Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - URnotmeRU

1
http://www.rutlandherald.com./News/Story/73484.html


Senate OKs partial birth abortion bill
October 22, 2003

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the first federal ban on a specific abortion procedure, ending eight years of divisive debate and clearing the way for President Bush to sign the measure into law.

Backers of the legislation declared the 64-34 vote a historic turning point in a controversy that has split Americans for decades.

"The legislation we just passed will save lives," Sen. Bill Frist, the majority leader and a surgeon, said after the vote. "We have just outlawed a procedure that is barbaric, that is brutal, that is offensive to our moral sensibilities, and it is out of the mainstream of ethical practice of medicine today."

Opponents of the bill, saying it is unconstitutional, vowed to challenge it in court as soon as Bush signs it. But the president said he looked forward to the signing ceremony, and called the measure "very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America."

Once Bush signs the bill it will become the first federal law to prohibit an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion in the case of Roe v. Wade 30 years ago.

The bill, the opponents said, was a profound rollback of the constitutional right to abortion that was established in the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade 30 years ago.

The opponents assert that the language is so broad as to outlaw more than one type of abortion and say the bill is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the health of the mother. Three years ago, the Supreme Court rejected a similar law in Nebraska on those grounds.

"Congress has turned its back on America's women, their right to privacy, the right to choose," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "America's women are now second-class citizens."

Seventeen Democrats joined with 47 Republicans to give final passage to the bill, which outlaws a procedure that doctors call intact dilation and extraction, but critics call partial-birth abortion. Specifically, the bill prohibits anyone from delivering a baby, "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

The Senate vote came after a day of emotional and often graphic debate. At one point, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, read an account written by a nurse who had witnessed the so-called partial-birth procedure, and was horrified by it. At another, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., showed a photograph of a 21-week old fetus he said had been spared an abortion by doctors who operated, in the womb, to correct a birth defect.

"Is little Samuel's hand the hand of a person," he said, pointing to the photograph, "or is it the hand of a piece of property?" To which Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. who is the bill's chief opponent, replied: "I am not a doctor, and I am not God. I trust other human beings to make these decisions."

Tuesday's action by the Senate ends the long and tortured legislative history of the ban, which was passed by Congress twice before, but vetoed both times by President Bill Clinton. This year, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, abortion opponents, who began pressing for the ban in 1995, knew victory would be assured.

The measure passed both the House and Senate earlier this year, but got hung up because the Senate version included language, opposed by the House, that reaffirmed lawmakers' support for the Roe decision. The language was stripped from the bill in conference, and the House gave final passage to the measure on Oct. 2, 281-142.

But in the Senate, advocates of the right to abortion, led by Boxer, insisted on one more day of debate before final passage. They characterized the bill as an assault on the right to privacy established by the Roe case, and an intrusion into the ability of doctors and patients to make their own medical choices.

"This is a bad package for the families of America," Boxer said, adding, "I know the handwriting is on the wall, and that it will pass, but the issue is not going away."

Indeed, three groups say they will file suit to block the law from taking effect. They are the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group in New York that brought the Nebraska case; the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation, which represents 400 centers that provide more than half the 1.2 million abortions performed in this country each year.

The American Civil Liberties Union will represent the abortion federation in its suit.

The bill defines the procedure as one in which the person performing the abortion "deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the naval is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Under the measure, doctors who perform the prohibited procedure would be subject to two years in prison and unspecified fines.

"This bill puts doctors in the untenable position of choosing the best and most appropriate care for their patients or risk going to jail," said Vicki Saporta, the abortion federation's president. Of the Senate vote, she said, "It will be a very short-lived victory. The bill will be enjoined and will not become law."

Legal experts tend to agree. David J. Garrow, a professor of law at Emory University who is an expert in abortion case law, said, "The absence of an all-encompassing health exception means this is DOA."

But the congressional authors of the bill say they have addressed the Supreme Court's concerns, by narrowing the language of the ban to make it more specific, and by including congressional "findings of fact" that suggest the procedure they are trying to outlaw is never medically necessary.

"It is never medically indicated," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. and lead Senate sponsor of the measure, said in Senate debate on Tuesday. "If your concern is women's health then you would be for banning this procedure."

Garrow said courts were likely to disregard such congressional pronouncements. But proponents of the ban say the legal climate may change, particularly if Bush wins re-election. They are hopeful that, by the time the case reaches the Supreme Court, Bush will have had an opportunity to appoint new justices, and the slim 5-4 majority that rejected the Nebraska law will no longer hold together.

The Senate's votes, and Bush's signing of the bill, will undoubtedly have political ramifications for the 2004 presidential race. Already, the National Abortion Rights Action League, an advocacy group, is planning television advertisements criticizing the Bush administration as interfering with the right to privacy. The advertisements will run in Washington, and also Iowa and New Hampshire, where Democratic presidential hopefuls are campaigning.

Advocates of the right to abortion are also planning a major rally for next April. As the Senate was debating the abortion measure on Tuesday, Gloria Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood, was at the University of Massachusetts to fan enthusiasm among college students for the march.

"This is not unexpected," Feldt said in a telephone interview, referring to the Senate vote, "but it's also a good time to recognize what a historic day this is. This is the first time that the White House and both houses of Congress have been aligned in lockstep and ready to take away reproductive choice."
2
Brattleboro Vermonts High School Colonel mascot is being outed by the rainbow flag waving lefties!

Yup, first in the article you read where it is offensive to latinos and alike, then some bimbot jackass said the colonel is SEXIST. :roll:

There is a place where someone said "Would KFC keep the colonel if they thought people would be offended?".

Still, they, the lefty loonbags are all in a tithy over SEXISM.

Go ahead and read, talk about revisionist history making, how does this idiot know THAT colonel was sexist? WTF?????

Here's the article:


Gone with the wind?
October 18, 2003

By KEVIN O'CONNOR Staff Writer

Brattleboro Union High School boasts alumni ranging from Vermont's only Nobel Peace Prize winner to the teen gay activist appointed the first student on the state Board of Education.

But when the town's African, Latino, Asian, Native and American Community Organization noted the school's Colonel mascot is the same controversial Confederate the University of Mississippi just kicked off its sidelines, reaction of longtime locals was swift: What, this debate again?

Stop in downtown's food co-op, five bookstores or countless organic boutiques this year and you could have signed petitions against the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Patriot Act, Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, genetically engineered food, "big box" chain stores and the Federal Communications Commission's ban on non-licensed radio stations.

