Women

[anduin]

This thread is a continuation of a discussion that was started in "Women of the Silmarillion" (http://http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardthesilmarillion.showMessageR ange?topicID=24.topic&start=21&stop=28) thread. I am bringing it over here to keep that thread on topic. To catch up with what is being discussed please go through the link.

First off let me say that I am not into politics, in the least bit. I will even admit that I am not one to vote regularly. I do become interested in politics every four years, and I usually vote in presidential elections. Second, I doubt that I will be involved as much in this thread (if it even goes anywhere at all) as others who probably have more fact and figures, but I will speak up whenever I feel like women are being generalized. Third you may have noticed my style of debate, which is to ask many questions, but not give any real facts. I do this partly because it is an easy way to make a point and because I do not want to give the air that I am an expert and I do not want to change anyone's opinion. All I want is better understanding of a topic and to do that I ask questions.

I think the demographics of the election and the reelection of Bill Clinton, and the nature of the support for Al Gore, prove my point. The big to-do over The Kiss is simply an eloquent expression of the Nature of things. There are a lot of empty headed, astrology believing, Oprahfied women out there who have no business casting a vote to determine the destiny of Humanity. But I don't think all men should vote either.

Could the larger demographic of women voters that showed up to elect Bill Clinton has something more to do with his support of women in politics, the appointment of women to high offices in his Gov's office, etc. than because he was more "cute" than George Bush?

I think this is the second time at least that you have refered to "the Nature of Things." I am just curious what exactly you mean by that before I comment on that any further.

Your third sentence, is the hardest to swallow. Even though I am not in my opinion empty headed, do not believe in astrology, and do not watch Oprah, I can take offense at this. It is a generalization that women are not capable of making an intelligent decision based on the facts but that they are more interested in the frivolous. You soften the blow by saying that you do not think that not all men should vote either.....how convenient.

As I was trying to think of a clever title for this thread, it occured to me that this thread may well end up becoming a large debate such as the abortion, creation science, election, Canada, and nuke threads. For lack of a better subject heading I called it Women. Interesting that one gender over another could be (potentially) so controversial. Thing is men are hardly ever considered to be so debateable (except in personal matters ;) ). I think that the fact that there is even discussion to this degree about women proves that there are still people out there that believe that women are not equal.

[Gilthalion]

juntel:
Touche! There are a lot of empty-headed God-fearing men whose votes I find questionable. And I can hardly complain about someone else's style of argument when I am guilty myself! But I try not to be personal.

Nevertheless, to deny that many Liberals are Fellow Travelers, what Lenin called "useful idiots," is to deny reality. I myself have been labled a Liberal by some right wing extremists, because I am soft on Affirmative Action, Civil Rights, Minimum Wage, Fair Trade, and the Welfare safety net. I have taken a licking at times for standing on the left side on these issues. Just as I don't believe all women are vapid playthings, I do not believe that all Liberals are Communists.

Perhaps my description of the Oprafied Women is a bit tart, but I stand by it. To cast that as my view of all women, thus pigeonholing me as a sexist (and throwing in racism as well) is simply wrong. I would not do that to you.


anduin:
Please!

I think I pointed out that women should not be denied the vote on the basis of gender.

I don't think that women are not "equal" to men!

And as for Bill Clinton's gender gap, that's documented and obviously has nothing to do with his treatment of women. If it did, these same women would have been crying for the imprisonment of the serial womanizer and rapist. :( (Sorry to get straight to the delicate point on that, but this is a clear case of folks voting against their own interests. Clinton has just about single-handedly eradicated Feminism as a political force.)

Please, on a personal note, understand that I really was half-joking about this topic. But, the modern notion that gender equality under the law means similitude is ridiculous.

Men and Women are NOT the same, as I'm sure everyone has noticed.

As our French-speaking friends might say, "Viva la difference!"

But difference there is and will always be, and that is the Nature of Things!

Generally Speaking:
Many women are simply not inclined as men to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics. Many women are not as inclined as men to reason through a problem. Many women are inclined to view government in a nurturing role rather than a protective one. Pertaining to a political discussion of female voters, many women, in the view of the Founders, were not suited to vote.

They also thought that many men were not fit to vote either. They grasped at the only practical solution of the day, which was to limit the vote to adult, male, property owners. Abigail Adams objected strongly, but her voice was little heard.

Why should anyone who evidences no stake in civilization be allowed to determine its course? The best answer is that they obviously shouldn't. The question is, how do you apply a standard to voter franchise that is not discriminatory?

The easy answer is that you apply no standard at all, which we have accomplished with the unhappy results that were predictable and indeed predicted.

The hard answer is that you develop a standard that gives an equal opportunity to all. And civilization has not accomplished that yet. Property is out of the question, because that discriminates based on capital. Gender is an unfair standard on the pretty face of it. Race and Religion are equally repugnant standards. Intelligence is more egalitarian, but Barliman Butterburr is wise enough on his own ground and can see through a brick wall in time. Though not as fast on the uptake as the bright little hobbits, he should not be denied a vote in Bree because of it.

That doesn't leave much for us in the way of applicable standards!

Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (a novel better than the recent movie) postulated a civilization where the vote, and elective office, could only be held by Veterans. Not active duty military, but service veterans.

I haven't seen a fairer system that answers the Founder's objection to a universal voter franchise.

It certainly would not exclude women!

(And with that, the little hobbit realizes that he has proposed a system that would disenfranchise himself!)

***I don't want to let my rhetoric get carried away on the impersonal screen, and personally offend anyone. Let me apologise here if I already have!

[juntel]

"Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (a novel better than the recent movie) postulated a civilization where the vote, and elective office, could only be held by Veterans. Not active duty military, but service veterans."

I have not yet read the book (booh! shame on me!).
But I did see the movie (that many people say doesn't do justice to the book).

But what comes to mind is that, even though it is not implied, the veterans would be more likely to vote for military people who went into politics...

Well, that sounds to me like the military would be the government, implicitely.

Like in some countries, you know...

So, unless R.Heinlein had other "rules" in mind for that political "solution", then I don't see how it could be palatable.

Militocracy or geniocracy are subtle yet unacceptable (to me at least) forms of government.
=>They don't take into consideration the complexities of the nature/nurture dilema.
The big problem is what is "The Nature of Things", not that there is a "Nature of Things".
What is "The Nature of Things" is still debated, studied, questioned, as it should be.

J.Untel

[Gilthalion]

Agreed.

Heinlien postulated only out-of-service veterans could participate.

Gotta go!

[Eruve]

Where do you get that women are not as inclined as men to grasp spacial relations and higher mathematics? I don't think this is something inherent in women's nature, but rather a fallacy of our society that has, traditionally, shown up in our educational system. Women have simply not been encouraged in the past to pursue these fields. I cannot come and say I'm good at math. I did take calculus in high school and passed it by the skin of my teeth. Was this because I am female or because I did not apply myself? I know that the answer is the latter, because I'm not all that interested in math. But I do know that I'm intelligent enough to have done better, if I'd wanted to. I did take education classes and have held a teaching certificate for a time (high school French) and never in any one of the classes I took did it say in any of my texts that females are less capable of grasping higher mathematical concepts than males.
I just don't think you can go around generalizing on these types of things. This is just one example. BTW I also took exception at the empty-headed Oprahfied comment. I know it wasn't your intention to offend, but that's another type of generalization you probably shouldn't go around making. I don't believe in astrology, do not believe I am empty-headed, and have not watched Oprah in several years (I got turned off when she got all preachy-spiritual). But I do think Oprah is an extremely intelligent woman, so I don't think it's fair to characterize those that do listen to what she has to say to be empty-headed.

[anduin]

The point of my post was not to prove or say otherwise whether or not you are for or against women voting. Or whether you think that women have the right to vote. But to point out by your statements that you give the impression to others, including myself who is a women, that you feel them to be the more inferior of the species. My argument is that you really have no proof of that, and to go on saying that, many women are simply not inclined as men to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics, or many women are not as inclined as men to reason through a problem, or many women are inclined to view government in a nurturing role rather than a protective one, is offensive.

Could it be that women are viewed as "not inclined to grasp spatial relations and higher mathematics" because they have been conditioned to believe that their place is in the home, behind an iron and in front of a stove?

Please, on a personal note, understand that I really was half-joking about this topic. But, the modern notion that gender equality under the law means similitude is ridiculous.

In the current world of politcal correctness I would hope you would be aware that you can't just joke or even half joke about things in such a way without someone taking notice.

And I wasn't aware that "the modern notion of gender equality under the law meant similitude". I thought it meant that women and men are suppose to be protected equally under the law........just as an individual's faith, race, and (in some cases) sexual preference, are protected under the law.

The easy answer is that you apply no standard at all, which we have accomplished with the unhappy results that were predictable and indeed predicted.

I am not really sure what you are saying here......could you expand on that further please? :)

[juntel]

Women and math...

In the 20s, 30s and 40s, there lived Emmy Noether in Germany, a brilliant mathematician. But as a woman, she was refused a permanent teaching post for a long time; colleagues had to give her money to help her in her research; she was allowed to teach after a time, but again not as a full teacher, and again was paid under the table by friends.
She made MAJOR contributions to the mathematical formulation of Einstein's General Relativity (he wasn't that good in math himself... at least less good than Emmy).
She made other contributions to math and physics, especially one of the most important theorem in theoretical physics, without which physics wouldn't be the same: the famous Noether Theorem that links conservation laws to symmetries in the system.
I don't expect you to understand the math and physics above, but let me tell you that this woman contributed major building blocks to what is modern physics.
Yet she's still an unknown to the public.

Another important woman mathematician was Sophie Kowalenskaya (spelling may be wrong), in the 19th century, who made major contributions to math, but again against male chauvinism.

And of course a better known example is Hypatia.
I think she lived in the 3rd or 4th century C.E.
Her father raised her by teaching her the sciences, philosophy, etc... ie teaching her things that were reserved to men in the region where they lived (Alexandria? i'll check on that).
She contributed important theorems concerning geometry.
But she was disliked for what she was, what she knew, what she said, for only men were allowed those rights.
==========
(/Edited: here's a few of the things she said, not related to math, but that made her so hate by some:
-"All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final."
-"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all."
-"To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing." //)
===========
She was captured, tortured, probably flayed, and then killed.


What is my point?
Well, my point is in support of what Eruve said, and what I hinted before: the conditions in which men and women live in have an important impact on what they become and how they live.
There may be a "Nature of Things", but what it is is not clear, and to say "women aren't good in math in general" may be more a comment about our society and it's still existing inequalities than about the true potential of individuals (eg women in this case).

We are STILL coming out of a society that has very questionable views on the "Nature of Things", and evidently such views survive to this day, and many are subject to heated debate.

The cocoon is still there around us, let's not be fooled: the butterfly still has to come out.
May it still have wings when it does, wings woven by the diversity of its constituants, not only the intellectuals, but all of them, whitout discrimination.

/Edited:
Oh! And also Rosalind Franklin (http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/Rosalind_Franklin.html)... not a mathematician, but a British x-ray cristallographer who provided much to the discovery of the structure of the DNA in the 50s; unfortunately she died of cancer quite young, and since Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously, only the men involved in the discovery received the Nobel prize for that great discovery.
She had to fight the University in which she was working, for even in GB in that era women in sciences were not well viewed.

Of course, I could have spoken about Marie Curie, but she's quite an exception as a woman scientist: I guess she fitted better the Hollywoodian view of woman scientist.

[anduin]

Well said Eruve! I am glad that I am not alone in thinking that those statements were a bit out of line.

[Eruve]

A view of the "bad old days":
The following is from a 1950's Home Economics textbook intended for High School girls: "How to prepare for married life"
>
> 1. Have dinner ready: Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal, on time. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs.
> Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.
>
> 2. Prepare yourself: Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your
>hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day
>may need a lift.

His boring day? what about the housewife's boring day, cooking and cleaning all day???

>3. Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables.
>Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too.
>
>4. Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part.
>
Boy this seems like a lot to take care of in the last 15 minutes befroe hubby comes home: freshen youself up, freshen the kids up, clean up the clutter, put the finishing touches on that meal you've been planning since the night before...

> 5. Minimize the noise: At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher, or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet. Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him.
>
> 6. Some DON'TS: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day.

So you have to break your back to have dinner ready on time but can't complain if he's late (which could very well ruin the special dinner you worked so hard on)? Hardly seems fair!

> 7. Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax and unwind.
>
>8. Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first.
>
> 9. Make the evening his: Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or to other places of entertainment; instead try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his need to be home and relax.
>
> 10. The Goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax.



Does anyone else think there's a double standard here? Sure glad I wasn't born 20 years earlier... :p

[juntel]

"Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift."

Hmmm... If my wife/girlfriend brought along Anne Heche home one day to entertain me, that would make my day!
Wouldn't be displeasing!
As for the lift... well, I don't want to be banned here!

//Cheap joke, i know... couldn't resist!

[Johnny Lurker]

As far as the issue of women versus men goes...

Most women that I've met are idiots.

I won't venture to go so far as to say "nearly all", but definitely the majority of women I've met are idiots. As far as I'm concerned, this trend of idiocy starts at puberty.

Can I _prove_ any of this? Heck no. Am I convinced of this? Yes.

Why? Personal experience, and lots of it.

Now, let me say something here. I've never had an IRL meeting with a woman who could equal me in the mathematics, in the construction, maintenance, and programming of computers, or, for that matter, in football.
(Note that I'm not suggesting that this COULDN'T happen, just that it HASN'T happened)

I have met men who can top me in all three. Namely, IronParrot, JoBUSH, and ATFW/ Yeomy, respectively. (You probably won't know the last two unless you frequent IronParrot's BB)


Now, with all of my experience with stupid, idiotic, perhaps even "inferior" women, it should be tempting for me to declare that men are superior... right?

No.

Because of the one woman that I have spent more time in the presence of than anyone else.

My mother.

In a nutshell, the virtues and intelligence she's repeatedly shown me have made me realize that there may very well be a woman out there who can top me intellectually - and that it is indeed unfair to deny women rights simply because they are women.

Oh, and by the way, she was going to major in... I believe it was biology... at a major Canadian university, but decided to study something more useful - home economics.

[juntel]

(just asking: what's an IRL meeting?)

[Johnny Lurker]

(A TLA is a Three-Letter Acronym)

IRL stands for In Real Life. As in, you and I have most likely never met, but myself and IronParrot have.

[juntel]

To whomever is interested...

From the introduction:
"Welcome to the web page for biographies of women in mathematics. These pages are part of an on-going project by students in mathematics classes at Agnes Scott College, in Atlanta, Georgia, to illustrate the numerous achievements of women in the field of mathematics"

Biographies of Women Mathematicians (http://www.agnesscott.edu/lriddle/women/women.htm)

[IronParrot]

Men and women aren't born different in terms of intellectual differences, especially in specific fields.

It's how they're raised.

[juntel]

I have to learn to make short posts like yours IP!!

[Eruve]

JL: Most women that I've met are idiots.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? Same age as IP more or less? If so, give them time, they may grow out of it. Otherwise I suggest you try meeting women in other places than where you currently try to meet them. I could retaliate and say most men are idiots... Quite a few of them can be at one time or another.

JL: I've never had an IRL meeting with a woman who could equal me in the mathematics, in the construction, maintenance, and programming of computers, or, for that matter, in football.

Again, perhaps your not meeting the right women. Or the women you meet aren't interested in these things. That doesn't mean they don't have the potential to know about these things. Knowledge of computers, mathematics or football are not measures of intelligence. One can be highly intelligent and not have had exposure to these things; that doesn't make the person less intelligent.

ITA with IP!!

Juntel: :lol: I figured someone would make a comment along those lines... BTW Anne Heche has apparently gone straight!

[juntel]

"Anne Heche has apparently gone straight"

Wooooooooooopie!!!!!!!!
(hehe... as if I had a chance to meet her...)

[Gilthalion]

Anne Heche is a delight to watch and a fine actress! :)

I read that HOME ECONOMICS excerpt on the radio one day with I MARRIED JOAN playing in the background! What a hoot!

I just finished cooking dinner. We had green beans, baked potatoes, tomatoes, and broiled steak. You can see what a horrible old patriarch I am! (Come to think of it, I cooked breakfast and lunch today, too!)

Anduin was right! This has proven to be a popular thread.!

I hate that anyone was offended by the facts. :)

You can certainly point through history to women and to men who break the stereotypes and who are the exceptions to the rule. But the broadbased studies are clear. In general, women are less capable of mathematical reasoning than men.

It's unreasonable to get upset over it. It has nothing to do with individuals.

Einstein had a brain that featured more prominent development in the region of the brain in which this sort of thinking develops. It is expected that persons with this genetic difference perform much better in the field of theoretical physics.

Men and women have differently developed brains. We know from long experience, and now from modern study, that women and men are wired differently.

One of the general differences is evidenced in mathematics, toward which men generally have greater inclination.

But general tendencies, even individual tendencies, even similar environments, are not necessarily predictive. In high school, I breezed through all things mathematical and helped our Valedictorian understand her math homework. She is now a VP in the company that coincidentally, I now work for as a lab tech. I had the greater inclination, she had the greater tenacity. :/

I am not saying one gender is better than the other and so we should write our laws that way!

But as a former broadcaster, let me tell you that daytime television is not only aimed at women, it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (to speak mathematically!) to obtain the largest audience. That's who Oprah is spiritualizing to. And that's who decided Al Gore was their man because of The Kiss. :eek:

[anduin]

Oh man! That is priceless Eruve!! Do you collect old text books, or did you just happen to have it lying around? I like to collect old Popular Machanics and Machanix Illustrated. I have several from the 40's and 50's. One of the things that caught my attention about them was their ads (of course it wouldn't be the info contained within.....girls aren't capable of understanding those sorts of things ;) ) . Many of them have cigarette ads in them and on the back covers. Some have sport figures (mostly hockey players) endorsing their product. But my favorites are the ones that have medical endorsments.

[juntel]

"In general, women are less capable of mathematical reasoning than men"

In itself, this is an interesting statement.

So lets make some more:
"In general, women are more capable in house cleaning than men"
"In general, women are less capable of leading a country than men"
"In general, women are more capable in cooking a diner than men"
"In general, women are less capable in being lawyers than men"
"In general, women are more capable in sewing than men"
"In general, women are less capable in the financial world than men"
...

Hey, this might be fun!
... i mean, fun 50 years ago...

Blanket statements. They do a disservice to the diversity of the world.

And when counter-examples are found, they are called just exceptions that do not alter the reality of "The Nature of Things".
The good ol' "Heads I win, Tails you lose" attitude.

And then IQ tests are given around, and it is found that black children from the Bronx have lower IQs, and some (not Gil) are claiming that "modern science" has proven the intellectual inferiority of blacks ("they may be better than us in sports, but heck! we have the brains!")
After all, they have their genes, and we have ours, right? We are also wired differently from them, right?

Bull.


"It's unreasonable to get upset over it"

Re-bull.


"Men and women have differently developed brains. We know from long experience, and now from modern study, that women and men are wired differently"

Another blanket statement that doesn't say much, but that can be mis-used.
On one side there are anatomical differences in the brain (subtle one still), on the other there are sociological differences. Easy to use one to justify the other, or to try to maintain the differences.


"One of the general differences is evidenced in mathematics, toward which men generally have greater inclination"

And women have a greater inclination towards house-cleaning, cooking, sewing, blablabla...

Re-re-bull.


"daytime television is not only aimed at women, it is aimed at the lowest common denominator (to speak mathematically!) to obtain the largest audience. That's who Oprah is spiritualizing to."

As a former broadcaster, you should know that virtually all tv timeslots are now aimed at the lowest common denominator.
That's why "The West Wing" won't survive it's second year (my prediction, but I may be wrong).

The worst though are the Saturday and Sunday morning time-slots with their preacher$ and faith-healer$ and bull-$h... well, I think there are certain words I can't use here.
Just to say that Oprah is just another guru among the multiple gurus, no better but no worse than the Schullers, the Robertsons, and other clowns of mass-media mediocrity.

I do personally dislike the "Marianne-Williamson" approch that the Oprah show has taken on, and since then have not watched it much.
But as a show that balances the excesses of constipated conservatism, it's much better than nothing.


I'm done for now.
I haven't disproven any of what Gil said.
Again, I think that his posts conveniently serve both him and myself.
I just needed to underline a few passages.

[IronParrot]

"I have to learn to make short posts like yours IP!!"
Actually, I was in the middle of a mega-post, then I just decided I was too lazy to finish it and replaced it with those two sentences.

It was a choice between that and "Two words: Sophie Germain."

[Gilthalion]

Happy Labor Day! :) WOW! Am I up late!

Juntel, thanks for leaving me out of your indictment. I can't defend the some of the folks you're attacking. You're right.

But I would stipulate that there is nothing wrong with general statements, as long as it is understood that they are general and are not to be abused in the way juntel described.

Diversity is not disserved by general observations. Rather, that is what gives the diverse its context and renders its uniqueness more enjoyable.

And there ARE mental as well as physical differences between the genders and science has closed that debate and is in the process of even more precisely quantifying it. In fact, at some point, they will be able to match these qualities to specific sections of the Human Genome.

In the military, where such things must be known as a matter of course, some interesting things have been found. Some women with great capacity not only for the spatial relations, but hand to eye coordination as well, are preferred as pilots in the military. There are hard reasons for this wired into women, the kind of thing that renders them able to consistently outperform men in many areas beyond the kitchen. Our understanding of these differences from individual to individual, our ability to quantify it, and to analyze it en masse has greatly increased over the last few decades.

And it has proven that a lot of stereotypes have some truth in them. And that every stereotype is routinely broken.

And, as a broadcaster, don't get me started on the ridiculous filth and empty trash that passes for televised entertainment and information.

And don't expect me to defend the televangelists. For the most part they are gloryhounds, panhandlers, charletans, hypocrites, blind guides, lecherous oafs, greedy swindlers, and misguided quacks. I despise their tawdry sets and tacky costumes and affected mannerisms.

I rather expect to see my King one day say to them, "Away from me! For I never knew you!"

(And with that, the little hobbit fervently hoped that he would not be found in that number!)

[dunedain lady]

Good job, Gilthalion!
Yeah, those general statements are probably correct, but are, again, general. In science fairs at my school, someone ALWAYS does the old right-brained/left-brained experiment, and it ALWAYS ends up that more girls are right-brained and more guys are left-brained. Therfore, it would follow that guys would be better at algebraic-type math then girls. However, it would also then follow that women are naturally more adept at geometry and spacial reasoning than men. This is probably more an environmental thing than a mental thing, but my math teacher commented last year when we were doing our schedules, that it usually ends up that the AP Caluclus class is mostly male, and the AP Statistics class is mostly female. Interesting...

Women are found to be better at hand-eye coordination? Huh; I seem to have been left out! Just kidding :p

[Eruve]

Actually, I got that "happy homemaker" bit (no wonder women were drugged up on Valium in the 50s!) off another message board. Someone posted it, and I copied and pasted it. But Gil. must know where it's ultimately from...

BTW Gil. I'm still waiting for you to post all these scientific studies... You keep talking about them but don't give us a source. Don't worry, I can understand all that scientific stuff.

[Gilthalion]

All I know is that it came from a Fifties Home Economics text book.

As for the studies that have quantified the differences between the genders, they are multitudinous and have been discussed throughout the media in recent years. I'm sorry I (conveniently) don't have them at my fingertips. I didn't realize anyone was waiting for them, perhaps I breezed through the previous posts too quickly.

(This started as a joke!) :)

Now, I hope this is not followed with a "My study can beat up your study" discussion!

Why is it so hard to accept that women and men are generally quite different? I should think it obvious! ;)

Little girls and little boys, in studies that control for for different nurturing environments, will play with different toys and engage in entirely different forms of play.

Men are more mathematical. Women are more verbal. This is firmly established and is no longer seriously questioned, except by institutions that have a Feminine axe to grind.

If you have been taken in by the Feminist myth (and since this is a recent phenomenon that seeks to overturn what has long been accepted, the burden of proof, still unmet, is on the Feminists) that men and women are different only because of training and indoctrination (which play their considerable role), then perhaps I should roust myself and dig this out.

Or are y'all just teasing me? Do I really need to take some time to formally present recent data to buttress the long knowledge of history? I thought all of this was rather informal. You might be more convinced if you looked yourself!

(The lazy hobbit, reflects that in the time he wrote this post, he might, out of courtesy for the reasonable request, have already found a study or two.)

EDIT:
OK, here is a more or less comprehensive discussion of the matter. The scientists on the program (I assume produced for Public Television) refer to many studies and give a good overview of the best data we have on the subject. I should have done this to begin with! :) There is a lot more to be found, but this should be satisfactory.

Men, Women and the Brain

This program was taped for airing before a live audience and produced by WETA, Washington, DC.

www.dana.org/dabi/transcripts/eyb_0298.html (http://www.dana.org/dabi/transcripts/eyb_0298.html)

[juntel]

"Little girls and little boys, in studies that control for for different nurturing environments, will play with different toys and engage in entirely different forms of play."

Girls and boys that are presented with barbies and gijoes tend to react thusly in those studies (if, conveniently, memory serves well): the boys will play with the gijoes in a war-like fashion (aggressivity), and girls will play with both, in family role-playing fashion.

Hmmm... boys playing with barbies could make them look like "sissies"... isn't this why they don't play with them? Couldn't it be cartoons that thaught them to play thus with gijoes?

As for girls and family role-playing, how much of that is due to genetic determinism, and how much to learning from their mothers, ie their role-model?


"Men are more mathematical. Women are more verbal. This is firmly established and is no longer seriously questioned, except by institutions that have a Feminine axe to grind"
and
"Feminist myth (...) that men and women are different only because of training and indoctrination"

Gilthalion, the Nature/Nurture problem is far from being resolved and understood, including when it concerns gender issues.
Yes, there are anatomical and mental differences in men and women in general (as well as between men alone, and women alone), but at most this implies possibly different approaches to same problems, and not which problems can be solved better by which gender.

That women are not as present in science is a fact.
And if you look at that human history you like to point out, you'll see that for thousand of years women have been prevented from going into science, by blatant sexism or other reasons. Only in the past two centuries has this changed; and even then, only in the past 30 years has this really changed.

To say that human experience and history has shown that women are not science-oriented or math-oriented, is no better or wiser than to say that blacks aren't either, since also they are not as present science-wise in human history and experience.
You'll agree with me, I hope, that this reasoning based on human history is false and valueless

I cannot base myself on human history and experience of the past to say wheter or not women (or dark-skinned people, or red-headed people, or whatever) are science- or math-oriented. The variables that have interfered are too numerous, and those interferences still exist to this day in some instances (coming from both men and women!).

Studies have not determined yet all the answers.
There are studies, there are results, both none are widely accepted, because all have been found to contain ingrained biases (since last I checked).

================================================== =========
I just saw Gil's edited post: Very great link Gil, thanks!
And I don't even have to change my text above.

I'd like to quote here one of the female doctor in that show:

" DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: (...)[W]hen I went to college and I announced that I wanted to go to medical school, I was immediately greeted with derision by the dean who said, "You? You weren't even allowed to take the fourth year of math in high school because you were a B student, you weren't a good -- " I said, "Well, I want to go to medical school." And I found myself a tutor who helped me to overcome what had been my relatively mediocre math performance, and marched on to medical school.
Now, it's true, I did not become a radiologist, I did not become a surgeon, I did not become a lot of different kinds of doctor that is probably more based upon the kind of spatial ability that I never had. On the other hand, I not only got into medical school, but I even became a neurologist where I had to learn all of this excruciatingly spatial stuff about where everything is in the brain. So motivation, interest, some compensation, may be something we want to hold out to people. We don't want to just stereotype them the way I was very much in danger of being stereotyped as "The kind of girl who's good at languages and literature," you know, which is how I entered college. And I think that's the kind of thing that we want to study these differences minutely, in order to be able to liberate people from."

=============

[Johnny Lurker]

"Out of curiosity, how old are you?"

I am however old you think I am.

You may make your deductions through my association with IronParrot, my rhetorical patterns, my political affiliations, my entertainment preferences, or even through recursive reasoning about the following statement.

I will neither confirm or deny any inferences you may make. Period.

"If so, give them time, they may grow out of it."

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. It's not my concern.

"Otherwise I suggest you try meeting women in other places than where you currently try to meet them."

I don't try to meet women, except in one activity which I am forbidden to discuss by the EzBoard Terms Of Service. Running into them and being forced to put up with them is another issue altogether.

"I could retaliate and say most men are idiots... Quite a few of them can be at one time or another."

This is interesting. But do you know what the difference is between the "average" man and the "average" woman is?

Ah, scratch that, I'm not going there. Suffice it to say that I'd rather talk about football with a male idiot than cosmetics and Oprah with a female idiot.

"Again, perhaps your not meeting the right women. Or the women you meet aren't interested in these things."

I have a bone to pick... but I won't do that here. I doubt that our esteemed leader bmilder would appreciate some of the things I'd say. If you want to know what I'm talking about, swing by IronParrot's board, and I'll enlighten you.

"One can be highly intelligent and not have had exposure to these things"

Um... not in Canada.

Up here, you're LEGALLY REQUIRED to have 9 years of grade-school math. And _anyone_ can get access to a computer. (Forget football... that was a footnote)

[Eruve]

To Gil: OK I went digging in my old psych. textbooks. Of 3, only one found it fit to even mention the gender differences. And yes, it did mention that females tended to do better on verbal skills and that males tended to do better on math and spatial relations.... BUT the differences in each of the categories were very slight.
For the verbal skills, the study quoted (Sherman 197:cool: stated that for "850 females and 850 males who were tested the diffderences attributable to sex accounted to less than 1% of the variability between their scores."
Spacial ability: "In no investigation [as of 1983 the year my text was published] does sex account for more than 5% of the variability, and in some studies with very large samples, sex accounts for less than 1% of the variability. Usually this difference is not reliably found before the age of 16 (Hyde 1981; Sherman 197:cool: ."
Mathematics: "There are no apparent differences in mathematical ability in grade school. However, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). after reviewing much of the research concerning sex differences in this ability, suggest that after the age of 12 or 13 boys show a greater increase in mathematical ability than do girls... In studies that do not control for the amount of math background, the difference in performance between girls and boys can be quite large. When prior experience in mathematics courses is equated, however, differences dissappear or are very slight (Hyde 1981; Sherman 197:cool: ."

Can we attribute the differences to nature or nuture? As juntel points out, that is a vey thorny question and hard to resolve. I would ask the following, though: If boys and girls had different inherent capacitites in the fields of mathematics and spacial relations, would it not make more sense that these differences show up from the beginning, and not only in adolescence? It seems to me, especially in the math field that girls are not encouraged to take the same math courses as boys. The girls seem to be taking the watered down version.

TO JL: I wasn't trying to suggest you were trying to meet women for any particular activity. If you prefer to associate with men that's your perogative. But maybe if you actually tried to meet women on a friendly basis and strictly that, you'd be surprised. But that's up to you; you're free to do with your life as you will.
As for the bit on math, I stand by what I said. See above. Anyone can have access to a computer, but last I looked, computer knowledge wasn't a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of interest, and someone can be intelligent without being interested, and so has not taken the time to learn. It doesn't mean that person lacks the capacity to learn about computers if s/he so desires.

[Gilthalion]

I see no need to further debate my point regarding the very real and substantial differences between the male and female thinking apparatus.

