The Feminization Of America

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
The Feminization Of America
181
Mon, 06-21-2004 - 12:12pm
I don't always agree with his columns (who does) but he is a compelling writer and this column is no different. I think he is right for the most part on this one.


http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Driving Down Unknown Roads

The Feminization Of America

March 29, 2004

In the United States women are, I think for the first time in history, gaining real power. Often nations have had queens, heiresses, and female aristocrats. These do not amount to much. Today women occupy positions of genuine authority in fields that matter, as for example publishing, journalism, and academia. They control education through high school. Politicians scramble for their votes. They control the divorce courts and usually get their way with things that matter to them.

If this is not unprecedented, I do not know of the precedent. What will be the consequences?

Men have controlled the world through most of history so we know what they do: build things, break things, invent things, compete with each other fiercely and often pointlessly, and fight endless wars that seem to them justifiable at the time but that, seen from afar, are just what males do. The unanswered question is what women would, or will, do. How will their increasing influence reshape the polity?

Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for)them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness.

I do not suggest that the instinctive behavior of women is necessarily bad, nor that of men necessarily good. I do suggest that that the effects will be profound, probably irreversible, and not necessarily entirely to the liking of either sex. The question may be whether one fears most being conquered or being nicened to death.

Consider what is called the Nanny State by men, who feel smothered by it, but is accepted if not supported by women, who see it as protective and caring. (Yes, I know that there are exceptions and degrees in all of this, and no, I don’t have polling data.) Note that women are much more concerned than are men about health and well-being. Women worry about second-hand smoke, outlawing guns, lowering the allowable blood-alcohol levels for drivers, making little boys wear helmets while riding bicycles, and outlawing such forms of violence as dodge ball or the use of plastic ray guns. Much of this is demonstrably irrational, but that is the nature of instincts. (Neither is the male tendency to form armed bands and attack anyone within reach a pinnacle of reason.)

The implications of female influence for freedom, at least as men understand the word, are not good. Women will accept restrictions on their behavior if in doing so they feel more secure. They have less need of freedom, which is not particularly important in living a secure, orderly, routine, and comfortable life. They tend not to see political correctness as irritating, but as keeping people from saying unpleasant things.

The growing feminizaton accounts for much of the decline in the schools. The hostility to competition of any sort is an expression of the female desire for pleasantness; competition is a mild form of combat, by which men are attracted and women repelled. The emphasis on how children feel about each other instead of on what they learn is profoundly female (as for that matter is the associated fascination with psychotherapy). The drugging of male schoolchildren into passivity is the imposition of pleasantness by chemical means. Little boys are not nice, but fidgety wild men writ small who, bored out of their skulls, tend to rowdiness. They are also hard for the average woman to control and, since male teachers are absent, gelded, or terrified of litigious parents, expulsion and resort to the police fill the void. The oft-repeated suspension of boys for drawing soldiers or playing space war is, methinks, a quietly hysterical attempt to assuage formless insecurity.

The change in marriage and the deterioration of the family are likewise the results of the growth of political power of women. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen, but it is assuredly happening. Divorce became common because women wanted to get out of unsatisfactory marriages. In divorce women usually want the children, and have the clout to get them. But someone has to feed the young. Thus the vindictive pursuit of divorced fathers who won’t or can’t pay child support. And thus the rise of the government as de facto father to provide welfare, tax breaks, daycare, and otherwise behave as a virtual husband.

When women entered a male workplace, they found that they didn’t much like it. Men told off-color jokes, looked at protuberant body parts, engaged in rough verbal sparring as a form of social interaction, and behaved in accord with rules that women didn’t and don’t understand. Women had the influence to change things, and did. Laws grew like kudzu to ban sexual harassment, whether real or imagined. Affirmative action, in addition to being a naked power grab, avoids competition and therefore making the losers feel bad. It degrades the performance of organizations, sometimes seriously, but performance is a preoccupation of males.

Men are capable of malignant government, whether authoritarian or totalitarian, as witness North Korea or the Russia of Stalin. I don’t know whether women would behave as badly if they had the power. (I’d guess not.) But women have their own totalitarian tendencies. They will if allowed impose a seamless tyranny of suffocating safety, social control, and political propriety. Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women.