Still, few natives took ALANA's recent call to retire the school's Colonel seriously, having heard the request repeated and rejected for years. So imagine the surprise when the local newspaper announced Wednesday it would stop publishing the logo on its sports pages, and a student group started a grass-roots campaign to trade the old mascot for a new one.

Is the six-decade-old Colonel about to face retirement?

Curtiss Reed Jr., ALANA's executive director, sparked the latest debate two weeks ago in a commentary printed in the 11,000-circulation Brattleboro Reformer.

The school's student council adopted the Colonel in the late 1940s after learning its sports field was once a mustering grounds for Vermont soldiers getting ready to fight in the Civil War. Future classes, citing the town's place in the state, played up the mascot with the motto "Pride of the South."

But Reed questions why an area that fought for the North would celebrate a symbol of the other side.

Colonels "are vestiges of a time when blacks, the descendants of slaves, were openly and defiantly denied their civil rights by white Americans," he wrote in his commentary. "In the absence of few, if any, black Americans in Brattleboro and none at the high school 60 years ago, adults compounded the ignorance of its student body with benign neglect. No one bothered to connect the dots between embracing racist imagery and symbolism and the effects such symbols have on the community."

Reed decided to speak out after learning the University of Mississippi had benched its Colonel -- a mirror image of Brattleboro's -- and was looking for a new logo for its Rebels sports teams.

The university's athletic director said the change came because the mascot was "an old man with a cane -- it just didn't look athletic." But Reed, seeing Brattleboro students go so far as to burn a black doll at a homecoming bonfire and wave Confederate flags at school, says the issue for him is race.

"Do we want to develop future generations of local employees incapable of 'sealing the deal' with ethnically, racially and linguistically diverse consumers and suppliers because of their 'innocent displays' of hate-perpetuating symbols on their desks, in their cubicles or in their speech?" he wrote. "If the University of Mississippi can move into the 21st century, then why not Brattleboro Union High School?"  :sm12:

Reed's call has spurred a stream of letters to the editor.

"Racism is a problem that continually needs to be addressed at BUHS, but the Colonel is the wrong target," Brattleboro student and athlete Seth Procter wrote in one. "Racism is something learned from early influences in life such as family, not from a mascot. To suggest that adopting another mascot would end racism at BUHS is nonsensical. The only way to improve the situation is to support a continued awareness as BUHS does, not to make a long list of icons which should be hidden from public view."

But others question if local students are worldly enough to know what's best.

"I suspect that his view is typical of the majority of BUHS students; however, I urge Seth and his classmates to consider the fact that members of a racial majority are often unaware of what words and symbols are offensive to members of racial minorities," Kimi Hasegawa of Marlboro wrote. "For example, one of my high school social studies teachers referred to the Japanese as 'Japs' during her lectures on World War II. Until I confronted her, she had no idea that to Japanese-Americans 'Japs' is an offensive and derogatory racial slur. It is my hope that the BUHS community will take this opportunity to fight racism by learning what its minority members think."  :evil:

(Of the school's 1,000 ninth- through 12th-graders, 21 are black, 16 Hispanic, two American Indian/Alaskan Native and 32 Asian/Pacific Islander, school records show.)

The Colonel has yet to spark marches, protests and petitions so familiar to its politically progressive hometown, but it does face organized opposition.

The Reformer ran an editorial titled "Gone with the wind" Wednesday to report it was dropping the logo from its pages.

"Those in positions of power -- the power of the press, the power of elected office, and yes, even the unwitting power of our own white skin -- must step up to the plate," the newspaper said. "The sentimental allegiance the Colonel inspires in some is a small price to pay for the creation of an open, welcoming environment for all."  :roll:

The same day, a group of students met with ALANA to begin coordinating a campaign for a new mascot.

"The mascot is the springboard for a much broader discussion," Reed says. "The issue has to do with insensitivity and how do you acknowledge the demographics of your school are changing. Our whole focus is how do we change school culture so it is representative of our diverse population and preparing our young people for a changing work force. We feel we've initiated a reasoned dialogue, but we're only two weeks into this. It might take a couple of months before students feel sufficiently informed and clear about changing the mascot."  :sm12:

Brattleboro isn't the only Vermont school with such issues. Danville, one of several communities with teams named after Indians, has faced questions from the state Human Rights Commission, which recently recommended it stop using the symbol after receiving a citizen's complaint.  :roll:

The Danville School Board has removed Indian images from the building but has retained the name.

"The board has looked for middle ground," school Superintendent Robert Retchless says. "I don't believe they're going to remove the name without the community having some say into it."

In Brattleboro, the nine-member union School Board is busy with a $55.7 million campus renovation and expansion project that's the most expensive in state education history. Chairman David Dunn says he has yet to receive a formal request to retire the Colonel but believes the school's 1,000 students and 120 staffers should decide any change.

"We don't try to policy down, we try to support up," Dunn says.

Principal James Day, new to the school this fall, has scheduled a student-faculty forum on the issue for later this month. "I can see why there are going to be some traditionalists concerned, but I'm not so sure a school's mascot should be offensive to anyone in a community."

Just what's offensive is open to debate.

"As a 21st century woman, I find 'The Colonel' offensive by virtue of its sexist connotations and am curious as to why the issue of sexism has not yet been raised within the community," Carla Meskill of Marlboro wrote in one letter to the editor. "In my historical readings of the antebellum South, white male 'colonels' or 'masters' of all that surrounded them (and what they chose to attend to) spelt rape, incest, physical/psychological manipulation, violence and, in effect, subjugation and imprisonment of women white, black or brown."  :sm12:

"What about Colonel Sanders?" Jim Austin of Putney replied in his own column. "Do you think the KFC people would dare to keep a symbol of slavery as their spokesperson for their product if people associated him with racism?"

Alternatives also are up for discussion.

"Personally, I would like to see a peace symbol, but I would settle for a bear or catamount," T. Namaya of Brattleboro wrote.

"Why doesn't BUHS simply change the name of the BUHS Colonels to the BUHS Kernels," Gretchen Becker of Halifax proposed in another letter. ("It's a bit corny," Don McLean of Guilford wrote, but "by choosing a plant, rather than person/ethnic group or even an animal, our high school could avoid political embarrassment while celebrating Vermont's agricultural traditions.")  :roll:

Reed himself suggests the Brattleboro Blizzards.

"Rolls off the tongue nicely," he says.

But he's more concerned with calm inside the building.

