The evilization of women.

[cornermouse]

Listening to a news segment about women cheating, followed up with a story about a woman who rented a storage shed for her children to live in, stories about women throwing children out of moving cars, no wait, mentally ill instead, women who are sucking up those welfare dollars for their illegitimate children (illegitimate, such an ugly word to be applied to a child) and more, I have come to the realization that women are evil and should be controlled, submissive, silent...like Laura.

NOT.

More seriously though, I do think that there has been a sort of hidden campaign to attack women which is becoming more aggressive and more open in their attacks. The only time you really see a "positive" story about women is when they're keeping the home front for their men. Based on what they've done elsewhere, we need to take it as the very serious threat to ourselves and our families that it is and start doing something about it.

[Jamastiene]

1. I once read a military

training manual on psychological warfare. It said that the way to gain mind control over the population was to consistently inundate the population with only images and carefully phrased language to control any dissenters through media. We had free press when Clinton was in office or relatively free press depending on how you look at it. That military manual was left behind when I moved unfortunately or I'd make copies for anyone who thinks it's crazy or some sort of conspiracy idea. Then again, I wasn't supposed to have that manual but I grew up in a family where soldiers were always around and that kind of political discussion was commonplace. It's the truth.

In other words, it all part of the right wing agenda to only portray "good" women as silent and subservient.

[cornermouse]

3. The military and psychological warfare doesn't

surprise me. They have to have some way to convince soldiers to allow themselves to be shot at and possibly die on missions.

[REP]

2. You Forgot How Women Just Loooooove Having Abortions

because they're just too damn lazy to use contraception. You'll even see that idea here, time and time again.

[cornermouse]

4. Also if they are attacked,

its their fault because of the clothes they were wearing, where they were at, who they were or who they were not with, too much lipstick and rouge, the list of "its their fault because" is literally endless.

[Jamastiene]

5. That is why

I say (fill in the name of any right winger who espouses the idea of hating groups of people) was "asking for it" and "deserved" it when someone in their familt comes out totally against them or they get caught in a scandal. Like Alan Keyes' daughter recently came out. I decided it would be a good time to take one of those catch phrases and turn them around on the rw for a change. Make them eat their words.

[cornermouse]

7. Yep. Phrases like politically correct.

They really apply.

[REP]

6. Well, Sure!

Asking a man into her place is exactly the same as consenting to sex, and if she says no, it's just because she doesn't want to seem easy. If she's raped, it wasn't really raped - she's just a slut who's having secoind thoughts and/or wants money.

[gollygee]

9. Recreational Abortions! It's the new big thing!

Be the first one on your block!

:eyes:

[Djinn]

72. First 500 through the door

get an "I kill babies" T-shirt to keep!

[grace0418]

29. Not just too lazy to use contraception

Because, after all, contraception is wrong too. No, women are evil and slutty and seduce men who would otherwise abstain from sex. These women show their arms and their ankles and their midriff and practically force men to have sex with them. Maybe BushCo should just put us all in burqas.

[Clark2008]

69. Gannon's site is proof that men would not abstain from sex

if all the women, everywhere on the planet were saying, "NO!" and kicking their asses out the door.

:D

Just "marrying" two talking points for the day. ;)

[Lars39]

40. The theme right now is "recreational sex".

And no mercy for those women finding themselves pregnant through such irresponsibility. :eyes:
All this and a Winnebego in LBN abortion thread.

[gollygee]

49. self deleted

.

[Djinn]

71. and because we're having

"recreational" sex "irresponsibly"

personally I apologise for my gender and will run home and into the kitchen at once ;-)

[izzie]

8. I think it goes back to Paul or one of those guys.

Women were not so bad until they made all that evil etc etc. Any how the men are stronger so could get away with it. Some still feel when they marry they own the women and the laws used to back them up. Hell if I was a man I my take that way out also. If you can rule over half the pop. why not?

[RevCheesehead]

28. I disagree. I think Paul has been misunderstood since - forever.

If you want the one to blame, it's St. Augustine. He's the one who blamed original sin on Eve. But as I pointed out in my sermon yesterday, the text clearly says that Adam was right there WITH her in the garden, and ate his share of the forbidden fruit!

Augustine was hell-bent on blaming women for everything. And when he had his "conversion" to Christianity, he abandoned his concubine and illegitimate son, to go be a holy man. And the church has lifted this idiot up as one of its greatest saints.

[blondeatlast]

35. Indeed, many are ignorant or choose to ignore St. Augustine.

Isn't Augustine the "temple over a sewer" guy?