The United States becomes daily more a woman’s world: comfortable, safe, with few outlets for a man’s desire for risk. The America of wild empty country, of guns and fishing and hunting, of physical labor and hot rods and schoolyard fights, has turned gradually into a land of shopping malls and sensible cars and bureaucracy. Risk is now mostly artificial and not very risky. There is skydiving and scuba and you can still find places to go fast on motorcycles, but it gets harder. Jobs increasingly require the feminine virtues of patience, accommodation to routine, and subordination of performance to civility. Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as “macho,” a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men.

A case can be made that a feminized world would (or will) be preferable to a masculine. Perhaps. It is males who bomb cities and shoot people in Seven-Elevens. Yet the experiment has not been made. I suspect we will have the worst of both worlds: a nation in which men at the top engage in the usual wars and, a step below, women impose inutterable boredom.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 10:56pm
"all that has happened is..."

Not hardly. Our collective rights as citizens has been grossly reduced in the last 100 years.


"Would love to know why it is such a problem when YOU lose your right to carry a gun in your back pocket, while it's perfectly okay for women to lose the right to choose what she does with her body?"

Well lets see, I assume you mean abortion.

I carry a gun, no one dies. You have an abortion, a child dies.

Yea I see the comparison.

"Why SHOULD it have ever been legal for guns to be as available as they are? Because men have wanted them?"

Ever been? Well I guess we'd just catch food with our hands back before a grocery store. Guess we'd defend ourselves from enemies with words.






Edited 6/22/2004 10:57 pm ET ET by vader716

Avatar for jc1202
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 10:59pm
<>

Except for, I don't know, right this very minute and for the past 3.5 years? Like the president? Just throwing that out there.

<
1. Old and alone.

2. Married to a man that wouldn't know how to defend you if the need arises. He'd probably ask permission first.>>

Wow. Please, please tell me you're 'purposely being over the top' again. First of all, I don't see any reason to believe that anyone here hates men. A lot of us, however, are probably not terribly fond of war, lack of gun control, anti-choice legislation, and a lot of other things that men have been responsible for throughout history. Secondly, some women don't get married to men and are - gasp! - actually perfectly happy that way, not to mention safe, b/c they can actually defend themselves.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 11:33pm
>>Yup you got it. The Federal gov't is specifically limited to it Constitutionally declared powers the rest lies with the states and the people.<<

So if the people decide they wish to fund ecucation and health care, they can't do it? Does it say they can't?

Does it say anything about attacking another country that has not attacked us?

Does it say anything about who has the power to declare war in our system? Does it say anything about Patriot Acts being a desirable thing?

>>No it was just more fun. The tactic used was to put my position on the defensive.<<

That worked well, didn't it?



>>Listen. No one is guaranteed health insurance. You don't have a right to it. Everyone gets medical care when they need it. Some get better than others. Life isn't fair. I haven't heard of a single plan where your Utopian Health care plan works.<<

We can make it a right, we can correct the oversight, as we did with many amendments, especially the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th. Surely you wouldn't give up so easily? This great country cannot find a way to solve it's health care issues? You don't believe we are an innovative people? Or is that just in building better bombs and scaring hell out of the world?

>>When I see it I will. Washington hasn't had conservatives in power for a very long time.<<

Could have fooled those of us who's politics are decidedly left of center. I can walk to the center and can barely see Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush way over there, about 6 standard deviations to the right of the bell curve.

>>How about a little Misandry?<<

Go for it... show me how I am... show me how you have history on your side. Whenever a woman gets near power or is a vital player in events, what happens? Hilary? Janet? Katherine Harris? Her looks are made fun of... and those like me are consigned to feminazi status. I don't hate men... not at all. I do despise those tired old attitudes that some wish to hang on to. Those that have moved pass them, that have a more open view of the world... will get along famously with me.

>>"Us", "You", that is why feminism will fail. You attempt to divide and that doesn't work.<<

Wrong... feminism is inclusive... we are famously for choice... in life, in career, in sexuality, in reproduction... if you want an interesting read, try "A History of Women - What Lesbians Have Done For America" by Lillian Faderman.

