I do realize that I am opening up for testosterone laden foolishness, but here goes anyway.  I
am tired of people who say they hate the feminists, especially young women, without
acknowledging the strides made by the civil rights and feminist movements.  So here goes

You may be a feminist if:

you believe women do not need permission from their husband or father have a job.
you believe women do not need permission from their husbands to use birth control
you believe women do not need permission from a husband or father for a passport
you believe women who are pregnant should not be fired from their jobs,for being pregnant
you believe women can purchase property in their own name
you believe women who have been raped weren't  "asking for it"
you believe women battered by their husbands can obtain a divorce
you believe women can attend law school
you believe women can attend medical school
you believe women can attend engineering school

As far fetched as these may seem to some, they are changes and more have come about in my
life time. Women could be legally excluded from all these activities. Husbands could call
an employer and say I don't want my wife to work and she would lose her job. Husband could
tell the doctor he didn't want to have birth control, he wouldn't prescribe it. Permission from
a male family member could be asked for when applying for checking accounts, passports, and
credit cards. Pregnant women were could be fired when "their condition" became known, all
accrued sick and vacation time was lost. All of this has changed since the womens movement in
the sixties.  My grandmother was a suffragette so fighting for rights runs in the family. So now tell me,

You may be a feminist if???????

I don't get what you are asking Danoota but most blokes agree with all that you said. I think it's the irrational 'burning bra' mentality that I get worried about when women/feminists try to make themselves feel superior by insulting men's sexuality, worth and position within society.

I love what Dave Chappelle said 'Chivalry is dead . . . and women killed it'. ;D

I don't get what you are asking Danoota but most blokes agree with all that you said. I think it's the irrational 'burning bra' mentality that I get worried about when women/feminists try to make themselves feel superior by insulting men's sexuality, worth and position within society.

I love what Dave Chappelle said 'Chivalry is dead . . . and women killed it'. ;D


That is just it.  There are going to be radicals on any side of any question, but it seems
when discussing feminism, and womens issues, I hear, "I don't like the feminists, they
are irrational bra burners, who make themselves feel superior by insulting mens sexuality"
etc. The fingers are immediatley pointed to the radical element. Dave Chappelle should not
blame radical feminism for his non-chivalrous behavior.

That is just it.  There are going to be radicals on any side of any question, but it seems
when discussing feminism, and womens issues, I hear, "I don't like the feminists, they
are irrational bra burners, who make themselves feel superior by insulting mens sexuality"
etc. The fingers are immediatley pointed to the radical element. Dave Chappelle should not
blame radical feminism for his non-chivalrous behavior.


I understand it's the irrational extremists that bring the side down (like with everything). I also understand that women have it tough biologically, let alone being mistreated by men down the ages but a lot of men try their best to please their women. It's like I say 'it's the irrational extremists that bring the side down'. 

Modified to add: As for Dave Chappelle, he was merely making a comment about women's ambiguous attitude towards dependence.  :)

That is just it.  There are going to be radicals on any side of any question, but it seems
when discussing feminism, and womens issues, I hear, "I don't like the feminists, they
are irrational bra burners, who make themselves feel superior by insulting mens sexuality"
etc. The fingers are immediatley pointed to the radical element. Dave Chappelle should not
blame radical feminism for his non-chivalrous behavior.


But, I can see his side to it, too.  The radicals are a big part of it.  I have personally seen women accuse men of being chauvenistic for holding a door for them.  Basically tearing down the guy for daring to hold a door open.  Hello, it's called respect.  I hold doors for people, too...does that mean I am a chauvenist too? (and I'm a girl).

Danoota is absolutely right.  Most of the social mobility women under 30 today (perhaps under 40) take for granted were hard fought and won in th 20th century, from the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) in 1920, to Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
I think it was abominable that the ERA finally pooped out and didn't pass in 1983.  

There is indeed a politically correct victim industry of neurotic academics on university campuses.  You will be confronted by pretty blondes from affluent backgrounds, chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, patriarchy has got to go!"  And, yes, it is nauseating. The university woman-as-victim movement tends to be quite self-absorbed and myopic.  A lot of it's based on collegiate sexual politics--"I should have the RIGHT to wear a micro-mini and not have guys whistle at me, unless I want them to."  Or, "I should have the RIGHT to pass out drunk at a frat party and be left unmolested."

But, listen, it's terribly important NOT to let this bratty neurosis represent feminism.  If you ask me, there's not ENOUGH feminism today among working class women.  I hear many self-proclaimed feminists coming out of the schools of management and law, complaining about a "glass ceiling," and earning $200 grand in a position where men are making $300 grand.
It's the women who work 18 hour days at Wal-Mart and Denny's and can barely cover their trailer rentals who seem too resigned to just taking their lumps.  It's not just more feminism that is needed among the working class, it is a universal class-conscious mobilization we need!

The social contract is being rolled back bit by bit.  I do believe the 19th Amendment is secure, but I'm not so sure Roe vs. Wade won't be overturned, for instance.  Any group--women, African-Americans, the disabled, and plain-old working class white guys--who has won rights in the past 100 years needs to take stock of those rights and recognize where they come from.  They must recognize who is getting up to rescinding these rights and why.  To remain apolitical over the next 20 years will be socio-economic suicide.

What makes me laugh is when some women go around with their cleavage on show and they get insulted when we look at them - men are only human.  ;D

But, I can see his side to it, too.  The radicals are a big part of it.  I have personally seen women accuse men of being chauvinistic for holding a door for them.  Basically tearing down the guy for daring to hold a door open.  Hello, it's called respect.  I hold doors for people, too...does that mean I am a chauvinist too? (and I'm a girl).


So!  I have personally seen women say "thank you" to a guy for holding a door open, and
for every one tear down you have seen 1,000 thank yous.  So why concentrate on the tear down.  I hold
doors for people, and have doors held for me, it is common courtesy, and it is much more common
than this nit picky "she called me a chauvinist" whine.  Hey does anyone really call anyone a
chauvinist these days, unless they are on Prozac?  This is the sort of discourse that gets in the way
of recognizing what feminism has achieved for women in America.  I find it sad when women are  the
ones using this type of tired argument to distance themselves from the term.

What makes me laugh is when some women go around with their cleavage on show and they get insulted when we look at them - men are only human.  ;D


This is what I was afraid of.  This is not what we are talking about when we are talking
about the feminist movement. 

So!  I have personally seen women say "thank you" to a guy for holding a door open, and
for every one tear down you have seen 1,000 thank yous.  So why concentrate on the tear down.  I hold
doors for people, and have doors held for me, it is common courtesy, and it is much more common
than this nit picky "she called me a chauvinist" whine.  Hey does anyone really call anyone a
chauvinist these days, unless they are on Prozac?  This is the sort of discourse that gets in the way
of recognizing what feminism has achieved for women in America.  I find it sad when women are  the
ones using this type of tired argument to distance themselves from the term.


I appreciate both Dagwood's and your view and believe that women are very receptive to politeness.

I must admit, I have what some people would call 'chauvinistic' tendencies (if a woman is going to clean up after a bloke, he's not going to mind  ;D). I think if we are honest, blokes would love to believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen and the bedroom. My girlfriend agrees that it's not a pig-headed thing, it's just a male thing.

Regardless, I'm gonna get some stick for this . . .  ;D

This is what I was afraid of.  This is not what we are talking about when we are talking
about the feminist movement. 


Don't be afraid of it, Danoota. A lot of men (including me) are ignorant of the true aims of the feminist movement.

So . . . Is acknowledging a woman in admiration classed as chauvinism?

Don't be afraid of it, Danoota. A lot of men (including me) are ignorant of the true aims of the feminist movement.

So . . . Is acknowledging a woman in admiration classed as chauvinism?






No, but it can be done with class, or crass.  Those with class usually also know the difference between
true aims of the feminist movement and drivel.  Those who are crass, well, they can always be used
as a bad example.

No, but it can be done with class, or crass.  Those with class usually also know the difference between
true aims of the feminist movement and drivel.  Those who are crass, well, they can always be used
as a bad example.


I look and smile discreetly but I don't whistle and say 'nice arse, love'.  ;D

I'm a feminist and I am d@mned proud of it.  ;D

I don't mind if a guy holds the door open for me-especially if my hands are full. But, I don't mind holding the door for a guy either-again, especially if his hands are full. I think it is just called curtesy. It depends on who gets there first. I also don't mind taking a guy out-but I also like to be taken out a few times myself. When I was single, I have bought guys drinks-and women for that matter.

I do expect equal pay and equal rights for doing the same job. As for making decisions, I lived alone for a long time before moving in with Carlos and I am very capible of making my own decisions. However, now, I do discuss things with Carlos as a matter of curtesy (and to use him as a sounding board  ;)) and make the best decision for both of us. He does the same with me too.

As for burning my bra, I didn't wear one when that was popular. Now...well...I would be a bit embarrassed if I didn't wear one (even though I don't usually wear one around the house). And when I get dressed up-I have to admit that I do expect to get looks because I KNOW when I look REALLY GOOD!  ;)  But I don't like being leered at or whistled at (unless it is Carlos doing the leering and whistling.  ;D)  There is a difference between admiring the scenery and making a fool out of oneself. I admit that I like to look at beefcake myself but I don't drool all over myself when I do. I expect men to do the same.



