Notice how many people defend Bill Maher?

[Ripley]

I don't care if he is a left-leaning Libertarian who occasionally skewers Bush. He is a sexist pig who obviously can't get laid because he has to pay strippers to date him.

I get so tired of these "liberal" comics, or actors, or whatever who are given a free pass to rant on like a skinny Rush Limbaugh about feminazis and how those man-haters are all prudes and want to control his dick...just because he calls out the repukes hypocrisies from time to time.

And the guy is friends, FRIENDS, FRIENDS with Ann Coulter - the female anti-liberal!

I think he is the worst kind of sexist enabler.

[demnan]

1. Bill Maher is a comedian, he is an entertainer

Sure I agree, the man has real problems with women (far more than he does with women's issues, in my opinion). However I don't think he's all that important. He makes me laugh.

[Ripley]

2. Yeah, Rush is just an entertainer too.

Sorry, but the one laugh out of an hour show just doesn't outweigh the negative sexist drivel I have to endure.

I don't think he's important either. It's just another example of how people give him a pass when he says things that had someone like Tom Delay said...well, you know the reaction would be completely different.

[mcctatas]

3. Agreed...But

I don't necessarily think he is sexist in the "women are inferior" vein of people like Rush et al. Furthermore, Maher is a comedian, not a "serious" political pundit like Rush, and also unlike the blowhards like Rush, he is not idealogically bound to whatever his party says is the gospel truth. As for his friendship with Coulter, I think it takes intelligence and integrity to befriend an obviously imbalanced, self-loathing, anorexic shrew...and alot of self-control not to choke her to death!!:evilgrin:

[Inland]

4. Rev. Dobson, is that you?

Another voice criticizing those hollywood types for not getting married and settling down.

[Ripley]

5. How predictable.

If I dare criticize an openly unapologetic sexist, I'm called Rev. Dobson. Yep, that's me I want to ban all sex. I'm not criticizing him for being single, it's his assinine sexist attitude that outright says men who get married are SLAVES to women and don't have fun sex anymore. How much more immature can he be?

I thought this forum might be a place to discuss sexism, apparently not...it's just like the rest of DU.

Adios.

[Inland]

6. You didn't criticize him for being a sexist, but for dating.

Dating strippers, to be precise, because he couldn't get laid otherwise. Oh, and that married (monogamous) men don't have fun sex anymore, which of course, is not an equal rights issue.

If you had criticized him for ideas rather than his sex life, I wouldn't have made the post and you would be able to credibly say that you don't want to ban sex.

So if you want to discuss sexism, then you should discuss ideas. If you don't want to discuss someone's sex life, then you really shouldn't go over their dating and whether they pay for it.

[highlonesome]

7. Might I ask

What was it he's said exactly that makes you feel this way?

[Inland]

9. He is a sexist pig who obviously can't get laid because he has to pay

strippers."

That was it, exactly. Thanks for asking.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

10. Looking for the women I shit on---Nope, don't see any.

Apparently fair to discuss includes the criticism of his sex life, including but not limited to accusing him of having to pay for sex because he couldn't get it otherwise. But that's about sex, not sexism. Last I knew, the mere fact of promiscuity and a refusal to be married wasn't in itself an act of sexism.

But he is a public figure, so you could discuss his sex life. That's fair, I guess, just in the way that Dobson may fairly criticize them hollywood liberals for being gay or divorced. It's just wrong, however, to pretend it isn't about sex. It clearly is.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. He writes magazine columns and does comedy specials

Where he characterizes us women as shallow, illogical creatures concerned mostly with trapping men into marriage and forcing them to buy us large diamonds. I don't feel like looking up the exact quotes right now but I'm sure they could be found easily since it's a big part of his schtick. So you can defend him all you want but I can't stomach watching him, despite my appreciation of his views on other issues. When I've watched him, everything will be going along fine and then BAM - out comes some tired-ass insulting bullshit. He's not nearly as bad as say, Howard Stern, but I'd expect it from Stern so I don't listen to him.


As for him paying for sex...Well, I dunno, but hot 23 year old babes don't usually hook up with wealthy middle-aged guys for any other reason.

[Bunny]

13. Makes you question the motivation, doesn't it?

They have plenty of other places to spew this shit, yet they still come here. :eyes:

[Ripley]

14. Yes indeed.

Why are the other forums "protected" and not this one? I recall reading ATA awhile back where the Catholics complained about GD Atheists/Agnostics following them into their Religious group which was supposed to be a "safe" area. The moderators were told to delete/lock the disruptors.

I've also seen this take place in other Forums.

So why is this one treated differently? I just recently started reading this one and it appears there are disruptors here quite often.

As for me discussing Maher's views on sex and women. As someone noted above...he makes it a big part of his identity, similar to Rush. He also makes these same comments on his Real Time show which has politicians on discussing current events, so I would not consider that a comedy routine.

He consistently blames some problems in American on women. He calls it the "feminization" of America...a synonym for Feminazi. But liberals seem to have that congnitive dissonance thing going when you bring up his name....they defend him to the death because he likes pot and porn.

I guess he's a sacred cow here to some. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

15. You're thinking of Groups.

Groups are protected from disruptors but you have to have a star to post in them.
Atheists have one, Christian liberals have one, there's dozens of them.
Obviously, as we've seen here, anybody can post in this forum.
I don't understand why we don't use the Women's World Group, perhaps it is not for serious topics?.
I almost never come in here because of all the disruptors. If they want to pick a fight and can't get one in GD, they come here. We get pissed off, our posts get deleted and the threads get locked. That is exactly what disruptors want.
As soon as you posted this thread, I KNEW what was going to happen, and sure enough, I was right.:mad:
They aren't allowed to do that in groups. Admin can actually ban certain members from posting in the groups if they continue to disrupt.