"We have this great edifice that's being constructed, but if the school culture doesn't change, the quality of education for all students will be inferior to what it could be. The mascot is only a small part of that discussion, but it's the part that's the most visible."  :roll:

http://rutlandherald.com/News/AtAGlance/Story/73330.html
3
Main / Getting old?
Oct 19, 2003, 04:53 AM
This is a link to a MSN piece on aging. No, it isn't about standing your ground or wondering why some people are fucking idiots, its just an interesting piece.


Check it out.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/946607.asp
4
Main / Ann Coulter goes to bat for Rush
Oct 18, 2003, 05:35 AM
This is an excellent article by Ann Coutler on Rush Limbaugh



With half his brain tied behind his back[/b]
Ann Coulter (archive)


October 16, 2003 |  Print |  Send


So liberals have finally found a drug addict they don't like. And unlike the Lackawanna Six - those high-spirited young lads innocently seeking adventure in an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan - liberals could find no excuses for Rush Limbaugh.

After years of the mainstream media assuring us that Rush was a has-been, a nobody, yesterday's news - the Rush painkiller story was front-page news last week. (Would anyone care if Howell Raines committed murder?) The airwaves and print media were on red alert with Rush's admission that, after an unsuccessful spinal operation a few years ago, he became addicted to powerful prescription painkillers.

Rush Limbaugh's misfortune is apparently a bigger story than his nearly $300 million radio contract signed two years ago. That was the biggest radio contract in broadcasting history. Yet there are only 12 documents on LexisNexis that reported it. The New York Times didn't take notice of Rush's $300 million radio contract, but a few weeks later, put Bill Clinton's comparatively measly $10 million book contract on its front page. Meanwhile, in the past week alone, LexisNexis has accumulated more than 50 documents with the words "Rush Limbaugh and hypocrisy." That should make up for the 12 documents on his $300 million radio contract.

The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.

At least Rush wasn't walking into church carrying a 10-pound Bible before rushing back to the Oval Office for sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. He wasn't enforcing absurd sexual harassment guidelines while dropping his pants in front of a half-dozen subordinates. (Evidently, Clinton wasn't a hypocrite because no one was supposed to take seriously the notion that he respected women or believed in God.)

Rush has hardly been the anti-drug crusader liberals suggest. Indeed, Rush hasn't had much to say about drugs at all since that spinal operation. The Rush Limbaugh quote that has been endlessly recited in the last week to prove Rush's rank "hypocrisy" is this, made eight years ago: "Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

What precisely are liberals proposing that Rush should have said to avoid their indignant squeals of "hypocrisy"? Announce his support for the wide and legal availability of a prescription painkiller that may have caused him to go deaf and nearly ruined his career and wrecked his life? I believe that would have been both evil and hypocritical.

Or is it simply that Rush should not have become addicted to painkillers in the first place? Well, no, I suppose not. You've caught us: Rush has a flaw. And yet, the wily hypocrite does not support flaws!

When a conservative can be the biggest thing in talk radio, earning $30 million a year and attracting 20 million devoted listeners every week - all while addicted to drugs - I'll admit liberals have reason to believe that conservatives are some sort of super-race, incorruptible by original sin. But the only perfect man hasn't walked the Earth for 2,000 years. In liberals' worldview, any conservative who is not Jesus Christ is ipso facto a "hypocrite" for not publicly embracing dissolute behavior the way liberals do.

In fact, Rush's behavior was not all that dissolute. There is a fundamental difference between taking any drug - legal, illegal, prescription, protected by the 21st Amendment or banned by Michael Bloomberg - for kicks and taking a painkiller for pain.

There is a difference morally and a difference legally. While slamming Rush, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz recently told Wolf Blitzer, "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted, whereas people who illegally buy cocaine and heroin are prosecuted." What would the point be? Just say no to back surgery?

I haven't checked with any Harvard Law professors, but I'm pretty sure that, generally, adulterous drunks who drive off bridges and kill girls are prosecuted. Ah, but Teddy Kennedy supports adultery and public drunkenness - so at least you can't call him a hypocrite! That must provide great consolation to Mary Jo Kopechne's parents.

I have a rule about not feeling sorry for people worth $300 million, but I'm feeling sentimental. Evan Thomas wrote a cover story on Rush for Newsweek this week that was so vicious it read like conservative satire. Thomas called Rush a "schlub," "socially ill at ease," an Elmer Gantry, an actor whose "act has won over, or fooled, a lot of people." He compared Rush to the phony TV evangelist Jim Bakker and recommended that Rush start to "make a virtue out of honesty." (Liberals can lie under oath in legal proceedings and it's a "personal matter." Conservatives must scream their every failing from the rooftops or they are "liars.")

As is standard procedure for profiles of conservatives, Newsweek gathered quotes on Rush from liberals, ex-wives and dumped dates. Covering himself, Thomas ruefully remarked that "it's hard to find many people who really know him." Well, there was me, Evan! But I guess Newsweek didn't have room for the quotes I promptly sent back to the Newsweek researchers. I could have even corrected Newsweek's absurd account of how Rush met his current wife. (It's kind of cute, too: She was a fan who began arguing with him about something he said on air.)

Thomas also made the astute observation that "Rush Limbaugh has always had far more followers than friends." Needless to say, this floored those of us who were shocked to discover that Rush does not have 20 million friends.

So the guy I really feel sorry for is Evan Thomas. How would little Evan fare in any competitive media? Any followers? Any fans? Any readers at all? And he's not even addicted to painkillers! This week, Rush proved his motto: He really can beat liberals with half his brain tied behind his back.


Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a TownHall.com member group.
5
Main / Eva's spirit lives on in Beste.
Oct 17, 2003, 11:28 AM
How many people here need to be burped into reading threads over a year old?

Why is this little game going on? What are you tryng to bury, Beste?
6
I would post the original post on Ms. but it is so nauseating that it makes me sick. BUT....HERE COMES THE GOOD STUFF BOYS AND GIRLS!!!

http://www.msmagazine.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=002525

JASPER LILLY IS RISOTTO!! LMFAO!!!!

Yep, that's right, she or HE should I say, has a penis!! LOL!!!!

It sits down to pee, it objectifies men, admittedly!!! It even objectifies its OWN BREASTS!!! AND THEY LOVE IT!!!!