Cat

To be honest with you, Danoota, the feminist movement was not about obtaining rights for all women. Those that created the feminist movement were middle to upper class women who had the choice to either work or live off their husbands, not those who systematically had to deal with trials and turmoil b/c of other issues (especially race) coinciding with their gender.

In the very beginning of this movement, African-American, Asian, and Latina women were excluded in this movement. It was only in the years after the movement's initial foundation were this women included. The civil rights movement is the reason why these women are ahead today, not the feminist movement.

Tanya

So!  I have personally seen women say "thank you" to a guy for holding a door open, and for every one tear down you have seen 1,000 thank yous.  So why concentrate on the tear down.  I hold doors for people, and have doors held for me, it is common courtesy, and it is much more common than this nit picky "she called me a chauvinist" whine.  Hey does anyone really call anyone a chauvinist these days, unless they are on Prozac?  This is the sort of discourse that gets in the way of recognizing what feminism has achieved for women in America.  I find it sad when women are the ones using this type of tired argument to distance themselves from the term.


You're right...there are more polite women out there, but the rude people are the ones people remember.  Think about it this way...when you are driving, do you remember all the polite people who don't tailgate or cut you off or do you remember the jerk who cuts you off and almost causes an accident.

I am a feminist, too...alot like Cat.(except for the bra thing.  I can't go without one, it would be frightening. ;) ) I believe in equal pay for equal work...I like having doors held for me, and I hold doors.  To me it is common courtesy and respect for your fellow man.

I think people are too sensitive these days (both men and women). 

 

To be honest with you, Danoota, the feminist movement was not about obtaining rights for all women. Those that created the feminist movement were middle to upper class women who had the choice to either work or live off their husbands, not those who systematically had to deal with trials and turmoil b/c of other issues (especially race) coinciding with their gender.

In the very beginning of this movement, African-American, Asian, and Latina women were excluded in this movement. It was only in the years after the movement's initial foundation were this women included. The civil rights movement is the reason why these women are ahead today, not the feminist movement.

Tanya


This is all true, except we must all acknowledge that the civil rights movement while being more
open to women also had a sexist component to it.  The men in the civil rights movement had many of
the same attitudes as men who were against the civil right movement.  In fact they found common
ground on many of the issues seeing it as an infringement of the rights of a man to "control" his
family.

I grew up in a household with a couple of very strong-minded women: my mother and sister, to be precise.  By most definitions, I'd call myself a feminist, in that I don't believe in making distinctions on what anybody can or can't do simply because of what gender they happen to be.  I hold doors open for women.. but then I hold doors open for men, too (I've only been given grief by a few, maybe up to a dozen or so - I can remember answering back to one because I'd held the door for the previous (male) person to come through)

But I do think feminism today has a bad name: kind of like Islam being hijacked by its own extremists, the most "newsworthy" feminists are the hard-line men-bashers who make headlines, so that's the lasting impression that is left.

But I do think feminism today has a bad name: kind of like Islam being hijacked by its own extremists, the most "newsworthy" feminists are the hard-line men-bashers who make headlines, so that's the lasting impression that is left.


That's my point.  How many people define Christians by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, which
considers itself a Christian organization? As a matter of fact a large number of white supremacy
groups consider themselves christian organizations, and exclude non-christian members. How
many times have you heard a christian say "yes I'm a christian, but I'm not a supremacist" ?
The presumption usually doesn't enter into it.  If a person says "I am a feminist" the connotations
are of a bitter shrike, and that is far from the case. I don't think feminism gave itself a bad name,
I think that the reputation has been manufactured by the media(Rush Limbaugh "feminazis"is
a good example) as a way to invalidate the movement as a whole.  Of course Rush must have
a hair across after being married and divorced three times, I'm sure he believes "it's them not
me".

You may be a feminist if:

you believe women do not need permission from their husband or father have a job.
you believe women do not need permission from their husbands to use birth control
you believe women do not need permission from a husband or father for a passport
you believe women who are pregnant should not be fired from their jobs,for being pregnant
you believe women can purchase property in their own name
you believe women who have been raped weren't  "asking for it"
you believe women battered by their husbands can obtain a divorce
you believe women can attend law school
you believe women can attend medical school
you believe women can attend engineering school

  My grandmother was a suffragette so fighting for rights runs in the family. So now tell me,

You may be a feminist if???????





You believe, as I do, that women are, by birth right, entitled to a full share of the human experience, however THEY define it, no ifs, ands, or buts.

My grandmother was also a suffargette.  My dad was born on Oct 30th 1920, a few days before her first election.  She was still "recovering" on election day.  Supposedly she said, pointing to his cradle, "all these years men have kept me from voting, AND THERE"S ANOTHER ONE".  I'm proud to say that social activism and fiesty women run in my family too.  My Puerto Rican mom, for example, moved to New Jersey while my dad was in Europe, guarding the English coast (he was in the Coast Guard).  She became "rosie the riviter", building air planes for Curtis Wright.

Personally, I am against the "Feminist" movement.

However, I am 100% in favor of "Equal Rights".

And before anybody attacks me for this, it is an opinion I got from my mother.

My mother was a strong woman, who was the major earner for my family.  She worked hard and got her high school diploma from night school after I was born.  She taught herself accounting, then in the 1960's when the company she worked (Olga Lingere) for computerized their accounting department, she went to night school and learned programming.

Through the 1970's and early 1980's, she moved the family to Idaho from California, because she got a good job offer.  My dad went along with it, because she made much more then he did as a warehouse worker.  This was in 1975, when ERA and "Women's Lib" was in full force.

She taught me that there is a difference between "Equal Rights" and "Feminism".  Even after her divorce from my dad, she kept her married name, and insisted on being called "Mrs. Martin".  When she married my stepfather, she then changed to her new name.  No hyphen, and you did NOT call her "Ms".  To my mom, "Ms" was an attempt to make eunuch out of women by denying them their gender.

I think my mom was a great combination of strong modern women, yet keeping the "old fashioned" values.  She supported John Anderson in 1980 because of his views on abortion.  But at the same time, she was morally against it for most cases.  She taught me to stand when a woman entered a room and to hold doors for them, but to NEVER treat them as anything other then as a lady.

I even got in trouble from her teachings later in life, when I refered to a woman (who's name I did not know) as "Miss".  Being raised old-fashioned, I was taught to address a woman who's marital status you did not know and was younger then you as "Miss".  If the woman was older then you, you addressed her as "Ma'am".

I was frankly shocked when the "lady" in question turned to me and spat "I am not a MISS!  A "MISS" is what happens when you did not hit what you were aiming at."  Luckily, I survived the sexual harassment charge she laid on me because of the incident.

Do I beleve women are 100% equal to men?  Hell yes!  I also believe that women are different then men.  I think to many of the "Feminists" want to pretend that those differences do not exist, and say that we are all the same.  To me, that is a shame.

As an aside, I think it is a gross injustice to consider abortion as a "Feminist Issue".  The two are not the same, and should not be lumped together.  To me, this is because while "Feminism" (ERA, or whatever you want to call it) affects all women and women only, Abortion is an issue that does not affect all women.  And even if they want to deny it, affects the fathers of these children as well.

Don't lean on me man, 'coz you can't afford the ticket back from Suffregette City!
--David Bowie
;D

Personally, I am against the "Feminist" movement.

However, I am 100% in favor of "Equal Rights".

And before anybody attacks me for this, it is an opinion I got from my mother.

My mother was a strong woman, who was the major earner for my family.  She worked hard and got her high school diploma from night school after I was born.  She taught herself accounting, then in the 1960's when the company she worked (Olga Lingere) for computerized their accounting department, she went to night school and learned programming.

Through the 1970's and early 1980's, she moved the family to Idaho from California, because she got a good job offer.  My dad went along with it, because she made much more then he did as a warehouse worker.  This was in 1975, when ERA and "Women's Lib" was in full force.

She taught me that there is a difference between "Equal Rights" and "Feminism".  Even after her divorce from my dad, she kept her married name, and insisted on being called "Mrs. Martin".  When she married my stepfather, she then changed to her new name.  No hyphen, and you did NOT call her "Ms".  To my mom, "Ms" was an attempt to make eunuch out of women by denying them their gender.

I think my mom was a great combination of strong modern women, yet keeping the "old fashioned" values.  She supported John Anderson in 1980 because of his views on abortion.  But at the same time, she was morally against it for most cases.  She taught me to stand when a woman entered a room and to hold doors for them, but to NEVER treat them as anything other then as a lady.

I even got in trouble from her teachings later in life, when I refered to a woman (who's name I did not know) as "Miss".  Being raised old-fashioned, I was taught to address a woman who's marital status you did not know and was younger then you as "Miss".  If the woman was older then you, you addressed her as "Ma'am".

I was frankly shocked when the "lady" in question turned to me and spat "I am not a MISS!  A "MISS" is what happens when you did not hit what you were aiming at."  Luckily, I survived the sexual harassment charge she laid on me because of the incident.

Do I beleve women are 100% equal to men?  Hell yes!  I also believe that women are different then men.  I think to many of the "Feminists" want to pretend that those differences do not exist, and say that we are all the same.  To me, that is a shame.