[lukasahero]

17. It might be worth talking about in the Women's World group

When it was first brought up, it wasn't supposed to be all hair and make-up (which is the only reason I supported it in the first place). Seems to me it could be used as such and those who want to stick to the latest make-up trends don't have to join the more politically charged discussions, just as I don't join in the hair and make-up threads. :thumbsup: ? :thumbsdown:?

PS - I just checked the "mission statement" of the group:
"From the serious to the sublime, The DU Women's World hosts discussion of topics affecting and affected by women."

Sounds to me like serious discussions would/should be allowed there.

[Ripley]

21. Doh.

I hadn't read your post yet when I responded to BMUS. The hair and make-up stuff really turned me off of that group and I never went back. Perhaps we could inject more serious topics.

[lukasahero]

26. I must admit I feel the same

I supported the formation of the group when it was first brought up because the talk was of it not being a "hair and make-up" coffee clatch but that is definitely the prevailing theme right now. I don't go over there too often (I do try to keep up on some of the health threads in it). The only time I tried to inject some food for thought commentary on a thread regarding how "male" and "female" are defined by culture and society and how we perpetuate the stereotypes, I offended the OP (even though I had gone out of my way to explain my intent). I have since taken away the idea that the group "members" probably aren't interested in discussing anything of real substance or consequence.

Not sure how everyone else feels about it but I'm not itching to go in there and bring it up. :dilemma:

[beam me up scottie]

32. I think it's fine the way it is,

maybe if we just redefine the mission to reflect the lighter side of women's lives?
Wouldn't proposing a new group be better? We won't alienate the women who are already using the existing one (and it is informative, I've learned a lot from lurking) and we can put the word out on a new group to inform other women who may have stayed away from the forums due to the disruptions.

Just thinking out loud...

[lukasahero]

36. I'd definitely support a new group.

How do we do it though now that ATA is closed?

I agree about not wanting to alienate the women over there who probably finally feel they have their own safe place. Now I want one! ;)

[Ripley]

38. Me three.

Let me know where to post in support of that group.

[highlonesome]

40. disruption

I've seen a lot of talk lately on the women's issues boards regarding disruption of threads. There's an entire thread regarding it I believe and now I also see calls to create a protected group which seem to correspond to my posting here -- though that could be coincidence.

So when you talk about people disrupting threads, I guess I'd like to know whether you feel my posts would be characterized as disruptive and if so, why?

[beam me up scottie]

41. Ummmm,

Sorry, may have been a little abrupt.
I meant to say that we have been discussing this in another thread, I linked to it in one of my posts here.

I don't know if you are a disruptor, but they are a problem in this forum.

Also, I don't know if you are a woman, but all are welcome to post in the groups as long as their posts are respectful and contribute to the subject.

As an atheist, believers are welcome to post in our group, many do so regularly. But the difference between the R&T Forum and A&A Group is that I do not have to worry about defending my atheism when I go there.


edited to eliminate excess snarkiness

[Ripley]

44. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

It must be about me. You want to start a secret club without ME, ME, ME!! How dare you exclude me!!! :nuke:

[beam me up scottie]

46. YOU

are too funny!
We posted in the same thread yesterday and you cracked me up!
Woo, that was a doozy! (definitely some history there)

[Ripley]

47. Well, sometimes I'm late to the party, so to speak,

and I'm not aware of people's histories. But alas, it only takes about 3 posts before one can see where they are coming from.

:hi:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Now I'm sorry I edited my original post.

You might want to grab a clue as you're leaving.

[Ripley]

51. Did you see that?

It seemed as though he got all three of us confused in one post. He was talking about the time thing (lukasahero), and the ummmm (you) and he responded directly to me telling me I never post content. Nice.

Does that mean he thinks of all three of us as THE FEMINIST DEVIL ICON?

[beam me up scottie]

54. That is EXACTLY

what disrupters do.
When it turns on them they become the victim.
It's not just our forum either, we've all seen it in GD and the Lounge as well.
Typical to spin it to sound like we're hysterical, unreasonable hormonally-unbalanced feminists.

:eyes:

Geez, all we have to do is keep talking about Maher and we'll attract all of the regular dissers. They are making our case for us, eh?
Let's bash pro-wrestling and hunting and see how many more show up.

[lukasahero]

55. Oh man - what'd I miss???? Damn.

Somebody fill me in. (PM?)

I always miss the good stuff. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

59. Mumbled something about

how our "content" was lacking...

[highlonesome]

60. not everyone's

The comment regarding content was directed at Ripley. Please take a look at my postings and hers. I did my best to remain civil and was called misogynist and ignorant.

[lukasahero]

61. Please direct me to the post

where Ripley called you a misogynist. I've searched this thread and can't find it.

[beam me up scottie]

63. I have never met

you so I cannot judge your intent.
If you are truly interested in women's issues, I am more than willing to listen and communicate.
Anyone is welcome here as long as they are respectful, from what I can tell.
This is a sore subject and we find ourselves having to defend everything we say in these forums. Can you understand why we want a group?
There's a difference between discussion and arguing for the sake of argument. I love to mix it up as much as anybody but when I've had enough I want to be able to have someplace to decompress and not have to fend off snipe attacks.
If you missed the threads that attacked feminism and feminists, trust me, they were hateful and malicious.
So it might not be a good idea to pick at certain things in our posts right now.
Not saying you can't post what you want but just in case you are wondering why we seem to be on edge.


peace

[lukasahero]

45. Original talk about a group began on this thread at 12:41 pm today

Your posts today began at 4:20. If you think that the "calls to create a protected group" 4 hours ago "seem to correspond" to your posting here 4 hours later, you must really think we're are psychic.

And, for the record, there is not an entire thread regarding starting a new group, there is an entire thread discussing what to do about sexism on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

49. See?

You can explain things without throwing punches (I am working on my temper, really) !

