betsy

Exactly. Strong independent women earn their own way in the world. I am with you here, sis! And we have a lot of women throughout history....and the present who had earned it. Still earning it...and will keep on earning it! A lot of them may not be high-profiled...like the old school teacher my father had, and still vividly remembers and speak of highly....but they have earned, and deserve the respect they've got.

Yeah, some scenario may fall under "oppression"....but you can't generalize that all violence that involve women is all about oppression. Depends on each case. Not that I approve of any violent response...unless it really warrants it like self-defense... towards the weaker sex....but there are cases where-in the woman is the first one to do violence to a man. If a woman flew at a man and started scratching his face and pummeling him, and the man shoved her....yes, it is violence....but will you use the term, "oppression?" You think wife-abuse is not about power? Power that is being wielded by a husband who happens to be a jerk or a tooney? Strength can mean power. I can just imagine Danny de Vito beating the daylights out of...Charlize Theron. Or Rosie O'Donell. Hey, here's a good one: abuse is a problem too among same-sex couple! Same gender.

I do not deny that there were..and there are still oppressions happening in oppressive regimes. And yes, I support some of the causes that the Womens' Group had fought for. But I still do believe that this is not really a gender thing. It is about power. And...no, when we're speaking of America, I still do not believe that women were oppressed. Oppression is not the term that I would use. I will continue this discussion with you in a while...just have to go right now.

Well regarding "patriachy"....I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Drea...but Stronach ain't the one who's gonna bust it. In fact, she is, AGAIN, being a POOR ROLE MODEL...to women. How? Her own political party, which is led by a man and comprised of mostly men, is USING her...as a woman...for their own political gain! Oh yes, the Liberals had hoisted her reputation like a flag...they don't give a hoot that it's getting tattered...along with McKay's. Either they've brainwashed her...or convinced her (either way she didn't use her empowered brains)...or ....she just relapsed, fallen off the wagon you might say and had become the "typical traditional nitwit woman" ...you know, the ones being snickered at by the "enlightened and empowered ones." She could've gotten back at McKay in a different way and made a grand and dignified stance at the same time. <sigh> If only she did not listen to men...and instead, had thought independently...and deliciously schemed like a wily woman. Grinning smugly like a cat is very much preferable than sweating and sharing the spotlight with McKay.

The Liberals are the last one who should be insisting on an apology from a perceived slight delivered in the heat of an argument....especially taking into consideration the PERSONAL history of those involved (McKay and Stronach bitter split up). Of all parties, the Liberals ought to be the last one to point out the significance of McKay's position as Foreign Minister...like as if, McKay did anything to slight any foreign officials....and/or had placed any diplomatic relationships at stake. As far as I remember, two female Liberal MPs had delivered an UNPROVOKED insult to the leader and people of another nation.....smacked of racist comments (which would've undoubtedly gone unforgiven if they were uttered towards any other group or nation). They were highly publicised and had received a lot of criticism as well. Those remarks could've affected diplomatic relationships...that could have impacted economies and affected people's lives whether directly or indirectly. Oh yes, insult directed not only to one particular nation...but all those nations who belong to the "Coalition Of IDIOTS." And yet, no apologies were ever rendered by these MPs. And it died a quick death on the floor. It didn't go on for ages. And yet the noble Liberals have the gall to keep dragging this on...wasting taxpayers' money...and time...to quibble over something like this? Oh yeah, they're threatening that they will keep this going. Priorities are really askew with the Liberals. They're not only desperate...they're incapable!

I hope that means I'm making you think. Yes. Sorting out your spin. It makes me think alright. That all liberals must be so convinced, like you, of their own rightness that they can't see through their own fallacies and irrational thought processes and so go on blindly living in their fantasy world...believing that one day the whole world will be right....or should I say left. I bet your favorite song is, "Imagine." It was voted #1 song of the 20th CENTURY, by the Liberal CBC. Talk about believing in a pseudo-marxist trudeaupian world. I've said it all, and you've said nothing of any value that would change my mind. Or change reality. Hasta la vista. I won't be back, bebe.

Not by your logic. They never had rights, so therefore they could not be oppressed. How can you say the people of Afghanistan NEVER HAD ANY RIGHTS? "In this powerful book, David B. Edwards traces the lives of three recent Afghan leaders in Afghanistan's history--Nur Muhammad Taraki, Samiullah Safi, and Qazi Amin Waqad--to explain how the promise of progress and prosperity that animated Afghanistan in the 1960s crumbled and became the present tragedy of discord, destruction, and despair. Before Taliban builds on the foundation that Edwards laid in his previous book, Heroes of the Age, in which he examines the lives of three significant figures of the late nineteenth century--a tribal khan, a Muslim saint, and a prince who became king of the newly created state. In the mid twentieth century, Afghans believed their nation could be a model of economic and social development that would inspire the world. Instead, political conflict, foreign invasion, and civil war have left the country impoverished and politically dysfunctional. Each of the men Edwards profiles were engaged in the political struggles of the country's recent history. They hoped to see Afghanistan become a more just and democratic nation. But their visions for their country were radically different, and in the end, all three failed and were killed or exiled. Now, Afghanistan is associated with international terrorism, drug trafficking, and repression. http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9314.html

Don't men feel any "pressure" or wish to continue the family line?

Yes it does. Biologically, women are capable of having children. But society plays a part in telling women they must have kids. So society tells its citizens (men and women), they must have kids. What society will not encourage its citizens to produce more, especially when you see the numbers dwindling? Are they forced to have children though? I'm talking about our democratic society....not some oppressive regimes. Do we drag them screaming and kicking to get inseminated?

How do you know how they've come to that decision? For all you know, the women of that time just threw their hands up in the air and said..."oooh, leave me be! I've already got a lot to do with my time washing clothes, cooking and baking and feeding the babies!"

