"Women's Issues" are "Side Issues?"

2004 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Ulysses:

I've taken the 10-minute timeout suggested by polycarp, and I don't feel any differently.

I believe I'm gone. I can't buy in to being civil to the uncivil and I've said multiple times that the main problem with the Dems and often with Thom Hartmann is insisting on figuratively taking rhetorical knives to rhetorical gunfights. I believe Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow are the two smartest progressive talkers, but Thom has the fatal weakness of wasting reasoned discourse on willful philistines in the vain hope that they or the audience will understand that and respond accordingly. I do not share his optimism.

Nobody has banned me or even said anything negative to me. I just can't live with not giving them back everything they send over, tit for tat. That's the only thing they'll ever respond to and power and strength and calling them out is all they'll ever understand. If they haven't demonstrated that yet by the way they've run Congress, people who can't see it are ineducable.

Anyhow, I don't make the rules, it's not my board, and I'm willing to abide by those rules by disappearing, without making a stink about it. I will not play in any game wherein I'm required to carry what I believe is a handicap, and I believe that practicing required civility when dealing with those who are uncivil by their very natures constitutes just such a handicap.

Rigel was no big loss. Drc's farewell analysis of his situation in another thread was a bullseye.

"With reasonable men I will reason. With honorable men I will plead. But to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will surely be lost." William Lloyd Garrison

Bye.

Ulysses

Don't you dare go away, Ulysses. That would break my heart. Don't you know that your so-called ad-hominems, if they are such, elicit laughter and cheers more than anything else, and only the most stuffy and rigid poop-heads on this forum could possibly have a problem with your refreshing style. I didn't even mind back when you told me to "go play in traffic," on the MEAT thread; I thought it was funny and certainly would have been shocked if you had been banned for it (I'm sure I was just a "rude."). I mean, you and I don't always agree, but I would always expect you to be direct and directly insulting, because that's honest. Honesty, not mealy-mouthed, phony BS, is your thing, and this forum is made better, and far more interesting, by your presence.

I do agree with you on everything you said there. I call what you do, "civil-speak," as in, it's your civil right to be uncivil to the uncivil and the nonsensical. I don't know if you ever read my blog post on the subject, entitled, Civility or Civil-Speak and the Downside of Kumbaya, but I still stand by it. http://zenzoenow.blogspot.com/2011/02/civility-or-civil-speak-and-downsi... If they haven't read it, I hope the moderators here will, and try to relax in the future. Actually, they have been better lately, or so I thought. At least I haven't been banned, since the last time. And I do think Polycarp's post put a damper on our spirits here. Ah well. He's a good guy.

Again, I hope you'll change your mind, if not today, at some time in the near future. If not, farewell—you will be missed, especially when the Kerachen comes calling again...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

I think Kerry wants to believe that somehow the US Constitution expresses the basis for an exact answer to every dispute he wants to settle, namely the one he thinks is the right one. He wants to avoid "contestation of rights" but can't. He won't accept pregnancy as being or involving a medical "condition" because that would involve a contestation of rights. At the same time, he makes the argument that viability is the determining factor in whether a woman may be permitted to opt for an abortion thus rendering moot his own determination of the relevance of whether pregnancy involves a medical condition: for he has accepted that a medical procedure may be deemed acceptable whether or not that determination has been made. Because a determination of viability is not a determination of the presence of life, the admissibility of the abortion procedure acknowledged by Kerry should also lead him to recognize the "contestation of rights" inherent in the determination of whether the procedure is constitutional or not. Since at some level he does acknowledge this, he appears to me to be inconsistent in that he needs to argue that life is a "prime right" so to speak. Of course, the Constition says no such thing, and as I pointed out it is not that other rights stem from the right to life but that being alive confers all rights deemed to exist as such. One must be alive to have rights, but being alive is not "more" of a right than any other. Arguably that undermines the ability of the Constitution to "frame" individual rights, but in fact the determination of rights as they exist in the public sphere, that is as is so often the case in contest with each other, may not be resolvable according to an exact formula but as a political resolution renders a legal (and constitutional) outcome (determination).

I'm so glad you said that, Nimblecivet. I think you've put your finger on the exact weaknesses of his position.

Just the fact that a proposed abortion after viability would have to go to a court —be considered either by a panel or a judge, with advocates from both sides of the issue, including the woman's doctors and whatever other interested parties might be involved— demonstrates the validity of your statements about rights needing to be contested, that is, I assume, each weighed against the others. (But don't write the word "considered," or consideration; that makes certain, nameless people crazy.) After all, most laws on the books regarding abortion after viability make exceptions for the health of the mother, and sometimes in cases of rape or incest, unless you're talking about Texas, or some other knucklehead state in the South.

Also, one thing never mentioned here is that all of Dr. George Tiller's late-term abortions were legal. He didn't do illegal late-term abortions. That means there had to be medical reasons for the abortions, or other considerations that qualified as legal.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Don't forget, tomorrow, Saturday, Aug 4, 2012 is National Kiss My Ass Day, in Honor of Mitt and Chik.

All day long, should an obstructionist spy whore Manchurian American bent on letting America fail to get rid of the Black Man in the White House say anything bigoted and stupid, you can simply reply:

Kiss My Ass!

Kiss my total Ass!

kiss MY ass!

There are actually 300,000,000 ways.

Try one, tomorrow.

End the endless raging debate about everything, every chance you get.

Tomorrow.

3 hours away now, on the West Coast.

Showtime, NYC!

Hey Donald.... Kiss My Ass!!!!

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am

Have you noticed, Anonymous, Mitt's perpetual, phony social mask? Also, his face is almost perfectly symmetrical, and you know that sociopaths often have symmetrical faces. That makes him one scary dude, in my book.

More on civil-speak:

Gore Vidal:As far as I’m concerned, the only sort of pro-crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself.

William F. Buckley:Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/video-of-the-day-gor...

Ah, those were the days...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

DITTO! If you leave, you let them win! And since when did this forum become for the purpose of wrangling with obstructionists anyway? That's why they're obstructionists: they are here to get in the way of a forum meant for a think-tank like environment for progressives, etc. to share ideas and information. What's really sad is to observe how often the obstructionists' tactic works: they know that their mere presence is enough to raise the hackles of us progressives here and make us want to take them on. And it is hard to ignore them after all: they know how to flood a thread and the board itself. So it takes some work to maintain the space, but people here (including myself), if they want to spend the effort, in my opinion need to spend more time debating which ideas are better, sussing out where we agree and disagree, how we can compromise if necessary and what kind of agenda we might look for, how to assess Obama and the democrats, which groups and individuals are doing good work, etc.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Nimblecivet: DITTO! If you leave, you let them win! And since when did this forum become for the purpose of wrangling with obstructionists anyway? That's why they're obstructionists: they are here to get in the way of a forum meant for a think-tank like environment for progressives, etc. to share ideas and information. What's really sad is to observe how often the obstructionists' tactic works: they know that their mere presence is enough to raise the hackles of us progressives here and make us want to take them on. And it is hard to ignore them after all: they know how to flood a thread and the board itself. So it takes some work to maintain the space, but people here (including myself), if they want to spend the effort, in my opinion need to spend more time debating which ideas are better, sussing out where we agree and disagree, how we can compromise if necessary and what kind of agenda we might look for, how to assess Obama and the democrats, which groups and individuals are doing good work, etc.

Well, Nimblecivet, I was going to let you have the last word here, but no, I’m ba-aa-aack... :-)

Needless to say, I agree with the spirit of your comment, with its advocacy for hanging in there on behalf of the “think-tank like environment for progressives,” even though I personally often come here just to schmooze with simpaticos and defend my worldview against the not-so-simpaticos. Nevertheless, I did think it was good of you to add your “DITTO,” and encourage Ulysses to stay.

I understand Ulysses’ reaction to the rules-enforcement edict, as spelled out by Polycarp2, as much as I also understand the need for certain civil parameters, which might discourage real abuse, bullying, and the degradation of this forum away from the thinking environment you’d like to see. But I understand, because I haven’t seen anything from any of us that would warrant banning. Instead, I’ve seen disputes that to my mind can only be categorized as either salubrious, educational, or funny, and any reactions to any nonsense always seemed warranted to me.

Seriously, though, the rules enforcement edict ruffled my sense of liberty, perhaps not as strongly as it did for Ulysses, but for sure. I don’t know how U. would speak to this, but for me it asks me to tell lies and to believe something about myself that is untrue, i.e., that I am devoid of hostility, and disgust, and aggression, and anger, and that I am only capable of confronting BS with silence, the kind of silence that I and my sex have been told is my/our only recourse in the face of injustice and wrongheaded belief. For what is the moderated response, if not silence, when the vexation demands a merciless, unequivocal repudiation? Speaking less formally, to be nice in the face of crap is to be stupid and enslaved twice, isn’t it?

