Manners and feminism

In my interview with Annika, I remarked:

...chivalry and feminism are not incompatible.

That might need a bit more explaining.

My family was not a religious family in the conventional sense.  Neither of my parents were believers, nor were (with a couple of notable exceptions among some cousins) were any members of my extended family.  But growing up in a family led by my late grandmother, we did have our own brand of religion: civility.  And if civility was the highest spiritual ideal, than good manners at table and in company were the required daily observances of our faith.

At age five, I was given handshake lessons by an uncle.  I was taught how to apply exactly the right amount of pressure with my right hand (no "fish grips" or "vises").  I was taught to make eye contact, smile, and say "How do you do."  Because of the forgetful nature of five year-olds, these lessons were repeated for an entire summer until I had mastered the art of the handshake to the satisfaction of all.  In addition, my family made the young folk take part in brief improvised skits before parties or holiday functions.  We would practice our pleases and thank-yous, and practice leaping to our feet when anyone older than ourselves entered the room.  We were taught about holding doors, and pulling out chairs for all women (even our younger cousins). 

I have to admit, I rather liked the manners lessons.  Well, most of them.  While I liked the interactive bits, I had a harder time learning not to speak with my mouth full.  (My grandmother finally put a mirror in front of my plate to force me to watch myself masticate.  It was a very helpful trick.)

My grandmother told me over and over again that the purpose of manners was very simple: "to make other people feel comfortable."  It was a lesson that served me well until I went to college, when I discovered that the very behaviors that I had been taught would make others comfortable actually offended certain people.  I was a freshman at Cal when I first was snapped at for holding the door open for a good friend of mine.

She: "I can get it myself", she snapped.

Me: "But Dara, I'm just trying to be polite."

She: "I know, Hugo, but your opening the door for me implies that I can't do it on my own. It suggests that I'm weak. It's a subtle way of reinforcing male domination.

Me: "Oh."

"Dara", of course, was as young as I was.  She was "trying on" feminism for the first time.   As is usually the case with folks who begin this work, she was hyper-attuned to both real and perceived injustices.  Misogyny lurked around every corner, and virtually all male-female interactions had to be filtered through the lens of feminist theory.  I'm not being patronizing, nor am I making fun of the Daras of the world -- heck, for years, I was one of them!  That intense sensitivity is a necessary phase in one's development, because it marks the first time one questions the "normal" gender roles one has been taught.  But it is still a phase, and one that happily, most of us who do gender work get to grow out of.

Once I began taking women's studies courses, I grew more conflicted about the appropriateness of the manners my family had taught me.  I was not prepared to be rude, of course.  Rather, I decided that I was going to be "gender-neutrally polite",  and treat everyone the same way.  This worked well with doors, but not so well at dinner parties with chairs.  Once I held the chair for one of my roommates at a graduation dinner for the seniors in our co-op.  He gave me a withering look and told me "cut that sh*t out now, man."  Not long thereafter, I tried to hold the chair for one of my male cousins, who simply pretended to ignore me and forcibly pulled the chair from my hand.  Clearly, treating everyone with the exact same politesse was not going to work.

Gradually, I began to re-embrace the traditional "chivalry" that I had been taught.  As I reached my twenties, and then my thirties, I found that the vast majority of women, including self-identified feminists, very much appreciated the gestures.  Most of them already knew me before I ever held their chair, or opened their car door.  They were thus less likely to be troubled by these simple actions. On a few occasions, I would still run into women, who, like Dara, would ask me not engage in these courtly rituals. I decided never to argue with them.  After all, I remembered my grandmother's admonition: "manners are to make other people feel comfortable."  The corollary to that, I decided, was that if what you think is polite is making someone else uncomfortable, stop it.  Manners are not a particularly subtle weapon in the gender wars, though they can be used that way!

