The new Ms. is a Mr.

Started by Sir Jessy of Anti, Dec 12, 2004, 12:33 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Davie_boy

Quote
If men, on a large scale, did the work of caregiving, nurturing, caring for the sick, housework, they would insist on being paid for their labors via a paycheck, and not a meager one, either.

Here again, you display your lack of understanding of economics.

If you want to be paid for childcare, open a daycare center. Provide a service that people that don't know you from Adam can purchase. Or, as an alternative, get a husband willing to invest in you - you know, one of those lower life forms that has a particularly keen interest in getting a decent return on his investment (i.e., productive, educated children that he loves and wants to see succeed).

Really, you're asking for a bureaucratic nightmare that would give the state (as a type of board of directors for the "Mothers Don't Have to Work Fund") an incredible amount of power over children (and mothers/parents). The question would then be: Are you the type of mother that the state wants you to be? Are you producing the kinds of kids that we think the taxpayers want/deserve?
eminist free since 2002.

The Gonzman

Quote
This is incorrect.  I suggest you (not just you, TyphonBlue, rhetorical "you") do some research?  Who, in fact, owns the world's money, land, property, houses, corporations, governments, religions?  What are their names?  Are they men or women?  You will find that they are by and large men; women account for only a small percentage of the owners of the above.


They fact that many women lack the drive to go out and get this - and in a lot of cases the ability to compete for it - makes this a big "so what?"  I have my nest egg because I did it the old fashioned way - got my hands dirty for it, sweat for it, and bled for it.

The sniveling excuse that "mean old men won't let us" is pathetic at best.  Before I sold my business, I employed anyone who could bring in the money.  The sorry fact was it was the men who were coming in early, staying late, and not taking hour and a half lunches to get their nails done, or missing a day because of their period, or just wanting to take the day off for some "me time."

Amazing, too, how those women who did do the long hours routine, went as far and sometimes further than their male colleagues.

Quote
I agree with you, Biscuit Queen and Floorpie, that the care of children is not, in and of itself, dirty work,  that it can be satisfying and rewarding in its own right, and I should have been careful to be more clear as to what I meant.


Nice backpedal, but I think your first was a Freudian Slip, and this just a little CYA - after all, by whatever means necessary - I guess that includes rhetoric, too.

Quote
The care of children, the elderly, the sick, and housework are what have been made to be the province of women historically and until today in most cultures.


"Until Today" being the operative word because "until today" men have been the ones doing the strenuous, labor intensive, and dangerous work.

Oops.  I guess in the latter case, It should say "And yet, still today, in most cases."

Quote
This is work men have not wanted to do, and it's in that sense that it is dirty work-- it is "women's work" deemed unworthy  of a paycheck.


Yes, I will note the countless men throughout history who have recieved a paycheck from their wives for doing their portion of the hiostorical division of labor, such as building, clearing land, herding, domesticating animals, and so on and so forth.

Compare apples to apples.

Quote
The job description includes the requirement to procure or buy food, clothing and medicine-- the necessities of life-- and cleaning supplies.


While the men's job description includes the manufacture of such things for the paycheck so that they may be bought for the good of the whole family.

Quote
But walking miles to buy rice or oil or clean water, as women in Third World countries do, buying medicines and clothing for one's children and family members, does not equal control or ownership of wealth.  This is work delegated to women by men,  work which is not compensated with a paycheck.


While those same men in such third world countries often walk miles and spend weeks away from their family working in labor camps, while sending all but a subsitence portion of it home; or spend the whole day doing the time intensive manual labor (Which the slighter and physically weaker female physique is incapable of) without the aid of machinery and which will not magically do itself.

Quote
It is true that men do dirty work, but they earn a paycheck for it.  Garbage men, ditch diggers, construction laborers, miners, all are doing dirty work, and they are all paid for it.


They paycheck, my dear, is earned for doing work outside the home - it's very telling that your touching tales of women's woe implies that once such men come home they are universally lazy bastards  and themselves do no unpaid labor around the household.