You're a wise reverend, Rev. If I'm ever in the area, I'd be honored to attend your services.

[DistantWind88]

10. Women ARE evil -- Mathematical PROOF below.

Proof that women are evil...


Women = Time * Money

And we all know that time is money


Time = Money

Therefore...


Women = (Money)^2

And Money is the root of all evil...


Money = (Evil)^(1/2)

Thus...


Women = Evil

[hollywood926]

11. I don't understand math. I am just a woman. :-)

:crazy:

[JHB]

23. Q.E.D.

:silly:

[bloom]

12. Propaganda can be so subtle

That so many people never see it.


Around Christmas the TV morning news was on (which I usually don't watch) and it struck me how the story being told about Martha Stewart and her new sympathy regarding inmates (since she is one) was done is such a way as to vilify her. Suggesting that she had no sympathy at all - it's all a marketing campaign, and so on and so forth.

They didn't used to tear her down with every story - but that seems to be all part of the plan....

They even have Ann Coulter out there dissing women:

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." -<7> May 17, 2003.

"I think should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." - Politically Incorrect, February 26, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter

(Maybe Ann does want to be a man. :shrug: )

[FizzFuzz]

14. I completely agree. I've had my radar up for subtle anti-woman messages

forever, it seems like.

Did you catch the super bowl ads? Two kinds of women--bimbos or silently disapproving of their mate's silly antics (while showing a pleasing amount of cleavage.)

Sexual.
Silent.
Bland.

Ya know, I think if this thread was entitled evilization of christians, gays or blacks or disabled, or (pick your minority), there'd be alot more response to the thread.

Just an observation of posting trends I notice.

[DemBones DemBones]

74. If this thread were about

the disabled, it would have gotten far less response and much of it telling the disabled to stop being whiny.

[Mandate My Ass]

78. Now there's an important point nobody else would have posted

:nopity:

[markmalcom]

76. Right again, Fizz!

[AuntiBush]

67. Oh, don't say her name!

I can't even type her name! Detest her! She's a disgrace! Growing-up in an inner-city area, I've been known to stand-up for myself quite well. Well, I'd like to see AC even try her worthless bantoring on me.

As a woman I can say that AC is one very evil woman!! :puke: :mad:

[Triana]

13. BEWARE the American Taliban...

...that's what this is. Women and woman-loving men alike need to be aware of this crap - and fight it.

Support your local PPhood, NOW, Emily's List or whatever suits, but don't let those mysogenist bastards get away with this!

[laura888]

45. It seems we're slowly becoming "The Handmaid's Tale"

If you haven't read this book by Margaret Atwood, you should!

[CornField]

15. Go ahead and flog me, but I'm bringing religion into the equation

Women -- and snakes -- have been demonized by Western religions.

The snake has long been a symbol of life throwing off the past (shedding its skin) and continuing to live. You've seen the circular symbol of the snake eating itself? That's because life consumes life to continue -- life consists of eating other creatures.

This has resulted in the snake, in most cultures, being given a positive interpretation. In India, the cobra is a sacred animal, and the mythological Serpent King is the next thing to the Buddha. The serpent represents the power of life engaged in the field of time, and of death, yet eternally alive.

In the christian story in Genesis, however, the serpent was reduced to a seducer. This amounts to a refusal to affirm life. In the biblical tradition inherited from these teachings, life is corrupt, and every natural impulse is sinful unless it is circumcised or baptized. The serpent was the one who brought sin into the world.

It was the woman who handed the apple to man. This identification of the woman with sin, of the serpent with sin, and thus of life with sin, is the twist that has been given to the whole story in the biblical myth and doctrine of the fall.

The idea of woman as a sinner does not appear IN ANY OTHER mythologies. The idea in the biblical tradition of the fall is that nature as we know it is corrupt, sex in itself is corrupt, and the female as the epitome of sex is a corrupter.

[JNelson6563]

16. Bible: enemy of women

Plain and simple.

Oh yes, and that lunatic Paul was one of the worst.

Julie

[RevCheesehead]

30. No, no, no! Biblical INTERPRETERS = evil!

Everyone swallows the Kool-Aid of the ancient biblical criticisms of Augustine and others, to INTERPRET anti-feminist messages where none were intended! (and, I would claim, where none exist)

"Women should remain silent in church" is a specific reference to a specific congregation, where chaos in worship reigned supreme. Men & women were seated apart from each other, and if a wife didn't understand something, she would shout out to her husband for a response (or more likely, she'd say "did you hear THAT, Simon? You are in big trouble now!").

