rehmwa 2 #76 October 4, 2005 Quotebut I don't read you as particularly supportive of removing societal obstacles to women's choices. I don't see claims of 'societal obstacles' as being an effective way of treating issues that happen on a one to one basis. Deal with the individuals as it occurs and culture will change over time. Cry about 'culture' and try to slam dunk it and 'culture' pushes back. My belief is that individuals define culture. My impression is that you believe the government can define culture and that will magically change individuals. I fully want to see obstacles removed for anybody being unfairly blocked. I believe the best way to do this is first action by the individual being blocked. I am only not supportive of those that cry 'culture' as the default position. Which is a strange conflict considering the goal. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildWilly 0 #77 October 4, 2005 QuoteIt will NEVER come to pass....definitely. Geo W Bush will be the last President...definitely. Bill Cole Never speak in absolutes. You don't know it won't happen. Willygrowing old is inevitable, growing up is optional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #78 October 5, 2005 QuoteI don't see claims of 'societal obstacles' as being an effective way of treating issues that happen on a one to one basis. My claims? I'm somewhat speech(key?)less. I've been sitting here wondering how to respond to this. Claims? You mean like if I claimed millions of people were murdered in the Holocaust?; how bout my claims that we once enslaved generations of Blacks resulting in major societal/cultural/legal/interpersonal problems today? But, let's stick to the 'claims' under discussion. To deny that the pervasive history of the social/legal/cultural/emotional/physical/reproductive oppression of women still plays a major role in how society views women (and worse, how we view and value ourselves) is to leave the admittedly sometimes confining borders of reality and wander around in a personal fantasy land. My main focus, motivated by my own experiences, is that women have bought into what Naomi Cambell calls 'the beauty myth' as a determination of our individual and cultural value. It is the chief insturment of women's oppression today and the genesis of problems of workplace discrimination based on beauty, sexual harassment, huge expenditures of money (and years of our lives) on beauty products, suppressed sexuality, eating disorders, and self-inflicted violence. Let's use sexual harassment as a specific. The govt passed laws concerning sexual harassment till it became ludicrous. Innocent and completly human comments and behaviors were viewed with suspicion and fodder for legal action. Part of my 'solution' is to talk, discuss, communicate, have dialogue if you will. As women, I hope we can rise above the 'value' that has it's origin as making ourselves marketable as wives or prostitutes. Individuals, dude ...individuals talking, sharing, changing (or not) as they choose. Personally, I'd like to see some changes. I freely discuss these problems in the hopes that individuals will consider the issues and make their own choices. QuoteDeal with the individuals as it occurs and culture will change over time. Cry about 'culture' and try to slam dunk it and 'culture' pushes back. Tell me about it. You mean like, "socialy isolate, ridicule or kill the 'offender'." Dude, You are starting to posture, at the expense of communicating. You come up with a 'slam dunk' of culture from "My solution is ...dialogue. To discuss issues, exchange feelings and ideas"? QuoteMy belief is that individuals define culture. I believe we are (kind of) in agreement here. Your statement is correct, but only half of the equation. We, as individuals, are in a symbiotic relationship with our culture. Each influences the other. I'm curious where you get that I'm asking the government for anything. I've frequently expressed that I oppose legislation designed to give 'privledge' to women. I do insist, however, that it not impede our struggle for fair and equal treatment within our culture. That whole right to vote thing was much appreciated. QuoteMy impression is that you believe the government can define culture and that will magically change individuals See above. I hope we can let that rest now. QuoteI fully want to see obstacles removed for anybody being unfairly blocked. I believe the best way to do this is first action by the individual being blocked. I am only not supportive of those that cry 'culture' as the default position. Which is a strange conflict considering the goal. What is it, specifically, that I have said that you disagree with? Give me a statement or a specific issue. I can handle honest disagreement over issues. More problematic is the individual (male or female) who is jerked off of center because the 'natural and traditional order of things' is threatened. It's difficult discussing issues with these people as their objection is a strong, primitive reaction to factors viewed as threatening the tribe. Some people can rise above that, some can't. So help me out here. What did I say, specifically, that you disagree with? All human beings are subject to varying degrees of tribal/social forces that limit freedom and self-determination, but within the confines of those limits, we, as individuals, are able to exercise control over our own lives. I got nothing against men. Some of you are completely adorable! Change, in and of itself, is stressful ...for all involved. Sorry about that, brother, but change, on these isues is long overdue ...and it's coming. Relax, it's not bringing hell with it. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,473 #79 October 5, 2005 >I don't see claims of 'societal obstacles' as being an effective >way of treating issues that happen on a one to one basis. I agree. However, some issues occur very often rather than on a one to one basis. It _is_ appropriate to deal with them more generally. Take women's voting. It would be ludicrous to claim that every single woman who felt that she had a right to vote be required to bring a lawsuit against the government. It was a general problem, and a general solution was the most appropriate. Similarly, some women's issues today are more amenable to general solutions. Laws that prohibit women from being summarily fired if they get married, or become pregnant, are a good idea IMO. Heck, that _allows_ decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, rather than have an (often misguided) policy applied to all female employees. Some issues are better solved on a one-on-one basis, like most harassement issues. >My belief is that individuals define culture. My impression is that you > believe the government can define culture and that will magically > change individuals. The government magically changed women to voters; I think that was a good move on their part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #80 October 5, 2005 it shouldn't matter what gender the leader is. the should be elected fairly buy the people because they are the best for the job. we have a woman leader and have had for 2 full terms and she has just been elected for a third. she has done the opposite of what g.w. has done for the u.s. .... she (and her cabinet)has boosted our economy dropped unemployment, given more services to the people and the govornment has 'made' money. she saw right through the piece of shit that you guys call a presedent and unlike other world leaders stood up to what she belived was best for 'the people' of our beautiful country. rather than worrying about economic boycot from the u.s. a couple of years later our economy is thriving and the u.s.'s is going down the shitter. maybe a woman would be good for the u.s. get rid of the selfish morons with the big hats, big cigars and very large bank accounts. then you might get some real democracy."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #81 October 5, 2005 I think we will have a woman President in the near future (2008) and I think she would do an awesome job! I think she would be fully capeble to perform the job just as good, if not better than her predecessors! Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,173 #82 October 5, 2005 QuoteI think she would be fully capeble to perform the job just as good, if not better than her predecessors! Now that's some pretty faint praise Any woman who wants to be President will have to be a politician first. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #83 October 5, 2005 Yes she would.....????? Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #84 October 5, 2005 Condi Rice '08. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #85 October 5, 2005 QuoteCondi Rice '08. That could be interesting... when and who was the last president that didn't have a spouse? It's been a long while... not saying that would be a drawback for her, she's smart enough to be a heck of a president, but America has a certain perception they're used to... I think..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #86 October 5, 2005 LOL....Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton....there's a good race! I was, However referring to Senator Clinton! Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest 1010 #87 October 5, 2005 >.. and the u.s.'s is going down the shitter. don't believe everything you read You can have it good, fast, or cheap: pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #88 October 5, 2005 QuoteCondi Rice and Hillary Clinton....there's a good race! That would, IMO, be the greatest opportunity for a 3rd party candidate... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #89 October 5, 2005 Guy - the number of generalizations, [edit] and [edit] that flare out of your posts just knocks me over. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #90 October 5, 2005 QuoteGuy - the number of generalizations I believe I have to concur on this note. rabble rabble rabble can't really ccomment on the other twoWhy yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,153 #91 October 5, 2005 I doubt it will happen any time soon unless she is willing to be used as a puppet. The upper echelon of society, business and politics is still very much a boys game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #92 October 5, 2005 QuoteQuoteGuy - the number of generalizations I believe I have to concur on this note. rabble rabble rabble can't really ccomment on the other two Good point, I wasn't being very nice. I'll change it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Johnnyskydive 0 #93 October 5, 2005 ????Why'd you edit your post? Someone being harsh doesn't bother me one bit! To play in the political arena you've got to be more tough skinned than that! I don't think Sec. Rice has any chance being nominated by the Republican party. I do, however, think that Sen. Clinton has a very good chance to win the nomination, if she runs! The point of the last post was sarcasm! I do believe if thoes were the choices that a third candidate would have a very good chance! Because said candidate would be the Republican that finished second in the primaries, and probably most moderates would consider voting for this "third" party! What generalizations do you draw from that, and the rest of my posts? That I'm not a ultra conservative tight ass from Texas? Johnny Skydive! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 October 5, 2005 1 - The original post was written such that "Any woman" would be a good president - (regardless of her qualifications or experience (very generalized)). I find later you were implying Hillary specifically. So I changed the post based on understanding the hint. 2 - Another thread you talk about 'rural' folk in a particular stereotype - congrats that takes courage to bucket up a particular group into a nice neat little ugly conception just because you think they 'all' disagree with you rather than have their own ideas of what's important in life. In this case, you belittle their ambitions and lives and consider them lesser people than you. I think that is narrow minded. What do you think about Black people? What about Jews? Any preconceived notions about freeflyers? I'm assuming you're not a rural person or have ever met one. That's about all I can deduce for now. And you like Hillary. here's a . this will go nowhere. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