If you read through the link I provided, even juntel's pull quote, my point is substantiated. There is no debate that there are physiological differences between the genders that account for greatly differing capacities in various areas. This is simply what the research demonstrates.

This is hard science, not psychology.

Again, there is no reason to be upset over it. This is not new. It is old, well known, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. What's new is the modern feminist assertion that Nurture is All.

I think that when the Nature-Nuture issue is debated in terms of Nature vs. Nurture there is no chance of reaching understanding. It's not one or the other. It's both.

I've never argued that women have been unfairly repressed, practically enslaved.

And I think the content of my posts demonstrate that I do not think in monolithic generalities and stereotypes. A lot of folks do.

Folks of my viewpoint are unfairly subjected to that sort of thing all the time! The ancient wisdom is mocked and scorned, or lightly dismissed, even when science verifies what has long been known.

And that's not new either! :)

[juntel]

Ancient Wisdom goes along with Ancient Unfairness and Ancient Blindness.
It is not altogether bad: it has beaten the path on wich we walk.
But the path isn't the goal, the journey is, and on that journey we have seen over and over again that this Ancient Wisdom, although respectable and usefull in its time, has a lot to be desired in certain domains. The path led us here, but we had to change, because the destination wasn't very palatable to us, due to the unfairnesses it led us to for certain domains.

The gender issue is such a domain.

If Ancient Wisdom is to be kept unchanged, no evolution in the societies is possible.
And that, I'm sure, is a lesson that even that Ancient Wisdom teached our ancestors: no Wisdom is so wise if it doesn't teach its own limitedness and eventual need to be replaced.

I have also to point out that I personnaly don't believe that Nurture is all... in fact, I don't even think that the majority of feminist (or not) psychologist and searchers think that Nurture is all: I think you just focus on a minority groupt within "feminist" researchers that think that way.
I am myself bewildered by statements like: "Women's menstruation is a social phenomenon, not a biological one", but such statements is in the extreme minority of the hard-left-feminists (Dworkin et al). These kind of statements from these fringe groups are as idiotic to me as the statement: "Only a man can be the head of his family, that's his given natural role".

Also, I was mainly argueing about capabilities, not anatomical differences. Read my posts again.
And the link you gave, even though gives some details about anatomical differences, hardly supports the point of vue that "men are inately better at maths and sciences"; my "pull-quote" was to underline this.


(btw, love your new pic Gil!)

[Shanamir Duntak]

ARG! Are you all crazy? 30 LONG replies in two day!?! And you think I'm gonna read that?

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
You're right!:D

[Johnny Lurker]

"But maybe if you actually tried to meet women on a friendly basis and strictly that, you'd be surprised."

Honestly, I don't think I've ever tried for anything more.

I'm not going to get drawn into anything more here... show up at IronParrot's board (featured on the EzBoard front page - pub4.ezboard.com/bnicktheshadow.html (http://pub4.ezboard.com/bnicktheshadow.html) ) for a debate. (No, I'm not just shamelessly plugging it - we've had some debates on subjects somewhat like this).

"computer knowledge wasn't a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of interest"

It's one of my benchmarks. Math is another. So is football - not applicable to the lighter gender. I have others - I simply used those as examples.

"and someone can be intelligent without being interested, and so has not taken the time to learn"

Potential is worth NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

It doesn't matter if I'm the fastest freakin' wide receiver this side of Jerry Rice, if I don't strap on the cleats and get out there.

[Gilthalion]

Heh heh heh! :)

I don't see how anyone reading that transcript can come to any other conclusion than the one's stated. And I will leave it there.

Ancient Wisdom is not the path that brought us hear, as juntel maintains, it is what we have learned on that long bloody evil path. The ancient evils you name are not inextricably bound with the wisdom we have learned. Wisdom lies in avoiding the very things you name.

It is as much folly to cast aside age old wisdom as to keep age old wickedness. I don't understand this ongoing fascination for a discredited social theory. This is biology, or even anthropology, not sociology, and especially not psychology. (Unfortunately, EVERYTHING is politics!)

Good and evil have not changed. Old and young remain as always. Night and day continue. Male and female are the same. I maintain that these not only have not changed, but will not change.

Cultures and societies are another matter!

[juntel]

"Male and female are the same. I maintain that these not only have not changed, but will not change"

That the male human animal and the female human animal as biological entities have not changed, I will not try to deny (at least for now; it all depends on what would be considered as change).

But biology, contrary to what is thought by some, isn't the only part that defines us as humans.
To deny the importance of the social environment created by groups of humans is simple blindness; a blindness that Gil fortunately isn't affected by, since he acknowledge in a recent post that both Nature and Nurture are important (unless I misread his post, in which case i'm sorry).


"Good and evil have not changed"

Well, in a lot of case what is good for one is evil for the other.
Unless one thinks one has the absolute truth...

I don't understand this ongoing fascination for ideologies claiming absolute truths...

[Shanamir Duntak]

Ok... Now I've been with my woman :p all week-end, and finally take the time to answer this thread.

First, in answer from a post two days ago (I think), I believe you're somehow younger than me Johnny, and I'm 20 (well, almost 21)

Second, I just wanted to point out something, and that's probabbly the only thing I'll do in this thread. I'm now studying at Laval University. Here we mainly have two "Pavillon" for science. Le Vachon et le Pouliot It IS a fact that 95% of these pavillon's population is Male (Sadly :( ) And One of the pavillon social sciences is Le De-Koninck Well, this one is nearly 90% female in population! (In fact, we sometime go there to have a look at all these nice girls)

Wheiter it's education, different biological structure of anything else you can think of, Women tends to go more into social sciences and men more into sciences and math. As Gil said, this is a fact.

Just wanted to tell you that

Shan

[juntel]

...as it is a fact that more than 90% of nurses are female

...as it is a fact that men are the majority as heart surgeons, brain surgeons, surgeons in general...

Go back 50 years Shan and Gil: what were the percentages then?

Facts, contrary to contrary popular beliefs, do NOT speak for themselves.
To conclude from the above facts that men are better surgeons and women better nurses is as easy and as wrong as saying that facts say that whites are more intelligent than blacks because the great majority of Nobel prize winners are white.

Bull, re-bull, and re-re-bull.

(btw, off-topic: qu'est-ce que tu étudie a l'UdeLaval Shan?)

[Shanamir Duntak]

Juntel Informatique... en fait, je me suis inscrit en informatique de Génie, mais les programmes d'informatique (de Génie, math, de Gestion) ont été modifiés pour créer un seul programme avec différente concentrations. Donc je suis en informatique, 2ème année, président du comité d'initiation et éditeur en chef du journal étudiant. :p

And now to get back to the topic, I NEVER, EVER said that this proved they were better at it or anything, I just proved that more women chose to go in these fields. Maybe they are better, maybe they like them better even if they are not good at it, maybe social pressions tell them to go in these programs, I let you choose your answer.

But one thing I'm sure, I didn't tell it proved that specific gender were better in specific domains.

Shan

[juntel]

I didn't say you said that.
You kept away from a conclusion on aptitude, and I saw that.

I did however want to make clear that a conclusion on aptitude would be wrong, even though you didn't make yourself that conclusion.

Call that a "pre-emptive comment", although I'm not sure this is the right expression...

Maybe the future society will be such that more women will choose careers in sciences; but to attain that state, alot of prejudices and stereotypes will have to be let go.
Lets hope our societies mature towards that wiser state.

(Si t'as besoin d'aide en Math un jour, ou tu veux en discuter, j'suis la.)

[Shanamir Duntak]

Pour ce qui est des maths, je me débrouille pas si mal (A en algebre linéaire et B- et stats) (Je fais donc parti des "standards" nommés avant, bon en math mais moins bon en perception spatiale :p )
Et avec un peu de chance, c'était mes derniers cours de math Ã* vie (Youppi!:) )

And for the comment, you're forgiven :p
I hope society will be like that a day but saddly, I tend to believe it's utopic to hope that.

[Gilthalion]

As a philosophy teacher once admitted to me about his philosophy, "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes."

I still don't get it. That's just not reality. It's not even decent sophistry. But that seems to sum up a great many of the differences in perspective that I am seeing here. If we are that far apart in understanding The Big Picture, I just don't know what to say.

The relativistic perspective is a shifting sand upon which no framework of reasoning can stand. With words, we build the structures of thought which we "inhabit" as we live in reality. With the passing ages, we have built an amazing variety of such structures. Some edifices are enduring. Others are quite temporary. But the basic principles and necessities of such constructs remain the same, though the techniques and materials may change.

Without the principle of absolutes, a relativistic philosophy tends to entropy and chaos when adopted for governance. Look at what the removal of absolutes has done to American public education. (I'm not talking about Prayer. That's another matter. I'm talking about Outcome Based Education and other variations on the theme of discarding absolutes.)

So for me, words in general will retain their meanings. "Up" will remain the opposite of "down" and "feminine" will still describe women. These are good words that adequately describe scientifically verifiable reality. As I mentioned earlier, the burden of proof is on the Feminists to prove their assertion. They haven't ever and they can't. "Relativism," "Feminism," "Humanism," virtually all the "-isms" are matters of faith, a system of believes based upon unknowable presumptions. In the case of Feminism, the presumptions are proven false.

Absolutely! :)

And please remember I am not defending unfair discriminatory cultural practices in regard to the case for Feminism. I'm talking about biology. An inherently flawed system of beliefs has prevailed in the institutions of Western civilization. To restrain its excesses need not mean returning to the evil days of yore.

***
This is a little something from my website as inspired by a previous ENTMOOT POST...



Gilthalion On The Feminine Mystique

"In my VAST and LONG experience with women," the hobbit began, "I have concluded that any of Them, from the simplest country hobbit to the most sophisticated Elvish lady, any of Them can make ME feel like an idiot! On a daily basis!

"They are a Strange Race, some sort of symbiotic creature that is hard to live with, and impossible to live without. They have strange mental powers, unknown to Men (or Hobbits). They can read minds, evidently, for they expect the male to be able to do so as well!"

The little hobbit's mind drifted to a conversation the previous evening...

"What's wrong, Dear," asked Gilthalion, mystified.

"You should KNOW without my having to tell you!" the Mrs snapped.

Gil shook his head as if trying not to nod off. He went on, "This Feminine Mind Power is enhanced with a set of Rings. How well I remember the spell that led me to my present, er, happy condition:

Two Rings to blind them both and in the Chapel bind them.

"Feminine Telepathy seems to intensify tenfold as they mature, especially with the onset of Children. At this point, the Female Race develops an ability to read thoughts and actions of their posterity from thousands of miles away. This is a Power I call MOMNIPOTENCE," the hobbit intoned.

Suddenly, he sat bolt upright and exclaimed, "Beware the Female! She may be reading your naked thought even now. The Mrs is still asleep, fortunately! I'm only concerned she will awaken and accuse me from a dream! They do that too, you know."

And with that, the little hobbit looked fearfully over his shoulder and would say no more.

[juntel]

I did not claim there was no absolute reality in Nature itself for us to go study: without such an hypothesis, no study, no science, no advance is possible to my knowledge.

What I do say is that any ideology that claims knowing absolute undeniable truths commits a miserable mistake.
This is true for some religious ideologies, and this has been true for some men of science in the past (and if any scientist nowadays claims that this or that theory has been absolutely proven, then he's a shmuck!)

This isn't relativism per se. It's simple humility towards complex matters, and knowing that in the past pretentious affirmations of absolute knowledge by scientist, politicians and men of Faith have been discredited.

So I suggest you read what your philosophy teacher has said in another light, whatever it is that he really meant (he was quoting some other philosopher anyway, and the quote is logically self-contradicting; a better constructed one would be: "There is only one absolute, which is that there is only one absolute" !!).

As for feminism, I admit that sometimes I'm not sure what people mean when they use that term: each time a comment is made about injustice to women because of a patriarchal society, that comment is branded "feminist".
So "feminist" is often used pejoratively, just as "liberal" is; in each case, it is again the trick of demonizing the opposition.
(the same is true also of terms like "right-wing" in the mouths of some left-wingers, and "left-wing" in those of some rigth-wingers)

So, I wonder if Gil considers me as a feminist, and if so in what sense.

Myself, I don't feel the need to call myself a feminist, nor to deny it (although I'll question the label if it is applied to me).
I don't consider myself even a leftist (although I could place myself to the center-left if pressed to define myself, or even center-left-north-west)

"In the case of Feminism, the presumptions are proven false."

Oh yeah? Details please.
And that capitalized feminism, what is it to you? Who are they? Are they one group, or many? Do they all say the same things?


"An inherently flawed system of beliefs has prevailed in the institutions of Western civilization"

What system of beliefs are you talking about?
Are you talking about the sexist system of beliefs that includes statements like "only men can rule a family, a town, a city, a state, a country, a company" and "the man of the family is the one who should have a job and the wife should stay at home and cook and raise the children"?

[Gilthalion]

We are talking about Them and you know who They are!

They are the one's behind it all. They are the ones doing all this to us!

They are everywhere, controlling everything. They will be satisfied with uttermost Domination, or Annihilation. Nothing less will serve Their Agenda.

The Conspiracy is deep and old and those who claim to know what They are doing are as wrong as those who claim there is no Conspiracy!

It is neither safe nor expedient for me to say more...




;)




***
I provided all the details necessary to buttress my argument against Feminism beyond reasonable doubt. Belief in it is a choice not to accept Reality. Men and Women are different in almost every way, by and large. Period. They are not and cannot be the same. Feminists believe otherwise. Their Faith does not have even the dubious support of purported Divine Revelation.

When I use the capital letter in that context, I am denoting adherance to a Faith. In my view, many -isms are faiths, they are certainly neither science nor revelation.

And the inherently flawed system of beliefs that pervades the institutions of Western Civilization is a militant Secular Humanism that hypocritically tolerates New Age faith (Oprah strikes) while systematically opposing most others (The Big Three Monotheistic Faiths). That's how I see it.

We are doing a little better than talking in soundbites about broad differences in perspective between several major cultural viewpoints. There are admixtures of them all to various degrees.


THE ROAD AHEAD

I will make a general statement, folks will get offended, thinking themselves included, point out exceptions and variations as if that disproves the Self Evident, and then we will debate the Nature of All Things as it relates to the quibble. And nothing will be accomplished.

Really, we can quibble far down the Road indeed over the precise definitions of these things and I'm not much interested in doing that. I've done it on three ENTMOOT threads now, on radio talkshows for the last five years, in many Letters to Editors, and at universities and political events for two decades. And it went on throughout history before I ever entered the scene, and will hopefully continue long after I exit.

(I wonder if Left and Right perspectives could be traced to a genetic tendency? There are those who say homosexuality is something you are born with. Was I born a Conservative, or was it all in the way I was raised? I checked, and there was definitely no silver-spoon listed on the Birth Certificate!) :)

Back in the US PRESIDENTIAL RACE thread, I posted my belief that the best course for Humanity is a middle course, and the best way so far devised to keep us on it is the unique system of dynamic and institutional checks and balances that we call the American Way. Competition that stalemates and gridlocks progress too far to the Left or to the Right.

And yet progress down the Middle does gradually occur. We do not enslave people of other Races. Men may no longer treat Women as property or chattel (at least, not with impunity). Discrimination of all kinds is now constrained and will be further constrained. None of these problems are, or will ever be, utterly eliminated. But we cannot sacrifice Freedom for faster Progress.

And that is precisely what is occurring. Civilization is drifting too far to the Left. We need a season on the Right. A good twenty years or so.

Don't worry. We won't get too far out of hand before the pendulum swings back!

But if Gore is elected here, there will be few Governments on the planet that are Right, or even Center. All the West will have chosen the Left Side. Now that is frightening! But what a Kiss! :eek:

[juntel]

Gil, I will take the begining statements as a joke, as indicated by the smiley.


"I provided all the details necessary to buttress my argument against Feminism beyond reasonable doubt. Belief in it is a choice not to accept Reality"

Again, feminisim captitalized, as if it was a heterogenuous group; that mistake of yours says a lot.
None of your arguments offer strong support of your ideas; there is more than just reasonable doubt in your opinions.
Reality is often a construct that one builds around oneself, thus the difficulty to understand others, others' cultures, others' values (a normal flaw that is often reciprocal).
You simply have not given any statements that all feminists support (or at least that the majority of them supports); the statement "All Is In Nurturing" is far from accepted by the majority of feminists, yet you ascribe it to them without blinking; that mistake again says a lot.


"Men and Women are different in almost every way, by and large. Period. They are not and cannot be the same"

Again, no one among feminists or others would say altogether the contrary to the last statement. It never has been an issue about beeing "the same", but about equality of rights and opportunities; rights and opportunities have been traditionally been in favor of men, and I think you agreed with that.

But then again, "different in almost every way"?????
You must justify this yourself: saying the men and women are the same is a terrible mistake, but saying they are "different in almost every way" is another.
There ARE differences, and that is sufficient to say that men and women (in general) ARE not identical... no man has given birth (yet!), that by itself is sufficient.
But apart from child bearing, all other differences come from that "XY" and "XX" chromosomes, the later identifying the human as a female. It may and does imply anatomical differences (apart from the reproducting system) in the brain, heart, etc... but these differences are subtle and not evidently apparent.
The blood one receives during an operation could have come from a man or a woman, or both, indiferently. Same thing for organ donors and takers.
Men and women can speak together, eat the same things. There will be differences, but there are also multiples differences between men alone and women alone.
Saying the two are "different in almost every way" is tantamount to saying there are from different species...

"the inherently flawed system of beliefs that pervades the institutions of Western Civilization is a militant Secular Humanism that hypocritically tolerates New Age faith (Oprah strikes) while systematically opposing most others (The Big Three Monotheistic Faiths). "

Well,,, maybe your opening statements, even though said in a joking fashion, are here revealed to be your true thoughts...
I would be the first to combat the NewAgers if they ever took any form of control... but they haven't.
Their beliefs are as the Big Three mere superstitions... but of course you won't totally agree with that.
The pitifull astrology stuff and whatchamakalits that are recuperated by newagers are just there by freedom of speech, just as the other religions are.


"Civilization is drifting too far to the Left. We need a season on the Right. A good twenty years or so."

Hmmm... civilisation is in the singular above... is there only one civilisation?
But I guess you were talking about Western Civilisation.
We don't NEED it, but I guess eventually BushJr or another Rep will be elected president, and maybe JM LePen will be elected in France, and a Tatcher-like PM will head GB, and Stockwell Day in Canada...

[Gilthalion]

Reality is. (Period.)

Reality is not a construct.

Feminism is a contruct, like all the other -isms. Some are less flawed than others.

I do not include everyone (including myself!) who believes that equal rights/opportunity/etc. should be upheld as a Feminist with a capital F. I'm talking about the True Believers who have motivated the new education curriculum and methodology.

I certainly have demonstrated that there ARE great physical and mental differences between the genders (despite vociferous protest), and maintained that this should not mean blind prejudice should be applied to any individual. I have stipulated that difference does not imply inequality.

To continue to view my arguments as some kind of narrow-minded prejudice against women must require some effort! The same sort of effort exerted by those who think Tolkien was a sexist. But, I can understand (and apologise for) offense taken at my politically incorrect attempts at humor.

I joke about The Conspiracy. But there clearly are things going on.

This need not be viewed with alarm as a great conspiracy against Humanity with elite kingmakers and stringpullers forming an amorphous alliance through unrelated organizations, all under an all-powerful hidden council of Illuminatti deep in old Europe. (A lot of folks do think that.) I see a broad based historical process taking place and nothing more than natural confluences of interests. Not conspiracies as such.

Though for different reasons we both revolt at the idea of the New Age, we are, I think, entering a Post-Christian Age in Western Civilization (which is all I am thinking of in this conversation).

It could be a Golden Age.

Or as Winston Churchill portended, there could arise "...a new Dark Age, made more sinister and more protracted, by the lights of perverted Science."

***
I was thinking that BushJr would win and win big. I've lost that certainty. The Republicans are reverting to timid type. Faint heart never won fair maid!

Back on topic, for the last statement reminds me, Adolf Hitler used to say that the secret to controlling the masses is to think of them as a Woman. And then to treat them as such.

Now what do you suppose that was all about? :evil:

[juntel]

"Reality is. (Period.)"

That isn't contested.
What people think Reality is, is.

Saying Reality is and knowing what Reality is are two different things; what people think Reality is is a construct, which varies according to (and even within) cultures and eras.


"I certainly have demonstrated that there ARE great physical and mental differences between the genders (despite vociferous protest)"

You have pointed out some mental differences, but have not demonstrated in any way that they affect abilities (e.g. in math).
"Great" is an overstatement.


"hidden council of Illuminatti deep in old Europe. (A lot of folks do think that.)"

hehe... I know... Everytime "Opus Dei" is mentionned in the press, some people freak out. I find that pitifull.


"Post-Christian Age in Western Civilization"

And it's about time...


"It could be a Golden Age. Or as Winston Churchill portended, (...) '...a new Dark Age'"

That (risk) is true in any change.
And wether it is Dark or not will depend on each of us, men and women.
And we'll have to make sure that science is not used to serve money, but rather to serve humanity.


"Adolf Hitler used to say that the secret to controlling the masses is to think of them as a Woman. And then to treat them as such"

Another of his saying: "The bigger the lie, the more it is believed."
So Hitler saw people merely as bunch of idiots, cattle to be brought wherever he wanted.
And before Hitler there were others who used such tactics; organized religions are the first examples that come to mind.


"Now what do you suppose that was all about?"

What, did Adolf ever smooch Eva Braun publicly to win voters? ;)

======================
(Hey! Where are the women of this thread!? It's all about you! We want your views!)
======================

[Darth Tater]

I haven't had a chance to really read the thread, so forgive me if I'm rehashing old stuff. I'd just like to staight my opinions (and probably have them debated by juntel if I know him at all ;) )

Femenism: Now there's a big word. In the beginning it was about equality. Now there's its first mistake. Women and Men are not equal! We are different! Men are USUALLY stronger, more likely to enjoy sports, better at certain jobs. Women are USUALLY better in the home, not as strong, but very strong willed. This is not a stereotype: this is the natural way of things. Yes, there are exceptions, there always are. However, we are not the same!
Now, men are not better then women. Men ARE given the place of authority for a reason, because they are (naturally) stronger. However, this doesn't mean women are less then men. Men are not supposed to beat women or anything of that sort, they are supposed to love their wives. The authority is to help keep the world in order, not to dominate.
Women have a very special role. The brining up of children is very important, just as important as that of the winner of bread. I am not being sexist here: this is the way things always were. Now, there are exceptions, of course. There are women who work very well and men who rase children well. However, men and women have their places.
Femenism is now even worse then it was before. It is not about equality between the two sexes (which did have a few possitive traights, there was too much male domination.) Rather, is has become an issue of women being superior to men. Teachers are now affraid to treat boys and girls equally, and female teachers are very often seen being kinder and easier on the girls. Why? Well, they say "I know how it is for them." This is accepted. Male teachers don't dare do the same with boys, they would be accused of being sexist.

Men and women are not the same. They are both just as important though. Femenism is the wrong concept, what we need is to treat both men and women as equally important human beings, not as equal people.

[juntel]

anduin, Eruve, or any other female Entmooter... I'll leave the replies to that to you...

[Gwaihir]

Great comments! I completely agree that men and women are equal, but they simply have separate roles. In trying to change the normal functions of the female in society, we are not only ruining girls but also boys. They begin to get a mixed up view of exactly WHAT gender they are, since they see men and women doing essentially the same things. Often times this results in homosexuality, or something similar.

Unfortunately, many of the "feminists" of today have simply had bad experiences with men in their past, and so they judge all men accordingly. The feminist agenda is basically about hatred of men, when you get down to it, and not equal rights. They already have that.

There are always going to be people who discriminate against you because of your gender or race. It's simply the way the world is.

David

PS: Juntel, I would request that you please stop making absurd comments about Christianity. Not only is it offensive to some people, but it also doesn't prove your points any better. It's simply a nit-pick. If someone said that you were a faithless, hollow, and empty person simply because you're an antagonistic, wouldn't that get you kind of angry? Wouldn't that be offensive to you? Please, think about these things before you post attacks on people different than you. They don't help your arguments. Thanks.

[juntel]

.
(ahem... with whom are you agreeing with Gwaihir?
Tater says men and women are NOT equal...)
.

(As for the comments on christianity, or in general organised religions, they fit well among the attacks on secular humanism and feminism, and free-thought in general, this and other threads have contained. My comments are at least acknowledge by history, whereas the opposing comments on sec.humanism, feminism are merely comming from a difficulty to adapt to a more equalitarian society.)

[Gwaihir]

It was a generalization. I'm not agreeing with anyone per say, just those who hold my opinion, wherever they might be.

[anduin]

PS: Juntel, I would request that you please stop making absurd comments about Christianity. Not only is it offensive to some people, but it also doesn't prove your points any better. It's simply a nit-pick. If someone said that you were a faithless, hollow, and empty person simply because you're an antagonistic, wouldn't that get you kind of angry? Wouldn't that be offensive to you? Please, think about these things before you post attacks on people different than you. They don't help your arguments. Thanks.

Gwaihir, I would request that you please stop making absurd comments about women. Not only is it offensive to some people, but it also doesn't prove your points any better. It's simply a nit-pick. If someone said that you were irrational, inferior, not suited for authority, and so different as to be unequal, because you are a women, wouldn't that get you kind of angry? Wouldn't that be offensive to you? Please, think about these things before you post attacks on people different than you. They don't help your arguements. Thanks.

[juntel]

Ouch!

Couldn't have done better myself!

[IronParrot]

Haha, great post, anduin.

I will be offering my opinion on this issue in more detail WIFLI (when I feel like it)... one must realize that I'm sort of on the lazy, procrastinating side. Anyone who's interested in my opinion, just ask... should just be a copy-and-paste job from my private conversations about this topic with others who have participated here.

But my earlier statement, that the major gender differences from a social/intellectual perspective originate from the raising, still stands.

[anduin]

Tater:

Women are USUALLY better in the home, not as strong, but very strong willed. This is not a stereotype: this is the natural way of things.

If that isn't a stereotype, I don't know what is.
The natural way of things? There is that saying again. Natural for you maybe, but not for me. What if your wife wanted to work? Would you allow her to do so? If not, would you let her know that before you married her or just chain her to the stove after you said, "I do"? ;)

Men ARE given the place of authority for a reason, because they are (naturally) stronger.

First off, given authority by whom? I have always thought that they have TAKEN authority by suppressing women. And second, why do you equate strength with authority? Last time I checked, Margaret Thatcher was not a world heavyweight contender.

The authority is to help keep the world in order, not to dominate.

And yet men do dominate the world.....I wonder what kind of world we would live in if the nurturing (as we are generally viewed) women dominated the world. Oh yes, I really like the world order that you men have created for us. There is so much good-will, peace, respect for people different from ourselves............

There are women who work very well and men who rase children well. However, men and women have their places.

You stated it yourself, yet you will go ahead and say that men and women have their places. When you say that, you are saying regardless that women can be contributors in the work force and men can effectively raise children, they shouldn't because it is not their place. I hope you don't fall in love with a women that has the potential to make a place for herself in the working world and the two of you bear a child that you would rather stay at home with, than all the money in the world, because it really isn't your place. Sorry.

[Gilthalion]

Since there still seems to be some confusion on the subject, I bring you lengthy excerpts from the link I provided above. (Probably a missing link in the long evolution of the posts.) There are, indeed, profound (great) biological differences between the Male and Female mind. GENERALLY SPEAKING! :rolleyes:



NATURE

DR. RUBEN GUR: This is a PET scan of a woman and this is a PET scan of a man If you look at the older limbic system, there is more bright yellow colors here than here. If we look at those regions that in men have higher activity and we ask ourselves, well, what kind of behavior is associated with animals who have these regions, and what characterizes them, is that they react to emotional situations through action. If they are angry they'll attack. If they are fearful they'll run away.

GARRICK UTLEY: In contrast women show more activity in the singular gyrus.

DR. RUBEN GUR: That part of the brain is adjacent to language areas, and it appears in animals who can communicate, who can deal with emotions in a much more symbolic fashion. We don't need to do very complex research to find that men are more likely to express emotions through physical acts, whereas women talk it over.

GARRICK UTLEY: Dr. Gur is exploring the world of cross gender understanding through a test measuring emotional perception. He asked men and women to rate the expression on these actors' faces.

DR. RUBEN GUR: In general, women are much faster at picking up emotions on the face. In one study women were able to say whether a face was happy or sad even before they were able to say that it was a face. Whereas men take an additional about 20 milliseconds after they recognize it's a face and before they can say the emotion of the face.

GARRICK UTLEY: Dr. Gur says that although men were slower to respond, they were as perceptive as women at recognizing men's emotional states. However, they were less accurate at reading women's faces.

DR. RUBEN GUR: I tend to again link this to evolution and, again, evolution is very cold hearted and cruel. And basically given the differences between men and women in physical strength, it's not all that important for a man whether a woman is sad.

GARRICK UTLEY: While women's brains may be, in general, more attuned to emotional expression, evolution seems to have handed men a clear cut advantage in spacial reasoning. This simple test revealed some dramatic variation.

DR. RUBEN GUR: So here is a cup. Suppose now we tilt the cup. Which of these show how the water level will look like after it's tilted? And this kind of a task makes me feel the biology of sex differences, because I have seen very dumb men who look at me strange when I ask them this and they say, "You can't be asking me something as stupid as that." And I've seen some very smart women who, even if they come up with the correct answer, they will think about it.

...When we looked at brain anatomy over the age range, we found that male brains shrink faster than female brains, and that starts fairly early. And they shrink faster in certain regions than in other regions. But overall males lose tissue faster than females.
...one of the findings that keep cropping up is indeed a correlation between brain volume and intelligence. And I have to say intelligence very advisedly, because intelligence really is composed of a lot of different conative components. And so what you call intelligence depends on what you happen to include in your definition. But across a range of conative tasks we have observed small but consistent correlation between brain volume and performance. And we have also observed a decline in conative ability that comes with aging, and that decline seems to be faster in men than in women for certain functions.

...there seems to be a sex difference in the efficiency of the brain if we look at several parameters. For one thing, if you just look at the issue of the correlation between performance and brain volume, women have smaller brains, commensurate with the smaller body size. And yet if you take a range of conative tests, they do the same. Overall they score the same on IQ tests for example. So they must be more efficient, they are able to do more with a smaller volume of brain.

...In the area of schizophrenia .... it's another brain disorder where the textbooks say that there are an equal number of males and females. But in really, it's not. There is a two to one ratio, roughly, in most research centers of males having it more frequently than females. And furthermore, the age of onset is younger in men, and the course is much worse in men

...women have higher rates of blood flow in the brain, about 15 to 20 percent rates of blood flow, which should afford some protection against occlusive strokes. And indeed, women are less likely to suffer occlusive stroke. They're more likely to suffer hemorrhagic strokes, which is when an artery bursts. So there are sex differences in the occurrence of stroke, and there are sex differences in how well you recover from the effects of stroke. Again, women have an easier time recovering from certain effects of stroke.

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: Well, it's interesting, if you look at really infant development, little girls tend to sit up earlier than little boys, and the milestones that we all keep baby books on. But little boys, once they are able to move at all, tend to crawl faster than little girls. So little girls tend to follow a play pattern that's more in the I sit up, I look at another person's face and I make babbly, gooey noises, and I play pat-a-cake as an infant. Whereas the little boys are off exploring the environment much more rapidly than little girls. And I think that it's interesting that those motoric built in things would seem to predispose you to one kind of play versus the other.