Other passages seem to be additions to the text, rather than part of the original letters.

Jesus NEVER paints a woman in a negative light - in fact, he breaks the taboos of his time by speaking to women in public.

The Genesis story is one of mutual blame, culpability, or whatever. However, it has historically been interpreted by some (Augustine) to project primary blame on women. This is no better than claiming "the devil made me do it."

And in defense of Eve, God gave the prohibitions on the fruit to Adam - Eve had not yet been created. That really places significant blame on Adam, since he was right there during the exchange between Eve and the Serpent - and said nothing.

[Djinn]

73. If I ever decide to go to a church

can I come to yours RevCheesehead?

[johnaries]

25. Don't forget Eve's punishment....

16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16

So, sexual desire and childbirth are actually punishment. And women are supposed to be subservient to men.

[prodigal_green]

32. The idea of woman as a sinner does not appear IN ANY OTHER mythologies

Not exactly...remember, Pandora wanted knowledge too, and opened the box which let out all of the evil in the world.

The story of Eve and the story of Pandora are very similar. Women's quest for knowledge has been vilified for eons--witchcraft (in many many religions, not just the big four) is primarily in the domain of women throughout the world (yes, there are many religions in which men are witches as well, but often their knowledge is sanctioned as a healer).

[CornField]

42. Pandora?

While I'll agree Pandora's Box is the closest thing, it isn't sin -- it isn't about the fall from innocence or from grace. Pandora is a myth about trouble -- chaos.

There are many other creation stories in which man and woman eat of forbidden fruit (The One Forbidden Thing). A Bassari legend, in particular, has a snake and other animals. In that story, however, the man and the woman take the fruit and eat it. When diety comes and asks them who ate the fruit, they both reply, "We did." This is a HUGE difference from the creation story in Genesis in which Eve bears the brunt of the burden of original sin.

In Genesis:

"Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

The man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?"

Now, in contrast, there are Sumerian seals from as early as 3500 B.C. showing the serpent and the tree and the goddess, with the goddess giving the fruit of life to a visiting male. (A good thing.) When the Hebrews came into Canaan, the principle divinity of the people was the Goddess, and associated with the Goddess is the serpent. It was the symbol of the mystery of life -- the fall from grace, creation. The Hebrews were male-god-oriented and rejected the view of the people of Canaan. There was a historical rejection of the Mother Goddess completed in the story of the Garden of Eden.

In other words, there was a consorted effort made by the Western religions to change the creation myth to paint the female as the sinner. In doing so, the female (which symbolizes life -- all life comes from woman) is the great corruptor and less than man (not a partner, but something/one to be ridiculed, feared and possibly hated).

I'm not sure if I'm making sense.

Mythologically speaking -- prior to the creation story set forth by Western religion -- there was a basic motif that originally all was one and then there was separation -- heaven and earth, male and female and so forth. All of the creation stories, although with different details dependent on the environment, contained this basic myth element. So deity lived in us all and we somehow separated from our 'god.'

In Genesis, however, it isn't God that splits in two... it is Adam. By the teachings of Genesis, only Adam is made of God. Woman is made of man (not a direct part of god).

As Dr. D.T. Suzuki (philosopher) once said, "God against man. Man against God. Man against nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature -- very funny religion!"

These biblical traditions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- all speak with derogration of the so-called nature religions. In fact, they were developed to replace the nature religions -- recycling many of the older religions' holidays, sacred rituals and so-forth. I was not there so I cannot tell you exactly why the Western religions felt the need to demonize woman -- to remove woman from deity. What is evident, however, is that they did. That decision has made a major impact on society as we know it.

[Nobody]

51. What about Pandora?

According to Greek myth, the world was all male until Zeus created pandora and gave her intense curiousity and a box containing all the evils of the world. Zeus also told Pandora not to open the box.

He sent her down to the humans as a punishment for them because Prometheus gave them fire. Prometheus took the box away from Pandora and she convinced Epimetheus (Prometheus' brother) to let her have it. Of course she opened it. Who wouldn't when you were created for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of opening the box and unleashing all the ills of the world?

The Genesis story is like that as well. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (isn't any form of morality the knowledge of good and evil?) was placed in the middle of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve could see the damn thing every day. They were told they would die if they ate the fruit of that tree. It took a lot of convincing for Eve to take a bite after the serpent answered her questions and told her that she wouldn't die but would gain knowledge.