[lukasahero]

56. Maybe so but I waste so much time

fact checking I miss all the good stuff! Man, how long was I gone? I totally missed the fun. :rofl:

On the other hand, the punches does seem to bring out the best in people. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

42. I am new at this too but I got this from the group page:

Skinner
How to Suggest a DU Group
Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 06:10 AM by Skinner


One of the best things about DU Groups is that members have the ability to suggest new groups to the Administrators of Democratic Underground. If you wish to suggest a group, please follow this procedure:

1. Start one discussion thread in the forum of your choice to tell people about your idea for a DU Group.

2. In that thread, you must get responses from at least ten DU members who agree to be active participants in the suggested DU Group. All ten members to respond must have donor stars.

3. In that thread, members must agree on a proposed mission statement for the DU Group.

4. When enough members have signed on to join the group and have agreed on a proposed mission statement, one member must officially suggest the DU Group to a DU Administrator (Skinner, EarlG, or Elad), by sending an email. Please be sure to include a link to the thread where members have discussed the proposed Group.

5. The Administrators will consider the request and make a decision. The Administrators will either 1) Accept the Group as it is proposed, 2) Deny the Group outright, or 3) Ask for changes to the Group or its mission statement which would be necessary for its approval.

6. Once the suggested Group has been accepted by the Administrators, the Administrators will create a new DU Group in the "DU Groups" Category forum, and pin the mission statement of that Group to the top of that Group's forum.

If you are considering a DU Group on a controversial topic, the Administrators would appreciate if you contacted us before collecting your ten members, so we may discuss any sensitive issues. This courtesy will increase the chance that your Group is approved. Also, please be aware that proposed Groups that are redundant with existing DU Forums are unlikely to be approved.

If you have any questions, please contact a forum Administrator.

Skinner
EarlG
Elad

Democratic Underground Administrators

[lukasahero]

53. So who wants to start the request and where?

Any ideas for a mission statement?

Is it "legal" to pm folks we think might be interested to make sure they see the thread?

Things to consider re: the rules. Will the admins consider this redundant and/or controversial? i.e. - should we write and "ask" them first? Can we make our case for the "necessity" for such a group without "calling" anyone out?

You know, the one thread that convinced me this is necessary was the thread on "Women's Lives, Men's Laws" where one strong young woman acknowledged she had been raped and screamed out in anger and pain over the fact that she cannot get away from "rape porn" in her emails only to spend the next several posts having to defend herself - again. I wanted to reach through my computer screen and wrap her in my arms to protect her from people (and these were not just guys) who didn't give a flying fig about how she might feel just so long as no one puts any limits, restrictions or regulations on their ideas of sexual fantasy.

I was sick for days over this.

Have we become so self-centered that the tangible pain of another means so much less to us than our own ideologies?
If creating a group offers a safe haven for women to discuss what rape and abuse and discrimination and stereotyping really feels like without being afraid that they'll have to defend themselves all over again then where do I sign up? I'll do the leg work if no one else wants to - it is that important to me. Providing that space for that other young woman is that important to me.

[beam me up scottie]

57. I felt the same way the other day

when I read the report of those two Afghani prisoners who were tortured to death.
People were posting glib remarks like the report was about a new comic book or something.
I understand the need to crack wise to relieve stress but I try not to do it where it's inappropriate.

We should pm Cally and the people from the other thread.

I have to finish up with a report now so I might just post and run.

Let me know what you want me to do and I can give it my full attention when I get home.

[FizzFuzz]

97. I had a quick look at that group too, and wasn't particularly interested

I used to be into that stuff big time. Seems peri-menopause has put a real damper on my interest in prettifying myself! LOL

Not that there's anything wrong with haveing agroup for just kicking back, gee, its kind of the women's equivalent of the Lounge or the Sports Group. (now there's some good ol' male bonding let's trivialize women over there. but I digress..)

I support a separate Women's group, so that we can intellectualize our heads off, if we desire, or we can vent. Sheesh, we comprise 51% of the population; that should map to DU as a whole. I think there's enough numbers to support two women's interest groups.

[Ripley]

20. Aha! I didn't know there was a difference between groups and forums...

Thanks for clarifying.

Women's World seems to be about make-up, clothes and the like.

[lukasahero]

16. Difference between a "forum" and a "group"

There has been some discussion (but not a great deal of support for?) the creation of a women's rights and issues "group" over in the "what to do about sexism on DU" thread. Now that ATA is gone, I'm not sure how we request such a group or if there's even enough interest but anyone interested might want to bop over to that thread so we can get a picture of how much support it might have.

I'm not sure I'd equate "feminization" with "FemiNazi". Feminization, meaning America is becoming less masculine (you know all those All-American traits of courage, bravery, honesty, torture - oh sorry, how'd that get in there?) and more feminine (all those "sissy" traits like compassion, care and knowing that might doesn't mean right and stronger doesn't always mean better), is real rhetoric being used to describe the left and right in America - Dems = women: feminized and weak, Repugs = men: masculine, tough, better. FemiNazi may have some hold in the mainstream I suppose but there is actual political discussion regarding the feminine and masculine and anyone who would use the word "feminization" as a negative hasn't read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff and isn't really doing much to advance a "liberal" dialogue.

Maher's in it for the money, plain and simple. Making fun of women in today's culture is "no big deal" in America right now ("get a sense of humor", "it's just a joke", yada yada yada) so it's an easy ratings boost for him, regardless of the nature of the venue (politics or comedy).

[beam me up scottie]

18. Heh heh,

Great minds, eh?
The sexism thread is what I was thinking about as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=1647&mesg_id=1647

[lukasahero]

19. Posted at the same time even! :-)

I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading your posts. You have a "take no prisoners" attitude, as do a few others here, that I admire but am not very good at. Thanks for never letting "them" bully you. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

22. Thanks-right back at 'cha!

Although, I'd much rather be even tempered like you, I've had to apologize to a few innocent bystanders that I've accidentally run over! :evilgrin:

Growing up with all brothers made me a little too scrappy, I think.

[lukasahero]

30. There no such thing as "too scrappy"

especially if you are willing to apologize if and when mistakes are made.