As an aside, I think it is a gross injustice to consider abortion as a "Feminist Issue".  The two are not the same, and should not be lumped together.  To me, this is because while "Feminism" (ERA, or whatever you want to call it) affects all women and women only, Abortion is an issue that does not affect all women.  And even if they want to deny it, affects the fathers of these children as well.


I am with you. However, Abortion is an issue more in the hands of those women affected since they are carrying the child, no ifs, ands, or buts to it. It does affect all women. If my sister had one, it would affect me knowing that she had to make a difficult choice. If it affects the father, IMHO I think the effect is minimal.

Tanya

My mother was a strong woman, who was the major earner for my family.  She worked hard and got her high school diploma from night school after I was born.  She taught herself accounting, then in the 1960's when the company she worked (Olga Lingere) for computerized their accounting department, she went to night school and learned programming.

Through the 1970's and early 1980's, she moved the family to Idaho from California, because she got a good job offer.  My dad went along with it, because she made much more then he did as a warehouse worker.  This was in 1975, when ERA and "Women's Lib" was in full force.

She taught me that there is a difference between "Equal Rights" and "Feminism".  Even after her divorce from my dad, she kept her married name, and insisted on being called "Mrs. Martin".  When she married my stepfather, she then changed to her new name.  No hyphen, and you did NOT call her "Ms".  To my mom, "Ms" was an attempt to make eunuch out of women by denying them their gender.

I think my mom was a great combination of strong modern women, yet keeping the "old fashioned" values.  She supported John Anderson in 1980 because of his views on abortion.  But at the same time, she was morally against it for most cases.  She taught me to stand when a woman entered a room and to hold doors for them, but to NEVER treat them as anything other then as a lady.

I even got in trouble from her teachings later in life, when I refereed to a woman (who's name I did not know) as "Miss".  Being raised old-fashioned, I was taught to address a woman who's marital status you did not know and was younger then you as "Miss".  If the woman was older then you, you addressed her as "Ma'am".

I was frankly shocked when the "lady" in question turned to me and spat "I am not a MISS!  A "MISS" is what happens when you did not hit what you were aiming at."  Luckily, I survived the sexual harassment charge she laid on me because of the incident.

Do I believe women are 100% equal to men?  Hell yes!  I also believe that women are different then men.  I think to many of the "Feminists" want to pretend that those differences do not exist, and say that we are all the same.  To me, that is a shame.

As an aside, I think it is a gross injustice to consider abortion as a "Feminist Issue".  The two are not the same, and should not be lumped together.  To me, this is because while "Feminism" (ERA, or whatever you want to call it) affects all women and women only, Abortion is an issue that does not affect all women.  And even if they want to deny it, affects the fathers of these children as well.


Saying you, or your mother, are/were not feminists because you have manners is an insult to me.
It implies that because I am that I do not.  If you read the above posts you will see that that
it what drives me crazy.  The women you have run into who have lambasted you are not the norm
but they are the ones everyone points to a says "see! see what they are like" .  That is why I
bring this up, and it seem that alot of people don't want to get it.
We all believe in Equal Rights, well, most of us anyway, but the
reality is until the feminists the women did not have them,  It is due to the feminist movement
that your mother was able to vote. When she went looking for her jobs she looked under the
column that said "Helped Wanted" not "Help wanted-Female" .  She, perhaps, was not turned away
from consideration for the job based on her sex.  If she was in the job market in the 60'S she
would remember that.
Aside from the issue of choice in the matter, there are times when a woman will almost
assuredly die if she has a baby.  In the past the woman did just that, in cases where the choice
was of the life of the child or the life of the mother,  it wasn't the woman who had the choice, her
husband, or father, or other male relative would decide who would live and who would die.
It is the feminists who made it possible for a woman to say if she would be the one to die.  That
is the reality.

After my first marriage ended, I did keep my husband's last name-only because it is such a pain to change it. But, I perferred to be called Ms (especially when I was student teaching) because at that point, I was no longer a "miss" and no longer a "mrs." I have taken Carlos' last name as my own now-because I really hated the name I was using and it no longer had any meaning for me. Now, I use the term Mrs. because I am one. If I had kept my maiden name the first time I got married, I may or may not have taken Carlos' name. I really don't know.

The point I am trying to make is that I think it is a woman's progative to choose what name she wants to use. In the case of two of my step-daughters, when they both got married, created names for themselves and their spouses. Instead of taking his name or having him take her name, they both changed it to something completely different.



Cat

I think Mushroom expresses the sentiments of lots of men, so of whom feel threatened by the idea of woman being their equals (in general) and in specific cases their superiors.  Men seem to have no problem admitting that other men are superior to them in specific areas - stronger, better athletes, smarter, more creative - you name it.  Seems rediculous to me that some men have a problem recognizing that some women are their superiors in specific areas.  I don't get it, but then. I like my woman like my coffee, dark, sweet and strong.

I like my woman like my coffee, dark, sweet and strong.



But I'm not dark (maybe a little tanned but not dark). I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad?  ;)




Cat

I think Mushroom expresses the sentiments of lots of men, so of whom feel threatened by the idea of woman being their equals (in general) and in specific cases their superiors.  Men seem to have no problem admitting that other men are superior to them in specific areas - stronger, better athletes, smarter, more creative - you name it.  Seems rediculous to me that some men have a problem recognizing that some women are their superiors in specific areas.  I don't get it, but then. I like my woman like my coffee, dark, sweet and strong.


In a tongue in cheek way, this was what I was trying to express in my initial posts.  :)

But I'm not dark (maybe a little tanned but not dark). I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad?  ;)




Cat


Sweet heart, you may not have as dark a complexion as I do, but you got rhythem, which makes you "dark".  This is clearly a steriotype and pure BS, but it IS to my wife, who's soul is as latino as mine.  And she is as sweet as candy and as strong as any woman I have ever met.  Three out of three ain't bad either.

That's all personal.  My point is that only weak men fear strong women.  Women, disregard them, there are strong men out there who are worthy of your admiration, and they will admire, support, and revel in your strength, as you should in theirs.  Gender equality is about mutual support, first against institutional barriers to woman's success (the glass ceiling) and about men's insecurity.  Both can be overcome, AND MUST.

That's all personal.  My point is that only weak men fear strong women.  Women, disregard them, there are strong men out there who are worthy of your admiration, and they will admire, support, and revel in your strength, as you should in theirs.  Gender equality is about mutual support, first against institutional barriers to woman's success (the glass ceiling) and about men's insecurity.  Both can be overcome, AND MUST.


My woman is a pretty strong woman (she will call a spade a spade like no other woman I know  ;D) and I respect her for it. She does my head in but that's what a relationship's all about. It's an interesting relationship when two strong people share it.  :)

Sweet heart, you may not have as dark a complexion as I do, but you got rhythem, which makes you "dark".  This is clearly a steriotype and pure BS, but it IS to my wife, who's soul is as latino as mine.  And she is as sweet as candy and as strong as any woman I have ever met.  Three out of three ain't bad either.

That's all personal.  My point is that only weak men fear strong women.  Women, disregard them, there are strong men out there who are worthy of your admiration, and they will admire, support, and revel in your strength, as you should in theirs.  Gender equality is about mutual support, first against institutional barriers to woman's success (the glass ceiling) and about men's insecurity.  Both can be overcome, AND MUST.




:-* :-* :-* :-*






Cat

She does my head in but that's what a relationship's all about. It's an interesting relationship when two strong people share it.  :)




This bit of slang may have a different meaning in the UK than it does here.  Should I ask you to explain, or just breath deeply, chuckle, and forget it?

I couldn't abide a relationship with a weak, fawning woman.  What a bore that would be.

This bit of slang may have a different meaning in the UK than it does here.  Should I ask you to explain, or just breath deeply, chuckle, and forget it?

I couldn't abide a relationship with a weak, fawning woman.  What a bore that would be.


Fawning means someone who is a person who uses flattery to influence others, in other words, a 'boot/arse-licker'.  ;D

It sounds very much in context to me, Carlos.

I think Bobby means his head as in his brain as opposed to any other sort of head you might be thinking of  ;)

I think Bobby means his head as in his brain as opposed to any other sort of head you might be thinking of  ;)


Oh! Ha ha! I'm so good at misinterpreting people.

'She does my head in' is a phrase meaning she gives me a cerebral headache (I wouldn't be bold enough to admit it was anywhere else. ;D)

It must be a British saying as I'm still confused :P


Don't let it trouble you.  As the saying goes, we and the Brits are divided by a common language.  I guess that makes it hard to stay ahead of the curve (think about it).

It must be a British saying as I'm still confused :P


Erm. If something irritates you or frustrates you then (perhaps only the British would say it by the sound of it  ;D) it would 'do your head in'. I hope it helps 80s cheerleader. You can say that British phrases 'do your head in' - perhaps?  ;D

Don't let it trouble you.  As the saying goes, we and the Brits are divided by a common language.  I guess that makes it hard to stay ahead of the curve (think about it).


Too true . . .

Anyway, what can I say about feminism? I really don't know. Anybody have any ideas?

Too true . . .