DR. RUBEN GUR: I think one of the findings of that same PET study that showed the differences in the singular gyrus. And other -- all the motor regions were more active physiologically in the males than in the females. And one sex difference that is quite clear is in motor abilities. If you look at a simple task such as how fast you can move your finger up and down, it's not -- well, males tap about 50 percent faster than the average --

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: ...this sort of conscious manipulation of the bits and pieces of speech sounds and words are things that little girls seem to be able to do much better than boys.

GARRICK UTLEY: Do we know why?

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: Well, I don't think we know why exactly. But we also have some interesting data .... they've shown that when they give these kinds of challenges with speech sounds to the men and women, men use only the left inferior gyrus of the frontal lobe, a piece of the left side of the brain up in the front part, whereas the girls appear to be using both sides of the brain to process this information. So there seems to be a demonstration that more of the brain gets involved in doing this kind of an activity, at least in adult women.

...But anyway, girls are earlier developers, the programs are earlier in girls. And it may be that there's a certain accident of earliness that the left side of the brain is somewhat more pre programmed to be the language side. And perhaps if it gets connected to the left earlier, it literally becomes dominant in the old fashioned way, not in the sense that we say, "Oh, yes, this left hand is specialized for language, and the right is going to be specialized for visual or spacial." It may be that the left side of the brain is just very bossy in little girls, and that's something we're trying to follow up on.

...But I think there are other factors as well. I think girls are very highly sensitive to positive reinforcement, they are more crowd pleasers than boys. That again has it's bad as well as its good sides. Girls may have some other capabilities, such as the earlier development of the frontal lobes which are involved in planning and goal oriented behavior. They may have more of what we call these executive skills which allow you to develop strategies for getting around any difficulties that you may have...

...Spacial factor is another thing that seems to be, after puberty, a very robust difference between male and female adolescents. Spatial ability meaning the ability particularly to deal with something called mental rotation, where you can imagine what something looks like from a different perspective. That's a very -- much replicated and robust difference between men and women.




NURTURE

GARRICK UTLEY: ...is it possible to somehow train the brain, if not exactly mold the brain, to be less specialized in terms of left or right? Is that an ideal goal, and can it be done?

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: I think we always train the brain. I think -- I mean, every time you do anything you're training the brain.

...every teacher is making little dendrite sprouts and connect up neurons. So we are always training the brain. But if you mean essentially massively reorganizing it, I don't -- I'm not real optimistic about that. I call myself an optimistic fatalist, which means you've got a basic blueprint, you can kind of move the furniture around and maybe make some adjustments in the architecture of the interior walls. But I think the basic blueprint is not something that we are going to actually change.

DR. SANDRA WITELSON: I think trying to put a quantitative aspect on the nature-nurture controversy is almost impossible, because where does one begin and the other end? Clearly at the very beginning there has to be some biology. But there's even environment in the womb, nutrition, auditory stimulation which gets through, so that right away there's environment that is impinging on the biology, but you still have a very major contribution of biology.

...Then once the infant is born, and they're already born with different aspects of behavior, the children, each -- whether it's the group difference or the individual difference, they elicit different behaviors from their caretakers, from their parents. And that in itself will accentuate the biological differences. So by the time a child is one year of age, you have got such an interaction of nature and nurture, that I believe it's almost impossible to separate.

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: Let's take the example of -- what we talked about in the female disadvantage for spatial, particularly mental rotation abilities in young females. There has been work showing that that tends to later on show up as lesser achievement in mathematics, that is, that the foundational skill of spatial ability is not as well developed in females. So what one would do with females is very much what we've been hearing from feminists for the last 20 years. We would want to actively encourage little girls to do more spatial exploration, climb more trees, build more forts, experience more of their own movements of their body in space, and moving around things in space. In other words, we'd like to pump up the system that is not the one that the person naturally uses.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi. It seems from the discussion that one of the reasons for studying the differences is to understand better how to make men and women more similar in their abilities as adult. And I may be reading this wrong from the discussion. But I'm wondering how much does your research lead to people wanting to make people more similar?

GARRICK UTLEY: A fascinating question. Should we all be alike? Dr. Witelson?

DR. SANDRA WITELSON: Well, let me respond by saying I'm not sure that that's necessarily the way to go, that that's necessarily advantageous for the species as a whole. And if we think of the males and females in let's say the human species, where there is a great amount of overlap, mostly overlap, but at each extreme end, and let's take verbal and spatial as the two extremes as just examples. Where there may be the kind of spatial ability in a small group of men that far surpasses women, and vice versa at the other end, that by having two different sexes that somehow have developed different brains, for whatever evolutionary pressures there have been, what we have really done is we have expanded the capability of the species as a whole. And so therefore we are a much more powerful and a more well adapted species by having differences.

DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: I want to clarify something. We're not trying to make people end up the same, except where we already have things that society has laid out for us, our common skills that we need. I mean, if we could dispense with people having to know how to read or to do mathematics, a lot of the impetus, at least in my field, for understanding these gender differences would disappear. But this is not the same thing as saying that everyone has got to become a computer scientist, but that the diversity should be allowed to emerge on an individual basis. And if there are these tendencies to have more difficulty with some required subject, that we figure out ways to compensate for that.



AND IN CONCLUSION...

GARRICK UTLEY: Let me just interject here. I have read that there is scientific research that says that testosterone levels among men are often lower in happy marriages.

DR. RUBEN GUR: You could argue in some -- and again this sense that I have been -- that marriage is the victory of the female.

DR. RUBEN GUR: I'm part of a husband and wife team. My wife is a neurologist and a psychiatrist, and we do a lot of this work together. And this is one area where we find things in the lab, and then we look at each other and it helps us understand some of our personal relationship. And that is always a thrill. For example, when the graph jumped on our computer screen showing this difficulty of males detecting sadness on the faces of females, she looked at me and said, "Well, I understand some things now."

[LAUGHTER]

And then when we found that males lose frontal lobes faster than females, and the frontal lobe is the part of the brain which is the big inhibitor, the one that tell you "Stop," when that jumped on the screen, she said, "I think I understand why midlife crisis is so much tougher for the males." So these are just two examples.


***
Nurture can do much to compensate for Nature. But if everyone received the best of training and environment for maximum potential development (and shouldn't we?), then would we still not see gender differences?

I MUST UNDERSCORE THAT THIS BY NO MEANS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR UNEQUAL RIGHTS!!!


(And with that the little hobbit hoped that at least the argument over biological differences between the genders had finally been resolved. He hoped to comment on it no further.) :|

[juntel]

My, thank you Gil, I wont have to click the link you gave us!

I'll take this opportunity to repost a quote I made in an earlier post, Dr. Denckla's very important commentary towards the end of that show:

" DR. MARTHA DENCKLA: (...)[W]hen I went to college and I announced that I wanted to go to medical school, I was immediately greeted with derision by the dean who said, "You? You weren't even allowed to take the fourth year of math in high school because you were a B student, you weren't a good -- " I said, "Well, I want to go to medical school." And I found myself a tutor who helped me to overcome what had been my relatively mediocre math performance, and marched on to medical school.
Now, it's true, I did not become a radiologist, I did not become a surgeon, I did not become a lot of different kinds of doctor that is probably more based upon the kind of spatial ability that I never had. On the other hand, I not only got into medical school, but I even became a neurologist where I had to learn all of this excruciatingly spatial stuff about where everything is in the brain. So motivation, interest, some compensation, may be something we want to hold out to people. We don't want to just stereotype them the way I was very much in danger of being stereotyped as "The kind of girl who's good at languages and literature," you know, which is how I entered college. And I think that's the kind of thing that we want to study these differences minutely, in order to be able to liberate people from."

[Eruve]

Gil. I'm sorry, but your link does not prove nature over nuture. The doctors in that interview said themselves that this was an impossible question to resolve. And I am also not convinced that the differences are as great as you would have us believe. (I'm talking brain make-up here, I concede the physical, including, in general, that Men are stronger.) If women were to naturally deficient in spacial relations, they would not be aboe to improve their ability in this area and bring it up to speed with men. And yet Dr. Denckla suggests it's possible to improve girls' ability in this area by encouraging them to do more "boy-type" acitivies (climbling trees, building things...). This suggests to me that spacial relations skills are learned and not inherent.

As for differences, so what? If you take women as a group you will get lots of individual variance, the same as if you took men as a group. I am an individual. For me, this whole issue is about the choices I have. I do not like the idea that someone else removes my choices just because I'm a woman. I have never liked this. I once had a "feminist" (self-proclaimed) that I shouldn't go into teaching because it's a traditional field for women and was somehow a step backwards for women in general. I don't like this sort of thinking any better that those who say women should stay home and raise children because it's "the nature of things". Either way, you're taking away my choice.

[Gwaihir]

I don't care what scientific facts you throw at me. I prefer to look at the hard evidence: due to the lack of mothers in America, our society is beginning to go to pots. We have kids killing kids, kids having kids, and a number of other things. Is this simply because we are progressing? No. When did the family unit begin to decay? In the 60s, the same time the feminist movement began to pick up.

A woman's primary goal is to be a mother - period. You can't change the laws of nature, like we're attempting to do now a days. Please, just look at the evidence people. This isn't the kind of world we need.

David

Anduin: Excuse me, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to express my opinion in a civilized manner on this board. Juntel's comments had nothing to do with the topic being discussed here, which was why I requested he stop. It's obvious he won't, though.

[juntel]

Gwaihir, what you call "nastiness" is just simply "appropriateness".

If you spit up at the sky, expect the spittle to land on your face.

Women with children are mothers, and the male genitors are fathers.
Where are the fathers in your description of society "going to pots"?

/Edited: I wrote this post when Gwaihir's previous post spoke of the "nastiness" of anduin's reponse. While I wrote and posted, he had wisely changed it.

As for my comments that Gwaihir calls off-topic, I disagree, since the mentality of "women at home, not at work", "women subordinate", and such and such, are quite characteristic of organized religions, especially including christianity, as history shows us. And as I mentionned previously, other ideologies have been attacked, and my including the chritian ideologies is very appropriate here.

[Gilthalion]

(Ouch. No real need for that, Gwaihir.)

Eruve, I agree that this does not prove Nature over Nurture. But it demonstrates clearly that Nurture cannot entirely overcome Nature. And it demonstrates the general differences. And it demonstrates that people should be free to pursue Happiness, in whatever way they best find.

The Feminist zealots who insist it was somehow wrong for you to teach school don't understand that as you do.

I took piano lessons and learned somthing about playing the instrument. I bought a violin and worked at that a while (I gave it to my girlfriend). I never amounted to much musically, though I pretend to sing, because I did not have an aptitude for it. You ever see The Jerk by Steve Martin? That pathetic white boy, trying to keep rhythm with his adoptive black family, is me! I ain't got music.

If I tried very hard, and worked diligently, I could achieve a technically adequate performance of average proficiency for my level. But I had friends who swiftly took to keyboard and strings as if these were simply lost parts of their bodies that they had found again. Soon, they were effortlessly making better music than I, and if they put the sort of effort into it that I had to, they could do astonishing things that I could barely dream of.

I think that we are all endowed with unique aptitudes and even genius on our own individual grounds. If women naturally tend to have certain characteristics and men others to various degrees, then this is not to say that anyone, for reason of gender, should be held back from being what they want to be to the best of their ability and determination.

To whatever extent civilization (Western) still makes that discrimination, it is our right duty to amend it.

So have we at last laid extreme Feminism to her fitful rest?

There are many wonderful things about Women that I'd much prefer to discuss! :D

Let me leave this particular argument with the words of Scottish poet Robert Burns (1756-1796)

"The Rights of Woman"

While Europe's eye is fix'd on mighty things,
The fate of empires, and the fall of kings;
While quacks of state must each produce his plan,
And even children lisp the Rights of Man;
Amid this mighty fuss just let me mention,
The Rights of women merit some attention.

[Darth Tater]

I apologize that my post seems to have caused some confusion.

Gwaihir understood it best. I think men and women are EQUAL, but that their PLACES are different. They are equal people, both worth JUST AS MUCH. But USUALLY their natures are different.

Anduin, I accept that there are men and women who are better at certain things their sex does not usually excell in. Why would I ever hinder them in fulfilling what they have the talents for? I am simply saying that if you look at the world men are USUALLy more suited for certain things and women for other things. Usually! There are exceptions, and these should be appreciated.

Yes, for a long time our government was run by males with no respect for females. This is wrong. But I still believe that FOR THE MOST PART men are better in positions of authority. I do not mean strong as in weight lifter. I mean that men have a power that most women don't have. Women are OFTEN more meak then men. Not always though, there are VERY powerfull women out there.

"And yet men do dominate the world.....I wonder what kind of world we would live in if the nurturing (as we are generally viewed) women dominated the world"
Oh, and "nurturing" women isn't a stereotype? ;)
Yes, it's true, women are better nurturers, that's what I'm saying. If a typical woman ran the government then she would probably have trouble with all the pressure. Men can handle that better in that sort of way. Now, in other ways women are MUCH better handling pressure, I'm not saying they aren't. Just on a smaller scale, men are better in dominant roles. True, this has produced sexist men, but it doesn't have to, and if we had had equality instead of femenism things would be on the road to a good, non-sexist government. Instead, I have to work harder at school then my female peers!

[juntel]

"But I still believe that FOR THE MOST PART men are better in positions of authority"

The question is then where does that belief come from, how was it formed? (You are not alone in thinking that way).
Is it from experience? Then, what experience, since women in authority position are rare in the political arena.
Is this rarity due to their inability to have an authoritarian role, or is it due to the above belief that women can't take on that role!?

In a societies that have so long adopted the mentality that men are superior, only men can be in authority, and that women should stay at home raising children and cooking diner for the "head" of the family, it is thus understandably difficult to make the transition to a more equalitarian society.

Which is why feminists are so hated by some.

[Darth Tater]

It's from my personal experiance. Most (i say most) women who have been in authority positions that I know have made rash desicions, as well as acting in an ilogical manner that is better for some but not for the whole.
This is not my view only as a male, as I know females who agree with me.

[anduin]

Hehe, I guess Gwaihir can't take a dose of his own medicine.

Tater......

I said "nurturing" for the sake of making a point that this is how we are generally view....not that I myself view women as generally nurturing.

Most (i say most) women who have been in authority positions that I know have made rash desicions, as well as acting in an ilogical manner that is better for some but not for the whole.

The exact same thing could be said of men. And since men are mostly in positions of authority, I would say that it is true for men.

Juntel makes a good point.....since the tables haven't turned and more women than men are in positions of authority, there is no real way to know how well they would do. If you say that men are better suited for authority without having anything to compare it to...ie, majority of women in power....then your argument has no substance.

I think that Eruve hit the nail on the head. There really is no arguement that women and men are different, IMO. But don't put us in a "place" that restricts us to that "place" and only that "place". We want as many choices as are available to men. So don't frown on us when we want to climb a tree, take shop class, join the military, run for office, become scientists, etc. What good is a choice, if our choice isn't respected and encouraged as it is for men?

And about PLACES......Whenever you say that it is woman's PLACE to raise children, then it is safe to say that you believe that it's not man's PLACE to raise children....be careful! If that is how the world really was, then you men could forever forget about winning custody of your children. But that is the danger of having PLACES....it sets a boundary, confines you to one area, and leaves you without choice.

[Gilthalion]

The little hobbit, himself having been raised by wolves (a long and uninteresting story), has found that he cannot resist throwing another bit of red meat to the ravening pack...

What if John Adams, 2nd US Pres., had listened to his wife, and not called her bluff? Of course, we now know that she has had the last laugh! :lol:



LETTER TO JOHN ADAMS, MARCH 31, 1776
Abigail (Smith) Adams
I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors.

Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.

If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to forment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.

[juntel]

Hmmmm... I think it's about that time that the first corset burnings were sighted...

Coincidence? ;)

[Gilthalion]

Which was, not coincidentally, the time of the first "Save the Whales" demonstration, which unfortunately got lost in the footnotes of History.

A counter demonstration, by Boston longshoremen just off a vessel, was equally unremarkable.

[Darth Tater]

anduin, I keep saying there are exceptions. Look at us for instance, I want children, I want to nurture, and you currently don't.
But I'm talking about the majority.

[Johnny Lurker]

"if our choice isn't respected and encouraged as it is for men"

Live with it. Everyone gets dumped on. Everyone gets treated with a bias. EVERYONE.
If you want to do something, you can do it. It doesn't MATTER if someone doesn't "encourage" you - screw them and do it anyway. If you'd rather whine about not being "encouraged", then you're fitting into the same stereotypes you're trying to shed.

If you have the opportunity, that's great. Don't pretend you're owed anything more - especially not respect. That, you must earn.

"join the military"

This I will deal with.

There are many different things one can do in the military.

If you wish to be a secretary (start with the basics), you'll probably need to have a typing speed of about 2/3rds of mine. Otherwise, forget it.

If you wish to be a mechanic, you'll need... well, a fair bit more mechanical proficiency than I.

If you wish to be a bureaucrat, an accountant, or something to that effect (all under the military, of course), you'll need some financial/logistical skills. Probably some other miscellaneous junk, too.

If you wish to be an engineer (back-end, not combat), you'll probably need a degree and a fair bit of mechanical skill.

If you wish to be a ground-based pilot, you'll need good reflexes (how good depends on what kind of plane you're flying), experience, and a whole whack of other stuff.

If you wish to be a general... good luck to ya.

There are all sorts of other things that you, being a woman, can do in the military with the proper training, some natural ability, and a little bit of willpower.

However, as far as I am concerned, there are some things that you, being a woman, most likely cannot or should not be allowed to do in the military.

Naval work (excluding Marine Corps):

Cannot: I don't think so. Women could most likely make competent naval officers. However...

Should not be allowed to:

I think so. Why? It's fairly simple.

You would be in close quarters with a primarily male crew. (In a submarine, you can't pass in a hallway without physical contact). I believe that the U.S. Navy has already had problems with sexual harassment lawsuits simply because of these close quarters.

In addition, showering, latrine usage, etc., etc. would most likely be complicated by a female presence.

Finally, and this is a recurring problem which should apply in most of the following...

I personally have not had great problems with a life of abstinence. However, aboard a vessel which could be out of port for months at a time, in which sexual activity is prohibited... Let me say that a female presence would be disconcerting for the majority of the crew at the least.

Now, I suppose that there are various workarounds for these problems. However, until those are found and refined to acceptable levels, I'll maintain my position.


"Grunt" work (includes GI, Marine Corps, Special Forces):

Cannot: In most cases, yes.

Stamina, endurance, discipline, strength... Obviously, women _can_ possess these traits - in abundance. Watch the Olympics for proof. HOWEVER...

I would say that the majority of men of legal age do not possess the necessary traits. I would also say that women have a natural disadvantage in body composition.

Furthermore, I have seen a marked disinterest in activities requiring comparable physical activity (loaded movement, etc.), like, for example, football. I've played on several teams, been in tryouts and spring camps with literally hundreds of people.

Guess how many women tried out in all of these tryouts, for all of these teams?

One.

(Note: Incidentally, she was trying out for wide receiver, but ran slower than I did. AFAIC, she had a serious willpower problem)


Should not be allowed to:

Yes.

Basically the same problems as with naval service, and one special little peeve I have.

Up here, the Canadian Army blew MILLIONS of dollars on developing a COMBAT BRA. Our troops are living on MINIMUM WAGE, and the military's blowing its budget on COMBAT BRAS so they can be POLITICALLY CORRECT.

By the way, feel free to propose solutions to these problems I'm bringing up... Preferably ones that don't involve mass penectomies.


And please, before you respond, realize that I have no particular problem with women in general - that's factored into this, anyway - and that I'm speaking from a strictly practical viewpoint. I've also consciously omitted various "borderline" career choices - namely, officer, tanker, naval aviator, and other jobs in which the "problems" that might be caused by a female presence might be balanced by the advantages that a qualified woman could bring to the position.

Also, and finally, for the record, I have no problem with women on football teams if they're willing to run, hit, and work like there's no tomorrow. (Which, for me, there isn't :( ... but that's another issue altogether)

[juntel]

Women officers don't need to be on a ship or submarine to get sexually harrassed or raped: TailHook.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Look at what you do... leaving my computer two days and look! 30 new messages in that thread alone!

Damn guys, you're addicting me to this board! :p

[juntel]

Time to buy yourself a portable, Shan!!!
And why not with wireless Internet connection...

[Shanamir Duntak]

Just gimme your credit card number :lol:

[Johnny Lurker]

(Stupid duplicate posts)

[Johnny Lurker]

juntel, obviously they can be raped anywhere. However, just as it is advisable for women to avoid dark alleys at night, it is, IMHO, advisable for them to avoid large groups of men who aren't allowed sexual contact for months at a time...

The sexual harassment is a different issue. You might wish to re-read the bit about submarines... maybe even do a little bit of research. Shouldn't take too much effort.

[Gilthalion]

Nature has given hearts to bulls, hoofs to horses, swftness to hares, the power of swimming to fishes, of flying to birds, understanding to men. She had nothing left for women save beauty. Beauty is proof against spears and shields. She who is beautiful is more formidable than fire and iron.

Anacreon
(c. 568-478 B.C.)
Greek lyric poet


I find one thing quite right about this thought and one thing quite wrong.

Wrong
The implication that women do not have understanding.

Right
On the matter of beauty...

...what he said.

[anduin]

JL, so basically since men can not seem to keep their pants on, I should not have the same opportunities as other men? When I graduated from high school in 1987 (hmm, were you even born yet? ;) ) I took the military enterance exam and scored a 98%. Another guy who took the test at the same time, scored the same as me. He was offered many more opportunities than me, even though we scored exactly the same. At the time unfortunately they were not allowing women to fly in the navy or allowing them to be on nuclear subs. He wanted to be on a sub, I wanted to fly. He joined and I did not.

About respect and encouragement. I am not asking for special treatment for women. I am asking for equal treatment for women.

[Darth Tater]

anduin, would you seriously WANT to be on that sub? If i was a woman I know I wouldn't

[anduin]

If you read my post, you would see that I said that I wanted to fly, he wanted to be on the sub.

If I were a women, I know that I wouldn't......"

That is you, and you are not a women. But I am sure that there are women out there thay would want to have the same opportunities as men, and if that means being on a sub, then why should anyone stop them? JL's arguements do not prove that women are incapable of perfoming the same duties as men on a submarine. They do however seem to show that men are not capable of controlling their sexual desires. How sad for them. But men's lack of control shouldn't be an excuse for not letting women into certain areas of the military.

Another close quarter/long term confinement that could be used as an example are space stations. Should only men be allowed to man these stations??

[Fat middle]

no way! somebody must cook and do the laundry :p

* sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry...* ;)

[Bullroarer]

Hey there Fatty! I see your back.....

[Johnny Lurker]

"JL's arguements do not prove that women are incapable of perfoming the same duties as men on a submarine."

How long did it take you to figure that out?

I assume that everyone else was clued in when I said, "Women could most likely make competent naval officers."

"men are not capable of controlling their sexual desires"

Most people are capable of controlling their natural hunger. If they set their mind to it, they can go without food for hours/days/even, in some cases, weeks. However, the longer they defy this hunger, the more tempting it will be.

"About respect and encouragement. I am not asking for special treatment for women."

Yes, yes you are.

Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right.

You are not owed encouragement. You are not owed respect.

Encouragement is, in most cases, verbal. That means it is covered SQUARELY by free speech protection. And free speech also includes the choice NOT to speak.

Respect is mental. And so, if you demand respect, then you demand that someone else change what they think.

"Another close quarter/long term confinement that could be used as an example are space stations. Should only men be allowed to man these stations??"

Well, you already know what my answer is to this question.

You should, anyway.

Astronaut service fits in squarely under "other jobs in which the "problems" that might be caused by a female presence might be balanced by the advantages that a qualified woman could bring to the position"

Could there be close-quarters problems? Yes.

Would they be significantly less than those in the trenches? Definitely, for several reasons - namely, fewer people on board = fewer possible offenders. Also a factor is the fact that the astronauts are going to be thoroughly screened and can be sure to face disciplinary action if they pull anything "funny".

As far as the advantages part... you should be able to figure that out for yourself.

[anduin]

Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right.

Sure I have that right! Just like you have the right to your opinion. And if you believe that I don't have that right, you are more sexist then I originally thought before.

You are not owed encouragement. You are not owed respect.

Are you speaking about me personally, or women in general? Either way, I believe that all worthy people are due encouragement and respect. Maybe you are one of those self important people that believes that no one, regardless of gender, is due either of the two.

[juntel]

I think what anduin means about respect and encouragement is something like "affirmative action", applied here to women.

Of course, this is considering that women isn't a minority group (it's even a majority, more precisely).
Or course, this is ridiculous... Yes, ridiculous that a society has to resort to such measures to dissipate centuries - nay, millenia! - of remorseless discrimination (well, social remorse IS quite recent, compared to millenia) and harsh injustice. Ridiculous then, but necessary: it mirrors the ridiculousness of our society, it's still lingering immaturity (towards both sex and race).

This "affirmative action" for women is just like the affirmative action for blacks: not an unjust advantage given to women, but a real effort to counter-balance a very real discriminatory society that base a lot of its beliefs in sexist ideology (as has been demonstrated by some in this thread).
Were it not for these counter-measures - these "encouragements and respects" in not only words but in action! - then women in society wouldn't be given a real chance to prove themselves, because of sexist discrimination, and they would be left in the lower-level of importance (in general) in our societies: and this would be the usual Catch-22.

(and if it's not what you meant anduin, then let the above accompany and complement your position)

[Johnny Lurker]

"Quite simply, you're asking people to change their opinions. No matter how "politically incorrect" they may be, you do not have that right."

"Sure I have that right!"

If you honestly believe that, then there's really no point in me being here.

[Gilthalion]

Men, their rights and nothing more;
women, their rights and nothing less.

[juntel]

All members of our societies: same social rights.
Period.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Yeah? Even those not working and not searching a job? "Les B.S.??? Les Squeegies???"

Everyone??? Not sure about that.

[Gilthalion]

Les Squeegies and I guess they are everywhere, have a right to live a transient or even a derelict life. As long as they are not a nuisance, as some often are, troubling public safety and extorting money through menacing actions and countenance.

Why if it weren't for the Mrs, I myself might have chosen to live in just any old hole in the ground and never stayed anywhere long. No worries beyond scrounging a meal, no deadlines, no pressures, doing odd jobs to get by, free medical care at the hospital when I need it, public libraries and parks, fresh air, less care!

Perhaps you've seen the fellows walking the interstate. Bearded men with backpacks, not turning to beg a ride, just going their way and living a simple, uncomplicated life as best they can, following the mind-breaking trauma of the War.

(A nasty, almost useless kind of Adventure that I was thankfully too young and am now too old to participate in, unless those confusticated Yankees come back with their European allies!)

Les Squeegies would like you to believe they are as these Sad Wanderers, sometimes they carry signs that say so, but they are little more than thugs, too cowardly for the commission of greater crimes than panhandling with menace. I do not like them, for when their sort comes into Bienville Square, the Ladies do not gladly stay, and the park loses a great deal of its beauty.

[Shanamir Duntak]

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC BY NOW

They surely have the right to live, but when one look at me and say "Un p'tit peu de change???" I go mad. Why should I give them my hard earned money? They have plenty of occasion to have free food at mission or places. I won't give them money to buy drugs!

What I mean is that, should they have the right to vote?

[Gilthalion]

In our town, they actually have a little activist lobby, demanding fair treatment and a right to sleep under the overpasses near downtown!

This actually brings us back to the idea that some folks SHOULD NOT vote! I jested that Women should be included in that category, and that's how all of this got started!

When this nation started, we did NOT allow Les Squeegies to vote! (Or women either for that matter!)

I think it is obvious that there are people who should be excluded from the great choices in the course of human events. But how do you exclude the panhandlers and include the Wayfarers, who may well cast an excellently informed ballot if they so desired?

I cannot exclude the vapid women who have decided to make Al Gore Leader of the Free World on the basis of a single kiss, without excluding Anduin, Eruve, Dunedain Lady, Arynetrek, Elbreth, etc...

(Sigh)

Perhaps we will survive it all and have a chance to rebuild from the ruins. Or else we might see Kingdom Come!

***
I am reminded of how a civilization ought to be run:

"There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." --Galatians 3:28

I guess we didn't try hard enough!

[Eruve]

You know, Gil, you keep coming back to that kiss thing... I don't know what women you know, or are talking about when you go on about that, but from what I've been reading on other boards, a lot of women were kind of grossed out by it. I don't know myself, I didn't see it. I try to stay away from politics and politicians as much as I can. But that sort of grand-standing is not what is going to form my opinion on a given candidate.

[Gilthalion]

And you're quite right.

But the polls of support among women swung dramatically, and the focus groups went nuts and that was the only thing that had memorable impact. This is was discussed and rehashed and reshown by the pundits and the networks, this was the introduction of most of these gals to Al Gore.

Their husbands and boy friends still overwhelmingly favor George Bush. Both sets reacted within a range you could call lukewarm during Al Gore's list of voter bribes and inducements. But the needles went into the red in the female demographics everytime The Kiss was played and replayed on the newsmedia.

George Bush was on vacation during the Democratic Convention, which, excepting the last night, was a lackluster and even damaging performance, according to the running polls. I can't tell that he has yet returned from vacation.

It's not as if these women were confirmed Bush voters. These were undecideds who had paid no attention to things, but heard other Americans (men) talking about what a complete moron this guy is. But they saw him give a seemingly Presidential sort of address, followed by a passionate kiss returned by his wife, before the entire world. Their hearts melted and they went with their inclinations.

Folk had been wondering all along about the undeniable Gender Gap in the polls.

It's ba-a-a-ack!

[Eruve]

Maybe it was because they heard the guys all say he was a moron that did it... ;)

[Gilthalion]

I wouldn't be surprised a bit!

[Taimar]

I`ve been away for a while and have just read this thread with interest. Obviously I have not taken part in the debate, so I have no wish to step on anyone`s toes, but I would like to make a couple of brief comments.

As far as intellect is concerned, even taking into account the lack of opportunity for females, there seems to be a disproportionate number of extremely intelligent men. The statistical distribution curve for IQ shows that there is a higher number of men at each end of the scale, both geniuses and retards. However, the average score for each gender is practically identical. Why should this be so? As far as I am aware, no-one has yet posited a convincing reason, but I would like to raise something that two people I have a lot of respect have independently suggested, namely my wife and Mikhail Botvinnik.

I`m sure I mentioned on another thread (on an unrelated subject) that my wife is an exceptionally intelligent woman. She has a measured IQ of 188, holds a double first class honours degree in Modern and Scottish History, a doctorate in Scottish History, and a first class Honours degree in Immunology. She is currently studying for another doctorate in Neuroimmunology. The intellectual `battle of the sexes` has been a running debate during our 11 year marriage.

My wife readily admits, that even while working, she never goes more than a few minutes without thinking of our two children. Her theory is that there is a neurological mechanism at work which acts as a distraction, even in woman who have no offspring. She considers this to be a minor but significant intellectual handicap.

Some months after she first said this, I read an essay by the former world chess champion, Mikhail Botvinnik, in which he proposed the very same theory in response to someone who had asked why men are generally superior to women at chess. He reckoned that the female player would have her concentration frequently broken by such maternal impulses.

I am not sure what to make of this possibility. It sounds plausible rather than definitive to me. I`ll be interested to read your responses.