Oh and thanks - :blush:. "Even-tempered"? My family would be :rofl: big time but I appreciate it. :woohoo:

[highlonesome]

23. Maher and feminization

I think I saw a standup special by him on HBO a while back where he talks about this.

Actually, as I recall, there was nothing in it about what you're saying. He seemed to be more equating it with a culture of safety and security as opposed to risk taking and adventure. I tend to agree in some ways, but would add that balance is best and that he was pointing out that balance seems to be on the wane.

Also related to what you say about making fun of women is "no big deal" I also recall he said something like:

"If you can walk out on stage and say men are smarter than women and get booed then walk out on stage and say women are smarter than men and get cheers -- that's the definition of sexism."

I tend to agree with that also and find it to be one of the difficulties in debating gender issues in general: that begging the question seems to be standard. Often, when it relates to women's issues or issues of feminism one is expected to simply accept from the get-go that the theories put forth from the feminist side are inherently true and to not do so is interpreted as misogyny or disruption when that's simply not the case. It's a disagreement on more basic terms and fundamentals from what I've experienced here.

[Ripley]

25. I see you hid your profile.

But let me guess. You're a man. You're defensive and you interpret Maher's words completely different than most women I know.

What the hell are you talking about that I expect you to simply accept from the get-go a theory put forth from the feminist side? You mean you think the good old US of A is COMPLETELY DEVOID OF SEXISM? You don't think it exists? Do you even know what misogyny mean?

See this is what really gets under my skin. You are basically saying what I observe and experience doesn't exist. No man really hates women. They loooooove women. You are are making the situation male-centered, like we don't have enough of that shit going on in America. This isn't about you being called a name you don't like. This is about the insitutional, socialized, practice of treating females as less than males. If you don't see it, maybe you should get glasses.

[highlonesome]

34. the basic disagreement

I think probably that the basic disagreement I have with contemporary feminism is what I interpret to be a class distinction that's imposed on male/female gender relations.

By that I mean simply that it seems that many view men and women as distinct classes -- analagous to but not identical to Marx's views on capitalism in the 19th century. It's the idea that men -- as a class -- oppress women -- as a class. I just don't see that as a valid paradigm. I see both men and women as sources of the cultural conflict that's going on today.

What I do see, though, is men and women both limited by cultural and social roles that impede the social liberty and right to self-determination that each individual in a free society must have. For each issue there are two sides. For instance, where there's a glass ceiling that limits the participation of women at high levels of government and industry, so too is there a glass gate that limits men's participation in their own families. These two things are inextricably linked.

Where there is an earnings gap with women on the losing end, so too is there a humanity value gap wherein men are defined more by their labor and economic productivity than their inherent value to their own families. These things are also inextricably linked.

[Ripley]

24. I guess I don't see any difference in feminization and feminazi.

Except that the blatant misogyny by Rush is applauded by the repubs and the blatant misogyny by Maher is laughed at by the liberals who use the old "it's just a joke" line.

Have you read the threads on DU about him? I can only recall one person other than me who said they thought he should be called on his sexist crap. And I'm not talking about his so-called intellectual sociological discussions about the changing nature of our society due to the fact that more women are in the political arena. I don't see THAT at all. I see a guy who wants it both ways. He stands up for a few liberal causes, then back-handed throws the barbs against half the countries citizens. If he wants to play that game about calling Kerry a pussy, (unlike the real War Hero Bush)...I have absolutely no reason on Earth to respect anything else he has to say.

The current backlash against women is not just the brainchild of the Christian Fundamentalists in America. It's "liberal" people who have a platform like Maher (but of course I'm just using him as an example - he clearly is not at the top of this) who really do the damage. He has legitimized the anger of men that blame women for their job loss. They blame women for being sent to jail for just slapping their wife, who deserved it. They blame women for not being able to hang a Penthouse photospread on their wall at work.

I see an incredible amount of sexism in the young men I know. They seem to be in the 1950's except for the saturation of porn everywhere they want it all...A woman who doesn't sound smarter than him, but is (they'll accept her paycheck) but she must also dress and act like a porn star.

Sexism couched in civil rights and privacy issues is still sexism nonetheless. People would not accept Maher if his "schtick" included racist statements...say he blamed the societal ills of the US on blacks and Mexicans.

[highlonesome]

27. Backlash

I hate that word and words like it. They're designed to obscure truth rather than illuminate it. There's a great George Orwell essay called "Politics and the English Language" that I read often. It can be found complete in several places on the web if you're interested.

I think part of it is that Maher -- much like me -- isn't truly "liberal" in the 21st century American politics meaning of the word. He's more classically liberal (ie free market economics, limited gov't) with contemporary liberal leanings (more equality of opportunity). Since he's that way, many of his views may seem contradictory to what a "liberal" would hold.

And here's also where I'd point out my comment regarding "begging the question." One must accept your premises as true in order to continue a discussion.

For instance:
"He has legitimized the anger of men that blame women for their job loss"
I participate in countless discussions of gender issues with men and women from both the left and the right. I've never heard any man angry at women or blaming them for the loss of jobs to men.

"They blame women for being sent to jail for just slapping their wife, who deserved it."

I've never met a man who felt that any man should be allowed to get away with slapping his wife for any reason. Most of us are taught this from birth. Usually what men have a problem with is the incredibly low level of evidence that has to be presented in order to be removed from one's home and family. I have a friend going through this now. It often coincides with divorce. In fact, their problem is with a judicial system that allows these sorts of cases to occur and drag on -- not with women in general.

"They blame women for not being able to hang a Penthouse photospread on their wall at work"

Actually what men usually don't like about this is the double standard that often occurs combined with a subjective determination of wrongdoing which leaves many feeling insecure.

[Ripley]

28. Here's why you don't "accept" my feminist remarks...

You obviously (by your ancedotal evidence) only hang around people just like yourself. You obviously have never read any studies on the subject that prove clearly men do feel that way. Ignorance is bliss. Try reading Susan Faludi, "Backlash" for starters. Dare ya.

