Sexism and Prejudice. Not Just For Men Any More.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

The amount of male bashing threads lately in regards to the abortion issue is really getting out of hand. They are sexist and show a prejudice towards men. Abortion is not a men vs women issue on any level in reality. Saying so is misguided, sexist, offensive and not grounded by any reasonable fact.

What has disturbed me the most about all these types of threads is not just their context, but the eagerness of so many posters to jump in and praise this falsity.

This is a progressive site. One of the things that I am proudest of on DU is our ability to reason, research, analyze, be objective and intellectually bring the facts to the forefront while shunning ignorance. DU has opened my mind in so many ways and to so many different things that I may never have learned the facts to otherwise. This is my attempt to pass that spirit forward. Before being so eager to bash, blame and demonize men for the abortion issue in the future, I ask that you click the below links so that facts can become available.

Thanks.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=738

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=88

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111502.html

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=820 (starting at Question 14)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I supported the fellows here at DU

in a post on one of those threads, and got a lecture in return. Personally, I think the important thing right now is to all work together and protect all our freedoms. (BTW, I'm a lady, not a fellow :))

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Thank You.

I agree. We must always do our best to respect each other and fight the good fight together. Unfortunately, if you even scan right now the first page of GD, there are still threads with the blatant sexism running rampant. It really is a shame, but I do appreciate all those that see it for what it is and are not sexist or prejudiced one way or the other. :)

[BattyDem]

3. I assume my post is one of those that trouble you ...

so please allow me to explain where I'm coming from. By the way, I'm not mad and I'm not trying to start a forum fight, I just want you and all DU men to understand why the SD law has got us ladies so upset. :-)

The reality is that both State and Federal legislatures are made up of (almost) all men, so of course, we women are blaming the men for taking our rights away. How is it sexist to blame those who are writing the laws? How is it misguided to direct our anger toward men who spearheading the campaign to get these laws on the books? :shrug:

I know that there are plenty of guys who believe in choice and I'm grateful for their support, but how many of those pro-choice guys (especially in Red States) continue to vote for anti-choice candidates because those candidates are against gay marriage? :eyes: As a result, we have ended up with RW fundies controlling that government and I am so fed up with rich, Christian, white guys playing God with MY body and my life! What makes it even more degrading is the fact that these laws have no exception for rape, incest or HEALTH! What am I ... a f*cking breeding machine? An embryo is more important than me? Suddenly, my life doesn't matter??? Women pay taxes, too - yet our rights are always the first to go because we don't matter to the government.

Can you imagine a pharmacist refusing to sell Viagra or condoms to a man? Do you honestly believe they would get away with that? Do you honestly believe there would be politicians writing bills that would legally allow them to get away with that? Can you think of any circumstance where the government would not allow a healthy, adult man to make his own decision about what happens to his body? Of course not! It would never happen. But it is happening to women! (Don't say "assisted suicide" because that law applies equally to everyone - it's not gender specific, so it's not the same thing.)

OPERATIONMINDCRIME, I'm not trying to beat up on you or any man. I understand what you're saying, but please try to understand how women feel about this and why we're angry. I know abortion is not a men vs women issue and that pro-choice men have a stake in all this ... but their stake is hardly equal to that of a woman. When a woman's rights are taken away, she is the one who will suffer the most. It's her life that's turned upside down. She's the one who has to endure nine months of an unwanted pregnancy. She's the one who will be facing "the hanger" and possibly even death. She's the one who will be faced with the decision to keep the child or put it up for adoption. If that child is a product of rape, she's the one who has to deal with that as well. And what if the rapist gets visitation rights? Another "choice" will be forced upon her by law ... what happens to her then? Or what if the pregnancy is complicated and leaves her unable to have children in the future. Should a 16 year old girl be condemned to a life of infertility because the law wouldn't allow her to end a risky pregnancy?

Frankly, as a woman, I feel like I'm under attack by fundamentalist, Christian men and my government is not protecting me. Instead, my government is working with them! Do you have any idea how frightening that is?

It's mostly men who are making these laws. That's not prejudiced .. that's not misguided ... that's not sexism ... that's reality. And a few months ago, I remember reading something (on DU) about the DNC "welcoming" pro-life candidates into the fold. That tells me that even some pro-choice, Democratic men are willing to compromise on MY RIGHTS in order to get votes. So yes ... I'm pissed off at men when it comes to this issue. Not all men ... but certainly the small-minded, bigoted, control freaks that are taking my rights away and the men who refuse to take a stand to stop it.

DU is a place for us to vent. We're angry and we're scared. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say that it is not my intention to bash all men. You guys on DU are the best! You get it ... you really do get it. :hug: But sometimes we need to bitch about the guys that don't get it, because lately, they seem to be popping up EVERYWHERE! :-(

We're all on the same side, but we ladies have a bit more at stake and we tend to get emotional about it. Sorry guys ... it's nothing personal, so please cut us a little slack on this issue. :-)

[jpgray]

4. Guess who makes up more than half the US population?

Women. Your latest rationale is this:

"The reality is that both State and Federal legislatures are made up of (almost) all men,"

Guess who votes these men into office? I'm not interested in blaming a single gender for these anti-choice wackos, but those who are need better arguments.

[TahitiNut]

6. Yep. There are about 6-7 million more women voters than men.

Due to their greater overall numbers, there are probably more 'anti-choice' women than men. That's how the polls fall out.

[BattyDem]

7. I post a heartfelt explanation and it's met with hostility.

Well, I tried.


Listen ... I'm not happy with the idiots who voted these nutjobs into office, just as I am not happy with the idiots who voted Bush** into office. You're right. Women voted for them as well. But once a person holds an office, they are responsible for the laws they write and sign ... and the fact remains that it is mostly men who are writing and signing these laws.

Every poll shows that Americans want abortion to remain legal, so the legislators obviously don't give a shit what the people think. Why should they? They have Diebold on their side.

So yes, I will continue to blame those that are directly responsible for taking away my rights. And no, I'm not blaming all men ... I made that very clear in my original post.


I'm sorry if I offended you, but I'm a woman ... how can you not understand why this picture pisses me off?

[mondo joe]

8. Unless you believe men can only represent men and women can

only represent women, your anger is misplaced. Men AND women voted for these bozos to represent them.

[BattyDem]

17. Oh boy ... maybe I'm not explaining myself very well

Right now, I'm angry. Not at all men ... ONLY THOSE MEN THAT SIGNED THE LAW and others like them who are trying to do the same thing in other states. For them, this is very much about gender. They are trying to subjugate women simply because they are women. That is what this is all about: control.

I don't understand why I'm not supposed to be angry at them for their sexist, misogynistic laws? Why am I sexist for being angry about their sexism? :shrug:


Think about it this way ...

Day after day, there are hundreds of posts on DU that bitch about Bush**. NO ONE ever says, "Well, you shouldn't be angry at Bush** for destroying the country. Your anger is misplaced. After all, half the country voted to put him in office, so you should be blaming all those people."

Yet, you guys are telling me that I shouldn't be angry at the men who signed the laws because it was both men and women who voted to put them into office.

(NOTE: I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm just trying to explain myself, OK? :-))

I am angry for the people who voted for ALL those nutjobs, but it doesn't change the fact that the elected officials are the ones who are directly responsible for making the laws ... and they happen to be men. If they were women, believe me, I'd be VERY pissed off at my own gender right now!

Honestly guys ... it's nothing personal. I don't hate you or blame you for anything. It's those RW fundie, whacko men that I'm angry with! :-)

[mondo joe]

40. You continue to speak of them as if they are more responsible than

the people who vote for them as representatives.

If you accept that they are elected representatives, their gender is not material.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. I agree with what you're saying

But I think that, as you say, you haven't been making yourself as clear as you could.

"I am angry with men" can mean either "I am angry with some people who are men" or "I am angry with all people who are men".

The former makes perfect sense, and is what you clearly meant; but it wasn't totally clear that you didn't mean the latter, and I worry that a non-trivial number of DUers actually do mean the latter when they say it.

[LostinVA]

45. I understand what you're saying, and I agree

And there's something many people don't understand about some of these women voting these dudes into office: we aren't talking about "normal" adult women here. Many of them are quite literally brainwashed, and have been since they were little children. Girls raised in repressive homes don't usually go on to rebel and become some huge Leftie -- or not until they are well into adulthood. Most of them marry into the same type of controlling relationship their mothers did, and are quite literally controlled by their husbands and preachers. It's am very sad reality. I have some in my extended family. And, as much as their votes anger me, I also can't help but feel sorry for them.

99% of the "male bashing" threads are NOT male bashing. I love men -- they make up the bulk of my closest friends -- I just don't want to sleep with them! However, this is very much a bunch of men deciding on what a woman can do. Not ALL men. But, you have to understand how visceral it is to us to see these grinning white dudes on TV... kinda like I suspect many African American folks felt back in the day, seeing a bunch of grinning white dudes making laws against them, too. And, those thoughts they had and words MLK spoke were not racist.