Guess what. She DIDN'T die. The serpent didn't lie to her about that. And she DID gain the knowledge of good and evil, or morality. Eve became a moral, thinking person by eating that apple. And who wouldn't have shared that?

Upshot is, both Pandora and Eve were placed in a situation where they were inevitably going to sooner or later eat the apple or open the box. Pandora was a case of entrapment, and if God didn't want Adam and Eve touching the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why didn't he put the tree where they couldn't get at it? He's omnipotent, that should have been easy. But nooooooooo.

Of course, these stories weren't actual fact, they were allegories showing how bad things got into an otherwise perfect world. And we women got the blame.

But if you go for the Christian version, why aren't we credited with bringing morality into the world?

[CornField]

64. I posted about Pandora above

It is the closest myth, but it isn't about original sin or the loss of innocence. There's more in my post above if you want to read.

[AuntiBush]

68. And if that is the case, none of us would even be here.

If "sex" in itself is corrupt and evil, civilization would never have populated. Then again, we're all noted as born sinners. Hence, no "one," whether you're a man or woman is without sin!

I'm sorry but I have to agree with a few of the past posters, this is all bull crap, and we'd better make sure it does not seep into our culture, ever again! Just because we're living under an extremist, who's dictating disgustingly evil, and unheard of ideologies does not mean we have to be mind bended as well!

Let's all get a grip and remember that if you look at society as a whole, and excluded women, gays, the disabled, blacks, native Indians, and all brown-skinned people, as well as anyone on this planet that does not believe in a tabernacle-type faith, you're reportedly not worthy of living. It is "their" backwardness that will deliver us to an enlightened period. One of peace, and acceptance to all human beings.

At least I hope so. That's all any of us can do is hope.

[CornField]

70. Hmmm...

I think you might have misunderstood my post. I do not agree or condone the train of thought that places women as the corruptor.

I'm making the point that prior to Western religions being formed, women were not viewed in such a light. Whether the intent was to demonize the goddess worshipped by the nature religions or place women in a submissive role to man, I cannot say. There is no denying, however, that the changes set forth by Western religion have had an impact on society's overall views of women.

How many times have we heard the religious in the US say their way of life is "threatened" by the feminist movement? How hard did churches rebel against the idea of women staying in the workforce following WWII? Why weren't women property owners given the right to vote when our country was originally founded? Why weren't women allowed to wear pants? Why to do this day to many insurance companies refuse to cover birth control even while they cover prescriptions for Viagra?

Prior to the Western religions man and woman were opposites and they left the place of innocence together -- both on equal footing with deity and both inherently good. Western religions placed man as a "broker" of sorts between woman and deity. There is no longer equal footing... there is no longer equal goodness.

[zanana]

17. Why do you think they believe the story of "Adam and Eve"?

Making women out to be evil began thousands of years ago. They like to think that all women are like Eve, and, after all, "it's in the bible", so it must be true!

[Triana]

19. Lilith was before Eve...

...and she refused to submit to Adam, so she was replaced with the submissive 'Eve' who allowed herself to be demonized.

[Eurobabe]

18. I have noticed this not so subtle movement to demonize the female

Something pissed me off the other night on Keith Olbermann, when they were talking about the woman who made up the story about infant being thrown out the window. Women are either psychotic or something to be feared.

Methinks they're trying to pre-empt a presidential bid by a woman.

[cags]

20. Would you rather these things be ignored?

I'm sorry I'm just not seeing it. I see positive stories about women that aren't focused on "keeping the homefront" all the time.

Are there more nasty stories about women than men? I don't think so

[Patiod]

22. Actually, I see the opposite in commercials and sitcoms

My SO and I have a running joke - whenever we see men made to look stupid on TV (which is constantly), I just say to him - "because men as just
There are SO many commercials that make women looks smart and competent, and make men look stupid. Probably because women are the ones making the purchases, and the advertisers have learned to pander to us.

And look at the stupid sit-coms - King of Queens, According to Jim, Everybody Loves Raymond - where the guys are hopeless boobs, and their way-smarter and way-better-looking wives are usually rolling their eyes and shaking their heads. A long way from "Luuucccy!!!" - I think the pendulum has swing too far in the other direction.

[RazzleCat]

27. True, but only in "housewife ways"

I agree, guys are made to look boobs in most TV ads, but they are for the "women" stuff, laundry soap, window cleaner. In the stupid sit-coms, its the woman being smarter about raising the kid/kids, or running the house. Never is it she is better in an office / work situation. Only home and family.

[Patiod]

31. Good point

That's why I like DU.

You folks is smart!

