Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFirstly, I just want to thank The Nation for giving me the opportunity to guest blog. I've been reading the magazine since I was a teenager – obsessing over Katha Pollitt's columns much in the same way that other girls were swooning over their Teen Beats. (Though I never got my Katha pull-out, very disappointing.)
Since a lot of my feminism started here, I figured what better way to start my guest-blogging stint than to point out a bit of a sexist election trend.
We all know about the waxing misogynist over Hillary's hair or "cackle," and Chris Matthews' ability to insult women in the most ridiculous ways while keeping a straight face. But what I'm finding most interesting is the perpetual paternalism that's been driving the Republican candidates as of late.
In an interview with People magazine, Bush spoke about his daughter Jenna's engagement – specifically about how Henry Hager "asked for her hand."
"He kind of sidled up to me and said, ‘Can I come and see you?' We were sitting outside the presidential cabin here, and he professed his love for Jenna and said, would I mind if he married her? And I said, ‘Got a deal.' [Laughter] And I'm of the school, once you make the sale, move on. But he had some other points he wanted [to make]. He wanted to talk about how he would be financially responsible."
I suppose it doesn't really shock me that Bush would think about his daughter's engagement as a "deal" or "sale," but it did make me think about how – even at a time where women's votes could make or break candidates – the Republican hopefuls seem hell-bent on making little girls of all women.
And no one screams Daddy State more than Mike Huckabee. Whether it's feeling the need to weigh in on Nickelodeon teen celebrity Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy ("…she's going to have the child and…that is the right decision") or making condescending remarks about women's ability to understand their own decisions--Papa Huckabee is on one heck of a sexist roll.
Just this past weekend Huckabee said, "I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor...I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about ... I consider her a victim, not a criminal."
Now, you have to love that Huckabee assumes abortion providers are men (I suppose that makes it easier to paint them as taking advantage of poor widdle women), but even worse is the assumption that women don't realize that when they get an abortion, they're getting an abortion.
And he's not alone. When asked about criminalizing abortion, almost all the Republican candidates scoff at the idea of punishing the women themselves--instead preferring to talk about how we've been victimized by doctors. Women, it seems, need to be protected from our own decisions. (Better to leave that to the menfolk.)
While the choice issue may be the easiest way for the candidates to flex their Daddy muscles, I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, none of the Republicans running will have a problem making other decisions for American women as well. So call me crazy, but I'd like a president who thinks of me as, well...an adult. Capable of making decisions. (But what do I know...I'm just a girl.)
Pathetic piece of Fem BS!
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am
Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!*
*(With apologies to Monty Python)
Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:20am
Pathetic piece of Fem BS!
Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person
Typical vapid BS!
Posted by brunowe at 01/03/2008 @ 11:21am
Great first post, Jessica! Looking forward to the next (and to the comments carnival sure to follow).
Posted by pandanose at 01/03/2008 @ 11:29am
And he's not alone. When asked about criminalizing abortion, almost all the Republican candidates scoff at the idea of punishing the women themselves--instead preferring to talk about how we've been victimized by doctors.
I agree with the gist of your piece. I would only add that it is easier to target providers, and by painting women as victims, they are not directly criticizing them. Probably an astute political move where there are significant voting blocks of women who have had an abortion - makes it seem more like a policy position rather than a direct attack on them.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 11:31am
Makes me want a "Don't Vote for the Papa" t-shirt.
Posted by biancamarisa at 01/03/2008 @ 11:33am
Well said, Jess. Keep up the great work!
Posted by feminist boy at 01/03/2008 @ 11:36am
Great points, Jessica. Glad to read you here at The Nation. If only these issues were brought up by the MSM. The sexism just goes ignored and unacknowledged by most people.
What's with the anti-feminist comments? Got anything of substance to say? Or are you just putting down this entry because it's written by a feminist?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 11:40am | ignore this person
feminism scares them. kind of like vagina dentata.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 11:42am
This is supposed to be a liberal magazine. Not that liberal men are any less misogynist than conservative men, but I thought there'd be a certain level of open-mindedness on the part of readers. Does anyone care to argue with Jessica's points, or will it just be generic cries of "Fem BS!"
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 11:55am
great first post! i look forward to more. what is really scary is the amount of "I just dont know what it is but I just dont like her..." sentiment among male democrats. Like her policies or hate them, but its the sexism that is fueling that feeling. Its the worst kind too, because heaven forbid you bring that up as a possibility that maybe, just maybe, the way Hillary conducts herself is a bit disarming to men, could be part of this feeling... These men would deny that even if it is sorta true.
-fellow katha fan...
Posted by citylady at 01/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Oh, come on! No one, except someone who sees every event in life through a prism of gender conflict, believes that Mr. Bush "thinks about his daughter's engagement as a 'deal' or 'sale.'" A young man approached his fiance's father in an act of civility, and Mr. Bush, as he is wont to do, said something that didn't make a lot of sense. To purposefully misconstrue this as an indicator of the President's views on women is so outlandish that it detracts from whatever validity your other points might have.
Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:00pm
Jessica's post would be funny if it wasn't so sad that she openly promotes infanticide as a "women's right".
Sick
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:01pm
Welcome to The Nation, Jessica! Now I can read you on my home page.
Posted by Katha Pollitt at 01/03/2008 @ 12:02pm
The world sees people through a prism of gender, CRANIUM. Kind of hard to expect women to respond to that. Why is it considered "civil" to ask a woman's father for permission before marrying her? Until women start asking their boyfriends' mothers, it's sexist. And do men who receive a "no" from the fathers actually stay civil by not marrying their girlfriends? Or do they go ahead and do it anyway, proving the "it's good manners!" defense complete bull?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:05pm
Kind of hard to expect women to *not* respond to that. Oops.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by CITYLADY 01/03/2008 @ 11:56am
Is it really that hard to imagine that people might not like Clinton, and it not be sexism. I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man. Same goes for Bush I, Bush II, Dole, McCain. It's a friggin' carnival out there, and Hillary Clinton is just as much a part of it as the rest of them.
But apparently, unless she is held to a different standard, it's sexism. Here's the clue: double standards are sexism. Voting for a candidate merely because she is a woman, as plenty of Democratic women will do, is sexism. Sexism isn't just something men do - but oddly, I don't hear much criticism of the "let's vote for Hillary because she is a woman mentality" around here. Why is that, do you think?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm
All those that are dying to see the FIRST female POTUS, need to step back and think if THIS WOMAN, Hillary Clinton, is THE ONE you want to go down in history--BIG IF she can win in Nov.--to epitomize women's aspiration "To Be All You Can Be"!
Go back in history and take a look at the many FEMALE FIRSTs:
First Female (fill in the blank).....
See their individual ground-breaking paths and compare them to your current dream `favorite'.....IF HRC is your `Shot at the Top', my guess is women, politically, still have to `Sleep with the Enemy' or at least, require the obligatory Casting Couch to `prove' they will DO ANYTHING to get to the top!
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:09pm
Pathetic piece of Fem BS!
Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 11:13am
Why does Happy's response to this not come as a surprise? He can't make any money off this issue, so it's a non-issue to him. He's all behind blowing people up in other nations for profit in the name of democracy, but letting women have a say in this nation is complete feminine B.S.? Happy should crawl back under the rock under his hedge funds where he belongs.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm
Maybe, SRJENKINS, that's because not many people actually subscribe to the "Vote for Clinton because she's a woman" viewpoint. Did Jessica promote doing that? I'm not voting for her in the primaries, but I'd vote for her in the general if it came down to that. She's far too conservative for my taste. But I cringe whenever I hear people insult her appearance, or make anti-woman remarks to put her down. I don't know that many liberals (or feminists) voting for her. But I constantly hear people voice hatred for her without giving reasons that have to do with policy. So wonder what the reason is?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm
Sexism isn't just something men do - but oddly, I don't hear much criticism of the "let's vote for Hillary because she is a woman mentality" around here. Why is that, do you think?
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm
Huckabee shouldn't be voted for simply because he's a jackass. If we end up with a southern baptist bible thumper type in charge, it'll be about the same as living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. One has to observe the religion of the leaders of that nation. Anyone thinking differently is subject to the full penalty of the law. Is that the kind of idiot we really want in the White House? We've already seen what idiot one (that would be W) did in the name of God and it's been pretty damn ugly.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:17pm
Thanks Katha, and everyone, for the warm welcome. Even the anti-feminist commenters are giving me some good laughs. ;) It never ceases to amaze me how the most misogynist comments always seem to crop up on in the most liberal spaces. But it's nice to see some friendly folks out there!
Posted by Jessica Valenti at 01/03/2008 @ 12:18pm
...I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man....
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:06pm
Explains a lot about the little group by the Porta-Potty inside the Dem Tent! Surely your votes have helped Elections, at all levels, won by the Dems and may even be the difference this Nov. However, you have my sympathies of seeming stuck on that treadmill of voting for people you either don't like or don't trust. Hard to be HAPPY politically for an entire lifetime.....but practical if not soul-satisfying!
I do the same thing, but in the world of investments! I think Edwards shares my philosophy on that....one doesn't have to buy into the `mission' to back the players....isn't that the Dems' "Support the Troop, Not the Mission" practicality?
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:19pm
Oh how I love the ignore function! Goodbye Happy, Empty Cranium, et al! : D
Posted by Halfmad at 01/03/2008 @ 12:21pm
CRANEY808, it is a mark of civility for young men to ask the fiance's father to marry the daughter, just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats, not to mention any number of other small gestures that show respect for women. While radical gender feminism is bent on explaining gender differences as cultural phenomena only (the product of an evil patriarchy), innumerable, obvjectively verifiable studies have shown young men are biologically more agressive and have a much greater sex drive than young women. Mothers and grandmothers have, from the beginning of time, instilled manners in their sons in order to civilize them, in order to insure they treat women respectfully. The customary gesture of pretending to ask the fiance's father for her hand is nothing more than a manifestation of that civility. To read it as a sign of patriarchal evil is inane and suggests you are seeking to unnecessarily foment gender conflict where no sane person sees it.
Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:23pm
Why thank you for the educaton re "chivalry!" /rolls eyes
You are describing a model in which men treat women a certain way because they are women. Benevolent sexism is still sexism.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:26pm
And CRANIUM, the tradition you're describing is practically the definition of patriarchy. Yet ironically you're all, "Nothing to see here! No siree!"
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:27pm
I don't know that many liberals (or feminists) voting for her. But I constantly hear people voice hatred for her without giving reasons that have to do with policy. So wonder what the reason is?
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm
I find it funny that the guys on the right side of the political spectrum seem to believe that voting for a candidate who backs blowing people up, starting wars, and trying to make other nations conquests for big business is manly, but it isn't manly to vote for a president wishing for peace instead of war. Any asshole can start a war or a fight, it's rather easy to do. Ending them is a different story.
Hillary scares me not because she's a woman, but rather that she appears to be somewhat in the hip pockets of the very businesses that backed our present president who pushed us into the complete mess we are in now.
This country needs a president who will defend the U.S. and it's constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. Huckabee would be one of the domestic enemies of the constitution and the nation as a whole as Bush has been.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:28pm
Is it really that hard to imagine that people might not like Clinton, and it not be sexism. I didn't like Kerry either, despite voting for him, and it had nothing to do with the fact he was a man. Same goes for Bush I, Bush II, Dole, McCain.
I have found this sort of argument to be common, but it doesn't really hold water. One of the nasty effects of being part of a marginalized identity group is that that aspect of your identity is always an issue. If male is the standard, it is possible for being female to factor into public perceptions even if being male does not. It is like how negative media portrayals of a racial minority may have a harmful effect on how people see that race, while a violent white man, for example, is taken to represent only himself. That's one of the benefits of privilege.
Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 12:29pm
CRANEY808, you forgot the favorite phrase of angry radical feminists when they can't think of anything intelligent to say: "Ugh!"
You need to pick your spots better, kiddo. There are real injustices going on -- women being objectified, men wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit.
Posted by Cranium at 01/03/2008 @ 12:30pm
Yours is a completely understandable reason for disliking Clinton, WOLFGANG1. They're the same reasons I don't support her. But they are not the reasons given by the majority of hysterical people out there bad-mouthing her. Hell, most of them think she's ultra-liberal (hah!). But they still don't attack her politics; they just attack her looks of the fact that she has a vagina.
Excellent points, NEWBIE.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:31pm
Right, CRANIUM, because it's not possible to think about more than one injustice at once. Discussing sexist marriage traditions doesn't stop me from working on other goals you deem "more important." Do you work to stop the objectification of women? Or is it all rape denialism all the time?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:34pm
I couldn't agree more, Jessica. I also can't get over the hate-on everyone seems to have for Hillary. Politics aside, she's constantly characterized as a manipulative, obnoxious, nagging shrew... and don't even get me started on the cleavage debate. It says so much about the attitudes we have towards women in power.
You have to ask yourself... how did Bill come out looking like the good guy?
Posted by holly.kent at 01/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
Can we quit it with the hate speech about angry radical feminists? I am neither angry nor radical, and none of my feminist friends are angry or radical. Next thing you'll be calling us all hairy legged lesbians. Try to formulate your opinion without attacking the opposition!
Oh and I'm super excited I have another excellent blog to read. Go Jessica! I can't wait to read your next book!
Posted by onwisco at 01/03/2008 @ 12:38pm
It never ceases to amaze me how the most misogynist comments always seem to crop up on in the most liberal spaces. But it's nice to see some friendly folks out there!
Posted by JESSICA VALENTI 01/03/2008 @ 12:18pm
Jessica,
I liked your article. I was attempting to augment your arguement against Daddy Huckabee. You see, as a guy, I don't want him as my dad either, or my daughters (does that make him grandpa then). We all deserve better than the likes of him.
