betsy

Yes. A very significant point and another symptom of the serious problem society faces.

Hell is right. It's up to you to express what you're saying. It's not up to me. The fact is you're not saying what you think you're saying. but you might be saying what you think you're saying now, later. Who knows. Apparently not you. The inferiority of women can't be inferred from their lack of participation in positions of power. All that can be logically concluded is that women have not exercised their abilities in attaining power to the same extent as men. One might consider the possibility that inferiority is the reason women have been less inclined to attain power, but one would be only guessing - stabbing in the dark so to speak. One might more logically assume, as I have stated, "The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will. Only very few men, and even fewer women , have this fortunate combination in their personality structure." That seems to me to suggest that a few men and women are superior in their ability to attain power than the rest of us - no more, no less. Ergo what?? Complicated? I don't think so. I'll say. Your theory is definitely different... than mine, I mean. lol Again, I say, gender doesn't determine an individual's ability. Our leaders, men and women, have special skills. Gender is not a skill. Surely you don't really mean that "women not having power is not a refelection of their abilities, but only the fact that they are women." Sounds like a gender-based discrimination to me. Okay, I'll be fair. I know what you mean (see below), but of course, you're wrong. I can only repeat, "Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable." You haven't proven, or even given evidence that your premise is true. All you've done is insist, and I quote, "...there's strong historical evidence to suggest that men have been privileged on the basis of gender. There's even strong contemporary examples as well. Unless of course you think that the widespread and institutional oppression of women in places like the Middle East, for example, is due to women lacking the right stuff to be successful." I suppose the widespread dominance of males over females, in your theory, is equal to the dominance of men in leadership roles. Even if it were true, you would have to prove that oppression is a quality that would enhance the possibility of attaining power and you would then be left defending a very narrow definition of power and attempting to apply that definition to all forms of power from benign and altruistic to dictatorial and fascist. Anyway, it's a moot point because bullying dominance is the complete antithesis of the type of power we're discussing, that attained by means of ability. Actually, no, I don't think I have. But if you mean by a correlation that there are more males than females in positions of power, I certainly haven't and wouldn't deny it. Or do you mean as the amount of power increases, so do the number of men? Whatever you're getting at, I haven't acknowledged it but I might be persuaded to agree with you if knew what you were talking about, and why. Anyway, as I think you rightly pointed out, a correlation doesn't necessarily mean cause and effect. Sorry, I lost the reference for this, but let me guess. You want us to get into personal relationships, spouses inability to deal with each other and probably themselves, custody battles and the lot. Spare me. Take it up with Drea or Kuzadd or whoever. Apparently a little too deep for you to get the significance. But we can't keep going over the same issues just because you have limited focus. The liberal mind does have difficulty dealing with facts, or even with fiction in any consistent way. Looks like you possess the liberal mind, B. Dog. Keep looking. The truth comes to those who seek it. And again he circles. You attempt, I think, to prove that power is gender based, and at the same time, in an attempt to prove it, you make the assumption that power is gender based. Whatever. But history is neutral. It's just the evidence. Societies develop according to their needs and preferences. That you don't approve is irrelevent. If a society wants men in control, hunting, fishing, etc. and women looking after the kids, goats and garden, that's what society gets. If a society wants women in control, and looking after the kids, goats and garden, and men hunting, fishing, etc., then that's what society will get. Do you think that's not what's happening today? Deal with it.

I must admit that this makes absolutely no sense.

And contrary to what you believe, we qualify under category 1. I do hope that somehow we can get you to authorise our war against terrorism.

Instead maybe we can get them to use their formidable forces to remove the ne'er-do-wells sitting on train tracks in Canada. It appears that our own government doesn't have the resolve to do anything useful in that respect.

Silly me. I assumed you were referring to the lunatics in the Muddled East until I got to the bit about going to Iraq.

Here,comes the name calling! It sounds to me more like she hit herself on the head, in a very distinct fashion. lol

Unbelievable but true. Remember to these people George Bush is the terrorist. We even had a moronic MP in the Canadian Parliament stomping on an effigy of the US President. You remember her, Carolyn Parrish (?).

Well said M. Dancer. More truth than fiction in that!!

Since you have agreed with B. Dog, you are the one who agrees that women are inferior. THINK, GIRL! Think what you're agreeing to before you quote someone else's idea. Just because he's a man doesn't mean he's right. Of course I won't agree. I believe that a lot of women have the qualities needed to gain positions of power. And I also believe that a lot of men don't have those attributes. (Maybe that's what you mean by equal but different!!!) Anyway, where are you running with this? Scared?? This is a contradictory meaningless platitude (you can't be at the same time equal and not equal). No wonder it was abandoned as a slogan of the women's movement...long ago.