>>Well we could start in the Preamble if you like. Read it.<<

It says choice is illegal? Hmmmm... don't recall that being in there. Not the Constitution according to Jerry Falwell... the real one.

>>Where does it grant you the authority to kill a human being? The right to choose allows you to choose whether or not you have sex. Once you have had sex, if conception occurs that person you carry around with you should have the same Constitutional rights as you. Ignore the fact that it is a child if you like, it doesn't change the fact that it is.<<

Where does choice advocate killing human beings? Where did you inherit the right to tell a woman what choices she can make for what happens in her body? Where does it say women are obligated to carry? Where does it say a woman must consent to a c section else she will face murder charges if she chooses vaginal delivery and the child dies?

>>Come on, you can't be taken seriously with this kind of junk. Herstory?<<

Think about this. You have come into our space to debate us... and you make light of our herstory, of that very word. Why is that? I honestly don't understand your motivation in doing so. We have a great herstory, and I learn more every day about great women in our country's herstory. And we know that some of the partners of the founders asked for women to have the right to vote, and it was dismissed. That is important to me. It means something to me that 312 years ago my ancestor was hung as a witch because she owned property, she told guys exactly what she thought, and she bedded the wife of one of them. Why did I have to be in my 40's before learning this? My own flipping ancestor, and I was ignorant of that herstory.

>>Open exchange of ideas. It is a great message board. Like I said the remarks were intentionally over the top once I read Herstory I figured we were leaving reality at the door.<<

Please don't be so dismissive of our concerns, especially when it comes to heritage. I can handle the political stuff, but that attitude will step on our pride when it comes to heritage and our voices, and it will draw a quick response.

>>An insult? Nah. Teach them their heritage? Sure. Teach them that men are the cause of all the world's ills. Don't think so.

Hatred of men gets you one of two things:

1. Old and alone.

2. Married to a man that wouldn't know how to defend you if the need arises. He'd probably ask permission first.<<

No one is teaching anyone men are the cause of all the worlds problems. Where I get upset is not wishing women to be equal participants in decision making for our collective future.

For the record, I am a dyke.





iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Tue, 06-22-2004 - 11:34pm
(and smirks... *loved this: "We don't like them, let's blow up their country.")
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 9:05am
"Does it say they can't? "

No it says the federal gov't can't. Take it to the state level.

"Does it say anything about attacking another country that has not attacked us?

Does it say anything about who has the power to declare war in our system?"

No to the first question. Yes. Congress and they have abdicated that power to the President years ago. Their loss and ours. The framers didn't want any one man to be able to take the country to war and that is what we have no because of a weak legislature.

"That worked well, didn't it? "

Only if I don't recognize it.

"We can make it a right, we can correct the oversight, as we did with many amendments, especially the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th. Surely you wouldn't give up so easily? This great country cannot find a way to solve it's health care issues? You don't believe we are an innovative people? Or is that just in building better bombs and scaring hell out of the world? "

I believe we are the greatest and most innovative people in the world. I also believe that the gov't has nothing to do with that. Healthcare can be addressed if you get government out of it and let the free market address the situation.

"Could have fooled those of us who's politics are decidedly left of center. I can walk to the center and can barely see Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush way over there, about 6 standard deviations to the right of the bell curve. "

They may be right of center. I won't dispute that. They aren't conservative. Gov't has grown under them. We are in another undeclared war with them. The patriot act is unconstitutional and they drafted it. Pre-emptive warfare is a dangerous precedence. "No child left behind" was a sham. Bush has vetoed Zero bills. In 3.5 years he hasn't found one he doesn’t like? He is no conservative.

"Wrong... feminism is inclusive... we are famously for choice... in life, in career, in sexuality, in reproduction... if you want an interesting read, try "A History of Women - What Lesbians Have Done For America" by Lillian Faderman."

Feminism may be inclusive but not the way you portray it. Us and We separate. Men vs. Women. It won't work.

Famous for choice? How about taking the person's life in your womb choice to live? They don't get one do they? Your choice is about self-indulgence. To support a PBA when there is no medical reason for one is reprehensible.

"It says choice is illegal?"

No it says a person has a right to justice and liberty. A murdered child in the womb doesn't get justice or liberty.