Now, I'm sure you may come back with something on the order of "such is my experience" but in which case I'd suggest your choices to hang about shiftless men (or choice to do so to prop up your preconcieved biases) are your own personal problem to deal with, and with professional help.

Quote
Women do the work of caregiving and nurturing as I've described-- without receiving a paycheck or for very low wages.


Around the House. As men do the barge toting, bale lifting, defense of the family, and grunt work around the house for similar slave wages, too.

Quote
If men, on a large scale, did the work of caregiving, nurturing, caring for the sick, housework, they would insist on being paid for their labors via a paycheck, and not a meager one, either.


How very droll. I'll be sure to tell my sister in law, the nurse, that she's breaking your female model by accepting a paycheck and she needs to give it back.  And you may send me my check, at your convenience for my efforsts early this year in watching and wiping the ass of my oldest friend as he died of pancreatic cancer, and died in my arms one April morning. And all these single guys who take care of their own cooking and cleaning and laundry, and the married ones who do the same..

That is, when you crawl out of your pitiful wallow of victimhood.

Quote
Again, most of the women in the world who do this work are not paid for it at all.


I know.  And wow - how they manage to write checks for these men who do is surely a testament to coming up with it in the clutch, eh?

Quote
My additional point to TyphonBlue was, of course, that the fact that a woman buys medicine for her ailing relatives (or her husband's ailing relatives) or food for her family, while it makes her technically a "consumer," does not make her the owner of wealth and in no way means she controls wealth.


Of course.  Having the say so in the disposal of the wealth isn't control of it.  Whatever you say, sweet-cheeks.

Quote
It makes her a woman, doing women's work, and usually receiving no compensation for it.


Is this where the violins are supposed to come in?  Or is this more of a harp vignette?
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

napnip

As is usually the case, it isn't so much what feminists say, but what they do not say, which damns them.

Observe Heart's silence in regards to the public monies which support DV shelters.  She says that women "don't owe" men any shelters.

Here's a little clue-by-four for Heart:

Oh hell yes you do owe us.  The fact that men have paid into those shelters, whether they wanted to or not, obligates you to provide the same level of services for men that you do for women.  In fact, if men really do own most of the wealth, then by virtue of our progressive tax code, men likewise pay the most into those shelters.

So please spare us this bullshit "We women built those shelters!" rhetoric.  You built those shelters with money confiscated from men with threat of government force.  (As taxes can only be efficiently collected by government with threat of force for those who refuse.)

So again I challenge you:  If those DV shelters are for "women only", then only women should be taxed to support them.  Love her or hate her, Shannon Faulkner was right about one thing:  It is fundamentally immoral to force someone to pay for a program or service which he or she is ineligible to use.

The DV Industry's public funding should be cut by at least half.
i] We drank our toast to innocence,
We drank our toast to now.
We tried to reach beyond the emptiness,
But neither one knew how. [/i]

Galt

Heart, you're confusing private arrangements with the work world.

If a woman makes an arrangement with her husband that he goes out and works and she takes care of the home, that's their arrangement.

You don't have to have kids, you don't have to get married and you don't even have to clean your own house if you want (maybe until the neighbors and health department start to complain).  People who live alone clean their house too.

In that sense, if you make a voluntary arrangement that the man works outside of the home, you ARE getting your rent or mortgage and all the rest paid for.  That's the arrangement you or another woman made.  

I almost can't believe what I read from feminists.  You want to make a choice and then take absolutely no responsibility for that choice.  Aside from your flat-out stereotyping of "men always do this (bad thing)" and "women always do that (good thing)".

If you personally don't like your arrangement with your husband or boyfriend, then change it or ditch him.  Otherwise, feminists seem to want to stick their nose into every little nook and cranny of people's private business.  Feminists complain about Conservative Christians doing this, but the feminists do it a whole lot more.

napnip

Quote from: "Galt"
Heart, you're confusing private arrangements with the work world.

If a woman makes an arrangement with her husband that he goes out and works and she takes care of the home, that's their arrangement.

You don't have to have kids, you don't have to get married and you don't even have to clean your own house if you want (maybe until the neighbors and health department starts to complain).  People who live alone clean their house too.