[scarletwoman]

44. But WHY are these attractive intelligent women attached to such dumbasses?

It REALLY bugs me. The message *I* take from these sitcoms is that even the dorkiest, most incompetent, immature, mouthbreathing MALE is at least as good as even the most competent, gorgeous FEMALE. To me it's a total devaluation of women -- if THESE (male) bozos are good enough to be hooked up with such hot chicks, then obviously women really ain't all that, ya know?

Bah!

sw

[BrklynLiberal]

50. Simone deBeauvoir saw this a long time ago

The most mediocre of males feels himself a demigod as compared with women.

Simone De Beauvoir

[scarletwoman]

79. Yes! That's it EXACTLY! Thank you!

Of course, De Beauvoir put it much more elegantly than I, but that's EXACTLY my take on these male doofus/smart sexy woman pairings in sitcoms.

Merci,
sw

[laura888]

47. I've noticed this, too - and it strikes me as Stepford Wife-ish

Women are SUPPOSED to be smart, beautiful, competent, caring, unselfish.

Because of this, a man can be immature and needy. And often much less attractive than the woman he is with.

It's a man's fantasy.

[FizzFuzz]

62. I don't see that "eye-rolling" female as a superior thing

I see it as portraying men as the center of attention, funny, permitted to express themselves comically. Women are always portrayed as the tut-tutting wet blanket. As a silly person myself, this always angers me--Lucy could never get a gig now; she's got too much star energy. Only men are permitted that. Women are only permitted the disapproving mother role--but she's gotta be attractive and show cleavage and/or thigh.

[Canuckistanian]

21. It's amazing the amount of women who enable this evil

And a few of them are called Laura, too.
Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger, Laura Bush.

[Greenpeace2005]

24. why

why is that?

[newyawker99]

26. Hi Greenpeace2005!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[superconnected]

33. I've also noticed this

They've really upped the amount of horror stories about women.

Anything a woman does that is sickening or strange gets press now. Where as men, who commit horrific crimes 95% more often do not get the press everytime they commit a horror.

-What I've been saying about the Republican agenda against gays all along - After they demonize and take away gay rights, women are next.
Obviously this uneven press coverage is part of the attack.

memo to blacks and other minorities: open your eyes, it will absolutely be extended to you.

[entanglement]

75. Yes, but society is quite

used to men committing horrors. Since women commit horrific crimes less often, it makes the headlines.

[Swamp Rat]

34. Women should shut the HELL up and do what they're told!

[superconnected]

36. over your dead body :)

[KissMeKate]

37. our society has always been ambivalent towards women

its sort of a historical story- we gain here, lose there. Which is why feminism will always be needed- vigilance will never be unnecessary.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. yeah, women are demonized. so are men though.

You wanna talk about news segments? How about the male drug dealers, murderers, dead beat dads, abusive husbands, men discriminating against women and minorities and everyone in between, rapists, thugs, low lifes, incompetent fathers, etc...

Trust me, no one is spared from the propaganda machine.

[superconnected]

52. men aren't being demonized by the right wing to take away their

rights though.

Bawl all you want, but it's white men who invented "dead beat dad", etc.

I'm not feeling for you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. no one asked you to feel for me.

Don't ask me to feel for you either.

[KnowerOfLogic]

39. Nothing new, but i like the new word for it. nt

[Technowitch]

41. "And then the day came, when those with an F on their ID cards..."

Read Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" and tell me we're not heading in that direction already.

New Gilead, here we come.

[smirkymonkey]

43. It's one of the hallmarks of Fascism

and of Religious Fundamentalism. Since we seem to be headed toward a government that is a merger of the two, it appears to be par for the course, unfortunately.

A while, somebody posted an article (couldn't find it in archives) about how this country's movement toward the far-far-right was in part a result of the disempowered white male backlash.

The gist of it had something to do with the fact that the Republican party was taking advantage of the anger of white (usually blue collar) males who were reacting against ANY threat to white male dominance. Multiculturalism, Affirmative Action, Feminism, Gay Rights, etc. - usually associated with the left - were among the isms that this rebellion was directed toward. I wish I remembered the name of the article. Sorry I don't have more info

[AlienGirl]

46. Ever hear Tom Leykis?

He regularly talks about how women trap men into paying for kids, sometimes even by stealing the sperm out of used condoms. He also runs shows where men call in to be told to "Dump That Bitch!" and successful tales of how men dumped women who got too clingy or emotional. It is his belief that women wll be with the richest man they can attract and men will be with the most beautiful women they can afford, and any man who isn't trading up regularly has a problem.