(BTW, if anyone has raised this issue already, I`m sorry. I just quickly skimmed the previous posts to get up to speed.)

[Gilthalion]

Taimar I don't think anyone has raised that particular difference and the possibilities it in turn raises.

It certainly sounds plausible to me. We know that there are instinctive differences, and these must be hardwired in somehow. I hoping that no one is seriously debating that point any longer.



I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO" BUT...

Yesterday's Oprah show featured an interview with Al Gore. Not once, but twice![/b], the show aired The Kiss with predictable near swooning from the (female) studio audience.

I admitted that my previous posts regarding "Oprahfied" women voting for Al Gore on the basis of this convention correography were perhaps a little tart, but I did not take it back. Now this e conjunction has come to pass, demonstrating that I'm not off target at all.

I hit a bullseye. :( This does not make me happy.

It is not often that my thoughts are born out so speedily or so profoundly, or so precisely, but I think I can now rest this case as well!

***
I think you all know by now that I'm not a chauvenist by any but the most extreme definitions. I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality. Men and Women are different, some more so than others.

--Too many women are be inclined to silliness of this sort and will not concern themselves with the vital issues from which men cannot shift their gaze.

--Too many men are inclined to obtuseness about the legitimate concerns that are patently obvious to most women.

But that seems to simply be the Way Things Are. This does not address the individual or his or her rights. It is not a judgement. It is a fact, observed, documented, tested, verified, and proven. But still little understood.

With universal sufferage, voting rights granted indiscriminantly to the entire adult population, these at-large tendencies are predictable and are demonstratable across decades of polls and elections.

That's why in this country, all other things being equal, the average man will vote for Bush, and the average woman for Gore.

But Perot is not a factor this time (so far), Buchanan will get little more than 2%, if that, Nader will take from Gore, and perhaps the Clinton Regime will be ended and we can at last fumigate our capitol.

If the Republicans fail to bring America back to the center, we will fall off the ravine to the Left. If they win, and hold power for more than 20 years, then perhaps you some of you guys can help pull us away from the abyss on the Right.

[anduin]

I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality.

Interesting that you mention that, because isn't that what the media has done to you?? You point out that media has has shaped public opinion.....yours included. Her show has convinced you that the people in the audience and those who watch her show are represenative of most women. That is like saying that the average redneck sleeps with his sister because that is what Springer's shows are usually about. I polled several women about the "kiss" and they all looked at me like I was crazy. They were aware of the "kiss" but could not fathom why that would sway a women to vote in favor of Gore. As far as I am concerned, it is men like you that perpetuate the stereotypes of women on the grounds that it is The Way of Things. If that is truely the case, then I might as well give up. I and my children (if we decide to have any) will be forever locked into our "places" (Tater's word, not necessarily Gil's) and will never be able to dig ourselves out, because people will go on thinking that is just The Way Things Are, that's The Way Things Should Be. That doesn't leave any room for growth or change. And it works both sides of the fence. And another thing, so what if the women in Oprah's audience swooned. They are Gore supporters and probably were before the "kiss". That doesn't prove that they were swayed by that "kiss". I am sorry, I just don't buy your theory. :(

[Gilthalion]

A personal note. I am used to discussing some of these matters with a radio audience acquainted with my views, and with the scope of my daily research (in my heyday) and the length of time I've been seriously and professionally observing events. Unlike most Journalists, I studied History as well as Journalism, so that I would have an idea of how the world got to be the way it was and what happened before I started reporting and commenting on it.

The audience and I are used to one another and I can immediately clear up any wrong impressions I might inadvertantly give. It is difficult to do this on a message board. While this method has it's advantages, it isn't really a dialogue, and so the imperfections of communication are amplified and sentences are parsed and meanings are missent and missinterpreted and the Truth recedes into the fog. And I thought a talk show was hard! We all could have had this entire conversation in an hour on my show and I think we could have done it without hard feelings. (I first realized this on the unlamented ABORTION thread.) So why do I keep doing this? (But don't worry about me. I can quit ANYTIME I like!) ;)

================================================== =========
I need to do a better job of quantifying this so here goes: a rough average of the polls would be a ten point jump for Gore, almost all from women.

These polls count thousands of likely voters, not a handful of friends and aquaintances. And if I may say so, Anduin, I would guess that your friends and aquaintances tend to be of a loftier quality than the millions who stare at Oprah daily.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since I don't know off the top of my head), we have 100 million registered voters. Call it 50 million or more female voters. A 10% jump in likely voters is a lot of women. There are millions more who do not vote at all (include men in that).

Millions of these women in these United States made up their minds overnight.

Many of them directly because of The Kiss.

Anduin, perhaps I expressed myself badly before, but I do not think "most" women are silly. The ballpark guesstimates I just made prove that. But millions are.

These women, as I indicated, were inclined to support Al Gore. They voted for William Jefferson Blythe Clinton twice. But they were long unsure of Al Gore because of Slick Willy. They needed a reason to go with their inclinations.

This is not an opinion or a theory or a stereotype. This is the disgusting way that retail politics is calculated. Give truth serum to a trial lawyer and ask why they pick these women for their juries. (Give truth serum to a politician and it will die! :lol: )

The running polls through the Democratic Convention started low and trended down. When Al Gore gave his speech, reactions were generally favorable with the focus groups. When he gave Tipper The Kiss, it was off the charts.

The highlight of the convention that to this date has received the most airplay in the media has been The Kiss. The polling change was almost entirely women. We know when they made up their minds and that tells us why.

My last post was about the ultimate confirmation of my point as my very words were born out. Of course Oprah had an audience of Gore supporters. They looked exactly like the audience she has everyday. Very much like the bigger audience at home that they are shooting for. That's why they do it that way.

The reason Oprah wants that audience, and not your circle of friends, who may vote for Gore for reasons of well-informed principle, is because all ratings count the same and they are aiming for the biggest audience they can get. That's why defense lawyers pick women and that's why Gore's lackeys conceived The Kiss. (That last part is supposition on my part based on my masculine intuition. There is a slight chance that it was unplanned. Clearly Tipper didn't know it was coming. But it was her genuine response that made it work!)

I don't believe in perpetuating stereotypes. But I can't ignore millions women who insist on living it.

I am not myself a chauvenist, a bigot, a racist, or a homophobe, or any of the other negative stereotypes that have been applied to me through the years for my insistence on Reality over Political Correctness. But I honestly cannot deny that bigots & co. exist in Conservatism in significant enough numbers so that the stereotypes have a basis. They started somewhere, just like all stereotypes.

These women exist, and there are a lot of them. That's why there is a stereotype. It is wrong to apply stereotypes to people in thought or to treat them so in deed. But that doesn't negate the reality that the stereotype is based upon.

Historically, men have used stereotypes, traditions, rules, laws, and brute force to repress women. The fact that Clinton was elected twice and perhaps Al Gore shall be is evidence that such times are passing, and have greatly passed in our corner of civilization. As with racism, great progress has been made, but there is still a road to travel. We won't make much progress, if through the ineptitude of the Socialists, freedom and prosperity is lost and squandered.

And those silly women aren't helping right now!

[juntel]

Taimar

There are no toes to step on here. Glad you share your opinion.

"neurological mechanism at work which acts as a distraction, even in woman who have no offspring"

The distracting mechanism in men is called sexual lust; it's sometimes called also football or baseball lust.


Gilthalion

"[Oprah's] show aired The Kiss with predictable near swooning from the (female) studio audience"RATS

Anduin answered you very well.
So what happened in the show in no way supports what you already said before about the kissing thing.

"I maintain, however, my opposition to the extremists that have hijacked our institutions and media and have shaped public opinion contrary to Reality"

Wow. Hijacked. I guess you would call them Traitors as well, with a capital "T".
Public opinions shaped against Reality is what was done mostly by religions, including christianity: miracles, virgin births, incarnate god...
Public opinions shaped against Reality is what is done mostly by conservatives (not even extremist ones!): woman that have their "places" at home, in the kitchen, raising children and waiting for the husband (refer to Eruve's quotes!).RATS

Your position is an anachronism.
But anachronism is what the conservative right is a lot about anyways (not all though, fortunately...).

"Men and Women are different, some more so than others."

*Sigh* I will just quote myself(!) to answer this one:

"Again, no one among feminists or others would say altogether the contrary to the last statement. It never has been an issue about beeing "the same", but about equality of rights and opportunities; rights and opportunities have been traditionally been in favor of men, and I think you agreed with that."

So this is not about men and women being different, but about equal opportunities in real life.
To this day, there are still sexists that think women should stay at home, and not occupy important positions traditionally taken by men...

"--Too many women are be inclined to silliness of this sort and will not concern themselves with the vital issues from which men cannot shift their gaze.
--Too many men are inclined to obtuseness about the legitimate concerns that are patently obvious to most women."

I would like to know what in your opinion are those "vital issues" men are so concentrated on and about which "too many" women are inclined to silliness to; and what are the "legitimate concerns" women have that too many men are obtused about.

And why in one case it is about "vital issues" of men, whereas in the other it is merely "legitimate concerns" of women...


"With universal sufferage, voting rights granted indiscriminantly to the entire adult population, these at-large tendencies are predictable and are demonstratable across decades of polls and elections."

Well, this obviously goes beyond the issue of Women.

So, here or in another thread, i'd like to know who for you should the right to vote be granted. And to whom it should be removed from.
I think you have already expressed here somewhat that certain women should have their right to vote questioned; but in general, I would like to know your criteria for your democracy.


"Clinton Regime"

" Regime: a system or rule or government". I'll suppose you used that definition of the word.


RATS "If the Republicans fail to bring America back to the center, we will fall off the ravine to the Left"

I guess the Right often think the Center is too lefty, and the Left often think its too righty...


"perhaps [...] some of you guys can help pull us away from the abyss on the Right"

The Abysmal Right isn't heaven either...
Let's find another Road; time maybe to leave the beaten paths that lead to either Abysses...

"We won't make much progress, if through the ineptitude of the Socialists, freedom and prosperity is lost and squandered."

The hearthlesness and ravenousness of ultra-Capitalists doesn't help either.
Neither extremes of those groups have brought any good.
Both are ultimately serving only their defenders.

Freedom as never been served by any of these two capitalized labels.
And prosperity makes only sense if it serves the population, not only a few handfull that can manipulate the degree of freedom of the population.

[juntel]

(the preceding post is probably the first time Shanamir Duntak didn't get to have the 100th post in a thread! he must be seeing red by now!)

[Shanamir Duntak]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :evil: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :evil:

[Gilthalion]

In responding to Juntel's post, I will not attempt to deal with every point he argued. It is now almost midnight here, the debate is not that imporatant to me, and we are really starting to split hairs. I'd rather RPG. I get paid to work and this is work indeed, since I have no joy in it.

When I say Center, I don't mean Center today, as opposed to a different Center yesterday. I mean the Golden Rule.

As for what from your posts seems to be an ongoing pointed assault against Christianity, I decline to respond. Since you insist on bringing it up, I will say this much: I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that he has purchased and secured my eternal life. I believe this because the old, old stories led me to question if there were Truth in them. I looked, and I found God. "Ask and ye shall receive, knock, and the door shall be opened." I can express it no more clearly. It is Supernatural. I will pray that you find out for yourself.

I don't want to see an avalanche of pro/con Christian posts here!

To everything there is a season. If my views are old fashioned in some ways, that does not mean they are wrong. It has always been a contemporary conceit that all that is old is folly and that only change is good. Some things, and some points of view are worth keeping.

I was just considering starting a POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD! Great minds run in the same channel! (Or is it, "Fools think alike?")

Voila!

("Now it's after midnight!" cried the little hobbit. He would be sleepy and full of woe when the alarm rang in just a few hours...)

[juntel]

"your posts seems to be an ongoing pointed assault against Christianity"

The "assault" as you call it is directed to organized religions, including christianity, which obviously and without doubt is guilty of many atrocities, physical and mental, towards men and women who dared to think differently from it. That christianity brought also good things is unquestionable also. But as a human creation, it is not perfect, an humans' inner madness will surely taint any human creation.

All (not some) of my friends are of a religion or another, and most are christians. None of them are attacked by my position, and although they don't agree with me, they also do not feel attacked or assaulted.

Not all christians are anachronists.
Not all want to put women "at their place".


"...I decline to respond"

So be it.


"I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and that he has purchased and secured my eternal life"

It's your rigth to believe that.


"It is Supernatural"

...but is it Reality, with a capital "R" like you used in previous posts?
There lies the reason why I brought up the subject of religion again.
You say some people "shaped public opinion contrary to Reality", and yet the ideas that you and those like you (call them Rightists, conservative, or whatnot) are based on a religion shaped by a past that is not up to todays standards and demands. And especially a religion which you yourself have just described as "supernatural"...
But that is YOUR Reality.
Not mine, nor the one shared by a lot of others.


"I will pray that you find out for yourself."

As long as you limit that to praying....

Once there were western societies where Religion and State were melded together, and that was "the Ways of Things" then. Not pretty to see. And people didn't just pray for someone else's conversion.
If this situation comes again, especially in the US (or Canada), then THAT would be the ABYSS that Gil talked about (which of course is no different than the abyss of Stalinism: quite interesting that Left and Right in their extremes join together in the same abyss...)



"If my views are old fashioned in some ways, that does not mean they are wrong."

True.
And if someone's views are un-christian, that doesn't mean they are wrong either... right?
It's not that your views are old-fashioned that is disconcerting: mine are also old-fashioned to the young punks, ravers, and whatnot also.

What is disconcerting is that your views debase women in spite of what we know, even in spite of the tv interview you gave us: that is why I took care of quoting twice the conclusion of Dr.Denckla.

I do agree that all that is old is not bad, and that all that is new is not good.
What is bad, in my opinion, is the so often view of some to want to mostly stick with the old, since the new conflicts with their deepest thoughts and beliefs. And of course, the same is also true to those who shun anything old.

But there is something about the past views that we can say: we can know in retrospect about their consequences, their origins (sometimes), their positive and negative sides. And then from these observations we know how to make something new with something old.

And so many past and old views about women have been debunked, thrown away because of their dubious origins, horrible consequences.
And what is so disconcerting is that some people today still hold tight to these old views and mentality.

And I won't apologize for doing my darndest to fight against those old (...) views.
Not because they are old, but because they stink.

Voila.

(/Edited out the word "prurient", which I misused (by a light year!) )

[Gilthalion]

juntel

For what it's worth, I do not defend the depredations of organized religion.

Chrisitanity is not a religion to me. It is a personal relationship with God. (Who I found DESPITE religion.) It is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either. (Not quite the same, but close enough for philosophy.)

You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself.

You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself.

If you read more of the information that I presented regarding rigorously defined gender diffences in the brain, than the one comment you chose to excerpt twice, you will see that it bears out my statements.

If you read my statements carefully, you will see that I am not the raving anachronist you've painted me to be.

The Oprah incident was icing on the cake, and no amount of hairsplitting ameliorates the fact that there are lots of silly women. I've been clear enough that there are plenty of moronic men as well.


***
This discussion is generating more heat than light, and I am done.

I see no reason for me to post further to this thread. I have edited this post and apologize for any offense prior to my edit.

[RovingTurtle]

OK My opinion may not matter but something as serious as what you people are talkin about is not really in place in a forum... Not that serious issues shouldnt be talked about but relegion is life as serious and as important as you can get and not something to be debated about in a forum like this.

[anduin]

Gil, I wanted you to know that I personally have not been offended by your arguements....baffled yes, offended no. Well maybe a little during the heat of debate, but I realize that you feel just as strong about your beliefs as I do mine, and I can't hold that against you. Each of us have our own opinions about all types of subjects....religion included....so there will always be debate. I think that you and juntel are two of the best debators we have had on this board, and I thank you for your participation. It was discussed awhile back between us moderators whether or not we should allow highly controversial subjects to be debated on this board. It was decided that as long as they didn't turn into flame fests then they could stay. I think that it says a lot about this place that we are able to debate so many different subjects but are still able to "play nice" on the rest of the board. I don't think that anyone's feelings were hurt, (if so, please speak up) and I believe that there were a lot of good things said on both sides.

Roving Turtle, thank you for your opinion, for it does matter, but currently all subjects are open for debate on this board.

[juntel]

"It [personal relationship with God, or God] is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either"

I've never seen a Hobbit either...


"I do not defend the depredations of organized religion"

Glad to hear that.


"You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as it means a secular society, where religion is taught only within the family and community, where it belongs, so that each with their own religions may be on respectful equal footing.


"You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.


"If you read more of the information that I presented regarding rigorously defined gender diffences in the brain, than the one comment you chose to excerpt twice, you will see that it bears out my statements."

The statement I quoted twice is a very important statement that Dr.Denckla made, I'm convinced, to warn some people against their misinterpreting her findings she talked about in the show; ie, she basically was telling them:
"Yes, there are differences in the brain, but that can't in any way be taken as some kind of proof that women can't do this or do that kind of work. Look at me: I was awfull at spatial skills, but nevertheless, with the learning process that we all have, I managed to have a career which requires good spatial skills and I've made it! So don't you people interpret my findings and comments on this show as a proof that women shouldn't have a job requiring spatial skills!!!"
Of course, this is my interpretation, and anyone is free to interpret it in an other way, if they can.

A long time ago, it was about women not being as good as men in math.
Some "proof" were given, statistics on demand.
Well, as I and others contended is that those statistics didn't show necessarily that women were worse at math, because those stats didn't take into account the still existing "aura" around sciences in general which makes them more appealing to men.
Our societies have still some way to go before those artificial sexist barriers in careers choices are removed. But there has been lots of progress, and that progress shouldn't be destroyed by people still clinging to the idea that a woman's place is at home with the kids and the pots and the pans and the scrubbing gloves...


"If you read my statements carefully, you will see that I am not the raving anachronist you've painted me to be."

I have said: "Your position is an anachronism."
I did not say that you were an anachronist, even less a raving one.
I also said: "Not all christians are anachronists." My christian friends aren't, even though their faith take its source in a two thousand y.old myth (imo). As wheter you are or aren't an anachronist, I cannot say; all I can say is that many of your statements were clearly out of touch with present knowledge, notwithstanding your link to the tv show.

================================================== ==============


I'm a little saddened by Gilthalion's decision of not continuing this debate. But that is his choice. He didn't like the way I personnally handled the other hand of the debate I guess. In that case, let me here quote the origin of this debate on the Entmoot board, a post that was made in the Silmarillion forum here (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardthesilmarillion.showMessage? topicID=24.topic&index=21):

"And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity.

It is not so long ago in this corner of the world, and is still the case in many places, that the roles of men and women through life are very different as a matter of necessity. Things were not always so easy, and may not always be so, or may become easier still. But we have enough cash flow and opportunity that women need not depend on men, nor men on women. Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age. But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda that was anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy. Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well."


These words are what started it all.
These words, then, DID set the TONE of the debate.
These words, Gilthalion, are yours.

[Gilthalion]

.

[juntel]

Stand by it all you want.

What I did was to remember the fact about where the thread's tone originated.

You attacked what you think is bad.
So did I.

And I was no less fair.

When you unjustly defame an ideology, do not be surprised if someone else comes in and shows you the mote in your eye.

And rather than thinking you've been pigeonholed, just try to realize that you dug your own hole.

[Gilthalion]

I awoke this morning feeling ill and have decided to stay home from work today. So I am saved from my haste.


================================================== =========
I hate loose ends and so I find myself posting again, despite myself.

(Or perhaps it is pride and I cannot abide not having the last word. Forgive me.)

Anduin, I appreciate your last post. Happy to try to clear up whatever I'm unclear about or seem to be wrong about. I am used to heated debate, in fact, I'm sick of it at times and have responded to these things more out of years of habit than anything else. I come here to get away from all of that really, and it seems that to enjoy myself here, I must decline from debating substantive issues.

juntel, perhaps you do not even see what you are doing. If you do, then there is so much more reason for me to have nothing more to do with these more serious threads.


***
I, at first, wrote a rather long and heated post and then decided not to send it.

We live in a post-Christian age, the Baby Jesus is thrown out the window with the bathwater and we pride ourselves on how clean the bathtub is as a result. The tub is also rendered empty and meaningless.

I live in one of the last bastions of Christendom, though it is fading here as well. I understand Tolkien's Elves, who declined to involve themselves in the affairs of mortals.

But that is not my Mission and it would be wrong of me to decline engagement here. I apologise for intending to do so.

So, I must leave joy in this behind. Even here, where the great fantasies of that devout Christian, JRR Tolkien, are enjoyed, there is no respite, and Middle-earth slips again from view.

But I wonder how anyone can really enjoy Tolkien's work while despising the worldview that informed it?


================================================== =========

Since it is the fashion here to parse words and phrases let me see if I can't do as the Romans do.


***
--"It [personal relationship with God, or God] is Reality. You don't share this reality, but you've never seen the far side of the Moon either"

I've never seen a Hobbit either...

No one seriously maintains that the ficticious Hobbits are real. God is no more a work of fiction than the Moon. This response is bull.


***
--"You will find no more ardent supporter of church-state separation than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as it means a secular society, where religion is taught only within the family and community, where it belongs, so that each with their own religions may be on respectful equal footing.

Re-bull.
No it doesn't mean that, but your anti-faith bias is showing again. You would put the secular state in control of society. There is no room for the free exercise of faith in the community if the society itself MUST be secular like the government. This is the kind of tyranny your view imposes. The state should have nothing whatsoever to do with society and with religion in particular. That is what separation of church and state means. Anything left of that crosses the line and is simply anti-faith. (Which is still just someone else's faith that it is right to constrain mine.)


***
--"You will find no more ardent defender of the rights of women than myself"

Glad to hear that. As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.

Re-re-bull.
This is the vindictiveness I was talking about. I am not responsible for millenia of injustice. You cannot ever compensate for that. You go too far. It is one thing to talk about equal, universal rights. It is another to exact compensation for the sins of history.


***
As wheter you are or aren't an anachronist, I cannot say; all I can say is that many of your statements were clearly out of touch with present knowledge, notwithstanding your link to the tv show.

Re-re-re-bull.
It is vanity at best, prejudice most likely, and ignorance at least, to assert that Feminism is based upon present knowledge. The goal of equality for women does not require the achievement of the Feminist agenda and the "compensations" it demands.


***
You say some people "shaped public opinion contrary to Reality", and yet the ideas that you and those like you (call them Rightists, conservative, or whatnot) are based on a religion shaped by a past that is not up to todays standards and demands. And especially a religion which you yourself have just described as "supernatural"...

Re-re-re-re-bull.
Even today's standards and demands are shaped by the past. What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards? I think you will find our standards even higher (when practiced). Why is a "supernatural" religion "especially" lacking? Do you prefer a "natural" or "preternatural" religion? Or just the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?

As I said, I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion. What is it other than the past that "today's demands" are based upon do you think? They didn't pop out up out of a quantum flux in a vaccuum.


***
"I will pray that you find out for yourself."

As long as you limit that to praying....

Once there were western societies where Religion and State were melded together, and that was "the Ways of Things" then. Not pretty to see. And people didn't just pray for someone else's conversion.
If this situation comes again, especially in the US (or Canada), then THAT would be the ABYSS that Gil talked about (which of course is no different than the abyss of Stalinism: quite interesting that Left and Right in their extremes join together in the same abyss...)

Agreed.
As long as you don't limit me to just praying... Let's keep it in the middle shall we?

A secular state is necessary, and it was American Christians who invented it. But they did not intend for the power of that state to be abused to create a secular society hostile to free religion. You would constrain the free exercise of my faith to the bounds of the church and the home, making it free no longer. My Mission is the world. And not even the grandest state of global socialism possible can prevent the completion of our Mission. Did you know we have nearly finished?

"Not by might, and not by power..." That is where Christianity failed, allowing the institutional Church (as opposed to the actual Church, which is the body of believers, not a building or institution or ideology) to become adulterated with State involvement.

juntel wisely fears the Abyss on the Right, for history is filled with it's cruelty. Nevertheless, the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left.

I believe we have reached a point in the course of human events such that if we slide into the Abyss on the Right or the Left ever again, it will be for the last time. We are perilously close to the brink on the Left even now.


***
Regarding the tone of my original post and it's content:

When you unjustly defame an ideology, do not be surprised if someone else comes in and shows you the mote in your eye.

There was nothing defammatory about my description of Feminism. It was not false, it was not malicious, it was not libelous, it was not slanderous. I resent your insinuation that it was written with motivation to maliciously deceive.

Rather, it is diagnostic of the extreme Left's use of gender inequalities which pulls us toward that Abyss. They have used Feminism, Environmentalism, and Racism in the same ways. They engage now in a great, and perhaps final, assault upon Capitalism, made more subtle and effective by the fiction that Communism has fallen (more of that vaunted "present knowledge"). As Kruschev said, "We will bury you from within." Defending them is helping them. It is not maintaining centrality.

Show me what is unjust in my statement. Show me the mote in my eye. That would be fair enough. Let me show you the beam in yours:

Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just.

But I should stop whining about it, turn the other cheek, and continue.


================================================== =========
Everyone:
I do apologise for letting my temper get the best of me. Like a wizard, I am quick to anger. Unlike a wizard, I'm not all that subtle. I should not have even considered abandoning the serious topic threads, having once entered into them. If my thought were as subtle as my anger is quick, I might not have posted in the first place.

But I have, and if I must conduct a point by point defense of every comment, then so be it. (Until I see that it is indeed futile.)

But there will be less time for the other things that I would actually love doing. Duty calls.

P.S.
I'd love to sit with juntel and the rest of you in a tavern, over some beers and do this. In person, all of this would be so much nicer and friendlier. I'm sure we would have a great time! But slaving away at this over a cold, impersonal keyboard is not fun at all to me.

Addicting as it is...

[Johnny Lurker]

"Nevertheless, the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left."

I'd like to put some statistics forward.

Fill in the blanks...

______ (6 digits) Armenians were massacred by the _______ Empire in 1896 (it's close enough to the 20th century).
_______ (7 digits - arguably 8) Ukranians were starved to death by ______ in 1932-1933.
______ (6 digits) disabled _______ and _______ (7 digits) ____ were killed by the National _________ leader ______.
______ (6 digits) _______ people were executed by the ________ forces in 1937-1945.
_______ (7 digits) Cambodians were executed by the Khmer Rouge forces under ___ ___ from ____ to ____.
Approximately _______ (6 to 7 digits) ________ were killed in 1994 in ______.

Go for it.

[juntel]

"'I've never seen a Hobbit either...
No one seriously maintains that the ficticious Hobbits are real. God is no more a work of fiction than the Moon. This response is bull."


That God is as real as the moon is your belief, not mine nor many others. The bull is on your shoes.


"'As long as it means a secular society...'
No it doesn't mean that, but your anti-faith bias is showing again. You would put the secular state in control of society... This is the kind of tyranny your view imposes..."

Wrong. A secular society is one in which no religion is in control of any important aspect of social needs, so as to be open to any religion, faith, creed, or absence thereof; ie so as to no-one be in a preferred position due to their faith.
To leave secularity to only the government isn't sufficient: it needs to be in public schools (not private ones), and especially in the laws of the land (or lands).
If what I just described isn't called "secular society", then i'm open to any other name for it.


'As long as those rights you talk about are universal, on equal footing to those that men have, and that affirmative-action-like measures to compensate for years, centuries, millenia of injustices are taken.'
This is the vindictiveness I was talking about. I am not responsible for millenia of injustice. You cannot ever compensate for that. You go too far. It is one thing to talk about equal, universal rights. It is another to exact compensation for the sins of history."


No-one presently is responsible for millenia of injustice, that's a fact.
I've just looked in the dictionary, and see that "compensation" isn't the right word for what I meant to say; sorry about that.
What I wanted to convey with the word "compensation" is maybe "counter-act", or "put some little weigth on the this side of the balance, because the other side has been too much overweigth for too long".
Just as we today, of European descent, are not responsible for african past enslavement, we are not responsible for women's past 'enslavement'. But I do think that what has been done for blacks today, affirmative action, which i wholly support, can (and is) also be done for women. I've learned now that "compensation" is the wrong word to describe that.
(btw, in french, compenser is a verb that means "to balance an effect by another"... this kind of misunderstanding that my native language can create happens quite often!)


"What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards?"

Treatment of women for one thing. Of course, I do not mean here all of christians: many christians are up to date.
I'm mostly talking about christians who believe in the literal truth of their bible. Such christians have the tendency to take answers to many everyday life problems from that book, although today problems (and/or amplitude of the problems) are different, and/or in different circumstances, and/or have better solutions that have been found since the writing of those scriptures.

"Or just the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?"

That's the atheists' problem. I'll let them answer you, if they can.


"I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion"

You wouldn't your deity without the religion within which it is defined.
Do you think your scriptures are independent of the religion in which they are found?
Unless of course you yourself have met your "road to Damas", and your king has appeared in person in front of you...


"'As long as you limit that to praying....
Agreed.
As long as you don't limit me to just praying... Let's keep it in the middle shall we?"

Praying for me and talking to me are the only things I can let you try.
It's the same things I let the Jehova's Witnesses, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Hare-Krishnas, the Muslims and all others do.
Beyond that, keep everything else to yourselves!!!


"A secular state is necessary, and it was American Christians who invented it. But they did not intend for the power of that state to be abused to create a secular society hostile to free religion"

I answered a bit about that above.
Again, if you have another expression for what i've described as "secular society", feel free to share it with me.


"Did you know we have nearly finished?"

Now now... are you talking about the task of reaching all corners of the world with the Word?
I guess so much has been done since christianity gladly took the Roman Empire's bloody sword, and bloodied it again all over the world, especially through the colonist empires of France, England, Spain, Portugal and what-not...
Whitout those atrocities (to which, I admit, I owe my presence here in America), would christianity be so widespread? C'mon!
The Mission you're talking about isn't impressive in the least.
It's just another way to change people from having their ancestral beliefs replaced by yours.
And that's nothing less than another form of colonialism.


"the cruelties committed in the name of Christ through 20 centuries have been far surpassed in this last century by cruelties of the tyrants of the Left"

Wrong.
Torture is torture, alienation is alienation, genocide is genocide.
I abhor trying to compare which genocide is bigger. Makes no sense to me.

As for the "Left"... well, there is left, and there is left.
Just as there are christians, and there are christians.
I'll try to not put every christians in the same basket (my friends wouldn't like that!), if you try not to put all the left in one basket either.


"I believe we have reached a point in the course of human events such that if we slide into the Abyss on the Right or the Left ever again, it will be for the last time. We are perilously close to the brink on the Left even now."

I agree with the first sentence.
But not the second, if you're talking about the western societies.
If we were perilously close to the Left's abyss, we wouldn't be permitted to say what we are saying right now, and both you and I would be arrested and interogated.

We are far, far from the left's abyss.

One thing i'd like to comment on the Abysses at the Right and the Left: each side usually drives the other closer to their own abyss. One side just doesn't go by itself; they each have to be stimulated by each other.
One easy (and frail, i admit) example is: the heated cold war of the 50's, with on the extreme left the legacy of Stalin's Red Russia, and on the extreme Right the USA with its McCarthy paranoid era.
Fortunately, McCarthy-ists lost in the end their bully paranoia, but on the other hand Russia only got out of their legacy a decade or so ago.


