on little girls' looks at the expense of everything else. Constantly telling your daughter how physically beautiful she is will be just as harmful as telling her she's ugly. Either way, the message is that her looks are the most valuable thing about her.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 5:37pm

297. "I have seen children castigated and failed in junior high and high school classes for refusing to accept evolution as fact."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

     When? How? You were in the classroom and witnessed it or something? Was there a question on a test that said "Evolution is a fact. T/F?"

     "Yet, when sex education comes up, they insist that teen's sexual behavior is natural and it's unrealistic to expect them to act in a certain acceptable manner."

     Posted by USC1 01/08/2008 @ 5:23pm

     Having a sex drive IS natural. Having sex IS natural, even as a teen, though I personally would agree that high schoolers are too young to be having sex. However, I do expect teens to act in an acceptable manner. That is, that what they do, they do aware of the consequences and with the proper protection (for which both men and women are responsible). That they don't force or pressure others into doing acts that they don't want. Etc. etc. But I'm not going to try to dictate them that abstinence is the only "acceptable" option, nor will ridicule those who think it is best to wait for marriage, though I disagree.

     "LOL

     That was awesome."

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 5:21pm

     Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 5:38pm

298. MME

     Then why the abuse piled on JM? Maybe not you, but definitely others. Liberals should understand, then, that as a man he was acting "naturally" to notice JV's looks. They should simply accept that at face value and leave it alone instead of trying to impress upon him their PC BS opinion of what's acceptable to say to/about a woman.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/08/2008 @ 6:05pm

299. I'm reading George Bernard Shaw's "Man and Superman" and his "Don Juan" character, John Tanner, makes the cogent observation that in sexual relations there's a kisser and one who allows themselves to be kissed.

     Don't you think, fellow sexual beings, that our never ceaseless pendular interaction/intercourse with our opposite gendered cofreres affords greater opportunities than perils?

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/08/2008 @ 6:36pm

300. It is perfectly natural to "notice" a person's appearance. But you insist on bringing attention to it when it's not appropriate! Nobody can stop you from "noticing" something; but it is often inappropriate to vocalize your every thought.

     When y'all whine about being "PC" what you're really expressing is frustration about not being able to make sexist, racist, or otherwise offensive remarks to people without being called out on it. Dog forbid you have consideration for other people's feelings and experiences.

     I may "notice" that a man's wearing a toupee but it'd be insensitive and assholish to tell him.

     Am I supposed to believe you tell attractive female doctors they're hot? Your kids' teachers? If not, why not?

     The Internet affords people anonymity they don't otherwise have. That's why people like you feel free to say chauvenist (or racist, or xenophobic...) things you wouldn't otherwise say. Because you KNOW it's inappropriate.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 6:50pm

301. Posted by USC1 01/08/2008 @ 6:05pm

     It's ok to notice someone's appearance. Yes its natural to find people attractive. But do you have to say it simply because you thought it? You say everything you think? Maybe I see a man and think he's horribly ugly, but most would agree that it'd be very inappropriate for me to approach him and tell him that, or treat him poorly because of his appearance. Whether or not you agree, several people think that his comment was very inappropriate, especially the implication that he would recommend his son to have sex with her. Whatever his opinion he did not have to voice it.

     And anyway, it doesn't really make sense. When I debate with someone, I don't make a point and then say "BTW YOU'RE HOT." Where did that come from?

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 6:56pm

302. My apologies Craney I basically just repeated what you just said.

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 6:58pm

303. Shame on me? For what?

     The post about condoms was indeed two posts later, but all three were posted in the same minute, presumably as an addition to your previous post. And, the post by USC1 in between didn't even mention sex education.

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 7:53pm

304. lol christ on a crutch, we're still on this topic!?!??! I give you credit Jo, you milked this thing for all its worth. oh yes and I am just adding fuel to the fire by acknowledging it, so be it. I had the same presumption, perhaps you should clarify what the post :

     And having condoms with, of course...

     Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 1:25pm

     is exactly about?

     Posted by jro555 at 01/08/2008 @ 8:00pm

305. It's a mistaken presumption huh? A very reasonable one to make, I'd say, seeing how they were both posted in the same minute, leading one to think that the second was an add-on to the first. And seeing how you didn't clarify in your second, completely unrelated post just what exactly you were talking about. Who or what will have condoms for what?

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 8:05pm

306. So let me get this straight, you were advising everyone in this thread, most of whom I would bet are adults who already know about sex, that it wise to carry condoms with them at all times, in a poorly written sentence? With a "..." that was NOT intended to indicate that it was a continuation from something else?

