Prejudice against women

[betsy]

So has anyone commenting on here actually read the book? I think not, it might upset your preconcieved Ideas of discrimination of women. There are sex slaves on the streets of Toronto, which might make a difference if any of you cared.

The worst type of sexual discrimination often comes from women, I hear it on here.

I'm not criticizing your crusade about this, don't get me wrong.

If you truly want to raise awareness about this horrible situation...you'd better send a copies of the book to your MP and to some media...hoping that somebody would do an investigative report on it.

Obviously problems of this nature need fast attention, for there are victims suffering. So pick up that phone and call your MP. You've already read the book. So you're in a much better position to explain what's happening in Toronto!

That would get results faster than ranting on the forum and bashing us for not rushing to pick up a copy of this book. So again, I urge you...pick up that phone and call someone who can actually do something about it fast.

[betsy]

The worst type of sexual discrimination often comes from women, I hear it on here.

Oh I agree with you on that. Whole-heartedly.

This senseless sweeping male-bashing should stop! Painting everyone with the same brush is definitely not progressive. It is a form of bigotry.

[margrace]

The reason this situation, The Anastasia's, and other situations continue is because people will not look at the root causes. I wonder why I am attacked for caring about this, for seeing that situations go on because people want to bash the messenger.

I see that bashing women for trying to stand up for themselves is a common denominator in our country. The only place we can begin to do something about situations such as this is to look for the root causes and they are right here now.

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

[Black Dog]

Sorry, but I find rape and slavery quite, quite serious. Something you cannot simply ignore...unlike everyday jerks who'd developed the habit of making "sexist" references as one crude bloke would just as easily spit in public while grabbing his crotch.

I suppose it's probably never occurred to you that the two are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon.

Yes. We are fortunate that we do not live in such kind of cultures. Although....for some Muslim women, living in the west may not necessarily mean no longer having to deal with that kind of barbarism. Our liberal society seems to be determined to bend backward and had chosen to ignore the very thing they've been criticizing....that of inequality among women.....happening right in their own backyard.

...

And yet these feminists are crucifying men for sexist jokes and put down remarks....what a load of c***.[/

Find me a feminist who supports sharia law and has positive things to say about lslam's misogynistic streak.

[August1991]

You Men just don't get it. When the fact that so many women were being abused by their husband some years ago, the men if our Canadia Pariliament laughted. Qny put down to women is an example of the strength of this prejudice agaisnt them. Jokes and sly remarks are a very revealing fact of the extent of this type of action.

I suppose it's probably never occurred to you that the two are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon.

Just a second here.

Are you two equating physical violence against women and someone making a sexist remark? Because if you are, then we'll have to say good bye to free speech in this country. Why? Because we'd have to forbid many remarks and ideas and God knows where that would lead us.

The Medieval church forbid the expression of many ideas because they were considered heresy or blasphemy. After taking centuries to defeat this kind of obscurantism, should we now resurrect another version under the name of Political Correctness?

I have argued elsewhere that the Left confuses Symbol for Reality and here's another example. Words are symbols; actions are real. Moreover, forcing people to avoid making sexist remarks will not stop sexism.

Find me a feminist who supports sharia law and has positive things to say about lslam's misogynistic streak.

Marion Boyd

More pertinent however is the fact that modern feminists share a similar trait with the mullahs. Both have a tendency to point fingers of moral accusation from a position of self-appointed moral superiority.

[Black Dog]

Just a second here.

Are you two equating physical violence against women and someone making a sexist remark?

Clearly not.

Moreover, forcing people to avoid making sexist remarks will not stop sexism.

Nor will ignoring sexist remarks. I'm in favour of free speech allowing sexist remarks for the simple reason it makes it easier to spot sexists.

Marion Boyd

The 150-page report written by Ontario's former attorney general Marion Boyd concludes that Muslims have the right to seek religious arbitration and mediation for family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance cases.

The religious laws referred to are not Shariah law, cautioned Boyd, but a set of principles within Canadian law.

More pertinent however is the fact that modern feminists share a similar trait with the mullahs. Both have a tendency to point fingers of moral accusation from a position of self-appointed moral superiority.