[TahitiNut]

52. What if abortion were prohibited ONLY for a male fetus? a female fetus?

What if aborting a female fetus were required when the population of females exceeded 51%? (Once reproductive rights become subject to state control, anything becomes possible.)

I realize such a rhetorical question will be regarded by most as bizarre and irrelevant, but I think many lose sight of what 'sexist' really means.

Let's try to remember that the anti-choice crowd is composed of more females than males.

[dogday]

53. Maybe it would be understood better if the guys

were told whether or not they can be circumcised per say... They hear this huge deal being made out of it in the news, discussion boards, etc... They hear the ladies expressing their opinion and wonder why because they will not have deal with this procedure...

Men how would you like it if you were told you had to have a circumcision regardless, because it is the law, it would be better for you... How would you feel about this?

I am curious if it was happening to you men, how would you deal with it?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. I Would Be Every Bit As Angry. I Just Wouldn't Be Sexist About It. n/t

[GumboYaYa]

167. Minor point, no one asked me before they clipped.....

[The Straight Story]

62. I think the point is - there is no real need to invoke gender in it

Had it been mostly women who voted for this it still would not be any less troubling.

When they pass laws against smoking I don't point out who is a smoker or not, I just think whoever voted for such and such is an idiot.

People in power - aka our government - want to control our bodies and what we put in our bodies and do with them. Which is why I am for less power for governments, especially the feds.

Freedoms are slipping away daily. And while I am not comparing abortion rights to smoking in bars I think the base is similar - people telling others they think something they are doing is wrong and trying to legislate it 'for the common good'.

As a christian myself I want people to have the right to do the things they choose, so that I too can do the things I choose (ie, worship my god in my own way, not the lutheran way, or the catholic way, et al).

Gender is not the basis for those votes, government being restrictive over we the people is and if we fought all such issues as strongly as the abortion one we might be further ahead on the freedom curve than we are now.

One can esily say 'men should not be allowed to make laws that affect women and their bodies' well I would say it as 'people should not be allowed to tell me and other private citizens what we can do with our bodies'. Choice is whittled away daily and justified in many ways, some much so that people buy into it all the time.

South Dakota is saying that a pregnant woman is a bar and she is carrying a patron and she cannot do anything that may harm said patron. The woman says 'it is my body/bar and I can do with it as I please' and I agree with the woman's side on this. Choice is good - limiting choice is limiting freedom - across the board, no matter the gender, we are giving away our freedoms and rationalizing how good such things are. Currently SD is rationalizing how what they are doing is 'saving a life'.

Again - smoking in bars is not same as abortion, I am sure I will get hell over that analogy - it is though similar in the methods of removing choices in GENERAL.

[jpgray]

9. Your explanation was hostile

The reality is that both State and Federal legislatures are made up of (almost) all men, so of course, we women are blaming the men for taking our rights away. How is it sexist to blame those who are writing the laws? How is it misguided to direct our anger toward men who spearheading the campaign to get these laws on the books?

You should judge lawmakers not by their gender, but by the content of their character. Taking the opposite side of your logic, men should be your heroes because most of the legislators fighting for the right to choose are male.

[BattyDem]

10. I referred to them as RW fundies, so I did address their character

and I am not judging them solely on gender.

I've been around here long enough for everyone to know that I DO consider all sides of an issue and I judge people on their actions, not their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

But this issue got to me, OK? So sue me! Re-read my original post. What I was trying to say is that it's an EMOTIONAL issue for us women. We see men signing laws and taking rights away from us and the immediate response is to get pissed off at men. I did apologize for that in my OP and I tried to explain why it was happening - I also asked that DU guys cut us a little slack because we're angry and scared. I have three nieces and I'm terrified for them. I don't know what else to say to make you understand why that is. I'm sorry if you're offended. Honestly, it's not my intention to offend anyone. I'm not angry at men ... I'm angry at THOSE men! :-)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. " most of the legislators fighting for the right to choose are male"

because MOST of the legislators are male! Yet women are half the population. That's what she's getting at... at least part of it.

on edit: clarification and quotes.

[BattyDem]

21. Please read this post ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=601054&mesg_id=602398

Everyone seems to believe thatanger should be directed at the male/female voters and not the male legislators. That post explains why I don't think that's true.

I don't know what else to say. I'm not blaming all men for the situation, yet no matter what I say, that's the impression you all are getting. I'm stumped. :-)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. I'm not getting that impression... that you are blaming all males

just the ones that signed this bill, who happen to be mostly men.

I guess I didn't explain my thoughts very well either. I blame that on the educational system! :P


on edit: freeper-type spelling.

[BattyDem]

26. Thank you!

:hug:

[jpgray]

22. That's why her argument makes no sense to me

She's saying it doesn't matter who voted for the politician (we have a majority of women voters in this country), she's saying it matters what the politicians do, and because the politicians who write anti-choice legislation are largely male it's okay to blame men for anti-choice legislation. I'm saying that if you turn her argument's logic around around, she would have to thank men for protecting her right to choose, since the majority of legislators who fight to protect the right to choose are male. Both of these are just symptoms of our male-dominated legislatures, and don't really allow us to wholesale blame a single gender for the attack on the right to choose.

[BattyDem]

30. I am very grateful to the men who have protected my rights!

But that doesn't mean I'm grateful to all men. And being angry at the men who are taking my rights away, doesn't mean I'm angry at all men. I don't understand why this is an illogical position? :shrug:

I'm grateful to progressive, supportive men; I'm pissed at the RW fundie Neanderthals. What's the problem? :-)

[jpgray]

34. That's a perfectly logical position, and I apologize for misunderstanding

I just hate the male vs. female tilt of these arguments--my support for the right to choose has nothing to do with my gender, and everything to do with who I am as a person.

[BattyDem]

35. I know. It's an emotional issue ...

and honestly, it was never my intention to suggest that all men are to blame. I know that being pro-choice has nothing to do with gender. Believe me, I am very grateful to pro-choice men because the fact is, men DO control the government and it's those men that have protected my rights all these years.

As a woman, I find this whole issue to be very frightening and it's a fear that no man can relate to, no matter how supportive or progressive he is. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just that ... well ... think of it this way: a lady can't relate to getting kicked in the groin, you know? She'll never understand why a guy fears it so much. It's just one of those things that you can't possibly comprehend unless you face it personally. Does that help you to understand where I'm coming from? :-)


Thank you for supporting my right to choose. :hug:

[jpgray]

36. If kick-in-the-groin legislation comes up, I'd trust you to vote on it

:D

[BattyDem]

37. You've got my support ... 100%!

:toast:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

129. Perhaps the more troubling problem

is the fact that men have such a lopsided majority, not only in assbackwards states like South Dakota, but also at the federal level. I can guarantee that a legislature made up of a female majority wouldn't be pulling stupid stunts like the Iraq war and the SD abortion ban. I wish that more women would run for office, and that more could be elected. The US would be a far happier place.

Just know that the men here at DU support the fight against the SD law, and anything that abrogates a woman's ability to make her own reproductive and medical choices. It just seems that the backlash is increasingly including us (men) here at DU. I don't think the OP was specifically referring to you, but I have a growing list of frankly disturbing comments from the women here at DU that I've saved to remind me that it's not only men that are sexist pigs.

Peace. :hippie:

[BattyDem]

140. I do know that DU men are supportive. I said that above (in my first post)

Honestly ... I never meant to suggest that DU men (and other pro-choice men) were at fault or that I blamed them for something. I'm still not exactly sure why anger at a SPECIFIC group of men was interpreted as general sexism or hostility toward all men. I've always tried to make it clear in my posts that I wasn't referring to all men. (My original post on the topic clearly was addressed to only SD men ... but perhaps, to avoid offending anyone, I should have gotten even more specific and said "Men of the SD Legislature", LOL!)

I don't know if the OP was specifically referring to me or if my thread was just one of many threads that offended him. It doesn't really matter. I just wanted DU men to understand that I was not suggesting that all men are to blame for this problem. Many, many men have protected women's rights over the years and I'm grateful to them. But ... I'm also very angry at those men that treat me like an object by denying me the right to control my own body and make my own decisions. That's not sexism ... it's just good, old-fashioned anger! ;-)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

147. Get as angry as you want, it's definitely justified in my eyes

And most men here would say that it's entirely justified. Personally, I don't think you were being sexist, but I have seen the comments (comments that wouldn't be tolerated if the genders were reversed) by a few other DU women, and like I said, I've saved many of them. Some of that anger is justified, and I understand it as the letting loose of frustrations over a system that is broken. I just wish that those few DU women who have made ill thought out remarks would understand that they are starting to alienate the men who DO support them. I don't lump you in with that group. Anger is one thing; hurtful and offensive comments are another.