"There was nothing defammatory about my description of Feminism"

Yes, there is.
Firstly, you talk about "Popular Feminism", capitalized for whatever reason. I would understand if you were talking about the fringe group inside the feminist movement, eg A.Dworkin et al. But you are actuall talking about the current feminist movement that is actually talked about everyday in shows, in the media, in the magazines: the fringe group of extreme feminism isn't much talked about usually.
And you go on saying things like: "it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity."

So, "Popolar Feminism" is an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride... Well, if you were part of half the population and didn't have the right to vote, wouldn't you feel a bit insecure in our society?
Do you think that women's right to vote just came like that, because men decided that women were ready to vote now in our society?
And when the right to vote was given to women, do you think that all the injustices that were still commited against women were removed?
Feminism today, feminism in its usual and everyday expression, is nothing more than a continuation of this battle against blattant discrimination; it is not a question of vindication, but a question of rights, a question of not letting themselves be trampled by sexist prejudices that are still rampant in our societies (eg "women have their places).

But here's the funny thing you wrote: "Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well."
What in the name of Ganesha does that mean!!!!!!!???????
Now there is a conspiracy by "Popular Feminist" to dominate Men?!


"Let me show you the beam in [your eye]:
Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just"

Oh... the "Ad Hominem" thing again...
As for "assaulting" your faith, well, I was merely showing that your religion (yes, religion) doesn't have clean hands; as i said above, if you attempt at defaming an ideology (or set of beliefs, of faith), do expect that yours will be scrutinized too.
As for your character, well... you explicitely said: "And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion..."... So, since it was in YOUR opinion, do expect that I or others refer to that opinion and the character that formed it.


"I'd love to sit with juntel and the rest of you in a tavern, over some beers and do this. In person, all of this would be so much nicer and friendlier. I'm sure we would have a great time!"

True.
Which is why I'm on very good terms with my christian friends.

[Johnny Lurker]

Come on. It'll be fun.

[juntel]

(he did say "20 centuries", not "20th century")

[Gilthalion]

Must finish newsroundup for talkshow. Must do talkshow. Must rehearse HOBBIT. Must read HOBBIT at bookstore. Must entertain friends (one of them an agnostic geneticist, another an agnostic secessionist, both Libertarians like me!). Must eat and sleep, too...

Sorry, no time to adequately answer all!

These answers will have to do. I think they will cover the topics like a fig leaf. Scant, barely, and maybe a little prickly!

================================================== =========

First of all, I keep forgetting the language barrier. juntel it is a credit to your intellect that you do so very well in expressing yourself in these matters. English is my native tongue and I have trouble. I would speak and write French like a retarded child on morphine.

***
Actually, "compensation" was the proper word to use to describe Feminists' goals, though gladly not for you. As I've indicated, Afirmative Action is a quota system by any other name, institutionalized discrimination by classification of indiviuals, often ignoring their personal worth. Harm is done, but less than if Racism or Male Chauvenism remained institutionalized. I accept it only because nothing better has been offered. It is a choice of evils. (Few take my offer...) I'm glad that you see that their radical agenda is as bad as the other extremists, including those on the Right.

And yet, it is right to call it Popular Feminism. The National Organization of Women is comprised of only several hundred members. But their influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views. This pulls society ever farther to the Left.

Something like this used to happen in the Deep South, when Racism was institutionalized.

If you are surrounded with it, it is hard to see the forest for the trees, and easy to think that it is normal and natural. But when the trees are seen from afar, the growth can be seen en masse and one can more easily tell if they are planted too thickly, and in a few years will begin to stifle all other growth.

I despise most "-isms."


***
j: That God is as real as the moon is your belief, not mine nor many others.

g: "...the atheist's vain faith in man as the measure of all things?"

j: That's the atheists' problem. I'll let them answer you, if they can.

g: --Come again? Perhaps clarification will resolve this. If you believe in God, then you are not an atheist. If you do not believe, then what measure can you use if not Man? Agnostic or atheist, your philosophy of government excludes God.


***
g: "What part of the Christian faith is it that is not up to these lofty standards?"

j: Treatment of women for one thing. Of course, I do not mean here all of christians: many christians are up to date....today problems (and/or amplitude of the problems) are different, and/or in different circumstances, and/or have better solutions that have been found since the writing of those scriptures.


g: --Again, the modern arrogance of every generation, behaving as if all things really are new. There is nothing new under the sun! Way back in the thread, I believe I cited a 2000 year old verse from Galations that stated the position of Christianity on the subject. If a Christian does not agree with it, I submit to you that he is a Christian in name only and does not deserve to be called such. Rather than say that "many christians are up to date," I feel that society is finally catching up to many Christians.


***
g:"I have a relationship with God DESPITE religion"

j: You wouldn't your deity without the religion within which it is defined.
Do you think your scriptures are independent of the religion in which they are found?
Unless of course you yourself have met your "road to Damas", and your king has appeared in person in front of you...

g: --If the sandal fits, take it off. You're standing on holy ground. :)

I jest, a little. Religion points the way. It is not the Way. It is an institution we have built around it and along it. Sometimes the Way is hard to find, in the long clutter of constructions. But it is there. And along the Way, if you choose to take it, you will meet my King for yourself. If your meeting is as spectacular and terrifying as Paul's on the road to Damascus, I will rejoice to hear it, and if I find it's true, will follow you to the ends, and the End, of the Earth. My own meeting was much less spectacular. But you need not follow me. I am not Paul of Tarsus. But I am on that Way and I would be glad if you walked it with me.


***
j: ...if you have another expression for what i've described as "secular society", feel free to share it with me.

g: --I have only one caveat with your definition.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibitting the free exercise thereof."

What you propose, has proven prohibitive. We cannot give Government ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOVER in this realm. It will be abused and the cure (government involvement) is worse than the disease (cultural intolerance).

If a Christian is harming someone else, take him to court. But do not tell the poor ignorant fellow that he must send his children to the government school to be indoctrinated with views counter to his own. In the name of tolerance, we have zero tolerance.

(Listen to my Zero Tolerance skit on my BARE BONES WEBSITE!!! If you've ever watched the old "Hogan's Heroes" sitcom, you'll appreciate it. It doesn't have anything to do with Feminism, but it pokes fun at Bureaucrats. They are why you must have Small Government! People cannot handle a Big Government. Look at your medical system...)


***
"Let me show you the beam in [your eye]:
Explicitly or implicitly attempting to discredit my argument through assaulting my faith or my character is not just"

Let me be clearer. You say that I "defame" Feminism, for example. Perhaps this is another language problem and you may need to pull out the dictionary again. I have done nothing of the kind. At worst, I am in error. And that is unproven.


================================================== =========
Do I need to do an entire dissertation on my Popular Feminism comment? No time now, I've taken too much already.

Next post, I'll try to do that, maybe very late tonight or tomorrow afternoon. That will bring the thread back to topic and Anduin need not chastise us and send us to a new RELIGION thread.

NOW I MUST FLY!!!!!

[juntel]

Firstly, I must say here that I find no time pressure.
We have all the time we want to post. If nobody posts after me, I won't just flood the thread with some boring monologue!
Like I said before, if the Abortion thread hibernated many months to be revived, then any thread can do the same.
We all know we each have our "real" life to live outside cyberspace, and that immediate responses are not always possible.


As for my expressing myself in english... it helps that this is not "live", so I have time to think more before writing. As you can see, even this isn't enough to patch some linguistic mistakes.


"I'm glad that you see that their radical agenda is as bad as the other extremists, including those on the Right"

This was about "compensation", or whatever it should be called.
I've said above that I'm wholly for affirmative action, and that a similar solution should be made (if not already made) for women.
This is not "compensation" in the english sense of retribution, but more in the (french) sense of "balance", to balance the ongoing prejudices against blacks and women; this isn't injustice only done in the past, but one that goes on even today. The past has left us with an imbalance in our structures and mentalities, as shown explicitely in this thread by some.
So, affirmative action for blacks, and a similar solution for women, is a choice that is good for the many, for the society, but I do agree that the few that will get discarded by those solutions can have reasons to be angry. But I must emphasize here that this isn't revenge for past injustices, it is a solution for present injustices: these injustices are still among us, in the mentalities, in the system (political and economical).
This isn't just about the past.


"And yet, it is right to call it Popular Feminism. The National Organization of Women is comprised of only several hundred members. But their influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views"

N.O.W. isn't much different from other lobby group: NRA, the so-called "Jewish lobby" (which I doubt exist as a group, although there are important associations like B'Nai Brith), the Tobacco cancer-lobby, etc... Each have a duty to defend what they believe in, and to influence the politicians as much as they can to achieve what they think are right goals.
But it would be absurd, I hope you agree, to say that feminism IS N.O.W.; it existed before it, and feminists did create N.O.W., for to create an organisation is a good thing to combat institutionalized injustices (would women have the right to vote today if they had never gotten together, organized themselves, to demand their rights?).
I am glad to learn that media and educational institutions are influenced by (and sympatize with) a feminist organization; but I think they do, not because N.O.W. is powerfull (if they are at all), but rather because they feel and know the cause is right, wheter N.O.W exists or not.


"If you are surrounded with it, it is hard to see the forest for the trees, and easy to think that it is normal and natural. But when the trees are seen from afar, the growth can be seen en masse and one can more easily tell if they are planted too thickly, and in a few years will begin to stifle all other growth."

Hehe... that's exactly what some people say about right-wing conservative religious zealots politicians!
I guess it's a matter of in which side of the line one stands.
As I said in some other post (although incompletely), Right and Left can influence each other in such a way that each go towards their extremes.
I think I can recognize an extremist when I see one; an extremist isn't just someone that says something contrary to your beliefs and values. I did mention in some of my posts the extremist factions inside feminism. The current feminist movement that has influence is far from such extremism; what irks some people is that a lot of people respond favorably to such a movement.


"I despise most '-isms.'"

Hehe... we can't fly away from them. The english and french languages (and probably other languages, I only know those two) can append this suffix to almost everything: Entmootism, anduinism, Gilthanionism, juntelism, Taterism, benism, milderism, benmilderism, parrotism, lurkism...


"If you believe in God, then you are not an atheist. If you do not believe, then what measure can you use if not Man? Agnostic or atheist, your philosophy of government excludes God"

Ask your agnostic friends that you mentioned.
I do not believe in gods, goddesses, and such; what distinguishes me from an atheist is that I can only say this is my belief, not a certainty. I do not take my belief as some kind of religious truth like most atheist do.
Moreover, I do not have to have faith in humankind, if I have no faith in deities.
What I can have though is hope.
It doesn't mean that humankind can save itself ultimately; it does mean however that responsability for a future entirely rests on humans' choices (unless a meteor smashes earth!); it does mean that horrible crimes commited can't be attributed to some evil spirits, and that any society could in its turn come to commit such crimes, especially if it comes to think it is so above the rest and has a moral superiority over others (such was nutzy germany, such were others, such are others, such can become others).

My philosophy of government has to exclude a deity (a god, or a man, or an absolute ideology): I wouldn't want it any other way: it is the only way for people to take their responsabilities in their acts, so that never could one person or one government say: "We have to do it this way, for it is our god's will".
This would be no better than what some german officers-butchers did when saying: "We were just following orders!".


"Way back in the thread, I believe I cited a 2000 year old verse from Galations that stated the position of Christianity on the subject"

Here is the quote again: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." --Galatians 3:28

But here's another intersting one: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." --1 Corinthian 14:34-35
(taken from the Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+14&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on); I chose the KingJames version, but at that place one can choose any other translation... even in french!)

Your quote Gil was saying essentially that women also can be part of the church, can be christians, can be saved; it doesn't talk much about their status in society compared to men. The quote that I gave above does talk about that. Wheter the quote I gave is more the personal opinion of Paul than of his god can of course be debated; also debatable is wheter that quote was only for that time about 20 centuries ago, or should also be maintained today. I hope you do think it is not acceptable today; but I'm sure you do know that there are still many denominations inside protestantism that hold strongly to it (as for catholicism... well, alot could also be said, but that's much off topic!).
Christianity is of many colors and variants, and some christians have evolved out of these older ways that may have been acceptable then, but not anymore.

So, when someone says "I feel that society is finally catching up to many Christians", I can only say that christians had to catch up also; and those christians that society may have to catch up to are christians that had to get out of the older ways of thinking that were too close to a literal understanding of their bible. One could even call them "liberal christians"!!! (I feel some people will disagree totally with me here!!!)


"What you propose, has proven prohibitive. We cannot give Government ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOVER in this realm. It will be abused and the cure (government involvement) is worse than the disease (cultural intolerance)."

I think it is the duty of the government to protect cultural minorities against the bullishness of cultural intolerant organisms that promote purity of religion rather than diversity of faiths.
I guess we won't agree on this question; you fear a too powerfull government, I fear as much the bigotry that exists without intervention (there is already too much bigotry imo even *with* intervention!).
We disagree on which is worse (at least we can agree that each is bad!)


"But do not tell the poor ignorant fellow that he must send his children to the government school to be indoctrinated with views counter to his own"

I only mentioned public schools, and emphasized "not private ones".
If christians want special christian schools, they can form a community with private schools; some Jewish communities already do that, Christian ones also; so do Muslims.
Unfortunately, some religions are in such minority that private school is not doable; so they send their children to public school: there at least their children can have the chance of not being indoctrinated by another religion, fortunately.
That's what's it about.
A universal place; as much as we can make it.


"BARE BONES WEBSITE"

I did go there. Saw your funny comparison of Liberman and Senator Palpatine, and by extension of Al Gore and Darth Maul.
Very funny, really: the physical resemblance is there, for Liberman and Palpatine.
But also, knowing your comments here at Entmoot about Clinton as Traitor etc..., I was wondering how much this was only comedy, and how much it was serious, at least as demonizing the "opposition" goes...
All this to say I didn't go much further into your site...


About my use of the word "defame"

In my printed dictionary (New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary), I read:
defame : to attack the good reputation of (someone)

But when I got just now to the online Webster's Dictionary (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,30217+1+29733,00.html), I read:
defamation : in law, attacking another's reputation by a false publication (communication to a third party) tending to bring the person into disrepute. The concept is an elusive one and is limited in its varieties only by human inventiveness.

*Sigh* So it appears that it is somewhat a question of language, coupled with a question of which english dictionary one uses...

I used "defame" in the first definition above; I didn't mean in any way that you were lying of willfully saying false things.

==========================================

Have a good Hobbit reading!

==========================================

[anduin]

That will bring the thread back to topic and Anduin need not chastise us and send us to a new RELIGION thread.

Hehe, I have thought about it, but that is a can of worms that I am not prepared to open. As wonderful as I think the debators of this board are, I do think that an all out discussion of religion would be wise. Already one person here has mentioned that they are uncomfortable with the discussion (Roving Turtle I believe). And I am not sure that it would be a discussion of religion as much as it would be a discussion of Christianity. Anyone here is welcome to start the thread themselves, but I do not want the responsibility of doing it myself.

[Gilthalion]

Well, I guess all of that is about settled. We're neither quite so far from the center as perhaps the other thought. In Canada, you are not face the end of your way of life as we are in the Deep South. We remember what was right about the past and see it slipping away.

================================================== ========
It will take me some time to do it right, but I will come back and do a better job on my POPULAR FEMINISM quote.

For what it's worth, my indictment against the Church is far worse...

[juntel]

I will wait then.

(and i'd like you to explain what you meant by "In Canada, you are not face the end of your way of life as we are in the Deep South". Are you talking about the South before the Secession War?)

[Gilthalion]

No, I'm talking about the end of Christendom. In the rest of the West society is farther along the road to the secularity you desire. Christian culture dies here even now in the "Bible Belt," and that is hard to live through. There will always be a Remnant of the Faith, but we were once many. (Fortunately, our Mission is not dependent upon power or numbers!)

I've often wondered if Tolkien had this in mind when he wrote of the passing of the Elves.

It's sort of like the remnants of the great Indian Nations being forced onto reservations. That's how it feels.

And many folks in other parts of the West just don't see it that way. They think of us as our forebears thought of the Indians, less than Civilized and Enlightened, not worthy of respect, and most certainly a stumbling block to Progress, and of little loss if their culture is trampled down. Every generation is blind to its own prejudices and thinks itself blameless.

Like the traditional attitudes of men towards women. (Added for Anduin as a token reference to the actual topic of the thread!)

That's how it feels to us, and there are few regions left where the majority feels this way. A lot of us hate to even turn on the television, it's grown so blatant. There are many breathing today who remember when it was not so.

***
On the topic of secession, aren't a lot of you folk (French Canadians) desirous of a little more autonomy? :D

================================================== =========

CATO THE ELDER
(234-149 B.C)
Roman Statesman

Suffer women once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors.

...just a little more red meat! ;)

[Gilthalion]

THIS WAS THE OPINION THAT STARTED THIS THREAD.

And on the off-topic of Popular Feminism, it is, in my humble opinion, an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication and made possible by prosperity.

It is not so long ago in this corner of the world, and is still the case in many places, that the roles of men and women through life are very different as a matter of necessity. Things were not always so easy, and may not always be so, or may become easier still. But we have enough cash flow and opportunity that women need not depend on men, nor men on women. Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age. But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda that was anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy. Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.


***
It evidently touched a rather raw nerve out there. I thought it was really a frivolous remark, in the context of explaining how Western Society could come to the point that some considered J.R.R. Tolkien to be chauvenistic in his literary treatment of women and how that viewpoint is treated seriously. To the point of arming Arwen Undomiel. And now I hear, a sword for Galadriel as well...

It is, it seems, needful that I explain this. I'm really at a loss as to how to go about doing so. My view of Reality is so far different from some of you who took exception to my opinion that I am not sure that we can bridge the gap of understanding.

But it seems important to some that I try. This post will be long as I shall attempt to be thorough.


***
...Popular Feminism... The word "Popular" in this context is used perhaps a little freely, but I think it withstands inspection. Although we tend to think of the radical extremists who head the organizations, they exert an influence throughout the institutions of media and education and government that is far and away disproportionate to their numbers. (Also, what seems extreme today, is often commonplace tomorrow...) Hence, I used the adjective to more sharply define Feminism. We are talking about a broad historic trend.

"...my humble opinion..." is just that. I would like to think it is a fairly mature and reasonable asessment of this trend based upon wide observation and deep consideration, but that is just my opinion about my opinion. It is not carved in stone by the finger of God.

"...an outlook twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication..." is perhaps the most subjective part of this opinion. Although it is the activists who are the most extreme, they nonetheless are moved to extremities by the same motivations that affect many others stirred by any particular trend. In my opinion, these are emotions, attitudes and motivations common to any downtrodden group. Read and watch a good sampling of Feminist literature, press releases, interviews, etc. Compare it with other extremists of other movements. This is nothing special. But the movement would not exist if this outlook was not shared, and twisted, to some extent, by the same emotions resonating throughout.

"...made possible by prosperity..." is my assessment of how the relative affluence of Western Civilization (where even the poor may have food, shelter, clothing, and care with little effort) has taken away many of the demands of Nature, to which we are adapted.

"...women need not depend on men, nor men on women..." is further reflection on a dramatic change in society made possible by affluence. This situation is the case with increasing regularity today. It is not so, when times are hard.

"Popular Feminism hung its hat on the legitimate complaints and inequalities suffered by women in a civilization rising through the Industrial Age." This should not pose any significant problem to any reader.

"But it also hung a cloak that covered an agenda..." is where there may be trouble for some. My observation is that there is a coordination to the distinct movements of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. I don't believe anyone really has their finger on all of it, and I don't believe it doesn't exist. It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism. I do not say this of the rank and file. This is a separate point, best dealt with in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD. One could make, and I might agree to an extent, with the equal and opposite argument applied to the Right.

"...anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy..." these views are rampant throughout Feminism. How many television commercials show "Father Knows Best?" Rather, it's "Father's An Idiot, Mother, and Most Especially The Children Know Best." That's just one category of examples, but if you want more, watch the LIFETIME NETWORK for any six hour period. Pick up any popular women's magazine at the supermarket checkout. Look at the imbecilic things they are doing in the schools and the military.

"Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well." Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government.


================================================== =========
Had I known that my opinion would have created a thread with so many words and so little accomplished, I would not have written it here. I have little hope that this is the end it.

[juntel]

"My view of Reality is so far different from some of you who took exception to my opinion that I am not sure that we can bridge the gap of understanding"

After reading your post, I can see why you say that.
You are right.
The gap between us will never be bridged, read on to know why.





"...Popular Feminism... "

First of all, about your "the radical extremists who head the organizations", most influential feminist organizations (if not all), ie those that really influence women and men in our societies, are far from being extremists: that you call them extremists is just your usual demonizing tactic, because they probably oppose your scriptures. The real feminist extremists, which are few, are far from being influential; just as the KKK or the neo-nutzies are far from being influential on the conservative right, even though they have affinities.

Secondly, if you are really to use "Popular" as a word in your expression "Popular Feminism", then you do acknowledge a "popularity" to this ideology, and hence shouldn't be restricted to be the idea of only a handfull of persons (men and women); otherwise, you misuse, I think, the word "popular".
Unless of course you wanted to use a pejorative meaning of the word "popular"...


"'...my humble opinion...' is just that."

Good. Then don't complain about me using arguments about your persona as well as about subject. The "Ad Hominem" issue isn't applicable here. Especially since you don't prevent yourself from doing it yourself about others ( "...twisted by insecurity and pride and a need for personal vindication..." !)


"Although it is the activists who are the most extreme..."

An activist isn't necessarily an extremist, neither is a feminist activist.
But then again, the "suffragettes" were also considered extremists, a long, long, long, long, long, long, long time ago; I guess then that the label "extremist" depends on the mindset of the one that uses it...

(but of course, 80 or so years is only a lifetime, and shouldn't be considered as "long ago"...)

As for the rest of what you said in your analysis of that part of your post:

- "insecurity": as i think i've said before, women should feel insecure, as history shows us how they can be treated if no counter-measures are taken, and as the present shows by some comments in this thread that are still ingrained in many people's mentality.
Taking our societies' progresses for granted is the last thing that should be done. This thread is a good example of why.
- "pride": as proud as one can be when one takes oneself into one's hands, rather then have one's life be ruled by another or another's scriptures or ideology. Proud to continue a work that, if stopped, would let the mindset of some of this thread to bring us to an appalling state of injustice and debasement.
Pride isn't bad, as long as it isn't mistaken for power.
"I am proud of who I am, and of what I do!" isn't something that any man or woman should be ashamed to say when what they do is for the best for the people living in their society.
- "personal vindication": there's no personal vindication, just and simply the desire to balance what has been unbalanced so unjustly for millenia. Again, those who still have an ingrained belief that "women have their places" will take this desire personally, and may call that vindication on the part of women and men who desire change.

Of course, this is my personal opinion...


"...women need not depend on men, nor men on women..."

In a society, a civilisation, what is great is that we can do so much when we accept all to depend on each other: men on men, men on women, women on men, women on women.
What happened with time and growth in our societies is that we have learned, due to prosperity, that sexist-based dependency isn't necessary; I do hope that we have learned that if we got back to less properous times, this sexist-based dependency isn't a way to go, and that the usual inter-dependancy (regardless of sex) is sufficient and rewarding, and that we wouldn't have to revert to unjust (and unfounded) inequalities.
(Note: I have used "sexist" in "sexist-dependant" in a non-pejorative way; "sex-dependant" didn't sound the way I meant it to be! Nor would "sex-oriented dependence"!)


"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"

This comment, at best, is clearly reminiscent of the McCarthy era.
Even when you say "I do not say this of the rank and file".

By this comment alone, you have effectively destroyed any foundation of any bridge that could have been built between what separates your kind to mine.


"...anti-masculinity and anti-patriarchy..."

"Anti-masculinity": just what do you mean by that exactly?

"Anti-patriarchy": As i've said in the original thread, I see nothing wrong with that. As I wouldn't see anything wrong with anti-matriarchy.
So, what's wrong for you about anti-patriarchy as such (ie independently of who's anti-patriarchal)?


"'Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.'
Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government."

Well, when you put it that way...
Didn't you forget to put the Devil in the list above?

Mwwwwaaaahaahahahahaha!

[Gilthalion]

McCarthy was right about the Communists. It's too bad he was a beast who sought to rise to power through a Red Scare.

Examine the Communist Manifesto and see if we are not far along that path, and if the unfulfilled part of the agenda is not the same, more or less, as much of the unfulfilled agenda of the Left today.

And if the nature of historical movements, extremist leadership, and popular followings is still unclear to you, then I do not have time or patience to instruct you.

The only reason I left Satan out was because you can't accept it. I tried to explain it in terms of history. The spiritual underpinnings of any such course of events are subtle indeed, and beyond the scope of the present argument. I only described HOW not WHY.

You have no respect or understanding of my viewpoint, and nearly every one of your posts are indicative of that.

Such is life.

I am sure that you have heard this before but "the fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Any civilization that attempts to erect itself on this premise, either philosophically or pragmatically, will fall. Inevitably. Post again if you like, but we've reached the final point at last.

Good Morning!

[juntel]

"we've reached the final point at last"

Indeed.

You've finally revealed yourself for what you are with your last posts.

I'll leave the Entmooters make their own conclusions.

[Gilthalion]

I am not anything other than what I am and have never pretended to be anything other than that.

I do not think of women as inferior and I do not confuse my understanding of the seemy side of the Feminist movement with the rank and file adherents.

I have made no secret of my Faith, or of how I came by it.

I have made clear that, unlike you, I do not attack people personally and I am not contemptuous of the diversity of viewpoints on these threads.

You have not put forward a thesis of your own to defend and perhaps that was wise.

Unlike you, I do not deny and ignore the ugly side of some of those who generally side with me. I have spent a career in the media and know whereof I speak.

To be against Feminism is not to be against Women.

To be Faithful is not what you insinuate.

I am not sure what you think you have proven to the Entmooters about me, or why you think it important to have done so. I am no one important. But I fear you think the worst of me and expect you would have others do so as well, if you could. At every turn, you have put the most negative possible construction on my words. And you can't blame it all on the language.

I am content to let the record on this (and my many other posts and writings on more than just things political), as well as my treatment and regard for others in the ENTMOOT stand, if anyone else wishes to judge me.

[RovingTurtle]

Gil just wanted to let you know I hold you in the utmost respect. Juntel said let the other Entmooters decide, and I have and I am impressed with you. I respect both you and Juntel, but just wanted you to know (juntel seemed to want us to tell you) that you have revealed yourself, but have done it throughout, not just in ur last post, i personally saw no differences besides you tiring of this argument. You (and juntel too) seem like people I'd love to sorround myself with but alas distance seperates us. Anyway I just thought I'd let you know (MAN i hate being the newbie ;) )
and thats it. (Sorry any admins if I did anything wrong by making this post... I do that a lot it seems ;) )

[anduin]

Roving Turtle, no harm done by your post...not in the least. Don't be afraid to say what is on your mind. As long as it is within the rules of the board, you will be just fine. :)

I don't think that anyone is here to prove anything to Entmooter's as a whole. Nor do I believe that anyone is trying to discredit the other just to make them look bad to the other member's of this board. Remember, it is suppose to be a debate, not a popularity contest. Things often get ugly, but so far no rule of the board has been broken.

[juntel]

The McCarthy era isn't only about McCarthy, but also about a paranoia where people were seeing Communists all around, and were willing to terrorise any citizens with "leftist" tendencies.

Gilthalion may have distanced himself by words from the ways of McCarthy, but his last posts clearly show a paranoia not dissimilar to that of the 50's...

When one read a statement like:

"'Not satisfied with freedom and equality, there is a goal of domination as well.' Again, I point to the words of the extremists, and the agenda of the Communists, and the actions of the media, the schools, and of the government",

one can only wonder how a mature and obviously intelligent mind would so easily put in the same bag the feminists, the Communists, the media, and the government in a common goal for domination...

...to which I replied asking why he didn't put the Devil in the list... to which he made clear that he would have, but that I wouldn't have accepted it.

If Gil's reference in the past of some sort of evil conspiracy was taken by me as a comic relief in a serious subject ("Vast Left Wing Conspiracy"), now I'm sure, according to his last posts, that he is quite serious about this.
It probably fits well in some sort of Apocalyptic scenario.

That social paranoia, that "the-devil-is-everywhere-and-especially-in-the-Left" attitude, is what I think was at first not so obvious about Gil, but made more clear in his last few posts.


"I have made clear that, unlike you, I do not attack people personally and I am not contemptuous of the diversity of viewpoints on these threads"

You have a clear contempt of viewpoints: the feminists that you put in an extremist bag, the left that you too easily see as aligned with Communists ( "the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"), and whatnot...

So, your method is to knit a Big Bad Bag of Evil, and continue to demonize anyone who would dare to find himself in there. No, of course, you point no one in this thread, but you do make it clear that anyone who would be a feminist activist, a stauch Clinton supporter, etc., would be in this Bag. Clever, clever... but people can't all be fooled by that trick, Gil.

My answers are often directed to you personally, or posters personally, because all of us, including me, are giving here our humble personal opinions, and our opinions reflect our personality, what we have lived and experienced and seen and learned. And debates like this one aren't theoretical musings just thrown in the air, they are confrontations of each of our experiences and bagages.


"You have not put forward a thesis of your own to defend and perhaps that was wise"

I have no complete global view of the situation. I have lots to live yet; so do you; so do many in Entmoot.
But from my posts in this thread, in the original thread, and in other debate threads, I ain't much of a mystery. Asking for a thesis is quite premature; ask specific questions, and maybe I'll answer you.
But before doing so, do reread my posts, for the answers may already be there (you know my position on affirmative action, on women's rights, on feminism, on voting, on evolution, on abortion,..... what do you expect exactly as a "thesis"?!!!)


"Unlike you, I do not deny and ignore the ugly side of some of those who generally side with me"

Ugly side of who that side with me? Feminists? If so, then you never read much what I wrote, since I did point out some of their ugly parts. Not only that, I even named one of those parts (A.Dworkin), and given a specific example of some idiocy that can come from that bad part (eg. menstrual cycle as social phenomenon).

But as for you, rarely did you specifically named individual feminists and their specific acts which would permit you to show that they are searching for domination, or even that they earn your label of "extremists".

But you do go on making interesting remarks:

"But their [N.O.W.'s] influence is great in media and in educational institutions, where the overwhelming majority of workers are rather far to the Left themselves. They sympathize with these extremists, giving them great influence over the policies and practices of their professions, limiting only their most extreme views. This pulls society ever farther to the Left"

...adding in a later post...

"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism"

Wow! The Evil Bag has been defined more accurately now...
True, you didn't point out anybody that would enter this bag. Convenient. And again, clever, clever...

"To be against Feminism is not to be against Women"

True. I don't disagree with that.
But then again, the society of Saudi Arabia isn't against women either...
The question then isn't if your against women, but how are you for them, ie what is their proper place, according to you, in our society, and what steps are you willing to make to insure this proper place.

Feminism, what is it after all? Well, taking my (printed) dictionary of english, I read:

Feminism : the policy, practice or advocacy of political, economic and social equality for women

or from the online version of Webster's (http://www.britannica.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=feminism):

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

With these definitions in mind, why would one described feminism as extremist?
Well, the only way would be in the way the "organized activities" are done. And no post of Gil has addressed this question, none that would allow him to justify his accusations.

So, to be against feminism is not to be against women, but it sure ain't being for their social well-being either...
It is one thing to say one is against this or that method that some feminist use; but to be against feminism itself, this speaks for itself...

"To be Faithful is not what you insinuate."