In that sense, if you make a voluntary arrangement that the man works outside of the home, you ARE getting your rent or mortgage and all the rest paid for.  That's the arrangement you or another woman made.  

I almost can't believe what I read from feminists.  You want to make a choice and then take absolutely no responsibility for that choice.  Aside from your flat-out stereotyping of "men always do this (bad thing)" and "women always do that (good thing)".

If you personally don't like your arrangement with your husband or boyfriend, then change it or ditch him.  Otherwise, feminists seem to want to stick their nose into every little nook and cranny of people's private business.  Feminists complain about Conservative Christians doing this, but the feminists do it a whole lot more.



Galt, if you were a woman, I'd take you out on a date!

That was beautiful!   :D
i] We drank our toast to innocence,
We drank our toast to now.
We tried to reach beyond the emptiness,
But neither one knew how. [/i]

kal147

Radical feminist wrote:

Quote
For now, I wanted to say that Erin Pizzey has a very, very bad case of founder's syndrome, and that, more than anything else, is what accounts for what she has to say about the DV movement.


Don't insult our intelligence with unresponsive ad hominems. If you have something substantiated to address Erin Pizzey ... do so. Obviously you do not.

In addition, speaking of founders ... does Federal Senator Anne Cools suffer the same unknown malady that Erin Pizzey does? Senator Cools supports and echoes the same messages re DV which Erin Pizzey espouses.

Heart, you approach the issue of domestic violence as if it is predominantly a male upon female phenomena. You couldn't be further from the truth!!!

You heard me! Now, I'll tell ya a secret:

The Dirty Little Secret about Domestic Violence........
(Women commit more than men. Shhh.)

Why do most find the assertion that women commit more domestic violence than men, hard to believe; contrary to all they "know?" It is certainly contrary to Public Opinion and Conventional Wisdom, so someone is up to something. Who is making which claim based on what?

Aren't a third of women beaten or raped by their mate? Don't men commit 90 percent of domestic violence? You don't mean to suggest that anyone's been misleading us or that the media has been in the least careless, allowing us to believe things that are patently false and provably wrong?

It is a shock to most. There is a very large gap between public perception and what is known about domestic violence from scholarly research. Such gaps are usually a symptom of political manipulation, and that makes it possible that innocent people are being persecuted for the selfish interests of a few. So you have to get curious. What is the truth and why don't we know? Who would tell us?

Here's a small, typical sample of the actual research:

In 1992, 1.9% of women were the victim of severe assault by their mate. 4.5% of men were the victims of the same. Murray Straus, Glenda Kantor, "Change in Spouse Assault Rates from 1975 to 1992," presented at the 13th World Congress of Sociology, July 19, 1994.

Female victims of spousal assault: 4.8%. Male victims: 10.0%. Brinkerhoff & Lupri, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1989.

Female victims of spousal assault: 3.8%. Male victims: 4.6%. Kalmuss, "The Intergenerational Transmission of Marital Aggression," Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 46, pp. 11 - 19, 1984.

Women report initiating more violence with non-violent partners (22%) than do men (17%). Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, "Predictors of Dating Violence: A Multivariate Analysis," Violence and Victims, Vol. 7, pp. 297 - 311, 1992.

25% of both male and female spouses experience some form of overall violence (mild to severe). But wives committed an 11.3% incidence rate of severe violence, while men initiated only 5.8%. Russell & Hulson, "Physical and Psychological Abuse of Heterosexual Partners," Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 13, pp. 457 - 473, 1992.

It suggests a wide gap from what we've heard. But since we believe and hear what we want to, this can hardly be a conspiracy. When you discover the gaps between myth and reality the question becomes: Why have we WANTED to believe the reverse of the truth? Why have we all been so anxious to believe that men are all monsters and women have a sudden, overwhelming need for extra protection?