Being a father with daughters, I want them having choices not being dictated to them by a guy basing his philosophical political agenda on the old and new testaments. Something about separation of church and state keeps cropping up. Evidently our sexists friends here wouldn't like it if the tables were turned and they had to get permission from their pastor, priest, governor or president to have a vasectomy. Keep in mind that getting a vasectomy does kill future potential life, so any male getting a vasectomy is killing potential life in the christian right's mind.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:40pm
Re: the "civility" debate... Boys being taught to respect women shouldn't just be to remove their hats when a woman enters the room. I will bet you anything that there are hundreds or thousands of men out there who asked for their wives' hands from their fathers- being civil and all- and then went on to be domestic abusers. The notion of civility to women is itself sexist. You should be civil to all people, not just women. And when you are civil, it doesn't stop at the hat.
Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 12:40pm
USC1, what are you trying to accomplish? What are you adding to the debate?
Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 12:12pm
You'll notice I was responding to CITYLADY. I think is CITYLADY is correct in so far that there are some men in the Democratic party that use vague claims of not liking Clinton to hide sexism. But I take exception to the idea that all Democratic men who don't like her for vague reasons are hiding sexism. I also take exception to the fact that I think there are far more women who will vote for her than men that won't because of sexist reasons. Yet, you don't hear much discussion about women's sexism.
Let's use a concrete example. Clinton has on her site that she will be "A Champion for Women". I couldn't agree more about income parity. But there is something I don't like when she positions herself this way. What about other ethnic groups that don't have income parity? Can we see other candidates positioning themselves as "A Champion for Blacks", "A Champion for Hispanics", etc? What about "A Champion for White Men", "A Champion for Christians", "A Champion for Mormons", etc.?
Seems to me that in every context I can think of, this "A Champion for X" doesn't work, particularly if I'm not a part of group X. It offends my sense of equality, that the President should be championing everyone. I don't like her policies, but I can't deny that things like this don't sit well either - and would definitely give rise of vague "I don't like her" feelings. And we should be clear, she is making an appeal based in sexism with this positioning.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 12:17pm
The horror show of the Republican party is the most convincing argument for voting Democratic - but we shouldn't fool ourselves that Democrats are THAT much better.
Posted by HAPPY 01/03/2008 @ 12:19pm
Anyone outside of status quo, right-wing pro-business politics is stuck with less than satisfying options - conservative, liberal or radical. Congradulations on your HAPPY alliance with power - a choice that I can understand based on convenience but one that can hardly be described as soul satisfying.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
:-)
Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 12:49pm
Ditto that! Not quite a `10', but highest in TN I've seen in a year!
Hehehe.....Gotta live up to our `stereotype'! LOL!
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 12:57pm
I'm glad SOMEBODY picked up on the joke.
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 12:59pm
Awesome post Jessica and a topic that I feel is very important and needs to be brought to light. We aren't little girls and we are very capable of making our own decisions and accepting any consequences that accompany those decisions.
And I would also love to see some intelligent debate from those who disagree with Jessica on this topic instead of snide, three word comments that add nothing to the discussion.
Posted by ravenfire at 01/03/2008 @ 1:01pm
I know who you were replying to, SRJENKINS, and I was replying to you. I don't think she was referring to Democratic voters so much as people in general (conservative men particularly).
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:03pm
...hardly be described as soul satisfying.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
Hold on....I did expect this retort! You call it "alliance with power"....fine....I call it my fundamental belief in capitalism and believe it or not, I find it highly "soul satisfying" to actively support, game, profit, and live off of it. With the profit and my time, it becomes even more satisfying to actually go out and make (a small) difference to the less fortunate (and leave the pie-in-the-sky waste of time to folks majoring in history, philosophy, human studies, and what Jessica degreed in).
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 1:03pm
I think this is an amazing post, and it resonates with people. You can tell that by all the scared men posting their well rehearsed propaganda of oppression. Huckabee is a vile excuse for a man, as are a lot of his supporters, and anti-feminist men throughout the world. So afraid of letting go of the patriarchy and the power it's given that they aggressively lash out and desperately seek to usurp more power over the opposite sex! It's a sad comment on our society when cries for equality are met with arrogant, ignorant arguments meant to demean and distract from the fact that they are losing this battle they waged so long ago... and it's about time!
As for Huckabee seeing the woman as a victim, isn't our broken justice system the shining example for punishing the victim, and demonizing them? Especially in cases where the male dominance is being challenged? Maybe I'm thinking of some other justice system...
Posted by angryhippie at 01/03/2008 @ 1:07pm
See what I mean.....my Apache & Anadarko stocks are setting new highs! Sorry if I don't waste time on pie-in-sky type of soul-UNsatisfying preaching!
Oil crosses $100
After an initial decline following the latest inventory report, crude pushes into triple digits.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 1:08pm
..."it is a mark of civility for young men to ask the fiance's father to marry the daughter, just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats, not to mention any number of other small gestures that show respect for women.
Posted by CRANIUM 01/03/2008 @ 12:23pm ----
CRANIUM: Chivalry is just sexism with a smile
Posted by Kim Mance at 01/03/2008 @ 1:08pm
we are very capable of making our own decisions and accepting any consequences that accompany those decisions.
So, if a woman gets drunk and consents to sex, but regrets the decisons later, is it rape? Is she to be held accountable for her decisions and accept the consequences?
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:09pm
Not to mention, AngryHippie - if women shouldn't be punished for getting abortions (what they call "murder"), what else can we get out of?
Maybe a man coerced us into shoplifting! Arson isn't my fault! A cunning man tricked me into it!
Seems like if we're too stupid to realize we're committing "murder," we can't possibly be of sound enough mind to break other laws.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm
USC1- in most states, if not all by now, no one may consent to sex if s/he is under the influence of any kind of drug- includings alcohol.
Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm
Do women have to live up to the same qualifications and requirements as men in the military or is there a double-standard?
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:12pm
Posted by BLOGTOPIA 01/03/2008 @ 1:11pm
So, if the man is drunk it isn't rape???
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:13pm
Shorter USC1: "Wahhhh! Feminists want to take away my god-given right to stick my dick wherever I want!"
Regretted, drunken sex is not necessarily rape. Nobody's claiming it is. And it's not reported as rape any more often than false claims of theft (or any other crime). Fucking a girl who's CLEARLY unconscious or too drunk to CONSENT is rape. Now kindly move on.
God you people are myopic.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:14pm
Yes, USC1, in the same way driving drunk isn't a crime because "I was drunk." Hah!
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 12:29pm
I'll grant that there is a general tendency where gender is not factored in for males because male is a norm, and men represent only themselves and a single woman often represents women as a body. But, the statement is a bit much: "One of the nasty effects of being part of a marginalized identity group is that that aspect of your identity is always an issue."
Is it really? Are you saying that in every business transaction, office situation, co-educational opportunity, walking on the street, or whatever that gender is an issue - a real, significant issue? And that is always the case for everyone?
If you aren't making that argument, then the original comment I made does hold water. And if you are making that argument, then you need to do a lot more work. Because it strikes me as absurd.
