Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week Mexico City unveiled women-only buses as a way to battle the increasing sexual harassment on public transportation.
Some men treat women so badly that the subway system has long had ladies-only cars during rush hour, with police segregating the sexes on the platforms.But that hasn't helped women forced to rely on packed buses, by far the city's most-used form of public transportation -- until this week.
Acting on complaints from women's groups, the city rolled out "ladies only" buses, complete with pink signs in the windshields to wave off the men.
Pink signs, huh? I'm all for safe spaces for women, but is segregation really an answer to sexism? I've written about this trend of women-only spaces before, most recently for The Guardian, and I still fail to see how this is anything but a temporary solution to a systemic problem.
There's no doubt the harassment women face in public spaces needs to be addressed - whether it is on the street, the train, or even the internet. We've been subjected to regular catcalls and groping for far too long. But while the idea of a safe space is compelling, this international trend - which often comes couched in paternalistic rhetoric about "protecting" women - raises questions of just how equal the sexes are if women's safety relies on us being separated. After all, shouldn't we be targeting the gropers and harassers? The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them.Betsy Eudey, director of gender studies at California State University, says that while some single-sex environments could be beneficial - locker rooms where people are expected to be naked are an obvious example - she finds that "segregated spaces only enhance division by sex, and prevent the necessary actions needed to make public spaces safe and welcoming to all".
The Nation's own Katha Pollitt, in an interview for this article, said that she doesn't think that the rise of women-only spaces will excuse society from confronting harassment and violence, but instead offer a small respite for women in a male-dominated world.
"Obviously, there would never be enough women-only space to accommodate all women all the time - half the subway cars or half the hotels…Women-only space is just a little breathing place for a few women every now and then."
I'm pro-breathing space, but I have larger concerns as well. What happens when a woman is groped - or worse - in a train car that isn't women-only? Will she be blamed for not taking advantage of the "safe" space provided? (After all, women are all too used to being blamed when it comes to assault, questioned as to why they were out on their own/wearing a short skirt/drinking.)
If we're going to make women safe, let's make them safe everywhere - not just in designated areas.
RIO -- Why is engendered rendered for irony? Why do you spend so much time at TheNation.com? Please send the women in your life, if any, my sympathy.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/28/2008 @ 11:33pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/28/2008 @ 11:33pm
PETER, he's an angry old cowboy from Alice, Eagle Pass, Kingsville, etc. who rails against "Demoncrats" and "sek'lar regressives"...and can't offer a single thing worthwhile to any debate.
He even contradicts himself...wanting to diss Obama so much that...he put him FIRST over Hillary in a pejorative, who he hates even more.
We all (who have figured out his uselessness here) laugh at the old geezer and don't take him seriously.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 11:40pm
Onto topic....segregated areas is foolish.
And it's an atavism that plays to the ancient tribal notion of keeping the "women-folk" separated to protect them. After all, don't want some guy copping a feel at the beach, the answer ISN'T to go there wearing a burkha.
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2008 @ 11:42pm
One don't suppose this is how Islam started segregating women? Guys groping or up-skirting women on camels? And no unaccompanied (by male relative) women where they just might, encounter strangers?
Maybe it's just the hot-blooded nature of Latino males! I get a kick at an occasional peek at Spanish TV's dramas....dripping with sexuality and big boobies!
Posted by Happy at 01/28/2008 @ 11:53pm
I feel that todays brand of feminism is counterproductive in that instead of imploring men to treat women with respect, rather culturally makes it acceptable or even encouraged to mimicking men's behavior. (i.e. Any display of chivalry on the part of men is viewed by feminists as an attempt to show superiority or ownership).
Posted by Sliver at 01/28/2008 @ 11:54pm
Maybe it's just the hot-blooded nature of Latino males! I get a kick at an occasional peek at Spanish TV's dramas....dripping with sexuality and big boobies!
Posted by HAPPY 01/28/2008 @ 11:53pm
I took 3 years of Espanol many years ago, but they just talk too fast for me at this point. So...I just mute the audio...and my wife knows exactly what I'm up to.
Posted by Sliver at 01/28/2008 @ 11:56pm
The onus should be on men to stop harassing women, not on women to escape them.
This is "one" of the reasons that irks me when I see feminists blindly supporting Hillary Clinton. Don't they understand that she has protected and defended Bill instead of punishing him for his sexual harassment and abuse of women in the workplace?
And taking advantage of a star-struck female intern? If I were Hillary I would take that blue dress and rub Bill's sperm stain in his face "in public" and then make him apologize to every woman he meets for one year before even considering staying married to such a pervert.
It is absolutely disgusting that feminists ignore this blatant violation of women and not hold Hillary's feet to the fire!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/29/2008 @ 12:00am
well, well.
i lived in "la ciudad de méxico" for some time.
i sure was envious of women as i was squished into the morning rush hour subway cars as the women down the platform strolled into the less populated "female" cars.
but i also understood why. and i sure saw why on unsegregated subway cars and buses.
it's kind of like putting clove oil on an abscessed tooth.
of course we should all be treated equal, but to change a society (or for that matter "the" society that globalization is increasingly creating) overnight is impossible, and the women i spoke with there were certainly glad, and yet saddened, by having a "safer" option.
i guess the key to equality* is education. not just numbers and letters, but also respect and understanding of those around us who are different than ourselves (i.e. everybody else).
*an impossible goal. how about respect and appreciation of differences instead of fear or belittlement?
funny thing, i was groped, touched and harassed on mexico city buses and subway cars, too. by women**.
**as frank zappa said, "ladies, you can be an asshole, too"
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 12:09am
There is a question as to exactly WHAT todays women have DONE to "engender", earn, garnish ANY favored respect from men? That answer is an easy NOTHING!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/28/2008 @ 11:13pm
well, rio, that is the stupidest thing you've ever typed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 12:11am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/29/2008 @ 12:39am
none of that.
it's just stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 12:43am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/29/2008 @ 12:50am
nope. it was just plain stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 01:16am
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/29/2008 @ 01:16am
been sharing the bong with rio?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 01:32am
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/29/2008 @ 01:34am
well, exporting neo-liberalism to mexico sure has caused a lot of mexicans to export themselves.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 01:40am
Forget Orwell.
This one calls for Jonathan Swift.
Posted by sloper at 01/29/2008 @ 06:18am
Women's-only buses are at best a halfway house for a patriarchal society that needs to give its men a time-out.
I liked what you said about equality, "Frosty"!
"i guess the key to equality* is education. not just numbers and letters, but also respect and understanding of those around us who are different than ourselves (i.e. everybody else).
*an impossible goal. how about respect and appreciation of differences instead of fear or belittlement?"
The biggest pitfall with equality is the assumption that treating everybody equally means treating everybody the same. Nope! People in wheelchairs want ramps, not steps. Women get pregnant, and then they have needs that men don't have. Treating women equally doesn't mean treating them like men; it means means giving equal respect to their differing needs. If we do respect everyone's needs, even the needs of those whom we disparage as "needy," then we make everybody more independent -- and the result is that all of society benefits.
It has been alleged that Latinos have a "hotter" sexual temperament than Northerners. To the degree that this is true (and please watch your step around stereotypes like this), what is required is the proper social courtesy that makes sexual proposals and rebuffs clear and easy to communicate, which empowers not only men but also women to say, clearly and unambiguously, "sí" or "no."