Meaningless blather.

[August1991]

I'm in favour of free speech allowing sexist remarks for the simple reason it makes it easier to spot sexists.

Hard to argue with that view but make sure the punishment equals the crime.

The 150-page report written by Ontario's former attorney general Marion Boyd concludes that Muslims have the right to seek religious arbitration and mediation for family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance cases.

The religious laws referred to are not Shariah law, cautioned Boyd, but a set of principles within Canadian law.

I call that selective citation:

Some Muslim groups say Boyd's report is naive, accusing her of falling victim to pressure from right-wing Muslim fundamentalists who want the 1,400-year-old Shariah law introduced in Ontario.

Marilou McPhedran, legal counsel to the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, believes this report prepares the stage for Shariah law.

But I have no desire to get involved in a debate about Sharia Law. You asked for an example of a feminist who supports sharia law and I gave you one.

More pertinent however is the fact that modern feminists share a similar trait with the mullahs. Both have a tendency to point fingers of moral accusation from a position of self-appointed moral superiority.

Meaningless blather.

Blather? Sez who?

There's more than an ounce of moralism in Margrace's comments. Many feminists are on a moral crusade and they view feminism as a "just cause". Look, I think Gloria Steinem achieved more because she approached the question with a sense of humour. Hectoring will get you nowhere.

----

If I return to the thread's OP, for there to be prejudice against women, there would have to be a cartel of men - and I simply don't see a possible cartel among 3 billion men. Men are notorious cheaters, particularly where women are concerned.

IOW, I think we have to look at sexism, violence against women and the sex trade in a very different light. For starters, and I don't mean to minimize violence against women, but most victims of violence by far are men.

[betsy]

The reason this situation, The Anastasia's, and other situations continue is because people will not look at the root causes. I wonder why I am attacked for caring about this, for seeing that situations go on because people want to bash the messenger.

Before we even begin to contemplate how we can look at root causes....perhaps if you read your very first post, and your second....then maybe you'll understand why you're getting some negative and....bristling responses.

You didn't exactly come as a regular messenger saying, "I come in peace."

You were more like the bearer of bad news come to a small village already plagued by misery!

Bwa-ha-ha!

[Black Dog]

But I have no desire to get involved in a debate about Sharia Law. You asked for an example of a feminist who supports sharia law and I gave you one.

Actually I asked for a feminist who supports sharia law "and has positive things to say about lslam's misogynistic streak." But I'll let that slide. In any case, it's not clear whether Boyd supports sharia law per se or supports the concept of religious arbitration (which faiths other than Islam practice).

Blather? Sez who?

There's more than an ounce of moralism in Margrace's comments. Many feminists are on a moral crusade and they view feminism as a "just cause". Look, I think Gloria Steinem achieved more because she approached the question with a sense of humour.

I think equating feminists and medival mullahs is nothing more than uneccessary provocation. As for moralism, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a moralist, even on these forums. The ranks of the CPC are filled with them.

Let me ask you this: do you belive the feminist goal of equality and freedom from discrimination and persecution is not a just cause? Whatever the cas emay be, though, I think your working over a sad and all too common straw-woman: the pushy, upity feminist who should sit doiwn and pursue her goals in a ladylike fashion.

Hectoring will get you nowhere.

Nonsense. Hectoring will get you everywhere.

[betsy]

Let me ask you this: do you belive the feminist goal of equality and freedom from discrimination and persecution is not a just cause? Whatever the cas emay be, though, I think your working over a sad and all too common straw-woman: the pushy, upity feminist who should sit doiwn and pursue her goals in a ladylike fashion.

Yes I think it is a just cause....but NOT when it involves a sweeping bash of all male. An undisguised veneer of disdain and contempt!

For what does that gain then? Putting the shoe on the other foot. That is no equality nor freedom from descrimination and persecution.

This is one of the reasons why the womens' right group had splintered. Some of us just don't agree with that kind of "cause."

I don't know about the ladylike fashion (although there is definitely nothing wrong nor shameful with being ladylike....we are women, for crying out loud!)...