Now, I think you could argue that it is a significant issue in Hillary's bid, but you don't get to assert that it is a significant issue for every voter, all male Democratic voters or even for many voters. It's a significant trend, but not a universal one, and possibly not even a general one in this particular case.
Making some kind of claim that male Democrats aren't voting for Hillary out of sexist considerations, I simply don't buy. I think it is a weak play on politically correct sensibilities and a niave analysis of the problems in Clinton's campaign.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:19pm
Do women have to live up to the same qualifications and requirements as men in the military or is there a double-standard?
Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:12pm
Last I checked, there were women soldiers coming back from Iraq in body bags.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
So, then, you guys are saying that a woman is NOT responsible for her decisions (re: sex) when she is drunk, but a man is? (BTW, for the slower members of the group, we're talking "drunk," not "passed out.")
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:25pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
True. But you want to take a stab at guessing how many are in the special forces, flying air sortees, or serving in combat units? Sure, women are more integrated, but let's not pretend that assuming the risks of military service have hit parity any more than incomes have.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:26pm
Last I checked, there were women soldiers coming back from Iraq in body bags.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/03/2008 @ 1:21pm
I'm sure that pleases you, but that's not the issue. The question is...is there a separate set of standards/qualifications for women in the military or do they have to meet the same standards as men?
Posted by usc1 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by USC1 01/03/2008 @ 1:28pm:: of course there are different standards for men and women in the military - doesn't make it right. Personally I think a woman can shoot a gun just as effectively as a man, so why aren't women allowed on combat tours?? why aren't openly gay individuals allowed to serve? None of it makes sense.
Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:42pm
and where the heck is Zero?? must still be away for the holidays to let such a blatant feminist blog go unnoticed.
Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 1:44pm
CRANIUM -- I think you'd better stop spending so much time at Nation blogs and get busy looking into the huge social crisis of men being unfairly accused of rape you cite. Do some research, get it vetted, think about the issue and write it up and then send us the link.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/03/2008 @ 1:45pm
USC1 : As a female veteran of the US Army, who also managed to qualify as Expert with my M-16, let me assure that women are just as capable of serving in our military as men. Also, without women in our military, we might have to bring back the draft to make up for lost numbers... If you are talking about the different requirements as far as physical testing, the military performed extensive research to determine what the differences should be in determining "fitness" between the sexes. Because, NEWS FLASH, the genders are anatomically different... That is the only difference in requirements that I was ever aware of during my service to this country.
Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 1:50pm
Jessica - keep it up! I look forward to reading more.
Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 1:51pm
To me Bush's comments are the most telling...you can almost picture ol' George selling off "America" to a Saudi Arabian suitor in similar fashion with the same sort of laconic absurdity we've come to expect from him, with the same kind of laconic idiocy he slaps the back of his daughter's suitor with and talks of a "deal".
I personally believe abortion is horrible business, so when Jessica proposes that women are simply treated as "victims" rather than "criminals"...well that's for some larger debate than the one initiated here. I know this world is big enough for all children and that God desires them all to help steward & love its Earth. The 'slash and burn' nature of abortion practices simply isn't in lockstep with God's desires or truth for us. Heck, any atheistic scientist will tell you there's no division in "life" between the frst trimester and the next. None whatsoever. It's all "life". Nothing could be more obvious.
So maybe Jessica can, you know, worry about those women who actually decide to have their babies, and worry about how they will be able to raise them, rather than trashing political candidates who are faced with a series of impossible decisions when it comes to abortion, and the profound division it elicits in the American psyche no matter in what form it seems to be mentioned.
Posted by Scrub at 01/03/2008 @ 1:52pm
men wrongly convicted of rapes they didn't commit.
Posted by CRANIUM 01/03/2008 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person
you think that's a big number? what percent do you think?
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 1:53pm
just as it is a mark of civility for young men to rise when a woman enters the room and remove their hats
whaaat? what century do you live in? the kids never take their baseballcaps off, and certainly not when a female enters the room. you really ought to get out more often.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 1:57pm
Posted by TOKEN 01/03/2008 @ 1:50pm
Did you serve in combat as part of a combat unit?
I don't think anyone is saying women aren't capable. But I do agree that there is a problem with different standards, even if there are anatomic differences. Meeting the physical requirements necessary to perform the job, should be the same - just as combating billets should be the same for both.
Different standards are the problem.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 1:58pm
Thank you for the feedback, SRJENKINS. I realize that i was treading in dangerous waters - not my intention. I was trying instead to convey the idea that claiming gender wasn't an issue for Kerry, Bush, etc. doesn't mean it isn't for Clinton. As for my statement that "being part of a marginalized identity group [means] that that aspect of your identity is always an issue": i don't mean to speak for everyone, but in my experience, yes, in every or almost every situation, i do notice race, gender, handicap, accent, and other apparent markers of difference/hierarchy, and i notice people noticing these things about me. Whether or not this fact changes how i or others act in any (obvious) way, my experience says that simply noticing and thinking about differences which are coded as hierarchical does matter. I don't think that sexism, for example, is inevitable, or that people can't legitimately dislike Hillary Clinton. But i do think that ignoring axes of privilege and oppression is really dangerous, and that acknowledging and dealing with them is necessary before we can get to intelligent debate.
Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 2:00pm
SRJENKINS - I served on a tactical unit, which for my specific job was the closest to combat that could be expected. I think USC1 was referring to the differences in physical requirements as far as the number of push-ups required, etc. There are requirements that are specific to each branch of service as well as additional requirements specific to the job (or MOS) that the servicemember performs.
Posted by Token at 01/03/2008 @ 2:06pm
You'll note that it's feminists who argue that if we're going to fight wars, men AND women should be fighting them. So those of you who try holding the fact that there are different standards, or unequal requirements for women in the military, are barking up the wrong tree. Maybe you should take your anger to the anti-feminists who don't want women fighting in the armed services.
USC1, get your mind right. If a drunk man rapes a woman, it's still rape. If a drunk woman forces a man to have sex, it's rape. If a drunk man and a drunk woman give meaningful consent to one another for sex, no rape.
Not sure why you've gone off topic with this though, as the vast majority of men will never have to worry about being accused of rape (falsely or accurately). Most rapists are never held accountable.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:40pm
Welcome to the jungle, Jessica. Even though I don't agree with much of your post, you'll find the debaters here very spirited.
One more thing, in order to get some "street cred" around here you'll have to match wits with Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm
Welcome Ms Valenti....few words of warning-
1. RESE. Don't mention "Israel", "AIPAC", "Dick Cheney", "9/11", "the Kennedy Assassination", or "Jesuits"...and you'll avoide sixteen 3000 word Cut & Pastes from www.mindcontrollasers.org.
2. Not all the anti-feminists are going to be on the RIGHT! Look for ZERO (and maybe one other "progressive") to go after you for "falsely claiming women have it harder than men".
3. I note you noted this "Chris Matthews' ability to insult women in the most ridiculous ways while keeping a straight face"....
true...yet, your new boss (or mentor) Katrina vanden Heuvel makes it a point of appearing on the lecherous Mr Matthews' show quite often....might ask her "Why?"