I vividly recall an incident my brother and I had on a train in Wales a few years ago.  At that time, my brother was living in the West Wales market town of Carmarthen.  I was visiting, and one day we took a very crowded train for a short ride down to Swansea.  There were seats for us when we got on, but by the next stop, there were none.  The train was filled with young Welsh teens and twenty-somethings.  A middle-aged woman and her young daughter boarded and stood in the center aisle, just inches from my brother and me.  I mouthed to him "Let's get up", and I started to rise.  "Don't", he said, and leaned in to explain why.  "Everyone can already tell you're American", my brother said.  "They'll think you're trying to be posh and show up every man on this train.  What you see as manners, they'll see as aggression.  Trust me."  I was floored.  As much as I trusted my brother's knowledge of working-class South Walian culture (heck, he had learned to speak their notoriously difficult language, which is pretty impressive for a boy raised in California), I still couldn't believe that that would be how my actions would be interpreted.  Later, I retold the story to at least half a dozen of my brother's Welsh friends -- and they all agreed with him.  I learned something very important on that train.

So, what do I do now?  Well, I hold the car door open for my fiancee.  When she excuses herself from the table during a meal, I briefly rise.  I go down the stairs in front of her, and up the stairs behind her, just as I had been taught.  She does countless, wonderful, sweet things for me.  In our relationship, traditional gender-based manners are a small way in which we can show appreciation for each other.  We each feel validated and affirmed by the other's kindnesses.  We are fully and completely aware that "equality" and "sameness" are not synonyms.  In many small ways, our relationship is enhanced by the way in which we each choose to play these roles.

My kids in youth group and even in college classes often ask about gender roles.  Indeed, they seem nearly obsessed with them. (How many teenage girls have said to me something like "Oh, I'm not a feminist; I like doors being held for me"!)  I try and remind them that manners can be used to make people feel comfortable and affirmed, but they can also be used to make people feel small and weak. I tell the guys that it's okay to go ahead and be "chivalrous", but if it meets with displeasure, don't force the issue. 

After all, the point of manners is not to prove how wonderfully polite and well-brought up one is; the point of manners is to make the other person feel seen and valued.  We would do well to always remember that.

Comments

[Obtestor]

Let's wait for Hugo to come back Monday and he can check the IP of where we're posting from to be the Judge of who this guy Obtestor really is...

I am not NYMOM. My IP is none of your business either. That is why it doesn't appear when posts are made. If IPs did appear when posts were made, I would not post here.

Obtestor

[Obtestor]

Mens News Daily has just posted an article about the US Marine General. The author, some 16 year old guy, got it all wrong. They just don't get it. Here is the article:

American Warrior's Straight-Talk Frightens Liberal Girlymen

February 6, 2005

by Rudy Takala

Lieutenant General James Mattis recently made comments at a forum in San Diego that are now pervading the news; he said, “It’s fun to shoot some people… You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

So of course, liberals have now become frantic in their revolted outrage. As the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, said,"We do not need generals who treat the grim business of war as a sporting event. These disturbing remarks are indicative of an apparent indifference to the value of human life."

The characteristics of this incident are similar to the one in late 2003, when Lt. Gen. William Boykin told audiences that terrorists hated America because it was a nation of Christian believers and that the enemy in the war on terrorism was Satan. Nihad Awad was rampaging then also, saying, "Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions.”

While American generals may treat war with terrorists as a sporting event, CAIR disparages generals like it’s a sporting event. What exactly are mass murderers whose goal is the annihilation of America? Saints? To some liberals and their cohorts, perhaps, yes.

It is fascinating to contrast the opinion anti-American leftists express toward terrorists with their opinion on anything favorable to America. After the president’s State of the Union address, Janeane Garofalo made an appearance on MSNBC to compare the inked fingers of Republicans, who dipped their fingers in ink prior to the State of the Union, to the Nazi salute and call it “disgusting.” “ The inked fingers and the position of them… as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that.”

Amidst the numerous “as ifs,” she attempted to call Republicans Nazis who had nothing to do with the Iraqi elections. Apparently, CAIR did.

The revulsion of liberals at the pro-American statements made by these generals is only accentuated by the generals’ insinuations, or in some instances explicit statements, that some people are evil. It flies in the face of their theories on moral relativism; the essence of a military is in contradiction with relativism, as it is with most of socialism’s other doctrines. Considering that, it’s not hard to understand why leftists have struggled for so long to attenuate America’s forces of defense and besmirch its leaders.

When Lt. Gen. James Mattis said, “guys like that ain’t got no manhood left,” he could have been speaking of American liberals. They’ve devolved to a point where they’re incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, or even caring whether or not they are able. They instead denigrate the people who can, calling them “disturbing” and demanding apologies for their hateful beliefs.