Well, these thoughts are wasted on those who have been indoctrinated in the establishments of authority. It’s as though the concept of peace has evolved into a tyranny of quiet acquiescence. Is that what peace is all about? If so, I want none of it.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I definitely respect your position. I do read the comments but somehow I missed the thing about the "rule enforcement edict." I surmise it is something of a hamstring in your view. Well, I just glanced at a thread called "Forum Is Being Overrun By Righties" where Sue puts out the call for (volunteer) moderators: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/08/forum-being-overrun-righties#comment-158985. Well, I have to admit that I have been banned and had to beg to be allowed back. That experience is one of those which has reinforced in my mind the need to be reticent when it comes to expressing outrage. I don't begrudge anybody their right to wield the sword of righteousness, don't get me wrong. Its just that in reflection I've travelled through so many permutations of speculation that I've been autoconditioned to view everything with a bit of scepticism. Well, no more. I have decided to adopt the virtue of Stupidity. I am going to condition my reflexes to come down on political incorrectness with the vehemence of amoeba with indigestion. You know, like in one of those '50's movies. I pity the fool who tests the limits of social acceptability in my presence. Guess what: are you (I WILL use the third-person impersonal ANY GOD DAMN TIME I LIKE- THANK YOU!) an idiot because your parents screwed with your mind? TOO BAD. Is what you (3rd pers. imp.) say 50% correct? Well, too bad, cuz I'm coming down on you3pi 150% for the other 50%. And I will never apologize for anything again no matter what. If I can help it.

Anyway, this is what brought me back here:

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/bullied-14-old-girl-gets-plastic-surgery-fix-110322837--abc-news-health.html

Asked if they were concerned that operating on Nadia conveyed the message that other bullied children needed to have plastic surgery, (Dr. Thomas) Romo replied: "She wasn't picked to have her surgery because she was bullied. She was picked for her surgery because of her deformities."

Not good. If you read the article you may appreciate the "forgive but not forget" thing. As far as that goes there may be some situations where certain people might legitimately end up needing plastic surgery. But the first thing I thought of when I saw the "before" picture was "That's someone I could see at an Earth First happening." You see, there is a significant component of the left comprised of hurt people finding their way out of the sick society that hurt them and coming to discover and embrace a truth and beauty they otherwise would not have. Yes, its a dangerous game, but I think we need to embrace this aspect of our psychology as the way to get over the "loser" role we have been assigned by the mainstream. Back to the Earth First thing, I think some of the women there were physically and/or spiritual unconformed to the positivist ideal of the mainstream and thus looked to Nature for the creativity which reaffirmed their true beauty. But of course they all already had boyfriends, sigh...

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

NC, re civil and not-so civil discourse: I'm wondering if you'd agree that the trick, if you're pushed to go "amoeba with indigestion," would be to learn the subtle art of the indirect insult, so that your opponent doesn't even see the insult; better yet, he's not sure if you're talking to him or just thinking out loud to nobody in particular. For example, you might drop in a non-sequitur, borrowing from P.G. Wodehouse, “There is a [wonderful cure for idiocy]. It was invented by a Frenchman. It is called the guillotine.”

Well, I'm not sure where I stand on the subject anymore. I'm open to learning new skills, even though I tend to admire the direct insult, if only for its honesty and lack of sophistication. But a problem arises for me, when I see someone who claims that compassion from others converted them from bad to good. Such a person said exactly that on some show on MSNBC the other day. He had been a skinhead, neo-Nazi, and it was only compassion that allowed him to choose a different path. I can see how that would work. And so, it might be interesting to try it sometime.

About your link, oh man, I'm so with you on that. Our world is rapidly going the way of the stepfordization, if you will, of womankind. I'm already getting to the point —and this may seem misogynistic for me to admit— where I cannot stand women, at least the women actresses, celebrities and political commentators and wives I see on TV and in film. If I have to listen to another Valley-girlish voice or look at another insipid, bland, made-up, Barbie doll face, I'm going to be sick. Thank god we still have representatives of beautiful women of a different kind, those who don't happen to possess standard beauty but have the beauty of intelligence and wisdom, women such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Vandana Shiva.

Ginsburg probably wasn't a gold standard beauty as a girl, or young woman. What if a plastic surgeon had gotten ahold of her and turned her into one? What if all young girls go the way of your bullied teen? What will a future Supreme Court look like, if it even allows such perfect, unreal beauties among the men— Barbie-Justices among the male justices who will still have their real faces intact? Wouldn't that be hideous? We're already seeing it on all the shows, with a few exceptions.

I liked what you said and how you said it. And I agree: the "before" looked better in a way that suggests, as you suggest, an independence of spirit, or something real. I often feel that way about Before and After pictures. I like the Befores, especially when the Afters look duck-mouthed and soul-dead. (Am I being catty or envious? Who knows...I have long ago given up the battle with gravity...)

I'm glad at least one man notices these things too. That makes me hopeful for humanity.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,civil and uncivil and direct and indirect, rules are changing as society change(for better or worse) You have no choice but to keep an open mind. I don`t understand your view on compassion? I agree with your view of stepfordization. I grew up with as long as you didn`t look like a freak,you were ok.But as tv grew,so has "image",it has effect our looks and communication. Control the message,control the people. A lot of "deprogramming" is needed, how do we get back to "normal"? Only one man give you hope for humanity? There goes the little girl throwing the starfish back in the sea.

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Tayl, I've moved some of your comments from the "There are Rules..." thread to here, because they seem more relevant to this one.

Quote tayl44: You`re right on the diagreement with "genitals rap song". We have evolve since,could we agree(after 50 million hits on song) that a large reason for the attention,the sexist rap was an extension of "the dozens"?

Hm-m-m, I’m not sure, Tayl. I think it got a lot of attention for a lot of different reasons, and maybe that was one. Just as The Dozens evolved in part —the “yo mamma is so fat” snaps— out of the strong, dominant presence of black women in the African American family, perhaps sexist rap became a "cure" for the humiliation felt by men and boys who must face their own vulnerabilities in relation to real women and girls.

That “Show Me Your Genitals” by the white rapper could also have been a satire, though a dumb one, a mocking of misogynistic gangsta rap, taking its disdain for women to ridiculous extremes. And so some people thought it was funny. But if it wasn’t satire, and whole masses of young people took it seriously and accepted its messages, then we’ve got a problem. That would be tantamount to tolerating KKK rap, or neo-Nazi skinhead punk music, and not recognizing the signs.

Quote tayl44: The NBC moderators blew one video about women in the Olympics,"Bodies in Motion".it show women sexy bodies with no reference of names or sports,they pull it after complains calling it 'creepy"! How can a women sexy body be creepy? Z ,calm down,you know that will the creators excuse,but in my opinion,the video disrespect in not giving the ladies whole stories.That`s sexist,i would have never let it on the air.

I’m glad you brought the Olympics and NBC’s Bodies in Motion montage. Dave Zirin’s documentary Not Just a Game exposes the politics of sports, political issues that lots of sports fans never notice.

Quote Dave Zirin: ...the film is about the way politics and sports are forever enmeshed/entangled with one another. The historic relationship between the sports world and American women is one part of that story. But no matter the "ism" we're talking about -- racism, militarism, sexism, commercialism -- the point of the film is that there is politics and promise woven throughout. For Bobby Riggs, there is Billie Jean King; for Avery Brundage, there is Muhammad Ali. For the caricature of Pat Tillman, there is the real flesh-and-blood man Pat Tillman. Sports is the closest thing to a national language we have. So the results of these battles for social justice inside sports have serious repercussions in the real world.

I saw parts of the documentary on Free Speech TV, the part where he discusses the evolution of the presence of women in sports and how it has gone from a woman-free zone and the prejudices against women that kept them out, through Title IX reforms and the burgeoning of women in sports, to now, where women’s sports gets pretty much ignored by the media, unless it’s to objectify them as sex objects.

“The more things change...”

Quote tayl44: Zenzoe,civil and uncivil and direct and indirect, rules are changing as society change(for better or worse) You have no choice but to keep an open mind. I don`t understand your view on compassion?

Yes.

Compassion for a neo-Nazi skinhead? Sure, I can understand how this notion would be hard to imagine. But, if you understand that such behavior often derives of poverty plus abusive parenting and other factors not conducive to producing a loving person, then you might see how a reversal of ugly factors, via compassion, might reverse the ugly thinking and acting. We’re talking about human beings, after all, not machines.

The neo-Nazi in question, after years of living among skinheads and absorbing their hatreds, ended up being hired as a teen by a Jewish man who relentlessly taught him to love himself and made him feel worthy of love. That person, and others, turned him around.

Quote tayl44: I agree with your view of stepfordization. I grew up with as long as you didn`t look like a freak,you were ok.But as tv grew,so has "image",it has effect our looks and communication. Control the message,control the people. A lot of "deprogramming" is needed, how do we get back to "normal"?

I told my granddaughter, Gwen (almost 8 yrs.), about the girl with the big ears who had surgery as a cure for bullying. We had a good conversation about it, and she agreed that doing surgery on your face just because you look a little bit different, and because some people call you names, is not a good thing. She said that if she saw kids making fun of someone for being different, she would tell them to stop it.

Kids get exposed to lots of stupid, harmful messages on TV, in commercials and elsewhere. That’s not going to change anytime soon, though the media can be pressured whenever they cross absolute lines, such as Bodies in Motion (which they took down.). Absent a perfect world, parents and grandparents need to be present to counter those messages and instill healthy values.

Quote tayl44: Only one man give you hope for humanity? There goes the little girl throwing the starfish back in the sea.