Anyway, what can I say about feminism? I really don't know. Anybody have any ideas?


During the Lawrence Mass textile strike the Wobblies were accused of "putting the women in the front".  Liz Gurley Flynn said "the Wobblies don't keep the women in the back, and they naturally go to the front".  The song "Bread and Roses" came out of that strike.  One of its lines is "the rising of the women is the rising of us all".  Today I watched the old movie "Salt of the Earth".  All of that is what feminism is about.  Its about woman as fully equal human beings.

During the Lawrence Mass textile strike the Wobblies were accused of "putting the women in the front".  Liz Gurley Flynn said "the Wobblies don't keep the women in the back, and they naturally go to the front".  The song "Bread and Roses" came out of that strike.  One of its lines is "the rising of the women is the rising of us all".  Today I watched the old movie "Salt of the Earth".  All of that is what feminism is about.  Its about woman as fully equal human beings.

"Salt of the Earth" is a great movie, but it's all but forgotten.  Consider the success of another movie from 1954, and it's ANTI-UNION message, "On the Waterfront."  As Noam Chomsky points out, "On the Waterfront" was part of a massive media campaign to discredit unions.  1954 was the height of McCarthyism and the post-war red scare.  The familiar ploy of "On the Waterfront" is how it makes like it supports Joe Blow.  This is a strong theme in today's right-wing campaigns.
I still think "On the Waterfront" is a great story and a superbly directed film and, yes, I like Marlon "I coulda been a contender" Brando.
I just wish more people had the chance to see "Salt of the Earth" too.

I knew there had to be more people out there who had seen "Salt of the Earth".  I love the
movie "On the Waterfront", but cannot hide from the anti-union message it portrayed.  I also love sending people up to the Lowell Heritage Museum.  It is an eye-opener to people who for what ever reason are nostalgic for "how things used to be"  I don't know if  any of you watched the PBS series "1900 House",  it was reality TV with a twist, the family had to live exactly as people did in the year 1900.  The women became disenchanted very quickly. The woman brought in as a housemaid was a third generation housemaid/cleaner.  She stated that she never had much use for the feminists until she had a dose of the life her grandmother must have led and sees how many gains were made through the efforts of the feminists.  Now she is all for them, one herself, I dare say.
I guess a little dose of  a life in a different reality never hurt anyone.

Some say birth control, disposable diapers, and washing machines made feminism possible, but I say it took a heck of a lot more than that!

I see now---sorry, I just got some blonde highlights put in my hair and they're messing with my intelligence ;D ;D ;D


Tee hee. Nowt to be sorry about, 80s cheerleader.

I presume everyone can understand me.  ;D

Tee hee. Nowt to be sorry about, 80s cheerleader.

I presume everyone can understand me.  ;D



What? I don't quite understand what you are saying.  ;) ;) ;D ;D





Cat

What? I don't quite understand what you are saying.   ;) ;) ;D ;D


Well what I meant is . . .  ;D

I am with you. However, Abortion is an issue more in the hands of those women affected since they are carrying the child...  If it affects the father, IMHO I think the effect is minimal.


I think that has a lot to do with the relationship of the parents.  In the event of a "one night stand", you are very right.  Then, I do not care what the "father" wants.  He is not going to be around.

When my wife had to have an abortion, it affected us BOTH greatly.  I am not encouraging the father having a "right of veto" in this situation.  But it is a situation where somehow I wish it was possible for the father to have an input.


Saying you, or your mother, are/were not feminists because you have manners is an insult to me.
It implies that because I am that I do not.


I am not saying that at all, and I am sorry that is what you read from my post.  It is just that some women do not understand the differences.  SOME women saw those "maners" as being degrading, or patronizing.  The belief (which I got from my mother) is that basically women ARE equal.  This is a basic belief, and does not need special considerations.

In fact, one of the problems I have had later in life is my tendency to place women "up on a pedistal".  My natural tendency is to act deferential towards women.  This is NOT condescending, but out of respect.  It was how I was raised, and how I will always be.

I consider women in general to be the key ingrediant in the "civilizing of MEN".  Without them, we men would just walk all over everything.  Women keep us on the "straight and narrow".  Just imagine the greater number of drunks we would have, if not for the fact that a lot of guys would have to explain to their wives where they had been, and where their money went.  ::)


I think Mushroom expresses the sentiments of lots of men, so of whom feel threatened by the idea of woman being their equals (in general) and in specific cases their superiors.


This is the hardest one for me to respond to.  In fact, it so greatly offended me, I almost deleted all links to this board and did not return.

Don, there is no way I can put into words how much this offended me.  I have *NEVER* been threatened by women (or blacks, or hispanics, or Asians, or any other group).  I accept EVERYBODY as my equal.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, when he wrote "All men are created equal".  However, I do not look at it as "men" meaning males, but "men" as in "all mankind".  (And once again, I am not PC.  Since the English language does not have adequate gender-neutral pronouns, I am stuck with useing the ones that the language does have.)

To me, if a woman works the same job as a man, performs the same, and has the same seniority, she should be paid the same.  End of story.  I will (and have) worked for a woman with the same respect and ability that I would show for a man (and also the reverse).  And I have *NEVER* felt threatened by a woman in authority.

I had thought that my post would show that.  But I guess somehow it did not.  Women do not threaten me at all (unless they are drunk 300 pound ones that look like sumo wrestlers). 

Thomas Jefferson said it best, when he wrote "All men are created equal".  However, I do not look at it as "men" meaning males, but "men" as in "all mankind".  (And once again, I am not PC.  Since the English language does not have adequate gender-neutral pronouns, I am stuck with using the ones that the language does have.)



Then I think, once we stop trying to explain ourselves, we are on the same page.  I guess
our words get in the way.  But, in my own nitpicky way, I would use TJ's words, but not his
actions.  Now you want to talk hypocrisy there's the man to see.

I consider women in general to be the key ingrediant in the "civilizing of MEN".  Without them, we men would just walk all over everything.  Women keep us on the "straight and narrow".  Just imagine the greater number of drunks we would have, if not for the fact that a lot of guys would have to explain to their wives where they had been, and where their money went.   ::)



This is the hardest one for me to respond to.  In fact, it so greatly offended me, I almost deleted all links to this board and did not return.

Don, there is no way I can put into words how much this offended me.  I have *NEVER* been threatened by women (or blacks, or hispanics, or Asians, or any other group).  I accept EVERYBODY as my equal.

Thomas Jefferson said it best, when he wrote "All men are created equal".  However, I do not look at it as "men" meaning males, but "men" as in "all mankind".  (And once again, I am not PC.  Since the English language does not have adequate gender-neutral pronouns, I am stuck with useing the ones that the language does have.)

To me, if a woman works the same job as a man, performs the same, and has the same seniority, she should be paid the same.  End of story.  I will (and have) worked for a woman with the same respect and ability that I would show for a man (and also the reverse).  And I have *NEVER* felt threatened by a woman in authority.

I had thought that my post would show that.  But I guess somehow it did not.  Women do not threaten me at all (unless they are drunk 300 pound ones that look like sumo wrestlers). 


I left that first paragraph in for the end.

First, I'm sorry my post offended you.  I hope you know by now that I try to keep things on the issues and not on personalities, so I'm sorry you took my remarks personally.  That was not my intent.

Let me explain the reasoning behind my post.  You assert your belief in women's equality, with which I agree, but you assert a dislike for Feminism.  In previous posts I have tried to explain what feminism means to me, which is essentially the struggle for equality of opportunity in every area of life.  You may have a different interpretation of the meaning of the word, but using my definition, I think you would have to admit that there is an inherant contradiction between those two sentiments.  You assert that women should be treated as equals, but the reality is that they are not (this is especially true of women of color).  Women should receive equal wages for equal work, and should not have to confront the glass cieling, but they ARE paid less and they ARE less likely to be promoted.  Feminists are strugglling against those injustices, so to not support them in that struggle is to oppose women's equality.

These are institutional issues.  On the level of personal gender relations, while I never ment my remarks to apply yo you personally, I think they do characterize at least a substantial minority of the male population of this country, and a majority of men throughout the world.  It wasn't long ago that male dominance and male superiority were part of the dominant ideology of this country, and they remain so in many parts of the  world.  Again, I'm sorry you took those remarks as personal.  I have no idea how you personally see women, beyond what you have posted.  What I said was not that YOU fear strong women  (how could I know that?), but that your post raised that issue, inadvertantly I suspect, but none the less. 

Many years ago I saw a Canadian documentary on the training of US troops which was instructive in this regard.  Drill instructors made repeated reference to a woman named "Rita Rotten Cr....", and also to how our troops were "protecting the virtue" of their sisters.  A mixed message to be sure, on some levels (women as Other, women as whores, women as the Virgin Mary), but it is certainly not a message of equality.  While the military has probably changed since that time (probably 20 years ago), I think many of the attitudes survive.  Look at the stats on violance against women for starters.

First, I'm sorry my post offended you.  I hope you know by now that I try to keep things on the issues and not on personalities, so I'm sorry you took my remarks personally.  That was not my intent.


Thanks for saying so.  :)  It is one thing that surprised me, because I thought it was rather obvious that I am *NOT* threatened by women in any way.  I am glad that it was just a misunderstanding.