The Truth about DV


In contrast to the myths:

Psychologist Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., may not have compiled an annotated bibliography of all the academic studies of domestic violence ever done in the world over the last 15 years, but he's come close. It includes almost all studies in the US, and the most significant ones from other countries. The research reveals that female on male domestic violence is as common as male on female. Plus, women abuse their children at a rate clearly in excess as do fathers.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Rev. Sam Sewell and his wife Rev. Bunny of Family Resources & Research, FL, who have worked in family violence for decades and founded women's shelters, became so incensed by the gap between public perception and reality that they published an extensive and authoritative document on the Web, calling for other workers in this area to counter the lies.

http://www.menweb.org/batsewel.htm


The Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire has spent over 25 years defining and performing research into all forms of family violence. Many of their papers can be found on their website.

http://www.unh.edu/frl/

Erin Pizzey founded the world's first women's refuge in London over 30 years ago. In a July, 1998 article for "The Observer" she says that of the first 100 women who came, at least 62 were as violent as their husbands:


"Not only did they admit their violence in the mutual abuse that took place in their homes, but the women were abusive to their children. The purpose of the refuge was not to make political gain out of personal suffering, but to seek to discover the causes of domestic violence and to create therapeutic programs that would educate violence-prone parents to learn to eradicate their violent behavior. Unfortunately, at this time the feminist movement -- hungry for recognition and for funding -- was able to hijack the domestic violence movement and promptly set about disseminating dubious research material and disinformation."

But the US Violence Against Women Act explicitly denies funding to any agency that suggests or probes for contribution to the violence on the part of the female. Female = victim. It also denies funding for programs for battered men. Programs for men are to simply shame and blame the men and to teach them respect for women.

Dave K

****This is Biscuit Queen, I forgot I was on Dave's computer. Sorry Dave!

Heart, you really have dropped the ball, I am disappointed. Going back to the old women are slaves cliche? Well, I am a stay at home mom. I train dogs when I can, but by and large Dave pays all the bills. So He owns all the wealth right? Wrong. We file a joint income tax return. We own a house with both names on it. My car is in my name. So far that is a pretty huge chunk of change which I own. Add in retirement benifits, life insurance policy, etc, I am uncompensated? Hello? I think that I am doing extremely well. I work hard to provide services within the home so that I am making it worth the stress that is put apon my husband for being sole bread winner. I wouldn't even think that I was a slave. I am quite happy with our partnership, as is Dave.

You are taking marraige and pulling out one job and holding it up out of context. That is not only sneaky it is poor debating tactics. Women have done the caretaking. And in turn they have been taken care of, financially and safety wise. Women as a group have been kept safe and fed, and in return they have provided services such as caring for the kids, the home, etc. It is a two way partnership which both parties benifit from. Your assumption that women only work and men only benefit is inaccurate.

You can't keep backpeddling. You watch too much Lifetime, and have bought their oppressed female diatribe- unfortunately, it doesn't hold up to the scrutiny. Until feminism, men and women got along just fine. Women were as happy with their lot as men were with theirs. Did that mean they were thrilled with life 24/7? No more than the men out in the cold, on the battlefield, in dangerous jobs. Both parties have some legitimate beefs, and they pretty much balance each other out.

Oh, and to head off where you are most likely going next, historically, men had no more power than women. A FEW men and a FEW women had loads of power. The rest of men and women, the vast majority, had no power at all.

Where else can you go? Hmmm, that men start wars,  and women are the greatest victims of war, so wartime deaths don't count. Well, as I said, a FEW men and women started wars, the millions of others died in those wars with no choice. No matter how many women were killed in wars, it pales in comparison with the numbers of men.

Maybe you will try that only women get raped. Hmmm, ever hear of prison? Did you know that being raped anally is far more painfull and traumatic physically and likely mentally than vaginal rape? Not all men in prison are guilty, and even those who are do not deserve rape. Just like prostitutes do not deserve to be raped. The 1 in 4 is a myth, made up for a speach.

Let me know where else you want to go, I am sure there is a simple, logical, and opposing fact for it.

kal147

Heart Wrote:

Quote
This is work delegated to women by men, work which is not compensated with a paycheck.


Heart, are you suggesting that women who perform housework and other household related functions should be compensated with a paycheck by the husband? He should pay her? You seem to have a problem with this 'uncompensated' aspect of division of labor, financial compensation to her would be only just and fair ... right? You seem to leave no other rightful outcome.