     Oh ok. I think I get it now. Not.

     Posted by MMe at 01/08/2008 @ 8:20pm

307. MME, Craney

     Now, now. JM was just acting the way some men do. And that's OK. It's natural for a man to be attracted to a woman and even express it. I just wish you would stop expecting him to abide by your "standards of behavior." You need to be realistic. After all, he is a man and sometimes men do these things. It's normal and we shouldn't expect him to have to suppress those impulses. There's nothing wrong with them. In fact, it would be unnatural for him to have to ignore his "male" tendencies.

     As a matter of fact, maybe you could send him a pamphlet with the phone numbers of a few ACLU lawyers. At least, then, he'll have "protection" in the event that he follows his "natural" desires and expresses his attraction to a woman in a way that others may not think is appropriate.

     (At least, I think that's how the argument against "abstinence only" education goes)

     Posted by usc1 at 01/08/2008 @ 8:53pm

308. Evolution v creationism is not merely a sunday school subject. As I have stated before, it shapes the views on morality for society in general. It drives policy on issues like embryonic stem cells, homosexuality, and ultimately, the entire range of subjects deriving from the moral relativism that is taught in the public schools.

     The only problem with that argument is that it is the purpose of public education to teach basic science. The theory of evolution is science and creationism isn't.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/08/2008 @ 8:55pm

309. Christ on a cracker.

     After all, he is a man and sometimes men do these things. It's normal and we shouldn't expect him to have to suppress those impulses. There's nothing wrong with them.

     People like you call feminists man-haters when it's YOU who insist that men are unable to control themselves or show consideration for the feelings of others.

     Aren't conservatives supposedly all about "responsibility?" So why can't men take responsibility when they offend or insult women, and are called on it? Are you contrary just for the sake of being contrary?

     Are "natural impulses" only supposed to be repressed when it's women, or kids who want to fuck, having those impulses? Answer the questions I asked towards the end of page 8. Do you tell female doctors when you think they're hot?

     Should I let every thought I have, no matter how hurtful, materialize into spoken words just because it appeared in my head naturally?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 11:00pm

310. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 2:46pm

     Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/08/2008 @ 3:01pm

     thanks, posters.

     i know it was off-topic,

     when someone mentions human exceptionalism, i must intervene.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 11:31pm

311. I actually think that materialism and, in some cases, self image are what "force" both moms and dads to both work MTSPENCE05.

     Plenty of fulfilled men and women in america focusing on raising their kids right (i.e. one of them stays home), not on affording their next BMW. And, although I'm certain you can find examples of both parents struggling to put simple food on the table, I think that misrepresents reality in our country. Most two earner families in the US are by choice, not need.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/08/2008 @ 3:34pm

     i don't know if it's "most",

     but in our house, only i work. my wife is a full time university student.

     last year i made about $18,000 (sometimes it's more; sometimes less).

     we do just fine.

     you like beans and sweet potatoes?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 11:36pm

312. Feminism was hijacked decades ago and led directly to "Girls Gone Wild" videos. How's that working out for you?

     Posted by FREIHEIT 01/08/2008 @ 3:51pm

     by whom?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 11:37pm

313. I really can't believe I'm allegedly conversing with grown adults here. Some of you sound like children. Children expect to be permitted to say anything they damn well please to anyone they damn well please. But when little Sally yells "That lady is fat!" in a grocery store, mom & dad usually teach her that we don't say things like that to people because it's rude and can be hurtful. We all supress our natural thoughts every single day, because we live in a supposedly civilized society.

     Sometimes I get the natural urge to give men like you a knee to the groin. Should I do it?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 11:38pm

314. It is a resurgence of 7th Century religious warfare and cares not whether liberals believe that or not.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/08/2008 @ 3:40pm

     and it sure sells a lot of stuff'n'bombs'n'such...................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 11:39pm

315. If "raising your kids right" necessitates one parent (let me guess which one...) staying home, what is that parent supposed to do with his/her time when the kids are in school?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 11:40pm

316. It's 11:43 EST. I wonder what FREIHEIT is watching on cable television.

     Posted by craney808 at 01/08/2008 @ 11:42pm

317. Yeah, we're much more like our closest biological relations, primates, than different. Just like we humans are almost identical, yet so many point out different features as justification for splitting discord.

     "Why can't we just get along?" - Rodney King

     Indeed. Tolerance of differences is key. Tolerating another isn't synonymous with approving acceptance, friends.