Elementary is a good word for such a ridiculously simplistic anaylysis. Basically you're saying women don't have power becaus ethey aren't good enough to acheive it. This completely ignores historical realities that have privileged males over females soley on the basis of gender (for example, traditional patrilineal inheritance systems). Not to mentuion I have to wonder why you think your own gender is so damned inferior. You say: "Basically you're saying women don't have power becaus ethey aren't good enough to acheive it." Ironically, it's you that is saying that women aren't good enough, by suggesting it's gender that decides whether power is achievable by any individual and, at the same time, acknowledging that men have always been in power. Anyway, read on. Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable. The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will. Only very few men, and even fewer women, have this fortunate combination in their personality structure. Gender becomes a factor only in the mind that wants it to be one. If you didn't imagine that gender was involved, the pathetic defence of the feminist mindset - their contention that man is the source of all evil - would be untenable. Furthermore, if you insist, as you do (now at least), that gender is the factor that has allowed men throughout history to be in control, and it is control that this is all about, then you must have concluded that males are superior. Not me. History has not conspired against women. That's a figment of the mind of feminists and their followers. History is neutral. Our society has evolved under the guidance of its leaders and according to its requirements and preferences. Because those factors don't appeal to liberals at the beginning of the 21st Century doesn't mean they didn't shape our society. It only means that those same liberals wish it wasn't so.

What happens when you put a frog in warm water, then bring it slowly to a boil? The frog doesn't know what's happening to him until it's too late. In fact, he enjoyed the warm water at the beginning.

The discussion about non-gender roles was about THE ATTAINMENT OF POWER....which I admit got off in a tangent. But the issue here is the EMASCULATION of men, which is a discussion of gender roles! How can it be anything else? Laws and legislations are just a reflection of the changes that are happening in our society. Some of those changes are resulting in the emasculation of men. If you change an element in society, you change society. So if you change the dominant element in society, you can't help but make drastic changes to that society. Now we see those changes in courts, in the schools, etc..,

Kuzadd and Catchme, The natural instinct of men to protect women, it is still there in most men. I had experienced these protective instincts of men on several occasions over the years. My husband had shown me how protective he can be towards me....and towards any female in distress. If we are happy with our men, isn't it all the more reason that we should want to protect them too?

It is not about the physical looks either, Catchme. A man who stands only 4 feet tall and weighing 100 lbs is not less of a man than a hulking wrestler. Even if the man is what some would describe as "effeminate" in some ways....I don't think of him any less. That is not the point of my issue. I just want to be very clear on that. It is more about the liberal man's attitude of acceptance....resignation....appeasement ....for whatever reasons. You believe it is for equality. A lot of women believe it is for equality. A lot of men believe it is for equality. Honorable and noble intentions. Unfortunately, it is not for equality.

Drea, read that PBS article I just posted. Oh btw, I didn't realize they've actually changed the name of the movement from Feminist to Women.

Same that this blasted "Women's Movement" cannot purport to speak for all women!

Are these children being taught to value human life? No, they are being that the ends justify the means and that loss of human-life is an unfortunate aspect of this struggle. I'm sorry, you're right, there IS a difference. Palestinian children are being taught to blow themselves up while the Israeli children are being taught that it's okay to drop bombs on hospitals, schools, bridges and roads just to get to the bad guys. HUGE difference. Sure. I don't know where you're going with your complaint, but I do know who are the aggressors and who are the victims. And in this 21st century warfare it seems that the victim, due to international pressure, has to spend most of its time worrying about civilian casualties. Even though that same international community knows full well that the aggressors are hiding behind their women and children. Do we have to be explicit about who's who? I don't think so.

PBS PROPAGANDA PIECE December 14, 2005 ________________________________________ by Carey Roberts ________________________________________ "I’ve never heard of a Public Broadcasting Service documentary being slammed by two ombudsmen in the space of one week. But that’s exactly what happened to PBS’ ill-fated program, Breaking the Silence. The program, billed as an exposé of divorce courts, said that custody of abused children is often awarded to the abusing parent. Government reports reveal that mothers are more likely than dads to abuse and neglect their children, and that mothers in fact are awarded child custody about 85% of the time – so the documentary producers did have a point. But the ombudsmen peered behind the green velvet curtain and said this time around, the Great Wizard was trying to pull a fast one. First Ken Bode, ombudsman for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting came out on November 29 with a report that charged the Breaking the Silence claims were “slanted” against fathers, “incendiary,” and plain “wrong.” That would be bad enough if we were talking about a Leftist love-in like NOW with Bill Moyers. But in this case we’re talking about a factual documentary. Then three days later Michael Getler, ombudsman at the Public Broadcasting Service, dropped the second bombshell, noting “there was no recognition of opposing views,” and concluded the show was an “advocacy, or point-of-view, presentation.” But the problem with Breaking the Silence is not just flawed and unethical journalism. Bode’s greater concern was the fact that the program “has been a launching pad for a very partisan effort to drive public policy and the law.” What was Mr. Bode talking about? Turns out a rogue outfit called the Mother’s Research and Reference Center was in cahoots with PBS insiders and got advance copies of the program. Then the MRRC organized demonstrations and private screenings of the documentary for state legislators, judges, and local activists. The idea was to convince them to pass laws to make it almost impossible for dads to get even shared custody of their kids after divorce. At KVPT in Fresno, abuse professionals were made available to speak with distraught viewers. But the counselors probably didn’t have much to say about all those female teachers who have been making headlines for jumping in bed with their male teenage students. Or the mother who chopped off the leg of her 20-month-old son last week. Remember, the party line says fathers, not mothers, are the child abusers. And in Alaska, PBS affiliate KAKM, forgetting it was a tax-exempt organization, promised they would provide free publicity for the activists. According to the local organizer, “The local PBS station has said they will help us advertise and promote our event because we will then in turn promote viewing of their screening date on 10/20.” That tidbit came to light last Tuesday, courtesy of Fox News columnist Wendy McEloy, who invited readers to see the smoking gun for themselves. But the Mother’s Research and Reference Center didn’t appreciate all the publicity, so within days they yanked the incriminating paragraph. And a few days later, all 17 pages that documented MRRC’s mischief-making around the country evaporated in cyber-space. Well, not exactly. Because someone beat them to the punch and made a mirror of the original web page. Sorry girls, you’ve just been caught with your hand in the cookie jar. The rad-fems have devised a remarkable plan for family destablization: fabricate a bizarre accusation, get the media to believe it, whip the populace into a frenzy, and then pressure chivalrous legislators to pass laws that do away with fathers. In the 1980s, it was the myth of the deadbeat dad who callously abandons his family. Now we have a draconian (and costly) child support system that tosses destitute dads in jail when they fall behind on their payments. In the 1990s, it was the ersatz epidemic of men who assault and batter their wives. Thanks to that canard, we have the billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act that makes divorce easy, profitable, and fun. And now we have a bogus documentary that smears fathers as child abusers, with the aim of keeping dads out of their children’s lives after divorce. That’s the stuff of old-fashioned, in-your-face, Soviet-style propaganda. That’s what PBS did on October 20. So next time you want to get good, solid reporting about a controversial topic, you might do better by picking up a copy of the National Enquirer in the check-out line." Carey Roberts ________________________________________ Carey Roberts is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream media. ________________________________________ http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts...berts121405.htm