What the hell double standard are you talking about? You mean at your workplace women have naked pictures of men on their desks and computers? Aww I feel so sorry for you. And as far as subjective determination of wrongdoing...sexual harassment is real. And it's not very subjective when my boss sits behind me, touches my long hair and comments how sexy it is and he can't wait until our next business trip.

Too subjective pal?

[highlonesome]

33. I'll decide for myself....

....why it is that I do or don't accept some of your premises. In fact, I do hang around and engage in discussions with a wide range of people -- though most of my personal friends are decidedly liberal.

As for studies that "prove" men feel a certain way about women: most that I've seen are very flawed in methodology or populations studied. Some may support the hypothesis, but none has ever "proven" it.

In general what I find people like Faludi doing is interpreting the beliefs of a minority population and then extrapolating those findings to define them as the beliefs of the majority of men. I just don't think that's the case.

While the instance you describe of a boss stroking your hair is clearly NOT subjective, the concept of the "reasonable person" standard for determining harrassment very clearly is by definition subjective. Some people may find a particular thing offensive while others may not. It is the observer who determines whether something is wrong rather than the wrong being objectively defined. It's sort of like driving a highway with no set speed limit and being ticketed simply because another driver thought you were going too fast.


On a side note: I'm doing my utmost to remain civil and on topic. Please refrain from personal attacks such as characterizing my views based in "ignorance" or deciding why it is I believe something.

[lukasahero]

29. Please don't misunderstand

I don't read the threads on Maher any more than I read the threads on Rush and for the same reason - they're nobodies in my book. They do what they do for the money and will make a joke that insults anyone that best suits their need for a ratings boost.

I absolutely agree with you that if Maher were using the word "black" instead of "women", he would be denounced in a heartbeat.

PS - I hope you don't mind, but check your inbox.

[Ripley]

31. Thanks!

Check yours.

Although I think they're "nobodies" too...I think our infotainment society has changed the way people learn and think about our culture. It bothers me, but I think these nobodies have lots of influence...

[beam me up scottie]

39. If you didn't see this earlier this year,

take a gander. It's fascinating.

Stephen J. Ducat Dissects "Anxious Masculinity," Making Sense of America's Strutting, in a Psychoanalytic Kind of Way


BuzzFlash: In your book, The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, & the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, you argue that the current positions and attitudes of the Republican Party and Bush Administration can best be viewed through a certain lens that we traditionally associate with the he-man, the virile figure--you call it the phallus. Briefly, how would you define "anxious masculinity?"

Stephen J. Ducat: In a culture based on male domination and in which most things feminine tend to be devalued, even if they are secretly envied, the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman. This powerful adult male imperative to be unlike females and to repudiate anything that smacks of maternal caretaking is played out just as powerfully in politics as it is in personal life. In fact, political contests among men are in many ways the ultimate battles for masculine supremacy. This makes disavowing the feminine in oneself and projecting it onto one’s opponent especially important. This femiphobia--this male fear of being feminine--operates unconsciously in many men as a very powerful determinant of their political behavior. It also constitutes a very significant motive for fundamentalist terrorism.

BuzzFlash: You’re drawing a parallel between the extreme right wing in the United States and the Islamic fundamentalists, in that they are both highly fearful of overbearing feminine influence?

Stephen J. Ducat: Absolutely. Femininity, for male fundamentalists, is seen as a contaminant, and there is an attempt to repudiate those aspects of one’s self that seem feminine. This is something that fundamentalists around the world share. As I argue in the last chapter of my book, there is a surprising affinity between Christian fundamentalists in this country and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists elsewhere, when it comes to this kind of devaluation, repudiation and fear of the feminine.


Much more at:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/03/int05011.html

[Ripley]

43. I agree with all of that.

But like I said, I think there are plenty of folks (mostly men) non-fundie, non-Bushbots, in fact "liberals" who use the same language, just packaged differently. I heard more than one liberal make fun of Kerry's effeminate ways (bike clothes, tan, haircuts, buddhist hand gestures etc., let his wife speak her mind).

I guess my point is that people tend to think "it can't be sexist" if a liberal said it. It had to be a joke, or it's actually true...

[beam me up scottie]

52. But that is what his book is about.

That femiphobia that has become so much a part of our society that we don't even notice it.
Femiphobia is inherent in our language, gender roles, mating rituals and is also programmed into all of us from the time we are born-men and women both. We don't even recognize it in ourselves.

I cannot paste the whole interview here but it is worth the read.

[Ripley]

58. Okay...

I'll have to read it later, I've got to run now. Thanks..I will check it out.

[Bunny]

35. Well, one thing about the protected forums. I believe the only

ones that are protected are the DU Groups. The regular forums, of which this is one, are not protected.

There was some brief discussion on another thread about forming a DU Group to discuss these kinds of issues free from disruption. We would need to get signatures from at least ten donating members, and come up with a Mission Statement, then send it to Skinner for approval.

It may become necessary to do just that. In my infrequent trips to this forum, I see people who appear to come in here just to disrupt, as if it's somehow amusing to them to see if they can "get the women-folk all shook up", or something. :eyes:

I could do without that, myself.

Bill Maher? He's amusing at times, but he is a misogynist. I don't care who he dates or screws. However, I think he dates strippers as a way to avoid becoming tied down to one woman. Because if he tried to date someone who wasn't in that "type" of profession, she may start to have very normal desires for commitment, marriage, etc. Since he has no intention of doing that, he dates strippers. At least *they* know where they stand with him. :eyes:

[highlonesome]

37. misogyny and backlash

But don't you think simply characterizing him as a misogynist (or me for that matter) or calling criticism of feminism backlash simply shuts down discussion?

I mean, all it does is completely dismiss any and all of the things Maher may have said without addressing a single one of them.

[bloom]

62. There are guidelines for "Israeli/Palestinian affairs"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x21970

So there is a precedent.

There could be guidelines for "Women's Rights and Issues" - they wouldn't have to be so extensive.