He also has a domestic violence record.

Tucker

[bloom]

54. "He also has a domestic violence record."

figures.

[regnaD kciN]

56. As little as possible...

:puke:

[ChairOne]

57. And some other dude too - BJ Shays or somethin.....

... they're on the same station here in Seattle, and I was listened for a few days (kinda the neverending trainwreck that you can't take your eyes off of). MY GOD - these guys are fuckin insane in their misogyny.

I especially love how chicks who call in buy what they say....

These guys are crazy, but the mass of Americans who eat it up are even worse....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. I saw a "men's rights" program on cable access in Portland a few years ago

and the misogyny there was horrifying. It was all about how to get your wife to give up the house, the kids, and alimony if you got divorced. On that program, all women were bitches who were just out for money and who wanted to deprive men of their right to full custody of their children. If women wanted custody of their children, it was just so they could get more money out of the men.

Granted, that may be true of some women, but the guys on this program were acting as if all women were like this.

[ArkDem]

48. This is what bush has done to america.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

55. it's the reversal of feminism. i see it all the time at school. nt

[happyslug]

59. Why would the Right want to demonized women? Could the answer be WELFARE

Remember Welfare was set up to help widows with orphans. The rationale behind this was simple, children needed protected and could not feed or care for themselves. Their mother's primary job was to take care of their Children. Thus to protect Children you had to protect their mother's. Thus Welfare was passed to help "Widows and orphans". The Name "Widows and Orphans" was part of the name of many of the Relief acts of the late 1800s and while into the 1900s. While the name changed to "Welfare" after about 1900 the concept it was for widows and orphans lasted while into the 1960s. When advocates wanted increase in Welfare spending their best witnesses for such increase spending were white middled aged mothers. These witnesses had tremendous affect on State Legislature and would increase spending (through only marginally) and rarely would the State Legislature cut benefits with the idea that you would have women and Children starving to death in the streets.

If you notice the whole theme of welfare before 1960 can be called "Men need not apply". In fact most states prior to the 1960s had the "Man in the house rule" which basically said if the family was intact, they were NOT eligible for welfare. If the father left, than and only then could the family get welfare. This process was breaking up poor families, for poor families were better off with their FATHER AWAY than with their father with them. If the father stayed in the house, no welfare, for he could work (and he had to go out a find work even if none was available). Some states took this to extremes giving less benefits to a women who husband left her than a widow whose husband died. Children out of wedlock were often forbidden to get welfare (not a widow or a orphan).

In the 1960s the US Supreme Court looked at Welfare and how the state where apply it and ruled most of the restrictions mention in the previous paragraph a violation of the Equal protection Clause of the US Constitution. Thus the difference between payments of a women's whose husband had died or abandoned her was abolished, the rule that illegitimate kids were not eligible for Welfare was abolished, than the Man in the House was ruled Unconstitutional.

The rationale behind these rulings was welfare was a grant to the CHILDREN and you would NOT different between Children based on whether their father died, left them or never acknowledged them. The States hated these ruling for with it came increased Welfare eligibility and costs. The GOP really hated this ruling for it forced them to raise taxes for they had no support to cut welfare (The Welfare Grants were so low that when people where told how low the welfare grant most people just said no one could live on such small amounts).

Now while there was NO support for cutting welfare, there was almost no support to increase what each welfare recipient would receive. You had a legislative stalemate as to Welfare. Thus to pass a budget Welfare had to be increased or stay the same, thus forcing tax increases. The right wing blamed these tax increases on the increase costs of welfare imposed on them by the Supreme Court Decision.

Now various attempts were made to keep or re-instate the Man in the House Rule (and other discriminatory rules) in the 1960s and 1970s but the Courts kept striking them down. Than the Right Wing decided the only way they could get support to cut welfare costs (and thus cut taxes) was to demonized blacks and than women. Only with this demonization of people on welfare could you see welfare being cut.

Notice as a general rule Business and professional women are NOT demonized. You rarely hear that such and such female doctor neglected her child, or such or such female lawyer abused her child. Such accusations are hitting to close to right wing families. On the other hand by attacking (First Blacks and than) women in general as leaches on society, you have less and less support for welfare. You have less and less people disturbed that a person in Pennsylvania is expected to live off $174 a month (Plus $97 a month in Food stamps), and less and less people objecting to a family of family of four only receiving $454 in cash and $366 in Food Stamps a month to survive.