"Where does choice advocate killing human beings? "

That is what abortion is. Maybe we are speaking of a different choice.

"You have come into our space to debate us... and you make light of our herstory, of that very word."

I don't come here to debate "you" as a woman. I come to read and debate about different points of view. The word herstory only exists because feminist couldn't deal with his in history. Instead of making an issue out of History or Herstory why not look at history itself.

"And we know that some of the partners of the founders asked for women to have the right to vote, and it was dismissed. That is important to me. It means something to me that 312 years ago my ancestor was hung as a witch because she owned property, she told guys exactly what she thought, and she bedded the wife of one of them. Why did I have to be in my 40's before learning this?"

I have never dismissed women's role in history. I love women. I think their contributions are very valuable and should be taught. You'd have to check with your family about why you didn't know about your ancestors.

Women and Men are equal. They should be. But because they are equal doesn't mean they are equally skilled or adept at all things. Recognizing our differences and letting them compliment each other is what make a man and woman's relationship so rewarding.


"Please don't be so dismissive of our concerns, especially when it comes to heritage."

If I dismissed your ideas I wouldn't be reading them. Your views seem to be extremely leftist and feminist based on your posts. I am obviously quite different. I still like reading them. I admit when words like Herstory are thrown around it diminishes your viewpoint in my opinion. Just like when I talk to a Neo-con and they talk about GWB or Rush like he is the second coming. I don't normally debate with the extremists because they are generally irrational. I'm not saying you are an extremist but your jargon makes you seem so.

"For the record, I am a dyke. "

Wasn't interested, don't care, not surprised. Although I am curious why you felt the need to declare your sexuality. Do you think it helps your argument? It doesn't. In fact it devalues it. Your sexuality is inconsequential to our discussion. Strange way to close a post.

I'll close by saying this:

I love my wife. She is an equal partner in our marriage. She is not submissive to me. However, that being said I am the head of the household. The responsibility for assuring our safety, our property, our religious faith is mine. I would lay down my life for my wife and children without thinking twice about it. I love her and would do anything for her. She isn't a feminist. She doesn't see ships as phallic symbols or quote herstory. She recognizes men have flaws but that women do to. If my daughter grows up to be like her I will be happy. Yes she cooks, cleans, and takes care of the house. She has turned our houses into homes. Her contributions are as great or greater to this family as mine could ever be. I couldn't do it without her. I wouldn't want to. I fell in love with her and 10 years later love her more.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 10:03am
For the record, the federal government can help fund education and does.

As for the the presidency usurping the power to go to war, I agree. While there is no such thing as "activist judges" you could make a case for an "activist presidency."

>>I believe we are the greatest and most innovative people in the world. I also believe that the gov't has nothing to do with that. Healthcare can be addressed if you get government out of it and let the free market address the situation.<<

That is what we have now and it is not working. It isn't going to be solved with caps on jury awards, though limitations on punitive damages make sense. This state (NH) does not allow punitive damages. We should be able to sue insurers in state courts in order to provide incentive to make the right call on providing benefits.

There does need to be a federally implimented solution that provides health care to all... it can still be done through private insurers and health providers.

>>They may be right of center. I won't dispute that. They aren't conservative. Gov't has grown under them. We are in another undeclared war with them. The patriot act is unconstitutional and they drafted it. Pre-emptive warfare is a dangerous precedence. "No child left behind" was a sham. Bush has vetoed Zero bills. In 3.5 years he hasn't found one he doesn’t like? He is no conservative.<<

I agree that no child left behind was a sham, though I wonder if our reasoning is the same. I agree with you on the Patriot Act, it has to go, attacking other countries who have not attacked us was a major line to cross, and was a huge mistake.

>>Famous for choice? How about taking the person's life in your womb choice to live? They don't get one do they? Your choice is about self-indulgence. To support a PBA when there is no medical reason for one is reprehensible.<<

Yes, we are famous for choice. We are *not* abortion advocates, we are for *choice* for every woman deciding what is best for her. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester. Carrying a child you don't want is an awful thing to force upon someone. You can bet that if guys were able to be preggers, abortion and birth control would be free and on demand.