It’s reminiscent of a recent incident in Tampa, Florida. When a 14-year-old girl told her father and uncle that a man was stalking her, they accompanied her to the bus stop and found the man waiting there. When they told him to wait for the police, he attempted to leave and a scuffle ensued; the man was shoved to the ground. Neighbors saw the man being kicked when he attempted to get up; when one neighbor later discovered what it was about, he said he’d “h ave probably been out there kicking him too if I'd have known what was going on.” Liberals were upset, but the father and uncle were not arrested. Considering how frequently victims are arrested in similar cases, they were lucky.

The point derived, however, stands; liberals will do whatever they can to ensure that quaint notions of “evil” and “Satan” remain on footing equal to their contradicting notions, such as virtue and God. They’ll fight the military and its head figures most conspicuously, but if they must invade American neighborhoods and persecute individuals in order to promote the utter acceptance of their ideals, they’re also willing to do that.

It’s the willingness to destroy evil that allows virtue to exist and liberty to perpetuate. Without men like James Mattis and William Boykin, America’s existence wouldn’t be possible, and the preservation of harmony would be impossible.

For a 16 year old to interpret what the General said as being a 'left-wing girly-man' issue boggles the mind.

What the real issue the General was promoting is, is that now that governments are trying to form in the countries that we have invaded, the best way to secure domestic totalitarianism is to promote gender warfare. If the General and his advisors can get Afghani women to seize a stake in Afghanistan by demanding 'women's rights' (whatever those are defined by the country these females operate in), then the General knows that matriarchal totalitarian police state controls can then be implemented against men.

It has nothing to do with 'girly-men' and 'leftism', my God, it is leftists that are promoting the killing of men to advance feminist fascism. Our young are constantly brow-beaten that fascism is 'right-wing'. That is a terrible ideological definition. Fascism is clearly next to communism. Here is the real political scale if you were to line it up from left to right:

Communism
Fascism
Liberalism
Moderatism
Conservatism
Libertarianism
Anarchy

So you can see that the ultimate form of totalitarianism is Communism on the radical left-wing of the political spectrum, while the ultimate form of right-wing ideology is anarchy, or the total elimination of government authority and power where the people do whatever they want to do. That is what the real political scale looks like and why the Mens News Daily article is so off-base.

The gender wars and feminism are about total control and dominance over men. Since the War on Terrorism is running out of terrorists to hunt, a new war definition must replace the old war definition. The new war definition must be an endless war, even more endless than a war against terrorists, so the powers that be know that the most effective totalitarian measure that they can implement is feminist totalitarianism. This will allow courts to form that push a new definition of 'female rights' in those countries, enforced by soldiers of the state. That is true power and what is being done in America today.

If only the young author of the article figured that out and explained it with truth. See, not even Mens News Daily is immune to bad information. The article didn't even mention that the War on Terrorism was being transformed into the implementation of the feminist totalitarian state by force of arms, where the war focus has changed from 'hunting terrorists' to the hunting of men that 'abuse' female rights (where the definition of the female's rights are so vast and ever changing that all men become the hunted). The US Marine General himself admitted it.

Obtestor

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

By the way, jumping back to the original topic of this thread, I totally agree with Amanda, and with Miss Manners, about where to draw the line on when it's appropriate for men to use "chivalrous" manners. On the job, I want to be treated as just another engineer; in social situations, feel free to be as chivalrous as you like. And I also agree with the several people who said that women should share in the inviting, in dating situations (though I confess I was too shy to actually do this often, myself, in my single days).

[bmmg39]

"And I also agree with the several people who said that women should share in the inviting, in dating situations (though I confess I was too shy to actually do this often, myself, in my single days)."

And, hopefully, share in the door-holding, chair-pulling, and whatever other gender-neutral kind gestures there are...