[bloom]

11. I don't watch Maher in particular

but I am happy to hear people rant about sexist "comedians" in general. I get sick of it also.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. OK, I can't stand Maher's sexism, but that being said

Have you heard of the latest effort by Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala, to get him taken off the air because of comments he made regarding the shortfall in Army recruitment numbers? Apparently, he made a quip about "low hanging fruit" in reference to Pvt. Lyndie England. The Congressman states that the comment amounts to treason!

Please. I abhor Maher's attitude toward women but I'd never call for him being yanked off the air because of it. So in this case, call me defending him. It is astounding to me that in 2005 this would be happening!

Here is the link if you want to check it out.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/5/24/115019/124

[lukasahero]

69. Must agree with you there

I especially hate it when talk of feminism turns into "you want to take away my free speech!" or "you want censorship!" because it's simply not true. I believe everyone has the right to their opinion just as I have a right to my opinion that they're wrong. ;-)

I can choose not to watch their show and if the ratings aren't good and the show is cancelled, oh well. (Hey Dennis - buh bye). I would never suggest the show be pulled because I didn't like what they had to say (wee egotistical if you ask me) and I'd never suggest they be imprisoned for it (which, oddly enough has been suggested on this very forum about feminist writers).

[Hello_Kitty]

73. Oh yes

Funny how free speech doesn't extend to criticizing them. I couldn't believe that comment about feminist writers either. When did anyone in this forum call for people we disagree with to be imprisoned? And why is a pornographer convinced he has to attack anti-porn feminists because he's afraid of being arrested when it is probably religious fundamentalists who are targetting him?

I guess when you have a persuasive and valid argument it scares people. We feminists must be very powerful indeed!

[sectorzero]

65. Maher is an amazing person - a liberated modern man who ISN'T a doormat

I'm an independent and love Bill Maher because he's honest. He says exactly how many guys feel about relationship issues, like marriage. Chris Rock and other comedians do the same. It is simply a male point of view, not a sexist one. Maher respects women as equals, listens to their ideas, and has never treated any female guest as a second class citizen.

[lukasahero]

66. "He says exactly how many guys feel about relationship issues,"

Well then see, no sexism because he says what guys really feel about women so it can't be sexist if guys feel that way. :eyes:

I'm so glad I'm married to a wonderful man who sees joy in having found a true partner in life and doesn't think of me as a chain around his neck interested in "getting him" and his money nor as his personal sex toy. These guys do exist - who speaks for them? I'd pay money to see that show.

BTW, for all the guys, most especially my husband, who you just called a doormat, well, I can't say the words I want to here. Let's just say it's not appreciated.

[sectorzero]

68. again, Maher's pov has nothing to do with sexism - it is a cultural debate

Many men do feel negatively about marriage for many reasons. This has nothing to do with sexism or hating women. It is more about relationships and how guys sometimes feel they get the raw end of the deal - both culturally and legally.

I don't see how anything Maher says falls outside the bounds of normal, mainstream, American free speech. And after all, he is Mr. Politically Incorrect.

I was not referring to married men in general as 'doormats'. I hope to find the right girl and get married some day.

I was referring to the way the media wants the modern man to be - essentially a neutered doormat - like the guys on Friends, for example. Most modern young men are more like Chris Rock and Bill Maher than Ross or Chandler.

[Bunny]

70. In your search for a marriage partner, you may want to consider

looking for a woman, and not a girl.

[bloom]

71. I noticed someone posted in the lounge recently

that Chris Rock said that men want "Food, Sex and Silence" - interestingly mirroring Maureen Dowd's column "guys want to be... with women they don't have to talk to" being discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=379&mesg_id=379


Is that the kind of "modern man" that you wish to be?

[sectorzero]

83. Rock is oversimplifying, but not wrong in his sentiment.

I think what men of my generation want is the right to our feelings. The right to sometimes want "food, sex and silence". Or a traditional wife. Or a single, wild, non-traditional lifestyle. We are the most liberated, open minded group of men to ever walk the face of the earth, and most of the time it seems that we aren't allowed the right to our own feelings.. the freedom to enjoy things that men naturally enjoy. We are constantly told that our natural desires are "wrong".

Whoever we are, whatever we do - it seems we can't win. If we are pro-marriage/monogamy - we are branded moralizing patriarchs. If we are anti-marriage/monogamy, then we are branded immature liberals/libertarians. If we are stoic and tough we are called 'insensitive' and 'crude'. If we are sensitive and nurturing, we are labeled 'wimpy' and 'boring'.

IMO, the modern man needs to follow the example of feminism. We need to define ourselves - a brotherhood - one that isn't divided along party, race, culture or class. We as men need to realize that an honorable man can be a sensitive urban metrosexual, as well as a stoic rural tough guy, and everything in between. Above all, men should respect each other as men, and unite around the values we all share. And make sure society and the politicians hear us.

[bloom]

94. "one that isn't divided along party, race, culture or class"

I don't agree that all models work equally well.

Lakoff's essay:

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html

For instance - the conservatives model where the man has all of the authority might suit the man who wants it to be all about him - but it is not equivalent to the model of shared authority. To me - to say that they are equal is like saying the economic model of having slaves do all the work is equal to to everyone having freedom. Sure - it might work out well for the man - but not for the family.

Of course you aren't going to "win" with everybody - when you have the conservatives pressing for patriarchy and liberals pressing for equality. The question is - what and whose values do you believe in?

Just like it stands to reason that people who are single are going to have a different social life - perhaps with different expectations than married people.

You wrote, We are constantly told that our natural desires are "wrong".

I don't know what you mean exactly - but it's one thing to have desires and it's another thing to violate other people. People can be liberated and still understand boundaries.

I think it sounds like you think for some reason that men are victims. To some extent we are confined by the society we live in - but I really don't think that men have it as bad as what some seem to want to believe. It's one thing for comedians to joke about relationships and it's another thing to live them.