Of course, this additional earned income within the family unit poses no problem for you ... especially when you consider that the wife's new paycheck would be subject to income taxes, thus further reducing the available resourses that a family has to manage its' affairs. Yes, if she's paid for services rendered its' income ... and produces taxes.

Furthermore, as long as we are on the topic of compensation maybe the husband should be paid by his wife for the services he performs within the home. Fix a drain ... $150 bucks are a plumbers rate. Listen to her problems ... what does a therapist charge? More incomes .... more taxes!

Nice can of worms you wish to open.

Galt already explained the concept of sharing and dividing necessary work by mutual arrangement. Is that so hard for you to understand ... or are you too busy doing the menial, disgusting, and abhorrent job of mothering your children.

You speak of oppression against women but yet you articulate none ... except for a brief one-sided mention of life in dirt poor countries where men and women are both poor and have a hard life. But, you left out the men ... ooops.

If you have a problem with current alleged oppression against women ... spell it out. Perhaps you'd like to start with how women are the principal victims of war.

The Gonzman

This is as if, mis amigos and amigas, that our little femitwit had any credibility left after her introductory drivel.  I'll refer you back to it for a refresher and direct your attention to the little area surrounding "by any means necessary" and the utter contempt in which she holds fair play, and by extension, honesty.

Now I ask you, after having read that - think accuracy in numbers is of any concern as far as advancing the Feminazi agenda to this, um, person?  Think an eye will be batted or the slightest hesitation shown to utter a lie to her own ends?

It's obvious and self-evident that to her kind the ends justify the means no matter how despicable those means be.

Seriously - do you really expect her to be honest with herself when she has clearly implied than honesty to you is optional, if that much?

Thus is the naked face and real modus operandi of feminism exposed.  Thanks so much, Heart, for that much unintended, I'm sure, glimpse into your raw motives.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

CaptDMO

Quote from: "Heart"


Instead of all of you vexing your righteous souls from day to day now and doing all of your customary garment-rending, what say you actually do some research.  

--Heart, posting this for the benefit of those here who have never done the kind of research or analysis which is required to make proper analysis of gendered power in the world and who are interested in justice for all people


Um, golly......Where to begin?...I can only ask that anyone of this opinion consider researching the archived posts found here as well as other current Mens Rights bbs. You may find that quite a bit of substantiated,peer reviewed,torn apart,rebuilt,debunked,and carefully linked study is why places like came to fruition in the last decade.

You may all then wish to reconsider your position and premise when you then find that this crowd is not easy pickings for the 40 year old doctorine of the day. I, for one, have no desire to further invest conventional wisdom, point by point, on opinion that has been addressed by so many others, yet again, ad nausium, it gets old. I prefer to start today and move forward.

Hope to hear from you soon!

SouthernGuy

Quote
Do some simple google searches on what sex far and away controls Fortune 500 companies; i.e., what is the sex of the CEOs and boards of these companies?


I don't know whether to laugh at this woman or just feel sorry for her. This is a function of choices that women make, hoping for some empirical parity is just plain stupid. Who has final say over most major purchases (house, etc.) in a man's life? THE WIFE. Everything is not quite so black and white Heart. Your ineptness is astounding, you sound like someone who just graduated from a gender studies program. I hope to God hope you aren't raising any boys, if so, I feel VERY sorry for them.

SG

neonsamurai

Quote
Do some simple google searches on what sex far and away controls Fortune 500 companies; i.e., what is the sex of the CEOs and boards of these companies?


I'm too lazy to do a google search and I'm darned if I'm going to help out with any work that involves nurturing, however I'll place a little bet with you that the wives of all of those CEO's are women.

I'm also going to make a generalisation here (see? I have learned something from feminism) that none of those women have to walk 3 miles each day to buy medicine, clothes or water. But I'll bet that regardless of how much money the man earns, his wife's life must be just as harsh as those women in the third world.