We are still working on developing this system of egalitarian sexual courtesy in our allegedly frigid and puritanical, in reality surprisingly fast and loose Anglo society, in which not too long ago we mistakenly assumed that politeness was only another barrier to everybody's freedom that we needed to overcome. Ah, but politeness, you see, the right kind of egalitarian politeness that would enable us to share all of our spaces with others, this at last would make women's-only buses no longer necessary.
Posted by JakobFabian at 01/29/2008 @ 07:49am
I must confess that She Who Will Not Smile makes a point I agree with here: Protecting women and segregating them from the leches of the world isn't the way to bring the sexes together. A little better upbringing concerning respect for women, a little less feminist nonsense and a government sponsored self defense program for young girls might go a long way to improving the situation all around.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/29/2008 @ 08:49am
"and a government sponsored self defense program for young girls might go a long way to improving the situation all around."- I was thinking the same thing Chip. Self defense, karate, jujitsu or a comparable martial arts should be taught. Great exercise, good practical skills, and also much is learned in the way of respect and self control. Matter of fact, young boys can learn much too, they should all take the class with young girls also (see? no segregation either!)
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 09:07am
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 01:45am
read this and you will see that latin america is not necessarily being "freed" from u.s. intervention, but, like much of the world is seeking ties elsewhere:
Waving Goodbye to Hegemony
By PARAG KHANNA
Published: January 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=2&ref=magaz ine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
eight pages of the newer world order (much of it lying directly in the lap of bushco.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 09:21am
Yes JRO555, I agree. In addition to the self defense skills, many of the programs teach mental dicipline, and lets face it, men are generally the more aggressive of the sexes when it comes to this issue. We also have the bigger egos, so being taken out publicly "by a girl" might have the desired effect that years of neglect in teaching manners failed to instill.
Its also true, I guess, that men regard advances as "unwanted" much less than women do. Difference between us, I guess. For example, in Michael Crichtons movie "DISCLOSURE" with Demi Moore, I was never quite sure what Michael Douglas's problem was! Heh Heh :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/29/2008 @ 09:25am
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 12:01am
Is this true? Ms Valenti is a Hillary supporter?!?!?
(or is it "Never Met A Feminist I Liked" ZERO babble?)
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 09:45am
Women's-only buses are at best a halfway house for a patriarchal society that needs to give its men a time-out.
actually, mexico is far more matriarchal. sure the men posture and control the power on a macro scale, but just as "all politics is local", so is a society, and in a most mexican households, mom is in charge (despite statistics and stories of spousal abuse, also common). and now more than ever with many of the men living in the u.s. trying to feed their families.
madre [mother] in mexican spanish has many special meanings beyond just the baby maker. madre is an indefinable quality of righteousness, as in ese güey no tiene madre [that fuckhead has no "mother"]. it doesn't mean he is motherless. it means he has no morals or principles. the better translation is "that fuckhead doesn't give a fuck about anything".
a madrazo means a severe blow as in "hillary clinton sufrió un madrazo en carolina del sur" [hillary clinton took a nasty blow in south carolina.
"me vale madre" [it's worth "mother" to me] meaning "i don't give a fuck"
I liked what you said about equality, "Frosty"!
thanks. just trying to follow the lead of the "mentors" like mlk or gandhi or jesus or el ché.
The biggest pitfall with equality is the assumption that treating everybody equally means treating everybody the same. Nope! People in wheelchairs want ramps, not steps. Women get pregnant, and then they have needs that men don't have. Treating women equally doesn't mean treating them like men; it means means giving equal respect to their differing needs. If we do respect everyone's needs, even the needs of those whom we disparage as "needy," then we make everybody more independent -- and the result is that all of society benefits.
yep. we must relish our differences. what kind of band has five lead guitarists. no bass, no groove.
It has been alleged that Latinos have a "hotter" sexual temperament than Northerners. To the degree that this is true (and please watch your step around stereotypes like this), what is required is the proper social courtesy that makes sexual proposals and rebuffs clear and easy to communicate, which empowers not only men but also women to say, clearly and unambiguously, "sí" or "no."
despite stereotypes, i found mexicans to be far more conservative in their sexuality than here up north.* far more. and the higher you go in terms of altitude, the more closed the society becomes. perhaps that's why tourists (who principally visit the coasts) think mexicans are horny, out of control sex-machines**
We are still working on developing this system of egalitarian sexual courtesy in our allegedly frigid and puritanical, in reality surprisingly fast and loose Anglo society, in which not too long ago we mistakenly assumed that politeness was only another barrier to everybody's freedom that we needed to overcome. Ah, but politeness, you see, the right kind of egalitarian politeness that would enable us to share all of our spaces with others, this at last would make women's-only buses no longer necessary.
after having lived in mexico for about ten years without a television, i was SHOCKED by the blatant in-your-face-wonderbreadization of sexuality in the north. either i had forgotten or had never realized how tacky it really was.
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 01/29/2008 @ 07:49am
*i like to think of north america as a giant ham sandwich: mexico and canada are the bread (mexico -- whole wheat; canada -- wonderbread) and the u.s. is the ham.
**after all, james brown was american.
a final note: i was raised by two british emigrés (i'm first generation canadian, whatever that means) who taught me many, many great things. yet i only truly opened up my heart after having spent so much time in méxico.
if it hadn't been for that experience, i doubt i would be posting here as "frosty zoom". it would more likely be under the name of "angry liberal" or "fuckubush".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 09:49am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/29/2008 @ 08:49am
An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. -- gandhi
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 09:50am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/29/2008 @ 09:50am : are you suggesting self defense is "an eye for an eye"? self defense is the avoidance or the halting of a threat against ones well being- hardly like the vengeful underpinnings of the retaliatory phrase.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 10:17am
"*i like to think of north america as a giant ham sandwich: mexico and canada are the bread (mexico -- whole wheat; canada -- wonderbread) and the u.s. is the ham." - interesting analogy! Could you explain more?
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 10:19am
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/29/2008 @ 10:27am :: there is some feminist activism happening in the middle east. I donate regularly to RAWA (revolutionary alliance of women in afghanistan), and there are other sister groups in other mid east countries. I read a book called "Lipstick Jihad" not too long ago, not the most eloquently written book but it was interesting nonetheless. The most important thing I took from it is that Iran is not as backwards as we (America) would like to think it is.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 10:35am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/29/2008 @ 09:50am
Posted by JRO555 01/29/2008 @ 10:17am
Yeah, sorry, FZ...did I miss where you said you are an abject pacifist?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 10:38am
I don't like this plan--it's really going to cut into my ability to grope women on the bus.
Posted by bransby at 01/29/2008 @ 10:47am
It's really pretty simple: in mexico is it illegal to grope and harass women? If the answer is yes, then the authorities need to enforce the law, and men need to understand that what they are doing is wrong.
Acting within the confines of societies laws isn't a male or female thing, it's what everyone needs to do in a civil society.
Posted by jaguarxjs at 01/29/2008 @ 11:07am
FROSTY,
Good Morning,
Gandhi may well have been right, although its been my experience that some people will take advantage of you for as long as you allow it.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/29/2008 @ 11:17am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/29/2008 @ 11:17am:: now hold on folks, self defense is not revenge. If anything, it is the prevention of any such misgiving or crime that would later entice one to partake in revenge, or "an eye for an eye" kind of retaliation. Simply stopping someone from hurting you in the first place is hardly grounds for stating "an eye for an eye".