[highlonesome]

74. Men and marriage today

I think that what scares a lot of men about marriage today is not the fear of commitment or the sacrifices one must make to be in a successful relationship as it is they fear they have so much to lose.

It scares a lot of men that they could make the huge emotional commitment to start a family and then to be basically disempowered as a member of that family. Many of us look around at male friends who end up divorced and even after doing their very best to be highly involved and engaged parents, they end up as mere visitors in their children's lives.

Add to that the punitive nature of things like the Bradley Amendment and what appears to be a lack of regard for the father child relationship and many men are turned off by marriage. It's not that they don't want marriage and family -- it's that the risk emotional and financial loss -- coupled with intense government regulation of one's life and family -- is too much to risk.

[beam me up scottie]

75. I'm not buying that.

I'm not saying you shouldn't feel that way and I have seen cases where the father's rights were disregarded but I believe it varies from state to state.
I work with a 30-something man who has full custody of his 6 year old daughter. He is a wonderful parent and his ex-wife was unwilling to commit to raising her. It's rare but becoming more commonplace for men to be granted joint or sole custody.

However, I cannot believe that all of that goes through the mind of a guy who doesn't want to commit.
They just don't want the responsibility, IMO. And that's fine, as long as they are up front about it.
Personally, I am extremely commitment-phobic and it has nothing at all to do with the custody of future children who may never even exist.

[highlonesome]

76. Just telling you what I hear

Most men are afraid to even bring the subject up around women. I did it a few times, but quickly learned my lesson.

I think some of the difference in perception has to do with awareness of the factors involved. I mean, you could say father custody is becoming more common, but in my state, it's only about as common as the kids going to foster care -- around 5%.

Another important thing to note is that joint custody doesn't really mean much of anything since it isn't really custody at all. It's simply used to describe an intent for liberal visitation and the right to see report cards and medical records, which are fairly lightly enforced.

The Bradley amendment is a big factor too. Imagine going to court if you lose your job or become underemployed and having to beg for a reduction in support -- which is quite often turned down. I think the guideline is that a person has to experience a 15% reduction in gross income before a modification is considered. So if a guy's paying 17% of gross for one child -- around 30% of net, then you knowk off another 15% gross, 30% net, that guy's got a loss of 60% of his net income. How are you supposed to maintain a place for your kids to come visit under those circumstances?

And there's hardly an ounce of sympathy for a man in that circumstance.

You may not be buying it and that's your choice. Imagine, though if a man approached a woman with a pre-nup that had her sign away custody to any future children and guarantee that she pay him quite a bit of money -- under threat of jail -- until the child is 21. How many women do you think would see that as a good deal? Add that on top of how hard it already is to commit for life, and you see why many men are shying away from marriage.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Bullshit.

And I mean that in the most respectful way.

Say you fall in love with a person who is willing to settle down and raise a family and you admire that person's character so much that you want to marry them.
You are telling me that you will decide NOT TO because of the fear that that person will take you to court for every penny you own while keeping you away from your kids?

Bullshit.

If you really believe your girlfriend is capable of sticking it to you after you marry and have kids, why would you even consider committing?

[highlonesome]

78. Not that simple

From what I can see, it's largely a product of the adverserial court system.

Lokk at it this way: When the government decides that there will be a winner and a loser in family relationships if the mariage ends, most people will fight tooth and nail to not be the loser where their families are concerned.

I've seen it lots of times -- families where both parents are fairly decent people, but when faced with being a parent or a visitor, the gloves come off.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Again, why would you

commit to a person you cannot trust? (and have children with them)

It's a cop out.

[highlonesome]

80. people marry....

....people that they feel they can trust every day and in the end it often ends up badly.

It really has nothing to do with whether you think you can trust someone or not. These days when you start a family you're practically starting it with the government as much as with the other person. To me, that's where the problem lies.

I still haven't been able to find where in the Constitution government is granted the power to alter someone's parental status absent the breaking of some law.

[beam me up scottie]

81. You just proved my point.

Your earlier post:

"I think that what scares a lot of men about marriage today is not the fear of commitment or the sacrifices one must make to be in a successful relationship as it is they fear they have so much to lose.

It scares a lot of men that they could make the huge emotional commitment to start a family and then to be basically disempowered as a member of that family. Many of us look around at male friends who end up divorced and even after doing their very best to be highly involved and engaged parents, they end up as mere visitors in their children's lives."

And just now:

"It really has nothing to do with whether you think you can trust someone or not. These days when you start a family you're practically starting it with the government as much as with the other person. To me, that's where the problem lies."

When most people marry they believe it is forever. If you are worried about what will happen when it doesn't work, you shouldn't commit.

[sectorzero]

82. google "marriage strike"

Most men aren't that vocal about what's bothering them.

The men of this generation, realizing the deck is stacked against them, have chosen instead to pursue a career, date many women, and if things get serious - live together. And avoid marriage at all costs. This phenomena has been dubbed a "marriage strike".

[Ripley]

84. I have no idea what you are talking about.

How is the deck stacked against men in American society?

I believe it is women who over the last 30 years have been the ones to decide to pursue a career (since they were finally allowed to enter any college of choice and pursue any career of choice), date whatever number of men they desired and cohabitate instead of marry (since the laws changed forcing women to have a husband or father co-sign loans, etc.).

But I see you are determined to make this about men and how it is only men who are avoiding marriage. I must admit I don't know the statistics for "this generation" (20-somethings?), but I would guess it is mutual that women and men are delaying marriage for a variety of reasons.

I don't think using the example of one sitcom is a good indicator of how society pushes men to act like "neutered doormats." And since I have never watched that show, I don't know if what you are saying is accurate. However, I could give you dozens of example of how TV shows, movies, video games, etc. encourage men to be aggressive, promiscuous, sexist, dominators...in fact the exact opposite of what you claim.

[highlonesome]

85. I dnn't think he means....

...that the deck is stacked against men in general, but that it's stacked against men where relationships and marriage are concerned.