Damn, I love it when something like this surfaces, it's such a three ring circus over there!!! LMAO!!!!! :jump:
7
Ok, to read the story you have to click on the link.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=573&e=3&u=/nm/20031001/od_nm/crime_child_dc

I was going to post this and give my opinion on it but instead I am going to cut and paste it in part with commentaries from a friend who sent to me in Email because I am in total agreement with her on every point. Note her comments in bold print.

So, here goes:

Quote from: "URsfriend"


Ok I am not getting the fucking issue here; I don't mean the story, but the result:

MIAMI (Reuters) - A 2-year-old girl whose mother was in jail survived alone in an apartment for nearly three weeks on ketchup, mustard and food she found in the refrigerator and kitchen cupboards, Jacksonville, Florida police said on Tuesday.

The child's father found the toddler on Monday, draped in a towel and sitting in an infant's bathtub in her mother's apartment, police said.

Police have charged the mother, Dakeysha Telita Lee, 20, with child abuse for not telling them she had left the girl alone at home when she was arrested on Sept. 10 on an aggravated battery charge.

"She had subsisted on mustard, ketchup, dried pasta. She cleared out the lower cabinets looking for food as well as the refrigerator," Jacksonville Sheriff's Office spokesman Ken Jefferson said.



"Everything was on the bed in the bedroom. Obviously she had found other things than the ketchup to eat."



The child's father, Ogden Lee, told the Florida Times-Union newspaper he had been trying to contact Dakeysha Lee, from whom he is separated, for two weeks, not knowing she was in jail.

He finally tried the jail on Sunday and talked to his estranged wife, who told him the girl was with neighbors. After knocking on doors at her apartment complex without success, he had a manager let him into the mother's apartment on Monday and found the girl, dirty and covered with dried ketchup.

"She grabbed me and wouldn't let go of me," he told the newspaper. "It really is a miracle how good a shape my daughter is in. I don't know how she did it."


Ok so her dad was trying the whole time to get hold of them; and when he couldn't he finally started pounding on doors and doing whatever he had to to get to his baby.    SO WHY THIS:

The child, whose name was not released, was recovering from malnutrition and Florida's Department of Children and Families, the state child welfare agency, was investigating the case to determine where to place the girl.

Why the fuck is that an issue or a problem?  

"The child is safe and in our care," said Pattie Mallon, an official with the Department of Children and Families in Jacksonville. "We are in awe of her spirit to survive and we are making every effort to ensure her safety and well being."

In OUR care, safe.   Doing everything except the fucking OBVIOUS - returning her to her father where she is safe, to the one person who DID save her and to whom she clung and wouldn't let go when she was found.   WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING; who the HELL do they think they are, and WHY are they doing this?

Last of all, if this were the mom who had found her would there be any hesitation, or would she get to go home as soon as she was out of immediate physical danger?

Bastards.
8
I found this article on the net this morning. I thought it was worth a read, this guy nails it just as I see it.

Quote from: "Rod Van Mechelen"

Life moves in cycles. From the smallest microbe to the infinite universe, we all dance to cyclic rhythms. Sometimes these cycles are obvious. Like the four seasons or the tides, they shape our lives. But others, like the ebb and flow of the polar ice caps, the alignment of the planets, and global warming, we know only after centuries of study and observation. They are hard to see.
There are social cycles, too. Like gargantuan hearts, they pump thoughts, ideas, attitudes and impressions -- the blood of our culture. Vaguely, most of us are aware of these and sometimes refer to them as "swinging pendulums." A good analogy to remind us that what is extreme today may be mainstream tomorrow, and yesterday's fashions will re-emerge when "everything old is new again."

Economists and businesses rely on these cycles to know when to save or borrow, spend or invest, expand or sell-out. Investors, too, study social psychology, drawing charts to predict the effects of human emotion on "market swings" and "boom/bust" cycles. (See, for example, Elliott Wave Principle: Key to Stock Market Profits, by Robert R. Prechter and A. J. Frost.) These are fairly obvious, and politicians work to flatten them out so that, instead of suffering ups and downs, we can enjoy predictable prosperity.

Sexual attitudes follow a cycle, too. Skirts and hair are short or long, breasts are in or out, women are "barracudas" or, as today, men are "predators."

Popular wisdom now holds that "men only want one thing." As recently as thirty years ago, however, feminist icon Betty Friedan lamented how our culture believed women were the sexual predators and men were their prey! Before that, during the Victorian era, men were base and women were pristine. "History," as Karl Marx noted, "repeats itself."

The cycle of sexual attitudes, as mapped out by historian Reay Tannahill in her delightful book, Sex in History, has repeated itself in ancient Greece, Rome, Arabia, China and India, and even among many Native American cultures. This cycle of sexism is part of a larger cycle of bigotry and counter-bigotry. In one form or another, it is a pattern that has persisted for thousands of years.

The Bigot/Counter-Bigot
The racist bigot says: "If your skin is the wrong color, you're not good enough!"
The counter bigot says: "If you're racist, then you are not good enough!"
My sister says: "Stamp out Violence -- kill extremists!"
This cycle of bigotry/counter-bigotry is especially evident between the white and black American communities.

During the 1960s, in response to racism black individuals began programs of racial validation. Many of us remember watching a black man on television drilling a black youngster on "Black is Beautiful," back when the term was new. The child's mother watched with an expression of grim determination as the man instilled in him a sense of racial pride.

Black pride emerged from that program, and others like it. Focused solely on blacks, however, they were unbalanced. The sense of pride they sought to instill in their children produced, in many cases, counter-bigots -- if you're not black, you're not good enough. Only black is beautiful.

Black is beautiful, possessing a character and quality not found in any other hue. But there is also beauty in skin that is pink, olive and brown. All different, all good.

By not teaching children to recognize, respect and value the inherent worth in all people regardless of race, such programs combined with legitimate demands for justice to imply that being white is inherently bad, and that the sins of whites long dead are also the sins of whites now living. Shamed, the white community tried to mollify blacks by passing laws or instituting programs that attempted to level the field, by lowering standards, as in college entrance requirements, or, through affirmative action programs, by actively hiring and promoting women and minorities.

Sometimes this had the effect of redirecting the discrimination toward white men, or of alleviating black individuals of any responsibility for misbehavior. However accomplished, it is combining with counter-bigotry to stir up resentment among a growing number of working class youths that is leading to a renewal of anti-black prejudice. According to June Stephenson, author of Men Are Not Cost-Effective, the hate crime rate in the U.S. is growing, most of it directed toward blacks.