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 11:30am
I know JRO. I wasn't advocating that. Only standing up for oneself.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/29/2008 @ 11:36am
Ok Chip. But it seems FZ was stating otherwise with his Gandhi quote.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 11:01am
So, perhaps the answer is safely tucking "the girls" away in nunneries, until their fathers marry them off and then they could safely be escorted out of doors and fall under the protection of their husbands?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 11:56am
Darin, yes I noticed that....
"Laws are only enforceable if they have broad public support. Apparently, the culture doesn't care so why should the law? The only solution is to change the cultrue."----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 12:15pm
So, if say a law BANNING ABORTION has no broad public support...you have to change the culture before you attempt to pass it, right?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 12:36pm
Sorry, Jessica, but nothing in the link you provided indicates that the pink-sign busses are anything but temporary (granted, nothing indicates they're not permanent, either). It is a sad commentary on the entitlement mentality many men have, but considering that not long ago, tourists were being robbed and even shot by crooks in VW Bugs painted to match Mexico City cabs, well one can hardly blame the authorities for providing even a meager port in a storm. And sure, the onus is on men to change. Got anything else we already know to tell us?
Posted by DP in TC at 01/29/2008 @ 12:46pm
There is virtually no support for banning all abortions.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 12:45pm
And....WHY is that?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:16pm
Okay, that's a keeper....
"Beyond family planning, I sometimes suspect that the "critique" of women and men in Latin America that emerges from white American feminism has partially a basis in a deep-seated discomfort with overt heterosexuality."----Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 1:15pm
ZERO finally said it...."American feminists hate hetero sex" (and of course the sub-tex "and are probably lesbians!")
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:18pm
"Self defense classes are good exercise, but these classes won't make a difference in all but a very few instances...As a former college HWT wrestler self defense classes aren't going to stop me from groping 999 out of a 1000 women."- Mary, self defense classes aren't about going head to head with your assailant. First they teach how to avoid the situation altogether- i.e. don't travel by yourself if it all possible. Second, they teach how to escape your assailant, not how to fight him. Breaking grabs, sounding an alarm for help, focusing on vulnerable areas (eyes, groin, etc), and running away. jujitsu goes a step further, teaching pressure points, throws, and pins. I do not question your wrestling prowess, but I think self defense classes cannot be so easily dismissed.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:20pm
I've watched my nieces & nephews take karate classes for years. Brute force is not in the game plan. Rather, the instruction involves obtaining maximum result with minimum effort, and can be very effective if understood and used by someone lighter & less muscular.
Hmm.. Maximum result for Minimum effort-kind of the exact opposite of how Governments function, eh? Ha HA!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/29/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 1:55pm
Okay, explain IN DETAIL what "has partially a basis in a deep-seated discomfort with overt heterosexuality" means then?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by Zero @ 3:35pm
Hey that's kind of funny in a compare and contrast sense.
Here's my post from another thread at almost exactly the same time:
You know the very definition of "blog cowardice" is attacking somebody you have on Ignore....like Frank Grits does.
Though I realize it's mostly just being pissed off because I was right about Edwards tanking and no excuses for it.
~Maskot @ 2:59pm
Called your bluff, bozo.
You're a waste of time to bother responding to in the vast majority of cases, Maskot.
In your own doggy mind, it's always heads I win, tails you lose.
I only respond to you when I feel like playing the drums on your head. It's easy to make musical arguments when your opponent is so hollow.
But keep on baying you bumpkin beagle from the backwoods of 'Bama. You are beloved --by some, but not Katrina apparently-- for your ubiquitous bastardizations and curmudgeonly ways.
Perhaps I'll return with a chew toy on my next visit here ;-)
By the way, I've said it before and I repeat it again, I don't put anyone on my ignore list except Rese on occasion to reduce scrolling time.
~B_KOOL_66 @ 3:38pm
--Sometimes I think about responding more like Zero's post to Maskot, but then I come back to the basic reason why blogging is enjoyable. It's all about the entertainment and joy of purely written communication. And it can be a fine exercise in emotional management as well.
I find, in typing up responses, that any traces of vitriol are evaporated by the very process of crafting responses.
And the most important fact to keep in mind is that we are all human beings who are primarily just the products of our genes and environment. Which is a great reason for all of us to expand our experiences, and also a great reason to harbor no real hatred for your neighbor --no matter how stoopid they are.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/29/2008 @ 4:20pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 3:35pm
So, the main "problem" American feminists have is...."Puritanism"?!?!?!
They're sexually repressed due to the theocracy and fundamentalism from the 1690s (or even the Victorian Era)?
And that's why they "have a problem with" women getting unwarrently felt up and sexually harassed in "Latin countries"?
That's your theory?
Really?
You're serious?
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 3:35pm :: I'm not sure I follow. Wouldn't feminists reject the "traditional white anglo-saxon protestant culture" along with its patriarchal religion? isn't sexual freedom practically a mandate of the the feminist movement? I think in this situation (segregated buses to avoid molestation)cannot be written off as being prude.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/29/2008 @ 4:20pm
Okay, B_KOOL....I apologize. I thought you had me on Ignore and was sniping from behind the "Cone of Silence, Chief".
Now...as far as Ms vanden Heuvel goes, some idiot like FRANKSHITZ calls her "Van Dumb Evil" and foams at the mouth and she happily laughs him off, yet, she gets in a snit over MY posts.
Wonder why?
Also wonder why YOU get pissy over the fact that I dare to question the Immaculate Re-Conception of John Edwards...from North Carolina centrist/conservative Dem...to 2004 "Bill Clinton Redux"....to 2006 "Fighting Populist who would still keep 10,000s of troops in Iraq until 2013"....to 2007 "Hard Core Progressive Almost as Good as Kucinich"...
and dare to think the guy might not keep true to those "progressive principles" once the General Election started or his Presidency. (Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:41pm---LAST REGISTER POLL:....by John Nichols at 01/01/2008 @ 01:26am)
So, like FRANK and Hillary...I assumed...wrongly...that you too were taking the "easy way out" over my comments on Edwards.
Sorry.
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:39pm
I think Zero is talking about people who get masters degrees in womyn's studies.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 4:34pm |
I think ZERO is constantly exposing some "issues" he has with "feminists" (and I think that includes a LOT of women) and his comment was one he let slip accidentially, then tried to "walk back" with a convoluted theory about "Feminists are screwed up because they don't like 'overt heterosexuality' because of...the Puritans".
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 4:53pm
Of course there are "fringe" in any movement...try Westboro Baptist Church or a 70 year old nutty TV preacher who claims he can "leg press 2000 libs" (while predicting hurricanes no less).
But ZERO ...CONSISTANTLY takes a contrary stand on ANY thread with a feminist subject matter. And that latest comment did NOT sub-set "American white feminists" into the "Andrea Dworkin" camp.
Neither did his "Purtian theory"...but you are right in a sense.
I guarentee that ZERO's definition of a "feminazi" is probably pretty close to Limbaugh's...which is anybody not Phyllis Schafly or Ann Coulter.
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:59pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 4:57pm
Ahhh an even NEWER hypothesis...."Puritans AND PORN!"
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 5:00pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 4:59pm:: yes I understand- I meant segregated buses are happening because women are being sexually assault and molested, and that kind of action is unacceptable, and pointing it out as such does not make one a prude or puritan.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 5:11pm
Also wonder why you get pissy over the fact that I dare to question the Immaculate Re-Conception of John Edwards....
~Maskot
Hey Mask,
Apology accepted. And my apologies for ripping into your rear end on occasion here, but it's sometimes difficult to abstain when you throw out your funky, disjointed barbs from basically nowhere.