You assert your belief in women's equality, with which I agree, but you assert a dislike for Feminism.


I think it is more like "what Feminism has become".  If I was born 100 years ago, I would have been for the suffrage movement.  In the 1960's and 1970's the movement did a lot to advance women in the workplace.  But by the 1980's, they had largely won.  Now, I largely see it as a worn-out movement, useing fear to keep itself alive.


Women should receive equal wages for equal work, and should not have to confront the glass cieling, but they ARE paid less and they ARE less likely to be promoted.  Feminists are strugglling against those injustices, so to not support them in that struggle is to oppose women's equality.


Well, there is only one situation where I can understand the reason of a "glass ceiling".

Unlike men, women often take considerable time from work to have children.  This often places them 1-4 years behind their male counterparts in terms of seniority.  Also, often women are "less agressive", which means that they tend to not get promotions when pitted against more agressive men for the same position.  This does not excuse any kind of discrmination, but it does explain why some of it is there.  I know that when I was working with a woman in the military, I got a better position.  Largely, it is because I was more agressive and the position dealt with handling groups of 30 Marines.  This is simple "office politics", and supervisors will often choose a more agressive candidate over a more passive one.  And this is NOT saying that all women are passive.


Many years ago I saw a Canadian documentary on the training of US troops which was instructive in this regard.  Drill instructors made repeated reference to a woman named "Rita Rotten Cr....", and also to how our troops were "protecting the virtue" of their sisters.  A mixed message to be sure, on some levels (women as Other, women as whores, women as the Virgin Mary), but it is certainly not a message of equality.  While the military has probably changed since that time (probably 20 years ago), I think many of the attitudes survive.


Wow, this is very dificult to tap into.  Please, nobody take offense at what I am about to say.

The history of the "Jodie Chants" largely starts in 1944.  Up until then, marching chants were largely just "1-2-3-4" and "left-right-left-right".

In 1944, Pvt. Willie Duckworth, a black soldier on detached service with Fort Slocum's Provisional Training Center is credited with creating the first marching chant with words.  This largely stayed a tradition in Black units until the integration during the 1950's.  At this time, the cadences became popular with all services and became a tradition.

During Vietnam, the "Jodie" chant became popular.  One of the oldest versions goes:

"Ain't no use in going home;
Jody's got your girl and gone.
Ain't no use in feeling blue;
Jody's got your sister, too.
Ain't no use in lookin' back;
Jody's got your Cadillac."

In the lexicon of "Jody", Jody is the guy at home who goes after your girlfriend when you are in the service.  He is the guy that your GF hooked up with, and sends you a "Dear John" letter.  And after this GF leaves you, she becomes "Suzy Rottencrotch".  And your mother/sister are Holy Virgins, who are to be protected from the evil of the Hun/Comunists/VC/Terrorists.

Jodie Chants are often made up and relate to current events and/or locations.  One guy I was stationed with in the 1980's made one that dealt with Kadaffy, Castro, and Bhreznev.  At about the same time, I made one up that combined Rambo and Rap.  When we were in Japan and Panama, we made cadences up to talk about that, or modified existing ones.

You have to remember, these were either harmless fun ones, or they were basic "gutter humor" (much like you would see in a movie like "Animal House" or "Scary Movie").  Women might be talked about in an insulting way, but in an all-male unit (like the Infantry, who I spent most of my time with) that was common.  And when running with women in the formation, I have heard many women bust off with lyrics against the men that were just as foul.

To me, the best Jodies were humerous.  When you are on a 5 mile run, humor is great to take your mind off of the run.  And there is a real reason for the chants.  When you yell, more CO2 is exchanged then when you just breathe silently.  And it also keeps the formation in step, preventing accidents.

Even in the 1980's, the offensive chants were largely dying out.  None of the ones I ever sang to Marines were offensive (unless you were a Lybian dictator or Fidel Castro).  :D

Holy Poopskein! I'm a feminist! Oh my God!


Equal rights for all y'all, or else!

I think it is more like "what Feminism has become".  If I was born 100 years ago, I would have been for the suffrage movement.  In the 1960's and 1970's the movement did a lot to advance women in the workplace.  But by the 1980's, they had largely won.  Now, I largely see it as a worn-out movement, useing fear to keep itself alive.



Well, there is only one situation where I can understand the reason of a "glass ceiling".

Unlike men, women often take considerable time from work to have children.  This often places them 1-4 years behind their male counterparts in terms of seniority.  Also, often women are "less agressive", which means that they tend to not get promotions when pitted against more agressive men for the same position.  This does not excuse any kind of discrmination, but it does explain why some of it is there.  I know that when I was working with a woman in the military, I got a better position.  Largely, it is because I was more agressive and the position dealt with handling groups of 30 Marines.  This is simple "office politics", and supervisors will often choose a more agressive candidate over a more passive one.  And this is NOT saying that all women are passive.




The history of the "Jodie Chants" largely starts in 1944.  Up until then, marching chants were largely just "1-2-3-4" and "left-right-left-right".



Thanks for the history lesson, but I wasn't refering to chants, sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.  The reference to Rita was part of a discussion between a drill sargent and his squad about to go on leave.

The point you raise re glass ceiling has been raised before, and may have some merit - women, what's your take?.  On the other hand, there have been numerous cases of women being denied promotion even though they were fully qualified.  Several women were just granted class actioin status in a case against Wal-Mart, for example. So your explanation may have some truth to it, but I think it is far from the whole story.  I also question your generalization regarding assertiveness, and would suggest that IF (and it is a big if) it is true, it is certainly not some inate quality of the female persuasion but a cultural artifact that feminists are trying to remedy.  Mt 3 daughters are all VERY assertive, sometimes to the consternation of their father.  So I would suggest that the feminist movement, like the civil rights movement, still has lots of work to do.

Glad we straightened out the misunderstanding, by the way.  ;D

The point you raise re glass ceiling has been raised before, and may have some merit - women, what's your take?.  I also question your generalization regarding assertiveness, and would suggest that IF (and it is a big if) it is true, it is certainly not some inate quality of the female persuasion but a cultural artifact that feminists are trying to remedy.
Glad we straightened out the misunderstanding, by the way.   ;D


No problem.  :)  I may have read your post wrong, but it was how I thought it read.  But past is past.

Overall, I think that women do tend to be less assertive.  I know this is a generalization, but it is something I have seen over and over again.  I think it is a combination of nature, nurture, and family placement.  In our most primitive status, men did the hunting, the fighting, and the brute labor.  Women organized the household-community, raised the children, and took care of the old and sick-injured.  This is even evident in many animals, where the males will do their part for procreation, then leave the females to raise the young.  This is most likely part of a millions-of-years old biological programming, that would be impossible to fully change.  It would also be a good explanation as to why there are millions of "absentee fathers", yet very few "absentee mothers".

Now I do not say that either of these is more important then the other.  While I said assertive, agressive is more then likely the correct word.  Women are more likely to live in a world of compromise then men are.  Men, we bull our way through life.  If something does not fit the way we like it, we *MAKE* it fit, dammit.  :P  That is how we are, we are crude, barely-civilized men.

Men and women are different.  We look at things different.  We react to things different.  We even think differently.  I saw this first-hand during a psychology class I once took.

As part of a project to show how people think, my fiance' gave me an idea when she told me that men and women think different.  I used 2 dressmakers dummies, and placed a bra on each of them.  I then asked a random number of students to describe the clasps.

Almost all of the men would describe the bra as "front opening" or "back opening".  Almost all of the women described them as "front closing" or "back closing".  While it was not very scientific, it did show how each of the sexes approaches something in a totally different outlook.

I even got an A for the project.  :D

Men and women are different.  We look at things different.  We react to things different.  We even think differently.  I saw this first-hand during a psychology class I once took.

As part of a project to show how people think, my fiance' gave me an idea when she told me that men and women think different.  I used 2 dressmakers dummies, and placed a bra on each of them.  I then asked a random number of students to describe the clasps.

Almost all of the men would describe the bra as "front opening" or "back opening".  Almost all of the women described them as "front closing" or "back closing".  While it was not very scientific, it did show how each of the sexes approaches something in a totally different outlook.

I even got an A for the project.  :D


I certainly agree with the first part of this edited paragraph. Generally, men have difficulty concentrating on more than one thing at once. I have found that out. It is so difficult trying to type on the messageboard and listen to my girlfriend at the same time!

When a man is facing difficulty, he will tend to withdraw from people as women will tend to do the reverse.

Men are generally good mechanics as women are generally good cooks (only kidding!)  ;D

I agree that men and women are different, and its a darn good thing too  ;).  Unfortunately, we (as a society) have a tendancy to equate "different" as "better or worse" and to devalue some traits and elevate others.  The patriarchy, which is 1000s of years old, has assigned rolls to maleness and femaleness which has narrowed, or limited the humanity of all of us.  All men have traits that are defined as female, and all women have "masculine"  traits.  We are encouraged to negate the ones that are not gender specific, and in doing soi, we all are deprived of a part of our humanity.