Well, no, not just one man, literally. He was my example. There’s also you, right? And, we can only assume there must be more out there; certainly I’ve noticed lots of good guys here on this forum.

“Starfish back in the sea?” I’m not sure how you meant that, Tayl. Seems like that’s a metaphor for a good thing, a responsible act of mercy for our fellow creatures. I don’t quite see how it applies here, but you can explain it, if you like. ;-)

Related links:

http://notsuris.wordpress.com/tag/dave-zirin/  (thoughtful blog on gender & race prejudice and the Olympics)

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168793/serena-williams-and-getting-emotion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-w6lDOZ5Q  (Dave Zirin interview MSNBC)

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168553/dont-sports-three-other-reasons-be-...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37087/dramatic-drop-womens-sports-coverage...

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Just as The Dozens evolved in part —the “yo mamma is so fat” snaps— out of the strong, dominant presence of black women in the African American family, perhaps sexist rap became a "cure" for the humiliation felt by men and boys who must face their own vulnerabilities in relation to real women and girls.

You know, Zenzoe, I never before considered the matriarchal nature of much of African culture as a source for the often over-played masculine component. That's why I love this forum. I'm often shown a path I didn't know existed.

Do you think the women who become surgically altered beauty monsters (you know the type) do so secretly in protest of their societal stigma as recepticals for male lust and objectification? It's something I hadn't thought of before you named the strong female presence as a possible factor in the creation of the hyper masculine ideal. Perhaps a male dominated society creates women that become caricatures of an ideal too. Hmmm...

Why must female role models be phony bimbos and male role models be womanizing brutes? What a stark reflection of humanity our TV screens reveal.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED: You know, Zenzoe, I never before considered the matriarchal nature of much of African culture as a source for the often over-played masculine component. That's why I love this forum. I'm often shown a path I didn't know existed.

You could be pulling my leg, but I'll take it at face value. ;-) Lord knows, I'm no expert on The Dozens and could have been talking out my you-know-what. On the other hand, others have posed the same idea, and still others have disagreed, as Wikipedia's discussion on the subject reveals:

Quote Wikipedia:

The social justification for the popularity of the Dozens is the subject of speculation. Its development is entwined with the oppression African Americans encountered as slaves and second class citizens. John Dollard's view of the Dozens was as a manifestation of frustration aggression theory, which he helped develop. He hypothesized that African Americans, as victims of racism, have been unable to respond in kind towards their oppressors, and instead shifted their anger at friends and neighbors, as displayed in the strings of insults. In 1962, Folklorist Roger Abrahams explained the Dozens not only as a reaction to racism, but a mostly male behavior in a society dominated by women, hence the concentration on targeting opponents' mothers. Abrahams believed the Dozens to be exaggeratedly masculine behavior unable to be expressed except in short bursts where a participant attacks his opponent's mother to cause him to attack his own mother. Both Dollard's and Abraham's views have been criticized for not considering proper context in which the Dozens is used. Folklorist Alan Dundes asserts that by basing their approach on psychoanalytic theory, neither Dollard nor Abrahams considers that the Dozens may be native to Africa, although Dollard does not rule it out. In addition to similar forms of the Dozens found in Nigeria and Ghana, Bantu, and Kisii boys have been observed dueling verbally by attacking each others' mothers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dozens 

My guess is that the evolution of The Dozens is very complicated and can't be reduced to a single explanation. When you think about it, it would be natural for people to come up with non-physical means of combat, given that under certain circumstances physical aggression would be met with harsh punishment. But then, even strong, dominant black female figures may have evolved out of necessity, as black males bore the brunt of oppression by racist whites and disappeared from family life. I mean, the pressure, the extra responsibility and the fear would naturally elicit a compensating reaction— either that, or you die.

I'm quite sure I'm not the one to blather on about it, though. Maybe Tayl can lend some clarity to the subject.

Quote D_NATURED: Do you think the women who become surgically altered beauty monsters (you know the type) do so secretly in protest of their societal stigma as recepticals for male lust and objectification? It's something I hadn't thought of before you named the strong female presence as a possible factor in the creation of the hyper masculine ideal. Perhaps a male dominated society creates women that become caricatures of an ideal too. Hmmm...

Well, if you're talking about a sort of Stockholm syndrome, where the victim of abuse develops "traumatic bonding" to an abuser, or oppressor, or captor, then yes, I can see that. The adoption of the values of the dominant system as a survival tactic surely must be a factor. I suppose that may be true as well for African American men (and women?), who see that the culture values hyper-masculinity above all things and offers the humiliation of being labeled a "pussy" (the worst insult in this culture), where one fails at being hyper-male.

Quote D_NATURED: Why must female role models be phony bimbos and male role models be womanizing brutes? What a stark reflection of humanity our TV screens reveal.

See, Tayl? Here's another guy who gives me hope... :-)

It is stark. That's the best word for it. A stark polarization of gender. It defies the reality so badly, one would laugh, if it weren't so sad and unhealthy.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote D_NATURED: You know, Zenzoe, I never before considered the matriarchal nature of much of African culture as a source for the often over-played masculine component. That's why I love this forum. I'm often shown a path I didn't know existed.

You could be pulling my leg, but I'll take it at face value. ;-) Lord knows, I'm no expert on The Dozens and could have been talking out my you-know-what. On the other hand, others have posed the same idea, and still others have disagreed, as Wikipedia's discussion on the subject reveals:

I wasn't pulling your leg at all. You made me consider something I hadn't previously that may have some truth to it. Thanks.

Quote Wikipedia:

The social justification for the popularity of the Dozens is the subject of speculation. Its development is entwined with the oppression African Americans encountered as slaves and second class citizens. John Dollard's view of the Dozens was as a manifestation of frustration aggression theory, which he helped develop. He hypothesized that African Americans, as victims of racism, have been unable to respond in kind towards their oppressors, and instead shifted their anger at friends and neighbors, as displayed in the strings of insults. In 1962, Folklorist Roger Abrahams explained the Dozens not only as a reaction to racism, but a mostly male behavior in a society dominated by women, hence the concentration on targeting opponents' mothers. Abrahams believed the Dozens to be exaggeratedly masculine behavior unable to be expressed except in short bursts where a participant attacks his opponent's mother to cause him to attack his own mother. Both Dollard's and Abraham's views have been criticized for not considering proper context in which the Dozens is used. Folklorist Alan Dundes asserts that by basing their approach on psychoanalytic theory, neither Dollard nor Abrahams considers that the Dozens may be native to Africa, although Dollard does not rule it out. In addition to similar forms of the Dozens found in Nigeria and Ghana, Bantu, and Kisii boys have been observed dueling verbally by attacking each others' mothers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dozens 

My guess is that the evolution of The Dozens is very complicated and can't be reduced to a single explanation. When you think about it, it would be natural for people to come up with non-physical means of combat, given that under certain circumstances physical aggression would be met with harsh punishment. But then, even strong, dominant black female figures may have evolved out of necessity, as black males bore the brunt of oppression by racist whites and disappeared from family life. I mean, the pressure, the extra responsibility and the fear would naturally elicit a compensating reaction— either that, or you die.

I think, as the Wiki article implies, strong, dominant black women were not created by slavery, they were imported by slavers. In many places in Africa, women still dominate society. The epiphany for me was that I realized my own misogyny at not having considered that hyper masculinity could be in response to female domination. Men are who they are, is the myth. Our attitudes are a function of our superior physical power, blah blah.

The point was, for me, that when people feel like their gender somehow defines them in the eyes of the decision makers, men and women alike create a hyperbolic version of themselves. It may not be a conscious act but, instead, a predictable result of devaluing people based upon gender-or other un-changable factors, I'm sure.

Quote D_NATURED: Do you think the women who become surgically altered beauty monsters (you know the type) do so secretly in protest of their societal stigma as recepticals for male lust and objectification? It's something I hadn't thought of before you named the strong female presence as a possible factor in the creation of the hyper masculine ideal. Perhaps a male dominated society creates women that become caricatures of an ideal too. Hmmm...

Well, if you're talking about a sort of Stockholm syndrome, where the victim of abuse develops "traumatic bonding" to an abuser, or oppressor, or captor, then yes, I can see that. The adoption of the values of the dominant system as a survival tactic surely must be a factor. I suppose that may be true as well for African American men (and women?), who see that the culture values hyper-masculinity above all things and offers the humiliation of being labeled a "pussy" (the worst insult in this culture), where one fails at being hyper-male.

Well, not so much a Stockholm syndrome as something like an unconscious rebellion against the system. It's like when a girl wants to take Karate but is forced to take ballet instead by her parents. She will put on her point shoes and leotard and kick the shit out of her brother. My thought was that when people, based upon their gender, are disenfranchised from the circles of power, given opposite gender role models and criticized for being like them, there is a natural, almost predictable blow back. Women dutifully put on their point shoes and leotard and then kick the shit out of society with them.

Females who are powerless except as sex symbols become caricatures of sex. The irony being the more plastic surgery they have, the less sexually attractive they are. The women with the giant fake breasts and the collagen lips and too-tight skin are no longer attractive. The rebellion serves to show us how wrong we are. Similarly, the men who feel powerless except as symbols of violence become caricatures of violence. The irony there being that the more they tattoo their faces and assume a prison culture posture in life, the more ridiculous (rather than scary) they look. Their rebellion is also a cry for help.