In regards to your comment I reposted above, I've explained ad nauseam that I was not this huge, gung-ho, buffoonish Edwards supporter ala the all too often inane and absurd Metteyya. The reason I believe that John Edwards would not suddenly revert to a more centrist and bland position if he received the nom is that he had spelled out his positions so precisely that it would be suicidal to recant at a later and convenient time.
That is a very succinct and sound line of argument, dude.
Gotta go now.
Cheers my friend :-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/29/2008 @ 5:13pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 4:57pm:: be that as it may... I doubt Inga Muscio, Betty Dodson, and Camile Paglia fall into line with evangelists or any prudish types. I also seriously doubt anyone who labels themselves a feminist in this day and age also align themselves with a repressive sexual agenda.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 5:17pm
MBB:
Just a funny story
There was a news story a week or 2 ago about a 50ish woman who came home to find a robber in her house. She chased him out of the house and when he tried to jump the fence, she PULLED HIM BACK!!! then proceeded to put her black belt in karate to good use and beat the crap out of him until the police came.
Not making any points with this...just thought it was funny. I couldn't help thinking Good for her!
Posted by usc1 at 01/29/2008 @ 7:18pm
so zero is married to an argentininian, ergo, he is an expert, a pure objective critic, of latin american women's issues.
it's so funny: zero asks the author what she knows about mexico city women. well, what does zero know? did he post any data? any first hand accounts? any ethnographic evidence?
no, he doesn't have to: he's married to real tough argentinian, who doesn't need, in fact doesn't even comphrehend, liberal american feminism (as if it were so incredibly obtuse for 'third world' women to comprehend).
how, i might ask, do feminist issues differ across cultures? that's a good question which i think zero is better off asking, before he makes a fool of himself.
and please, leave hillary clinton out of this.
Posted by darladoon at 01/29/2008 @ 7:23pm
It must be a marvelous thing to be able to sit behind a computer with all the wisdom in the world and come onto a website to slam the writer, her beliefs, and everything she stands for.
Posted by kingandroid at 01/29/2008 @ 7:26pm
You know it is anti-Communist and Communism is the pinnacle of collectivism
there's that vacuous term again, "collectivism."
you know, mary, it's very simple to slide from pole to pole, but it's the grey areas which are more interesting, more complex, more nuanced.
no democratic candidate is pursuing, or reflecting, a pure, collectivist ideology. if someone suggests government intervention in order address serious, structural problems in the financial markets, then why is this necessarily, purely, and permanently collectivist?
all intelligent moderates (of which i assume you are a member), would address problems on a case by case basis, and not remain at one pole (capitalist) or the other (collectivist).
you demonstrate a particular weakness in this sense.....
Posted by darladoon at 01/29/2008 @ 7:29pm
i, too, have spent a good deal of time in latin america, and live in an area with a higher diversity of latin americans than anywhere in the world. i can also speak/read spanish.
i can tell you, in mexico, women may be tough, and capable of taking care of themselves; and although the culture may be matriarchal (which is also debatable), and in some cases matrilineal, women are to a large extent less equal, in various regards, than their american counterparts.
now, whether this something mexican women want is largely dependent on education: who controls the message; who owns the means of production; etc.
Posted by darladoon at 01/29/2008 @ 7:38pm
"Separate cars were thought the answer. But soon enough they were discontinued, in part on the insistance of feminists." - and what is the moral of the story? I think the women only car was rightfully banned- no one group should be entitled to a car all for themselves. And look where we are today! I rode the NYC subways in rush hour for 4 years and didn't get molested once. Segregation is not the answer.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 10:11pm
self defence etc.,
Posted by JRO555 01/29/2008 @ 10:17am
sorry for not clarifying earlier.
of course self defence is a great idea. if one is being raped, ¡kick 'em in the nuts! get out those keys and ¡ouch!
of course.
for the problem of public groping, however, it's only a stop gap measure. if segregation is like clove oil for the abscessed tooth, fighting back is like extraction of one tooth and then having going back to the same bad habits that caused the problem in the first place.
it will only work for so long. the societal habits must be changed through education.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 10:22pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 5:44pm :: Again, let's please not pass judgment on womankind because of one NOW chapter with a nut job as its president. I am a feminist- I believe in equal rights for all - and I plan on not voting for Hillary. Why? Because a REAL feminist will vote according to a candidate's policies, record, leadership and qualifications- not their gender, race, or religion.
Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 10:24pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/29/2008 @ 11:17am:: now hold on folks, self defense is not revenge. If anything, it is the prevention of any such misgiving or crime that would later entice one to partake in revenge, or "an eye for an eye" kind of retaliation. Simply stopping someone from hurting you in the first place is hardly grounds for stating "an eye for an eye".
Posted by JRO555 01/29/2008 @ 11:30am
again, sorry if i wasn't clear. i was in a hurry. self defence is very important. perhaps i didn't choose "my" words carefully.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 10:27pm
I find, in typing up responses, that any traces of vitriol are evaporated by the very process of crafting responses.
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/29/2008 @ 4:20pm
usually, unless they involve making cluster bombs. that's a difficult one to let go of.
nonetheless, quite well put.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 10:47pm
Yes, every single woman I was today was limping.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/29/2008 @ 5:44pm
THAT explains your posting name ;o]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/29/2008 @ 11:12pm
Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 5:00pm
ZERO, sorry, yes....I DO dislike you (and will, off-topic, explain below), but that has nothing to do with the subject here. The fact that you think that American feminist objecting to women in Latin American countries getting GROPED is because they "have a problem with 'overt heterosexuality'" shows what a total NON-feminist you are.
So if somebody thinks that random PHYSICAL sexual harrassment is bad they...object to all straight sex?!?!?!?
That's code...for the old anti-feminist talking point of "They're all frigid bitches and probably lesbians".
Now, as to my dislike of you...before last June, I merely thought you were a goof. Spouting "They all suck" and "I'm not voting for anybody unless it's Kucinich" etc. and sounding a bit like a LaRoucher, but then came the article by Lakshmi Chaudry on the movie about the killing of Daniel Pearl, starring Angelina Jolie and THIS comment from you on the death of Pearl-
BLOG | Posted 06/25/2007 @ 2:23pm Comments for "Dying For Press Freedom" by Lakshmi Chaudhry
But, that would require more than cheerleading for a rich white man from the WSJ, who was killed by "terrorists". Such a film, covering the Palestine Hotel, would have to cause us to ask about how it is that we are no different than Pearl's killers.---Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:04pm
Why, with all of this to work with, did Hollywood choose to cover unrepentant right-wing Daniel Pearl?----Posted by ZERO 06/25/2007 @ 4:14pm
Not only providing some kind of weird apologia for the terrorists, by putting "terrorists" in quotes...but attacking Pearl, who was a brave and hard-working journalist and calling a film about his DEATH "cheerleading".
You're scum, ZERO and I don't say that cavalierly or often of fellow posters.
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2008 @ 08:58am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/29/2008 @ 10:22pm :: ah, but I see women who can defend themselves as a long lasting deterrent to the kind of behavoir happening on these buses. The knowledge that women are taught to defend themselves makes them less likely to be viewed as easy prey,and even a public showing of this would deter a lot of potential molesters after watching one of their own get his ass handed to him. A combination of mutual respect, self defense, and cultural change can desegregate these buses (and do so much more).