I agree that men and women are different, and its a darn good thing too  ;).  Unfortunately, we (as a society) have a tendancy to equate "different" as "better or worse" and to devalue some traits and elevate others.  The patriarchy, which is 1000s of years old, has assigned rolls to maleness and femaleness which has narrowed, or limited the humanity of all of us.  All men have traits that are defined as female, and all women have "masculine"  traits.  We are encouraged to negate the ones that are not gender specific, and in doing soi, we all are deprived of a part of our humanity.


Absolutely right, Carlos. I find it quite interesting that chefs or male hairdressers are often portrayed as homosexual.

Chefs?  If you're going to suggest that around Gordon Ramsay, I suggest you duck very quickly ;)

Absolutely right, Carlos. I find it quite interesting that chefs or male hairdressers are often portrayed as homosexual.


I'm as straight as an arrow, and I love to cook, although I'm not a chef by any means - a good cook, but...  My dad was a chef for a while after the war, but gave it up because of the ungodly hours - and at almost 84 has a very nice woman friend with who he occassionally has breakfast  ;)  He also taught me (by example) how to treat a woman - with respect, with equality, and in some cases with love and devotion.  He was a feminist before the term was coined in all his dealings with women. 

Chefs?  If you're going to suggest that around Gordon Ramsay, I suggest you duck very quickly ;)


Heh heh. He's the Gary Busey of the cooking world.  ;D

I'm as straight as an arrow, and I love to cook, although I'm not a chef by any means - a good cook, but...  My dad was a chef for a while after the war, but gave it up because of the ungodly hours - and at almost 84 has a very nice woman friend with who he occassionally has breakfast  ;)  He also taught me (by example) how to treat a woman - with respect, with equality, and in some cases with love and devotion.  He was a feminist before the term was coined in all his dealings with women. 


It sounds like you've got a good role-model in your father, Carlos.

It sounds like you've got a good role-model in your father, Carlos.


Yup, and I continue to love and respect the old gizzer, even though he beats me at poker - mostly  :\'(  ;D

Yup, and I continue to love and respect the old gizzer, even though he beats me at poker - mostly  :\'(  ;D


Doh! Keep a couple of aces up your sleeve.  ;D

I love my grandad (he's passed on) and was my role model. He used to whip me at Chinese Patience.  :-\\  :D

I'm as straight as an arrow, and I love to cook, although I'm not a chef by any means - a good cook,

My ex-husband was the same way.  He was a great cook, and completely heterosexual.

Getting off the topic a bit, but I have to say that Carlos is a WONDERFUL cook. If it wasn't for him, I probably wouldn't eat-since I really don't know how to. I gained about 20 lbs when I first moved in with him and STILL haven't taken it off yet. Oh well. I do love to eat and he loves to cook-what could be better.  ;D




Cat

Getting off the topic a bit, but I have to say that Carlos is a WONDERFUL cook. If it wasn't for him, I probably wouldn't eat-since I really don't know how to. I gained about 20 lbs when I first moved in with him and STILL haven't taken it off yet. Oh well. I do love to eat and he loves to cook-what could be better.  ;D


Absolutely nothing, Catwoman.  ;D

My fiance is a whizz in the kitchen - it's only a problem now I'm trying to lose weight.  :-\\  :)

Getting off the topic a bit, but I have to say that Carlos is a WONDERFUL cook. If it wasn't for him, I probably wouldn't eat-since I really don't know how to. I gained about 20 lbs when I first moved in with him and STILL haven't taken it off yet. Oh well. I do love to eat and he loves to cook-what could be better.  ;D




Cat


Thanks babe.  In a feminist household everyone should pitch in.  Thats just part of the equality thing.

Thanks babe.  In a feminist household everyone should pitch in.  Thats just part of the equality thing.



Yup-you got that right. Now, go do the laundry.  ;)




Cat

Yup-you got that right. Now, go do the laundry.  ;)


But don't put it in the food processor, Carlos.  ;)  ;D

Yup-you got that right. Now, go do the laundry.  ;)




Cat


When I lived alone, I did.  Now that's your job - in addition to hours here and playing on pogo winning tokens (some of which I spend  ;))


But don't put it in the food processor, Carlos. ;) ;D


Thanks for the advise Bobby, clothes and food don't mix well.  Got that.  Unless one buys those edible panties, then, who knows  ;)

Good comeback.

Thanks for the advise Bobby, clothes and food don't mix well.  Got that.  Unless one buys those edible panties, then, who knows  ;)

Good comeback.


Tee hee.  ;D

Maybe that's how I can lose weight, Carlos. At least I'll be excercising while I'm eating.  ;D

What are edible panties made of?

Apparently, he says, referencing the internet in times of trouble, you can get them in seven different flavours including banana, cherry, chocolate, and good 'ol cotton-candy (that's candyfloss to you and me) flavour!

Apparently, he says, referencing the internet in times of trouble, you can get them in seven different flavours including banana, cherry, chocolate, and good 'ol cotton-candy (that's candyfloss to you and me) flavour!


Do you know what material they are made from, Bobo? . . . Just out of passing interest.  ;D

Do you know what material they are made from, Bobo? . . . Just out of passing interest.  ;D


They look like some sort of plastic (but aren't obviously).  They also bring to mind strawberry laces.  (Or at least so I heard  :-\\ )

The only thing I know is everyone looks at me strangely due to the fact that "edible panties" is in my Search history! ;D

Do you know what material they are made from, Bobo? . . . Just out of passing interest. ;D

I love what Dave Chappelle said 'Chivalry is dead . . . and women killed it'. ;D


Reading through this thread today for the first time from end to end, and this made me smile.

Chivalry is not comepletely dead. I was talking to a male board member last night who, in the midst of irritating PC software probs, apologised to me because he was about to start cursing! :) That was kind of nice - I haven't had a male do that since my 9th grade boyfriend... :o


Modified to add: ~ sorry for the interruption - please return to your edible panties convo already in progress....~ ;D

Reading through this thread today for the first time from end to end, and this made me smile.

Chivalry is not comepletely dead. I was talking to a male board member last night who, in the midst of irritating PC software probs, apologised to me because he was about to start cursing! :) That was kind of nice - I haven't had a male do that since my 9th grade boyfriend... :o


Modified to add: ~ sorry for the interruption - please return to your edible panties convo already in progress....~ ;D


Apologizing for swearing isn't chivalrous, it's good manners.  Showing up at 4am with a car for
you to drive cause yours was stolen right out of your driveway and you have to get to work, that is
chivalry.  It would have been romantic too, if it wasn't 4am.

The only thing I know is everyone looks at me strangely due to the fact that "edible panties" is in my Search history! ;D


And nobody believes you when you say that you are researching for some bloke on the internet.  :D

Not that I am after any. I will just eat them before anyone gets to wear them - I'll stick to the works vending machines.  :)

Apologizing for swearing isn't chivalrous, it's good manners.  Showing up at 4am with a car for
you to drive cause yours was stolen right out of your driveway and you have to get to work, that is
chivalry.  It would have been romantic too, if it wasn't 4am.


Yes I agree. Chivalry is going one step further than good manners - it usually involves a romantic gesture of some description.

I still think women killed chivalry.  ;D

Modified to add: ~ sorry for the interruption - please return to your edible panties convo already in progress....~ ;D


Lol. Er . . . Has anyone eaten any edible panties?

Lol. Er . . . Has anyone eaten any edible panties?


No but I think I wore some once  :-was that too much information?)

No but I think I wore some once  :-was that too much information?)


No, but any subsequent information may be. :o

True Danoota.  Perhaps we should get back on topic?

True Danoota.  Perhaps we should get back on topic?


Yeah, but just one question, do the make them in boxers? ::)

Yeah, but just one question, do the make them in boxers? ::)


I'm not sure.  I found some handcuffs made of the same stuff.

http://www.annsummers.co.uk/single.asp?gid=7&cat=8&pid=2108

I don't know what's in them (and don't think I want to), but they're a bit like a fruit rollup.


It sounds like if you wear a pair of edible pants, you are wearing a big massive wine gum or something.

Karen, you wore edible pants? Incredible. 

Edible is stretching it as they are NOT very tasty.  They're really quite messy too. :P


Lol.  No offense Cheers, but is this from personal experience?  None of my business, of course, but just wondering.

Now lets get back to topic, and this silly digretion does relate.  For centuries, women have been taught to hid/sublimate/repress their sexuality, and have.  IMHO this is one of ther causes of strife between men and women.  I'm not blaming women for this, in fact, I blame men, the patriarchy, for imposing this on women.  I just see it as something that both men and women need to overcome.
Thoughts?

Now lets get back to topic, and this silly digretion does relate.  For centuries, women have been taught to hid/sublimate/repress their sexuality, and have.  IMHO this is one of ther causes of strife between men and women.  I'm not blaming women for this, in fact, I blame men, the patriarchy, for imposing this on women.  I just see it as something that both men and women need to overcome.
Thoughts?


I think the main problem is knowing when someone is flirting and when someone is being genuine. There are lots of people who flirt but don't see anything beyond it and of course, there are some poor people out there (myself included) that can't tell the difference. This could lead to all sorts of presumptious trouble.

Lol.  No offense Cheers, but is this from personal experience?  None of my business, of course, but just wondering.