The defense against cutting Welfare has always used widows effectively. No one wants to kick their mother out of her house. Thus to reduce welfare costs the Right Wing has to attack the people on Welfare. The people on welfare the Right Wing feared the most are middle aged women with children. Thus Women with children who are on Welfare must be attacked. The right Wing must demonized them so that when it comes time to CUT WELFARE to CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, TO CUT SSI, TO CUT The FOOD STAMP PROGRAM, TO CUT PUBLIC HOUSING, the public no longer look on women on welfare as their mother but as leaches on society that need to be taught a lesson in self-restraint and self-reliance.

That is the long term goal of the Right Wing, to Kill the above Social Programs. They really care less about anything else but they want the states and the Federal Government to cut these programs. First is to cut their taxes by NOT having these people having the option of going on Welfare AND cutting labor costs by forcing these group of people to take any job at any wage (even at illegal minimum wage, remember most of the advocates to abolish social programs also want to strike down the Minimum wage laws).

No this is NOT a cultural fight for what is women's place in our society, it is the demonized women on welfare for ECONOMIC reasons.


For more information on Welfare see the following:

Pennsylvania Welfare Grants:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter181/chap181toc.html
(Go to the end of the Document to Appendix "C":

The amounts are as follows:
NUMBER OF PERSONS IN APPLICANT/RECIPIENT GROUP


Schedule 1 - Bucks, Chester, Lancaster, Montgomery and Pike Counties.
Amount--number of people in the household
$215--1
$330--2
$421--3
$514--4
$607--5
$687--6
each additional: $83


Schedule 2 - Adams, Allegheny, Berks, Blair, Bradford, Butler, Centre, Columbia, Crawford, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie. Laclawanna, :Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Monroe, Montour, Northhampton, Phildelphia, Sulliavan, Susquehanna, Union, warren, Wayne. Westmoreland, Wyoming and York Counties
Amount--number of people in the household
$205-- 1
$316-- 2
$403-- 3
$497-- 4
$589-- 5
$670-- 6
$83 -- for each additional

Schedule 3 - Beaver, Cameron, Carbon, Clinton, Elk, Franklin, Indiana, Lawrence, McKean, Mifflin, Perry, Potter, Snyder, Tioga, Venango and Washington Counties
$195-- 1
$305-- 2
$393-- 3
$479-- 4
$569-- 5
$647-- 6
$83--- For each additional

Schedule 4 -- Armstrong, Bedford, Cambria, Clarion, Clearfield, Fayette, Forest, Fulton, Greene, Huntington, Juniata, Northumber-
land, Schuylkill and Somerset Counties.
$174-- 1
$279-- 2
$365-- 3
$454-- 4
$543-- 5
$614-- 6
$83--- For each additional member

Federal Food Stamps Regs:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm
---Allotment
1--$149
2--$274
3--$393
4--$499
5--$592
6--$711
7--$786
8--$898
Each additional person add $112

Food stamp is reduced by your income, for example a person in Pennsylvanis receiving $174 in Welfare, will only get $97 in Food Stamps NOT the whole allotment of $149. Go to the website for Details.

Pa has a Consolidated Welfare Web Site:
https://www.humanservices.state.pa.us/compass/PGM/ASP/SC001.asp

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

66. This should be a thread of its own

[happyslug]

77. One of the weaknesses of DU

The number of Social Liberals way outnumber Economic Liberals. Furthermore most Social Liberals do not see the Economics behind their Social Agenda and worse the Right's Social Agenda.

For example a lot of comments about the sexism in the Bible, and dismissal of the Bible for containing such sexism yet the sexism came out of the Economics of the Middle east. The Middle east can be divided into two cultures that exist side by side depending on how much water is available. First are the herders, second are the farmers.

Herders have to move their herds and protect them. Herders can lose everything in a one night raid by another group of herders. Thus maintaining relationships with other herders is important as while as guarding one's own herds. Tribal relations are important, for any one herder can not protect one's own herds but with the help of your tribe you can defend your herd. The problem is such raids occur swiftly and the response has to be as swift so the herders may be called on to defend a fellow tribal members herd on a moment's notice. requiring instant response. Such herding society generally require the men to come on call, that is only possible if the women stay with the herd. These calls are geared for men to come together quickly make decisions and than go back home.

Women tied down by their children (Which actually free up the men) in these societies tend to stay with the herds. Thus you get a very male dominated society for all of the major decisions are made by males of the "tribe" for the women just are not there (The women are back with their husband's herds while he is at the call up). Women have a tough time getting together given the distances involved AND the movement of the herds. Unlike the men the Women can NOT meet on call, it has to be at pre-arranged get together which are rare and short do to the lack of graze. Thus almost all of the decisions are made by men without any input by women.