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 2:44pm
Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)
Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm
Except JOMAMMA/MAASCH, ACOOK...lumping me with those other two is the worst insult you could throw at me.
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 2:45pm
you'll have to match wits with Mask, Zero, Jomama and MTSpence... :)
Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person
four half wits add up to two wits.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm
"I know this world is big enough for all children and that God desires them all to help steward & love its Earth."
This is completely false. The world is most definitely *not* big enough for "all children." In fact, it's all the humans in the world who are driving the planet to an early death. And it's we humans who will ultimately suffer for it (either us or our grandchildren). You think people aren't affected when the planet reacts to our destruction?
Until you bring evidence that your notion of "god" even exists in the first place, it doesn't belong in this debate. You can refer to your imaginary friend to argue that women have no right to their own bodies, but most reasonable, logical people are going to laugh at you.
"So maybe Jessica can, you know, worry about those women who actually decide to have their babies..."
What makes you think Jessica doesn't concern herself with mothers? Educate yourself before assuming Jessica doesn't advocate for group X, Y, or Z.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm
"whaaat? what century do you live in? the kids never take their baseballcaps off, and certainly not when a female enters the room. you really ought to get out more often.
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 1:57pm
B, it's about respect. Perhaps your kids don't remove their head gear because you didn't teach them. But, my dad took off his hat when he came home and my husband and three boys do not come into my home with a cap on their heads. I will not tolerate it.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:47pm
USC1, get your mind right. If a drunk man rapes a woman, it's still rape. If a drunk woman forces a man to have sex, it's rape. If a drunk man and a drunk woman give meaningful consent to one another for sex, no rape.
you left out the most common one. a man forces himself on a drunk woman. and yes, it's rape.
one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 2:45pm
No dearheart, I would never insult you. You and Peter are my favorites. I was merely stating to Jessica to debate you and the others on an individual basis.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:51pm
one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
Raped women can have orgasms, and so can raped men. Besides, men's sex-having parts are not only in the front (and neither are women's, for that matter).
Posted by blogtopia at 01/03/2008 @ 2:53pm
To those of you "progressives" who don't think of yourselves as feminists: Would you even DARE say some of the things you're saying about women to people of color? Would you toss racial epithets at blacks and cackle about it, just to "get a rise" out of them? You'll claim sexism isn't an issue in 2008 (!) but since it's not aimed at you, OF COURSE you're not going to notice it! For most women, it's something we deal with in every aspect of our daily lives. From being harassed from cars while crossing the street to hearing inappropriate sexual remarks from superiors in the office. One of you had nothing more to say to Jessica than that she's "hot." Would you make an issue about a male blogger's appearance that way?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:54pm
"four half wits add up to two wits.
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm
Based on what?
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm
Well, you know, BRANNIGAN, if he gets an erection but tells her he doesn't want to fool around but she does anyway. Erections are physiological responses, and are not necessarily indicative of whether a man WANTS to have sex.
The overwhelming majority of male rape victims are raped by other men, but I thought I'd throw him a bone, since it IS possible.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm
Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 2:00pm
Well said. My main objection is with this claim there is a necessary implied sexism with not liking Hillary Clinton. I don't think this is true, and I think we, more or less, agree on that point.
Also, if we are going to talk about axes of privilege, then we also need to bring class into the discussion. Clinton went to Wellesley, Yale Law School, partner in Rose Law firm, etc. Interesting how class is also one of those axis that get ignored, like being male.
Why do you think gender is such an important axis and class is a transparent one? Do you think that having blue-collar roots might be part of John Edwards appeal? Are people that like (or dislike) John Edwards for that reason, classist? Is that a bad thing? How does this work within the context that he is a white male?
I understand the problems with things being transparent. My wife is a South Asian working in a professional, predominately male field. I was completely unaware of some of the types of problems that gender, race, class and so forth because I never encounter them.
No one has ever asked me whether I speak English at the exit doors of a flight - much less in a false broken accent, aimed at my supposed understanding. My wife has, and she is better in English than I am. Examples like that are legion.
It also goes the other way. My mother-in-law had a customer complain because they thought she was Hispanic and wouldn't speak to her in Spanish. She isn't Hispanic and doesn't know Spanish.
Anyway, my point is that figuring out all the different axes for different situations is practically impossible. Fine to cultivate a sensitivity and an awareness, but we need to be aware of the flip side of being too sensitive and too aware, where we escribe something that isn't there - like saying male Democrats are just being sexist rather than factoring in that personality, class and so forth all have a part to play.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:01pm
"Would you toss racial epithets at blacks and cackle about it, just to "get a rise" out of them?"
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:54pm
I sure would. And my family gets a kick out of it too. (hehehe)
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:46pm |
You know, "BRANNIGAN", you're a little TOO angry at local posters to be a "newbie"....care to tell us your OLD blog nick?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 2:51pm
Oh, okay then.
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm
SRJENKINS, I think it's because unlike class, sex is almost always apparent upon first sight of someone. Our society doesn't have much tolerance for androgyny; people want to KNOW which people are male and which people are female, and many folks freak out when they're unsure of someone's sex.
Our culture is very heteronormative, and it still heavily relies upon the gender binary system. You're either a male, or a female, or you're simply not a person (in too many people's eyes). And you better "act" masculine or feminine in accordance with your sex, or else you risk marginalization. Without undergoing serious surgical procedures, it's not possible to change one's sex. Sex is a complicated thing - it's chromosomal, it's genital, it's mental...
But it's entirely possible (if not challenging) to move from one economic class to another. Clinton was not born to upper-class parents. She changed her class, but not her sex.
Americans still believe in The American Dream. They think they'll all catapult from lower-class to super-rich within their lifetimes. Some will. But most people remain in the same economic class their parents were in.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by TOKEN 01/03/2008 @ 2:06pm
Yes, I know. I served in the military as well. I know that women serve in tactical or support positions that can be as dangerous as combat duty - sometimes more so. The issue for me is about parity, what kind of physical standards are required for the job and make them the same. Same goes for other qualifications. You would not want your Expert qualification to mean something different because you were a woman. I think we can expand that to other areas as well - including even the physical and particularly combat billets. Until we do, people like USC have a point.
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:40pm
Pointing out legitimate critques, even if we don't like them, doesn't mean the other person is angry - anymore than it means they hate America. Double standards are instrumental in sexism, and accepting them, even ones based on physiology, generally give support to those that oppose feminism.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:16pm
Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person
my mood swings are from belligerent to bellicose.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:17pm
SRJENKINS, I think it's because unlike class, sex is almost always apparent upon first sight of someone. Our society doesn't have much tolerance for androgyny; people want to KNOW which people are male and which people are female, and many folks freak out when they're unsure of someone's sex.Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person
say whaaat? where do you live, Kansas? you should really get out a bit more.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:19pm
SRJENKINS, thank you for bringing up class. I was going to talk about it, along with education level, attractional orientation, marital status, etc. - the list goes on and on - but since these things aren't always immediately obvious, they don't always come into play in the same way. Perhaps class seems to work differently than some other things because it can (sort of) change, and that change can be seen as admirable. I wonder what response Edwards would garner were he still working class. (He probably wouldn't even be visible.)