Now lets get back to topic, and this silly digretion does relate.  For centuries, women have been taught to hid/sublimate/repress their sexuality, and have.  IMHO this is one of ther causes of strife between men and women.  I'm not blaming women for this, in fact, I blame men, the patriarchy, for imposing this on women.  I just see it as something that both men and women need to overcome.
Thoughts?



Yes, I agree that we can blame patriarchic society that created those edible undies.  ;)





Cat

Yes, I agree that we can blame patriarchic society that created those edible undies.  ;)

Yes, anything to make a buck.  But, my liberated wife (I won't go into details here), many women ARE sexually repressed as a result  of the stupid duel standards of western social/moral conventions. 

And since you never have worn edible undies, I have no idea what they taste like  ;) ;D




Cat

Now lets get back to topic, and this silly digretion does relate.  For centuries, women have been taught to hid/sublimate/repress their sexuality, and have.  IMHO this is one of ther causes of strife between men and women.  I'm not blaming women for this, in fact, I blame men, the patriarchy, for imposing this on women.  I just see it as something that both men and women need to overcome.
Thoughts?


It all goes back to the women as property thing.  Women were not supposed to be sexual creatures outside of the duty she performed for her husband and family in providing children. Most people into that very inexact (without DNA) science of genealogy find themselves tracing their ancestry to one king or another.  Well, the truth is that the kings in many european countries had first rights to every virgin.  He was the lord and the people were his property,  and he had right to assert his property rights on any female under his province.  This attitude filtered to the heads of households.  If a man slept with another mans wife, or raped her, reparations were paid to the man, not the woman.  His property had been violated, because her sexuality belonged to him.  If a woman asserted her sexuality, her father, husband, brother, uncle etc. had the ability to "marry her off'", punish her, or even place her in an institution.  Her sexuality was not her own and could get her into dire predicaments if she was not careful.

It all goes back to the women as property thing.  Women were not supposed to be sexual creatures outside of the duty she performed for her husband and family in providing children. Most people into that very inexact (without DNA) science of genealogy find themselves tracing their ancestry to one king or another.  Well, the truth is that the kings in many european countries had first rights to every virgin.  He was the lord and the people were his property,  and he had right to assert his property rights on any female under his province.  This attitude filtered to the heads of households.  If a man slept with another mans wife, or raped her, reparations were paid to the man, not the woman.  His property had been violated, because her sexuality belonged to him.  If a woman asserted her sexuality, her father, husband, brother, uncle etc. had the ability to "marry her off'", punish her, or even place her in an institution.  Her sexuality was not her own and could get her into dire predicaments if she was not careful.


Thats right, and the feminist movement has not overcome these attitudes compleatly, not yet.

Thats right, and the feminist movement has not overcome these attitudes completely, not yet.


No, not by a longshot.  People will still speak of children out of wedlock as "illegitimate", they are considered by some as children "without a name".  Their legitimacy is actually their right to claim the ownership of that which belongs to their father, property as well as social standing.  It also conferred a place within the community. A child out of wed lock was something to be shunned, and in some religions, doomed to hell from the outset.The status of their mother does not give them legitimacy, only the status conferred upon them by there fathers act of legitimizing them. In fact a child out of wed lock can be made legitimate by the father, without marrying the mother. All this falls within the realm of sexual politics. These attitudes are alive, and in some cases thriving.

Then again I would say odds are that there isn't a person in this website that has ever really read the
Bible as it was written, so we don't know what it says.  We have read interpretations of the Bible
by rulers that reflect their own view, and from what I have heard they were not adverse to leaving out anything
that would affect their sovereignity.  The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the new testament in
Greek, so why the emphasis on Latin and English?  ??? A lot of it comes down to power and property,
and they seem to go hand in hand.

Then again I would say odds are that there isn't a person in this website that has ever really read the
Bible as it was written, so we don't know what it says.  We have read interpretations of the Bible
by rulers that reflect their own view, and from what I have heard they were not adverse to leaving out anything
that would affect their sovereignity.  The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the new testament in
Greek, so why the emphasis on Latin and English?   ??? A lot of it comes down to power and property,
and they seem to go hand in hand.


Absolutely right!  The King James version, that most protestants rely on was written by...you guessed it, King James of England.  Now there's a biblical scholar for ya.  Thewre are also many "biblical" texts that are not included that could be in both the old and new testaments.

You might want to read Frederick Engles book on the origins of the family, private property, and the state.

You might want to read Frederick Engles book on the origins of the family, private property, and the state.


Been there, I have the dubious pleasure of being educated beyond my station.  Luckily, it is no longer
against the law, not that that couldn't change. ???

People should stop and think when they see "Gospel ACCORDING TO (insert name).  I have
yet to see a Gospel according to God/Goddess. ;)

I friend sent me this e-mail today. I thought it was appropate here.


Even if you don't vote the way I do, remember to go vote!  D.

With upcoming elections, this is probably a good time to remember these events.....

Subject: A REMINDER
A short history lesson on the privilege of voting...
The women were innocent and defenseless.  And by the  end of the
night, they were barely alive.  Forty prison guards wielding  clubs and
their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly
convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."

They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her 
head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for  air.
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an  iron
bed and knocked her out cold.  Her cell mate, Alice Cosu,  thought Lewis
was dead and suffered a heart attack.  Additional  affidavits describe
the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching,
twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open  pail.  Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with  worms.  When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied  her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited.  She was tortured like this for weeks  until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory.  Some women won't vote this year because--why,
exactly?  We have carpool duties?  We have to  get to work?  Our vote
doesn't matter?  It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new 
movie "Iron Jawed Angels."  It is a graphic depiction of the  battle these
women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth 
and have my say.  I am ashamed to say I needed the  reminder.
HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video  and
DVD.  I wish all history, social studies and government  teachers
would include the movie in their curriculum.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to 
persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be
permanently institutionalized.  And it is inspiring to  watch the
doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and  brave.  That didn't make
her crazy.  The doctor admonished the  men:  "Courage in women is often
mistaken for insanity."

Please pass this on to all the women you know.  We need  to get out
and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very
courageous women.





Cat

Absolutely right!  The King James version, that most protestants rely on was written by...you guessed it, King James of England.  Now there's a biblical scholar for ya. 

I am sorry if I am about to be blunt, but that sentence above just about gave me apoplexy. "King James wrote the KJB" is the most asinine statement I have ever heard. King James authorized an English version of the Bible to be produced, since up to that time most (although not all) versions available were in Latin, and the common people were unable to read them. The KJB was produced by scholars, who used the best Hebrew and Latin translations available to them at the time.

And most Christians today use the NIV, or the New English Standard which are considered slightly more accurate than the KJV, as there are more ancient sources readily available to work with than in King James' day. I have compared many verses between versions and there are differences, but they are slight, and in most places do not alter the basic meaning of the text.

Now, excuse me while I log off and go find a valium... ::)

Wow, Catwoman, that's lurid!

Cats' above entry is one of the reasons I go absolutely bonkers when I hear about people who
don't vote.  It is inconceivable to me that anyone who has the right throws it away, and people
ignore others when their vote is jeopardized.  Usurp one, Usurp all. My immigration policy,
-trade one for one every American who willing does not vote,  or prevents anyone else from voting
to a country where people are not allowed to vote.A person from that country gets to come here
and use their vote.  Hey to our Australian friends, I heard that in Australia they can actually arrest you for not voting.  True?

I vote b/c of the sacrifices made for me to have the voting privilege by those in the Civil Rights Movement, not the Voting Rights Movement of Women. While I commend them for what they did and sacrificed, the women who looked like me didn't gain such rights until after the civil rights movement. These women were still dealing with red tape and ignorance.

But, I find it unfortunate that despite the work from both movements, the voting turnout is horrendous. What's more disgusting is to hear those complain about issues and when you ask them if they voted during the last election, they say no. Hello, you lose your right to complain, when you don't vote!

It's as simple as that!

Tanya

I am sorry if I am about to be blunt, but that sentence above just about gave me apoplexy. "King James wrote the KJB" is the most asinine statement I have ever heard. King James authorized an English version of the Bible to be produced, since up to that time most (although not all) versions available were in Latin, and the common people were unable to read them. The KJB was produced by scholars, who used the best Hebrew and Latin translations available to them at the time.

And most Christians today use the NIV, or the New English Standard which are considered slightly more accurate than the KJV, as there are more ancient sources readily available to work with than in King James' day. I have compared many verses between versions and there are differences, but they are slight, and in most places do not alter the basic meaning of the text.

Now, excuse me while I log off and go find a valium... ::)


Sorry that I oversimplified.  I know that King James didn't personally write "his" version of the bible.  It does, however, reflect lots of the concerns of his day.  Let me add that during King James' day less than 10% of the English popuylation could read their own language, so clearly, the translation wasn't authorized for "the masses". 

I vote b/c of the sacrifices made for me to have the voting privilege by those in the Civil Rights Movement, not the Voting Rights Movement of Women. While I commend them for what they did and sacrificed, the women who looked like me didn't gain such rights until after the civil rights movement. These women were still dealing with red tape and ignorance.


Tanya


Gotta call you on this one.  My grandmother was a suffragette and was able to vote when voting was made legal for women in Massachusetts, as did all of my female relations.  They were women who looked much like you.  The right to vote was absent in the south, not so in the north.  When the right for women to vote was obtained the color of the women was not transcribed, and women of color here voted.