Unlike herding, which tend to be very male dominated, agricultural started out as a female activity. Primitive Agriculture was almost always "women's work" with men becoming farmers centuries after the women of the same society became farmers. Now once men become farmers they tend to do the heavy labor of farming and maintain defenses. Men and women tended to be tied down by the work of farming so get togethers were tied in with getting in the crops. You might have sex divided activities (Men cutting down the wheat and the women following them removing the wheat grains from the plant) but at the same time both sexes were at the get-togethers, meetings etc. Thus most Agricultural society had a better balance between the sexes.

In the middle east these two societies came into conflict. And it is an age old conflict. Farming is more productive so the areas that are farmable are farmed. Other areas are left open for the headers. Conflict occur between these two societies especially at the margins. This is not helped by the acute machismo of herding societies. This forces the farmers to from protective forces (i.e. Armies) which tend to be male dominated.

Thus in the Middle East you had two influences that reduced women's rights based on ECONOMICS. First was the vast numbers of Herding societies throughout the Middle east. The area is marginal for farming and thus open for the herders. The Second is the need of the Farmers to protect themselves from the attack of the herders. This lead to the development of armies which tend to be male dominated.

The Bible was written within this economic background, women in the background while men made all of the decisions. Furthermore the stories in the Bible reflect the Jewish people's movement from a herding society, to a Agricultural society (while in Egypt) back to a herding society (during the 40 years) and finally back to Agriculture after they conquered Canaan. These stories were influences by the nearby tribe that stayed herders. Thus you have a very male oriented society based on its economics for the 1000 years between Moses and Jesus and the Bible reflects this economic reality.

Do not worry people have studied the American South and pointed out many of its members are descendant from Scottish and Irish herders who had the same macho culture of the herders of the Mid-East (Even through the South has been farmers for at least 300 years). The stories of the Wild West are stories of such herding cultures. These are the economic reality that directs Social mores, and is part of the attack on women. I point this out to show you how Economics affects how a society is formed and presently the US is in a economic crisis. The Right's solution to the crisis is to attack women and everyone one or thing but their own greed. This while the Right is using the Bible to attack women, it is an attack based on Greed not true hatred of women.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

60. argh

:argh

[The Straight Story]

61. So what?

I mean really, tv's can be turned off, and they don't really have an influence do they? We preach about the 'weak minded' christians who 'lap up evil doctrine' and believe anything they are told in church, now we are railing that most people in the US are too stupid to think for themselves (except us) and if the preacher don't get em the TV will (which reminds me of how the right wing christians are often telling people how evil TV can influence them as well...are they right?)

I have not watched network tv news, or cable news in freakin forever - spend too much time working and online. My engineers all work off shifts and never watch tv news either. Let them spew their stories, their agenda's and propoganda - after all, people can just turn the channel right??

Most people (if not all really) I know don't see this as a 'woman is evil issue' they see people are sometimes really evil and/or mean to the core. Sometimes white men, sometimes black, sometimes women, sometime kids, sometimes the famous, sometimes some unknown kook. Who keeps track of sex/race/et al and how it 'makes' those poor minded weak people think?

Maybe, just maybe, people are not as dumb as we think they are. Perhaps our own paranoia fuels our own minds to look for things. That is not to say people in some positions won't use said positions to further their beliefs - but hell, so do preachers - and we all choose whether or not to go to church. We can do the same with TV.

[Tsiyu]

63. Stop. Watching. The. News.

It eats away at your brain, like a spongiform disease.

Yet, if we counted the number of women killed every day by violent partners, we would see there is a silent, deadly war against women.

But girls are the devil....

[AuntiBush]

65. Back in the Kitchen Barefoot & Pregnant I think not!

On one hand of the issue, the Repuks want women to walk behind again, so to speak, taking our entire civilization back to a pre-1950's mindset. This mirror's their not so well hidden agenda for African Americans, as well. What truly burns me up, is when I see the men, the male Repuk supporter so vocal about a woman's right to choice. How dare any man place himself on such a high level of superiority to even think he was born to judge and choice.

It's all apart of their agenda. Placing all minorities, gays, women, the poor and disabled on the back burn again, in order to keep the white male supremacy propaganda machine running properly again.

They're not only evil f'ers, they're arrogantly ignorant, ignorantly arrogant and riddled with fears. That's why they believe in using fear as their diversion, their tactics. Think about it.