Trying to navigate these things, and how they interact and intersect within a single individual or situation, certainly is sticky and damn near impossible - but still worth the effort, in my opinion. I appreciate your willingness to take part in the conversation.
Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 3:21pm
Well, you know, BRANNIGAN, if he gets an erection but tells her he doesn't want to fool around but she does anyway. Erections are physiological responses, and are not necessarily indicative of whether a man WANTS to have sex.
The overwhelming majority of male rape victims are raped by other men, but I thought I'd throw him a bone, since it IS possible.
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person
nah, the man can just walk away.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:22pm
one question, how does a woman force a man to have sex?
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 2:48pm
Raped women can have orgasms, and so can raped men. Besides, men's sex-having parts are not only in the front (and neither are women's, for that matter).
Posted by BLOGTOPIA 01/03/2008 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person
this does NOT answer the question
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:26pm
What is your deal, BRANNIGAN? I don't live in Kansas. In fact, I live near D.C. and used to live in Boston. I hang out with liberals, but I'm aware of the homophobia, transphobia and sexism that run rampant in most of this country. If you don't think it's there, it's YOU who needs to get out more.
And what do you mean, the man can just walk away? Away from a man trying to rape him or a woman? Tell that to the men who have been sexually assaulted or raped (yes, as a feminist I care about rape victims of both sexes).
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:28pm
where's USC's 1:49 post? i imagine it's a stupid joke, but the censorship is troubling.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm
BRANNIGAN, it answers the question in the way that it points to how physiological reactions are not always in line with mental/emotional ones. There are a lot of factors at play when it comes to sexual violence, especially when it happens within pre-existing sexual or romantic relationships. Men cannot always "just walk away," just as women sometimes cannot.
Posted by Newbie at 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:14pm
Interesting thesis. I suppose that applies to race as well?
To me, class is almost as apparent on first sight as gender. Maybe in a college scenario it's more ambigious, but it fairly obvious to tell who has money and who doesn't - salon haircuts, types of shoes, accessories, etc. You get a whole different reaction when dressed in a suit versus jeans. It takes less than five minutes to get a sense of someone's experiences, and they all generally point to class.
I'm not saying gender is not important. It certainly is, but I don't see it as central to identity as you describe it. While there are people that still dress their baby boys in blue and girls in pink and have Huckabee-like attitudes, I don't think of that mentality as normal. Perhaps it is, and I am out of touch.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
hrc sucks -- if she were a man or a penguin, she'd still suck.
women in the military -- i think it's shameful anybody's in the military, and find it troubling to see women lowering themselves to the stupidity of men.
hand in marriage -- i asked. if i hadn't, i woulda been run out of the country. i sure like when my wife holds the door for me, though. means i can leave my gloves on.
abortion -- leave the women alone for godssake. if the procedure were for men, we'd see it advertised between budweiser and chevytrucks on sunday afternoon.
huckabee -- this guy is just too FISHY!
rape -- this is violence, not sex.
feminism -- well, good for them! unfortunately for many younger women, it has morphed into a hollywood packaged "powergirl" who is just as ready to put on the lycra and get the "blood-a-squirtin'" from any "evil-doer" (i.e. arabish types) as the male "action heroes".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 3:44pm
neither sex nor class are always easily discerned.
with class, look at the shoes.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 3:21pm
Again, I agree. It is important to wrestle with these issues - not to discount them as if they didn't exist and also not to rush to conclusions and easy answers either.
And I appreciate both the conversation and your insightful comments. It's exchanges such as these that make posting here worthwhile.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 3:50pm
rape -- this is violence, not sex.Frost
this is glib and inaccurate. rape is both violence AND sex
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:53pm
Men cannot always "just walk away," just as women sometimes cannot.
Posted by NEWBIE 01/03/2008 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person
until someone comes up with numbers, I would submit woman on man rape is extremely rare.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:55pm
My point was also that it's fairly common to change class, SRJENKINS. People get into Ivy League schools on scholarship and get rich. Rich people's houses are foreclosed and they lose everything. You can read clues about economic class in people's wardrobes/houses/cars, but when we're all NAKED it's sex and race that are apparent.
Believe me, when I go out into the world, I'm a person who inhabits a female body. I know this because I'm treated as a woman. People assume things about me and judge me based on their gendered expectations. They also say and do things to me they wouldn't do to men.
Sex and race are physical things (as well as social constructs, of course). Class is something that's changed more easily.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm
I am out of touch.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person
ya got that right.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm
BRANNIGAN, woman on man rape IS very rare. Nobody's arguing with you about that. But some men ARE raped by other men (or more commonly, little boys by grown men). They can't just "walk away," especially if they're being threatened.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 3:57pm
"Believe me, when I go out into the world, I'm a person who inhabits a female body. I know this because I'm treated as a woman."
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm
Sorry folks hit the send button to fast.
Crany, what did you mean by that comment?
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm
To me, class is almost as apparent on first sight as gender.----Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 3:41pm
So you look at Eminem and say "Here's a poor white kid, with his sloppy jeans, hi-tops, and sweat jacket" and not a multi-millionaire?
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 4:00pm
Gotta say I'm curious on that one too. CRANEY ...WOULDN'T know she "inhabits a female body" if she wasn't treated like a woman?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:03pm
My point was also that it's fairly common to change class,
this is a myth that has been debunked.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:05pm
posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person
I never argued that.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:07pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/03/2008 @ 3:53pm
well, perhaps.
however, it just seems like the physical act is the weapon, just the same way the gun is in a homicide.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/03/2008 @ 4:08pm
ACOOK, I mean that men and women (as classes) tend to have different relationships with the world. Most men deny that women experience street harassment or frequent cat-calls out in public. Why? Because it's not a reality of their lives! That stuff isn't directed at them, so it mustn't exist (in their eyes).
All one needs is a female body to experience that sort of stuff. THAT is what makes women targets. BELIEVE ME, it has nothing to do with how "hot" you are or what you're wearing.
Men simply don't live with the constant hand-wringing about "protecting yourself from rape." [As though women had control over rapists' actions] Women are told we need to be safe, but "nice." Be cautious, but not paranoid. Have fun, but don't drink too much ("too much" being pretty fluid). Look sexually available, but don't *be* sexually available. Flirt, but don't be "slutty." Yada yada yada. And no matter what, society WILL find a way to blame women when they are victimized, or to minimize the experience alltogether.
Point is, the world TREATS people differently according to sex. At restaurants, waitstaff assume *he* gets the check. The whole thing about asking for permission to marry! The list goes on.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm
My syntax was sloppy in that post, Mask. But way to waste everyone's time by taking it literally. You're hilarious.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:11pm
Well, I'm sorry. I assume people mean what they say textually.
I'll try to take you more "symbolically" next time.