I vote b/c of the sacrifices made for me to have the voting privilege by those in the Civil Rights Movement, not the Voting Rights Movement of Women. While I commend them for what they did and sacrificed, the women who looked like me didn't gain such rights until after the civil rights movement. These women were still dealing with red tape and ignorance.

But, I find it unfortunate that despite the work from both movements, the voting turnout is horrendous. What's more disgusting is to hear those complain about issues and when you ask them if they voted during the last election, they say no. Hello, you lose your right to complain, when you don't vote!

It's as simple as that!

Tanya


Voting is central to democracy, so it is clearly a betrayl of democracy not to vote, and, I would say, unpatriotic.  The deeper issue, I think, is why people don't vote.  Mostly it is the poor who don't, probably because they don't (or hopefully "didn't") think it mattered.  I plan to take election day off, and volunteer to drive people to the polls who need a lift - regardless of who they might vote for.

Hey to our Australian friends, I heard that in Australia they can actually arrest you for not voting.  True?


Hey yourself !  :)

Technically.  Voting is compulsory.  It’s funny you know, when that is what you are used to, you don't give it much of a second thought.  It has always been of some amusement to me that voting in the US is not compulsory, but there ya have it.

I am not aware of anyone going to jail for not voting, but you certainly can (and will) be fined for it  :o

But, I find it unfortunate that despite the work from both movements, the voting turnout is horrendous. What's more disgusting is to hear those complain about issues and when you ask them if they voted during the last election, they say no. Hello, you lose your right to complain, when you don't vote!

It's as simple as that!

Tanya


I agree with you, Tanya.  Voting is such an important act, I can't believe there are people who refuse for whatever reason.  I agree that people shouldn't be allowed to complain if they didn't vote.  Every vote counts.  Even when you are a Dem in the state of Utah (for example)  Your vote for the president might be cancelled out by someone else, but there are other issues besides the president.  We have 3 congress seats and one senate seat in the election...plus governor and other local issues that need to be decided. 

. King James authorized an English version of the Bible to be produced, since up to that time most (although not all) versions available were in Latin, and the common people were unable to read them. The KJB was produced by scholars, who used the best Hebrew and Latin translations available to them at the time.

And most Christians today use the NIV, or the New English Standard which are considered slightly more accurate than the KJV, as there are more ancient sources readily available to work with than in King James' day. I have compared many verses between versions and there are differences, but they are slight, and in most places do not alter the basic meaning of the text.

Now, excuse me while I log off and go find a valium... ::)


The key word here is authorized.  The King James version was translated to reflect his views, if the
translators knew that if they translated it in a way that didn't reflect what it was James wanted to convey they could have been tortured for blasphemy.  By "common people"  do not confuse this with every day people as most people were not taught to read, education of the masses was frowned upon, The stratification of classes deamed it criminal in some cases to educate someone "beyond their station". The common people in question were people who were not royals or aristocrats, but had attained a certain amount of wealth. King James, learned though he was brought forth the theory of the "Divine Right of Kings"  whereby a King had the right to rule without question by virtue of birth, that right being deemed by God. that people should obey their monarch as they obey their god.  That was taught from the pulpit.

I friend sent me this e-mail today. I thought it was appropate here.


Even if you don't vote the way I do, remember to go vote!  D.

With upcoming elections, this is probably a good time to remember these events.....

Subject: A REMINDER
A short history lesson on the privilege of voting...
The women were innocent and defenseless.  And by the  end of the
night, they were barely alive.  Forty prison guards wielding  clubs and
their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly
convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."

They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her 
head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for  air.
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an  iron
bed and knocked her out cold.  Her cell mate, Alice Cosu,  thought Lewis
was dead and suffered a heart attack.  Additional  affidavits describe
the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching,
twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open  pail.  Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with  worms.  When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied  her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited.  She was tortured like this for weeks  until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory.  Some women won't vote this year because--why,
exactly?  We have carpool duties?  We have to  get to work?  Our vote
doesn't matter?  It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new 
movie "Iron Jawed Angels."  It is a graphic depiction of the  battle these
women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth 
and have my say.  I am ashamed to say I needed the  reminder.
HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video  and
DVD.  I wish all history, social studies and government  teachers
would include the movie in their curriculum.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to 
persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be
permanently institutionalized.  And it is inspiring to  watch the
doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and  brave.  That didn't make
her crazy.  The doctor admonished the  men:  "Courage in women is often
mistaken for insanity."

Please pass this on to all the women you know.  We need  to get out
and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very
courageous women.





Cat


This is very powerful and very inspiring.  May we all have the guts to stand up for what we believe in the face of the oppressor as these women did.  ":the rising of the women is the rising of us all"  as the Lawrance textile workers strike of 1913(?) strike says.  You GO my friends of the female persuasion!!!  During that strike the Wobblies were accused of "putting the women to the front".  Liz Gurlie Flynn responded "the Wobblies don't push the women to the back, so they naturally go to the front".  Lead on my female allies, and when you get tired. I'll march in front.

":the rising of the women is the rising of us all"  as the Lawrance textile workers strike of 1913(?) strike says.  You GO my friends of the female persuasion!!!  During that strike the Wobblies were accused of "putting the women to the front".  Liz Gurlie Flynn responded "the Wobblies don't push the women to the back, so they naturally go to the front".  Lead on my female allies, and when you get tired. I'll march in front.


January 1912.  Monday in Lawrence they are having the Bread and Roses Festival in Lawrence.
They have chosen Labor Day for the past 20 years to commemorate what happened, and to
keep us from losing the gains won since the women of Lawrence decided enough was enough.

Cats' above entry is one of the reasons I go absolutely bonkers when I hear about people who
don't vote.  It is inconceivable to me that anyone who has the right throws it away, and people
ignore others when their vote is jeopardized.  Usurp one, Usurp all. My immigration policy,
-trade one for one every American who willing does not vote,  or prevents anyone else from voting
to a country where people are not allowed to vote.A person from that country gets to come here
and use their vote.  Hey to our Australian friends, I heard that in Australia they can actually arrest you for not voting.  True?


Well you would go absolutely bonkers with me, Danoota - I have never voted (partly for religious reasons). The laws in Britain state you have to be on the electoral register or you get fined about £2000 ($3000?). I am on the electoral register but I think I can exercise my right not to vote like people can excercise their right to.  :)

Well you would go absolutely bonkers with me, Danoota - I have never voted (partly for religious reasons). The laws in Britain state you have to be on the electoral register or you get fined about £2000 ($3000?). I am on the electoral register but I think I can exercise my right not to vote like people can excercise their right to.  :)



I am curious as to the reasons given for your religion to ban voting.

I am curious as to the reasons given for your religion to ban voting.


It was partly to do with the 'obeying God rather than men' scripture based in Acts 5:29 and also the 'My kingdom is no part of the world' scripture in John 18:36. They also obey the scripture 'Pay Caesars things to Caesar' in Mark 12:17 so this means that they will pay their taxes and be good civillians but will not salute the flag - however, I believe they will stand as a mark of respect. However, this kind of thing was never really a problem for me in Britain.

It was partly to do with the 'obeying God rather than men' scripture based in Acts 5:29 and also the 'My kingdom is no part of the world' scripture in John 18:36. They also obey the scripture 'Pay Caesars things to Caesar' in Mark 12:17 so this means that they will pay their taxes and be good civillians but will not salute the flag - however, I believe they will stand as a mark of respect. However, this kind of thing was never really a problem for me in Britain.


I still don't see why these quotes would mean take a pass on voting. I am guessing you are Jehovahs
Witness.  I'll have to ask someone I know so we can have a spirited debate on this.  Thanks.

I...I'm sorry for bumping this.  :-[

Anyways...that list is not "radical".  In fact, I'd say you know well they're not radical; you just want to insinuate that people who don't like feminists are against women's rights.

I'm all for the old school feminists who were around when those ideas were considered radical, but it is obsolete now.

I am feminist.  Some people have a problem with that.  Too bad.

I think people should vote, but I don't think someone should feel morally obligated to choose a candidate they don't believe in.  Feminists fought for the right to work, but I don't think that means a woman is morally obligated to work.  Civil rights leaders fought for the right to education, but I don't think that means a black woman is morally obligated to go to college.

I think people should vote, but I don't think someone should feel morally obligated to choose a candidate they don't believe in.  Feminists fought for the right to work, but I don't think that means a woman is morally obligated to work.  Civil rights leaders fought for the right to education, but I don't think that means a black woman is morally obligated to go to college.


I agree.  I hate all that "rock the vote" nonsense.  If you don't know what's going on or you don't like any of the candidates, you don't have to vote.

I...I'm sorry for bumping this.  :-[

Anyways...that list is not "radical".  In fact, I'd say you know well they're not radical; you just want to insinuate that people who don't like feminists are against women's rights.




The point I am trying to make is that there are people who say they are against feminists and
feminism when they don't even realize what changes have been brought about by the feminist
movement.  The slide too easily into the Rush Limbaugh sneer, while not acknowledging that
their lives are drastically different because of the civil rights and feminist movements.