Gah! I don't know what my point is! I'm just angry that I had to stay in and keep my sick girlfriend company last night and not get paid for it! Thanks for nothing the patriarchy!
Dr. Kathleen Dixon, the Director of Women's Studies: "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!"

The Gonzman

Sorry, ya'll, but I'm planning to blog on this feminut, and I want to make sure she doesn't pull an Amber and delete her stuff; make sure we keep this on record, iffen ya know whut ah mean.

The red has been added by me for reference and for linking convenience.

Quote from: "Heart"
Dr. Evil: Feminist says "Hey, we have worked hard to start and build these shelters for abused women if you want something for men build them yourself."

Women's shelters exist because, beginning in the 60s in the U.S., feminist women created them-- from the ground up.  We invited battered women into our homes, we listened to them, often we *were* them, we educated ourselves, we pooled our money and resources, we rented houses, started underground railroads to help women and children to safety, we organized, we educated the general public, we lobbied our legislators, we brought lawsuits, we created a revolution and have helped millions of women and children to make new lives for themselves.

So yes, indeed, if men need shelters, I suggest you build a few.  If you need some help with that, you might study feminist history; maybe you could pick up a few tips, and in the meantime,  the study would do all of you a world of good.

Hey, us whites have put a lot of effort into creating those water fountains. If you blacks want yourselfs some water fountains get off your ass and build them yourselves.

Your analogy, Dr. Evil -- as is consistently true of your and others' posts to this and to similar forums --  fails because it omits any analysis of gendered power.  In the pre-Civil Rights Era South, white people were the power elites; black people were disenfranchised and marginalized.  White people had a duty to end discrimination including at public drinking fountains because they held the reins of governmental and civil and institutional power and because they had withheld equality from people of color.  The same can not be said as to men and women anywhere, at any time in history.  Women have never held the reins of governmental, civil and institutional power in society and were in no position to withhold any of the above from men.  

The proper comparison, in view of the disparities in gendered power which continue to exist in the world, is of whites with men and of blacks with women.  Once again, for those who are having trouble following along, men, just as white people, hold the reins of power in the world; women, as with black people in the South, do not.  Women do not owe men domestic violence shelters, although men did owe it to women to address the problem of men abusing their wives and children.  But even though  we were marginalized and disenfranchised,  although we were second class citizens, we built our own movement and our own shelters.  I participated myself in this work from the very beginning and have worked with DV survivors off and on for 30 years.  Men have the money and the power, men should build their own shelters. [If, that is, they are really necessary.   You frequently suggest in your posts here that women "batter" and "abuse" men as often as men abuse and batter women.  This is incorrect.  Accurate information is widely available and you should seek it and familiarize yourself with it.  The study you most often seem to be citing to is faulty, in that, among other things, it counts self-defense as "abuse" and "battering," meaning if a woman attempts to defend herself against a man's violence, her self-defense is counted as "domestic violence" when it is no such thing.  There are other holes in your analysis large enough to drive a truck through, as well; you really ought to do your homework.]

Your point about heart disease was lost on me, Dr. E.  Battering is not a "disease," like heart disease, battering is criminal violence, most of it is male violence against women, it is a problem worldwide and always has been. Feminist women got fed up with it 40 years ago, realized men were never going to do anything about it because it benefitted them to terrorize women, so we said, "Enough."  Men did *not* help us in our efforts to deal with our own battered and abused; we educated and worked and lobbied and helped ourselves.   There's nothing stopping you from addressing your own similar problems as men-- if, indeed, those problems exist (and I'm not convinced of that.).  But again, you have the money, the power, the resources, go for it.  We did it without all of the above, what's your excuse?

Then lo and behold, someone discovers 30 years of research that says that women also suffer from heart disease! How about that! What do the men say to the women? They say,

Quote:
"Hey, we have worked hard to start and build these centers for men with heart disease if you want something for women build them yourself."  


Damn straight.  Sounds just right to me.

And that's the higher moral ground?