....but this kind of unwarranted aggression and indiscriminate animosity actually goes against a normal woman's nature, (and by that I mean someone with no emotional or psychological or physiological baggage) of being peace-loving, sensible and supposedly a much-preferred politician (if you ask Dryden).

[betsy]

I am sick and tired of some of those who purport to speak for women and yet would want us to deny some of the natural instincts we possess!

I am a woman and I am proud of the qualities...and inclinations....and instincts I naturally possess as a woman! I am not ashamed of that!

I am not a man! I do not feel like a man!

Get that?

[betsy]

I see that bashing women for trying to stand up for themselves is a common denominator in our country.

Bashing women for trying to stand up for themselves is a common denominator... IN THIS country?

What country are you from?

What I find troubling is the notion that some women had embraced: that in order to stand up for yourself, you need to stand on someone.

Why?

[betsy]

I see that bashing women for trying to stand up for themselves is a common denominator in our country. The only place we can begin to do something about situations such as this is to look for the root causes and they are right here now.

Please. Don't make such rash and irresponsible statements...and claim that you speak for women.

Do not make our bid less credible. Women, generally, do not spout off senselessly like loose cannons.

We are capable of discerning what is fair and what is not...what is right and what is wrong...what is truth and what is a load of c***!

We have the capability to think!

[betsy]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that.

And?

What did they have to say about this problem?

[betsy]

And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

Again...just a sweeping statement.

You really think all prostitutes were forced into this?

That some young women, unwittingly, had not decided that this is an easier way to make a quick buck?

You think some deluded young girl did not imagine herself as making it to the "big time"....like those high class call girls you hear about, catering to sheikhs and dignitaries and celebrities? Apparently demanding thousands of dollars in one shot?

That big-time madames like Heidi Fleiss did not recruit girls as any employment agencies would?

Yeah, perhaps if there is no demand, there will be no supply.....but if there are no abundance of supply, how can you ensure a demand will not be created? You know how marketing goes. You create a need!

[betsy]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

So this is all about general prostitution?

I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves."

Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave.

It is a big problem.

Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it?

[margrace]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

So this is all about general prostitution?

I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves."

Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave.

It is a big problem.

Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it?

If you would make an effort to read this book then you would understand what I am talking about. It is about women in eastern countries being promised good jobs and when they get to Canada they find they are slaves. It is about these same women asking the johns to let them use their cell phone to call home and tell their parents where they are. It is about these johns going right back to the pimps and reporting to them and the women being beaton for asking for help, these women are fed as little as the pimps can get away with, they are beaton if they do not comply completely with what the Johns want.

When occasionally these women do get away and get help they are sent back to the country they came from where they are met at the plane by the same people who kidnapped them originally. They can either be sent back to another country to be enslaved again or the are killed.

Why don't you read the book, that is all I am asking?

[betsy]

I talk reguarly to my member of parliment so don't advise me on that. Start with the slaves on the streets of our big Canadian cities. And you know who is to blame for all this, not the women you want to blame but the so called Johns, the men who pick these women up and refuse to help them. We have a very sick generation out there.

So this is all about general prostitution?

I was thinking of white slavery, when you referred to "slaves."

Well, slaves can serve different "masters." Some slaves work for crack...or heroin. But then again, some slaves end up taking crack or heroin...to dull the pain of being a slave.

It is a big problem.

Prostitution had been around for ages. Perhaps even prehistoric times...maybe women trading sex for a piece of dinosaur meat. Do you think we can totally eliminate it?

If you would make an effort to read this book then you would understand what I am talking about. It is about women in eastern countries being promised good jobs and when they get to Canada they find they are slaves. It is about these same women asking the johns to let them use their cell phone to call home and tell their parents where they are. It is about these johns going right back to the pimps and reporting to them and the women being beaton for asking for help, these women are fed as little as the pimps can get away with, they are beaton if they do not comply completely with what the Johns want.

When occasionally these women do get away and get help they are sent back to the country they came from where they are met at the plane by the same people who kidnapped them originally. They can either be sent back to another country to be enslaved again or the are killed.

Why don't you read the book, that is all I am asking?