Don't let go of the anger, it is what drives the entire movement right now. I much prefer angry :mad: to complacent:boring:.


:hi:

[BattyDem]

149. Oh, I didnt realize ...

that there were genuinely sexist comments posted. I'd be angry about that, too. I guess I got confused because my post got so much (unexpected) attention and then the guys got mad. However, I didn't really see how expressing anger over the SD situation was sexist because I was just trying to make a point and "stick it" to the bastards who attacked our rights. :-)

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. :hi:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

150. Keep "sticking it to em" :-)

I'd say "you go girl", but my wife says it's a sexist phrase. :P

What we need now is an organized offensive. I understand that Planned Parenthood has already started, and I've earmarked some money for a donation. But any helpful information about the fight here at DU has been lost in the general hubbub. I expect things will calm down by next week, and we can all get down to the business of fighting the war against these bastards.:patriot:

[BattyDem]

151. Oh no ... "you go girl" is a sexist phrase?

Jeez ... someone better send me an updated handbook or something! ;-)

[EvolveOrConvolve]

152. An updated handbook??

I need a handbook period. Or at least a short FAQ. I'm only 32 years old and already horribly outdated. Oh well... :-)

[Katherine Brengle]

25. excellent point, thank you. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

12. "I post a heartfelt explanation and it's met with hostility."

Welcome to my world on this board.

[BattyDem]

18. Awwwww

:hug:

[Katherine Brengle]

27. lol--heartfelt or not, any serious feminist response is met w/ hostility,

here and everywhere else in our society...

I've given up caring if mine are met with hostility.

[BattyDem]

32. You're right.

Silly me ... I never learn. I don't know if that's the result of my being "batty" ... or the cause of it! ;-)

But I still don't understand why being angry at sexist men makes me a sexist. :shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

38. it's turnabout, i suppose...

It's a very easy way to negate your "opponent's" opinion or statement--it's like "reverse racism"

[LostinVA]

46. Unfortunately, some posters on DU equate a serious feminist response

with male bashing. The same old argument for 30+ years,a nd I'm sick of it. A serious race civil rights response is not equated with racism by most. It's muystifying.... I do not hate men at all!

[mondo joe]

47. But, LostinVA, I've never seen you make the sort of male bashing

comments that HAVE been made. So I don't think the backlash is about a serious feminist response, but about unfortunate remarks likely made out of frustration and anger and fear - but poorly worded, nonetheless.

[LostinVA]

51. Point taken, Mondo Joe

imo... being friends with certain women -- certain things are a real hot-button issue with them... usually due to some kind of emotional or physical abuse. They are like the "angry black man" with a so-called chip on their shoulder. Some people internalize stuff better -- I guess I do. Sometimes I don't agree with what they say, but I understand what they are saying -- it's not an anti-male thing, it's a cry from the heart. However, I CAN see how you and others would see it that way.

That being said, I will also say this: On DU, we have some (supposed) male posters who are very misogynistic, and they love flocking to certain threads and spreading their seeds of discord under the pretense of "male bashing," etc. Conversely, there are some (supposed)female posters who also love sowing discord. You know what, Mondo? THEY SUCK. Because they take away from a needed discussion about this.

So... give some of the women on this board a little slack when you think they may be male bashing, just like I give some of you guys the same slack when you're being over sensitive about this stuff. I know most of you are pretty nice guys, and I respect you, even if I don't always agree with you.

Let's all promise to try not to be so harsh with one another -- we need to stick together!

[mongo]

59. I've never seen you make a sexist response

But to hit on the analogy on civil rights --

When people talk about civil rights, they mostly make statements like "racists say...." or "we need to stand up to racists who..."

But when it is about sexism against women, the arguments usually get phrased as "men say..." or "we need to stand up to men who..."

Perhaps if some of these valid arguments where phrased as "sexists who...", they wouldn't be received with negativity.

[Triana]

73. It's a way to divert attention from the issues at hand that affect women..

...so they don't have to deal with them. IE:

"oh! Oh! LOOKIE over here what YOU did wrong! Tsk!" - then this becomes the subject of the debate rather than the issue of mostly male govermnents subjugating and controlling women, or the abuse, repression, and oppression of women in modern society - which neither very many men or too many women (the rightwingnut women) seem to want to deal with.

And I agree with the posters who also blame the idiot women who vote for these mysogenist nutjobs in gov't. THEY are not to be excused from blame either. What kind of IDIOT woman votes for a politician who is against her own best interests and who is against the best interest of her life and health? THAT'S what's batty. I blame them ALL!

Diverting attention from the issue because some guys are feeling insecure and defensive won't solve it. Men AND women have to work together to get these bastards out of office. We're all on the same side here, aren't we?

[mondo joe]

134. How do you get from "some guys are feeling insecure" to "we're all on the

same side" anyway?

If we're all on the same side we ought to be equally considerate and equally respectful.

[Bake]

80. Some, however, confuse male-bashing

with a serious feminist response.

Gosh, how can ANY white folk POSSIBLY truly support, much less understand, the civil rights movement?

:sarcasm:

Bake

[LostinVA]

95. I hope you're not talking to me

Because I'm white, and certainly understand that many white Americans marched with DR. King, and continue his legacy today.

[Marie26]

127. There's a trend

I'm almost afraid to post here. Sometimes, it seems, like pro-women or feminist positions are immediately equated w/male-bashing, but it isn't the same thing at all. Someone can be for women's rights w/o hating men or blaming men for every wrong. Male-bashing does exist, of course. But a lot of times, there seems to be the assumption that feminist = anti-men, & I don't think that's true.

[CTLawGuy]

56. these issues are so emotional to a lot of people

More power to you to make rational and moral arguments in favor of what's right!

:toast:

[Marie26]

126. Thanks for posting that

I thought you gave a very good explanation of your feelings on this issue, which is what the OP was looking for. So, just wanted to say that your post did reach many of us. :hug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Agreed. Though I Didn't Agree 100%, I Definitely Appreciated The Response

and was quite satified in the attempt at communication, compromise and understanding. :)

[BattyDem]

148. Thank you for posting.

I'm glad I was able to mend a few fences. :hug:

I unintentionally offended a lot of DUers. What's worse is that my explanations and apologies seem to be making some people even angrier at me, LOL! Sometimes a BBS is the most difficult way to communicate! :crazy:

[LuckyLib]

133. Take a look at the photo. That says it all. My 85 year old mother

(with whom I've exchanged probably 1 minute of conversation about abortion over the years) took one look and said, "Ever notice how all the men gather 'round for these momentus legislative decisions about women's lives?" I was astounded. The photo says it all.

[BattyDem]

146. What a great quote!

A toast to your grandmother! :toast:

[raccoon]

54. self delete nt

[zanne]

67. Excuse me, but...

After thousands of years of oppression, enslavement and abuse, I think we're allowed to be a little pissed. So please excuse the pout. After you've had a history like that, we can talk about it.

[TahitiNut]

84. "thousands of years of oppression, enslavement and abuse"???

I don't believe anyone here is that old. :silly:

Permit me, for a moment, to draw a material distinction between the heritage of racial bigotry and the non-heritage of sexism. Descendants of slaves actually and literally inherit both the race and the disadvantage borne by their ancestors. The descendants of oppressed racial minorities who've been deprived of social, political, and economic equity quite literally inherit the disadvantages in exactly the same sense that Junior has inherited enormous advantages enjoyed by his ancestors - both having absolutely nothing to do with their own efforts. The impact of historical gender disadvantages are not inherited along gender lines! As the son of a single mother, my inheritance of her disadvantages are every bit the same as the daughter of a single mother. To belabor the obvious - gender itself isn't inherited. (Nor is sexual orientation, but that's another discussion.) To the same extent, Junior's daughters (Jenna and Barbara) have an inheritance that has nothing to do with their gender. Thus, all disadvantage stemming from sexism is contemporaneous, NOT an accumulation over "thousands of years" in any sense!

It's a seductive kind of rhetoric, I must admit, to hyperbolically claim the generational disadvantage akin to multigenerational racism ... but it's demeaning and dismissive of those for whom that's a significant reality and an intellectual dishonesty to claim an inherited disadvantage that just doesn't exist!

</rant>

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[GirlinContempt]

118. I'm a woman, and I agree with him.

[CTyankee]

159. Your argument doesn't cut it

I have seen women make tremendous strides over my 66 years of life. My mother was born before women could vote, go to some elite colleges, play sports (almost)on an equal par with men, compete in the job market more equitably, have an abortion, etc. The bars to them were rooted in past, if not ancient, taboos against women that deeply infused our religious institutions and were reflected in our laws.

What we are seeing is a rise of these old taboos, despite being beaten back for just a few short years. I would like to see that you are right but now I truly fear that this kind of hatred and fear of women is so deepdown that it is just a matter of time until it comes roaring back with full steam ahead, as if it had never been squelched, just driven underground.