>>No it says a person has a right to justice and liberty. A murdered child in the womb doesn't get justice or liberty.<<

No murdered child... an aborted foetus that is not viable outside of a woman's body.

>>That is what abortion is. Maybe we are speaking of a different choice.<<

Once again, choice is not abortion. We do not advocate abortion, we are for a woman making her own *choice* to carry, to carry and then place a child for adoption, or to abort. We don't wish to shove one option down someone's throat like plers do.

>>I don't come here to debate "you" as a woman. I come to read and debate about different points of view. The word herstory only exists because feminist couldn't deal with his in history. Instead of making an issue out of History or Herstory why not look at history itself.<<

Because history as it is currently taught leaves out one particular gender, with some exceptions. There is a proud herstory that is untold, and that we have to seek out. Thank goodness we have thriving women's studies programs now to help.

>>I have never dismissed women's role in history. I love women.<<

I hear this often... yeah, there is that part of you that really loves women... but it is a part that is unmentionable on this board.

>>I think their contributions are very valuable and should be taught. You'd have to check with your family about why you didn't know about your ancestors.<<

Actually... that should be taught in school, because the Salem Witch Trials were about more than thinking some possessed. Most hung were women, and women who owned property, something not well thought of by men then.

>>Women and Men are equal. They should be. But because they are equal doesn't mean they are equally skilled or adept at all things. Recognizing our differences and letting them compliment each other is what make a man and woman's relationship so rewarding.<<

I believe in equal opportunity. If a woman can do the work and wants to, she should. I don't like set gender roles that leaves others looking down their nose at someone who goes about things differently in life. And by the way... it happens to men as well, they too are pressured to stay in their space.

>>If I dismissed your ideas I wouldn't be reading them. Your views seem to be extremely leftist and feminist based on your posts. I am obviously quite different. I still like reading them. I admit when words like Herstory are thrown around it diminishes your viewpoint in my opinion. Just like when I talk to a Neo-con and they talk about GWB or Rush like he is the second coming. I don't normally debate with the extremists because they are generally irrational. I'm not saying you are an extremist but your jargon makes you seem so.<<

Herstory is used to empower, to take back, to graphically say it is a problem... it got your attention, did it not? I am to the left, and I am a feminist. Yet I've also owned a business and made good money, and have walked away from it in order to find a way to make a difference. I spend a lot of time within the dyke community, and have been amazed at how many young women are tossed from homes for simply being gay, or who have been punished for it... I want to make a difference.

I raised my orientation because *you* were telling me I'd end up alone or giving permission to a man to help me. Wanted it known that isn't going to happen.

>>I love my wife. She is an equal partner in our marriage. She is not submissive to me. However, that being said I am the head of the household. The responsibility for assuring our safety, our property, our religious faith is mine. I would lay down my life for my wife and children without thinking twice about it.<<

See, this sort of thing is prevalent... and is automatically assumed by most men... what of women as head of household? If there are in fact "heads of household," shouldn't we see 50% of partnerships where women are at it's head? And why should your religious path be set by you? Shouldn't a religious path be decided by each person, what works for them?

I'm a great believer in personal space. Again, it is choice, and whatever works for you... but personal space allows us room to grow, to pursue our own interests, to take back to the partnership things that interest us. It encourages discussion and communication. Do you converse often with your partner? I don't mean "hello, how is the weather?" I mean do you set and talk from 8AM to 2AM, talking about your innermost feelings, your loves, your dislikes, your fears, your goals, how you view life, how two people should relate, what you would like to do together, about your children, about your intimacy, about what makes you sad, and what makes you happy, traumatic things that have happened to you, your weaknesses and strengths, about your religious beliefs, about what lies beyond this life, about connecting with others... Empathy, listening to each other, sharing all of these things with another, being totally vulnerable to them...

I applaud you if you do.

>>I love her and would do anything for her. She isn't a feminist. She doesn't see ships as phallic symbols or quote herstory. She recognizes men have flaws but that women do to. If my daughter grows up to be like her I will be happy. Yes she cooks, cleans, and takes care of the house. She has turned our houses into homes. Her contributions are as great or greater to this family as mine could ever be. I couldn't do it without her. I wouldn't want to. I fell in love with her and 10 years later love her more.<<

I'm glad you love her, and once again it is about choice... if this is her choice, great. I want young women to know this is not expected of them, it is merely *one* possible choice in life.



iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 10:31am
"For the record, the federal government can help fund education and does.”