Quote D_NATURED: Why must female role models be phony bimbos and male role models be womanizing brutes? What a stark reflection of humanity our TV screens reveal.

See, Tayl? Here's another guy who gives me hope... :-)

It is stark. That's the best word for it. A stark polarization of gender. It defies the reality so badly, one would laugh, if it weren't so sad and unhealthy.

Yes, and maybe that is our source of hope, that the result is stark, visible. Maybe as women become more and more visibly damaged by the surgical manifestation of societal expectations of them and maybe as men, who feel powerless, continue to turn masculinity into an anti-social violence cult, we will begin to consider- as part of the national debate- whether we, as evidenced by the results, need to change the way we do things.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

Perhaps a male dominated society creates women that become caricatures of an ideal too. Hmmm...

Why must female role models be phony bimbos and male role models be womanizing brutes? What a stark reflection of humanity our TV screens reveal.

This deserves more attention than I had the energy for yesterday. Here in North County San Diego we're having a miserable heat wave, with more humidity than ever (San Diego never used to be humid - always only dry heat in the summer); and I only have air-conditioning in one room, which is not where the computer is, all of which translates into irritability and the minimal effort.

Just before waking this morning I had a dream, no, a nightmare, where a Paul Ryanish, neo-Nazi type moved in next door, with his wife and twenty children, one for each year of their marriage. Right away I could see our future with such neighbors, seeing that he and a pack of goons evicted the previous owners before they were quite ready (an elderly couple) and allowed the Ryanish's three German shepherd dogs to roam freely to terrorize the neighborhood cats. There's more, but you get the picture I'm sure.

I had that dream after falling asleep in the middle of DemocracyNow! this morning, just when they were talking about Ryan and his terrifying plans for us.

So, that's only relevant to caricatures, etc., because it occurs to me that Romney and Ryan each represent a caricature of a different sort, Romney as the caricature of a rich, white male politician with the large, fashion-model head and graying temples, and Ryan the caricature of a family man. Thus, the thing that has me less worried about Romney, compared to Ryan, is that we know he's a duplicitous opportunist who threatens dire actions, such as eliminating Planned Parenthood, but who probably secretly supports it; Ryan, by contrast, is a true believer. He means it, especially where he threatens to deny women birth control and abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. And he means it, where he also lusts after the privatization of Social Security and the ruination of Medicare.

I wonder too if the Republican ticket can help itself. Can it help but be a caricature of Rich White-Male-Dominated America? As I watched video this morning of their gathering together with their families on a podium, all waving caricature-like at the crowd, I had the feeling I was seeing a phony, idealized picture—all image and no soul. And that's creepy as hell.

I'm quite sure that if Paul Ryan could have his way, all women would be wives tied to their biology and the state of pregnancy, or if not wives, then church ladies. This would mean, of course, that many women would have to resort to prostitution, but such wouldn't bother the likes of Paul Ryan, as long as business were done in secret with no abortions nor birth control allowed. "Let them die, the dirty sluts," would be his mantra.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

D., I hadn't seen your comment at #1314, when I began mine of #1315. Now, as I go over it, I see some very thoughtful points, all worth another look and response. However, right now I have to go cool off and take a break, plus there's a chore I have to attend to. In the meantime, thanks, and I'm glad you weren't pulling my leg. :-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

D., I hadn't seen your comment at #1314, when I began mine of #1315. Now, as I go over it, I see some very thoughtful points, all worth another look and response. However, right now I have to go cool off and take a break, plus there's a chore I have to attend to. In the meantime, thanks, and I'm glad you weren't pulling my leg. :-)

I feel for you but my swamp cooler kicks ass here in Colorado and, even outside, it cools down at night. I sleep like a baby...

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I feel for you but my swamp cooler kicks ass here in Colorado and, even outside, it cools down at night. I sleep like a baby...

My youngest son also lives in Colorado and also has a swamp cooler. I don’t even know what that is, but maybe I should look into getting one. My one and only air conditioner is in my bedroom, so I sleep like a baby too, except when I wake up early, can’t get to sleep and end up watching DemocracyNow!’s first airing at 5 a.m., then fall asleep, to dream bad dreams. ;-)

Quote D_NATURED:

I wasn't pulling your leg at all. You made me consider something I hadn't previously that may have some truth to it. Thanks.

Thanks to you too, then. And, believe me, you make me consider lots of things I hadn’t thought of before, plus, you often offer the guy’s perspective with all the implications therein that I miss sometimes.

Quote D_NATURED:

I think, as the Wiki article implies, strong, dominant black women were not created by slavery, they were imported by slavers. In many places in Africa, women still dominate society. The epiphany for me was that I realized my own misogyny at not having considered that hyper masculinity could be in response to female domination. Men are who they are, is the myth. Our attitudes are a function of our superior physical power, blah blah.

The point was, for me, that when people feel like their gender somehow defines them in the eyes of the decision makers, men and women alike create a hyperbolic version of themselves. It may not be a conscious act but, instead, a predictable result of devaluing people based upon gender-or other un-changable factors, I'm sure.

Yes, and then also it’s so hard to separate cultural influences on behavior and character from natural influences. The biological remains a factor and blends with cultural factors to create what we are. Boys and girls always want to be attractive to the opposite sex, if they’re heterosexual, and whatever they think attracts the most, they’ll be inclined to exaggerate it. So, if you have a culture, as expressed in the media, that sends the message to girls that macho is sexy and hyper-masculine cruelty is a part of that, then they’ll learn to shun the boys who don’t live up to it. Then the boys learn that to be attractive to girls, they have to pretend to be as macho and mean as possible. It’s a vicious cycle, and who knows where it all starts?! We do know, however, that the culture grows that mean thing and nurtures it.

As for “dominant black women,” I hesitate to declare any opinion on that too strongly, given that I am a white woman and, no matter what, I can’t be sure my opinion isn’t based on racist perception. (I figure, if a person is white, they’ve got some of that, even if they think they don’t.) I will say, with that understanding, that while I admire many black women, women such as Melissa Harris-Perry, Michele Obama, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and others, I have my doubts about the whole notion of the “dominant black woman,” and think it might be a stereotype that functions as an excuse to do nothing about poverty— “Hey, look what she can do on poverty wages...” and blah blah blah. Apparently, I’m not alone in thinking it’s a flawed concept, anyway: http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=50

I also have my doubts as to whether the stereotype should be something black women should want to live up to. And here comes what may seem somewhat politically incorrect: If the stereotype is the dominant mother of many children, who uses the threat, “I’ll whoop your ass,” and follows through with it as her only means of control and discipline over children, then I must say that’s not a role model for anyone to emulate. I say that because physical violence on children tends to injure self-esteem and results in either resentment, defiance and/or disrespect for the mother.

My understanding is that this use of corporal punishment did evolve out of both slavery and the teachings of the Bible, which insist on “spare the rod and spoil the child” idiocy. So, how much of this accounts for “yo mama” jokes, is unknown, but I have to wonder if it’s a factor.

Quote D_NATURED:

Well, not so much a Stockholm syndrome as something like an unconscious rebellion against the system. It's like when a girl wants to take Karate but is forced to take ballet instead by her parents. She will put on her point shoes and leotard and kick the shit out of her brother. My thought was that when people, based upon their gender, are disenfranchised from the circles of power, given opposite gender role models and criticized for being like them, there is a natural, almost predictable blow back. Women dutifully put on their point shoes and leotard and then kick the shit out of society with them.

Females who are powerless except as sex symbols become caricatures of sex. The irony being the more plastic surgery they have, the less sexually attractive they are. The women with the giant fake breasts and the collagen lips and too-tight skin are no longer attractive. The rebellion serves to show us how wrong we are. Similarly, the men who feel powerless except as symbols of violence become caricatures of violence. The irony there being that the more they tattoo their faces and assume a prison culture posture in life, the more ridiculous (rather than scary) they look. Their rebellion is also a cry for help.

Do women “kick the shit out of society” by being sex objects? I’m not clear as to how acquiescing to the male fantasy of the ideal, sexy female counts as rebellion. To find your only power in your sexuality and appearance seems, as you say, mostly like a ridiculous cry for help.

However, I saw some of the Rosanne Barr Roast on Comedy Central last night, and to see those female celebrities on the roast panel with their face lifts and Rosanne with her ever-evolving face, which looks nothing like Rosanne anymore, you’d think it never once occurred to them that their personal power wasn’t real, or that surgery might be the American way of Sharia law, our way of hiding women behind a mask, the caricature of a woman, according to the demands of a male-dominated society.

Well, regardless, they manage to retain their senses of humor (talk about insult —the roast— as an extreme form of fun...), not without a certain amount of awareness. I liked it when Carrie Fisher admitted out loud that she and Rosanne “are feminists and believe women can do anything men can do.” She said they’d agreed about it just before the show, as they stood at their urinals...

Quote D_NATURED:
Quote Zenzoe:

It is stark. That's the best word for it. A stark polarization of gender. It defies the reality so badly, one would laugh, if it weren't so sad and unhealthy.