A chill wind does indeed blow...

[TahitiNut]

161. You misinterpret what I've said, then.

I made no claims regarding the outlook for eradicating sexism or the degree to which it's embedded in our society. I spoke solely to the individual inheritance of disadvantage.

Look. A black in this country not only faces contemporary racism and all the impacts that implies, but inherits the disadvantages that his/her parents faced. That's because race is inherited along with the social and economic advantages/disadvantages one's parents had. In a lesser but still significant sense, with some differences, a Jew is born into a circumstance which is, itself, disadvantaged to the degree his/her parents faced pervasive bigotry.

So, the impact on these people is not only the result of disadvantages they individually face in their pursuit of happiness, the very starting line for that 'pursuit' imposes a handicap as a result of that same bigotry in the past.

This is NOT the case with sexism. We all have both mothers and fathers, at least initially. It's NOT a case of females begetting females and males begetting males. Thus, there's really no comparison in the multigenerational impact of racism to sexism.

This really isn't arguable. It's obvious. It's invalid for victims of sexism to claim some relative 'compound interest' of disadvantage on multigenerational grounds.

[CTyankee]

166. Well any female born into privilege and wealth

and all of the advantages of class cannot, despite every advantage, become a priest in the RC Church. She can't because people who lack penises cannot, by definition, become an RC priest. That was my point about inherited sexism. She's born that way.

[TahitiNut]

170. At the same time ...

... Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, and Catharine the Great inherited privelege and power that absolutely no black or Jew in their societies could possibly aspire to. "Inheritance" of advanatage/disadvantage is not about being born a female or male; it's about being born of a race or ethnicity with parents who pass on the results of their own oppression.

[CTyankee]

172. But only because there was no male heir with precedence

It sure as hell wasn't meant that way. Please. Penis ownership has long been the inherited key to opportunity, wealth, and membership into the elite few (in the world's first democracy, Athens, females had no public role along with slaves and children). Who are we kidding here?

[TahitiNut]

178. Again, you attempt to argue something that's neither at issue ...

... nor is it of current relevance. Absolutely no female is today directly affected by the fact that females couldn't vote in the 19th century or that females 'had no public role' in ancient Athens. Blacks, however, are absolutely directly affected vis a vis whites by the fact that their parents and ancestors (from whom they inherit both their race and the 'starting point' of accumulated disadvantage) were enslaved, prohibited from voting, denied an education, and economically oppressed.

I really don't know how clearer I can state my point regarding the comparable legacies of racism and sexism. I have no idea whether it's my lack of adequate skills in the use of language, shortcomings in reading comprehension on the reader's part, or deliberate obstinacy. The fact remains that not one of your replies or rejoinders actually addressed the point I made.

Ta-tah. :hi:

[CTyankee]

179. Boy! This must have been your Master's thesis subject

I see now where you are coming from. If you don't see an "accumulated disadvantage" from sexism (in the larger sense) then fine. Go and be well with your very limited definition. Such discourse, I suppose, is entertaining, even if its relevance manages to evade much of the real world.

[TahitiNut]

181. OK, have your way. The mitochondrial disadvantages of sexism dwarf the ...

... legacy of many centuries of antisemitism and pogroms suffered by the ancestors of today's Jews and the centuries of slavery and oppression suffered by the ancestors of African-Americans. After all, everyone knows that those mitochondrial disadvantages flow only to the female offspring. The inherited cross born by today's women is so much larger than that of racial and ethnic minorities that I was foolish to even suggest that those inherited burdens weren't comparable. Silly me. After all, everyone knows that those mitochondrial disadvantages flow only to the female offspring. :eyes:

What can I possibly do to atone? How about I give you 80 acres and two mules? Will that do? :silly:

Mitochondrial inheritance

Mitochondria in mammalian sperm are usually destroyed by the egg cell after fertilization. In 1999 it was reported that paternal sperm mitochondria (containing mtDNA) are marked with ubiquitin to select them for later destruction inside the embryo (Sutovsky et. al. 1999). Occasionally this process goes wrong, for example in inter-species hybrids. It has also been reported that mitochondria can occasionally be inherited from the father, e.g. in bananas (Schwartz and Vissing, 2002).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA#Mitochondrial_inheritance

[CTyankee]

182. Wow! 80 acres and a mule!

Now that's a deal!

[TahitiNut]

183. Even better, as I said ... TWO mules.

After all, shouldn't the proposed reparations be proportional? It'd be disprespectful of the awful burden you've inherited to offer you a mere forty acres and one mule, right?

:rofl: :dunce: :rofl:

[CTyankee]

184. Thank you Massa!

(You said it. I didn't.)

[TahitiNut]

185. Alas, I'm not at all descended from such as he. My ancestors were Vikings.

Take heart, however, notice that mules are symbolic - they have no gender and, therefore, no sexual agenda. Much better than the geldings that seem so widely desired, don't you think?

:freak: :eyes: :dunce:

[CTyankee]

188. My goo'ness! Looks who's bringing up

gelding (castration).

Note please it wasn't me.

[joeunderdog]

87. Can't we just blame white people, then?

If we're going to conclude that just because men designed the legislation, that it is reasonable to take it out on men in general, then can't we use that same rationale to just blame white folk?

Aren't we above that kind of thinking? We all extrapolate a bit to make our points, but it's a false correlation in this case. Better to "take it out" on the fundies, or maybe the Bushites. But not "men."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. I Appreciate Your Reply and Heartfelt Explanation.

Please know it was much more than your thread that inspired this, first off.

Next, I really do appreciate you being kind and rational in your explanation of your viewpoint and it was evident to me that you were being genuine and sincere. I do still disagree with several of your points, however.

Yes, male lawmakers outnumber women by a large ratio I'm sure. But the votes that get them there come from more women than men usually. Are there more men in those positions because women are just simply choosing not to run? If you took every recent election of a state or federal rep or senate seat how many of them had women that tried to run at all? Not sure what the ratio would be, but I'm sure that alone heavily assists in the large percentage of men present. But their votes come from as many or more women then men to begin with, so I have a hard time blaming men for this political ratio issue.

Furthermore, if you clicked on the links you would see that more women are against abortion than men are. Since legislators and reps generally are supposed to act in the interests of their constituents, then you can't blame the rep regardless of sex, you blame the makeup of constituents that are supporting a given issue. In this case, that makeup would consist of more women than men. So again, it wouldn't be right to bash the men.

In addition, if the posts were just bashing male legislators that sign bills I wouldn't have ranted in the first place. But that wasn't the case. Your thread (I believe) and other's threads implicitly called out all men, blamed all men, raged against all men and gave guilt to all men due to the anger of a select few that signed the bill. That is the very meaning of sexism and prejudice. It's as bad as those that wanted to attack all muslims in our streets after 9/11. Get it yet?

So in closing, I appreciate your stance and can understand your anger. No one is questioning the importance of the issue or why women would be scared and extremely angry. But the anger should be directed at the right group of people. That group of people are the group that perceive the abortion issue as one where controlling a woman's body in order to force a birth is more important than that very person's own civil, privacy and independant rights to make choices for herself. That group deserves the rage. But that group is not men. It is a mix of all races, genders and ages. Leave the broad men bashing out of it.

Ok, so there's my lengthy reply LOL No hard feelings, I just have a different perspective is all.

[phylny]

106. "Can you think of any circumstance..."

...where the government would not allow a healthy, adult man to make his own decision about what happens to his body?"

I want someone in South Dakota to write a bill demanding mandatory castration for all rapists and pediphiles who commit sex crimes.

No, I don't hate men - men are among my favorite people on earth. And I really don't want to see anyone get castrated. Yes, I understand rape is about violence and not sex. But I want some gutsy people to start making outragous demands.

Oh, and as I stated (first, I believe), I want pregnant women in South Dakota to start taking out life insurance policies on their fetuses. Let THAT go to the Supreme Court.

I want to see South Dakota outlaw all methods of artificial conception.

CANNOT. HAVE. IT. BOTH. WAYS.

Thanks for letting me vent off your vent ;)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

110. Wow, I Think That's Absolutely Brilliant!

"I want pregnant women in South Dakota to start taking out life insurance policies on their fetuses"

Of all the things I've read the past few days in response to the SD action, that is one of the most logical actionable responses. I love the nature of it and think it would totally within reason to be able to push that issue! It would be pure hypocrisy for those supporting the bill to not support your proposal!

[phylny]

155. I thought about this as soon as I heard of the S.D. bill

I had two miscarriages losing three fetuses (one was a single, one was twins). A $1 million policy on each before 8-11 weeks gestation and college, weddings, you name it for the three children we have would be a breeze.

Let the insurance companies TRY to deny these claims on the basis that you can't insure the "lives" of fetuses.