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by MASK 01/30/2008 @ 08:58am:: illuminating, thanks for sharing.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 10:09am
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 10:08am
believe me, i've seen women land a few good wallops on subway cars.
many times though, it is so crowded you can't even tell who's doing the groping.
but hey, i just remembered that my wife (then my girlfriend) was accosted on the street in mexico.
she bought pepper spray. i think a lot of women have.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:18am
In Japan, gropers (chikan) on subways have long been a problem, with more than 4,000 men arrested in 2003 for groping on public transport; there are even stories (though dubiously sourced) about a groping club of professional men who meet to discuss their techniques. Back in 2000, there were a number of attempts to curb the chikan-ery -- including government campaigns to get women to accuse their gropers and train companies creating women-only carriages. But anti-groping actions have created their own set of problems -- women used the accusation to blackmail innocent men, leading them to their ATMs to withdraw cash in exchange for assurances that charges would be dropped. "I Just Didn't Do It," a documentary by Masayuki Suo released this spring, chronicles the story of one man who fought false charges of groping all the way to the Supreme Court and spent 14 months in jail.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/07/05/bodyguard/index.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:19am
posted by "the pen", chicago:
"I was groped in public on two separate occasions. The first time was when I riding a train and standing up because it was so jam-packed with people and there were no seats. I was literally surrounded by people who were none the wiser as I was groped. I was groped for the second time on a bus that had about 15 passengers."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:22am
Last week, Rio de Janeiro became the world's third major city to bring women-only cars to its commuting trains and subways, joining Tokyo and Mexico City. A new law mandates a separate car for women during rush hour, marked on the outside by a pink-striped sticker or a sign with the symbol of a woman.
http://www.alternet.org/story/35753/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:23am
It is a hidden reality of the New York City subway system, and perhaps mass transit systems everywhere since the first trolley car took to the tracks. It begins with a pinch or a shove, someone standing too close. But it can be much worse.
This week, as the Police Department announced the arrest of 13 men charged with groping and flashing women in the subways, women around the city nodded. Yes, they said, this had happened to them. Yesterday. Last month. Last fall. Twenty years ago.
"Every girl I know has at least one story," said Barbara Vencebi, 23, a studio photographer standing outside the No. 6 train station at 116th Street in East Harlem yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/nyregion/24harass.html?_r=1&oref=slogi n
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:25am
Women-Only Subway Cars In 2008 SEOUL, S. Korea -- The subway corporations serving South Korea's capital will introduce women-only cars next year to make rides more comfortable and free of groping male hands, a subway official said recently. "Sexual crimes happen frequently when the cars are packed and people are pressed against each other," the subway official said. Nearly half the crimes reported on the city's eight subway lines are sexual in nature, with many taking place on two lines that serve university and office districts, lawmaker Lee Jai-chang said.
http://asianweek.com/2007/11/12/global-briefs-20/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:29am
There have been some unpleasant encounters, although no worse than I've experienced in the UK. I've been groped on a bus in Rome, along with my friends, and had a skinhead stick his hand between my legs on a street by my house - a totally unlikely and out-of-the-blue act which left me too shocked to react. Other men on buses have tried standing too close, or drawing attention to their genitals. Moving seats, a sharp elbow, a protective shoulderbag or a stamp on the foot deal with these. If someone is a real problem, shout and create a fuss. In Rome, the busy bus routes to the Vatican are favoured by groping men and pickpockets, and sometimes newspapers contain accounts of citizens' arrests carried out by bus drivers and fellow-passengers. So don't hesitate to call for help. I have also been followed for short distances by men muttering under their breath, usually in parks where clandestine immigrants congregate. I would add that few, if any, of these were Italian men and these incidents are more indicative of cities with poor non-integrated immigrant communities than of Italian cultural attitudes.
http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/women.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:38am
What's the number one problem women commuters face in India? Probably being groped on buses, trains and stations. In Bombay, the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) introduced reservation for women in buses, with six seats in the front marked streeyansaathi (for women only).
http://www.myindiareport.in/2007/12/28/reserved-buses-for-women/
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:41am
etc.,
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 10:42am
FZ- wow!! the problem extends far past Mexico City huh? I find the NYC article a bit sensationalist however. I rode the subway EVERYWHERE my 4 years of college. Every friday I'd be on the 4 or 5 headed to grand central to catch a train, and those trains are PACKED. Not once did someone grab my tush or was I touched in anyway inappropriate. You would think that would be the time for it to happen. The only unfortunate subway incident I had was late on a sunday, heading back to brooklyn from 70th st on the A or C line. I was tired and not being attentive enough, and before I knew it the car was empty except for me and one man. He was down at the other side of the car, I didn't think he was a problem. I look down at my magazine, notice some movement, look up and he's sitting across from me. He was pretty much leering at me in a creepy manner, so I got up and stood next to the door. He stood up, and lucky for me we were coming in to the stop. The doors opened and even luckier still, a cop walks in!! The man was clearly taken aback by this circumstance, and promptly exited the car. Since then I carry pepper spray, and I make sure to always have at least 3 individuals in a car with me at all times.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 10:45am
I must say...its disturbing reading all these instances of segregating public transportation. Women fall prey because they do not know how to defend themselves, and do not cause a scene when they have been groped or sexually assaulted in public. Imagine if you had a woman groped on a bus, she starts screaming and kicking, and the rest of the women join her? Imagine a mob of 20 angry women going to task on some indecent jerk. More instances like this would deter gropers.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 10:50am
....Pearl, who was a brave and hard-working journalist......fellow posters.
Posted by MASK 01/30/2008 @ 08:58am
I think you're being overly harsh w/ZERO. Most folks say some inappropriate things and unfortunately, your elephantine `memory', only hardens your first impressions. Not saying ZERO actually do or do not hold the view on Pearl as you deem! Sometime we say things that are misconstrued....as was my `joke' about someone's wife.
Back to Daniel Pearl......Judea Pearl, mother of Dan Pearl, has an op-ed today in the WSJ (page A17), marking the sixth anniversary of Dan's murder in Pakistan. She's had six long years to decipher her son's murder.....some exercepts:
The shocking element in Danny's murder was that he was killed, not for what he wrote or planned to write, but for what he represented-America, modernity, openness, pluralism, curiosity, dialogue, fairness, objectivity, freedom of inquiry, truth and respect for all people.
.....unarmed journalists in regions of conflict became many more times more vulnerable. They are no longer perceived as neutral, information-gathering agents......
....the press and media have had an active, perhaps even more major role in fermenting hate and inhumanity. It was not religious fanaticism alone.
....Pakistan Consel General...said (to her): "What can you expect of these people who never sam a Jew in their lives and who have been exposed, day and night, to televisied images of Israeli soldiers targeting and killing Palltestinian...."
......news channels in the Arab world....has contributed significantly to this spread of hatred and violence......Competition has forced news channels to echo, rather than inform, viewers' sentiments-to reinforce, rather than examine, long-held prejudices.
My typing these words of Ms. Pearl, to honor her son......may he rest in peace!
Posted by Happy at 01/30/2008 @ 10:55am
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 10:45am
here's some anecdotes from NY women:
"Anyone that rides the subways regularly knows how bad this problem is. One night I was with my girlfriend and we noticed a guy looking through the window from the next car pleasuring himself while starring at her. Of course there were no cops around so it was up to me to chase him off the train at the next stop"
***************************************************************
One day when I was going home, I sat in my seat on the subway and noticed this guy playing with his cell phone. I didn't give it much thought but as I looked again, I noticed he was looking at photos of womens breasts that were obviously taken by him or someone else when they were standing and their prey was sitting in a subway car.