Being surrounded by faithfull persons in my life, I know that faiths can be lived without the belief that there's a devilish conspiracy attacking society; I know that faith is much more beautiful and enriching than the atmosphere of paranoia you live in.

The "Holy" Inquisition was done by "faith"; the Crusades were nurtured by "faith".

Having "faith" doesn't make you impervious to mistakes.


"But I fear you think the worst of me and expect you would have others do so as well, if you could"

In most instances, your posts by themselves are sufficient; I merely highlight and comment them.
Thinking the worst of you? I've seen worse. The world has seen worse.
As what others may think, it's up to them. Reading Entmoot here and there, I see people that can make their own judgments.


"At every turn, you have put the most negative possible construction on my words."

They are your words, "printed" for all to see again and again at will by anyone who wants to, at the simple click of the mouse. The construction from which these words of yours emerge from is well beyond my powers to deform: if anything negative comes from it, I believe it's because it's there.


"And you can't blame it all on the language."

On one occasion, for the word "compensate", I did explain that the immediate meaning of that word implied for me only an attempt to balance an effect, and that was because in my mother tongue (french) this was the meaning, and sometimes for bilingual people some "false cousins" as we call them can play tricks on us.

As for the only other occasion, the word "defame", it had nothing to do with the french language, but with the english language itself, as I showed that two english dictionaries gave two definitions that were enough different to provoke the misunderstanding.

Only on those two occasions did the language question arise, and on those two occasions I did realize, admit and accordingly adjusted my worded position so that what I wrote would be what I meant.

I have never tried to "blame it all on the language".
I'm sure most Entmooters can see that.


=============================================


These societies of ours have made so much progress in terms of human rights and equality of citizens, and as a citizen in one of those societies, I find myself obligated to defend its progresses whenever they are attacked, ridiculized, put down, watered down, mistreated by demonizing labels, etc...

Wheter I, as one responsible individual, have made a positive defense against some attacks by nostalgics of the male-and-church-dominated past, I will never know, and I don't have to.
I can only try.

But in the end, it is always for the individuals to decide by themselves, after reading and rereading the arguments, and reading arguments from elsewhere, and forming their own arguments; and along the many days or months or years, during the time when life teaches them more things, to revise their opinions constantly, daring to suppose that their beliefs may be wrong to see maybe if the opposing views may have some truth to them.
That's how it should be, in my opinion.

My biggest regret in this thread is that only a handfull have given their opinions, on a so important subject.

[Johnny Lurker]

"demonizing"

No.

Five more.

Choose your words more carefully.

[juntel]

demonize (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=demonize) : to cause somebody or something to appear evil or wicked in the eyes of others

Well chosen.
It stays.
Yes.

Thank you for your concern, J.Lurker

[Gilthalion]

Gilthalion may have distanced himself by words from the ways of McCarthy, but his last posts clearly show a paranoia not dissimilar to that of the 50's...

paranoia a mental disorder characterized by sustmatized delusions, as of granduer or, especially, persecution.

I'm not sure what mental disorder compells me to respond to this sort of thing, but it is not paranoia.

McCarthy suffered from alcoholism and from defects of personality. He was not paranoid. Communism was, and is, real. The corpus delecti number in the millions. It's infiltration of the Left in the Free World is real. That does not mean that folks who usually think and vote to the Left know or understand this. I think that most folk believe what they are taught, and in regions that are quite far to the Left, it seems as natural as water to a fish and it is abhorrent for them to think that the institutions of their society may have been compromised by the outright Communists. But work has proceded diligently, and not without great success, for the better part of a century to do just that. If Hitler had survived, he might have done much the same on the Right. (Though some argue that technically, German National Socialism is also Left.)

I will take this argument to the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THREAD where it might be developed more clearly. The heading will be COMMUNISM & THE LEFT.

When I get around to it! :)

This is not to say that the Left is not chock full of kind and decent and Good People! I'm not trying to slip the noose here, I am attempting a more or less comprehensive discussion.

If I write briefly, I am missunderstood, or mischaracterised.

If I write at length, I get complaints of being long winded. (And I am missunderstood, or mischaracterised!)



***
For what it is worth, I am not engaged in any sort of "clever, clever" rhetorical tactics.

As I've cited previously, what juntel sees as a confrontation between personalities (which he therefore chooses to personalize), I see as a "...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places."

The secular form of demonization is demonization still, for the effect is the same. If I cannot share my opinions without such personal treatment, such is life. Whining about it will do no good.


***
All the same, my "language" crack was a personalization of my own. My hands are not clean. I'm sorry, juntel.


***
Anduin "Conscience of the Entmoot" :) is right. I shouldn't have appealed to the ENTMOOT for any sort of judgement whatsoever even by implication.

[juntel]

Paranoia (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=paranoia)
1. distrust: extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other people and their motives
2. PSYCHIATRY psychiatric disorder: a psychiatric disorder involving systematized delusion, usually of persecution

I wasn't using the clinical definition.


"As I've cited previously, what juntel sees as a confrontation between personalities (which he therefore chooses to personalize), I see as a '...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places.'"

As I have said before and I'll repeat again, when one display humble personal opinions, then personalities of the debaters are involved.

But then, if you see this as a "...battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers of darkness in high places", then I wonder on which side you think I am (wheter I do it consciously or unconsciously)...

And by the way, "powers of darkness" is a perfect example of what I call demonization of those you oppose.


"The secular form of demonization is demonization still, for the effect is the same"

True.
But demonization usually comes in the form of empty labels, unsupported by any real examples.
What I have done is highlight your words, words that are readily available to anyone reading this thread. I do sincerely find that you have an "extreme and unreasonable suspicion of other feminists and left-wingers and their motives", and therfore find that there is indeed a very real atmosphere of paranoia in your thinking, and I have supported this opinion of mine by quotes of your posts (whose context is within this thread).

As for you, I didn't see yet ANY real example of what would lead you to label activist feminists as extremists (with a goal for domination!), or similar opinions. You have merely mentioned too briefly schools, government, the left, and then Communism, to finally admit that you also wanted to put in that Bag the Devil of your religion itself (except that you didn't do it, explaining: "The only reason I left Satan out was because you can't accept it")



You have said in an earlier post:

"You have no respect or understanding of my viewpoint, and nearly every one of your posts are indicative of that."

I do understand you viewpoint, although I don't understand why one would have such a viewpoint.

As for respecting your viewpoint, I fail to see why I should respect a viewpoint that is so reminiscent of a paranoia-ladden past.
I can respect the honesty and determination with wich you display your viewpoint, but as I have said in an earlier post, at a certain point you single-handedly destroyed any foundation of a bridge between our viewpoints.

I can respect Gil the man, but I don't have to respect all he says.
Especially when some of those things he says revulse me.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Tu trouve pas que c'est pas mal dur, raide comme commentaire?

[Gilthalion]

I'm not sure that you do understand my viewpoint. Perhaps you understand a stereotype of it (and there is truth in even this sort of understanding), and are unwilling to examine things in the light shed from my direction upon the modern movements of the Leftist West.

My opinion is held by others who do not share my Faith, by the way. Communism is real and I sometimes find it hard to believe that its inflitration of the Left is debatable to some, but that is where we are today.

Each of the categories of feminist (and other such) influence, in the schools, in the government, and in the media, practically requires a thesis of its own.

If such things are not evident to the observer, then no post of mine is likely to make them so.

The forest is hard to see from amongst the trees.

Again, the Communist infiltration of the Left is not a paranoid delusion. It is a matter of long public record, long disputed by the Left.

Once again, I will deal with the theme, as I promised, in a future post in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY thread. Be patient.

I cannot do all things at once and the expectation is unreasonable.

And for the sake of sensitivities revealed in the unlamented ABORTION post, I have refrained from delivering the most forceful arguments against the radical feminists and their disproportionate influence on the media, the schools, and the government.

There are matters which are now the law of this land that the vast majority of people, even on the Left, disagree with strongly, and yet, they are the law. Only the radical Feminists and the most extreme Leftists defend them. And yet, they are Law.

I do not wish to be more explicit.

As for the malevolent involvement of spirits in the course of human events, that is another matter.

Again, I was addressing HOW these changes are occurring, not WHY. And certainly not WHO I think is behind it. I thought these matters irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

I was attempting to hold the discussion down to verifiable matters of debate. Debates can, and are, held on various topics without it devolving into personal assault, whatever rationalization is used to justify such tactics.

If all of these matters of dispute between Left and Right will resolve on this board to a debate upon the merits of Christian Faith, then I submit that these debates need not go further.

Our Faith has passed from the central position it held in our country, and is now practiced by an ever smaller number. As I indicated earlier, my own indictment against the Church is far more stern than against Feminism.

But no one can disprove, or prove, through argument, the Reality that I report about my Faith.

I submit that my claim about Jesus is individually verifiable by asking God, Himself, in earnest.

The atheist can make no such claim. His faith that there is no God, is faith indeed.

I have no interest in crossing any gap of understanding if the bridge must be built from a compromise of my Faith.

But, I should not demand respect either personally (though I'm glad to receive it) or for my observations, opinions, and beliefs.

================================================== =========

Another loooooong post, probably to no avail... :(

[juntel]

Shan

La question est de savoir si mon commentaire est justifié: je crois qu'il l'est, compte tenu de la position radicalement de droite de notre ami...


Gil

"Communism is real and I sometimes find it hard to believe that its inflitration of the Left is debatable to some, but that is where we are today."

That some of Communist tendencies can be found among the Left is no more surprising than finding Neo-Nutsies and KKK members among the Right.

You position (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showMessage? topicID=611.topic) goes beyond that though:

"It is furthermore clear, as it has always been, that the Left is utterly infiltrated and aligned with Communism." (emphasis mine)

Although you do go on saying: "I do not say this of the rank and file", the use of "utterly" is hard to miss.
Again, let's take the dictionary to be sure of the meaning:

utterly (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=utterly) completely: in an extreme or complete way

"Infiltration" by itself is quite an ordinary statement that I indeed cannot contest.
"Utterly infiltrated" however demands proof by you, which you have failed to exhibit.


"If all of these matters of dispute between Left and Right will resolve on this board to a debate upon the merits of Christian Faith, then I submit that these debates need not go further."

I never said that all christians are on the Right. I personally know christians that are appalled at some of your political views.
Your statements about the Left "utterly infiltrated" by Communists and Feminists as radical extremists hungry for domination can stand by themselves, and as such are utterly absurd in my opinion. That has nothing to do with your flavor of christinaty.

I never argued against someone's faith just because that someone had that faith; those arguments of mine that included a religious comment were directed towards the persons that think their faith give them the rights to impose their views on others by law and other ways; and towards those that would think their faith makes them the moral leaders of the world; etc...

My arguments against your position, Gil, only involve religion at those moments you mention powers of darkness at work in the world, and such.
True, I can't prove nor disprove that belief of yours, but I sure can comment on it.
And I'm sure you'll agree that it is my right.
Just as it is yours to express yourself.


"But no one can disprove, or prove, through argument, the Reality that I report about my Faith."

Hey, I'm an agnostic, remember? I agree with your statement.
It is in fact, more generally, impossible to prove or disprove any Reality reported by any faith (at least, not the major religions, and I don't mean only the "BigThree").

By the way, no one has as yet disproved my Matrix scenario...


"I submit that my claim about Jesus is individually verifiable by asking God, Himself, in earnest"

This is the usual "Heads I win, Tails you lose" statement.
Those that seemingly don't receive an answer probably didn't try hard enough, or not honestly enough, or not with enough humility... Convenient, convenient...
Any religion, even those far far from judeo-christian-muslim faiths, can make such a statement, Gil. And in these other faiths, some do receive an answer about their own deity... (unless you think they have been answered by evil spirits to fool them...)


"Another loooooong post, probably to no avail... "

Indeed...
Ditto...

[Shanamir Duntak]

Le tact peut quand même être de mise...

[Gilthalion]

There is nothing convenient about any of this.


***
"Utterly infiltrated" however demands proof by you, which you have failed to exhibit.

You have a point about "utterly." More of a rhetorical excess than anything else. I am not composing these posts offline.

As someone once said, "I have written you a long letter because I don't have time to write you a short one."

"Infiltrated" did not require the modifier "utterly."

"Thoroughly infiltrated" would have been better, for I think that they have been quite thorough. I do not mean to say that all Leftists are extremists, much less Communists. I am not lying when I say that I do not include the rank and file in these numbers.

The influence of these extremists (ie. Feminism, etc.) and infiltrators and fellow travelors, etc. is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda.

Were I to write a book on the subject, replete with footnotes and citations, irrefutable data, and flawless logic (and I begin to feel a book of posts has already accumulated), there are some who would not be convinced.

It may be awhile, but I will at least attempt a post on the subject in the POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY thread. I will call it "Communism & The Left."


***
And when you have experienced Jesus, and made your choice, then we will have something to discuss on that topic. A blindman might tell me much about the phenomenon we observe when the sun sets, but he will not understand it until he sees it.

That is hardly a convenience in my desire to see you in Eternity. It is so simple that even a child can find it, so profound that the wisest sage is dumbfounded, and as available as your heart.

But I have no power to convince anyone of that. At best, I might "almost persuade" someone.

[Johnny Lurker]

"<a href="http://"http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=demonize"">demonize</a> : 1.To turn into or as if into a demon.
2.To possess by or as if by a demon.
3.To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy."

You have your definitions, I have mine.

"demon" is the core word in "demonize", as opposed to "car" in "carpet".

Why bother.

[juntel]

Shan

Tact is for people who are afraid to be hurt.
Gil won't be hurt. He may at most be disapointed in me, and pray for my soul... He doesn't need my tact; and it would be condescending from me to use tact with him.


J.Lurker

It's not a question of having my definitions and your definitions; these are definitions, and reflect the uses of this word.
Moreover, in your 3rd definition, the word "evil" is defined thus in the dictionary you used:

evil (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=evil)

-1 Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
-2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
-3 Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
-4 Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
-5 Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
-1 The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
-2 That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
-3 An evil force, power, or personification.
-4 Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. [/i]

So you see, even if the word "demon" starts the word "demonize", it doesn't necessarily imply in this second word the religious notion of "demon" itself, just as "evil" doesn't imply the religious notion of "evil".
Religions, as any other important human experience, has had an impact on human languages, and these have adopted secular meanings of some of religions' terms.


Gil

"You have a point about 'utterly'"

You will have noticed that I have quoted many times that quote of yours that included "utterly" (no less than 6 times!!!)...
But I'll accept your explanation anyway (at least for Shan's sake...!)

"The influence of these extremists (ie. Feminism, etc.) and infiltrators and fellow travelors, etc. is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda"

Well, I could go on here about this Left/Communism thing, but I guess this would go in your other thread ( I do sincerely hope, though, that before you go on in that other thread about talking about those two labels, "Left" and "Communism", that at least you would defined them as you see fit, so that at least we are sure that we agree on these definitons. Same goes for "Right", "Conservative", and "Fascist"; they will be handy... )

So i'll keep my comment here about your ongoing strange view of feminism; again, here's a definition of feminism:

Feminism:

From Encarta (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=feminism):
1 belief in women's rights: belief in the need to secure, or a commitment to securing, rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men
2 movement for women's rights: the movement committed to securing and defending equal rights and opportunities for women equal to those of men

From Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=feminism):
1 Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2 The movement organized around this belief.

From Webster Online (http://www.britanica.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=feminism):
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

So, the definitions quite agree, there are two uses of feminism : 1) one for the ideology of equality 2) the other for the movement organized around this ideology.
You have made it clear, it seems to me, that you belive the organized movement is an extremist movement, which you go on saying (in your last post) that "is pervasive and its use is directed toward the fulfillment of the Communist agenda".

I do disagree with that belief of yours of organized feminist organization wanting to fulfill the Communist agenda (when has N.O.W. talked against the notion of private property, the core of Communism?!?!), but at least, I, and I'm sure also others, would like to know your position on feminism, not as the "organized activity", but as the ideology of political, economic and social equality of the sexes (not anatomical equality!!!).


"That is hardly a convenience in my desire to see you in Eternity"

The "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of statement is always a convenience.

And I do not need to rely on the hope of an "Eternity" to do what I think is good around me, and help others. I have no wish for such a reward; the smiles I see are quite enough.

[Johnny Lurker]

Look up "diabolical" while you're at it.

[Gilthalion]

Only a reactionary anachronist would disagree with the purported objectives of Feminism!

So I disagree!

:lol: Just kidding!

Seriously though, I believe I've made it clear enough that I have no problem with social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

If Feminists confined themselves to this, I would call myself a Feminist! But their policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens, and their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected).


***
I looked back and you did indeed object about half a dozen times or so to my use of the modifier "utterly." If I had paid closer attention, I might have responded sooner.

The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game.

Folks of my viewpoint have certainly been used by the powerbrokers on the Right.

I wrote a letter that was published prominently in our local paper last week about how Fundamentalist Christians in the Bible Belt too often allow their distrust of Communists and neo-pagan earth-worshippers to blind them to the very real concerns that the Environmentalist movement brings forth. Down here, we have a severe problem with growing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and an explosion of the jellyfish population. I've urged my brethren to fight this as we have the gambling industry.

My Communist paranoia ;) does not extend so far as to prohibit me from taking other controversial stands as well. I have argued for our City to intensify relations with Cuba! The embargo will fall one day, and I believe that positive engagement will do more for the people of Cuba than our embargo.


***
I appreciate Shanamir's discreet appeal (my French is very bad) for tact, and your faith in my fearlessness of sharp debate! I've already thrown my fit and got over it and will not do so again!


***
The "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of statement is always a convenience.

It would be convenient if it were convincing! But I am not making an argument in this regard. I am delivering a testimony.

And I do not need to rely on the hope of an "Eternity" to do what I think is good around me, and help others. I have no wish for such a reward; the smiles I see are quite enough.

Another matter entirely, but a perfectly understandable error. Eternal Life is not a reward for good deeds, as counterintuitive as that may seem. But even if it were, we could never be good enough to earn it ourselves. But you are right in a way, for none of us should do good in hopes of receiving anything in return (even smiles, though they are nice!). We should do good for Goodness sake! :D

================================================== ========
juntel & shanamir
I became curious this evening about the earlier threads on this board and read a fair sample of them. I only started doing this message board thing recently and I see that this sort of thing is old hat for a lot of you.

In many debates, there is an almost word by word disection of every sentence and things are taken quite literally. Had I known this, I might have treated this thread in an entirely different and far more serious fashion.

Reflecting on the course of it, I have expended many more hours debating side issues than I might have if I had taken the time I didn't think I had to do the job right. !!!

I find that you folks in Quebec have a lot more in common with our desire for independence/autonomy here in the South. You also have the same insurmountable difficulties in achieving it.

It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk.

And there seem to be a lot of Canadians altogether!

This has been a real culture shock, I can tell you!

[juntel]

JLurker

I don't have to 'look up "diabolical" while I'm at it'.
The definition of 'demonize' you pointed to, mentioned evil or diabolical.


Gil

"I have no problem with social, political, and economic equality of the sexes"

Glad to hear about that!
So, in some sense, you are a feminist; but not in the sense of belonging to the organized movements sharing your belief in the above mentioned equalities.
But anyways, since you really don't want to be labeled as a feminist, even according to my above comment, then I won't.

Therefore, from now on, in all of my posts (whenever I remember), I will use 'feminism' (non-capitalized) to mention the belief and wish of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, while I'll use your usual capitalized 'Feminism' to mention the activist organizations that try to implement and secure that belief in our societies.


"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

That bold statement requires at least one example. I really don't see what your pointing at, so please show me at least an example, or as many as you wish.


"their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected)"

Firstly, one doesn't need to be a Feminist, or a feminist, to favor the right to abortion.
Secondly, the 'law of the land' doesn't force abortions on women; it permits women to have an abortion if they feel they need one; it doesn't impose really anything on other people for which her pregnancy has nothing to do about.
Finally, by saying most Leftists, you do imply a majority of them; so I guess you have some statistics to back this up, then please, share these with us (with source, please).


"The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game"

One doesn't need to be a Communist to abhor the un-humanitarian harshness of straigth Capitalism; however, that harshness can be smoothed greatly by (even a partial) sharing of the wealth among the citizens.
And this sharing idea, you'll admit I hope, is no invention of Communism.
In fact, communism (non-capitalized) itself isn't an invention by Communism (or Marx); monks (christian, buddhist, or others) have lived in communes well before the arrival of Mr.Marx; and these monks aren't against private property as such.
As I said earlier, the core of Communism revolves around the abolition of private property, something that isn't attacked in any way by feminists, Feminists, or Leftists in general (although I can't provide statistics here, I can tell you that leftists and f(F)eminists are as attached to their car as you or others are!!!)


"I have argued for our City to intensify relations with Cuba!"

Then you may agree with Canada's somewhat amicable relations with Cuba! (ie no ban on commerce with it... including their famous cigars...).


"I find that you folks in Quebec have a lot more in common with our desire for independence/autonomy here in the South."

Well, a lot of your land was sold to you americans a long time ago by Napoleon (under Louis Nth, N=some number), if my history classes serve...
Also, the desire in Quebec has more to do with an ongoing fight against assimilation, or Louisianafication (no JL, that word isn't in the dictionaries i'm sure!!!); we don't want to ultimately become the Cajuns of Canada, something which has already happened to french speaking people of some other canadian provinces.
Moreover, not all quebecers wish for independance as such; the wish for them is of a better inter-dependance that allows for some autonomy in certain matters... and things can get complicated here...
Things could have been better a few years ago with the so-called MeechLake Accord, but a major component had been left out: our Native hosts!


"It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk."

It seems so.
I'm 35 btw, and i'm not the oldest (i think old Eruve is... I think she's 84... j/k!!! ;) )


"In many debates, there is an almost word by word disection of every sentence and things are taken quite literally"

This could be a problem, I'm very well aware of it, and I try to put things in context as much as I can (although there have been times when I failed to do so... eg in the Creation/Evolution thread, when in answering 2 or 3 people at a time, I misread JL's posts).

I take more time now, and write everything in Notepad rather than directly in the Reply-inbox; that way I can scroll the thread and cross-reference if need be (btw, i set my ezboard prefs so that any thread i view in seen in one page, a trick i learned here - from IP or Ben, don't remember)

Also, since this is far from a face-to-face conversation (which as you've said earlier would have removed some misunderstandings), the point-by-point method is more appropriate than a series of speeches; it has it's evident drawbacks, such as out-of-contextness (sp?) after a long series of posts.

"I see that this sort of thing is old hat for a lot of you"

I came on this board a year ago (i think).
The first 'debate' I participated in was the "Abortion" debate. This present debate is the third one only for me. I don't know if there has been other debates before my coming here.

[Gilthalion]

Therefore, from now on, in all of my posts (whenever I remember), I will use 'feminism' (non-capitalized) to mention the belief and wish of social, political and economic equality of the sexes, while I'll use your usual capitalized 'Feminism' to mention the activist organizations that try to implement and secure that belief in our societies.

I can often pick up the meaning from the context. This is fine. Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure.



"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

That bold statement requires at least one example. I really don't see what your pointing at, so please show me at least an example, or as many as you wish.

One example of Feminist "domination" of men...
Leaving aside the debatable legality of abortion, there is the way in which the laws are written. The mantra is "it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body." Ahhh! but what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? Under the law, the father is excluded from the choice.

One example of Feminist "domination" of boys...
Because, in part, of their pervasive notion that small boys and girls are virtually the same (until puberty), young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin. These folks, and the mindless bureacrats and educators who follow this thinking and execute the logical policy implications, will simply not take into account that boys will be boys.


"their most extreme position (partial birth abortion) is the law of the land, over the objections of even most Leftists (I stand to be corrected)"

...Finally, by saying most Leftists, you do imply a majority of them; so I guess you have some statistics to back this up, then please, share these with us (with source, please).

Keep in mind, that I am only speaking of the most extreme type of abortion. For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details. At the moment, and I really won't spend much more time on it, I can point to the Congressional votes, barely unable to override vetoes. Lots of moderates (Left leaning Republicans) and Democrats voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure. I recall public opinion polls greatly in favor of the ban, but I can't promise that I will lay my hands on them. Really, I have never met a single person who does favor the procedure, even among the most ardent abortion rights supporters that I have talked to through the years. Only the Feminists, and their politicians! The politicians themselves hide behind the slippery phrase "health of the mother" to opt out of the ban.


"The Communist agenda entails the downfall of Capitalist civilization, and many Leftists, including Feminists, have been used as pawns in this end game"

As I said earlier, the core of Communism revolves around the abolition of private property, something that isn't attacked in any way by feminists, Feminists, or Leftists in general...

Hmmmm. Not a bad point. But I am really speaking of the effect of policies, and of the interplay of organizations and individuals (ie. Vast Left Wing Conspiracy ;) ), not necessarily of the textbook definitions of the causes as the context. That may require more clarification. Think of it holistically. In war, there are strategic objectives and there are tactical deployments. The tactical may not seem to have anything to do with the strategic at first glance.


"It also seems that this board is inhabited by a lot of rather young folk."

It seems so.
I'm 35 btw, and i'm not the oldest...

For what it's worth, I'm 37. I may be the most elderly regular poster these days!

I have discovered that I am playing RPG with children and high school students! (I guess that is about my speed, but what did I expect?) Somehow, I thought that this was an older board. I wonder what the average is: 20? 16? Younger?

Most everyone (despite VERY sloppy typing and inadequate spelling) [please don't show MY mistakes!] seems to be a very bright crowd here, and that expectation for a Tolkien site has not gone unmet.

Right now, it would not be very bright for me to be late to work, so off I go!

[juntel]

"Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure"

Hmmm.... You are for democracy. So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!


"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

1) "what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? "

Well, the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...
The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!

2) "young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin"

Unless i'm mistaken, both girls and boys are "treated" with Ritalin, although probably boys in a greater percantage.
Let me say first that IMO neither should be "treated" thus; this era of Ritalin or Prozac as daily remedies is just absurd, and you'll agree I hope that Feminism doesn't have anything to do with that: blame the pharmaceutical companies who throws these things on the market, and advertize crazily so that the parents ask their doctors dozes of these remedies...

But, I guess that in your example above, it is "pervasive notion that small boys and girls are virtually the same" that irks you most, and not the Ritalin stuff applied to boys itself.
For the record i'll say here that I don't think that pre-pubescent boys and girls are the same (virtually or otherwise) physiologically or psychologically; neither do the toy industry think that, seeing the toys that are produced; neither do the ( "leftist-infiltrated") media think that, seeing the kids shows that are produced.

And honestly, I would need to be pointed out a prominent feminist source that would say such a thing, a source not from the extreme fringe of Feminism, but one which is actually being heard and acknowledged in the political arena.
(On my side, I'll also seek out such informations, for or against that kind of statement, among the feminists; hey, if i have time this afternoon, i'll go to the bookshop and browse through some C.Paglia or N.Wolf...)


"Lots of moderates (...) voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure"
...and...
"For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details"

Please... some details... I don't know what ban you're talking about!


"But I am really speaking of the effect of policies, and of the interplay of organizations and individuals, not necessarily of the textbook definitions of the causes as the context. (...) Think of it holistically. In war, there are strategic objectives and there are tactical deployments. The tactical may not seem to have anything to do with the strategic at first glance"

Have you ever thought that what you see as tactical deployment are only and simply honest step by step, difficult progress on the part of feminists and others who only want a more just society in our unjust world?
Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?

That reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about contraceptive methods. He thought the the "Pill" was in fact something that men created just to be releaved of the responsibility of fatherhood, while beeing able to have all the sex they wanted (ok, his argument wasn't that simplistic, i'm paraphrasing...).
Well, i answered him, it isn't very important what some men can get "out" of the existence of the "Pill", what counts is what women can make out of its existence.

My point? Well, what I mean is that if a group can take advantage of a situation, it doesn't mean that those who created the situation support the said group.

Example: Let's say, for the purpose of this example, that BushJr is elected President of the USA. Then, Gil, some of the people on the extreme Right -- that have agendas that you yourself hate and avoid -- will froth at the mouth and see this as the begining of a new era for them, at least a chance to go on further and have a better ear at the WhiteHouse than "Slick Willy".
Would that mean that the Republican Party is just a step in these extreme Rightists, that the some influence they have in the Rep. Party makes this Party just a tactical platform for their future activities?
I guess not.
That the fascists, the KKK in part, the Neo-Nutsies etc.. would prefer to see the Republican Party at the White House and holding the Congress doesn't make that Party a pawn of these fringe groups (or other not so fringe groups), nor a Party for whom one shouldn't vote or listen to.

Equally, that some extreme leftists be in the Left, or in Feminist organizations, and that some ideas and activities of Feminism and Left be pleasing to the extremists, doesn't mean that they control them, or that they will control them, or that they will have more power if and when the Left is in power.

Things, Left or Right, North or South, East or West, are more complex, subtle, colorful than that.
Such is Human Life: diverse, multi-faceted, never to be thought all understood.

I don't ask you to agree wholly with the above, just that you think about it another time (for i'm sure you already thought about it in the past), as I will think about your assertions.


"I wonder what the average is: 20? 16? Younger?"

If you do your searching further in the forum, you'll find an age survey that was done many months ago; I don't remember the results.

((Ben? What's the answer? Where's that thread already?! ;) ))

[Gilthalion]

"Generally, there is also a contextual undertone of "Feminism" that entails the system of beliefs as well as the organized structure"

Hmmm.... You are for democracy. So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!

Oh now come on! We can reductio ad absurdum everything! (I'm not really "for" democracy, BTW, I am against everything else! Actually, a representative republic is better.)



"their [Feminists] policies effectively make men (and boys) second class citizens"

1) "what of the body of the unborn son or daughter of its father? "

Well, the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...
The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!

This might be one of those irreconcilable differences between Left and Right, that make me think that greater autonomy/tolerance for Quebec and The South is a better idea all the time. The danger is that the influence of the extremes can be intensified. The status quo is the supression of culture.



2) "young boys in THIS countries public schools are being drugged with Ritalin"

Unless i'm mistaken, both girls and boys are "treated" with Ritalin, although probably boys in a greater percantage.
Let me say first that IMO neither should be "treated" thus; this era of Ritalin or Prozac as daily remedies is just absurd, and you'll agree I hope that Feminism doesn't have anything to do with that: blame the pharmaceutical companies who throws these things on the market, and advertize crazily so that the parents ask their doctors dozes of these remedies...

It's worse than just that, I'm afraid. (And I DO blame the companies and the parents!) The Feminist connection is this unproven belief that little boys and girls are essentially the same. Thus, the institutional insistance on the same expectations and treatment.

I would not argue with giving girls an extra boost to help with mathematics, etc. But to expect little boys to behave like little girls, sitting studiously still, etc. is ridiculous. The MEN, WOMEN, AND THE BRAIN link given long ago supports this. Boys do receive Ritalin far more often and the diagnosis is often made, and insisted upon, by TEACHERS with Feminist expectations, rather than practical instruction in dealing with little boys and their parents.

These kids are being drugged. One year, my nephew Zachary got a special birthday package from his uncle. I bought an old ammo crate and packed it full of toys that would have delighted the heart and imagination of any lad. I'm talking about the works! All kinds of gadgets and geegaws. Just the kind of thing this kid in particular liked. I printed in military stencil fonts PROJECT ZAK on a folder attached to the side of the crate. It held pages that detailed the project to transform an ordinary boy into a cybernetic defender of America!

But doped up on the Ritalin his teachers talked his parents into (and that some idiot doctor willingly prescribed), he only sat there with dull glazed eyes, and wandered off as his dad excitedly opened the crate with a crowbar.