Was this made into a tv movie by any chance?

I saw a tv movie (somebody lent me a copy) and it was about Eastern European women, some were pressured into complying under threat that something bad will happen to their family. If I remember it right, the heroine was fearful for her baby.

It was awful. I do not deny that. And I cannot even imagine the horror in those kinds of situations.

I am dubious about those strippers being given quick entry into Canada...somebody ought to take a closer look into that. As I said, immigration should be given some scrutiny. Obviously somebody's being able to get those girls in Canada under false pretenses.

So what did your MP had to say when you talked to them?

[Black Dog]

Yes I think it is a just cause....but NOT when it involves a sweeping bash of all male. An undisguised veneer of disdain and contempt!

For what does that gain then? Putting the shoe on the other foot. That is no equality nor freedom from descrimination and persecution.

Can anyone provide some actual examples of feminist male bashing of the sort referred to here? Because I've never seen it, which leads me to belive it's an anti-feminist construct.

This is one of the reasons why the womens' right group had splintered. Some of us just don't agree with that kind of "cause."

That's beause you're knowledge of feminism could fill a thimble with room to spare.

I don't know about the ladylike fashion (although there is definitely nothing wrong nor shameful with being ladylike....we are women, for crying out loud!)...

....but this kind of unwarranted aggression and indiscriminate animosity actually goes against a normal woman's nature, (and by that I mean someone with no emotional or psychological or physiological baggage) of being peace-loving, sensible and supposedly a much-preferred politician (if you ask Dryden).

I am sick and tired of some of those who purport to speak for women and yet would want us to deny some of the natural instincts we possess!

I am a woman and I am proud of the qualities...and inclinations....and instincts I naturally possess as a woman! I am not ashamed of that!

I am not a man! I do not feel like a man!

Get that?

Have you ever asked yourself where "natural" ends and "socially constructed gender role" begins? I'm gonna say...no. See that's what feminisim is about: examining, rather than accepting, the rhetoric of women's "natural roles" that have been used to justify oppression since time immemorial.

[betsy]

Have you ever asked yourself where "natural" ends and "socially constructed gender role" begins? I'm gonna say...no. See that's what feminisim is about: examining, rather than accepting, the rhetoric of women's "natural roles" that have been used to justify oppression since time immemorial.

Of course I've considered it. I understand the natural roles such as childbirth, nurturing etc..,

But as for "socially constructed gender role", which in simpler terms just mean men do one thing and women do another....have traditional cultural roles given rise to oppression of women? I don't think so.

That's the invention of 20th century feminism. Of course oppression is relative.

Are you saying the wives of serfs were more oppressed than the serfs themselves?

This is a huge discussion... and can't be encapsulated into three or four sentences.

It has to do with power. Not gender.

Are you saying Queen Elizabeth I was oppressed?

Women may not have had the same rights...but that was the system. It was not oppression.

Rights and oppression don't always go hand in hand. Further more, women in history who'd had more to offer had managed to do it.

[Black Dog]

Of course I've considered it. I understand the natural roles such as childbirth, nurturing etc..,

If they are natural, why then are so many women breaking from said roles? For example: birth rates are declining and many who are having kids are waiting muchlonger. Are they suppressing "natural roles" or are they able to defy them beause they aren't natural (in otehr words not uinherent to every woman)?

But as for "socially constructed gender role", which in simpler terms just mean men do one thing and women do another....have traditional cultural roles given rise to oppression of women? I don't think so.

That's the invention of 20th century feminism. Of course oppression is relative.

Actually yes, they have, even in the west. You do remember that women couldn't vote in Canada till a few decades ago? Or own property. Or get a decent education? Need I remind you that traditional concepts of "natural" gender roles are responsible for the veil in Islam, genital mutilation in Africa, bride-burning in India and more?

Are you saying the wives of serfs were more oppressed than the serfs themselves?

Generally speaking, yes.

It has to do with power. Not gender.

And concepts of "natural" gender roles are used to justify and perpetuate power imbalances in relationships and in societies.

Are you saying Queen Elizabeth I was oppressed?