     Posted by lewwelge at 01/08/2008 @ 11:42pm

318. (sometimes it's more; sometimes less).

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/08/2008 @ 11:36pm

     Hard to fathom! Do you pay rent or own? Got a car?

     Posted by Happy at 01/08/2008 @ 11:43pm

319. my daughter turned 4 on sunday. yesterday, when i was getting her ready for school, her eyes welled with tears and she said, "i'm not pretty." she explained that her face was too squarish near her temples.

     this broke my heart and made me sick.

     there is something wrong with our obsession with looks.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/08/2008 @ 4:56pm

     fuckin' humans..................

     my son (age 7) can't take whole wheat bread to school without being teased....................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/08/2008 @ 11:46pm

320. Hard to fathom! Do you pay rent or own? Got a car?

     Posted by HAPPY 01/08/2008 @ 11:43pm

     pay rent, gotta 2000 civic, made in canada, thank you very much. it's a five-speed, so by driving smartly, i use little gas. got high speed, got beans and sweet potatoes.

     we're happy. we go to the beach almost (i wish she didn't have to study so much, but she's a real brainiac) every week...............

     (the spiders were out it was so warm on sunday..............)

     pay for electricity ($50/month), phone, high-speed. and i buy belgian ales..............

     sure, sometimes it's "well we'd better wait to buy something or other", but later on we forget what we "needed".

     do need a new pressure cooker, though...................................

     local economy is decimated right now, so until my wife finishes this degree, we're stuck in the "land that rust shall inherit."

     oh, and i wish i had a garden, but the landlord's kids would squish it playing soccer......

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 12:00am

321. If "raising your kids right" necessitates one parent (let me guess which one...) staying home, what is that parent supposed to do with his/her time when the kids are in school?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/08/2008 @ 11:40pm

     i practice my bass or guitar and type.

     and clean.......................

     and make lunch, 'cause my son gets to come home 'cause dad's at home.

     it's fun.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 12:02am

322. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/09/2008 @ 12:02am

     Didn't just say you work, rather than stay at home?

     Posted by craney808 at 01/09/2008 @ 12:04am

323. Didn't just say you work, rather than stay at home?

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/09/2008 @ 12:04am

     i work in the late afternoon teaching music and play gigs (usually) during the evening.

     so, i'm the house maintainer (usually; cleaning's damn hard work!) 'cause i want help my wife succeed in her studies.

     ain't got much money (although we're rich by global standards..............),

     but i got time*.

     *right now. neither my wife's nor my schedule seems to have much of a pattern to it. oh well.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 12:17am

324. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/08/2008 @ 11:46pm

     well frosty, the thing that bugs me most about this situation with my daughter is she did it to herself. she is very honest. i asked her who said that about her looks. she said she did. i pressed her. i asked her, "did someone at school talk about what you look like." she said no. she critiqued her appearance on her own.

     i am careful not to even discuss appearance. i put emphasis on abilities, actions, behaviors....i did not have these sort of crises til junior high. puberty was when i struggled with how i looked.

     this is why i was so heartsick. i just don't understand how this could happen with a 4 year old.

     like your son with the wheat bread, my 9 year old son gets teased because he likes to bring lots of raw vegetables in his lunch.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 12:43am

325. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/09/2008 @ 12:43am

     ouch, that hurts...........

     at 4 years old, her ears are very wide open. kids (i remember myself doing it) overhear things and construe the strangest conclusions, oftentimes without even consciously understanding the link.

     she could be hearing t.v. heads, friends, relatives, complaining about appearance, and thus "mimics".

     i can understand your fear. being uncomfortable in one's body at any age is horrible, but so young.....

     as a parent (and loony leftist!), i bet you can understand the difficulty of finding a balance between giving your children what you know in your heart is right, and giving them what is accepted "normal" in their dealings with classmates.

     you know, dummin' down the lunch or letting them see the latest piece of hollywood tripe..............

     i think it's o.k. to talk about appearance in general terms, "you look healthy, your pants don't match your shoes........." in small ways, again to help give them a sense of "normalcy". (this sentence is kinda grasping at an idea, hope you understand).

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 01:07am

326. ya i do understand frosty. and i can relate to the struggle. i try not to get too uptight about it. the extended family loves to spoil the kids with the latest toys and videos. although i do put my foot down when it comes to fast food. they can have it once per month. i also educate the kids on the glutinous consumption of the u.s. and how that affects the rest of the world.

     my 9 year old did give up the raw veggies in his school lunch for a little while. but then he decided he could take the teasing and eat what he wants.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 01:41am

327. but then he decided he could take the teasing and eat what he wants.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 01/09/2008 @ 01:41am

     sounds like you're doing a good "job".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 01:46am

328. thanks frosty, right back at ya.

     Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 01:47am

329. LvLiberty: How is aggressive war, with the subsequent slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, in any way compatible with a Christian worldview? Shouldn't we rather suffer persecution at the hands of our enemies and look forward to the Kingdom of Heaven rather than striking back clumsily and savagely? Are you so confident that the United States has conducted itself as a "force for good in the world", or has it merely acted a lot like the Roman Empire, sprinkling the world with helpful technology and some cool ideas but also exploiting, enslaving, and creating a fair share of martyrs along the way? Do you not feel that the Crusades and the centuries of hostility between Christians and Muslims is a tremendous evil for which Christians are at least as culpable as Muslims? The remarkable sensitivity to the well-being of unborn children cannot be reconciled with the "war as first resort" bloodthirstiness of many "Christian" conservatives. To me, it is an absurd and blasphemous contradiction.

     Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/09/2008 @ 01:55am

330. Craney

     I think you missed the underlying point in my post.

     Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2008 @ 03:36am

331. Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person

     quit whining about your taxes.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:28pm

332. Posted by AARONTARAS 01/07/2008 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person

     right you are. this progress was made by feminists. they changed the script.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:30pm

333. Posted by JRO555 01/07/2008 @ 3:10pm | ignore this person

     you cannot teach abstinence. it's not like math or social studies. you cannot teach dieting either.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:33pm

334. They reinforce gender stereotypes and give men and women little credit.

     Posted by CRANEY808 01/07/2008 @ 4:11pm | ignore this person

     folks, it's COMEDY. dads have most of the power, so of course they are the butts of jokes.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:36pm

335. And I can whip up one hell of a pot of chili.

     Posted by USC1 01/07/2008 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person

     and this is your culinary zenith? whattajoke.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:41pm

336. you like beans and sweet potatoes?

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/08/2008 @ 11:36pm | ignore this person

     add turkey, it's very cheap and plentiful. also try chicken backs, they are tasty and very very cheap.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 12:46pm

337. add turkey, it's very cheap and plentiful. also try chicken backs, they are tasty and very very cheap.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 12:46pm

     hey thanks.

     i haven't eaten meat for about 8 years.

     last time was in mexico when my wife was 8 months pregnant. we ate a whole chicken, tortillas, rice, chiles...............

     won't do that again.............................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 1:01pm

338. Then they killed and ate him and his companion.

     Posted by MASK 01/08/2008 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person

     he had no companion.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:04pm

339. We have watched them fall in love,Frost

     anthropomorphizing that goes too far.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:07pm

340. Most two earner families in the US are by choice, not need.

     and how do you know that Friehiet?

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:11pm

341. anthropomorphizing that goes too far.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 1:07pm

     no, i don't think it's that at all. as neither you nor i have been a whale, for example, how are we to know what whale reality is?

     or what goes on in the whale's "mind" and "heart"?

     i don't try to ascribe human characteristics to animals.

     humans SHARE many traits with animals.........................

     do a (usually) monogamous pair of cardinals simply pass life on auto-pilot?

     "food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck"

     somehow, i just doubt it.

     starling grammar? [nytimes.com]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 1:21pm

342. i don't try to ascribe human characteristics to animals.

     of course you did. "they fell in love". I mean humans didn't have that concept of falling in love until fairly recently.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:23pm

343. and this is your culinary zenith? whattajoke.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 12:41pm

     No. But you should try it. It's OUTSTANDING!!!

     Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:34pm

344. Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 1:23pm

     that was a cut'n'paste.

     see -- http://www.fundwildlife.org/crows.html

     pickity pick all you like, we're just another animal.

     we may be able to connect pipes to make an internet,

     but that doesn't mean a bird cannot experience emotions.

     you just don't know.........................

     dissection, etc., is only looking in from the outside and is not the experience.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 1:35pm

345. "food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck"

     Aaah. The perfect day...:)

     Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

346. BRANNIGAN:

     humans SHARE many traits with animals.........................