***************************************************************
It's about time. When I was about 15, some dude came over and literally licked the side of my best friend's face. I mean honestly, where the hell do people get off?
***************************************************************
The first time a woman told me that she regularly saw men exposing themselves and openly masturbating on the subway, I thought she must at least be exaggerating, having fun with the new city dweller.
After fifteen years of living in Brooklyn I have heard the same story from at least half a dozen women, one of whom was masturbated ONTO on a Manhattan rush-hour train. That guy was caught thanks to DNA evidence, and it turned out that he had a few previous convictions for sexual assaults.
***************************************************************
Yes, and unfortunately most women have. Once a man put his arm around me, and I had to tell him firmly, twice, in a loud voice, to remove it. Much more common, there are creepy men who just sit and stare for minutes. And then there are the men who wink. Classy. And there are always the unsolicited and unwelcome comments. What's wrong with these people???!!!
***************************************************************
[off-topic, but what an asshole]:
(In response to Mary B) yeah, the musicians must go. we don't need them. what use are they? - who needs music these days anyway!
***************************************************************
As a pre-teen and young teenager I experienced a great deal of harrassment on public transit. It wasn't because I had a womanly body. It wasn't because of the way I was dressed (very modestly). It was because I was perceived as easy prey by the guys who were getting off on their power trip of manipulating me.
***************************************************************
Crowded subway cars are part of the problem too. I endured deliberate gropping during an evening commute home because the car was too packed for me to tell who had his hand on my behind.
***************************************************************
I've been harassed twice - one time I had a man grab my backside during rush hour when I couldn't tell who it was, and another time I had a man press himself up to my back and "ride" me, for lack of a better expression.
***************************************************************
etc.,
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/big-response-to-subway-hara ssment-question/
(scroll down for these comments)
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 11:37am
Key Findings THREAT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT
• 63 percent of respondents reported having been sexually harassed in the New York City subway system.
• 10 percent of respondents reported having been sexually assaulted in the New York City subway system.
• 69 percent of respondents reported having felt the threat of sexual assaultor harassment in the New York City subway system.
• Of those respondents, 51 percent of respondents reported "sometimes" or"frequently" feeling the threat of sexual harassment or assault in the New York City subway system.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/city_room/20070726_hiddenin plainsight.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 11:41am
and the heritage of the leaders of the white, upper-class liberal feminist world is deeply WASPy
oh, man. zero can say some pretty stupid things. but this one tops them all!
as if *white* were a problem? as if *anglo* were a problem?
i thought zero was proclaiming an end to identity politics, and yet here we have a defense of anything non-white, non-anglo.
what for?
Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2008 @ 12:17pm
Ivy League womens' studies set, yes
ah, yes, the so-called 'ivy league women's studies set'. so clearly defined, that group.
Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2008 @ 12:20pm
FZ- hmm, well, maybe I'm just lucky then. I went to school for four years in brooklyn, and as I said before, subways were my only mode of transportation. I took them daily, and besides the one incident described above, I had no incidents. Even decked out in what would be considered scandalous clubbing clothes, no sexual harassment at all. My friend who grew up in Queens however, had a sorry story about when she was 12 a man exposed himself to her. I actually find mugging on the streets to be a greater threat to NYC women- these men need money and almost always single out women as their prey.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 12:21pm
All of these policies are more collectivist than the status quo in the USA.
these policies are about as "collectivist" as anything under reagan, bush 1 and clinton. hardly a "collectivist" bunch.
reagan actually RAISED payroll taxes to cover social security, fyi.
mary, you have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the Economist, by CNBC, by Fox business news, etc, to believe that the two front running democratic candidates are anything resembling "socialist". in fact, the most extreme of economic policies they favor would be to return to pre-bush 2 level tax policies.
bill clinton's tax policies "collectivist"?!
don't make me fall off my chair.
oh, no! universal pre-school! say it ain't so!
Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2008 @ 12:23pm
"Much more common, there are creepy men who just sit and stare for minutes. And then there are the men who wink. Classy. And there are always the unsolicited and unwelcome comments. What's wrong with these people???!!!" ::: ok, this is hardly sexual assault or harassment. You get unwanted comments everywhere, the subway is nothing special. Same thing with winks and stares. I actually found this most common on the streets, and not just NY but anywhere.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 12:25pm
mary, the bush era has normalized tax cuts to such an extreme that ALL republican candidates have vowed never to raise taxes. ever.
and the democratic candidates have to carefully skirt the issue of raising taxes so the conservative base doesn't trash them for it.
since when is restructuring tax policies to lift the burden off the middle class a problem? why is this "collectivist" as opposed to 'necessary' or 'fair' or 'egalitarian' or 'sound'?
why is warren buffet's secretary taxed at a higher level than himself?
can you answer that?
i'll tell you why: the bush tax cuts enable it.
Posted by darladoon at 01/30/2008 @ 12:27pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/30/2008 @ 10:55am
Sorry, but you think that pointing out the sheer idiocy and lack of basic humanity of ZERO, referring to Pearl as a "a rich white man from the WSJ" and an "unrepentant right-winger"...AND putting "quotes" around the terrorist label for those who BEHEADED him....is "too harsh"?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2008 @ 12:47pm
"and a government sponsored self defense program for young girls might go a long way to improving the situation all around."- I was thinking the same thing Chip. Self defense, karate, jujitsu or a comparable martial arts should be taught.
what nonsense. what should be taught is respect for women, conflict resolution, nonviolence. what we need is not dojos but safe houses for women who are threatened by their spouse.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 10:45am | ignore this person
good thing you did not attend that Puerto Rican pride parade two years ago.
I'm afraid misogyny is culturally entrenched in the latinate cultures, among others. in Mexico hundreds of murdered women have been ignored by the authorities.
I have no problem with a separate woman's car.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 12:57pm:: nonsense? a woman being capable of defending herself is nonsense? You live in some fantasy world if you think human kind will ever evolve to a point where women no longer need worry about their physical protection. Self defense should be taught to every man, woman, and child, ALONG with respect for women, conflict for women, and non violence (don't even bother try and argue self defense classes are about violence, they are anything but).
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 1:21pm
"good thing you did not attend that Puerto Rican pride parade two years ago."- what happened at last years Peurto Rican parade?? didn't make the news, aw too bad. I'm not arguing about latino countries and their culture, I know nothing about it and won't try to pretend that I do. "I have no problem with a separate woman's car." I'm afraid I do. Segregation doesn't solve the problem of why women are being molested in the first place. In fact, it makes matters worse. The more men and women separate, the less they learn from each other about what is right, wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. The less time men and women spend together, the more they misunderstand each other and have a harder time working together to achieve mutual respect and live in harmony.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 1:21pm
*conflict resolution, whoopsie
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 1:27pm
Segregation doesn't solve the problem of why women are being molested in the first place.
sure it does. they are not molested by men in the women's car. it's a start.
you seem to be a very young person. you should try to get out a bit more.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 1:51pm
you seem to be a very young person. you should try to get out a bit more.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 1:51pm
you seem to be a very smug person. you should try to get out of yourself a bit more.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 1:51pm:: Yes, a start to expanding the rift between the sexes even further and ensuring this kind of behavior thrives and lives on because we choose to ignore it by segregation. You seem to be a very old person, you should try to get out a bit more.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 2:09pm
Methusalah is a pup compared to me.
unlike you, evidently, I have lived. I have lived to see separate conveyances for women. I have lived to see very much courtesy extended to women in public areas. getting up to give a woman your seat on the bus is passe, unfortunately.
this courtesy towards women, is unfortunately the reverse side of the coin of misogynism.