Actually constitutionally it can't.

"While there is no such thing as "activist judges" you could make a case for an "activist presidency." "

This is the stuff that hurts your arguments. You think Bush is an activist but don't believe in activist judges. Please. There are activist judges on both sides of the aisle. Granted most are on the left. To say there is no such thing is nonsensical.

"That is what we have now and it is not working.”

No we don't. It is far from free enterprise.

"There does need to be a federally implimented solution that provides health care to all... it can still be done through private insurers and health providers"

We disagree here. The federal government does very little correctly or efficiently. Healthcare would be no different.

"I agree that no child left behind was a sham, though I wonder if our reasoning is the same. I agree with you on the Patriot Act, it has to go, attacking other countries who have not attacked us was a major line to cross, and was a huge mistake."

See how much we have in common. Although I agree for probably different reasons.

Imagine that...a self described feminist dyke and right wing nut agreeing. Wonders never cease.

"we are for *choice* for every woman "

Even the ones in the womb?

"Carrying a child you don't want is an awful thing to force upon someone. "

Murdering a child who didn't ask to be conceived only a chance to live makes carrying the child look like a cake walk.

"You can bet that if guys were able to be preggers, abortion and birth control would be free and on demand."

Maybe but it would still be wrong.

"No murdered child... an aborted foetus that is not viable outside of a woman's body. "

You called the child a child earlier in the post. Dehumanizing the child makes it more palpable but doesn't change the fact that a human life that is being snuffed out for "choice".

"Because history as it is currently taught leaves out one particular gender, with some exceptions."

Ok if that is what you want to believe.

"I hear this often... yeah, there is that part of you that really loves women... but it is a part that is unmentionable on this board. "

Nice. Yep I'm driven by hormones. How arrogantly dismissive. You assume that I only love women because of my penis. Continue this line of debate; it makes your position look even weaker. I'm not gonna prove different, believe what you want. If you have someone in your life willing to do what I am for my family you are lucky.

"Herstory is used to empower, to take back, to graphically say it is a problem... it got your attention, did it not?"

It got my attention but not because it empowered your view point, or took anything back. It got my attention because it is a ridiculous attempt to be noticed.

"I raised my orientation because *you* were telling me I'd end up alone or giving permission to a man to help me. Wanted it known that isn't going to happen. "

There were 100s of ways to rebut that statement without saying "I'm a dyke".

"See, this sort of thing is prevalent... and is automatically assumed by most men... what of women as head of household? If there are in fact "heads of household," shouldn't we see 50% of partnerships where women are at it's head? And why should your religious path be set by you? Shouldn't a religious path be decided by each person, what works for them? "

In my case it is because of our personal beliefs. We discussed our religious paths prior to marriage. It is a little late to "discover" that after we are married.

"I applaud you if you do. "

We do, but 8am to 2am? Never. 2 children make sure that doesn't happen.

" want young women to know this is not expected of them, it is merely *one* possible choice in life."

Yes but I can't tell you how many feminists demean my wife's choice because she doesn't burn a bra and she stands by her man. THEY think she is giving up something.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 10:49am

I advocate smaller less intrusive government. Not the removal of government. Big difference.


Ahhhh...but who will choose which laws and protections to keep in place?


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 11:04am
>>This is the stuff that hurts your arguments. You think Bush is an activist but don't believe in activist judges. Please. There are activist judges on both sides of the aisle. Granted most are on the left. To say there is no such thing is nonsensical.<<

Hmmm... two parties bring a case to the court. It works it's way up to the Supreme Court, or in the case of Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court. They present their cases, one arguing it is unconstitutional, the other that it is. Court rules... *exactly* why the court exists, they have done what they are paid to do. Decide which is right. No activism there. That is why Newsom bravely began allowing same sex marriage, because he knew the president was going to try to add a constitutional amendment banning us from marriage. Human rights should not be subject to vote.