I know that's anecdotal, but there is a serious controversy over this and it is mainly the boys who are being doped into stillness and silence. (Fortunately, his parents soon realized what they were doing...)



And honestly, I would need to be pointed out a prominent feminist source that would say such a thing, a source not from the extreme fringe of Feminism, but one which is actually being heard and acknowledged in the political arena.

I'll have to work on that. I might disappoint you, it has been a long time since I really worked on this subject, and I'm not sure I can lay my hands on it. I'd probably have to start from scratch. There was recently a Times magazine article (last couple of years) where the cover story announced the shocking news that men and women were different. The tone of the story was, "I'll be darned! What do you know about that?"

Now, this obviously wouldn't have shocked you! I rather think that you are the sort of fellow who has a fine appreciation for the differences! Viva la difference! comes to mind.



"Lots of moderates (...) voted with the conservatives to ban what any rational person understands is a horrible and uneccesary procedure" ...and... "For the sake of delicacy, I will not go into the grisly details"

Please... some details... I don't know what ban you're talking about!

I ADJURE THE SQUEAMISH NOT TO READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH!

I'm talking about the attempted ban on Partial Birth Abortions, passed by large (not 2/3) majorities in both Houses of Congress, and vetoed more than once by President Clinton. In this procedure, labor is induced, the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style. Before the head slips from the birth canal, the baby is held in place, and its life is ended when it's skull is punctured by scissors and the contents are evacuated and the head collapsed with a vacuum device.

WE RETURN YOU NOW TO CIVILIZATION!

The American Medical Association has denounced this practice, and virtually everyone pays lip service to the need to end it. Everyone, that is, except the most extreme Feminists and the politicians who pander to this interest group. Including our President. The pretext, denied by the liberal American Medical Association, is that this procedure is somehow necessary for the HEALTH of the mother. Joe Lieberman, for one, was also against it until he accepted the Vice Presidential candidacy. Now he tries not to talk about it.

To be fair, these folk also say (and this is their real problem with the unrealized ban) that the Pro Life forces only seek to use this as a wedge issue and as part of an incremental plan to abolish all abortions.

To some extent, this is right, but while there is widespread support for banning this hideous procedure, a majority of Americans will not permit a complete ban on all abortions. Most, even on the Left, like Lieberman, think that the abortion industry should be regulated like every other facet of medicine. The Feminists insist that ANY regulation is undue infringement of what they perceive to be their Right to Choose. (Of course, Second Amendment advocates employ the same strategy...)



Have you ever thought that what you see as tactical deployment are only and simply honest step by step, difficult progress on the part of feminists and others who only want a more just society in our unjust world? Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?

Some steps are, and some aren't! I think there is a mixture of these things. Certainly, the "evil" ones could not get very far without lots of folk working hard for what they see as noble ends.

Often discussions about the means to those ends degenerate into a dispute about the ends, which both sides actually agree on much of the time!

[Eruve]

I was the oldest around here for a while, until Michael Martinez came along. I'm only a year older than you are, juntel! I would have sworn Gil was at least 50, OTOH! ;)

[juntel]

"'So if someone tells you you are therefore a democrat, do you hear "Democrat" or "democrat"? Sad situation indeed!'
Oh now come on!"

Hey, I was trying to understand the situation with some humour, not sarcasm.
I was comparing the Feminism/feminism labeling problem with the Democrat/democrat one.
Even if you aren't a Republican, well usually (it seems) Republicans are democrat, but no Democrat...


"'The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man!'
This might be one of those irreconcilable differences between Left and Right..."

My point was that the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.
It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination...

That is more a question inside a debate about abortion, but clearly, at least for me, this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives.

As for the autonomy of Quebec, well, there was a thread about that, mostly debated between Shan, JLurker and IParrot (Canada/Quebed thread); I contributed little, but did put my little 2cents in there...


"The status quo is the supression of culture"

I disagree: the status quo is the suspension of culture. Too long the suspension, stagnation comes into place, for human beings aren't static, and culture must follow. For better or for worse.


"The Feminist connection is this unproven belief that little boys and girls are essentially the same. Thus, the institutional insistance on the same expectations and treatment."

I'm quite skeptic about this belief that boys are given Ritalin to be as quiet as girls just because Feminists say so (if prominent feminists do say so...); I would tend more to believe that Ritalin is given to children because school teachers today just can't cut it, since laws prohibit the use of physical penalties to punish them... so just drug them! Also, one should also check about how much more students today's teachers have on their hands compared to the past, etc...
Unless I'm shown explicit proofs that teachers want to calm down boys to make them as quiet as girls (who may already be "calmed" down with Ritalin!), explanations as I have explicited above sound as good as yours (I do not pretend I have proof of my explanations, though; so I would have to dig some stuff too...)


"PROJECT ZAK"

One of many sad facts of today, is that children (especially young boys) now expect Nintendos or other such electronic devices to play with, a lot of the times. A baseball glove and ball aren't enough a lot of the times.
Until puberty comes of course... and then it's girls, skate-boards and hip-hop! (of course, I exagerate here!)


"Partial Birth Abortions"

You mentioned that this is for "late term (last week)" pregancies...
Do you really mean "9 months minus one week" pregnancies?
If so, I myself would be astonished.
I'm pro-choice, but not unconditionally.
I would not personally support unconditionally a specific abortion of a healthy well-formed foetus who is 9 months minus one week.
And I'm quite surprised that a legislation would approve of abortions that late in pregnancy, unconditionally.
I'll have to dig on this one also, to see what those who are for that procedure under those circumstances have to say (and if I see any eeevil Feminists behind them)...
I'm sure the matter isn't that simple...


"'Why see these steps as tactical schemings by evil powers (not in the religious sense)?'
Some steps are, and some aren't!"

Well, then I guess much the same applies to my exemple about the Right and its own "evils"...



Eruve

Well... It had to be a question of age to make you post here again, heh!
Women... ;) ;) ;)

[Gilthalion]

Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!

But, let the record show that unlike the stereotype, Eruve actually divulged her age!

My wife says I was born 50 and have just gotten even older!

Second childhood has evidently struck in my ripe old age, considering my enthusiam for these RPGs.

P.S.
Eruve, when are you returning to my message board? (Centering on a forthcoming novel featuring a female hobbit! The Mrs says its like 21st century Tolkien --she's too kind-- because it has the right flavor but actually includes a leading lady in the lead!)

[juntel]

Well, it wasn't easy to find a site that offered both point of views with as less bias as possible, for most of those I found used the usual trick of demonizing the opposition, that Gil looked quite tame compared to them...

Anyways, here's the site that seemed to collect most opinions in the least space: DILATION & EXTRACTION PROCEDURES -- All sides to the issue (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm)
(it isn't totally unbiased, though it tries; from what I've seen in my short search, it is less biased than most I've seen...)

From that place and many others, these common facts come out:

- The ban in its original form, and mostly in its subsequent form, said that:

(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both
(b) As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.

...later adding that partial-birth abortion would be allowed if it "was necessary to save the life of the woman upon whom it was performed, and no other form of abortion would suffice for that purpose."

The bill was passed, then successfully vetoed by Clinton.
A lot of those who opposed the ban claimed to do so because in the above exception "partial-birth abortions" wouldn't be allowed even if the woman would be severely disabled or would suffer very serious long term health problems, but wouldn't be at risk of dying.
Those for the ban wouldn't accept that kind of compromise, and the woman would have to be at risk of death for them to "accept" partial-birth abortion in this case.

I simplified a bit the above, due to space; follow the link for more info, or do a search on AltaVista or Google.

Now people could go around and say these and those and whatever were lying etc...
I don't care.
There was a resolution proposed, which, with a simple amendment, would have passed all the steps and become law.

Anyways... I could go on but what the heck!

I maintain my position in my previous post.
And the ban, with the proper amendment that would easily have become law, would find in me a defender of it; and that wouldn't make me less pro-choice.
But the ban as formulated by its writers is clearly too restrictive in asking a death threathening situation for the admission of the procedure, rather than accepting it also in other cases.

One could argue that a lot of PBAs are made for simpler reasons, etc...
But so what, since if the resolution had become law, those simpler reasons wouldn't be admitted even considering the amendments.

Politics...
I like what the guy said in the link I gave above:

"The bill will probably be reintroduced yearly. It serves both political parties well: Republicans can use it to trash Democrats for having no regard for human life. Democrats can use it to trash Republicans for having no respect for a woman's choice to avoid disabling injuries. It is too good a political football for politicians to ignore, particularly during an election year."

Indeed...

Again, I maintain my position on the subject as told in my previous post.
But also, I do not support the proposed ban as it is.
It is so close though to being acceptable...


(BTW, I remember in the last season of Mork&Mindy that they had a child... a full grown man, middle-aged; for on Ork, babies are born as old adult, and "grow" young!
So if you're born at 50... Nanoo-Nanoo!)

[Eruve]

I divulged my age since there was no sense in hiding it. I've already divulged it on this board... Besides, in spite of North America's seeming fascination with youth, I say you're only as old as you feel. I don't feel like I'm anywhere near to being over the hill yet; I don't even think I've started to climb it! So there's nothing wrong with being 36.... I don't know what I'll tell you in four years, however...
Gil, I've been on your board almost every day, except today. I haven't seen anything new there lately. I've been trying to spend less time on-line so I can watch the Olympics. Have to keep the priorities in order, you know. ;)

[anduin]

Ritalin

My nephew is also on Ritalin and he absolutly has to have it. He was barely a C student before he started taking it. Now he is nearly an A student. He is much easier to live with (source: my sis) and I know that he is much more attentive when I talk to him as compared to years ago. Seems to me that he should be less interested in what his aunt has to say now than when he was much younger....he is now 15. I know nothing about football (his favorite subject) yet he will listen to me ramble on about Tolkien. ;) I am just mentioning this so those who may read this that are currently taking the drug may find some comfort that some do really need it and not all of it is prescribed to keep them calm for parents/teachers sake. I do know that it is a fact that it has been over prescribed, but not always. Prozac in my opinion is one of the most misunderstood drugs today. It has helped many people. In the early eighties a man entered Standard Grevuer (sp?) in Louisville, KY and shot a bunch of people. When it was found out that he was on Prozac it almost caused the drug to be banned.....BTW, he was given the wrong dosage or misdiagnosed or something (sorry, don't remember). Before that incident Prozac was virtually unheard of....unless of course you were manic/depressive or something and was prescribed it.

As for girls being quiet and well behaved compared to boys....you obviously did not go to school with me.

[Gilthalion]

Glad to see everyone back!

juntel
What the opponents of the ban do not tell you is that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions. That's the official position of the American Medical Association. (I'm pretty sure I'm right about that...)

Which means the argument is a pretext.

If the situation existed, there are those who would not compromise, but I could understand it in some extreme cases.

But even the doctor who created the procedure, finally admitted that there were no health benefits to it and it was simply developed to facilitate late term abortions.

Hard cases make bad laws, is what the lawyers say.


Eruve
Oh! I just never saw a comment on some of the chapters or anything beyond a certain point on the Outline. Is no news good news? :)


Anduin
Actually, I have a NIECE who is in a private Christian school (hardly a breeding ground for the public education mentality), where the teachers recommended an evaluation and a small dosage of Ritalin was prescribed and now she is an A student!

Plenty of folk are indeed helped!

Now the Mrs is calling me to dinner, and I can't be late!

[Johnny Lurker]

A stupid question, which I really do want an answer to (not a debate on - this is most certainly not the place).

In what situation would it be medically necessary to remove the fetus's brain before extraction (PBA) for the mother's health, as opposed to simply removing the intact fetus?

I've been curious about this for a while, and I figure I've got a chance to find a solid answer now.

Oh, and this is my final word on demonization (no pun intended).

The word "religion(s)" has been used 56 times on this thread, not including this post.
The word "Christian(ity/s/whatever)" has been used 66 times on this thread, not including this post.
The word "church" has been used 13-16 times (I forget), excluding "Churchill" and this post, but including quotations.

It is of no consequence whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but religion has become entwined with this discussion. And if you do not see why this is significant...

The meaning of a certain slang term for cat is extremely different in a cat-lovers forum and in an "adults-only" forum.

[juntel]

anduin

I'm sure there are cases where Ritalin is in need; so it is also with Prozac, for cases of depression.
But, for the case of Prozac for example, there has been a "fad" about it, books written, that advocated its use for non-medical purposes, as a "boost" for people who aren't even clinically depressed. This isn't wrong in itself, but absolutely doens't take into account many other things that can make people feel better (ie people who are not clinically depressed). So the demand for Prozac was boosted up, so was its sale; now the fad has passed (and clinically depressed people are even offered other drugs, such as Paxil).


JLurker

Nice statistics.
What about the stats for "Right" and "Left"?
It's not because religion has entered into the thread that my use of "demonize" has necessarily relgious conotations...

And since I have effectively said that I didn't use it necessarily as a religious term, than that should settle it.


As for the cases in which there is a "need" for PBA (which, btw, is a term coined by pro-lifers, and which i'll use here without its intended biased meaning), I refer you to the link I gave in my previous post; also, a search for "partial birth abortion" on AltaVista will give a good 1000 links to the subject.
In short, here are some of the cases that have been put forward for the need for PBA:

"
- the fetus is dead
- the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger
- the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her
- the fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus
"

I may add here that in the cases above, the head of the foetus is too big, so extraction needs to be aided by the colapse of the cranium.

Many people who are for the ban would accept PBA in some of the above cases. But most people for the ban say that the above cases are not the only ones for which PBA is used, and that PBA has been used for cases in which the mothers life itself was not at risk (which i'm sure is true).
Most people against the ban itself, in the form it was presented, said that one should included the case where the woman's life isn't at risk, but in which the woman's health would be severly damageg with long-term consequences, etc...


Gil

About the AMA's position, you'll see that it has been playing yoyo, because one of their concern is that the doctors could be sued or imprisoned in some interpretation of the ban (so they did ask for some amendment).

But you say: "that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions"

Well, if that is so, then why not accept the amendment in the proposed ban? An amendment which stipulates that in cases of life threatening or health threatening situations, PBA could be performed?
If the creators of the ban where so sure about the AMA's position, or if they didn't have a further motive behind their ban, they they would have accepted the amendment, and the ban would be law today, Clinton wouldn't have vetoed it, and would have signed it.
Right?

But of course, that would have meant that they would have given Clinton the opportunity to sign that ban... and maybe they prefer that a Republican sign it... Ok, I admit, I'm a bit too sarcastic/paranoid here! I don't think the Right is so machiavelic here! (at least, I hope not...)

Politics... Right or Left, it makes me puke sometimes...

[Gilthalion]

<FLANDERS>Whoopsie doodle!</FLANDERS>

Well, at least this debate is not acrimonious! :)




"that the consensus of medical science is that there is no life threatening or health threatening situation which requires partial birth abortions"

Well, if that is so, then why not accept the amendment in the proposed ban? An amendment which stipulates that in cases of life threatening or health threatening situations, PBA could be performed?

"Health threatening" is the problem with the amendment, because that can be so loosely interpreted that it be considered more "unhealthy" to bear, or to deliver live, a viable foetus, than to abort it.

Besides, inducing labor, delivering the child breach and then finishing the procedure introduces more problems than it solves! This is why the AMA came down against it.

If the foetus is dead, this is not an issue.
If the foetus is so malformed that it would kill or harm the mother... ...only the extremists argue that the law would be applied against doctors in this scenario.

It is not at all certain that there would be lawsuits in this sort of situation, and it is almost certain that such a suit against a doctor in these circumstances would lose, I think. I understand the AMA's concerns, but when has a law ever stopped a lawsuit.

This is why lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad laws."

Speculation: there are already cases, I'm sure, that set a precedent handy for this scenario. I can't imagine that our legal system would not deal with the matter effectively.

So the amendment is unnecessary, gives "wiggle room" for the PBA industry (who would find a financial incentive to define "health" in multitudinous ways), and it is better for the court to deal with the (at most) handful of suits that might result if the amendment is not passed.


If the creators of the ban where so sure about the AMA's position, or if they didn't have a further motive behind their ban, they they would have accepted the amendment, and the ban would be law today, Clinton wouldn't have vetoed it, and would have signed it.

Right?

Speculation: I believe another pretext would have been manufactured.


But of course, that would have meant that they would have given Clinton the opportunity to sign that ban... and maybe they prefer that a Republican sign it... Ok, I admit, I'm a bit too sarcastic/paranoid here! I don't think the Right is so machiavelic here! (at least, I hope not...)

I can't deny that political calculus was probably in play on the Right as well. I'm not sure it drove anything more than the timing of the votes, however. The Republicans like games of this sort, but aren't any good at them!


Politics... Right or Left, it makes me puke sometimes...

Ditto! (I would have said "Right AND Left!")

[juntel]

"Speculation: I believe another pretext would have been manufactured"

Which is why the amemdment should have been accepted as it is, to insure its passing. If the amendment was the avowed sole point of disaproval, then no other pretext could have passed through...
Anyways, we'll never know.
And that's probably what all the people in place, Right and Left, want us to feel...


""Health threatening" is the problem with the amendment, because that can be so loosely interpreted that it be considered more "unhealthy" to bear, or to deliver live, a viable foetus, than to abort it."

Well, I don't find the ban as written acceptable. I did read though on other (right-wing, etc) web sites the argument about the "health threatening" definition...
I also understant that the interpretation of a law is often left to the courts: it's basically why they're there.
I wonder how much of a more precise definition of "health threatening" could be made to be acceptable by both parties, without beeing too technical for the voters/deciders to understand and vote on.

Clearly, I think, both "sides" would agree I think to ban such abortion procedures for cases which clearly do not involve "health threatening" situation (mental or physical), in very advanced stages of pregnancy (third semester for example).
The ban in question could have been modified so as to cover at least those cases for which both agree; it would have been a ban of less extent than the original one, but at least it would have been done. And it wouldn't prevent other similar recomendations to be made in the future for the more litigious areas of the question.

Anyways, such is politics.

And as someone said (a pastor or reverend) in the link I gave, these PBA are just an minute number of cases of abortion, and obscures a wider debate.
Of course, contrary to the pastor or reverand, i'm pro-choice; my point here is that if this procedure is seen by the public as some kind of usual method in all cases of abortion, then they will have a skewed wrong opinion of abortion, something with which the pro-lifers may take "advantage" of (at least those politically minded).

But to get back to our original debate, for which you gave this example of PBA, I think that efforts have been done on both sides; except that neither sides trust each other, and both sides think that the other side will take advantage of the concessions that the other will make: therefore no concessions are made by either sides.

So, I don't think that your example of the PBA debate is a valid example of feminists/Feminists attempt at dominating men.

[Gilthalion]

So, I don't think that your example of the PBA debate is a valid example of feminists/Feminists attempt at dominating men. (Emphasis mine--G.)

The attempt suceeded. I don't see how you can't find it a valid example!

But if I recall, this was more an example of the effectiveness and the pervasiveness of the Feminists' extreme agenda, rather than specifically relating to this agenda's seperate goal of domination, in any case.

More to the point, I still think the reproductive rights of the man should also be at issue in the abortion debate. Right now, men are second class citizens in the reproductive rights debate, by law. That is not equality, in my opinion, it is domination.


***
I won't go to the mat with you defending the insincere gamesmanship, hackery, and demogoguery of the Republican Party! In fact, my sharp criticisms earn me plenty of rebukes from some of the party faithful. (Most of the rest down here, tend to agree with me about the GOP Establishment. Esentially, Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party.)

[juntel]

"I don't see how you can't find it a valid example!"

That example, ie the ban on PBA, isn't valid for what you wanted it to be, since essentially the only point of disagreement was on a simple and understandable amendment. The ban on PBA wasn't absolutely/entirely rejected. The fact that the amendment was rejected also surely enhance the distrust towards the ban (as it is written).

You have said earlier (http://pub2.ezboard.com/fbenjaminstolkienboardgeneralmessages.showAddReply ScreenFromWeb?topicID=611.topic&index=144) :
"The politicians themselves hide behind the slippery phrase "health of the mother" to opt out of the ban."
Well, this is far from being simply a Feminist scheme to oppose the ban. I think and feel the "health of the mother" is an important issue that has its place, whatever reason the politicians involved had in mind.



"Right now, men are second class citizens in the reproductive rights debate, by law. That is not equality, in my opinion, it is domination."

Well, we'll have to agree to (strongly) disagree here; so I'll just re-write here some of what I wrote earlier in this thread:

- "the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

- "the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"


Sorry to quote myself; it's somewhat redundant.
I guess I'm getting lazy!



"I won't go to the mat with you defending the insincere gamesmanship, hackery, and demogoguery of the Republican Party!"

I didn't expect you to.
Although on the subject of PBA we disagree with the cause of the reject of the ban, I hope you see we agree that there should be such a regulation out there.
What may separate us, and also the two sides in Washington, is that perhaps elusive notion of "health risk".


"Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party"

I'm afraid I don't completely understand that comparison (I'm no US citizen, and I don't trust TV's or media's portrayal of people, even US media!)
Are CC condescended by the Reps? Are AA by the Dems?

And if I ask further, out of curiosity, would you say that Blacks are treated in the Rep. Party as Cons. Christians are treated in the Dem. Party?

Just curious...


(btw... what about that Lyndon LaRouche guy? He even has followers here in Canada and Quebec, who have stands outside the Universities to "talk" to people about his ideas... Strange fellow. Is he still running as an independant this time? Or is he still in prison... I'm out of touch with news about him, so I ask to people who know more... Too lazy to go on the net see his web site, I'm sure he has one... Of course, this thread isn't the ideal place to talk about him... never mind...)

[Gilthalion]

I think and feel the "health of the mother" is an important issue that has its place, whatever reason the politicians involved had in mind.

Hard to legislate "health of the mother." Especially in light of the fact that "health of the mother" is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure. It is practically the least healthy option. The "elusive health risk" you speak of is elusive because it is prefabricated in all but the most rare cases, and these would withstand legal challenge, in my opinion. The number of PBAs is alleged by some to be much higher now (I heard 6,000 from one source) than in the days of Congressional testimony.

The debate over the responsibility and the choices made when the conceiving couple chose to have intercourse, as opposed to prenatal reconsiderations, has probably already been hashed out, and we may have to agree to disagree there as well.





Hmmmmm.

Are we done? :)








"Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party"

...Are CC condescended by the Reps? Are AA by the Dems?
...would you say that Blacks are treated in the Rep. Party as Cons. Christians are treated in the Dem. Party?

Yes. Yes. No.

Both constituencies are taken for granted by their respective parties. Here is the funny thing. Among the Christians in the Black community, who comprise most of the voters I imagine, the same moral/family values and work ethic is held! In these things, the Black churches are often more conservative than White churches! Yet these constituencies, with shared faith & values, are worlds apart in how they vote. Kept that way by exactly the sort of political games that we both detest.

Conservative Christians are not to be found in the Democratic Party. The few and very few exceptions do not even come to mind, a couple of Congressmen from Mississippi, I think. They are not welcomed, and are excluded from leadership or input and are not supported by the party.

Republicans, on the other hand, will actually do backflips to get Blacks to vote GOP. (They just never get around to it.) But they do welcome Blacks into the party and make their sincere but oh-so-clumsy-white overtures from time to time with gradually increasing success. GWBush actually addressed the NAACP meeting and was well received by the general audience. Black conservatives and moderates are becoming more vocal. The Democrats cannot maintain a 95% lock on the Black vote forever...




...Lyndon LaRouche...

Har har hardee har har! :lol:

What a nut! He thinks the Queen of England is behind the Drug Cartels...

He ran in the Democratic Primaries, and he scored ridiculously well, low double digits, against Al Gore after Bill Bradly dropped out.

I had some of his people on my talkshow before, talking about the economy. They are actually surprisingly competent and LaRouche once in a while demonstrates a startlingly clear grasp of The Big Picture...

...then he starts in on the Queen again...




Which brings us back to the topic of this thread! :D

[juntel]

"Hard to legislate 'health of the mother'"

That would be left to the doctor attending the individual women to decide, of course; it is indeed difficult to give a definition that would that care of all individual cases in the future.
Each of these women that need the abortion are indisputably individuals that must be treated as such.


"Especially in light of the fact that 'health of the mother' is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure"

A bold statement that would need proved. You again put these so-called extremists in an all-powerfull position, saying that they emit absolute lies.
These words must be supported by facts, right now they are just words...


"The "elusive health risk" you speak of is elusive because it is prefabricated in all but the most rare cases, and these would withstand legal challenge, in my opinion"

You initially talked about PBA above as a very late term abortion: "the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style", which for me meant "9 months minus 1 week".
Now, such kind of abortion, so late, can only be done if the woman's health is at risk, under the present law, right?
And what the "PBA ban" recommendation was supposed to do was to enforce this for late term pregnancies, but willfully excluding the woman's health risk issue, right?

Gil, I can understand that it is difficult to find a way to put in words such a thing as "health risks" for a pregnant woman, especially in legal words, especially for yet unknown cases that may (and will) happen. But to avoid the health risk issue completely is simply to deny that there can ever be a woman in a situation in which her ill health would require the "pba" procedure. Of course you can go on and say that the AMA has said that such a case doesn't exist, but then again it can't predict all the cases that may arise; which is why the decision should ultimately be made by the woman's treating doctor. For this isn't simply a question of statistics, but of individual women, who are indisputably feeling and hurting persons when they seek an abortion.

Again, I maintain my previous position on "PBA" in the late terms you described as above. No such procedure should be done unconditionally.
But I have to oppose as fiercely any proposition that unconditionally ban such a procedure. This just can't be.

But I guess that this would mean compromising on the part of pro-lifers, who, after all, are aiming for an all-out ban in the long run (with a few exceptions, so few...).
Which is why, after all, we can only agree to disagree...


So what should be done?

Well, to make a clearly worded recommendation that re-inforce the illegality of abortion in very late-term pregnancies (as described by Gil above, or third trimester), except in cases where the treating doctor medically judges that the individual case he is treating needs the Dilation-Extraction procedure (what the pro-lifers call "PBA"). And if the particular procedure is to be single-out, then let that procedure be exactly defined and described (unlike "health", a medical procedure is clearly definable).

No Congressman/Congresswoman, no Senator, no President can know the individual cases a doctor is treating; the decision is his, with the accord of the pregnant woman.

If a healthy woman in her 8th month of pregnancy wants an abortion, and that the continuation of her pregnancy would undoubtedly be of no risk at all, then one would have an example of an abominable situation (but which I doubt exists really, unless mental health is an issue...)
Only such cases should be aimed for by legislation; but agains, the health of the woman in question is evaluated by her treating doctor, not a politician.


So, are we done? :)

I guess not. We won't be the ones voting for or against that anyway...



"Lyndon LaRouche"

I tell you, he even has his minions up here! And these minions are not americans, they are french-quebecers like me, but believing and following him!

But I thought he had run inside the Republican Party...

[Gilthalion]

"Hard to legislate 'health of the mother'"

That would be left to the doctor attending the individual women to decide, of course; it is indeed difficult to give a definition that would that care of all individual cases in the future.

Yeah. You can't. The problem is that the same physicians who lied to Congress (including the inventor of the procedure, who recanted) could easily lie again and say, "Sure, Martha here absolutely needed this PBA! Why, she might have suffered depression otherwise!"


"Especially in light of the fact that 'health of the mother' is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure"

A bold statement that would need proved. You again put these so-called extremists in an all-powerfull position, saying that they emit absolute lies. These words must be supported by facts, right now they are just words...

Ah, me. Well, they are not "all powerful" though their will is law right now, and that is mighty powerful indeed.

Mmmmm. I'll concede that a lot of folk, like yourself, for instance, see the legislation as written in such need of the "health" clause that you will not support it as written. But I honestly think this is a mistake because the health concern can be answered without the legislation.

The AMA stongly disputes the health benefits of PBA. The doctor who invented it now says that there is only one purpose for D&E, and that is to provide a PBA. Again, while I appreciate the health risk concern, I think it is overblown. If a doctor decides, for some currently unimaginable reason, that the lesser evil on the operating table is a D&E, then I am certain that his decision would withstand legal challenge, if any.

I should have qualified "anyone" with "the medical community." Bad writing. Among OB GYNs etc, according to the AMA, and also the inventor of D&E, the procedure is simpy PBA and is only performed by abortion providers in any case. These folk, by and large, make a living performing abortions and are not engaged in treating life/health threatening situations anyway.

The argument is spurious, but resonates with the broader issue of "health" in the abortion field.

If the ban says nothing about health, then the issue can be adjudicated if/when it comes up.


...more later... (breakfast/church...)

[anduin]

Seeing that the "offical"abortion thread has been closed....and I am not about to reopen it....abortion debate in this thread will be acceptable. Just wanted you two (and anyone else) to know that. ;) Besides (IMO) I can't think of anyone else that it has to do more with than women.

[juntel]

I'll come back later tonight.
That will give Gil the opportunity to finish his reply.

Eruve, anduin and other women are welcomed here to give their opinions!
It's about you, after all...

[Gilthalion]

You initially talked about PBA above as a very late term abortion: "the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style", which for me meant "9 months minus 1 week". Now, such kind of abortion, so late, can only be done if the woman's health is at risk, under the present law, right?

No. Under the present law, precisely as the extremists wish, an abortion can legally be performed at any time with or without reason of health or life as a consideration. This is not what most folks who support abortion rights (the Left) would desire.

I maintain that the status quo is an extreme interpretation that is the law and that probably no one here supports it.


...to avoid the health risk issue completely is simply to deny that there can ever be a woman in a situation in which her ill health would require the "pba" procedure.
...
Again, I maintain my previous position on "PBA" in the late terms you described as above. No such procedure should be done unconditionally.
But I have to oppose as fiercely any proposition that unconditionally ban such a procedure. This just can't be.

Again, I think that adjudication of any hypotheticals is the answer, not legislation that flies in the face of what the medical community knows.

I further do not believe, as we both concluded earlier, that the politicians, Left & Right, will permit reasonable compromise.


We won't be the ones voting for or against that anyway...

Aye, there's the rub. I feel that you and I, despite occassional sharp words, might reach a reasonable compromise in time, but Congress, never. Not while the Executive is in the hands of one party, and the Legislature is controlled by another.

Backing away for a second, I think that any controversial legislation of this nature ought to pass by 2/3 supermajority anyway. You could get that in a Referendum, but not among politicians.

This is another reason why a Federal, one size fits all solution does not work. Allowing States to decide such things, as originally provided for in our Constitution, would let birds of a feather to flock together.

Far less trouble for all if we could locally live and let live!


anduin, I appreciate the special case here. I think that the quantity and the length of posts here has driven off the less serious, and the abortion part of the debate is manageable, but unless I'm mistaken, it's about finished. We know where we each stand I think, on the general issue of Abortion, and need not go there.

This is more a question of the difficulty of finding a compromise between sides that will have none of that, despite the widespread (even on the Left!) desire to see viable foetuses (foetii?) given a chance at survival, and the equally widespread (even on the Right!) concern over the mother's health.

My point was, and I think it is proven, that an extremist agenda is the law of the land in this case, whatever caveats there may be about the proposed ban. This is to the point that an agenda can be (and is) engaged and defended by an extremist group and that this agenda has effective control over far larger groups.

I maintain that a similar process has been engaged by the stringpullers who desire to advance the Communist agenda. Feminism is a useful tool in their hands. Obviously, I do not disagree, I even support, the purported aims of feminism.

