Well when you have people with extremely liberal views, terminology becomes an issue. When you use terminology that is not deemed PC or actually speak your mind and are honest about your views, then you get blasted. Unfortunately.

I've never been all that PC and proud of it. Although that bitch comment was a joke. Just clarifing for all.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

i was hoping for more opinions from the female bloggers. at any rate, state's rights, for the most part, is a good idea but infortunately Rick seems to have missed the boat and that it ended with Abe Lincoln. It's unfortunate that state's rights are not equated with slavery even though they are entirely different ideas. Slavery existed many places where states' rights did not. It was an unfortunate coincidence that they were married to each other in the American (Civil War aka War of Northern Agression aka War of Rebellion aka War Between the States.) Now, if you defend anything that was southern, you are racist. It seems impossible to separate ideas. I suppose that's the way it has to be, as Andrew Jackson said, 'to the victor goes the spoils."

Most of us are too busy being SuperWomen.

Much civil rights law is made with extreme cases and extreme people. The cases of law that set the huge precedents often involve people we do not personally like, who behave in ways we do not endorse... but it is those sharply-defined cases that frame the issues. "If we allow this to happen to this person, whether we like them or not, what does that mean for all people? Are civil right just for people we like?"

Those super-feminists you dislike so much, Zog, were the ones that did the necessary things when it was VERY hard to do so... and now you want them to be soft and accomodating when you say, "Ok... you're all liberated now, so shut up already." It has been only ONE generation since women were permited to even VOTE.

[Edit: I took out one extreme family example and substituted the following example from the general population.]

I doubt there is very much of a chance that most men notice the level of disrespect and discrimination most women experience daily, while bearing most of the burden of child and elder care in this country. Just as I bet a white person lacks a real understanding of racial discrimination. And no, I am not singing the "Poor Victimized Me" blues. Not ten years ago I faced real hostility from men in the constructon industry who thought women on a constructon site where a jinx. One told me I was taking a job away from a man that "really" needed to support a family... I don't thin kit even occurred to him that *I* was supporting a family. That wasn't role he associated with women.

I noticed that one of you said we should be free to be "a nurse OR a housewife" without taking sh*t. That's it? What about an economist, or an electrician, or a professional football player? A front-line combat soldier? How about a member of an archaic men's club?

You may interact daily with educated, civil, well-trained-not-to-say-the-wrong-thing men... but that does NOT define the majority of men in this country or the world.

I doubt you would like it very much at all if I made you my Bitch... or if I treated you remotely like most men treat "their housewives," but I do have some bathroom tile that needs scrubbing...

To bring the subject back to Santorum...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/sulliva...rum/index.html

Tracy,
"Ok... you're all liberated now, so shut up already."

Did I say this? I can't find it.

Your personal experiences are yours. I wouldn't down play there influence on your life, but that's not my fault or my problem. I don't mean to sound rude, but as an objectionist, I feel the the world is an individualistic place and not a socetial place. If you were discriminated against in your job then that sucks, but that is not my fault or my responsibility to deal with. The law has gone as far is it can. The gov't can and should only do so much. To blame men in general for the actions of a few is as sexest as saying that women can't do what men can do. That is what a lot of women do. They see it as a social issue when it is an individual issue. It is the foundation of objectivism and Ayn Rand's philosophy, a women.

"I noticed that one of you said we should be free to be "a nurse OR a housewife" without taking sh*t. That's it? What about an economist, or an electrician, or a professional football player? A front-line combat soldier? How about a member of an archaic men's club?"

You can be what you want, but we are different, PERIOD. Comparing an economist to a professional football player is stupid. You could be an economist. One that is just as good or better than a man, but to think that you could play football as good as a man is dumb. It is the main problem with title IX. Women of NOW don't want equality, they want greater rights. When men try to get involved with women sports they get pissed. I watched an HBO special on men playing field hockey. NOW was pissed and thought it was a horrible misuse of the law. And as far as an "archaic men's club" goes, it is everyone's right to have private clubs. NOW doesn't allow men as members. Why can't a men's club do the same? Because NOW doesn't want equality, they want privledge. They want to do everything men can do, but they don't want men to do everything they can do. It is all bull ****. Get your own "archaic" clubs and let us have ours. Equality does not mean equal axcess to all things. Some things are private institutions and deserve to be left that way and some sports should be for just men or women. That is a fact of nature. Just get over the fact that we are not equal at everything and let it be.