I do understand what you're trying to say, Drea....but the issue is a whole lot bigger than being called a "girly-man" should the man wishes to look after his child, or doing dishes and laundry. Our whole society is shifting and re-shaping. Legislations and laws. "The rad-fems have devised a remarkable plan for family destablization: fabricate a bizarre accusation, get the media to believe it, whip the populace into a frenzy, and then pressure chivalrous legislators to pass laws that do away with fathers." - Carey Roberts And yes, majority of us women are not nutbar feminazis.....however, it's these nutbars that seem to have the clout and calling the shots.

Let me just make this clear to all liberal men. The way this topic had been presented may be too brutal...a punch below the gut. But believe me, this is how it looks like from my point of view. Your intentions may be of a sincerity in support of women....but realize that most women had been hoodwinked, just like you....to think that this is all for the sake of equality. If you men do not get your act together, and do something about this....you're gone. Not gone in the sense that you'll be lined up against the wall....but gone, as in obsolete. And if that's the case, well....you better get used to being slighted by women.

Why, didn't they always have that choice? No one is saying that having the choice isn't good. But just because you have the choice, doesn't mean that taking that option is good. Yes. That's why I'm asking: why are we trying to get men pigeonholed into a "role" that radical feminists had defined for them. As I've always maintained in other previous arguments, I do not deny that feminist movement had done something good for us women. However, the whole thing had taken on an ugly face.

But BCChick, the concern is not about hypocrisy. I certainly wouldn't equate indoctrinating children to become future suicide bombers....to a "stand-up guy." If you would insist to justify this indoctrination of children to blow themselves up taking as many casualties as they can....then equate it with something similar in scope.

The radical feminists are not gunning for EQUAL power. The latest example would be about this new so-called conclusion to a supposed research study about children raised by two women. That it had been commissioned by the Liberal government to pave the way for the total acceptance of homosexual lifestyle as a normal lifestyle is no doubt the reason behind it, and it’s not secret that the radical feminist movement had been standing side-by-side along with the gay rights movement. Leaving out the study about children raised by two men suggest that this was strategically done since there are studies that could easily challenge the no-doubt favorable conclusion of this scenario… And this was a move to warm the hearts of the radical feminists. The glaring fact is that there is now a study, commissioned by the Liberal government that purports to conclude favorably on women. But there is none on men. Would it be a stretch of the imagination that in cases of custody battles between divorcing heterosexual couples, the woman now, has in her arsenal this document to wave before the judges….and the man has none, simply because “there was not enough evidence gathered?” Of course, we know the courts ALWAYS decide on what is in the best interest of the child. History have always given custody to women in most cases, simply because of what used to be the female’s natural role - mothering. But times have changed. There’s hardly time for women to be mothering children. They are out there, like the men, working for their careers, which it seems to me renders them equal as far as parental responsibility is concerned. So radical feminists now need to re-establish their edge.

You're not bursting my bubbles. The only bubbles I can see in this scenario are those floating around the bath water of these gentlelittleliberalmen. Lol. Kidding aside, it doesn't matter what label you put on these guys. They're being emasculated. That's the point. In my opinion, if they're allowing themselves to be emasculated, they are in definition, liberal men. Needless to say, I'm not using the term "liberal" in any complimentary fashion.