But all of us, it seems,
deplore the fierce extremes!

:D

[juntel]

================================================== ================
Well, first of all, something that should be done at least once, posting the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR00929:) itself:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus or infant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, if no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.

`(c) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the infant and completing the delivery; and

`(2) the terms `fetus' and `infant' are interchangeable.

`(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the father, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus or infant, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all psychological injuries occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion;

even if the mother consented to the performance of an abortion.

`(3) A civil action may not be commenced under this section if--

`(A) the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct;

`(B) the plaintiff consented to the abortion; or

`(C) the plaintiff is a father who abandoned or abused the mother.

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
1531'.

I will add here the Summary (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR00929:@@@D):

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit performing a partial birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother and no other medical procedure would suffice. Prescribes penalties.

Defines a "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which a living fetus is partially vaginally delivered and killed before delivery is completed.

Authorizes the father and, if the mother is under 18 years of age, the maternal grandparents of the fetus to obtain specified relief in a civil action, even if the mother consented to the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct, the plaintiff consented to the abortion, or the plaintiff is a father who abandoned or abused the mother.

Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.



Another interesting link is an article called "Legal Issues in Medicine": Partial-Birth Abortion, Congress, and the Constitution: http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0339/0004/0279.asp (http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0339/0004/0279.asp), from the New England Journal of Medicine.

================================================== ================

"The problem is that the same physicians who lied to Congress (including the inventor of the procedure, who recanted) could easily lie again and say, 'Sure, Martha here absolutely needed this PBA! Why, she might have suffered depression otherwise!'"

Oh? And how many of them did lie? (for a certainty, not in your opinion...)

Let's see now what you mean here: if D&X (Dilation and Extraction, what you call PBA) is allowable for health reasons, then a doctor might just "lie" to use the procedure at the woman's request?
And what if there WAS a real health risk in her particular situation, a health risk that your ban just doesn't take into account?

To use such a reason to remove from the woman's doctor the decision of which procedure to perform the abortion just doesn't make sense... except maybe for those who think that most abortions (D&X or not) should be illegal.


"The AMA stongly disputes the health benefits of PBA"

In the context of late-term pregnancies, which for them and the medical world is after 26 weeks. They don't say that these late-term pregnancies can't be health/life threatening; their opposition is on the procedure for these late-term pregnancies, not the abortions themselves. Their position, in fact, is that the D&X (or "pba") procedure is not necessarily the only one to perform the abortion (the opponents of the ban say that D&X is the only procedure for some conditions at some point, after 26 weeks, that would minimize the health risks for the woman).

(D&X is used also before 26 weeks, in the 2nd trimester, but the AMA and in general the legislations do not prevent it at this point, although the ban, which is supposed to prevent D&X in late-term pregnancies -- 26 weeks -- is to many opinions so ill-written that no such time specification is clearly implied... which is exactly what the religious bigots want anyway.)


"If a doctor decides, for some currently unimaginable reason, that the lesser evil on the operating table is a D&E, then I am certain that his decision would withstand legal challenge, if any."

How many though would hesitate because they are afraid of the religious bigots attacks? That hesitation could cost the woman's life. That shouldn't be so.
He/she should be free to decide without the prospect of an unjust trial based upon an unjust legislation.



"Under the present law, precisely as the extremists wish, an abortion can legally be performed at any time with or without reason of health or life as a consideration. This is not what most folks who support abortion rights (the Left) would desire"

I wasn't talking about all abortion, only the D&X. I do know that an abortion can legally, and also legitimally, be performed at most times or pregnancy; in the third semester, especially regarding the woman's health condition. Pro-choicers like me do however question ourselves where is the acceptable limit in the late third trimester.

You did mention the "last week" of pregnancy many posts ago; I was quite shocked at that, thinking that you were saying that abortions were performed where a viable fetus was aborted at one week from normal would-be birth. I'm quite skeptic now that this really happened, if the woman wasn't in any health danger. You have any source on that?

The more I read on this subject, from both sides on the web, the more I see that not all agree about what "late term" means, or in what trimester was the ban on D&X supposed to be, etc...

And of course, I see the pro-lifers as the worse at it, imo; but of course, such is the web, anybody can just make their own sites, and I shouldn't judge every pro-lifer from what I see on the web!!!



"Far less trouble for all if we could locally live and let live!"

And why not apply that at the individual level: let the woman have the last word on what to do with her life?


"My point was, and I think it is proven, that an extremist agenda is the law of the land in this case, whatever caveats there may be about the proposed ban"

Not proven at all.
You have only shown that an ill-written ban by religious bigots that couldn't even amend it by an altogether important and justifiable exception based on health threatening risk, didn't get to be made law.
The present law isn't an extremists' law, it is just a law preventing people (usually religious bigots) from intervening into matters that do not concern them.


"an agenda can be (and is) engaged and defended by an extremist group and that this agenda has effective control over far larger groups"

Hmmm... That reminds me of the so-called "Moral Majority"...
****ola... Some leftists were even afraid of them, they were a bit right, but just a bit... the rest was paranoia...
...and paranoia is just what your sentence is about.

You intend to call them "extremists", then I'll continue to use "religious bigots" to describe the bigots that want to intervene into people's lives to enforce their own relgious biased values.



I will end this post by addressing (again) the issue of "health risk" for the D&X procedure.

A amendment to the ban was proposed by two Democrat woman Senators, that would have added "serious adverse health consequences to the woman" as an additional exception to the prohibition (see the New England Journal of Medicine link above). With this amendment to the bill, concerns from both parties about the application of the procedure would have been mainly answered (not to my taste anymore, but that ain't the point).

But opponents to such kind of an amendment, including you Gil, say that there is no such health risks grave enough to necessitate D&X, and/or that it would permit practitioners to simply lie in order to perform the procedure without beeing prosecuted.

I have a problem with this. These practitioners, including "abortion providers", are doctors. They treat people or assist them in medical-related issues.
Yet, they are refused the possiblity to do what they know how to do: give their medical assesment of the health risks associated with a particular pregnancy for a particular woman.
Some will tell you that there are no such health risks, some others will say there are.
And most of those who are in the medical profession who say there are none, say so only related to the procedure, not the abortion itself: they say that there are other methods of abortion in late-term (after 26 weeks of pregnancy) than D&X; to which other medical praticioners will reply that these other methods increases the stresses and health risks on the woman.

So, then, the medical position on this issue is, anyways, about the procedure, not the abortion itself (to which, I guess, I'll be answered that this is part of an American Communist Conspiracy...).

Refusing to give the doctors and their patients the last word, on the basis that they could lie is also hypothetical.

And this practice of removing a doctor's legitimate ability to judge for himself on a medical situation on the spot -- and to worry about if his legitimate actions are weirdly voted illegal -- is quite worrying.

It is one thing to stop those who would abuse of our system, and the "ban" could have helped stoping that; but by removing from the honest doctors the power to decide when a woman's health is at risk is going too far.

The ban, as written, is unacceptable.

It should include a "health risk" exception
(as well as beeing more precise on technical terms, like "infant"!!!, and at specifying that it is concerned with late-term/after-26-week pregnancies)

[Gilthalion]

It all gets intertwined.

Physicians risk a lawsuit everytime they pick up a scalpel. That's why their malpractic insurance is so high and consequently part of the reason why medical care is more expensive than it should be.

I don't think much of a doctor who would put the risk of a lawsuit by an outside party above the health of the patient.
Congress can write no law that would fully protect the doctor anyway.

Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure.

No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother. It is used for providing an abortion to a woman who has decided she doesn't want her child to live. It was developed to satisfy the practical concerns of being able to perform such a procedure without the regulations that might accompany surgery. Its practical end is abortion, not health. The procedure is performed as late as one week, and that was one reasons (no doubt) for its invention. So that this fuzzy legal situation could exist and a loophole thus created.

As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began.

I congratulate you on your determination, resourcefulness, and desire to get to the bottom of the issue.

But again and again you demonstrate my precise point that the extremists who want these procedures, do have their way, and furthermore do have you convinced that it is justified over a technicality. This is how an extremist position can dominate a much larger set of people.

My point is proven abundantly.


`(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, if no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.

Again, I think the doctor is amply covered in the extremely unlikely event that a D&E is considered necessary. As a layman, I can only agree with the AMA in this case, which makes the argument that other, less dangerous, procedures are available even so.

The procedure and the amendment are bogus.


Having said that, I do think you have a point about some sort of Third Trimester amendment. We are talking about a single procedure, and the fact that the Pro Life side did not offer an amendment which considered that, is emblematic of their own agenda's goals. I argue with them, saying let's regulate what we can and do what we can with reasonable people who will vote against the extremists given a reasonable opportunity.

Hearts and minds should/must be changed first.

Whatever bill passes and is signed (which I predict will not happen until a Republican is in the Oval Office), there will be a legal challenge.

As for the religious bigots, knowing literally thousands of them as I do, I can only say that they would rather not spend their time and their resources on this. The argument that they just want to tell a woman what to do with her own body because of zealous religious bigotry falls apart upon talking with them. They believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk. And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body, so there!

[juntel]

"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure.
No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.


"It was developed to satisfy the practical concerns of being able to perform such a procedure without the regulations that might accompany surgery. Its practical end is abortion, not health."

Let's not get too much out of the debate here: were are talking (I hope we agree) about D&X performed in the late stages of the third semester.
That the D&X method is used in the second trimester as only an abortive method is not what the "ban" was specifically about (unless one wants to give a fuzzier meaning to "late term"), and it shouldn't.

The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

So an important thing people must remember in this debate, is when some people are saying that a lot of D&X, or PBAs, are performed, one must make sure at what stage of pregnancy these numbers (if any) are quoted.

And if the D&X procedure is made illegal as written in the ban, then there are the other methods, which increase the health risk of the woman, but which wouldn't be covered by the ban.
If the cranium cannot be reduced in size, then such methods closely akin to a Cezarian can be used, increasing the risk of infection...
But in that case I guess the religious bigots would call that a judgement from their god...


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?


I'd like here to link people to this information: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Answers Questions on Third Trimester Termination Procedures (http://www.bodypolitic.org/mag/back/art/0701pg21.htm (http://www.bodypolitic.org/mag/back/art/0701pg21.htm))
A very important page to read, imo, and can prevent future misconceptions (no pun intended).


"They [the religious bigots] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?


"And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body"

Again, I have to quote myself:

"- "the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

- "the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"

[Gilthalion]

I appreciate your diligence, and if you feel that I have not sufficiently answered the main points of my argument I will accept that.

I will also disagree if you think that means that I think you have proven your argument. It only means that I will at some point decline to continue working to disprove a multitude of points.

I don't mean to be discourteous, I'm just simply not inclined to continue much longer.

I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise. But let me for courtesy sake try to answer your last post.



"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure. No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.

Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written.


The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

Exactly. The previous point I made pertains. The amendment simply adds too much wiggle-room for the unscrupulous. It would be interesting to know if the conception (pun intended) of the amendment began in a lawyer's office or a doctor's. The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis.

The news of the last couple of days contains an illustration of why the amendment is unecessary. As I was pointing out, the judicial branch of government can be trusted to handle any legal problems.

A pair of cojoined infants (Siamese Twins, the 19th century vulgarization) had to be separated or they both would die. The rub was that only one could live.

The religious extremist parents thought it wrong to make the choice of which one should live and which should die.

On an expedited basis, the case was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents.


***
I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs, but we may never sort out the HOW from the WHY as to the main point of my use of the issue to support my contention that the influence of the Feminist extremists is pervasive.

That was the point (I think!?!) and I believe it is proven.

The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

[i] You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?

This is a reasonable request. I don't know if I can find it or not, since I didn't learn of it on the internet and I have not recorded broadcasts I have seen/heard or saved clippings from periodicals/newspapers I have read.

I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (Actually, you seem better at that sort of thing than me! But I'll see what I can find!) Would you accept a "Christian" source?


"They [Pro Life adherents] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?

What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?

You do not know when Life begins. Conception makes as much sense as any other arbitrary point in the pregnancy you might name.

In any given region of political autonomy, one side or the other will have their bias enforced. Which is why I think autonomy should be more regionalized than it is.

But in terms of a compromise since regional autonomy is unlikely, I believe that health can be understood as an overiding concern prior to viability, after which Life or Death choices must be in the physician's hands.

(But even that will have as many loopholes as lawyers can concoct!)

[Gilthalion]

I appreciate your diligence, and if you feel that I have not sufficiently answered the main points of my argument I will accept that.

I will also disagree if you think that means that I think you have proven your argument. It only means that I will at some point decline to continue working to disprove a multitude of points.

I don't mean to be discourteous, I'm just simply not inclined to continue much longer.

I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise. But let me for courtesy sake try to answer your last post.



"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure. No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.

Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written.


The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

Exactly. The previous point I made pertains. The amendment simply adds too much wiggle-room for the unscrupulous. It would be interesting to know if the conception (pun intended) of the amendment began in a lawyer's office or a doctor's. The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis.

The news of the last couple of days contains an illustration of why the amendment is unecessary. As I was pointing out, the judicial branch of government can be trusted to handle any legal problems.

A pair of cojoined infants (Siamese Twins, the 19th century vulgarization) had to be separated or they both would die. The rub was that only one could live.

The religious extremist parents thought it wrong to make the choice of which one should live and which should die.

On an expedited basis, the case was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents.


***
I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs, but we may never sort out the HOW from the WHY as to the main point of my use of the issue to support my contention that the influence of the Feminist extremists is pervasive.

That was the point (I think!?!) and I believe it is proven.

The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

[i] You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?

This is a reasonable request. I don't know if I can find it or not, since I didn't learn of it on the internet and I have not recorded broadcasts I have seen/heard or saved clippings from periodicals/newspapers I have read.

I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (Actually, you seem better at that sort of thing than me! But I'll see what I can find!) Would you accept a "Christian" source?


"They [Pro Life adherents] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?

What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?

You do not know when Life begins. Conception makes as much sense as any other arbitrary point in the pregnancy you might name.

In any given region of political autonomy, one side or the other will have their bias enforced. Which is why I think autonomy should be more regionalized than it is.

But in terms of a compromise since regional autonomy is unlikely, I believe that health can be understood as an overiding concern prior to viability, after which Life or Death choices must be in the physician's hands.

(But even that will have as many loopholes as lawyers can concoct!)



"And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body"

Again, I have to quote myself:
...the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

Have you ever waited with a wife bearing a child? I have heard that a husband might have quite a lot to do...

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly.

This is NOT about men at all is it?

That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

If he forced her against her will to conceive, that is rape, one of the exceptions that most Pro Lifers are willing to tolerate. If it was consensual, then they were taking their chances.

Drugs feel good, too. Doing some of them can have unintended but predictable consequences, too. If the consequence of sex is birth, then it also involves another individual, more arguably so in a legal sense, after viability.

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

This is NOT only NOT about the man, it is NOT about the infant. It is ONLY about the woman.

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"

The reproductive rights of men are of no weight whatsoever, by law, as the Feminists intended.


Men are dominated.


================================================== =========

I'll try to take time to check out the link you provided.

[juntel]

"'Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.'
Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written"

The ban, as written, removes from the doctor his/her prerogative to judge wheter the particular condition on the treated woman in the late term (after 26 weeks, say) of her pregnancy endangers severely her health. The amendment gives them back this possibility.

So, that the ban has been vetoed out, is not some kind of victory for so-called "extremists" Feminists; it is rather a defeat for those religious bigots that anyway wanted a fuzzy legislation that could be misinterpreted or extended to other kinds of abortions or at other stages of the woman's pregnancy.

The present law on abortion is in no way the result of so-called "Feminist extremists"; that feminism and other advances of our societies have made it is undeniable.

The religious bigots' will to ultimately prevent women from having any choice in having an abortion or not is a regression in individual freedom.

BTW:

extremist (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=extremist) : (noun) somebody with extreme opinions: somebody who holds extreme or radical political or religious beliefs

bigot (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=bigot):mad: (noun) intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views

Feminism isn't necessarily extremist; imo, the extremist' factions inside feminism haven't much impact on today's society. What Gil try to describe as extremist feminism is rather a feminism that is extemely far from what he would accept... but that doesn't make it extremist Feminism!
The actual law on abortion, and the veto of the ill-written ban discussed here, are no extremist point of view; the TRUE extremists are those that wrote the ban, excluding from it legitimate exceptions, and refused an amendment that would have put in those exceptions and insured it to become law. The TRUE extemists are those that ultimately attack individual freedom and try to push down other people's troath their beliefs, especially when it doesn't concern the religious bigots themselves.

As for bigotism, as defined above, it applies oh! so well to the mainstream political religious zelots that try to legislate other people's ways of living their personal lives. The main point in that definition is intolerance. The feminists/Feminists may be insistant on what they believe, but it is about individual freedom, about what individuals can have the right to do with themselves, in the matter of abortion. Whereas the Religious Right (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that personal area, without care of what those women want for themselves. That is intolerance. That is religious bigotism.


"The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis."

No. Read again. It only talks about life-endangerment, without talking about health endangerment. You might say this last one doesn't exist, but others do. And anyway, that should be for the doctor to decide.
The amendment isn't bogus; without this amendment (which was a compromise in itself from the "left"), the ban is utterly unacceptable.
In fact, the more I read it, and the more I see its description from relgious bigots web sites, the more I see that it should entirely be rewritten so as to me more precise as to the medical terms and procedures.


"I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs"

Rather, to regulate them, and only for late third trimester abortions, so as to ensure that they are done for health risk reasons if the fetus is viable.


"The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.
"

If by PBA you mean D&X, then you can't say that the "majority of folks on the Left as well" are against D&X; the ban we were talking about in this thread is supposed to be that procedure as taken place in late third trimester of pregnancy. That this may not still be clear is a direct result of the ill-written/well-scheamed ban the bigots have proposed.


-'As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began.'
-'Can you provided me a source of information(...)s?'
-'I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (...) Would you accept a "Christian" source?'

I can accept a christian source. Wheter I can accept a bigoted source (right or left) is another question... Please choose it carefully. I've seen some "christian" source stupidely saying that abortion and feminists are works of the antichrist... I hope you won't give me that kind of bull*** of a site!
Also, please consider the link I gave in my previous post, and do consider again my original question:
"You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy , and if itself is completely healthy , just at the woman's whim...
Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks ? or even 24 weeks?"


"What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?
"

Since we can know with absolute certainty on neither, the individuals should make their own choices here, concerning abortion.
Women, under the present law, have that choice. A choice that the religious minded people (ok, i'll let go of "bigots", even if you won't let go of "extremists") want to crush out.


"On an expedited basis, the case [Siamese twins] was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents"

Of course, these were not fetuses (fetii?, don't know either!).
But that's not your point anyways.
In the case of abortion, the pregnant woman and the doctor agree; noone from outside has anything to do with it... but of course, as one can read, the ill-written ban mentions that the plaintiff can not only be the male genitor ("father"), but also the grand-parents if the woman is less than 18 y.old. Unacceptable as well, and it's a wonder why an amendment on that wasn't asked for... too much compromises were made already by the left by asking only the health risk amendment, but still people like you wouldn't accept that.


"If it was consensual, then they were taking their chances.
"

They take their chances if they don't use proper contraception methods (which a lot of religious extremists also want banned, not surprisingly...).
But obviously, if the woman becomes pregnant, then she's the one that will be physically affected by the pregnancy; the man, mostly, has to wait. And if the "Right" has its way, he can force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her will, with all that this implies for her physically and mentally.
That's undue domination of the man over and against the woman.


"- '(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives.'
This is NOT only NOT about the man, it is NOT about the infant. It is ONLY about the woman."

Because only the woman is concerned here. It is not the man's life and health and condition which is at stake. This is a pregnancy, which is a dramatic change in a woman's life and body. And so it should be her choice, and her choice only, wheter or not to continue her pregnancy; and she can consult whomever she wants to take her decision. But the decision is hers.
As for the fetus, giving it full human rights is only a way for the religious extremists to push down other people's throats their beliefs.


"The reproductive rights of men are of no weight whatsoever, by law, as the Feminists intended"

On birth of the child, then they have their rights relative to the child.
What religious extremists want, ultimately, is that the male genitor have as much right as the pregnant woman from the moment of conception, going as far has giving him the right to force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her will if she doesn't want the continuation.
The actual law is no dominion over man.
But the religious extremists do want to go back to a time and laws when and where women were under the dominion of men.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." --1 Corinthian 14:34-35




"I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise."

As I said many posts ago, this isn't a time limited thread.
We have all the time we care to give it.


And maybe, just maybe, others will also post their opinions here.
Especially the ladies...

[Gilthalion]

We've reached a point where I beleive we are simply finding ways to repeat our positions.

If the difference between extremist and bigot is a matter of whether or not the extremist will tolerate the transgression of their beliefs, then I submit that I could as easily and as justly apply the term bigot to a lot of folk on the Left.

Whereas the Religious Right (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that personal area, without care of what those women want for themselves. That is intolerance. That is religious bigotism.

Said the Religious Bigot: "Whereas the Godless Left (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that sacred area, without care of what God wants Himself. That is folly. That is atheist arrogance."

But that has not been the thrust of my debate. Here is where I depart from the political Religious Right. (As a matter of fact, I served as County chairman of the local branch of the Christian Coalition and was a founding board member. It made the front page when I resigned.)

As I have said, my indictment against the Church that I rebuke and the Republicans that I excoriate is worse than my observation about the intent and influence of the extremists of the Left. I sometimes do not have words to express what I feel about that.

I'm glad you have decided to drop the noun. Extremist will do, and it serves this debate well enough.






***
The point I was making about the Siamese Twins case this very week, is that the judicial system can be trusted to do the right thing. It is obviously not the intent of the ban as written to destroy a mother's health. Any such situation involving a birth that caused such dire health concerns would be life-threatening, too, without a doubt.

Again, the medical community is against it. The abortion providers are for it.

"Health" without the technical definitions you want to see legislated is too vague.

"Health" with the technical definitions you want to see legislated would in itself create problems galore.

The essential political problem again comes around to Big vs. Little Government.

There is a societal problem that society is not dealing with and so needs a government solution. The question then becomes a matter of how much or how little involvement is needed.

If we must by law, start precisely defining "Health" for all circumstances (and this is precisely how such things start), then, in the long run, you are removing the judgement of the doctor and the patient for far more than this procedure.

The intent of the ban is clear, and if we cannot trust our judiciary to maintain its proper interpretation, then we must change our entire system of government, starting with the medical community.

The "health" issue down here remains one of the great battlelines between Right and Left. We currently have the best medical industry in the world, for all its faults. We have no wish to socialize it, and wind up with something like what the rest of the world has. But we are being taken there incrementally, since the Clinton health care takeover failed in 1993.

*ding*

...and I'm out of time! Off to work!

[Eruve]

I just wanted to respond to the comment Gil made about the man having a role during childbirth and labour. Thirty years ago the father did not have any other role than to take his wife to the hospital, pace in the waiting room and hand out cigars when it was over. Going back further, when women gave birth at home, the woman was encouraged through labour and childbirth by a mid-wife and her female relatives. Again, the father waited downstairs and paced, having fetched the mid-wife. I would say that the father's greater involvement in a woman's pregnancy (child-birth classes, encouraging the woman through labour, attendance at and participation in the birth) is a result of some of the feminism you seem to revile Gil. So on one hand, according to you they want to take away paternal rights, while on the other, as I see things, they have given more of these rights to men.

[juntel]

"If the difference between extremist and bigot is a matter of whether or not the extremist will tolerate the transgression of their beliefs, then I submit that I could as easily and as justly apply the term bigot to a lot of folk on the Left."

As clearly seen and defined, the views you represent can very well be said to be extremist.
But you use that word about feminists like a burning arrow, what you yourself would call "inflamatory" if coming from someone else.
You are no less extremist than those you accuse them to be.


"I'm glad you have decided to drop the noun. Extremist will do, and it serves this debate well enough"

The noun bigot was as well deserved, if not more, by the relgigious extermists in politics and elsewhere, than the word extremist mis-applied to the actions of feminists and those like me who support their views.
Again, the only extremism I can understand in the feminist view is that they are extremely far from what you would like them to say (ie that the man who enpregnated a woman has the right to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy, even if her doctor say it will leave her with severe health problems).

I'm not glad to drop the noun, for it is an appropriate response to your mis-labeling of feminism. I drop it because I can't play your game to that extreme...



"The point I was making about the Siamese Twins case this very week, is that the judicial system can be trusted to do the right thing"

It would be wrong to delay an abortion for health reasons because of an ill-conceived legislation that would require a judge to decide if the doctor is right or not about his diagnosis of the situation.
The doctor should be the one to make that decision, with the ascent of the woman.


"Again, the medical community is against it. The abortion providers are for it"

Firstly, you talk about "abortion providers" as if they were not part of the medical community. They are part of it.

Secondly, you seem to think the AMA is the medical community. Wrong.
Read the link I gave about the New England Journal of Medicine.


"'Health' without the technical definitions you want to see legislated is too vague.
'Health' with the technical definitions you want to see legislated would in itself create problems galore."

But without any "health risk" exception, that ban of yours is unjust, untrustable, and much, much more vague than any notion of "health" one could conceive.


"If we must by law, start precisely defining "Health" for all circumstances (...) you are removing the judgement of the doctor and the patient for far more than this procedure"

One must leave it to the doctor to decide if the woman's health is at risk or not.
To say that a doctor could lie just to give the woman an abortion is the ultimate way to remove from him/her the judgment of the situation, which is what the ban advocates.


"The intent of the ban is clear, and if we cannot trust our judiciary to maintain its proper interpretation, then we must change our entire system of government, starting with the medical community."

The ban clearly doesn't include the woman's health risk as an exception, only her life risk. The ban is clear in removing from the doctor the power to judge if the woman's health is at risk.


"We currently have the best medical industry in the world, for all its faults. We have no wish to socialize it, and wind up with something like what the rest of the world has"

What do you mean by that?
Do you mean that it is a good thing if people who can't afford proper medical insurance receive medical attention of less quality?

A health care system doesn't exist to make profits. By definition and need, it will lose money, which the state should absord the cost.

But of course, that is our opinion up here; maybe we're too 'liberal' for you folks down there...



Eruve

Glad to see you back.
A post to the point.
I should learn to make such posts one day!

[Gilthalion]

Eruve, I do not revile feminism, certainly not in the textbook/dictionary context. My argument is with the extremists who have succeded in pressing their agenda.

In a dialectic sense, we have had (in law & custom) thesis: Patriarchy, we now have antithesis: Matriarchy, and it is to be hoped that some reasonable synthesis will derive. This debate is an example of how such things happen. If they happen at all. When they don't, the result has historically been bloodshed. That is an evil I would see averted. Regional autonomy, or tyranny, seem to be the only alternatives offered. As this debate illustrates, the two sides are very far apart in terms of a fundamental worldview and it is difficult to even understand how the other side arrives at its conclusions.

As I said in an earlier post, I support quite a lot of the notions of feminism.

And please don't believe the stereotypes and the revisionism that suggests, indeed, demands that we believe, that husbands had little to do with helping their wives through pregnancy prior to the counter-cultural revolution.

I suggest rather that in every house where love dwelt, there were attentive nurturing husbands. If they had known of Lamaze breathing back then, I imagine they would have done it. It is unfair to judge the Past by the Present.

I don't believe the recent trends you mention are a matter of the rights of men. They are, rather, modern improvements in our understanding of how to nurture a family that certainly owe much of their adoption to the feminist movement.

But the fact remains that an extremist position is law. The argument that the attempt to overthrow the law by other extremists is moot.

PBAs are legal and paternal rights are trammeled. This is the irrefutable situation at hand.



juntel, for what its worth, I would not have the father make the entire decision. Such things can be expedited so that a judge can make a fair and impartial decision in a timely fashion, where such laws obtain.


================================================== ========

My boss will be back from the dentist soon, and I have taken too much time!

[juntel]

I sincerely hope you don't think we are in a matriachy!

matriarchy (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=matriarchy)
1. social order where women have power : a form of social order where women are in charge and are recognized as the heads of families, with power, lineage, and inheritance passing, where possible, from mothers to daughters
2. community where women have power : any community, society, or social group that is based on matriarchy. Also called matriarchate
3. organization where women have power : any form of organization or government where women have power

patriarchy (http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=patriarchy)
1. social system in which men dominate : a social system in which men are regarded as the authority within the family and society, and in which power and possessions are passed on from father to son
2. patriarchal society : a form of society based on a system of patriarchy


Evidently, none of the two definitions completely apply to our two societies (US and Canada).
But of the two, matriarchy is very very far from what we have, whereas patriarchy is very close still.

And let me point out that getting away from patriarchy doesn't get us closer to matriarchy.


"But the fact remains that an extremist position is law"

Not a fact, but a belief comming from an opposing set of belief.
What is law right now is a more just position that what the religious extremist would like to have, which their ban was but one element.


"PBAs are legal and paternal rights are trammeled"

D&Xs are legal, as described in the link that I gave you (from New England Journal of Medicine).
Paternal rights are where they are needed: after birth; before that, giving the male genitor an undue right over the woman's choice to force her to continue her pregnancy against her will would be more than extremist: it would be going back to days when... well... to days when religious extremist where in full power.

[Johnny Lurker]

There will never be a consensus reached.

I must admit, Gilthalion, that I really didn't see the merit of your idea about it being decided on a state-by-state basis before.

However, I must say that it's looking quite appealing right now... In fact, it would seem that this is an issue of such severity that it would justify separation here in Canada, where state-by-state decisions are not an option...

[Shanamir Duntak]

Would it justify it??? Well, let's do it. What's your opinion so I be against?

[Johnny Lurker]

Fine, here's my opinion.

Abortion is cold-blooded, paid murder.
In all trimesters.
Under all circumstances EXCEPT FOR ONE.
At any point after conception.

The one exception?

When the life (not the "health") of the mother is on the line.

And if I felt that, if Saskatchewan separated, this would be put into the law, I would gladly vote to separate from the rest of Canada.

Some things are simply more important than taxes, or money, or the flag.

And I think that the lives of hundreds of thousands of defenseless humans is one of those things.

[anduin]

How do you define life? Do you mean the difference between breathing and not breathing? And if so, how do you justify one life over another?

[Johnny Lurker]

Period.

I've explained my position in a fair bit of detail on the other thread... juntel managed to dissuade me from finishing my demonstration.

[juntel]

!

[Johnny Lurker]

Or something to that effect, anyways.

[anduin]

I don't think that answered my questions very well. I want to know why you even have an exception. How can you be so against abortion yet would choose the life of the mother over that of the child. Why not save the child at all costs? When should the life of the mother become the priority?

I hope my questions are not irritating to you.

[Johnny Lurker]

For this reason.

I would gladly trade my life for the life of my mother.

However, I am sure that she would...... I'm sorry, I can't go there. It's personal.

[anduin]

Always evasive. I am not asking you for any information that is personal yet you alude that my questions were of a personal nature. If you don't want to answer the questions...which I thought were pretty straight forward....that is fine, just don't bother answering. Would anyone else like to answer?

[Johnny Lurker]

There are some things that I simply cannot share with strangers, and it just happened to touch on one of those.

[anduin]

I respect that.

[Shanamir Duntak]

Because if you save the mother, she can have more kids. In the nature, a kid can't survive alone. What's the point of saving a child that will die because his mother ain't there to take care of him?!

[anduin]

Well, there is always the father.