>>No we don't. It is far from free enterprise.<<

There are certainly regulations... all in the public interest, that govern everything from insurer solvency to prohibiting denials based on existing conditions to having to file their rates. As it should be. You cannot have an environment free of regulation, it would be a nightmare. Insurer regulation is essential.

>>We disagree here. The federal government does very little correctly or efficiently. Healthcare would be no different.<<

They don't? OASDHI is run inefficiently? OSHA? Our military? When we hear of extravagent spending with the military, what is it actually? Usually they ar being taken to the cleaners by a *private* company. I know y'all think it is fashionable to dis government and liberals... but there is a proud history of both, and this country would be far different if they were not here.

>>You called the child a child earlier in the post. Dehumanizing the child makes it more palpable but doesn't change the fact that a human life that is being snuffed out for "choice".<<

Again, at the point of which the vast majority of abortions are done, especially those for choosing not to carry, there is little comparison to a viable and sentient being. While no woman would love aborting, forcing anyone to carry against their will is such a flagrant violation of our rights and control of self, there is no other way. Overturning Roe would not stop abortion. Women have aborted forever, and will forever.

>>Nice. Yep I'm driven by hormones. How arrogantly dismissive.<<

You were being arrogantly condescending; you had been through a couple of your replies to me. You have been dismissive of valid concerns I have about how our issues are treated, as most guys are wont to do. Rather than hear what we say and help work to correct it, you wish to cling to the pedestals you've climbed up on and your sense of self entitlement, that you set the pace, set the rules, etc. Nonsense.

>>You assume that I only love women because of my penis. Continue this line of debate; it makes your position look even weaker. I'm not gonna prove different, believe what you want. If you have someone in your life willing to do what I am for my family you are lucky.<<

No, I'm not saying that at all. Many men do work hard at their relationships, and usually you can tell by their outlook on things like these issues... when I see someone take the positions you are, make the remarks you do... I'm skeptical.

>>There were 100s of ways to rebut that statement without saying "I'm a dyke".<<

Yes, there likely is, but I did not wish to give a dissertation when I could say why your comment was meaningless to me with a few words.

>>In my case it is because of our personal beliefs. We discussed our religious paths prior to marriage. It is a little late to "discover" that after we are married.<<

Is it? If her view of things changed? Is it "too" late? I've found my beliefs are constantly evolving and growing... and maybe it's just me... but if it isn't... it is a "little late?" Is there anything you can really do to stop such a thing? No. Would you encourage her to find what it is she is looking for? (again, hypothetically) Would you devalue what she had come to believe?

>>Yes but I can't tell you how many feminists demean my wife's choice because she doesn't burn a bra and she stands by her man. THEY think she is giving up something.<<

Anyone who disses her choices is an ass. It's not what feminism is about. We are for making the choices that work for us... and supporting the right of others to do the same.





iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 06-23-2004 - 11:07am
"Ahhhh...but who will choose which laws and protections to keep in place? And why would 'your' (plural - not you specifically) choice of laws be better than 'mine'?"

If the federal government does its Constitutionally declared duties and left the states to manage local laws the number and type of laws would be taken care of by local citizens.

"Besides, kids have great imaginations - something doesn't need to look 'realistic' in order for a kid to have fun with it."

That's true but it is more fun when it is more realistic. Speaking from first hand memories.

"However, I must once again say that a law like a helmet law doesn't HURT anyone - in fact, it saves lives! "

True it saves lives. But it does hurt people. When you restrict their freedoms for no justifiable reason it does hurt. It hurts alot.

"A question...if your church told 'you' that 'your' kids had to wear helmets, would you still resist? "

Yes. Recommend away, don't tell me what to do.

"She reacts emotionally long before she 'thinks' with reason. "

Owning a gun is a huge responsibility. If she is as psycho as she is then she will pay dearly for any misuse of the gun.

"I doubt that anyone who lived 120 years ago wouldn't be horrified by the crimes being committed today either...or by the fact that so many who have little idea of how to handle or use a gun actually own one."

Of course they'd be horrified. They wouldn't have allowed it back then. And the reason so many have so little an idea of how to use a gun is because they have villified and dangerous and unneccessary things.

Pages