[ray]

Men's News Daily (MND) is a perfect example of folks caught in the illusion of Hegelian Dialectics (right/left, us/them etc)

as the MND article illustates, MND is NOT men's activism -- they're right-wingers using men's advocacy to advance their "conservative" agenda, while searching for a "niche" in the media

MND, Rush, and the rest are just the flip-side of the "progressive" twaddle so much
in evidence on this blog

instead of framing the issue as it is -- a leak in the empire's dyke, an unexpected look into the soul of the matriarchy, WHY we are REALLY busy ridding the world of "Evildoers" -- MND calls this pathetic General a "warrior" and blames "girlie leftists" for misinterpreting his words

half the time MND's authors can't compose a cogent sentence . . . i mean, i realize it's all volunteer, but still . . .

it's chuckly in a sense, but also sad and counterproductive

gives a bad name to the movement -- we've already got a buncha right-wing nutcases in power, and they are NOT interested in men's advocacy, as their General just illustrated with flying colors!!

LOL!!!

and they say there's no god!!!

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Sure, absolutely. I'm all in favor of whoever gets to the door first holding it open, in a gender-neutral way.

[squares_eater]

First, and foremost:

Hegel is God.

You forgot the third part of the Hegelian equation: Synthesis.

I love Hegel.

[Obtestor]

First, and foremost:

Hegel is God.

No, Hegel is a dead human whose bones have been picked clean by worms after burial. That is because Hegel was a marginal mortal.

Humans are not Gods. They never will be. Human beings express no omnipotent power whatsoever. Humans cannot control The Laws of Physics. The Laws of Physics control humans completely, an inescapable prison and a human destiny as mere mortals.

God himself ensured this.

Obtestor

[Ted]

I'm a little confused. Is Obtestor actually arguing that George W. Bush is a radical feminist? And that the left's oppositon to the war was anti-feminist? Does this mean Republicans are the party of radical feminists now? When did that happen?

[Obtestor]

I'm a little confused. Is Obtestor actually arguing that George W. Bush is a radical feminist? And that the left's oppositon to the war was anti-feminist? Does this mean Republicans are the party of radical feminists now? When did that happen?

I think both political wings are caving to radical feminism. This is because women are a majority voting population, not a minority as women claim they are.

Since 52% of all registered voters are women, all political wings have to try and appeal to them somehow.

What better way to appeal to them than to have a US Marine General get on international television proscribing himself as a giddy hitman for feminism?

Everyone missed that important point too, even Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. Savage and Hannity are instead attacking, remarkably, "left-wing" groups over the matter in an attempt to make it appear that the left is doing the complaining. Some liberal group went public and complained about the General's remarks, which was very smart for them to do, because it glossed over the true intent of the remarks.

I am a right-wing Conservative Republican myself, but I will readily point out feminist fascism wherever I appears. Since our military forces are being told by their commanding officers it is 'fun to shoot people' with feminist fascism as the motivator, even conservatives like me must speak up.

So I can understand your confusion over the matter as Hannity and Savage themselves and even Rush are confused by it. The point is that they all know that they can't speak the truth about what the General really said and really meant because it would violate the majority voting population (women) and, heaven forbid, it might make men really think about what the General meant. Remarks like the General made could cause men in the United States to see the feminist evil. The powers that be do not want that, since the racketeering profit train of dehumanizing men in the USA and the west could be jeopardised. So the 'left' will be blamed for speaking up about what was said, even though the radical left will be the sole beneficiary of his remarks and the military agenda under way to genocide men in Afghanistan and Iraq will pave the way for matriarchal fascism in those countries like the USA.

That is why we now live in a matriarchal totalitarian nation-state. As a Conservative Republican, I want the General's remarks to be explained the way that he meant them, not spun to blame left-wing groups. We conservatives are intelligent enough to know when the left-wing groups deserve blame. In this case they do not deserve blame. In this case it is a General Officer who is working for the right-wing that treasonously betrayed his country by siding with radical feminism and even going as far to say it was 'fun to shoot people' that 'oppressed' women, whatever the definition of that oppression is since it holds the broadest definition of any legal term in western history.

As a Conservative Republican, I am concerned that the Afghani and Iraqi male will eventually be subjected to the same liberal feminist cultural terrorism that American men are subjected to, so instead of giving those free men a real free state to live in, we are installing a terrorist state in its stead. The General should have told the media that his job was to bring the Bill of Rights to Afghanistan and Iraq, not to kill "men" under the guise of so-called 'feminist rights' (totalitarianism).