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."

I did not say women can do ANYTHING men can. Nor do I believe that men can do anything women can. I have ovaries, you presumably have testes.

But there are individual women who could be NFL kickers, for instance.

Your assumption that NO woman could play football at all conflicts with your statement this is an "individual" problem. You didn't give any individual the opportunity to demonstrate their skills. You lumped all women into one perception about physical build and athletic ability.

Men and women are not the same. But their access to individual opportunity can be equal.

I may be more of an individualist than you are. For instance, I would never join a social club that required me to believe in a particular creed, or that told me how to arrange my priorities.

I gather you don't feel that government has a continuing role in evening out the field for groups of people that are institutionally discriminated against. We disagree there.

You can join NOW... it allows and encourages men to join. I don't belong, since NOW opposes some things I support. Which underscores my point... I would consider myself a feminist, but I am not a NOW member and I do not excoriate women who choose not to work outside the home. You've made a lot of assumptions.

Do you believe that "a few" men are the issue? Do you understand that women of my mother's age were not allowed to have credit cards in their own names? And that many lending institutions continue to discriminate against women for business loans, despite the fact that women account for the largest chunk of new businesses and have a lower default rate than men.

Discrimination is institutional, not a couple of jerky guys calling us "honey" in an annoying manner.

Yes, Ayn Rand is a woman. She wrote books that continue to spark lively conversation about her theroy of "rational egoism." Women have a variety of opinions. Men have a variety of opinions. Neither men or women are required to share opinions because someone of the same gender wrote a novel about it. Am I required to believe in vampires because Anne Rice wrote about them?

Has there been any word out of santorum on this topic? I think the GOP has told him to shut it and lay low for a while.

__________________
Philadelphia SEO consultants | Ringtones|Contact Lenses

That is a very big issue for Republicans who are hurting themselves by trying to be all things to all people. It almost seems like the Republicans are grasping at straws trying to find an identity that works. In the end it only makes them seem dis-organized, inconsistent and confused.

Tracy

"I may be more of an individualist than you are. For instance, I would never join a social club that required me to believe in a particular creed, or that told me how to arrange my priorities. "

I doubt that. My inclusion in a society that believes what I believe doesn't make me less of an individualist. I didn't realize that hanging out with people that you agree with makes you less of an individual.

"I gather you don't feel that government has a continuing role in evening out the field for groups of people that are institutionally discriminated against. We disagree there. "

You are correct in a way, but you victim ideaology is one I do not believe in. This phrase specifically, "groups of people that are institutionally discriminated against", I have issue with. Institutional Racism is the biggest fraud ever perpetuated on the "protected classes." It gives people the idea that striving as an individual is useless because the world is against you and you can't do anything about it. That is great for people like Jesse Jackson, who makes his living keeping good women and men down, but for the majority of Americans it keeps them in a cycle of dependence. So, I think their future is in their own hands and the gov't has done everything it should.

Your last point was well taken. Just cause a man thinks we need affirmative action and writes a book about it doesn't mean I should agree.

I have one question for you. Equal access. To what? Jobs, membership in organizations, positions on sports teams? What, in your mind, in not included, or is it all?

I think with regard to jobs, without a doubt. Memberships in organizations is a whole nother story. I don't see a problem with all male or all female organizations. That is my issue with Augusta. Women can go there. They can play there. They just can't be members. What's wrong with that? And as my sister says, "why do these women want to hang out with a bunch of old men anyway?"

__________________
Jason
Lynn Swann 06'

"Individualism is absent when other peoples' standards, not reality and reason, are ones primary guide."