Black leaders of the sixties were right to shake up the complacency of the white community. There is a time for hostility, a time for anger, a time to march, and a time to cry. But when the major ideological disputes are resolved, it's time to put away the strategies, tactics and emotions of confrontation and walk together down the avenues of cooperation. This is what most of the leaders of the black community have done, and are doing. But cooperation is not a banner under which angry mobs can be rallied to form political power blocks. Cooperation requires communication, negotiation, consideration, reflection, knowledge, patience and work: The emotional rewards are slow to come.

Conversely and perversely, confrontation often provides more immediate emotional satisfaction. Particularly when it involves giving up personal responsibility by blaming others for the problems of life. Some black pundits, like Jill Nelson, author of Volunteer Slavery: My Authentic Negro Experience, gain a following by indulging in such tactics. A growing number of feminists are, too, with their social and political assaults on men long after there is any need or justification for doing so.

To be treated as equals in school and at work, many women needed to adopt an attitude of confrontation, and demand that men accommodate them. Many men resisted, but many more accepted what was fair and inevitable, and women's legal status is now, in many ways, superior to men's. Conflict could have ended there, to make way for a new era of cooperation and negotiation. Instead, feminist extremists carried the confrontation further to precipitate more and more antagonism toward men. In the muck of this misandristic malice, the seeds of a new misogyny have germinated and are taking root.

Recently, a prominent member of the fathers' rights community began posting articles to the Internet arguing that men are physically, mentally and morally superior to women. On college campuses, male students are now discussing ways to use Title IX to "kick feminism off" their college campuses. And recently, when an ABC TV affiliate produced a show on "deadbeat dads" that was to feature a female fathers' rights lobbyist, an executive of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS), one of the largest fathers' rights organizations in the country, "strongly objected," and persuaded them to replace her with a man who, though far less capable of debating the issues, was preferable solely because he was a man.

The cycle of sexism has come full circle. The misogyny of the fifties and sixties led to the androphobia of today, which in turn will produce an efflorescence of anti-female sentiments tomorrow. Is this backlash inevitable? Is there no way to stop the cycle and find some happy middle ground?

Ending the Cycle
We can end the cycle, but neither men nor women can do it alone -- we must work together.
In Male and Female: The Classic Study of the Sexes, Margaret Mead asserted that once we have identified and analyzed this cycle, "it should be possible to create a climate of opinion in which others, a little less the product of the dark past because they have been reared with a light in the hand that can shine backwards as well as forwards, may in turn take the next step." It is up to us to take that next step. Women must oppose anti-male sexism just as vigorously as we expect men to oppose anti-female sexism.

To the courageous feminists who brought modern sexism to our attention, we owe gratitude and respect. They opened our eyes. But their wise words have drowned beneath a deluge of strident voices all clamoring to be heard, all shrilling one message -- men are to blame and must make restitution for all the misfortunes all women have ever suffered.

Where we heard voices of reason, now we hear only rage and fear as feminist extremists work not to break the cycle of sexism, but to reverse it. This is not what the pioneers of feminism sought. They were less interested in castigating men than in inspiring women to, as Lucretia Mott put it, "be acknowledged...moral, responsible" beings with full civil and political rights. In a nation where women are increasingly afforded the right to fill combat positions in the military while men are denied the right to refuse combat positions, and women, but not men, have the legal right to refuse to become a parent, realization of the feminists' original goals is a historical fact the extremists refuse to acknowledge.

Perhaps this is because few men have participated as men. Those who gained entrance to the cause were male feminists, who, like Ashley Montagu, author of The Natural Superiority of Women, found refuge and feminine approval in the aggrandizement of women and the denigration of men, rather than in advocating a policy of same rights, same responsibilities.

We need neither the conciliatory voices of male feminists, nor the extremists' recriminations, but the strength and integrity of women and men working together to dismantle all the sexist barriers without blame if we are to create a more complete humanity and a finer state of being.


http://www.backlash.com/book/cycle.html
9
Main / Is a crying baby alive?
Oct 03, 2003, 04:50 AM
Anniee linked me to this story this morning, what a sick and twisted turn of events. There is no length these selfish bitches won't go to have it their way come hell or high water! :evil:

Read this:
http://illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnistsview.asp?c=8744

Wednesday, October 01, 2003


Photo of a moving, crying, not-quite-alive baby according to Cook County Circuit Court Judge Karen Thompson. Because the umbilical cord has not yet been cut, the baby is not "completely separated" from his or her mother.



OPINION -- Is a crying baby alive? No, not necessarily, decided Cook County Circuit Court Judge Karen Thompson last November when she acquitted a mother previously convicted twice of murdering her newborn daughter.


Thus is the latest of increasingly grotesque decisions made by liberal judges to accommodate abortion - first of unborn babies, then of partially delivered babies, and now of babies who are delivered but have not "established a separate and independent life," as required by Thompson in her reversal.


In question is whether a six-pound, 19-inch baby girl was "completely separated" at delivery when her mother, Elizabeth Ehlert, killed her.


Cook County State's Attorney Dick Devine has asked the Illinois Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that "complete separation" would mean the umbilical cord must be cut.


"What you have here is the horrific scenario in which a mother who doesn't want her baby delivers the baby, the baby is out and still connected by the cord, and under the complete separation doctrine... she can kill that baby," said assistant state's attorney Peter Fischer, according to the Daily Herald. "She can stab it, she can strangle it, do anything, and it's not murder.... It's nothing."


The state's attorney is correct. A baby is not completely separated from her mother so long as no one cuts the cord, which is attached at one end to the baby's navel and at the other end to the placenta inside the mother. It normally takes five to 30 minutes for the placenta to be delivered following a baby's birth.


On August 21, 1990, Ehlert delivered her daughter in her Palatine bedroom alone. Boyfriend Steven King heard the baby cry for two seconds from where he stood in the hall. After that he heard nothing until Ehlert called for him to hand her a garbage bag, saying the baby had been born dead. She proceeded to throw the garbage bag with the baby in it into the creek behind her house. Workers found the baby downstream some days later.


According to court documents, Kingwas "credible," "honest and sincere," and "truly shaken up" by the incident.


Ehlert was found to lie and change her story several times about the events surrounding the birth. She lied that she was even pregnant during the months prior. She refused to allow King to call an ambulance when she was in labor.


Cook County assistant chief medical examiner Dr. Mitra Kalelkar testified the baby was healthy and had air in her lungs. Even before knowing the circumstances of the baby's death, she "had a suspicion that this baby was born alive and that the cause of death would be drowning," and requested further police investigation.