Obtestor

[ray]

that's a darn good analysis, Obtestor, and precisely the kind of self-criticism the Right will require if we're to reverse the nation's current freefall into tyranny, cruelty, mass greed and insanity

men's advocates on the right-wing have so far failed to admit that AT LEAST as much demonization and criminalization of Western men originates from the Right-wing as the Left, and that the Left, feminist creature though it is, is hardly alone in extending American matriarchy to all corners of the globe

however, the Right caves in to feminism not merely because of numerican voting superiority, as you suggest, but from a variety of factors, including power, money, fear of the women in their lives, and addiction to the privileges that come from supporting matriarchal agendas (some of which are psycho-sexual, and not obviously tangible)

the Right is the Tyrant that acts IN CONCERT WITH -- NOT in opposition to -- female superiority (that is, superiority not over the self-styled "elite," but over the rest of us grunts who must live as second-class citizens under the Boot of matriarchy)

matriarchy is a COMBINATION of left and right ideologies, tactics, and false assumptions, and for anyone who is a right-winger (i'm not btw), the only effective strategy is to tear "conservatism" from the grip of matriarchy, where it has languished for decades

... rather than playing the useless and never-ending Hegelian "blame game," and trying to pin our cultural deterioration on the Left -- because that decay is a DIRECT result of the lack of AUTHENTIC MASCULINITY in Western nations

the Left and Right are busy being -- and serving -- women, and there is nobody left anywhere willing to BE A MAN

the domestic and foreign policies of the U.S. over the past four decades make this point for me

another outstanding post, Ob, may i suggest you forward it to MND and other right-wing MRA outlets, so they'll start to Get A Clue

special thx to Hugoboy for providing a forum in which accurate and honest analyses of feminism/matriarachy can FINALLY -- after all these decades, take place

yo Hugoboy, say Hi! to St. Mike for me, eh?

:O)

[Obtestor]

special thx to Hugoboy for providing a forum in which accurate and honest analyses of feminism/matriarachy can FINALLY -- after all these decades, take place

Yes, it is refreshing to finally be able to post somewhere with opinions outside matriarchal totalitarian speech controls and be allowed to do it. I was considering starting my own blog but have never got around to it.

I think the greater problem with the gender war is that the lines have blurred in relation to a citizen's rights. What we are seeing is that some citizens are more equal than others depending what "gender" they are, not what their skin color is, or what religion they hold, or what race they are. This is completely new territory and the masters of spin have it nailed down perfectly with their clever marketing.

It is an agenda that is fueled completely by voting demographics, where feminism takes advantage of its politically correct balkanization of the voting booth in favor of the feminist agenda.

Think about the genius involved in that. All that really matters is 'how many' folks pull the lever in the voting booth because that is true power. Now if you take a majority voting population in a nation-state (in our case it is clearly women) and tell them they are a minority and give them special rights to self-prove it, not only does the 'false-majority' vote for you as a politician but they also hand you the reigns to absolute power because you have created in that majority special rights unavailable to other true minority populations in the same nation-state (ie...men).

It is pure genius. You know how folks love political power. If you could dismantle the rights of men to steal their labor under such lies, would it beneficial to do so? Of course! There are trillions of dollars being stolen from men every year through this sophisticated slavery racket. The marketing itself is legendary because the majority population (women) is able to perpetuate that myth at will on television, in hiring (women and minorities is the slogan on all government employment) and in the courts (oh, all those women minority victims need our help desperately from predatory men, which of course is all men).

It is the greatest deception every administered to a country that defines itself as a democracy with equal rights for 'all' citizens.

Obtestor

[squares_eater]

Damn it, Jim.. He's dead!

Stop misusing the term "Hegelian." I think you mean "Polar."

Antithesis + Thesis = Synthesis

That's Hegelian.

[Paul]

I still believe in the saying " the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world".

Another statement presented to me under the title of (as I recall) "Ashbee's Law of Requisite Variety", is that: "In any closed system, the component with the greatest variey controls the system".

In the Western world, the components with the greatest variety are women. The hands that still rock the cradle belong to women. And yet, when something bad happens, you turn around to see who was at the wheel, and the woman always seems to be in the back seat saying "It wasn't me!"

When I was younger I used to go to Karate lessons. There was a female sensei among several male colleagues, training with them, and training us new Karatekas.

I was a young teenager, but I was taller and more solidly built than this female sensei, but there is no way, then or now, that I would want to go head to head with her in a fight.