[Armstead]

109. Um.......A woman co-sponsored this bill

http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/2275/section/south.dakota.advances.proposed.abortion.ban/1.htm

The sponsors of the bill say they want to force the courts to reexamine the abortion issue adding that medical advances during the past 33 years have shown that life begins at conception.

"t is time for this South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the rights and lives of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling (D-Burke). "There is a movement across this country of the wishes to save and protect the lives of unborn children."

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

Maybe she's really a male with a funny name. :eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

176. I'm intrigued. "Choice" is a good thing. "Equal protection" is good too...

But if you put the two together, they're apparently not. At least not if the person who'd get equal access to choice is a man, witness the "roe v wade for men" thread.

I am a pro-choice man, and I find it a consistent logical and legal viewpoint that choice should apply to men too.

If a woman decides that childbirth is not something she wants to do - for whatever reason, then she should not be compelled. If a man decides that parenthood is not something he wants to do, then neither should he.

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a tangent, but I also find that man-bashing as a sporting event (and it is not my intent to single you out) is aggravating.

Maria Cantwell is the senator who is most responsible for putting Alito on the Supreme court. IMO, there is blame to go around.

[TahitiNut]

5. Hear! Hear!

The appalling sexism makes me nauseous. I've been adamantly pro-choice all my adult life - including ten years when coathanger abortions were at their height before Roe v. Wade.

[Katherine Brengle]

11. Hmm...

It's the culture of male dominance that is the issue, and this effects the decision-making abilities of both men and women when it comes to women's rights issues.

I think the fellas here on DU are wonderful, overall, as are the women.

But, "shunning ignorance" (as you said) goes both ways.

[CTLawGuy]

13. I agree

It hurts the feminist movement when it lumps its allies in with its enemies.

Young women are moving away from feminism becaue they see the side of feminism that they perceive to be more anti-male than pro-woman.

This is about fairness and equality between the genders not a war of the sexes.

[RB TexLa]

15. a sexist pig is a sexist pig no matter what the gender

The other day at a convenience store, the young woman walking out in front of my came to a literal stop at the door. She stood there at the door then looked at me when I walked up to the door and then looked back at the door. I simply said "you push it."

Turns out she WAS able to push the door open and walk out of it, I think she actually knew how to open the door all along.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. And I held open the door for a guy with a cane today...

because I had empty hands and he had a bag in one hand and the cane in the other.

He was gratefull, and I felt good inside.

If she was able-bodied, she should have opened her own g*d-damn door! Weak women make me ill.

Disclaimer: I'm a girl.

[RB TexLa]

20. she seemed able-bodied, and only had a soft drink in one hand n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. As far as I'm concerned then...

she was being weak by 'demanding' that you get the door for her.

Of course, I was raised by a single mother who fixed the car and the house herself when it was needed, and worked two jobs to support us. I may be biased. :)

[Katherine Brengle]

29. "weak women make me ill"--ditto, as do weak men, lol.

(Clarify--man with can does not = weak man.)

[TahitiNut]

86. Good for you.

When a woman holds the door for me, I'm grateful - and show it! When a woman virtually brushes me aside and barges past me when I've opened the door for myself, I'm appalled. As an "older" guy, I've had plenty of time to be accustomed to the latter and have nowhere nearly enough time left in my life to enjoy the former, as rarely as it happens.

[SPKrazy]

105. What about politeness?

I hold the door for both women and men.

I just feel it is polite.

I went to grad school with women that were offended at holding the door open for them.

I guess I just don't understand, whatever happened to people just being polite?

My mother taught me to hold the door open for women.

I've taken it a step further, I'm an equal opportunity holder opener. If I get there first, I think it's rude to not hold the door open for them, at least so as to not let it slam in their face.

A polite society, doesn't need guns.

[GumboYaYa]

169. Really, geez, sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich...

[SPKrazy]

180. And What You Do With A Sandwhich!

Bite it!

[zanne]

70. Oh, please. That happened THIS century?

Sorry, but I'm skeptical.

[RB TexLa]

107. 2 days ago n/t

[xmas74]

119. I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm a woman and I've noticed women in my area waiting for someone to open a door for them.

I've also watched a few waiting at the gas station for someone to pump their gas, even though it was self-service.

I'm not surprised at all. There are some weak women and some demanding women in this world.

I tend to get angry thinking about it d/t my own experiences. Few people, men and women both, ever held the door for me when I was trying to get a three month old in her carrier through the door yet seemed to demand it for themselves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

171. Sheesh. In Washington a held-open door is often met with a scowl

In Washington, there are two kinds of people who say thanks if you hold open a door (**) for them:
1) 60+ women
2) men


** "hold open a door" in this context means if I walk through it and someone is approaching it from a reasonable distance - ahead or behind - I'll hold it from swinging shut.

[BlooInBloo]

16. IMO, men don't have any credibility....

... in determining what is and is not sexism.

That's just the fox guarding the henhouse after 1000s of years of preying on hens.

And I'm a dude - lol

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. I loves me a sensitive man!

to DU!

[Katherine Brengle]

31. I have to agree--

and guys, it isn't your fault either--you were all raised under the same social conditions that us women folks were raised under--a seriously ill patriarchal, male-dominated society in which you (men) are expected to be strong all the time, courageous all the time, in charge all the time, and we (women) are expected to be weak, and cowardly, and submissive.

We all need to fight against this--not just women, but all of us who believe that this is wrong--that women can be tough and men can be sensitive and women can be in charge and men can be submissive--that we can all be exactly what we want to be, instead of what society demands that we be.

What has been going on here for the past few days, the gender war we have been raging with one another, is just feeding into the system that we rail against.

:grouphug:

[LostinVA]

49. Great post!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

130. What a fatalistic attitude!

People can and do, better themselves, change their attitudes and kill their own prejudices. I think you see a lot of men in that situation here at DU. We are the way we are IN SPITE OF the rigidly patriarchal society in which we live. You make it sound as if there is something inherently wrong with men and women, and that we aren't any less enlightened than the freeps. I strongly disagree.

The topic of the OP comes down to one thing: the Golden Rule. If you post an opinion about men that you wouldn't post about women, then there is either a double-standard and a lack of sensitivity going around.

[Katherine Brengle]

187. Did you even read what I wrote?

"The topic of the OP comes down to one thing: the Golden Rule. If you post an opinion about men that you wouldn't post about women, then there is either a double-standard and a lack of sensitivity going around."

If I saw a post by a woman somewhere here saying some of the things some of the men have been saying, I would absolutely call her on it.

This is precisely the problem--you ALL think that you've avoided being indoctrinated by the patriarchal nature of our culture, but you are fooling yourselves. You are not bad people, and I don't think anyone is trying to say that you are. And I am sure SOME of you have managed to escape social conditioning, but the fact is, this stuff is so deeply ingrained in all of us that it takes extreme willpower and desire to push it all out. This includes women as well as men--many of us have no idea what we are dealing with until we make a conscious choice to discover it.

It is far from "fatalistic" to encourage everyone to work together to deconstruct our partiarchal social order--on the contrary, it's the most progressive thing I can think of off hand.

[BattyDem]

33. I must give you a hug!

:hug:

[mondo joe]

41. So now we are responsible for the actions of thousands of years of actions

of other people?

Interesting.

[LostinVA]

50. I don't think that's what they meant

[zanne]

74. Well, I think you're defensive for a reason.

Maybe you've had bad experiences with women. I don't know. But you definitely sound pretty pissed at the opposite gender, yourself. You won't accept any of the explanations we give you, no matter how carefully worded so as not to "upset" you. This is just my opinion, but with the amount of resentment you have, you'd make one HELL of a pissed off woman!

[mondo joe]

135. I'm not pissed about the "opposite" gender. I'm pissed about sexism and

I'm more pissed about poor reasoning.

And DO NOT confuse yourself with WOMEN by saying things like "you won't accept any of the explanations we give you". There is no collective "we" in question.

You are responsible for your own words, and you don't get to pawn it off on some collective.

I've known and been friends with amazing, brilliant, coherent women my whole life. They don't deserve to be sullied by association just because of their gender.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I disagree.

Remember that "men" and "women" are not two entities, they're billions. A man no more responsible for the actions of other men than they are for those of women.

And either you believe, as I do, that there are objective and demonstrable standards of what is and isn't sexism, in which case men can judge it just as well as women, or you don't, in which case the concept is meaningless and pernicious.

There is a line of reasoning - never overtly stated but often trotted out - that holds that anyone - male or female, but somewhat more often male than female - who denies that anything is sexist must be motivated by sexism, and can therefor be ignored. It always reminds me of The Crucible when I see people reasoning like that.

[LostinVA]

48. Hear hear! Great response -- and quite true.

Guys can strive to recognize it and understand it, but it's not quite the same. Just like, I can try to have so much understanding and empathy for what it must be like to be stopped by the cops just because you're black... but I just can't.