Prosecutors pointed out babies rarely cry when their heads appear during delivery. At that point the torso is still under great pressure within the birth canal, and the lungs have not yet inflated. The first cry is usually heard only after the baby is born.


In 1995, a jury found Ehlert guilty of murder.


But the first conviction was reversed "because the prosecution presented irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence that defendant had two abortions," said court documents. Prosecutors were merely demonstrating Ehlert had a history of killing her children, but the court ruffled at the insinuation. In Illinois, if someone kills a preborn baby against her mother's wishes, that person is charged with homicide. If a mother kills her unborn baby by abortion, it is her choice.


Nevertheless Ehlert was convicted again by bench trial, the conviction Thompson Tobin overturned last November.


Progressive lawmakers have attempted to revise Illinois' antiquated "born alive" definition each of the past three years in light of medical advances as well as the discovery of type of abortion being committed in Illinois hospitals that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive and left to die.


But pro-abortionists have repeatedly killed the measure, called the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act.


President Bush signed the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act last year, but that only relates to federal law and postdates the murder in question.


At issue is more than Baby Girl Ehlert's murder. At issue is an added feature to abortion.


If a baby does not have rights until completely separated from her mother, then it follows to be perfectly legal for hospital or abortion clinic staff to deliver a baby and not cut the cord until mom decides if she wants the baby. What if the baby is a girl when mom wants a boy? What if mom and the boyfriend at her side are both white, but the baby is obviously mixed race (as I have witnessed)? Why was the girl who delivered at her prom and threw the baby in the trash convicted? If her baby was not separated when allowed to drown in the toilet, was not that legal?


It is almost a surprise that State's Attorney Devine is pursuing justice for Baby Girl Ehlert. But he is a welcome ally in the fight to protect innocent babies from murder.
10
I read an article in the local paper about a boy who's mother is fighting for his right to play on a girls soccer team. It appears the boys league was dismantled for lack of interest and particpation. The coach and the school said, "we know it seems sexist to discount him for his gender, but boys play much more aggressively and that is a concern for us".

I couldn't believe the answer this dimwhit gave, when girls are allowed to join a boys league, do boys still play aggressively or do they tone it down for the little lady? That was a rhetorical remark, I already know the answer, I just can't for the life of me understand WTF these dopes are doing!

I read an article this morning I read on the net by someone named Britta? I found it trying to locate a link to the soccer story this morning and of course it isn't to be found. Anyhow, this story goes on to describe the roll women are playing in society and in the home. She mentions the "Girly Feminist" and how they are wearing both hats of the "Empowered Woman" and the "Girly Girl", gee, we didn't know this was coming down the pike, right? :roll:

Toward the end of the article, it mentioned that girls are praised and encouraged by all to wear pink, act like a little lady and still play on boys teams and particapate all boys activities. Here is a little snippet of it..

"I think what it comes down to is that the biggest thing feminism has given girls and women today is choices, and the freedom to be themselves. Girls can be girly and strong at the same time. Being allowed to participate in both "male" and "female" things is like getting the best of both worlds. Little girls grow up with the message "Girls can do anything!", and indeed, it's not atypical to find a girl who loves dolls and baseball.
What you don't see too often are boys who love dolls and baseball. It's interesting that the latest trend is giving baby girls boys' names (I have heard Austin, Taylor, Dylan, Chandler, Dustin), but you won't often find a baby boy with a girls' name. Girls can wear basically anything they want; pants are no longer just for boys, but boys' clothing options are still limited. Boys can't wear girls' clothes without everyone getting themselves all worked up to a tizzy. A girl can be called a tomboy and it's a good thing, but a boy who's a sissy is a playground reject.
What all this shows is that "male" things are still valued more highly than "female" things, unfortunately. If girls can be assertive, wear anything, play sports, excell in math and science, I think it's equally important for boys to be able to play with dolls, cook, cry when they feel like it, and wear pink. There are positive characteristics of both the the traditional male and female gender roles, and we need both."


http://members.aol.com/believeinchildrn/boysngirls.html

I don't know as if we need both excercised by each gender, there is a fine line here and I think it's fucking bullshit to forever cross the two. It is wrong for girls to rough it up on the field with the boys and visa versa, and the topic of not letting boys on a girls team for that reason in light of feminisms push to create all girls equal to boys and them some is proof positive that we are fucking up a natural order of things. My sons will not wear pink and my daughters will act like ladies.
11
Main / Are you old??
Sep 22, 2003, 01:22 PM
I found this on MSN today.


By Mark Patinkin:

I remember being shocked when typewriters began showing up in antique stores.

It's gotten worse.

You can now find early computers there - or in the antiques section of Web sites like Ebay.

It got me thinking about a new definition of old.


Old doesn't just apply to those who can remember life before airplanes or television.

You qualify if things you once considered cutting-edge technology are now antiques. Or when the latest trends you swear you embraced just yesterday are things the MTV generation never heard of.

So, today, a list.



You know you're getting up there if you remember when:

* Your computer's ready-mode was a black screen with a single curser.

* Apple was bigger than Windows.

* Or should I say PCs, since for a while, there was no such thing as Windows.

* There was just "DOS."

* And they were called microcomputers instead of PCs.

* Contrary to free-market theory, your phone choices and bills were much easier because AT&T was a good old-fashioned monopoly.

* There was this amazing new video game called "Pong."

* And you thought it had the most advanced graphics imaginable.

* AOL was just another start-up online service that could easily have lost out to rivals called Compuserve and Prodigy.

* A 20-something guy named Dell came up with the nutty idea of selling computers by mail.

* Jane Fonda went from sex symbol, to feminist activist, to dutiful wife of a powerful man, to obscurity.

* And that powerful man was known not as Ted Turner founder of CNN - but "Blackbeard Among the Bluebloods" for winning the America's Cup while scandalizing Newport society with raucus behavior.

* And there was no question U.S. sailors would of course win the Cup - forever.

* It was called VD instead of an STD.

* The first true laptop computer was a Radio Shack TRS-80.

* And if you were hip, you referred to it affectionately as a TRASH-80.

* Burning a CD was the act of a pyromaniac.

* Sean Connery was Pierce Brosnan.

* The new walkaround phone that gave you astonishing mobility was a cordless one you could take around the house.

* And it got better reception than the one you can now take all over the country.

* Only wives got alimony.

* Steve Jobs ran Apple. I mean, the first time.