You and others here often seem concerned about "higher moral ground" and who does and does not take it most often, but no feminists I know are much concerned about this.  We are concerned about liberating women and bringing an end to male supremacy-- any way we can, full stop.  Taking the "higher moral ground" is optional.  Feminist women don't believe there is anything essential about maleness or femaleness that one sex is more "moral" than the other, and we could care less about whether or not in men's eyes what we do amounts to the "higher moral ground.".  One sex *does* and *always has had* the power in the world-- and that would be men and it is correcting that imbalance of power that concerns us.  Men have abused and misused their power and the world we now inhabit is evidence of this.  So as feminist women, we aim to change that.  Change begins, though, with acknowledging first who *has* the power in the world and who does *not* have the power in the world.  And it is *men* who have had and who still, by and large, have the power.  And this supremely relevant fact seems to have escaped pretty much every last one of you.


Instead of all of you vexing your righteous souls from day to day now and doing all of your customary garment-rending, what say you actually do some research.  Do some simple google searches on what sex far and away controls Fortune 500 companies; i.e., what is the sex of the CEOs and boards of these companies?  What is the sex of the heads  -- kings, presidents, prime ministers, premiers, chancellors -- of the nations of the world and their cabinets?  What is the sex of the richest people in the world?  What is the sex of the people who own the world's newspapers, television, radio and other media?  What is the sex of the people who own land in the world?  Who controls the great [sic] religious institutions of the world, men or women?   After you've done that research, *then* come and explain how it is that women should be compared with white power elites in the pre-Civil Rights Era South while men are somehow disenfranchised and oppressed and should be compared with black people of that same period.  That is just hogwash.

Bigotry.

Bigotry is a function of institutionalized power and class privilege.  Men have it.  Women do not.  

--Heart, posting this for the benefit of those here who have never done the kind of research or analysis which is required to make proper analysis of gendered power in the world and who are interested in justice for all people
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

Alpha Male

Heart,
The others here have already given you a beating about it but I just can't let it go by.

WOMEN DON'T GET COMPENSATED FOR THE DOMESTIC WORK THEY DO?!?

I have one of the most traditional types of marriages there are. The kind someone like you would loathe.

The only compensation my wife gets is my ENTIRE FUCKING PAYCHECK! I hand it over every time. Is that enough compensation for you yet? I doubt it.

As Galt was pointing out, you confuse arrangements with oppression. My wife takes care of the lion's share of the domestic chores. That's because I am working and I pay the lion's share of our expenses. If you want to take your riduculous stance to the extreme, by all means, let's.

My paycheck is her compensation implying she in nothing more than my employee.
I had to change a diaper last night. - Dock her pay
Everytime I make dinner - dock her pay
Everytime I do laundry - dock her pay
House wasn't clean - dock her pay

And since anything that benefits the spouse must be compensated financially:
I am the chainsaw wielding fiend who cuts the firewood - bill her $60 - $80 per cord
I am the one who fixes the vehicles - $80/hr plus parts
I am the one who built the chicken coop - What are contractors paid?
I buck the hay and feed the cattle. - bill her
I plow when the snow flies. - bill her
I bought the damn house - she can pay rent - no, wait... SHIT! It's in her name.

She owes me a paycheck for all of these things. After all, relegating those things to my care just because as a man I am larger and more muscular is simply sexist and I feel I am being oppressed.

Ridiculous - its like a teenager refusing to do housechores until they are paid. That's about the time mom and dad hand 'em a bill for room and board.
[/i]
ies come in three types: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Heart