[GirlinContempt]

120. Sexism is

1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex
2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

If men can't determine what is and is not sexism, then I've been duped into thinking they're rational human beings. Just because something happens MOST OFTEN to women doesn't make it exclusively womens.
Too many people confuse sexism with the old 'male chauvinist' label.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. ...

:toast:

[BlooInBloo]

138. Didn't say men are *mentally incapable*....

... I said men can't be *trusted* with their assessment...

Similarly, white folks have no credibility in determining what is and is not racism...

Similarly lawyers have no credibility in prosecuting companies they own stock in...

Similarly ad nauseum.

The common concept in play here is *conflict of interest*.

But if you were under the impression than men were trustworthy wrt women, then yah, you've been duped. LOL

[GirlinContempt]

142. Sounds to me like you're assuming that

sexism means prejudice against women for being women. And, similarly, that racism is solely prejudice against races other than Caucasian.

I don't see a conflict of interest. Male is a sex. Caucasian is a race.

The lawyer thing is way out of left field on this issue.

[BlooInBloo]

144. Okie.

[omega minimo]

39. NOONE ISPRAISINGYOUR FALSIES!!!!!!!!1

"What has disturbed me the most about all these types of threads is not just their context, but the eagerness of so many posters to jump in and praise this falsity."

[mongo]

60. What a bully response

You are only trying to hijack, shut-down and get this thread locked. How dare you try to shut down discussion on this topic?

It's all about YOU isn't it...
:sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

64. Poor Mongo

:hug:

[izzybeans]

44. Immediate reactionary impulses are always filled with

exaggerated generalizations. I usually take no offense, but feel bad whenever it is I caught up in the emotional wave (and there have been waves o' plenty).

When I see the word "man" in reference to a "universal" I usually take it mean "right wing man". This is because the feminist critique is correct even if it contains its own essentialist assumptions; such as the columns in my house not really being symbolic of my daddy's penis, rather than being symbolic of the load factor requiring a weight bearing object, in this case a long cylinder (an actual conversation with a good friend). The same is true of "man" and "right wing man". Not all columns are symbolic of Oedipal rage, nor are all men "patriarchal".

I for one am proud to be an ally and a partner, so long as I am viewed that way.

On edit: and the impulse brought on by the latest regressive attack is more than justified, and so long as it is mean (freudian slip for men; damn unconscious drives) crafting these bills, I'll be happy to sit back and take it.

[VelmaD]

55. I can't be the only one who finds it sad but ironic...

that there are so fucking many thread about men on the GD front page on International Women's Day. *sigh*

'Cause lord knows it's WAY more important to talk about how men are disrespected by them upity wimmin.

Somehow I'm thinking DU just may not be the place to be today.

[joeunderdog]

89. Just curious...

when is International Men's Day anyway? I'm sure they must have one.

[WindRavenX]

114. That's the other 364 days of the year

Men have been, and continue to be, the privileged gender.

I don't think that's a sexist assessment.

[Bridget Burke]

57. Can't you respond to objectionable posts individually?

Why do you feel the need create a thread just to preach at everyone here?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. Because It Was Necessary.

So sorry to start a thread with a topic you didn't like.

Oh. Wait. No I'm not.

The reason I posted it as a thread instead of just replying... ...Oh. Wait. That's Right. I don't have to justify myself to you either.

[mongo]

58. Thanks for posting this

K&R

[Odin2005]

61. The "Men are Evil" thing gets on my nerves.

Certain ideolouges seem to think that there would be no war, no hate, no this, no that, if women were in charge, the holier-than-thou the men-bashers have is rediculous. I remenber reading about a radical feminist philospher ranting about E=mc^2 being sexist because the equation privliges the speed of light. :eyes: And people wonder why there was an anti-feminist backlash?

[johnnie]

63. Here's what I have learned in my life

Because I am a 41 year old, white, heterosexual, never married, childless, relatively healthy, male smoker, my opinions usually don't mean anything.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. LOL Best Reply Yet.

Though it's probably more sad than it is funny, but it was the creativity of the response I enjoyed.

[gollygee]

68. Yeah because so many people other than white heterosexual men

are writing laws. You are woefully underrepresented. So sorry.

[johnnie]

78. That's my point

I am automatically judged and written off. Thanks.

[gollygee]

82. Sorry

it's a bit ambiguous and I'm in defensive mode from some of the posts in the thread.

Peace?

[johnnie]

85. Of course

:hi:

[stepnw1f]

69. Oh Bullshit!

What a bunch of cry baby shit this is. Flame bait.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. LOL Yeah, Your Reply Is Far More Intellectual, Mature and Reasonable

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[stepnw1f]

96. It Deserves Less Than What I Offered

:nopity:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Would You Mind Humoring DU With An Actual Opposing Argument?

Rather than the empty hostility, do you have anything sensible to add to the debate as to why you think the recent sexism towards men due to the SD ban is ok? I'd be interested in hearing your logic. :hi:

[stepnw1f]

103. Empty Hostility against Your Empty Rhetoric

Sounds reciprocal to me... were you offering something yourself to DU? BTW- you aren't DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

108. Well,

I know DU Generally as a community appreciates intellect and posts that actually have something to say. That's what makes DU so great. So yes, I think it would be appreciated if you actually posted something with substance within this thread, since this is now the third post in which you haven't offered any reason whatsoever for your dissent. Instead, you've only attacked without merit.

And it isn't empty rhetoric. It is a legitimate issue that obviously has created some interesting discussion. I'd like to actually hear your opinion that is behind your dissent.

Thanks! :hi:

[KittyWampus]

71. Hmm, I started a thread trying to educate DU'ers on the prejudice here

concerning blind people and that got looked. No wheres did my thread mention or even imply bigotry. No inflammatory language.

Moderator also said the thread continued discussion started elsewheres and called DU'ers out.

[gollygee]

72. Here's where we get it from

[fleabert]

77. IMO- every man should read 'Backlash', by Susan Faludi before they

get upset by us women being upset about this. As women, the pendulum keeps swinging- we've been thru this before, and I for one, am sick of it. While I sympathize with men who get upset over the idea of not having a say in a woman's decision to have an abortion but also must be financially responsible in the least if she decides to keep it. Seems like an unfair situation, until you realize the alternative puts women in a subservient role, period. It's not a viable alternative. Forcing a woman- under any circumstances- to have a child is a violation of her personal rights.

the idea that any other person can decide for me what I do with my body is offensive, even more so when it is a person that can never NEVER understand what I am or could possibly go through is insulting. I hold much more venom, though, for women who would take that right away from me, they are even more despicable, because they should understand.

[tritsofme]

79. I might be able to support a system wherein

very early in the pregnancy a man can formally inform a woman that he does not intend to have a part in raising the child, either formally or monetarily. At that point the woman can decide to keep the pregnancy, raise it on her own, give it up to adoption, or terminate the pregnancy.

Likewise the woman would have sole control over the choice to control her body in the whole process, but the man can let his opinion be heard as well.

[fleabert]

83. the problem with this is that it assumes that a woman would inform

the man she was pregnant in the first place. How would this be legislated without infringing on the privacy rights of the woman?

We would have to register when we find out we are pregnant? then follow a checklist set up by the government about who we told, how we considered it, what options are viable, etc. and then what we decided to do?

There is no viable option besides the safe, legal, private choice made between the woman and her healthcare provider. If that woman decides to involve the man, God, religion, family, counselor, fine- but there should be no law requiring her to do so.

[tritsofme]

91. I don't know

I wouldn't see it as wholly unreasonable for a woman to inform her partner of pregnancy if she intends to go through with the pregnancy and expects 18 years of child support from the father.

[fleabert]

121. but some don't.

it's not required by law for her to do so. Women don't have the option of not being informed- they inherently have to be.

I am not sure how to articulate this well, but the whole thing makes me think of the disparity in how women and men are regarded in terms of parenthood in general.

I hear people say, in regards to a mother being out of the house and the kid not in tow- 'where's the kiddo?' mom says, 'oh, he's home with dad.' person says, 'how nice, he's babysitting!'

Parents don't babysit, they parent. No one ever refers to a woman caring for her own child as a babysitter but they do refer to fathers that way.

My feelings on notification and legislation of such, and paternal say-so in abortion or continuance of the pregnancy sit somewhere within this commentary. Again, I know I am not saying it well, but there it is.

[CTyankee]

160. Surely if a man absolutely doesn't want to support a child

he shouldn't have to: he can choose not to have sex, have sex only with protection (and be clear that the woman would take EC if his condom broke), choose non-vaginal sex, or have a vasectomy.

That's 4 options for the man. Is that too much to ask?

[tritsofme]

163. To me that argument sounds strikingly similar

To the fundie argument against abortion, keep your legs closed.