Black Dog, you're giving me a headache. What do you mean by fundamental human rights?

So slavery was okay, since it merely sets certain different behavioural guidelines and social roles for different groups. Gotcha. Were slaves free to voice their protest? I've always had the impression they got lynched, hanged, flogged or burned for doing so.

So why the rhetoric about women's rights to justify our mission in Afghanistan. After all, these women clearly chose to be treated like cattle and, sinc ethey never had rights to begin with, they have no rights to support. By your logic, betsy, we should leave the Taliban alone. Isn't the answer obvious? The poeple are facing real oppression. If the people had chosen to be oppressed, then why were they asking for help? If they did not need and asked for help, would NATO be there?

True. The case of Mary Magdalene was a good example.

Oh sure! Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens. You don't even have to close down law enforcement agencies. Just have a blackout worldwide.

Since you wish to search for root causes....let's see if we can find the root cause of this perceived "upset" by some on this forum over your suggestion. Maybe it is mis-communication. Maybe, it is the way you introduced this topic. You sounded upset on your initial post...and quite hostile on your second post. You were the one who started the topic...and by the looks of it, you were the one who had set the tone of the thread by initiating it with an attitude that was perhaps perceived by some of us to be adversarial. The tone of the following posts by another poster who obviously shared your passion...only stressed this accusatory and adversarial tone. The others were only responding. And if you check the responses more closely....some of us were not being "glib" about what is being done to these women and children. We are refusing to equate these very serious crimes to that of a sexist remark. For some of us, it is no comparison. Actually, in a way...perhaps we were just "floored" by what came across as insensitivity on your part....and took offense with the perception of you using the actual horrible sufferings of these women and children...to take a cheap jab at those who opposed your views over the McKay and Stronach incident. It was perhaps perceived, more or less, that it was you and your supporters...who seemed to have been callous and "glib" about it. You have undermined your true message.

The movie that I saw was supposed to be based on a true story. It was semi-documentary. And yes, politicians seem to have been involved. Some of those involved with the trafficking of these women were soldiers(s) or peacsekeepers involved with the UN stationed in an Eastern European country (Serbia? can't recall which).

And concepts of "natural" gender roles are used to justify and perpetuate power imbalances in relationships and in societies. Who says so? There's ample empirical evidence that power is the controlling factor in every society, not gender. If women are in power, they have control. If men are in power, they have control. There are always many, many men...as well as women...that have no power, and no say, and are abused, and suffer the consequences of their lowly positions if they happen to live in a society where those in control mis-use their power. Power and the abuse of power are universal truths. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. What evidence do you have to support your very general statement?

No. But the precieved obligation to have kids and to pursue motherhod in large part is. What do you mean? A perceived obligation has nothing to do with the biological make-up of a woman. The perception derives from other influences such as modern feminism, post-modern culture, greed, the "me" generation, you name it.....it has nothing to do with the make-up of a woman, biologically. The women who wants to have children do not have any "perceived obligation" to have children. They just have kids!

There are always exceptions. But you've acknowledged that denial of women's rights is systemic. And those who manage to succeed in the face of it did so generally by bucking the system, not accepting it. No I've acknowledged no such thing. Never having a right is not a denial of right. Society ruled that women should not take part in politics. You seem to think that cultural rules that provide certain behavioural guidelines for one group in society and different guidelines for other groups is a denial of rights. Not at all. Cultural norms are not rights in themselves. Rights are enforceable rules determined by law. If a right is not enforceable, it's no right at all. Rights aren't involved in cultural traditions, except as they are reinforced or sanctioned through legislation. The right of women to vote did not exist...so you can't suggest they were denied the right. The right was the right of men to vote. All it took was for women to protest for an equal right, a right to vote! No oppression resulted. Just the right to vote.

What is oppression but the denial of rights? See answer above. To clarify, oppression is the punishment for protesting to your perceived denial of rights. Think Duplessis and the Jehovah Witnesses here... ...and think about rolling heads, lopped off hands, life in prison in other parts of the world...now you're talking oppression. Real oppression.

What doe shat mean? A system which denies individuals' rights arbitrarily is oppressive. Once again you are concluding that differences in societal rights automatically are oppressive. Of course it's not so, if the community at large agrees with the rules. Only when protests against a rule are squashed in an oppressive way do we have oppression. Let's not be too loose with our definitions.

She certainly had to work harder to prove herself worthy of the power she never earned in the first place. Eh? How do you know how hard she worked? Anyway nobody worked harder than Henry...

Generally speaking, yes. Okay, the serf's lord treated him miserably and made his life hell...and the husband treated her miserably and made her life hell...both, big maybes. Are we getting down to degrees of oppression now? Are you saying one was a little bit more...or a lot more...or pretty near the same...or nowhere near the same? Of course you don't know anymore than I do. Perhaps in a Liberal feudal society, there would've been equality of oppression.

Yes. There are good arguments that traditional cultures had led to oppression of women. But the cultural behaviour is not the oppression itself. The cultural behaviour, we have to assume had been accepted by the entire population...including the women. The enforcement of cultural demands may lead to the oppression of women and also other members of a society...but the actual rules or rituals or whatever are not oppression by definition, because they are accepted by the entire community. Further, to equate the oppression of women in, for example Muslim societies under such regimes as the taliban with the cultural tradition of women in the west of not voting or owning property is wrong. What was the oppression? (Perhaps we'll eventually have to define oppression here if you think losing your head and not being able to vote are similarly oppressive). Why was there no protest against these restrictions earlier? Apparently those restrictions were accepted by the entire population until recently. The fact that women ultimately protested and won the right to vote and own property is the complete opposite of oppression.