Yes, and maybe that is our source of hope, that the result is stark, visible. Maybe as women become more and more visibly damaged by the surgical manifestation of societal expectations of them and maybe as men, who feel powerless, continue to turn masculinity into an anti-social violence cult, we will begin to consider- as part of the national debate- whether we, as evidenced by the results, need to change the way we do things.

I think a lot of people already see the damage done to women by plastic surgery. All kinds of websites exist to mock and ridicule celebrity face-lift disasters, for example. I’m not sure how much of the ridicule is conscious of what it says about our society, but it’s there. Like you say, maybe if it gets bad enough, there will be a conscious dialogue, where we can discuss values, values such as fame, wealth, the polarization of gender, hyper-masculinity and femininity, celebrity, and all the stupid American values that make for so much idiocy in our society.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,i`m tired,cannot respond to all. I think dozens got started as a fun game to laugh to keep from crying.(graveyard humor is an example) Your view was right about the young girl and starfish. I relate your belief of few good men to throwing the remaining men back in the sea to be "reborn". You`re too much like mother nature to give up! Thanks for info/links. PS Dave Ziriin should have his own show,he tells "truth to power"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote tayl44:

Zenzoe,i`m tired,cannot respond to all.

I know. It's so hard to be working and still keep up with this. Thanks for being here, Tayl.

Quote tayl44:

I think dozens got started as a fun game to laugh to keep from crying.(graveyard humor is an example)

Well, however it got started, it's here to stay, and that's a good thing. Wouldn't it be great if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Benjamin Netanyahu were forced to do the Dozens? They could show their intellectual prowess in a battle of wits, rather than the war posturing that goes on now (Israel, mostly).

Quote tayl44:

Your view was right about the young girl and starfish. I relate your belief of few good men to throwing the remaining men back in the sea to be "reborn".

Hm-m-m...that's interesting. As deluded as I may be about my own powers, I doubt I have the power to do that!

Quote tayl44:

You`re too much like mother nature to give up!

Huh? Moi? "like mother nature?" You can't imagine how funny that is, without knowing me in person.

Quote tayl44:

Thanks for info/links. PS Dave Ziriin should have his own show,he tells "truth to power"!

You're welcome, and, yes, Dave Zirin. It's about time somebody stood up to the world of sports and told the truth.

Did you see the story about NBC's latest effort at turning war into a sports event? http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/13-3  Look at that photo on the page, the ad for Stars and Stripes. Talk about hyper-masculinity! Is that who we are now?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

As for “dominant black women,” I hesitate to declare any opinion on that too strongly, given that I am a white woman and, no matter what, I can’t be sure my opinion isn’t based on racist perception. (I figure, if a person is white, they’ve got some of that, even if they think they don’t.)

Maybe, but there's a trick of language here perhaps? People tend to think of ideas metaphorically as substances, in this case as though racism were some kind of dirt that got mixed up in white people's drinking water. As in, the water in the drinking glass might look clear, but on closer inspection there are trace elements. Well, I don't think it works that way. As white people we may have lack of knowledge but that doesn't imply racism. Even the garbage that our brains sometimes autogenerate is not indicative of any real ingrained thinking pattern.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm not deeply involved with this group (Peace and Freedom Party), but since you mentioned Roseanne Barr I thought you might find this interesting:

Quote excerpt from press release:


Freedom Socialist 2012 Presidential Campaign

4710 University Way NE, Ste. 100 - Seattle, WA 98105 - 206-985-4621 - VoteSocialism@gmail.com

Freedom Socialist Party candidates Stephen Durham for president and Christina López
for vice president at the Peace and Freedom Party August nominating convention
in Los Angeles.

August 10, 2012

Durham-López news release

Peace and Freedom Party nominating convention, Aug. 4-5
Freedom Socialist presidential candidate comes in second to last-minute celebrity entrant Roseanne Barr

After declaring as a Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) presidential candidate only three weeks before, Hollywood comedian and actress Roseanne Barr won the PFP nomination at its convention on Aug. 4-5 in Los Angeles. Placing second was New Yorker and veteran union and gay rights activist Stephen Durham of the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), who, like Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party, had waged a serious, months-long grass-roots campaign for the PFP nomination.

Said Durham, whose running mate is Chicana feminist organizer Christina López of Seattle, "The convention of the socialist and feminist PFP was hijacked by a millionaire celebrity making grand promises. But her total contribution to the PFP so far has been a 15-minute talk at the convention that was half political speech and half comedy act."

Barr, who reinvented herself as a socialist in the few weeks before the PFP vote, did not show up for a candidates' forum the night before the convention. She was represented there by her vice-presidential partner, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan. On Saturday, Aug. 4, the opening day of the convention, Barr's appearance was preceded by a security detail while delegates sat waiting for her to arrive, which she did in a flurry of media. She left after giving her speech, and took the media attention with her, headed for the taping of a Comedy Central roast in her honor. Delegates were unable to ask her questions.Barr had originally announced as a candidate for the Green Party nomination, but lost decisively to Jill Stein, whom Barr had pledged to support should Stein become the nominee. Barr did not attend the Green Party convention in July.

Now Barr is promising to do major fundraising and help register voters for PFP, a California-based left electoral coalition that is in a fight for its life thanks to new state ballot laws hostile to minor parties. The Durham-López team had argued for making a PFP registration drive part of a bold two-year grass-roots campaign statewide, explicitly anti-capitalist and feminist, to protest the rigged electoral system and organize with others to demand relief for those hit hardest by war, bailouts for corporations, and austerity for workers.

After Barr delivered her speech and left, and just moments before PFP delegates began voting, Peta Lindsay, the presidential candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), abruptly withdrew from contention after being nominated - and pledged support for the Barr-Sheehan ticket. Lindsay, who is underage to take presidential office, was barred from the California ballot in February, but continued to campaign for the PFP nomination. She explained her surprise convention move by saying that she did not want to leave the PFP without a candidate if she won the nomination but lost the court case challenging her exclusion from the ballot.

It took two rounds of voting for Barr to gather a majority, and the final tally was 36 votes for Barr, 16 for Durham, and 6 for the Socialist Party's Alexander. Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party had dropped out of the race a few days before the convention.

FSP Campaign Manager Doug Barnes was at the PFP convention with Durham, López, and supporters. About Lindsay's bombshell, he said, "Lindsay and the PSL portrayed themselves as the revolutionary socialist contenders in the PFP race. But what revolutionary socialist is going to support a millionaire for U.S. president? That's ridiculous. So is saying while endorsing Barr that they will run a write-in campaign in California for Lindsay."

Concluded Barnes, "PSL was not serious about anything but blocking the FSP and Socialist Party. It was a disgusting display of left sectarianism - especially since FSP has supported PSL candidates in the past on the basis of their professed socialist program."

Sheehan, Barr's vice-presidential candidate, has pledged to support Peta Lindsay and other PSL candidates where they are not competing with Barr and Sheehan. "This political horse-trading is exactly what one would expect to see at a Republican or Democratic Party convention," Durham said. "On the other hand, the delegates who stood with us through to the end because of our socialist feminist platform showed a lot of character. They stuck to their principles."

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Might as well make a point in this forum's version of War and Peace.

Why shouldn't women's contraceptives be subject to the same co-pays as other prescriptions? Not talking about any bans-just not picking this type of prescription as a cheap winner. It would seem that any argument you could make for it would apply to other prescriptions as well-yet this type is being singled out at a cost to all insured-even men.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote nimblecivet:
Quote Zenzoe:

As for “dominant black women,” I hesitate to declare any opinion on that too strongly, given that I am a white woman and, no matter what, I can’t be sure my opinion isn’t based on racist perception. (I figure, if a person is white, they’ve got some of that, even if they think they don’t.)

Maybe, but there's a trick of language here perhaps? People tend to think of ideas metaphorically as substances, in this case as though racism were some kind of dirt that got mixed up in white people's drinking water. As in, the water in the drinking glass might look clear, but on closer inspection there are trace elements. Well, I don't think it works that way.

I suppose we could be dealing with a "trick of language" here, but your "dirt that got mixed up in white people's drinking water" is not how I think of it. Instead, what I meant to imply was that anyone raised in this racist (or sexist) society cannot avoid internalizing negative stereotypes, beliefs and images; and, even if you're conscious of those as negatives, you may still have accepted some of them as true, despite your efforts to conceal and deny them.

Quote Nimblecivet:

As white people we may have lack of knowledge but that doesn't imply racism. Even the garbage that our brains sometimes autogenerate is not indicative of any real ingrained thinking pattern.

I do agree with that, and so would this writer, or so I imagine: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-the-gap/201110/prime-and-prejud...

I think the important thing is to be aware of your thoughts and knee-jerk assumptions, so that they can be rejected if you find yourself saying, "Wow, that's an unfair —or hateful, or wrong— stereotype. Where'd that come from?"

Can you honestly say you've never had a racist or sexist thought?

Thanks for the Rosanne material, NC. She spoke about her run for the Presidency at the roast. And I'd heard about it before, perhaps on DN! I admire the woman, despite my mocking of her face work. She's such an original and such a trail blazer, and I think the Rosanne show was hugely important— just great. It's still worth watching, still funny. Beyond that, I'm sure she'd be as good a President as any of the other candidates. She's an intelligent, serious person. One of my faves.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

Might as well make a point in this forum's version of War and Peace.