Unfortunately besides vasectomy, no form of birth control is 100% effective.

[CTyankee]

168. But doesn't that strike you as inequitable?

Personally, I think both partners, male and female, should take personal responsibility for their actions. We know what the woman is faced with: she has to go thru with an abortion or childbirth and childraising. In your calculation: a man just walks away. Hmm. What's wrong with this picture? (and men wonder why women would get a tad bit testy...)

[Warren DeMontague]

88. While I, too, have been disturbed by some of the threads you allude to...

I have been irked by the threads which attempt to pin the blame for these laws on men-as-a-gender, when clearly the problem is anti-choice men AND women, and I've been, well, amused by the threads which have attempted to take the righteous indignation from this issue and channel it into a crusade against heterosexual sex in general (which is, essentially, what the pro-life people are trying to do, isn't it?) ...

I'll admit I wish it was more obvious to some that the natural allies of committed pro-choicers are those of us who understand that choice means people will sometimes make choices we don't agree with, and that the essence of freedom is the right of people to control their own bodies in ALL decisions. I fully acknowledge that I'm sometimes flustered by the folks here who claim to be 'pro-choice' yet come up with all manner of convoluted rationalizations to justify the government telling consenting adults what they can read, what they can watch, what cartoons newspapers should be allowed to print, what magazines should be legal, and what people should be allowed to do with their own bloodstreams and nervous systems.

(Get it? I'm pro-choice- on everything. I think that's ideological consistency.)

But, that said, given your contributions to various threads- and I really don't mean this as a personal attack-- I'm not sure that I would pick *you* to be the poster man for DU pro-choice maledom.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. With All Due Respect,

I appreciate your reply and context.

But though you didn't mean it as an attack, no one's trying to be a poster boy for anything. It was about what is right as far as not being sexist goes, and I have a right to that expression as much as anyone. But regardless, I may have had some alternative postings in the last few days in some of these threads, but you won't find in any one of them anywhere me stating a position that I'm not 100% pro choice. In fact, repeated over and over and over in those threads is the declaration that I am 100% pro choice regardless of my personal opinion on some of the reasons for abortions. So in that way, I don't see why I couldn't be.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. The comments I am thinking of

had to do with repeating particular strains of right wing propaganda with regards to large numbers of women deciding 'on a whim' to get late term abortions. And unless I'm mistaken, after being repeatedly challenged to back up those claims, you still refused to provide evidence, 'studies', or links.

If those weren't your comments, I stand prepared to be corrected.

With all due respect.

Personally, I think the ONLY people who reasonably should be making the determination about a pregnancy and when or whether a late term abortion is medically advisable are the woman whose body it is, and her doctor. Not you, not me. And as such, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, the general gist of this thread as I understand it is that pro choice men are being unfairly slandered -- and I'm not 100% sure, given your track record, (my opinion, which I'm entitled to as well) that I would call you "100%" pro-choice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

94. A Request Then,

For you to show instances where I wasn't 100% pro-choice.

See, cause an inaccurate perception around here sometimes is that in order to be pro-choice you have to also have the opinion that abortions are ok 100% of the time. That's bullshit though. It is absolutely acceptable to be against certain forms of abortion while still maintaining that it is not right to force that on others or take their choice away to make an opinion for themselves.

Yes, I'm against certain aspects of abortions. I'm allowed to be, and believe more people are than aren't. But that has nothing to do with the level of convictions of how pro-choice someone is. They are two different animals.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Absoutely- being pro choice isn't about liking abortion.

It's about it not being your decision if it's not your body.

Beyond that, though, you were in that thread spreading 'common knowledge' right wing lies, and after
being asked to back up your references to 'studies' and 'proof', you didn't provide either.

Which makes me think that, on this subject at least, you probably sit at least a little bit to the right of the average DU man.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Not Really Sure About That.

Like I said, I am 100% pro choice. As far as the thread you were referring to a few weeks back, the reason I didn't post the sites was because things had gotten so out of hand. I had never thought things were going to get so nasty and you have to understand, at that point posting anything like that would've simply been setting myself up for failure. It wouldn't have mattered what I presented, it would've just been torn apart and propelled the situation even more. Just wasn't gonna set myself up like that. I admit, I still believe in my position in that thread and still feel I'm entitled to. I will also admit, however, that it most likely isn't as frequent as I may have made it sound and apologize for that. Regardless, though I do obviously have some strong opinions on the subject, you will in fact see me declare over and over in each thread of this nature that my opinion is in NO WAY more important than the woman's right to choose for herself. No where even close. I have no problem saying that. I believe it wholeheartedly. But I don't think that means I should not be able to express how I feel on the subject, even if I would never back anything whatsoever that forced that ideal on someone else.

[bloom]

132. You can be "pro-choice" and still sound like a sexist asshole

when you refer to abortions as "conveniences" and such.

I think that it is the point that was trying to be made.


I hope that I was able to be of service. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. You're Right. Many Have Been Sexist Assholes With The Male Bashing.

But many wonderful DU women have come to our defense and I am grateful for their ability to recognize the issue for what it is and be intellectual and rational enough to know we are all in the same fight.

DU women (hell, men too) who stand in support of respect and civility towards all, YOU ROCK!!!

:yourock:


:)

[LostinVA]

97. *hug*

[Orsino]

93. As long as men are making the vast majority of legal decisions...

...regarding abortion, yes, it is a men vs. women issue. Saying so is grounded in the most obvious and verifiable of facts, and is not sexist. Whether you consider it misguided or offensive, though, is up to you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. More Women Support Legislative Restrictions On Abortion Than Men Do.

That's the only fact I've seen so far in this thread with any relevance. The abortion fight is one of personal moral and civil perspective. Nothing else.

[Orsino]

115. Legislated by men against women.

By a paternalistic system which treats women as second-class citizens. Undo that, get equal representation, and laws will change.

[mongo]

123. The SD abortion band was written and introduced

by a woman. So much for your "representation".

Why do some DU'ers have to turn this into a gender war, when really it is a war waged by theocrats -- men and women, who want to destroy America?

[Orsino]

157. It was enacted by men.

So much for women's representation.

[Shakespeare]

101. You remind me of wingnuts who piss & moan that they're being persecuted

As if they're unaware that they're the ones in charge right now.

Psst: Your gender still runs things. You're not being discriminated against, nor are you the "victim of sexism."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. In The Context Of The Threads Referenced It Absolutely Was Sexist.

Noone is blowing this out of proportion and claiming men are suffering in life and being persecuted against on a major level. This topic wasd just calling out the overly sexist and miguided threads that were popping up yesterday, that's it. Don't expand it to be more than that. In the scope of those threads, spitting rage at men as a whole because of the SD bill, when more women favor legislation restricting abortion than men do, is misguided and sexist any way you look at it. Now that doesn't mean that as a whole men are now persecuted against in society, it just means in a small way, in the last couple days, there have been threads sexist in nature grouping men into a wholesale group as being the ones responsible for the bill, which is false on its face. :)

[bubba j]

104. Didn't you get the memo?

You are a man, therefore, wrong.:)

bubba j

[Shakespeare]

111. Correction: Threads YOU interpret to be "misguided."

You can opine all day long; doesn't mean your argument is a grounded in any kind of reality.

And as for blaming men as a group--most of us here do NOT do that; however, that said, kindly take responsibility for the bullshit your gender DOES pull (like the SD law). For example: I hate it when we have south-bashing threads around here, but I will also acknowledge that there is certainly an institutionalized problem with bigotry in the south.

And that SD bill is too young for you to even SUGGEST that more women favor it than men do.

As far as the heat you've taken in the last few days, cry me a river. I encounter more misogynistic ugliness on this site on an almost daily basis than I'd ever have expected.

[CTLawGuy]

131. if a black man robs me

should all black men "take responsibility" for what he did?

[Shakespeare]

162. Not a valid analogy.

One robbery is not equivalent to institutionalized discrimination.

[CTLawGuy]

164. what if two black men rob me?

what if the black community in my town happens to be crime ridden?

what if black people were statistically more likely to commit crimes than white people?

At what point should a person take responsibility for the actions of the other people with the same immutable charaterstic as him or her?

[Shakespeare]

165. Sorry, that still doesn't constitute an institutionalized problem.

But keep going, because it's VERY interesting watching draw out your "black criminal" analogy.

[CTLawGuy]

186. I'm sorry to burst your bubble

but I don't actually believe all blacks are criminals,

so you don't really have a friend in that respect in me.


I was just trying to prove a point. Glad you think it is interesting though.