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm
BTW, you're in for an extremely frustrating life, if you think that the "societally enforced gender roles" are ever going to be washed away in some all-encompassing "revolution".
The leading (for a while anyway, and maybe permanently) contender for the Democratic nomination for President ...is female. The Secretary of State is both female and African-American. Several Space Shuttle mission commanders have been female.
This may not be "unisexual Utopia" (and may not be in your lifetime)...but it's not "1955" or pre-"Feminine Mystique" either.
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:29pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm
Crany, it seems to me the real issue is more about the lack of responsible behavoir than about one's gender characterists (although it plays a strong part). Yes, we as women need to be a lot more careful today.
Respect is a two-way street out here. And it's up to good parents to teach their children what is acceptable and what is not.
Now, as far as the idea about asking for "permission to marry", it was done mostly for younger girls in prearranged marriages. Asking parents to marry in the west is formality and shows sign of respect.
BTW, my husband asked my father for my hand in marriage and I was 21.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm
It wasn't meant "symbolically" at all. My writing was sloppy. Here, I will spell it out for you:
The world SEES people inhabiting female bodies, and treats them according to gender stereotypes.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm
look at Eminem and say "Here's a poor white kid, with his sloppy jeans, hi-tops, and sweat jacket" and not a multi-millionaire?
Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm | ignore this person
you're out of touch on the rappers. they wear multihundred dollar sneakers, expensive clothes and above all bling bling.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 4:30pm
Give me a break on the "responsible behavior" bit. Women can be as responsible as the day is long, but if there's a rapist in her presence, she may be victimized. How about holding attackers responsible instead of placing blame upon victims? How about we stop attempting to restrict women's behavior when they aren't harming anyone, and instead tell MEN to stop drinking/leaving their homes/hanging out with women? Oh heavens no, we'd never dream of telling men such things.
Asking parents to marry in the west is formality and shows sign of respect.
So in order to properly respect your now-husband's parents, you asked for their permission to propose to him?
Why are only men required to "respect" their girlfriends' parents? Why does treating girlfriends' fathers as their owners a "respectful" thing to do?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:34pm
Indications of class change with the times. For instance, fatness was once a luxury afforded only by the rich. If you saw a fat person, you could assume they were wealthy. Today, it's the opposite. The upper-class prizes thinness rather than fatness.
Knock-off bags and clothing make it easier for the lower-class to appear rich.
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm
On a man asking for permission to marry a daughter: why is this an issue?? Of course the underlying connotations are inherently sexist- so is marriage! The institution of marriage is one that was born from patriarchal ideals in response to the pagan matriarchies of ancient civilizations. Anyone interested in a truly equal union with their loved one ought to consider naming their commitment to one another something besides "marriage".
Posted by jro555 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:34pm
Craney, men who commit violence against women should be held accountable.
"How about we stop attempting to restrict women's behavior when they aren't harming anyone?"
Can you elaborate a little more on this one? I don't want to assume something that may or may not be correct.
"Why are only men required to "respect" their girlfriends' parents? Why does treating girlfriends' fathers as their owners a "respectful" thing to do?"
Are you married? If so, then you don't need an answer because you know it already. If not, then I'll respond after your next response.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:50pm
"Anyone interested in a truly equal union with their loved one ought to consider naming their commitment to one another something besides "marriage".
Posted by JRO555 01/03/2008 @ 4:42pm
I'm curious JRO555, what do you call your "situation"?
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 4:52pm
Attempting to restrict women's behavior:
Telling them what to wear; telling them not to party too much; telling them not to own their sexuality
Society uses all these things against women when men commit sexual violence against them.
What does my marital status have to do with anything? Like, you have a wedding ceremony and all of a sudden you have epiphanies about all sorts of things? Why couldn't you just answer my question? Why are you so invested in denying the sexism in certain (almost all) marriage traditions (including marriage itself, as JRO555 pointed out).
For all you know, I may be with my partner longer than you and your husband!
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 4:02pm
Nothing is perfect, Mask. You want to argue that you have never made a mistake on guessing someone's gender, race or ethnicity?
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:09pm
Curious. What percentage of the kind of behaviors you describe are propagated by women themselves, such as female waitstaff, girlfriends, mothers, etc.? I find it interesting that I don't see much frank discussion on how women, and the culture of women, reenforce these types of behaviors. When it goes that route, it becomes society, rather than other women.
I think everyone acknowledges that the male culture of sexual aggressiveness is a problem. These old-time attitudes are a problem. So forth and so on. Males are definitely a major part of the problem - but let's be real. No father, boyfriend or potential male mate is counseling the women in their lives to "Look sexually available, but don't *be* sexually available. Flirt, but don't be "slutty."" That's a woman talking.
On a side note, I also think it is interesting that there are also those that say that society exposes men to violence because they encourage them to discount the very fears you describe. We have no idea how much male on male rape occurs because it gets reported much less than the sparse reporting of women who get raped. I must admit I never give a second thought to it - and think spending too much time on it would be unhealthy.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point?---Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm
Feeling with BRANNIGAN, it's that...and a bit personality-driven. (Namely mine!)
As for sloppy writing, you said I shouldn't have taken it "literally"...the opposite of which is "metaphorically", not that it was flawed elucidation of your point. A point of semantics, I suppose.
BTW, just checked, and despite our 'female repressed society'...if George Bush got one more bad pretzal and Dick Cheney were to cash in from his last heart attack...a FEMALE would become President of the United States. Hardly the crushing weight of the Patriarchy to allow such a thing, hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:01pm
SRJENKINS, women buy into patriarchy too. That is a sad fact. Women need to stop being complicit in this garbage.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:01pm
Mask, a female leader is not necessarily a victory for feminism. If that woman is an anti-feminist, militaristic, religious fundamentalist, it's more of the status-quo.
Like I just said, plenty of women support male-dominance.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm
SRJ, YOU're the one claiming that you can 'spot a poor person by their looks' and conflating "class" with sexuality and race. I never said that it wasn't impossible to mistake a biological gender or ethnicity.
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm
Again...you think that NANCY PELOSI would be "anti-feminist, militaristic, or a religious fundamentalist"???
BTW, I don't argue that "there is no sexism" (nor racism or homophobia or any prejudice). I merely argue that to claim that this is a country where "women are held down by the foot of patriarchal men" paints the accuser as fringey or un-realistic.
There is a GOOD possibility that in 2009, two feminists will be the leader of our Executive Branch and our Legislative Branch (Clinton/Pelosi). That's hardly an indication of whale-bone corsets and the need for a "new Seneca Falls"!
Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 5:08pm
"For all you know, I may be with my partner longer than you and your husband!
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm
I got 24 years under my belt. What say you?
Anyway, I'll answer your question. I don't agree with the notion that fathers are "owners" of their daughters. Good fathers are protective of their children. And when they marry, it can be a difficult transition for parents when their children are no longer dependant upon them.
As for asking to marry, like I said, it's a formality for some. It's another form of respect.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 5:10pm
Oh my dog, Mask. What I said: "a female leader is not necessarily a victory for feminism." Do you know what "not necessarily" means?