Why shouldn't women's contraceptives be subject to the same co-pays as other prescriptions? Not talking about any bans-just not picking this type of prescription as a cheap winner. It would seem that any argument you could make for it would apply to other prescriptions as well-yet this type is being singled out at a cost to all insured-even men.

I'd probably feel the same way, DynoDon, if I were a guy and didn't know about all the preventive-care services the Affordable Care Act provides for ALL people, services that do not require a co-pay.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-co...

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention080120...

Did you complain back when insurance companies were paying for Viagra, while they made women pay through the nose for contraceptives? Why would it bother you that the ACA fixed that inequity? ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:Might as well make a point in this forum's version of War and Peace. Why shouldn't women's contraceptives be subject to the same co-pays as other prescriptions? Not talking about any bans-just not picking this type of prescription as a cheap winner. It would seem that any argument you could make for it would apply to other prescriptions as well-yet this type is being singled out at a cost to all insured-even men.

I disagree and I'm shocked you couldn't think of any reason to make birth control "special". One glaring argument that can be made for birth control being covered for everyone is a greater societal-and worldwide- benefit, not just an individual benefit. When there is less competition for resources and jobs, everyone is happier, healthier and wealthier...except for those whose wealth depends upon a huge un-tapped labor pool full of sickly slaves.

I, as a man, would rather see my tax dollars go to help some young woman prevent pregnancy than I would to help her raise a bunch of unwanted children. This argument is wasted on conservatives, though. The largest barrier to a rational national health policy is, unfortunately, as it has always been, magical conservative thinking.They maintain that the way you decrease the cost of women's services is to deny them. The way to make healthcare more efficient is to make it FOR profit. It's magic, see? When social services are cut off, people stop getting sick. ALAKAZAM!

As long as people continue to ignore major facets of issues, like with those who want to present healthcare as a tax debate, for christ's sake, we are never going to have a functioning society. But, whatever, I know I'm just talking to myself. Keep waving your magic wand, it's OK.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

D_NATURED, I would add to what you said at 1326 that perhaps the magic involved happens when services denied and programs privatized results in lower taxes for conservatives, at least that's the magic they anticipate. It's not so much that they care whether services work to benefit people —they don't care— it's that they only care about themselves. Thus, they imagine that forcing insurance companies to offer preventive services to women without co-pays results in higher costs for them (magical thinking in itself), and suddenly they're up in arms.

I hope you saw Rachel Maddow last night. Every segment did a great job, but these two stood out for me. Brilliant. And Brillianter.

I also wanted to add a reminder to the topic of prejudice —racism & sexism— that sometimes a "positive" stereotype can be just as damaging and oppressive as a negative one. A good example for that is the stereotype/belief about females as the "better sex," the gentler sex, the caring sex. I know a number of progressive men who still cling to this one, forgetting Margaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, etc.; and forgetting that the stereotype has denied opportunities for women in certain professions that men held, and hold, predominantly. It has also contributed, I believe, to pay inequity, where women do the same jobs as men but bosses rationalize paying them less because of the "softness" of women and, sometimes, because they happen to be mothers.

Is clinging to such a belief sexist? Yes. Is a person who does so a sexist overall? Not necessarily. But, because they insist on viewing women in that way, they cannot claim to be entirely free of sexism.

In the realm of interpersonal relationships too, the "women are the better sex" view leads to an unfair expectation that women will forgive anything. And the view that women are the "gentler sex" leads to perceptions about women's work, such as in the arts, that it lacks strength and force and all sorts of other attributes assumed to be male attributes. Thus their work gets ignored or overlooked or deemed inferior, because male critics literally cannot see it: perceptional blindness. Crap!

Perceptional blindness on the part of racists affects, and has affected, people of color too. I remember reading, a long time ago, a book written by an African American (can't remember who now), where he told of the feeling of being entirely invisible to whites who walked past him. Or, if they looked at him, it was as if they were looking through him, without seeing him, as if he wasn't a person at all.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Please.......I don't know if you are young or ignorant. I am old enough to have been around in the early 70's when the women's movement started and fought for reproductive freedom. Yet, with all this education and contraceptive choices, women still misuse their fertility. With all the options available, there should be minimal unwanted pregnancy. Yet, almost 2 generations of women later, there are too many women getting pregnant with no means or ability to raise a child properly. Teenage girls are still getting pregnant even with birth control availability. It's shocking to find teenage girls still believing you can't get pregnant the first time and other myths. Whether you charge a co-pay or make it free-women are still not honoring their fertility. Sorry-copays should apply like any other prescription.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/19/news/la-heb-teen-pregnancy-20120119

U.S. teen pregnancy rate remains highest in developed world January 19, 2012|By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Please.......I don't know if you are young or ignorant. I am old enough to have been around in the early 70's when the women's movement started and fought for reproductive freedom. Yet, with all this education and contraceptive choices, women still misuse their fertility. With all the options available, there should be minimal unwanted pregnancy. Yet, almost 2 generations of women later, there are too many women getting pregnant with no means or ability to raise a child properly. Teenage girls are still getting pregnant even with birth control availability. It's shocking to find teenage girls still believing you can't get pregnant the first time and other myths. Whether you charge a co-pay or make it free-women are still not honoring their fertility. Sorry-copays should apply like any other prescription.

Excuse me? “Women still misuse their fertility?” What an odd choice of words that is. I’m having trouble imagining how that works. Does this imaginary teen say, “Okay, I have this property, my body, so now I’m going to go ahead and use it to have sex, that is, misuse it, to violate my body’s real purpose —making babies.” So, according to your mind-set, the purpose of a woman’s body and her sexuality is to make babies—that’s its "use," and any other purpose —especially sex— is a misuse?

Perhaps you are too old to consider the complexities behind teen pregnancies, including conservative efforts across the nation to limit or ban sex education: “Abstinence-only programs have been proven to have no real impact on rates of sexual abstinence. On the other hand, an increased understanding of contraception directly correlates to a decrease in young adults’ risky sexual behavior.” And yet conservatives want to deny teens the full scope of information, which results in higher rates of unwanted pregnancies among teens.

You also fail to mention the media focus on sex and sexual objectification of women and girls (message: “it’s your power”), the encouragement of men and boys toward “player” behavior, and their sometimes relentless, coercive and manipulative behavior toward girls and women to have unprotected sex.

You fail to mention any responsibility males have in this equation.

C’mon, try again, Gramps. I realize you want to blame women for everything, but it's time to start expanding your perceptions. Hm-m-m? (Btw, did you read the links I posted for you at #1325? You might start there, with all due respect.)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Bearing children is a unique and sacred blessing that God or nature gave to women. Same powers gave women the task of pregnancy(haven't gone test tube yet). The ultimate responsibility lies with the woman and her body-don't blame me-blame God or nature. And it's not govt who is responsible for teaching girls about sex-that's what parents are for. And I blame these mothers who, while enjoying other gains from women's lib(as it used to be called), have dropped the ball on educating and preparing their daughters for their reproductive lives. In this day and age with all the forms of contraception available-women should be taken to task for the rate of unplanned or unwise pregnancies.

And you can't have it both ways. Some women don't want to be judged by their looks while others use looks and sex for fame and fortune and other reasons. What is a male supposed to think?

It is in men's natures to desire sex-it is a woman's responsibility to either don't have it or do it wisely since they are the ones nature has chosen to get pregnant.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

It is in men's natures to desire sex-it is a woman's responsibility to either don't have it or do it wisely since they are the ones nature has chosen to get pregnant.

Ha ha ha, therein lies the sexist lie— that men's desire for sex is natural and normal —it exists— thus men carry no responsibility for their actions, while women do not desire sex —it's not in their "natures"— nor do they have the right to express themselves sexually like men. "Biology is destiny," goes the authoritarian edict.

You, Sir, have a great deal to learn about women and their sexuality. I can only pity the women you've been with sexually.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey Dyno, you are about as wrong on this one as you can be, and right in line with a whole load of patriarchal pr to justify denial and shirking any responsibility, unless you choose to. It is more than "taking responsibility," it is about respect for women as the objects of your sexual desire. As to need, you can find some alternative to vaginal intercourse and possible pregnancy. Grow up.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Thanks, Drc2. I think that sort of poopy patriarchal poppycock should be soundly chastised by more enlightened men, like you.

Seriously, I must assume that the notion "it's in men's natures to desire sex," as a right without responsibility, accounts for, in its extreme form, rape. You tell men often enough that they are "animals," predators, and the predatory behavior will follow.

DynoDon needs to comprehend that his beliefs derive of myths about men and women. Hidden within his fantasy about human sexuality is the mistaken idea that imagines testosterone as the only driver of human sexuality; in fact, for women, it's a different matter, with a different mix of hormones, none of which means a lesser interest in sexuality for women. Yes, women must be responsible for their lives and sexuality, but so should men. Any other prescription denies the equal human rights of women, and I, for one, will not hear of it.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote "Dynodon":And it's not govt who is responsible for teaching girls about sex-that's what parents are for.