[frustrated_lefty]

112. Men are demon spawn, just deal with it.

There was a period in time when I avidly read feminist writings in an effort to understand their concerns, issues, and fundamental inequities in our society. Mary Daly was pretty viscious to read as a younger guy. Talk about some bitterness. Anyway, the long and the short of it, after much somber contemplation on the subject, boils down to this:

1) Women have a boatload of reasons to be pissed off at male dominated society (so do men, but that's a separate issue) and at men in general as whacked out archetypal representatives of that society. It's a role where you don't have the option of bowing out. Chances are, if you impregnate a woman, at some point between insemination and birth you WILL hear the words "You did this to me" expressed as a guttural growl scratching their way between her lips. Glance into the mad fires dancing behind her eyes and realize in that moment, to her, you're a goddammed man.

2) They have every right to express that pissed off-ness. Unfortunately, they can't really do that if every other sentence they're having to soothe male egos. It screws up their rhythym if they have to stop and say "but of course I don't mean YOU."

3) It's better to just sit back in bemusement and let them rant. If you're not a 'whoremongering self-absorbed patriarchal sunuvabitch pig with less creative energy in your entire body than a woman has in her little finger,' you should feel confident in this knowledge. Chances are, the 'wimminfolk' know it too.

-fl

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. I Shouldn't Have To Tolerate Broad Brush Attacks And Neither Should You

It really is quite that simple.

I'm a liberal. I believe in fairness and objectivity for all. Blaming the abortion battle on men as a whole is just simply wrong, from my liberal perspective. I agree with others, however, that taking away the woman's right to choose to begin with is far worse of a issue though. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to speak an opinion on something far less relevant than the loss of right's themselves. (which believe me, I think is a tremendous travesty that damages the very spirit of this nation's ideals)

[frustrated_lefty]

117. Whatever floats your boat.

:silly:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Fairness, Equality, Civil Rights, Respect, Tolerance and Freedom For All

is what floats my boat.

If that makes me crazy, then being sane must be simply evil.

[frustrated_lefty]

154. Those are all good things.

I have no doubt you endeavor to support those ideals through your actions.

Your OP stikes me as somewhat scared/hurt at the venom in some of the posts which have been made on DU lately. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. If so, you should find some reassurance throughout this thread.

If you feel you're the victim of unfairness, disrespect and intolerance, maybe it might be helpful to treat it as an opportunity to gain insight into other's perspectives?

-fl

[Sparkly]

136. I like your post.

I didn't think I would from the subject line, but you seem thought-out. :)

When you wrote, "It's a role where you don't have the option of bowing out," did you mean being a man, or being a woman? Because this is what I think most men don't quite understand about women's biological circumstance. While men get the CHOICE, based solely on their own consciences and consciousnesses (raised or unraised) to gripe about the horrible unfairness of the woman they impregnated making a decision they didn't like, or to support or abandon her and their offspring, women have far more limited choices even WITH reproductive freedom. It takes two to make an unwanted pregnancy, but a woman who has one will live with its results for the rest of her life, no matter what she decides. SHE doesn't have the option of bowing out.

[frustrated_lefty]

153. Thanks.

:)

Honestly, I was thinking along different lines, although I agree with what you're saying. There's an inherent weight to the situation for women due simply to biological reality. No amount of pc discourse is going to get around that reality. There would probably be far fewer complaints from men if they had access to a "pill." Incidentally, such things have been developed. To the best of my knowledge, they've never been marketed because of a side effect which affects 5-10% of the test subjects: impotence. Heaven forbid! In contrast, of course, it's perfectly ok if cialis might cause stiffyitis.

Regarding roles and bowing out: most, probably all, of us have been in a relationship where you realize you're the victim of transference, that you're not the source of the emotions your partner is directing at you. That can be healthy in its own way, allowing your partner the space to give voice to an emotional reality, accepting the role given to you in their internal dialogue for a time. Interrupting, saying 'I'm not the guy that did this to you...' just makes your partner look for safe space elsewhere where they're not having to constantly police their thoughts, emotions and words. Anyway, that's enough psycho-babble.

Women have just cause for a lot of messy emotional outrage (so do men, but, again, that's a separate issue and not on today's list of 'things-to-do'). I think it's silly for individual men to expect that just because they happen to be generally thoughtful, considerate beings that the 'war on sexism' is going to be emotionally clean, leaving them unscathed. Maybe not silly....more like unrealistic.

just thots,

-fl

[BattyDem]

137. To label anger at SOME men as "sexism" is just as ridiculous ...

as the Repugs calling us "racist" for criticizing Condi or Alberto Gonzales.

I just don't understand why it's so hard to recognize the distinction between sexism and anger. :shrug:


A MESSAGE FOR THE DU MEN OF CHOICE
I'm truly sorry if I offended you. That was never my intention. I sincerely thank you from the bottom of my heart for supporting my right to choose! :hug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

141. Scuse Me... "Hey men of South Dakota". Bit More Than A Few, Ain't It?

And also "Well, my friends ... you just eliminated choice from a woman's life"

Pretty broad generalizations that lumped all men into the same category as being the ones, (no mention of women in your post by the way) solely responsible for the ban and not sparing any regardless of their lack of involvement, wouldn't you say?

Don't act like like you said it about one or two. You said it about an entire state's worth of fucking men. Yes that's sexist in my book, period.

And furthermore, I thought you posted well last night as one of the first responses in this thread, and though I didn't agree did give you respect for it. Why you felt the need now to respond anew with additional criticisms is beyond me. And I'm a man of choice. I would think almost all men on DU are. But I wonder if they're as sickened by the disengenuine tone of your multiple sorry I offended you's that you keep posting, though you keep posting things that are more offensive than not.

[BattyDem]

145. Yes ... I said men of SD.

I probably should have said "Men of the SD Legislature". That was a mistake on my part. I honestly assumed that everyone would know who I was talking about, given the circumstances that inspired that particular post.

My current response was not meant to be a criticism, but an analogy. I honestly don't understand why anger at men is automatically sexism, and that comparison seemed to perfectly convey the reason for my confusion, so I thought I'd post it. Every DUer knows how ridiculous it is to be classified as "racist" when we criticize Condi or Gonzales. Well, that's how I feel right now - it's ridiculous to classify women as being "sexist" when we're angry at a group of men who did something that was offensive to us.


I've made multiple efforts to explain myself for two reasons, neither of which are disingenuous:

1) I don't like being accused of something (sexism) when it was not my intention and I don't like forum fights. They get us nowhere and the fact is that it's very easy to misinterpret someone's message on a BBS because there aren't any vocal inflections or facial expressions to help convey our thoughts and ideas. So, when my intentions get a bit "muddied", I often post follow-ups to try and make peace with the offended party. Like I said, I'm not into forum fights and I have no desire to make any enemies here because we're all on the same side. Becoming enemies with another DUer is counter-productive.

2) I honestly felt bad for offending you and other DU men. You obviously don't believe that - you think my apologies are disingenuous and you're sickened by them. Fine. That's your right. But I did make peace with a few of guys since last night and I'm happy that I did. I've been around here long enough for most people to know that I'm not a "phony" or a "player" or "disingenuous". When I'm wrong, I apologize. When someone enlightens me or educates me, I thank them. When someone misinterprets me, I attempt to make my intentions clear. That's all. There are no hidden agendas.

Peace. :-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. It's All Good BattyDem. I Just Got Your PM And Responded.

Peace to you as well :)

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

143. Meh....who cares?. So I'm evil.

I have conservative repugs call me evil for not loving Dumbya too. Doesn't mean I have to believe the idiots.

[ScreamingMeemie]

158. One of the things that amazes me most about DU is that we all get

equal opportunity to be offended. As a woman, and the mother of a daughter...it is hard not to get a tad bit annoyed living in a society where our very lives are affected by the decisions of white men who will never walk in our shoes. Not that I am agreeing that all men tend to hold anti woman attitudes. It hurts, doesn't it? Just like it hurts to see fellow DUers willing to jettison off the rights of women in order to see a candidate (typically a man) elected. Pot, the kettle is waiting to meet you over in the corner.

[mondo joe]

173. I am really just baffled by all the men vs women stuff here.

As a gay man I am just baffled by the sort of gender battles that flare up every now and then on DU.

I especially don't get the way everyone is so often lumped into a group, as if each gender collectively shares some responsibility or burden, and individuality is secondary to that, if considered at all.

Take abortion rights. Men aren't the enemy of women on this. Support is roughly the same across the genders - in some ways men are slightly less pro choice, and in some ways women are.

Abortion rights isn't men vs women - it's really more freedom vs control.

[Cats Against Frist]

174. What do I win if I was pro-woman in one thread and pro-man in another?

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

175. Nothing. You Should Be Pro-Woman And Pro-Man

That's the whole point.

[Ksec]

177. AGREED. I get really bored with this childishness.

Can you imagine a young man wondering into DU when the superlibs are going on about how terrible men are?

That would be a great recruitment tool. (sarcasm) Most men would love being part of a group who constantly tell him how fucked up he is. I can match any negative trait with a positive one. I can match anything bad, men have brought, with good theyve brought.