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:10pm
I don't agree with the notion that fathers are "owners" of their daughters. Good fathers are protective of their children. And when they marry, it can be a difficult transition for parents when their children are no longer dependant upon them.
If they are protective of their children, why does the same rule about respect not apply to their sons? You keep talking in general terms about parents and children, but you only apply the rules to parents/children of specific genders. It. is. sexist.
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:12pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:38pm
Like you say, pick a moment in time, and there are signs of affluence based on your culture. You can fake it and people make mistakes, but I think it is a mistake to pretend that it doesn't play a role similar to sex and race.
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 4:55pm
Marriage is a spiritual and legal construct. Committing to someone in front of the community you are involved with is a very powerful act, and it changes the nature of your relationship. It means being around when your partner gets cancer, making hard health care decisions, etc. Without it, there is always this background that you COULD just leave. That's an important difference.
I think this is why it is such an important issue in the gay community, and I think rightly. It's a travesty that when two people make that kind of commitment, and then something bad happens and the ill-partner's family marginalizes the other partner - and they have no recourse. Not having legal protections completely undermines that commitment.
Imagine the Schiavo situation between a gay couple. It was bad enough in a heterosexual marriage with all the protections it affords. It would be a non-issue for a gay couple because the partner would just be pushed out.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 5:16pm
Posted by CRANEY808 01/03/2008 @ 5:12pm
It does apply to the sons and my boys know not to bring home a young lady that's questionable in my eyes.
Posted by ACook at 01/03/2008 @ 5:19pm
Posted by MASK 01/03/2008 @ 5:03pm
Actually, I'm asserting that class can generally be determined - much as race and sex can. Not particularly controversial.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/03/2008 @ 5:20pm
Keep up the great posting, Craney! It's tough to introduce and elaborate on a lot of these ideas, especially in a forum such as this, but you're doing a phenomenal job. Unfortunately not everyone is aware of the kinds of things you're discussing, and I think it's amazing that you persevere in clarifying your sound arguments for some of these posters. I'm enjoying following this very spirited debate, though I agree with Jessica about the humourous aspects of it!
Posted by CoCo at 01/03/2008 @ 5:23pm
SRJENKINS: I agree that legal protections are valuable. It's unfortunate that so much cultural baggage surrounds marriage. It's also a travesty that homosexuals aren't afforded the same rights straights enjoy in terms of those legal protections.
COCO: Thanks!
Posted by craney808 at 01/03/2008 @ 5:33pm
It does apply to the sons and my boys know not to bring home a young lady that's questionable in my eyes.
Posted by ACOOK 01/03/2008 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person
antediluvian. those poor kids.
Posted by brannigan at 01/03/2008 @ 6:10pm
Our species is doomed. With every passing moment I become more certain of this conclusion. The right is primarily the domain of knuckle dragging flat earth biblical literalists and avaricious robber baron wannabes, while most of the left is too enamored with their own personal niche resistance to see the forest. We're sitting on a timebomb while everyone sits around arguing about which demographic is most oppressed. Class, race, gender, and myriad other considerations all coalesce to determine one's degree of hardship in life. I agree with most of the original blog, especially that Huckabee is a fanatical dipshit, but the malevolence directed towards an entire gender by the legion of newbie posters is quite troubling, and reeks of cliquish, unreasoned thought.
Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:27pm
Finally we hear from a feminist! Ms. Valenti, where have you been when we needed you? Slick Willy has been disrespecting women around the world, not to mention his wife and daughter, and not one feminist speaks out! Gavin Newsome is now following in his footsteps by sleeping with his best freind/campaign manager's wife ( ruining the marraige/ with friends like Gavin, who needs enemies? ), and we get nothing but silence from the left! The Evil GW Bush is warmongering against terrorists and dictators around the world who deprive women of thier basic human rights and........NOTHING BUT SILENCE from feminists and the LEFT alike! Oh wait, my mistake, they aren't silent on that issue, they just attack GW constantly and conveniently ignore the countless and henious abuses of women worldwide!!!! The bottom line is this: Today's feminists are actually just far-left liberals with a bone to pick with conservatives, and they use the tired old non-issue ( anymore ) of feminism to push their insanely seditious agenda! Ms. Valenti has admittedly read the Nation's propaganda for most of her life, therefore she is a lost cause that even a mushroom cloud over San Fran. couldn't enlighten! My wife and the majority of her co-workers make more than their husband's do, and I do pretty well myself! Ms. Valentri, we have more women in high positions of Gov't than ever before ( although some of them are pantsuit wearing, femi-nazi dykes with a deep-seeded hatred for the white male and a love for narcissistic sociopaths like Slick Willy regardless of how often he slaps them in the face with his philandering ways) so stop your whining, get a real job, and start actually producing something tangable with your time instead of all the pathetic, imaginary, feminist crap!
Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:30pm
barry25 is exhibit A in defense of my thesis regarding the demise of hominids.
Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:32pm
Barry boy- did you get hit with a brick to the skull as a child? Is your inane rant even in English you dullard? I found it very difficult to dilineate a single cogent point in your entire ill conceived rant. When did the wonderful wacky world of dial up internet decide to grace your trailer park?
Posted by entropy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:36pm
I think everyone acknowledges that the male culture of sexual aggressiveness is a problem. These old-time attitudes are a problem. So forth and so on. Males are definitely a major part of the problem....
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/03/2008 @ 4:58pm
Don't be so sure you speak for "everyone"! Throughout nature, male sexual aggressiveness is the norm, by a long shot, for very good reasons!
Instead of just "Males are definitely a major part of the problem"--which btw, is quite accurate in the world of Islam--you would be more on the mark to just blame the human species for existing. Perhaps you are inclined to `breed' maleness out of males and shoot them up w/estrogen from birth?! or females w/testosteron?! or Both hormones to all to achieve that unisex `Utopia'?!
Posted by Happy at 01/03/2008 @ 6:37pm
Entwerpy, talk about contradiction, my boy! This TWERP just complained about "malevolence" direct towards an "entire gender", as if he was against stereotyping, blanket discrimination etc. He states this right after he provides us with his own version of "malevolence" toward the "entire" RIGHT! Like i've always said about you loser scum on the left, " hypocrites of the highest order"!
Posted by barry25 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:39pm
Very salient, point, great first article, Jessica. Don't forget to link this idea to the recent supreme court decisions on late-term abortion, (where the majority ruled that the woman probably didn't know what she was doing), as well as the the Ledbetter sex-discrimination in the workplace case - Ruth Bader Ginsberg read her dissents aloud from the bench, and the "Daddy knows best" arguments of the majority was the point of her unusual and articulate illumination of where this supreme court is headed with women's rights. It is scary, as are some of the comments on this blog.
Posted by mhoney42 at 01/03/2008 @ 6:40pm
Entwerpy, your inability to read plain english proves why it's so easy for the left to brainwash your pathetic little sissy ass! Now go to your local bathhouse for a session with Barney Frank and you might just