* There was a guy on 60 Minutes named Mike Wallace who was so old you figured he'd retire at the latest by 1990.

* TheMideast was simpler because Iran was run by a dictator called The Shah, who wanted power rather than Jihad.

* Mail was something you wrote on a piece of paper and put into a stamped envelope.

* And you didn't get 110 unsolicited pieces of it every morning promising to enhance your anatomical assets.

* No normal person had speakers on their computer.

* The diners at the next restaurant table were smoking cigarettes and you barely noticed.

* The only thing you knew about Robin Williams was he played a weird alien named "Mork" on television.

* A 1-gig hard drive seemed as big as a warehouse. (Today, most are 40-times that.)

* An 8-track tape the size of a paperback book was an advanced concept in compact music recording.

* Everyone knew what an LP was.

And now the final test of whether you're getting up there:

* Even though there are plenty of LPs in antiques stores, you still have 400 in your attic, because deep down, you still think the format will come back.

Mark Patinkin can be reached at [email protected].


Copyright YellowBrix Inc 2003
 http://www.bcentral.com/articles/isyn/default.asp?newsid=20039182&cobrand=msn&LID=3800
12
Main / A little humor.
Sep 05, 2003, 02:28 AM
I got this from my brother, I thought it was funny.


Subject: Arizona Chili Taster


If you can read the whole story without tears of laughter running down your
cheeks then there's no hope for you.

NOTE: Please take time to read this slowly. If you pay attention to the
first two judges, the reaction of the third is even better.


For those of you who have lived in Arizona, you know how true this is. They
actually have a Chili cook-off about the time the rodeo comes to town.  It
takes up a major portion of the parking lot at the Bank One Ballpark. The
notes are from an inexperienced chili taster named Frank, who was visiting
Arizona from the Mid West.

Frank: "Recently, I was honored to be selected as a judge at a chili
cook-off. The original person called in sick at the last moment and I
happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to the
Coors truck, when the call came in. I was assured by the other two judges
(Native Arizonians) that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy and, besides,
they told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I eagerly
accepted."

Here are the scorecards from the event:

Chili # 1 Mike's Maniac Mobster Monster Chili

Judge # 1-- A little too heavy on the tomato. Amusing kick.

Judge # 2 --Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild.

Judge # 3 --(Frank) Holy shit, what the hell is this stuff? You could remove
dried paint from your driveway. Took me two beers to put the flames out. I
hope that's the worst one. These Arizonians are crazy.

Chili # 2 Arthur's Afterburner Chili

Judge # 1 -- Smoky, with a hint of pork. Slight jalapeno tang.

Judge # 2 --Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously.


Judge # 3 --Keep this out of the reach of children. I'm not sure what I'm
supposed to taste besides pain.  I had to wave off two people who wanted to
give me the Heimlich maneuver. They had to rush in more beer when they saw
the look on my face.

Chili # 3 Fred's Famous Burn Down the Barn Chili

Judge # 1 - Excellent firehouse chili. Great kick. Needs more beans.


Judge # 2 -- A beanless chili, a bit salty, good use of peppers


Judge # 3 -- Call the EPA. I've located a uranium spill. My nose feels like
I have been snorting Drano.  Everyone knows the routine by now. Get me more
beer before I ignite. Barmaid pounded me on the back, now my backbone is in
the front part of my chest. I'm getting shit-faced from all of the beer.

Chili # 4 Bubba's Black Magic

Judge # 1 -- Black bean chili with almost no spice. Disappointing.


Judge # 2 -- Hint of lime in the black beans. Good side dish for fish or
other mild foods, not much of a chili.

Judge # 3 -- I felt something scraping across my tongue, but was unable to
taste it. Is it possible to burn out taste buds? Sally, the barmaid, was
standing behind me with fresh refills. That 300-LB. lady is starting to look
HOT-just like this nuclear waste I'm eating.  Is chili an aphrodisiac?


Chili # 5 Linda's Legal Lip Remover

Judge # 1 -- Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne peppers freshly ground, adding
considerable kick. Very impressive.


Judge # 2 -- Chili using shredded beef, could use more tomato. Must admit
the cayenne peppers make a strong statement.


Judge # 3 -- My ears are ringing, sweat is pouring off my forehead and I can
no longer focus my eyes.  I farted and four people behind me needed
paramedics.  The contestant seemed offended when I told her that her chili
had given me brain damage.  Sally saved my tongue from bleeding by pouring
beer directly on it from the pitcher. I wonder if I'm burning my lips off.
It really pisses me off that the other judges asked me to stop screaming.
Screw those rednecks.

Chili # 6 Vera's Very Vegetarian Variety

Judge # 1 -- Thin yet bold vegetarian variety chili. Good balance of spices
and peppers.


Judge # 2 -- The best yet. Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic.
Superb.


Judge # 3 -- My intestines are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous,
sulfuric flames.  I shit myself when I farted and I'm worried it will eat
through the chair. No one seems inclined to stand behind me except that
Sally.  She must be kinkier than I thought. Can't feel my lips anymore. I
need to wipe my ass with a snow cone.

Chili # 7 Susan's Screaming Sensation Chili

Judge # 1 -- A mediocre chili with too much reliance on canned peppers.

Judge # 2 -- Ho hum, tastes as if the chef literally threw in a can of chili
peppers at the last moment. I should take note that I am worried about Judge
# 3. He appears to be in a bit of distress as he is cursing uncontrollably.

Judge # 3 -- You could put a grenade in my mouth, pull the pin, and I
wouldn't feel a thing. I've lost sight in one eye, and the world sounds like
it is made of rushing water. My shirt is covered with chili which slid
unnoticed out of my mouth. My pants are full of lava like shit to match my
shirt. At least during the autopsy, they'll know what killed me. I've
decided to stop breathing, its too painful. Screw it, I'm not getting any
oxygen anyway. If I need air, I'll just suck it in through the 4-inch hole
in my stomach.

Chili #8 Tommy's Toenail Curling Chili

Judge # 1 -- The perfect ending, this is a nice blend chili. Not too bold
but spicy enough to declare its existence.