Again, I disagree. Sex education and birth control are so important, for the reasons I already named, that we can't just trust parents to do the right thing. There are many parents that will act irrationally if they believe there is a divine mandate to do so. For this reason, we must, as a society, choose to protect the health and welfare of young women and girls by making sure they know how babies are made, how birth control works, and where to get contraceptives at little or no cost, even if their parents are idiots.I can't stress enough the last part. Idiot parents shouldn't get to turn their children into idiots with society's blessing.

To allow abstinence education advocates and anti-abortion hysteria to be respected as just different opinions is to require nothing of our beliefs in the first place. If and when pleasing a subjective god or a subjective moral ideal no longer serves human society, it's time for a new paradigm. That's where we stand today.

The same people who would subsidize the "job creators" all day long won't lift a finger to help the life creators do their job well. So, it's not really about using the tax system to make society better for them. No, they are ideologues and they will bitch and moan that they are forcibly helping some girl have sex, worry free, without considering the huge societal dividend of supporting women's rights. They phrase the argument in an anti-woman way, not a pro-society way. That's not an accident. Rush Limbaugh threw the word "slut" around, if you recall, using the same short-sited argument as yourself, Don.

You are, indeed, on the wrong side of this one.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Quote DynoDon:

And it's not govt who is responsible for teaching girls about sex-that's what parents are for.

Again, I disagree. Sex education and birth control are so important, for the reasons I already named, that we can't just trust parents to do the right thing. There are many parents that will act irrationally if they believe there is a divine mandate to do so. For this reason, we must, as a society, choose to protect the health and welfare of young women and girls by making sure they know how babies are made, how birth control works, and where to get contraceptives at little or no cost, even if their parents are idiots.I can't stress enough the last part. Idiot parents shouldn't get to turn their children into idiots with society's blessing.

To allow abstinence education advocates and anti-abortion hysteria to be respected as just different opinions is to require nothing of our beliefs in the first place. If and when pleasing a subjective god or a subjective moral ideal no longer serves human society, it's time for a new paradigm. That's where we stand today.

The same people who would subsidize the "job creators" all day long won't lift a finger to help the life creators do their job well. So, it's not really about using the tax system to make society better for them. No, they are ideologues and they will bitch and moan that they are forcibly helping some girl have sex, worry free, without considering the huge societal dividend of supporting women's rights. They phrase the argument in an anti-woman way, not a pro-society way. That's not an accident. Rush Limbaugh threw the word "slut" around, if you recall, using the same short-sited argument as yourself, Don.

You are, indeed, on the wrong side of this one.

All well said, as usual, D.

DynoDon, and others who share his opinions, gripe about “the misuse of fertility” and teen pregnancy, then work day and night to make access to birth control difficult, if not impossible. This has to be part of that magical thinking you’ve mentioned before, that is, the delusional notion that teens will not have sex as long as (1) we say sex is for procreation and only proper within a context of marriage, (2) we stigmatize girls who have sex, while letting boys off the hook for it, and (3) we keep our children ignorant about sex and birth control.

The problem is that children get sex education of a kind from day one in the media classroom of commercial advertising, movies, TV and magazines, but it’s not the kind that serves the best interests either of children or society. Instead, it continually sends unhealthy messages to both boys and girls about sex and gender, encouraging and normalizing premature sexual experience, while avoiding real information.

Meanwhile, we see a relentless interweaving of anti-abortion, anti-birth-control propaganda throughout all, for example in the form of TV movies and programs centered on themes that either offer overt support for traditional roles for women, or that covertly glorify sex without birth-control, where the mother has a baby every year, and, “Oh boy, what a wonderful thing having 20 children is!

One of the major networks aired just such a program recently during primetime. My critical review? “Disgusting!”

Only government —We the People— can provide real information about sexuality to children, as opposed to ideologically-driven, myth-oriented, hierarchical, authoritarian hogwash. Which paradigm you prefer, depends on whether you’re truly interested in protecting children, or if you’re more interested in protecting myths.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You can blather about men's responsibility all you want, but the reality of nature is that women are the one's who get pregnant. In practical terms, she is responsible for her body. Can a man force a woman to have an abortion or carry a child to term? No, women have control over their bodies.

The women's libbers of the 70's would be incensed at the thought of govt being responsible for sex education. Mothers have abdicated their responsibilities at preparing their daughters for life.

"Sex education and birth control are so important, for the reasons I already named, that we can't just trust parents to do the right thing. " Did you think before you wrote that?

"DynoDon, and others who share his opinions, gripe about “the misuse of fertility” and teen pregnancy, then work day and night to make access to birth control difficult, if not impossible."

Who's making access to birth control any more difficult than any other prescription? I'm just saying it should be the same co-pay. I'm all for the morning after pill being over the counter. And you can buy condoms almost everywhere these days.

"Seriously, I must assume that the notion "it's in men's natures to desire sex," as a right without responsibility, accounts for, in its extreme form, rape. You tell men often enough that they are "animals," predators, and the predatory behavior will follow. "

WTF! Who is saying anything about rape? Who said anything about men being animals? Ask any parent of a teenage boy if sex is always on his mind. I'm not going into a discussion of sex and human nature. This was only about co-pays for prescriptions. Watch the Maury Show or Jerry Springer or even the Dr. Phil Family-after 40 years of women's lib, why are there so many unplanned pregnancies?

"The problem is that children get sex education of a kind from day one in the media classroom of commercial advertising, movies, TV and magazines, but it’s not the kind that serves the best interests either of children or society. Instead, it continually sends unhealthy messages to both boys and girls about sex and gender, encouraging and normalizing premature sexual experience, while avoiding real information."

Again, after 40 years of women's lib-why is that? The granddaughters of the women's libbers are sending nude photos of themselves over the phone.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

You can blather about men's responsibility all you want, but the reality of nature is that women are the one's who get pregnant. In practical terms, she is responsible for her body. Can a man force a woman to have an abortion or carry a child to term? No, women have control over their bodies.

I acknowledged that women have a responsibility to practice birth control. Why do you ignore this? And why do you insist on removing males from the equation? It’s not an EITHER/OR choice. BOTH women and men, girls and boys, need to take responsibility. (You do know that either/or is a logical fallacy, right?)

Quote DynoDon:

The women's libbers of the 70's would be incensed at the thought of govt being responsible for sex education. Mothers have abdicated their responsibilities at preparing their daughters for life.

Nonsense. Again, you’re insisting on either/or choices—this time, either government or parents do the job. It’s a false choice. BOTH should be responsible. I never once said that parents should not inform children about sex and birth-control. The trouble is, as D_NATURED explained to you, parents cannot be depended upon to do the job properly, that is, give children the facts.

Quote DynoDon:

Who's making access to birth control any more difficult than any other prescription? I'm just saying it should be the same co-pay. I'm all for the morning after pill being over the counter. And you can buy condoms almost everywhere these days.

Requiring co-pays presents an obstacle, given that many people cannot afford them. The purpose of requiring insurance companies to provide preventive services without co-pays is to insure that the greatest number of people will be served. Why would you be opposed to that? (Also, did you read the ACA’s material on the subject yet?)

Quote DynoDon:
Quote Zenzoe:

Seriously, I must assume that the notion "it's in men's natures to desire sex," as a right without responsibility, accounts for, in its extreme form, rape. You tell men often enough that they are "animals," predators, and the predatory behavior will follow.

WTF! Who is saying anything about rape? Who said anything about men being animals? Ask any parent of a teenage boy if sex is always on his mind. I'm not going into a discussion of sex and human nature. This was only about co-pays for prescriptions. Watch the Maury Show or Jerry Springer or even the Dr. Phil Family-after 40 years of women's lib, why are there so many unplanned pregnancies?

One can reasonably extrapolate from “it’s in men’s natures to desire sex” to a message that includes pride in predatory behavior. The implication there releases males from any responsibility to control themselves. Thus, if they have no responsibility to control themselves, what would it matter whether the sex was consensual or not?

Your comments imply that males are not able to control themselves where sex is concerned; they also imply that females do not desire sex and do not seek sex for the same reasons that males do. Your comments imply an ignorance about males and females, plain and simple.

Ask any teenage girl, and you’ll find the same thing, if she’s willing to tell the truth: girls think about boys and sex constantly too. Are you aware that girls masturbate?

But I can see where you get your skewed view of teenagers: Dirty-laundry exploitation TV. Yeah, that’s a great sampling of the population. Oye.

Quote DynoDon:

Again, after 40 years of women's lib-why is that? The granddaughters of the women's libbers are sending nude photos of themselves over the phone.

In case you haven’t heard, a huge backlash against feminism and the women’s liberation movement has been in effect during those 40 years. In that time, the propaganda designed to reduce women to sex objets and to convince girls and women that their only power is via their looks, bodies, and their sexuality has saturated the media.

Your view of girls and women as the culprits is evidence of this fact.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I guess I must be getting too close to home. I tried to post here and got blocked as spam. Ah...memories of the Randi Rhodes board again.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

I guess I must be getting too close to home. I tried to post here and got blocked as spam. Ah...memories of the Randi Rhodes board again.