I look forward when separate cars are no longer necessary, not even in Mexico.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/30/2008 @ 2:07pm
It's BRANNIGAN, what do you expect? Humility???
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2008 @ 2:24pm
I look forward when separate cars are no longer necessary, not even in Mexico. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 2:17pm :: well how can we ever get to this point if we keep impeding the process by falling back on segregation? Separating men and women does not teach respect, self control or understanding. Separating ourselves from society makes us less a part of it, and that hardly sounds like equality to these young ears.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 2:29pm
not even in Mexico.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 2:17pm
and japan and the u.s. and canada and korea and italy and brazil and just about everywhere.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 2:37pm
a separate conveyance creates some space, which is obviously what's needed. at Grand Central Station they used to have women only waiting rooms. it is not they which create the problems.
the biggest issue is violence against women. that issue will be addressed by the same means as violence against blacks and gays is solved. by laws and their enforcement.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 2:47pm
"a separate conveyance creates some space, which is obviously what's needed. "- If space is the problem why not add a bunch more cars then, not segregated? this way everyone has more room to breath, and no one needs to be sorted out.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 2:56pm
"by laws and their enforcement." :: Ok, so more cars, more police plus more emphasis on mutual respect and respect for women and segregated cars need not be. I don't see this as to being such a tall order, this should be done instead of segregation.
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 2:57pm
Posted by MASK 01/30/2008 @ 08:58am |
oooh, oooh, i got one! it was one of christine smallwood's articles. some man had received an inappropriate punishment for groping somewhere in south america while italy had passed a law that punished men more severely if they raped a virgin.
i can't find the article. but zero went on some rant about the poor guy who was treated harshly and didn't even mention the part of the article that dealt with the unfair treatment of the entire female population of italy.
since that time, zero has repeatedly and petulantly lamented the fate of white males as a result of the improper influence feminists have had on society. he has also displayed his fear of homosexuals and asians as a whole on different past threads.
Posted by loveloki at 01/30/2008 @ 2:59pm
I meant space between men and women.
try to live in some other countries, if only for a short while. you are provincial.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 3:00pm
jr0555, you probably aren't as likely to be groped on a subway as others. you come across as a confident person. gropers, as with sexual predators of other stripes, are experts at finding broken, sad people with low self-esteem. they target those who are least likely to speak up.
Posted by loveloki at 01/30/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 3:00pm :: I don't understand this insistence that the sexes be separated. The feminism I know calls for equality and inclusion, not segregation and separation (and therefore inequality). Are we to have separate water fountains as well? And suppose I do go live in another country for a short while, why would this change my mind on the issue?
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/30/2008 @ 3:02pm:: well thank you Love but how would a random guy on the subway deduce all that from just my looks?
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 3:11pm
there is a difference between voluntary and forced segregation.
take that women only waiting room. no woman is compelled to sit there.
you cannot seem to see the forest from the trees
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 3:19pm
they can, jr0555. dr. anna salter has written some great stuff on this. there are also references in her book to others who have found the same behavior patterns.
Posted by loveloki at 01/30/2008 @ 3:24pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 01/30/2008 @ 3:19pm:: why then, do these female only waiting areas in grand central no longer exist? Maybe its because women do not feel a need to be segregated. And if we are to give one group their very own car, then everyone should get their very own car: one for black females,one for black males, one for white females, one for white males, one for asian females, one for asian males, one for hispanic females, one for hispanic males etc etc. Why don't we just categorize everyone and separate them!! Then we would have world peace and live in Utopia yes?
Posted by jro555 at 01/30/2008 @ 3:24pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/30/2008 @ 2:59pm
His anti-feminism was one of the reasons I thought he might be a LaRoucher (he later said he thought Lyndon was a nut).
But for guy who claims the "Some of my best friends are feminists" CYA...he never misses an opportunity to LEAP to a Katrina vanden Heuvel, Katha Pollitt, or now Jessica Valenti topic thread concerning a feminist issue...and be the voice of the "oppressed white males".
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person
you have descended to gibberish, so include me out.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2008 @ 7:11pm
Posted by JAGUARXJS 01/29/2008 @ 11:07am : "in mexico....the authorities need to enforce the law"
I'm just not quite sure where to start with this one. Frosty? (And no, no one has the corner on the market, but still...damn.)
Posted by gloryoski at 01/30/2008 @ 8:28pm
latino men in latin america can be pretty aggressive...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/30/2008 @ 8:42pm
But for guy who claims the "Some of my best friends are feminists" CYA...he never misses an opportunity to LEAP to a Katrina vanden Heuvel, Katha Pollitt, or now Jessica Valenti topic thread concerning a feminist issue...and be the voice of the "oppressed white males"
of course. and it's the same thing with israel and palestine. any argument, or claim, which purports to understand the israeli point of view vis a vis palestine is automatically short-sighted.
zero is truly the epitome of weakness, vacuity, hypocrisy.
Posted by darladoon at 01/31/2008 @ 02:27am
I simply stated an objective fact
mary, there are no such things as "objective facts", and that is the primary reason we will never see eye-to-eye on this issue.
you can't prove the existence of a 'center', by which to judge two poles (individual equity or social adequacy), simply because the very set of assumptions which designates what the 'self', as opposed to the 'collective,' means is culturally-specific. in the west, our understanding of what the 'self' is, and the 'collective' is, is very different when compared to the chinese or various native american tribes, or even modern, rural canadians or mexicans, who place family above all else.
can you imagine a society which automatically, and without hesitation places the interests of its most vulenerable members above the interests of profit?
can you actually answer that without using your heart?
i dare you!
Posted by darladoon at 01/31/2008 @ 02:33am
how would a random guy on the subway deduce all that from just my looks?
Posted by JRO555 01/30/2008 @ 3:11pm
It's in the way you stand/sit, where in the car you stand, whether you fidget, whether you're holding your head high and meeting people's eyes...a thousand small signals that add up screaming 'vulnerable' to anybody inclined to look. On my worse days, when I am that shy person in the corner most people will overlook, because I'm not really there, that's when I have to watch out for myself. On other days, when I feel ten feet tall, nobody has ever bothered me.
Having said that, my gut reaction to having to spend 15 minutes on a crowded bus trying to keep a guy's hand from my crotch was that I wanted women-only buses. And women-only trains. Maybe women-only everything. But then I got home, took a long shower, and reminded myself that I shouldn't have to need segregated spaces to feel safe. (Grammar abuse, I know...it makes sense in my head, though.) I shouldn't have to need a black belt to feel safe, either. I have the right to be on that bus, and to feel safe while I'm on it.
The most telling eyperience I ever had was when a guy I had never seen before came up to me from behind and groped me. I hit him, and he just stared at me: "What the hell did you do THAT for?!?" The saddest part - I think he really didn't have a clue.
Posted by Deadra at 01/31/2008 @ 05:10am
A MODEST PROPOSAL: Clearly, following these many, many fascinating threads here, there's only one legal remedy for public transit gropers -- castration, in public, under medical supervision to be sure, and broadcast on TV, to get the message out there, everywhere, most effectively.
Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 10:50am
Posted by SLOPER 01/31/2008 @ 10:50am | ignore this person
your contribution to this discourse has been noted.
and discarded.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 10:56am
A MODEST PROPOSAL: Clearly, following these many, many fascinating threads here, there's only one legal remedy for public transit gropers -- castration, in public, under medical supervision to be sure, and broadcast on TV, to get the message out there, everywhere, most effectively.
Posted by SLOPER 01/31/2008 @ 10:50am
I hear the Taliban needs a new PR guy/girl.
Posted by Sliver at 01/31/2008 @ 11:32am
A MODEST PROPOSAL:
this gives it away Sliv. irony. did it swiftly sail over your head?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 12:04pm
Two remedies:
a) Kevlar bras and underwear.
b) Encourage would be groupers to pull off in the restroom before boarding. Larry Craig could teach semantics.
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 12:38pm
Though gropers may deserve punishment, its not realistic to assume you can reprogram this behavior in the short term (like a 100 years). Besides, the new buses are encouraging public transportation.
The only risk is that a man will board a women's bus and become the new Rosa Parks.
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 12:47pm
my ex-wife, a costa rican, became dangerously adept with the umbrella inn these situations...whack!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/31/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/31/2008 @ 12:50pm
you know, an ex down in cancún was hired for 7 jobs in one month.
and she quit 7 jobs in one month once the "on the job training" began.
however, i you refer to the onslaught of clippings i found from around the world, you'll see that it's not a latino* problem, but a HUMAN PROBLEM.
*wtf does that mean anyway?
tell me what a chileno has in common with a guatemalteco besides language.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 12:59pm
A third remedy:
Place a dozen or so blow-up dolls on each bus. The men can grope these all they want. They would probably have to be chained to the floor to keep them from getting stolen.
Fourth remedy:
Straight jackets for serial gropers.
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 1:06pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 12:59pm
They both have delicious food.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:07pm
So, is copping-a-feel a crime or a disease. Should we put these people in rehab, or hard boil their huevos?
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 1:09pm
Fifth, progressive, remedy:
Instead of segregating all men, just segregate the perverts. The bus can have a banner that says "perverts only" and can offer free wireless porn and blow up dolls. How would you like to be the bus driver?
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm
actually, there is quite a selection of taser jackets out on the market now. Groper reaches for a breast, gets 80,000 volt shock instead. http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/342/C10573/
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:32pm
Pretty stylish looking too :) and when you wanna play a mean prank on your b/f, hit the button when he gives you a hug!!! hehe...I could get in some big trouble with a jacket like this...
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:32pm
They both have delicious food.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/31/2008 @ 1:07pm
that depends on who cooks it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:42pm
Pretty stylish looking too :) and when you wanna play a mean prank on your b/f, hit the button when he gives you a hug!!! hehe...I could get in some big trouble with a jacket like this...
Posted by JRO555 01/31/2008 @ 1:32pm
dunno, if you turn down the voltage to "just right", might be kinda fun.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:43pm
"Instead of segregating all men, just segregate the perverts." Posted by ROD BICKLES 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm -- See, this is my big problem with this issue. Not all men are gropers or perverts, actually, only a few of them are! Why should all men feel shunned because of a few jerks who can't keep their hands to themselves?
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 1:43pm :: they need to make some "taser" pants haha.
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by JRO555 01/31/2008 @ 1:47pm
we tried the pepper spray "massage oil". not impressed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 1:52pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 1:52pm: lol that sounds down right awful...but an excellent deterrent against sexual predators!
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:58pm
I'm glad we've finally gotten serious on this thread.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/31/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/31/2008 @ 1:42pm
Well of course but that goes for any food anywhere.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by ROD BICKLES 01/31/2008 @ 1:12pm
I wouldn't want to be the bus driver for one of those when the bomb goes off to try to kill the perverts.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 2:08pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 01/31/2008 @ 2:09pm:: exactly. I don't think we need more space between the sexes, just more space in general!! easing the stress of rush hour alone would cut down on these incidents, I would hope.
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
Yes, JRO555. Why should we be segregated from certain buses just because the meat between our legs is of a similar structure to the meat between the legs of a few perverts?
Which brings up another issue:
How long before men begin to disguise themselves as women just to get on the less-crowded female bus?
Bosom buddies, anyone?
Posted by Rod Bickles at 01/31/2008 @ 2:17pm
Well of course but that goes for any food anywhere.
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/31/2008 @ 2:07pm
my point exactly.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 2:32pm
Posted by JRO555 01/31/2008 @ 2:13pm
staggering work start times would go a long way.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 2:33pm
how, i might ask, do feminist issues differ across cultures? that's a good question which i think zero is better off asking, before he makes a fool of himself.
Darladoon, please tell me that you're not seriously asking that question!
As a black feminist, who has taken it on the chin from everyone I know for declaring myself such by the way, I can tell you the differences between what is important in a white, liberal, feminist parlance as opposed to what the issues for feminists of color are.
And being groped in a subway car is so far down the list that it's ridiculous.
White, liberal feminism has never addressed the following: poverty, the double blinds of sexism and racism, and how spousal abuse manifests itself in communities of color.
There are others, but I can't come up with all of them right now.
While I've got nothing but love for feminism, there's a lot about it that's making me chafe right now. One thing is the whole "we should all vote for the woman for president because she's a woman" thing.
The other thing that's getting me is a point that someone made earlier, namely that feminism as its currently constituted encourages women to act like men. When I hear and see young women act as if they're fraternity boys, it breaks my heart. Especially since they don't understand that their feminist elders weren't successful in breaking down the double standard that says this is okay if you're a man, but if you're a woman, you're a whore.
While I'm not trying to put on a corset or be covered from head to toe, I'm also not trying to be Paris Hilton either. I have no problem with empowerment, but we as women have to understand that we are indeed different, in some ways better, and we must conduct ourselves as such.
(notice I didn't mention Hillary Clinton once?)
Posted by edwriter at 01/31/2008 @ 2:44pm
The other thing that's getting me is a point that someone made earlier, namely that feminism as its currently constituted encourages women to act like men.
Posted by EDWRITER 01/31/2008 @ 2:44pm
you mean like hollywood claptrap where women get to blow people's heads of with assault rifles, too?
if i were a black woman, i'd be really pissed off* that the only place in the "MSM" black women are asked about their political preferences is in beauty parlours, for chrissake.
*it pisses me off, nonetheless.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 3:00pm
(notice I didn't mention Hillary Clinton once?)
Posted by EDWRITER 01/31/2008 @ 2:44pm
Gotchya red handed!!!
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 3:20pm
Posted by JRO555 01/31/2008 @ 3:20pm
actually it was 1 1/2 times:
"One thing is the whole "we should all vote for the woman for president because she's a woman" thing."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 3:24pm
"The other thing that's getting me is a point that someone made earlier, namely that feminism as its currently constituted encourages women to act like men." Posted by EDWRITER 01/31/2008 @ 2:44pm
Ok...but so many things that used to be considered "manly" can be a lot of fun for women too. For example, sports. Why was I constantly named "tomboy" because I played volleyball, basketball, and softball all through my childhood? I wanted to play hockey too....but my dad said that was a "boy sport" when I said I wanted to play as an 8 year old. Secondly, I race motorcycles. There are only 3 other girls in the entire racing club across all the different classes. This is a male dominated sport- by my joining in on it, am I "trying to be manly"?? I do not agree with gender roles- there are some guys who have a keen eye for fashion and styling, there are some girls who can bench 175 lbs and up; who are we to decide who gets to do what they want with their lives according to gender?
Posted by jro555 at 01/31/2008 @ 3:27pm