She certainly had to work harder to prove herself worthy of the power she never earned in the first place.

Women may not have had the same rights...but that was the system. It was not oppression.

What doe shat mean? A system which denies individuals' rights arbitrarily is oppressive.

Rights and oppression don't always go hand in hand.

What is oppression but the denial of rights?

Further more, women in history who'd had more to offer had managed to do it

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.

[betsy]

Of course I've considered it. I understand the natural roles such as childbirth, nurturing etc..,

If they are natural, why then are so many women breaking from said roles? For example: birth rates are declining and many who are having kids are waiting muchlonger. Are they suppressing "natural roles" or are they able to defy them beause they aren't natural (in otehr words not uinherent to every woman)?

If the choices you're giving is either natural or cultural roles....are you then saying that childbirth is a cultural role?

Don't talk nonsense. Before there were any cultural roles, there was childbirth. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of us here...either cultural or liberal!

Anyway my etcetera was a big etcetera...you only have to spend a certain time around boys and girls, ie a daycare...to see that natural behaviour adapts to the culture. Not the other way around.

Like boys in ancient times wrestled and whacked each other with sticks...and girls played cooking and nurtured dolls. Today, boys wrestle and whack each other with tonka trucks...and girls play cooking and nurture barbie dolls. Nothing really changes, naturally!

Why is it that usually only certain men are attracted to certain traditionally female roles, ie hairdressing and interior decorations....while less feminine women we might say, are attracted to driving semi-tractors.

And don't say it....the exception proves the rule.

[betsy]

Of course I've considered it. I understand the natural roles such as childbirth, nurturing etc..,

If they are natural, why then are so many women breaking from said roles? For example: birth rates are declining and many who are having kids are waiting muchlonger. Are they suppressing "natural roles" or are they able to defy them beause they aren't natural (in otehr words not uinherent to every woman)?

It's not a role that demands that it be done. It is a unique capacity that women have...so far at least.

But the entire package that comes with childbirth is the role of raising children.

Anyway, why do we hear about women worrying that their biological clock is ticking, "oh my goodness, I forgot to have children!"

[Black Dog]

If the choices you're giving is either natural or cultural roles....are you then saying that childbirth is a cultural role?

No. But the precieved obligation to have kids and to pursue motherhod in large part is.

Don't talk nonsense. Before there were any cultural roles, there was childbirth. Otherwise there wouldn't be any of us here...either cultural or liberal!

What's your point?

Anyway my etcetera was a big etcetera...you only have to spend a certain time around boys and girls, ie a daycare...to see that natural behaviour adapts to the culture. Not the other way around.

Like boys in ancient times wrestled and whacked each other with sticks...and girls played cooking and nurtured dolls. Today, boys wrestle and whack each other with tonka trucks...and girls play cooking and nurture barbie dolls. Nothing really changes, naturally!

I'm not denying certain innate differences between men and women. What I object to is using those differences to justify generalizations or, worse, discrimination. In other words, forcing people into preordained roles regardless of the degree to which they conform to the "natural gender roles".

Why is it that usually only certain men are attracted to certain traditionally female roles, ie hairdressing and interior decorations....while less feminine women we might say, are attracted to driving semi-tractors.

The point I'm trying to make here is that simply slapping the "natural gender role" on certain traits or trends and leaving other potential explanations unexamined is just dumb. Examining those gender roles is part of what feminism is about.

And don't say it....the exception proves the rule.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

[Argus]

There is a huge difference between an (alleged) juvenile remark in the House of Commoms and rape and sexual slavery

I disagree, it is an important point and one that shouldn't be swept under the carpet. Women and children are still being treated as second class citizens.

Children ARE second class citizens. And women are not second class citizens in western democracies, just in those other crappy places whose cultures the lefties so admire.

This is unacceptable behaviour and will not be tolerated!

Meh. What ya gonna do about it, muffin?

It is not alleged, as there is a tape of what he said, and it is more than juvenile, it is discrimination. The cost of such intolerance and discrimination is going to be every woman in the country voting for The parties of these two women.

I think you're being extremely sexist in believing women are as stupid as that.