Judge # 2 -- This final entry is a good, balanced chili. Neither mild nor
hot. Sorry to see that most of it was lost when Judge # 3 passed out, fell
over and pulled the chili pot down on top of himself. Not sure if he's going
to make it. Poor dude, wonder how he'd have reacted to really hot chili?
13
Main / Is anyone tired of reading this crap??
Sep 03, 2003, 03:37 AM
This is yet another stupid article about how women are better at some mundane task than all men, based on what? Their plumbing. :roll:

Yea, there is a disclaimer in there about being able to accept widely accepted generalizations..DUUUHHH. :roll:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/krotz/150.asp?LID=34660

Why women make better managers


Marketing Intelligence / Joanna L. Krotz

Before getting to the point of this provocative headline, here's a disclaimer: Prepare to consider widely accepted generalizations.

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


Translated, that means, "Included in this article are some sweeping statements presented as general truths but based on limited or incomplete evidence."

Let me add this: Remember, too, that being equal does not mean being the same. Now, let's proceed.

As women gained traction in the workforce, gender differences among senior and junior staffers turned up in every workplace, from offices to factory floors to fighter planes. Now that women are pulling up chairs at boardroom tables and launching their own companies -- the number of women-owned firms has increased by 103% in the past 10 years -- those differences are increasingly playing out in executive suites, too.

Studies show that both male and female styles of leadership can be effective. But when compared side by side, "female" has the edge.


Biology and upbringing

Gender differences stem from nurture and nature alike. It's not only socialization that shapes men and women. It's also biology.


Researchers are discovering physiological variations in the brains of men and women. For example, male brains are about 10% larger than female brains. But women have more nerve cells in certain areas. Women also tend to have a larger corpus collusum -- the group of nerve fibers that connects left and right hemispheres. That makes women faster at transferring data between the computational, verbal left half and the intuitive, visual right half. Men are usually left-brain oriented.

As girls and boys grow up, of course, they're also molded by differing sets of social rules and expectations. Gender obviously colors behavior, perception and just about everything else.


Gender matters

Typically, when comparing managers, the dialogue is framed as men's command-and-control style versus women's team-building or consensus approach.

"Women managers tend to have more of a desire to build than a desire to win," says Debra Burrell, regional training director of the Mars-Venus Institute in New York. "Women are more willing to explore compromise and to solicit other people's opinions." By contrast, she says, men often think if they ask other people for advice, they'll be perceived as unsure or as a leader who doesn't have answers.

Other female leadership strengths:

Women are better than men at empowering teams and staff.
Women encourage openness and are more accessible.
Women leaders respond more quickly to calls for assistance.
Women are more tolerant of differences, so they're more skilled at managing diversity.
Women identify problems more quickly and more accurately.
Women are better at defining job expectations and providing valuable feedback.
Men tend to be more speedy decision-makers, compared to women. Male managers are also more adept at forming what management psychologist Ken Siegel calls "navigational relationships," or temporary teams set up to achieve short-term goals.


Women are better communicators

Big deal and surprise, surprise, right? So women typically outperform men at communications and interpersonal skills. You're probably thinking: Those are "soft skills," not the hard tools and analysis demanded to grow a business into consistent profitability.

How do such "female" traits translate into better business management?

In today's lean workplace, when employees have multiple jobs and fleeting loyalty, when technology enables even tiny companies to compete in global marketplaces, the ability to make staff feel charged up, valued and individually recognized is a definite competitive edge.

"Some companies succeed while others don't," says Jeffrey Christian, CEO of Christian & Timbers, a well-known Cleveland search firm. "It's not about production, it's about talent. Whoever has the best team wins."

Money is not the primary reason talented people stay on the job or jump. Rather, they stay predominantly because of relationships. "Women get that," says Christian, whose firm placed Carly Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard, among other high-level hires.

Generally, women delegate more readily and express their appreciation for hard work more often. "Women ask questions, men tend to give answers," says author, consultant and career coach Terri Levine. By communicating company goals more readily and expressing appreciation more often, women tend to be better at making staffers feel valued and rewarded. That translates into cost-effective recruiting and being able to operate with stable, loyal employees -- or, as Christian puts it, the best talent.


But no drop off in "hard skills"

Besides generally being credited with better communications and relationship skills, women are lately demonstrating higher levels of traditional "hard" or "male" skills as well. Some investigators suggest that many women workers had such skills all along, but that male bosses either overlooked or misperceived them. Others think that the cumulative years of experience for women are broadening their skills.

One influential study in 1996, conducted by management consultant Advanced Teamware (which has since merged with Consulting Tools), analyzed a database of 360-degree assessments for more than 6,000 managers. Such assessments include anonymous reviews from a manager's peers, supervisors and subordinates. The study by Michael R. Perrault and Janet K. Irwin looked at a range of managerial behavior, including problem solving, controlling, leading, managing self, managing relationships and communicating.

The results:

". . . Previous studies showed that women excelled in interpersonal skills (right brain), not in intellectual skills (left brain). Our study demonstrates that women are considered better performers in both right- and left-brain skill areas."
"Women received higher evaluations than men in 28 of the 31 individual behaviors, representing 90% of items."
"The most problematic factor for women is Managing Self . . . The worst rated of the 31 behaviors is Coping with one's own frustrations."

More glass ceilings to break

Obviously, there are still very few women running Fortune 500 companies and, in the corporate VP ranks, roughly three men to every woman. So if women have the managerial edge, how come you don't see more of them in positions of power?

Here's my speculation: Men are used to running the show and, for the most part, don't reward "female" style management because they see it as weak. Women have had to prove that their way of managing works, over and over again. Then, too, women have only gained the independence and skills to ascend in the latter half of the last century. No doubt, their rise will continue.

For owners of small and midsized businesses, being able to keep staffers and stakeholders enthusiastic as you steer the company forward may be the most important factor in building success. "You want to delegate outcomes, not tasks," says Ken Siegel, whose Los Angeles firm, the Impact Group, works with executives to develop leadership. "You must have the ability to let go. Women can do that better than men because their self-esteem is multifaceted," he says. "Men's self-esteem is based on what they do, it's uni-dimensional."

The upshot for chief executives should be to move over to the "female" side of management, whether you're a thoroughgoing left-brainer or a woman manager who may be trying to manage "male." Turns out, girls do it better.

 


I don't know about any of you, but I would have to say that moving to the "female" side of things is a tad bit "discriminatory" and makes whatever entity practicing these employment tactics nothing shy of ignorant.
14
Just curious, and you know who is, so , why not give us a break from the SheThinks games and flush the crap already. :roll:
15
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Fluffy Rich got it too!!! THIS IS TOO FUNNY!!!:lol:
16
Main / She Thinks Poll.
Jun 07, 2003, 12:50 PM
She Thinks Poll.