     "food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck"

     Aaah. The perfect day...:)

     Posted by USC1 01/09/2008 @ 1:36pm

     see what i mean?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 1:44pm

347. pickity pick all you like, we're just another animal.

     no we're not. the fact that we can have this discussion puts that myth to lie.

     the statements glibness makes it pretty meaningless.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:55pm

348. "food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck, food, sleep, fuck"

     yes, it's an outrage. it should be: food, fuck, sleep, fuck, food, fuck, sleep, etc

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:58pm

349. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/09/2008 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person

     de gustibus...

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 1:59pm

350. this is an answer to the poster who mentioned the photo of the buxom young woman featured in advertisements on The Nation in the discussion about Ms Jessica.

     it's really a matter on context. the buxom woman is featured as titillation, pun definitely intended. she has no other dimension. Jessica, of course is featured as a thinker and a writer.

     and that is why the troglodyte commentary on her looks is so insulting. they are trying to reduce her to her appearance, to make her less.

     Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 2:08pm

351. great post!! Women, or men for that matter,who don't respect themselves enough to demand equality, aren't worth having. To some, ignorance is truly bliss.

     Posted by cwilsondrum at 01/09/2008 @ 2:25pm

352. no we're not. the fact that we can have this discussion puts that myth to lie.

     Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 1:55pm

     if that's the case, what are the budgies doing when they chatter away?

     what are they doing?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 9:40pm

353. There are three areas of this discussion where poor arguments seem to have unfortunately dominated.

     The first is the discussion on attractiveness, where the debate seems to have been two ships passing in the night. Was the comment inappropriate? Yes. Can it be understood as straight-up mysogyny, on its own? I think that's a little bit of a stretch, though it's also true that Jessica's arguments should absolutely be engaged in their full substance (which, though I disagree with the broadness of her claims, is well-spoken and well-thought-out).

     The second area is the discussion on religion. Two things, I think, are really important to note. First, from posters other than LvLiberty, I'm unfortunately seeing a huge number of strawmen against Christianity. Even if you believe that LvLiberty holds all of the beliefs that you attribute to him, it is unfair to presume from that that any adherent of Christianity is committed to them. Second, I really don't think his argument regarding morality has been addressed effectively.

     His claim, if I'm reading his argument right, is clearly not that one must be religious to be moral, or anything like that. What he's saying is that the existence of objective moral claims, claims that are true regardless of whether any person or majority of people accept them to be true, is contingent on the existence of God. The only response that has been made is that "people can cooperate with each other because they realize that they have similar, therefore it's wrong not to." But where does that jump come from? How do you get that normative claim from the descriptive claim before it?

     What's really important to realize here also is that Liberty's position doesn't have remotely the dictatorial nature that's ascribed to it, since it doesn't automatically entail Divine Command Theory anyway. Even if it did, though, the "but what if God commanded bad things?" argument is a non-starter since that would be a contradiction with God's nature as otherwise understood.

     The third and final area, somewhat related, is the issue of religion and the public square. I think it's a little disturbing that some here are very willing to establish the current scientific consensus (though there is dissent, I think it's fair to say that the theory of evolution is very well-supported by the scientific community as a whole) as dogma that no reasonable person should be able to disagree with. Though students should certainly be taught the theory of evolution in the depth that it deserves, they should certainly not be compelled to affirm it as absolute and unquestionable truth. I also don't think that isolating Christians and non-Christians through home-schooling is viable for any kind of unified society; we have to learn the ability to actually live together, unless we also intend to continue that kind of segregation when the kids graduate and move on with their lives. Complete disengagement with society just doesn't seem either viable or appropriate.

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2008 @ 10:12pm

354. On Jessica's arguments, the wording should be "ARE well-spoken," not IS. Apologies for lack of grammatical agreement...

     Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2008 @ 10:12pm

355. How do you get that normative claim from the descriptive claim before it?

     The idea of natural law is that there is a certain intrinsic morality that applies across human cultures. Elements of that morality can be inferred from watching universals in human behavior and attributes. The fact that humans generally have free will and can function as moral agents substantiates the idea of inherent liberty and equality. The social cooperation that exists even on the level of the most primitive societies supports the idea of certain intrinsic social norms. One may also infer norms from the idea that certain elements of human psychology stem from evolutionary imperatives.

     Though students should certainly be taught the theory of evolution in the depth that it deserves, they should certainly not be compelled to affirm it as absolute and unquestionable truth.

     I don't know how much of that is actually happening. It is necessary that children be taught basic science and that there is a scientific consensus that exists regarding the basic elements of that theory. Excluding "intelligent design" (creationism in disguise) is based on the fact that it isn't science, and is therefore not appropriate to teach in a science class.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/10/2008 @ 11:03am