Huh? I doubt anything you said deserved blocking. You merely stated your opinion, DynoDon, and that's allowed, as far as I know. Perhaps it was a technical glitch, either here or on your own computer.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Full circle now: Why women’s issues matter, and why the righties work tirelessly to quash those issues and oppress women.

I felt the need this morning to return to our hero, Ralph Nader, for a tune-up, so to speak, of my political motor. Listening to him always has a way of recharging my batteries and re-aligning my politics for the better... okay, enough with the automobile metaphors. Anyway, I listened to a few of his campaign speeches this morning and came across the following from a speech he made in Oregon:

Quote Ralph Nader:

Look at our Forebearers: How would you have liked to be an abolitionist against slavery in 1830 in Mississippi or Virginia. How would you have liked to have been leading the sit-down strikes against Ford and GM in the 1930’s? You put your whole job on the line; there was no employment compensation; there weren’t many jobs then; they had to feed their family; they put their lives on the line. How would you have liked to have been like them? Pretty tough.

How about leading the drive for women’s right to vote—when they’d go door-to-door, and they’d have dirty water poured on their heads by people on the second floor, and they’d laugh and scoot them away, or they’d be arrested and dragged to prison in Washington DC where they were picketing in front of the White House. What was their crime—that women wanted the right to vote? Who opposed them; well, some men did, but it was the industrialists, because the women were leading the movement against child labor. They were leading the movement against a lot of the hard edges of the industrial revolution. They were the leaders of the consumer movement, when it was launched in its modern form in 1900 because of food inflation.

These companies didn’t like women. Getting the vote was bad enough. They were being challenged without their having the vote. But they went through it. They didn’t quit. They didn’t make excuses for themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciCSgK4ZpZ4&NR=1&feature=endscreen  [Zenzoe emphasis]

You see, my instincts got it right, when I insisted that the extreme right wing must denigrate women and oppress them, because women —what we represent and our concerns— threaten totalitarian capitalism at its core, which depends on the masculine values (as defined, sadly, by our culture) of toughness, ruthlessness, and hard-heartedness for its success.

And that’s why women’s issues must be taken seriously, lest They win once and for all, driving us over the cliff, away from everything we hold dear, everything that really matters.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Remember the expression "give them an inch they'll take a foot"?

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

Remember the expression "give them an inch they'll take a foot"?

I remember it as, "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," but I'm a of different generation from you.

Whatever, I'm not sure what or who you're referring to, NC. Call it my latest Moment of Duh. Anyway, care to expand?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,sorry for late reply. In the dozens i know,all topics was cover not just mothers. Dozens made fun of the "hood",rap being an extension, show the hood in another art form. You're right about "Show your Genitals" as satire,it hits right at sexism of media. I don`t see all the attention turning people into extremists,now FOX tv is a different story. Talk about attention,imagine Olympics docu. "Bodies in Motion" getting more attention than Zirin's "Not Just a Game"? Freespeech TV is #1 I agree with your view of compassion,that`s the main problem with our economics,"no compassion".Only robots can live the system we live with,that`s why humanity is having so many problems. God mistakes,i see no problem with surgery to unlook like a freak,but would teach to respect all, no matter how they look. I know you already agree about having classes in schools about sexism,racism, etc. with this being the best option to parents and having no parents. What about schools teaching "morality" in general?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe,thanks,and i know i don`t just speak for myself,you `re true representative of womenhood and couldn`t imagine this broad without you.(Louise is first lady) Yes,work can limit input/output,but one would guess that`s the divide & conquer plan,but it won`t work! That`s a good idea of the Iran & Israel leaders playing the dozens instead of war. It remind me of GWB telling the Iraq leader to leave the country with his two sons and there would be no attack by America. The Iraq leader responded with "me and you"GWB) let's have a personal 'duel'? Chickenhawk Bush "chicken out"! Anybody that go to war for these leaders today,are "CRAZY"! It`s very good to see you have faith in more than one man. But i have no doubt about your power to throw men back into the sea to be reborn,the proof is in your responses to the opposition. Z,sorry your 'mother nature' come thru even in your anger. Z, Dave Zirin will never make that money on big media,he tell the truth. You can expect no less for a ad in the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" and yes,that`s who the present kings want us to be.(cannon folder)

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Again, after 40 years of women's lib-why is that? The granddaughters of the women's libbers are sending nude photos of themselves over the phone.

Blaming women's lib for societal misogyny is like blaming the infection on antibiotic exposure.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

That was just something I remember as being from "those days" (when neither you nor I were around). I never heard it as "give them an inch they'll take a mile" but maybe both were going around. Nothing much to expand on, just an indicator of how the discussion shifts over time. I don't think anyone today is arguing that "womankind" will somehow "take over" and that the state and society will thereby be undermined because women will have to much power (and won't know how to wield it effectively, for example see Queen Christina of Sweden- lost most of the Swiss Empire but oversaw the royal court that birthed the notion of international law). The argument these days is more indirect though it still implies the same thing: kids will be psychologically damaged or won't be raised properly without a traditional male head of the household (especially boys). And that supposedly is why kids are "sexting" each other.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hi Y'all. I could not post yesterday on this thread. I kept getting blocked as spam or "inapproptiate" and no amount of appeals to the administrators did any good, except for Nigel, the webmaster, who said all should be well and to try again later. This time I'm going to cut my post to Tayl in two, and see if that makes a difference.

Quote tayll44: In the dozens i know,all topics was cover not just mothers. Dozens made fun of the "hood",rap being an extension, show the hood in another art form.

I realize that the Dozens’ topics cover everything imaginable. I focused on the “yo mama” snaps, mostly because they’re relevant here. Any thoughts on those?

Quote tayll44:

I agree with your view of compassion,that`s the main problem with our economics,"no compassion".Only robots can live the system we live with,that`s why humanity is having so many problems. God mistakes,i see no problem with surgery to unlook like a freak,but would teach to respect all, no matter how they look. I know you already agree about having classes in schools about sexism,racism, etc. with this being the best option to parents and having no parents. What about schools teaching "morality" in general?

I don’t know, Tayl, how the captains of industry and finance, politics and science, manage to split themselves in half, that is, one spirit for their families and friends and another wholly different spirit for business, for work and the rest of us. Certainly, we know that in their personal lives they must exercise compassion for their own kin; this means empathy still functions within them on that side.

But then they go to work, and there, these captains —men and women— practice a psychological surgical excision on themselves, cutting away what must be perceived as excess fat, or an anomalous feature in the context of money-making, something that would cause them harm, if exposed, for its supposed freakishness. Compassion and empathy then become freak occurrences in the world of business, and anyone exercising them will be made to feel like freaks.

The system has that bullying effect on these people.

Naturally, business PR requires that everyone connected to an enterprise give lip service to “care and concern,” to responsibility,” even to “love.” But that’s understood for its cynical purpose —selling— without any sincere belief in such things, nor with a plan to follow through.

Thus, what we see, when a CEO such as Jamie Dimon appears, is an unsound person, a person without an intact personhood; he is an injured person for having split himself in two: He lacks INTEGRITY.

After all, look at the word integral: “Constituting the undiminished entirety; lacking nothing essential, especially not damaged." And from there we come to the word integrity: "Moral soundness, an unreduced or unbroken completeness or totality."

Does it make me feel any better to imagine these captains as injured? A little bit. But do they deserve our compassion? I’m not so sure. That I might consider them flawed human beings, with wounds of addiction, does not change them, or their policies and practices, or the fact that they couldn’t care less.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This is so frustrating. Now it won't let me post the second half of my post to Tayl.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote tayl44:

Zenzoe,thanks,and i know i don`t just speak for myself,you `re true representative of womenhood and couldn`t imagine this broad without you.

Tayl, I don’t know how many “broads” you can imagine (probably a lot of them), but I thank you for your kind words and your not being able to imagine this board without me. ;-)

Quote tayl44:

That`s a good idea of the Iran & Israel leaders playing the dozens instead of war.

I think so too. Here’s how it might start: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “You’re so paranoid, you see nuclear bombs in your mama’s farts.” Benjamin Netanyahu: “You’re so stupid, you think your mama’s farts are fissionable.

And so forth, ad ridiculum... ;-)

Quote tayle44:

It remind me of GWB telling the Iraq leader to leave the country with his two sons and there would be no attack by America. The Iraq leader responded with "me and you"GWB) let's have a personal 'duel'? Chickenhawk Bush "chicken out"! Anybody that go to war for these leaders today,are "CRAZY"!

I’d forgotten about Dubya’s challenge to Saddam. You know, I kinda miss the Shrub. At least he was an obvious fool and good for a laugh. These current bozos bore me with their earnest duplicities.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm not done yet. It won't accept the last third of my comments to Tayl.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote D_NATURED:
Again, after 40 years of women's lib-why is that? The granddaughters of the women's libbers are sending nude photos of themselves over the phone.

Blaming women's lib for societal misogyny is like blaming the infection on antibiotic exposure.

Good one, D. I like that.

I wonder where DynoDon went. I wonder if he was having the same problems with posting as I have today and yesterday, and he gave up. Anyway, he was a live one, almost as live as this one, who said, "From what I understand from doctors...if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

"Legitimate rape?!!!" You've gotta wonder what goes on in a head like that.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system