I still haven't taken (and don't have time, busy at work) the time to read the posts here, really, but just, again, skimming through, Biscuit Queen (and others), the agreement you have made to stay home and take care of people, animals and the house while your husband works carries with it an economic pricetag for you.  You (not just you, Biscuit Queen, more, again, a rhetorical "you") have made life easy for your husband; because you've taken care of things at home, he's been able to forget about all of that boring, mundane, housekeeping work, do his job, advance professionally.  If you split with him, he could continue on in his chosen career, but you would be penalized, because instead of establishing your own financial independence and professional security over the years, you've been making his life easier, making it possible for *him* to be financially independent and to have professional security.  So even if you got half of what the two of you own, you would still pay the price for having been his caretaker for however long you have been doing that.  You'd have to start from scratch; he's got it made.  And women know this, they know that if they've agreed to stay home, bear kids, take care of kids and home, that they will be unlikely to have marketable job skills after a couple of years; so they often stay with men who mistreat them.  And that works for men:  men can treat their sah partners however they wish with a fair amount of assurance that their wives, having sacrificed their own lives for their families, can't make it on their own and know it.  Even if you got half of what the two of you own together, unless you can support yourself training dogs, Biscuit Queen, you would have to start from scratch, often late in life, to build a new professional life for yourself.  That's a daunting task for anybody.  So women stay with men who mistreat and abuse them.  It is not an equal arrangement; it is women providing services to men which far and away benefit those men more than they benefit the women who provide them.  And that's the history of the world, you know; in the past, men owned women as chattel, that system continues on as a deal women cut, ultimately, to survive.  They've given their lives for their families, that means they had to forego careers in most cases, they're stuck-- whether a man mistreats them or not.

Galt: If it were flipped around and women had the stress of earning on them in more cases, feminists would be complaining that women are out working while men are just sitting at home - with or without kids.

Most women work now, even when they do have kids.  I thought it was interesting that of the three woman whistleblowers (who blew the whistle on Enron, the FBI, and hmm, can't recall the other one, they were honored as Times Women of the Year), two had stay-at-home male partners who cared for the couples' children.  What feminists know is that society disciplines mothers who work outside the home far more than it disciplines fathers, and this is why there seems to be this trend towards women deciding to stay at home and forego careers and all of that.  The obstacles and difficulties of working outside the home when you are a mother with children are horrendous; society holds women responsibe for the welfare of their children far more than it holds men responsible.  Some feminists -- including me, for much of my adult working life -- have opted to be the breadwinner, with our male partners being the stay-at-home parent.  While in some ways, this is, I think, positive, what is really needed is a revolution in the world of work which would compensate stay-at-home parents for the work they do whether they are male or female, and which would make it easier for parents, both men and women, to combine parenting and work.

But we don't have that now, and one reason we don't is that it is very difficult for women to earn enough money to support their families, regardless, and they are punished in various ways when they work and have kids, those dreaded working mothers who are the cause of all the world's woes, you know, tsk, tsk, so neglectful,  so men work, which is what they want to do anyway, a man without a job is a man without an identity in western society, especially, and women, again, are caretakers of the family, because a woman who isn't a caretaker is a *woman* without an identity-- in all societies.  Often women remain subservient for life, even if they are miserable-- because again, the deal they had to cut was, they'd give up their own life to make his easier and they'd buckle down and take full responsibility for the kids, knowing no matter what, they would be blamed for their kids' problems, if any, in ways men never are.  Nobody should have to cut that kind of deal-- not men, not women; however, I think right now men ought to be cutting it for the most part, because it's women's turn to have lives, professions, and so on.  We made it easier for you for millennia.  It's men's turn to support us now in the world of work.

Someone spoke disparagingly of women who don't get their fannies out there and work, buy property and so on.  Ummmm.... in much of the world,  women are not allowed to work outside the home or to own property, girls in some cases can't go to school, either because laws forbid it, because they are in poverty, or because it's the girls and women who must care for their family members; men and boys do not do this work.  In our culture many women *are* going for it, professionally, and they will be successful, in most cases, imo and ime, to the degree that they remain single, do not have children, and avoid romantic entanglements with men.  These are the golden handcuffs which women exchange for their own lives.

As to women owning half the charities because they pass from the men to the women, please, give it a rest, if I can find time, I'll come back and respond specifically to that bit of absurdity with some links.  As I have repeatedly said, and it is true, and nobody has refuted it because nobody can refute it, the heads of the world's governments, corporations, religions, richest families,  have and control the power and the wealth in the world.  These heads are *male* with a minuscule number of exceptions.   Check it out.  Well, you probably have, that's why you're talking about charities and men dying young and so on.  Come on, Galt, you know better.

Heart
i]I'm a radical feminist, not the fun kind.[/i]

Go Up