The way I look at it is that family relationships -- parents to children and vice versa -- have changed from what was once considered to be an inalienable right (first amendment, tenth amendment, 14th amendment) to one that is contractual. By that I mean that absent wrongdoing or lawbreaking, gov't has the power to re-define the family relationship, ie changing someone from a parent to a "visitor."

The fact of the matter is that the contract when determined most of the time (90% in NY state) is negotiated to the advantage of women based mainly on social convention. This is where the deck is stacked against men -- not in society in general.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Google "bullshit".

Did anybody tell you that we don't appreciate quotes, ideology, articles or any other "phenomena" from reichwing shills?
If not, I'm telling you now.

How dare you come in here and spout sexist propaganda?

Where did you learn the term "Marriage Strike"?

Possibly from this article:

"The Marriage Strike - Why are men reluctant to marry?"
by Wendy McElroy

which was posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963373/posts

Wendy McElroy hates her own sex more than Ann Coulter does. She is a rabid anti-feminist and is quoted frequently by the reichwing.

The term "Marriage Strike" was coined by Matt Weeks.

This is the same Matt Weeks whose opinion of the ruling by the California Supreme Court that states "a withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse."

was this:

"Do I need to connect the dots? In the hands of the right appealate court (i.e., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which would be the next court to hear this case), the working definition of rape could be extended to include any sexual intercourse that one party changes their mind about (regrets) after it's over. Theoretically, any woman who had a sexual encounter with a man could be spurned by him weeks or months afterward and decide that she didn't really want to have sex with him after all and bring him up on rape charges.

Hell, if you wanted to turn it the other way around, a guy who got drunk one night and took home a rather homely woman for a one-night stand, then woke up the next morning and regretted ever doing it could bring the woman up on a rape charge, claiming that he would have never given his consent if he had seen what she looked like without beer goggles on."

He even posted a "LEGAL WAIVER" that women need to sign before having sex with him.
http://www.mattweeks.com/calscrape.htm

So please pardon the fuck out of me if I don't believe your explanation of this "phenomena".



edited to add link

[lukasahero]

87. Kudos!

:applause: :headbang: :woohoo: :loveya:

Thanks for finding that. I had no idea.

[Ripley]

89. Yowza!

Thanks for calling him on that...I pretty much figured the "modern day liberal man's marriage strike" was crap.

That quote from Weeks is so offensive I don't know where to begin. The absolute outright full-frontal attack on the subject of rape in his diatribe is exactly the kind of shit I hear from people like their heroes Maher, etc.

[beam me up scottie]

90. You definitely don't want

to read his other articles then.

Big surprise-he's a champion for persecuted, oppressed, straight white republican males everywhere.

[Ripley]

92. Figured as much.

Funny how they latch onto the bullshit that Maher, Rock, etc. use and use it as a defense for their "modern liberal man" sexist dogma. See what I mean about how Maher is enabling?

[highlonesome]

91. IT'S not a strike....

....which would imply some sort of organized and conscious movement which it's not. It's simply a social and economic pressure AWAY from marriage and family that many men are responding to independently.

Also, because someone like Matt Weeks or others may write about it in a right wing vein doesn't mean that this trend isn't occurring.

For example two different feminists -- one a radical feminist and the other more moderate -- can point out an identical social trend, yet arrive at very different language for how to describe it.

[beam me up scottie]

93. It's all over the internet.

How do you think propaganda spreads?
This started with one bitter, misogynistic crybaby.
Here is the study it was based on:

#####
"Why Men Won't Commit: Exploring Young Men's Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage," a study released by researchers Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University

The study contains several possible explanations for this phenomenon, based on interviews with 60 single men, 25 to 33, who live in four parts of the country. While that level of measurement certainly is not statistically significant enough to reflect any kind of a national trend, responses generally revolved around the possibilities of suffering huge losses if the marriage ends in divorce. ("An ex-wife will take you for all you've got" and "men have more to lose financially than women" were common refrains, the study reports.)
#####

Original study here:
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2002.htm

WOW, 60 men! Now there's a "trend".
Just like the "activist judges" and the "liberal media", right?




crap! edited to add link

[Swamp Rat]

95. HAHA!!!

BUSTED!!! :D



beam me up scottie wins the sleuthing prize of the day! :)

Since we know freeptards are reading this thread... GO ENLIST YOU CANDY ASSES!!! What are you doing picking on these fine women here? You should be helping your prezeldent get his oil. So don't be unpatriotic COWARDS, go sign up for combat in Iraq TODAY! NO EXCUSES!!! ... and STOP doing THAT! You'll grow hair on your palms and go blind.

[beam me up scottie]

96. YUCK!

This place is crawling with them. I just saw another one go POOF!
The mods are on the ball today!

[FizzFuzz]

98. oh GOD you are tooooo FUNNY!

The more I read you, SwampRat, the more I wanna shake your hand!

:D

YOu rule!

Mr Fuzz is in New Orleans today, wish I could be with him, I'd tell ya to meet us at Cafe Du Monde.

[Swamp Rat]

99. I vote "Ebola Virus" for the new rethuglican mascot.

:D

Hmm... I'm drinking an iced mocha I made myself, but I don't have any begnets. :( Tell your hubby to go to Frenchman St. in the Marigny and avoid Bourbon St. in the Quarter, if he prefers music (Jazz, Funk, Latin, Blues) over drunk rednecks showing their body parts for cheap Chinese beads. ;)

[Solly Mack]

88. I wipe my ass with terms like that

I'm just saying...that's all it's fit for

[beam me up scottie]

67. Who, or what is a DOORMAT?

I'm curious.

[Hello_Kitty]

72. Newsflash to Regular Guys:

Bill Maher, Chris Rock, Howard Stern et. al. are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES!!
They are not regular guys by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe they used to be many moons ago but now they live priveleged lives in a rarefied world the vast majority of us will never experience. So take their words to heart and become a bitter date-less dude who complains about women he doesn't even know if you want to. Those guys will just rake in the money and date models.