Women in general seem to take it for granted that they truly are "weaker than men", when feminism has been trying to sell the slogan "I am woman hear me roar" for years.

What it seems to me women are really saying is that they want it both ways, and they want men to pay for both ways.

Men I believe, particularly due to their lack of variety in comparison to women, are the dumb bunnies of history and of the present who end up picking up the tab for women time and time again.
It's not polite to hit a girl/lady/woman is what I was taught when growing up. Somehow this gets translated into "a real man wouldn't complain/argue/call for a more reasoned perspective" - that behaviour isn't respectful, courteous, chivalrous.

If you set out all the women from time immemorial to the present, end to end, who have been abused, killed, imprisoned, mistreated by men, they wouldn't remotely come close to the number of men who have given their lives/health/dreams away for the sake of the mistaken notion that to do so, they were becoming a more worthwhile human being, while the womenfolk sat at home.

Men are not on this earth to defend women if women are not here to defend men. Don't expect it if you don't give it.
I am appalled at the expectation that, if a woman is being mugged, abused, disrespected, that I as a man should be prepared to come to her rescue and save her from the situation she finds herself in. I personally don't know any woman who would wade into a group of men to save my butt if it was me being mugged.

Is this because she doesn't feel equipped to do so, or that she simply cannot because she is a woman, and therefore not physically strong enough?

The amount of men for whom such "chivalrous action" has effectively given them a death sentence is legion. I don't want to die saving the life/honor(?)/ of some woman who chose not to learn how to defend herself.

It's way beyond time that women got off their usually fat backsides and really got personally involved in their own version of "girl power", rather than making a mockery of their own gender every time they expect a man to help them.

Sisters - do it for yourselves. Just like you have in so many ways for so long.

[mythago]

If you set out all the women from time immemorial to the present, end to end, who have been abused, killed, imprisoned, mistreated by men, they wouldn't remotely come close to the number of men who have given their lives/health/dreams away for the sake of the mistaken notion that to do so, they were becoming a more worthwhile human being, while the womenfolk sat at home.

Wow, that's an amazing claim. Anything to back it up other than a wounded sense of male entitlement?

I personally don't know any woman who would wade into a group of men to save my butt if it was me being mugged.

I would not expect a male friend to "wade into a group" (muggers usually run in packs?) to save me from a mugger--unless he's armed and they're not, that would endanger him and be of no help to me.

[paul]

Take a look at who goes off to war to defend the homeland. Take a look at which gender still dies younger than the other in the Western world.
Men are brought up to feel responsible for the welfare of the women and children in their lives, while the women are apparently only responsible for themselves and the children.

This is why we get statements from such prestigious institutions as the International Red Cross, asking for money on the basis that "innocent women and children are being killed"...

How are women innocent? How is it that the men, who have already been rounded up, taken to a mass grave and shot dead, are not innocent?

We live in a topsy turvy world, where equality is not so easy to define.

[Caitriona]

Take a look at who goes off to war to defend the homeland.

There is more than one type of war.

Who was it that President Wilson said was more dangerous than a thousand rioters?
Who was the Mother of All Agitators because she fought for peace and equality through non-violent means?

And what about women throughout history who led armies? Deborah from Old Testament times, Maeve of Ireland, etc. Women have played strong, vital roles throughout history. Let us not deny the strength of will that it took for Boadiccea to arise from being publically flogged and being forced to watch the rape of her daughters by Roman soldiers, to rally an army that nearly pushed the Romans from Britain.

When it has come to activism for social issues, women have been at the forefront, standing their ground, facing seemingly insurmountable odds to bring a better day for their families and for all mankind. It was for this cause that Julia Ward Howe wrote and promoted her Mother's Day Proclamation:

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

[mythago]

Take a look at who goes off to war to defend the homeland.

Stooping to insult the women who are serving our country in order to feed your need to be a victim is pretty darn low.

As for "women only responsible for themselves," I don't know where you get this notion. Women are taught very early that it's their job to 'civilize' men, be responsible for their sexual behavior, be their home caretakers, and so on.

[paul]

Have a read of "The Myth of Male Power" and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about. Take it by the numbers, and you cannot avoid the reality that it is men, not the token women, who die in their thousands, and are doing so right now in Iraq.
I would personally feel it appropriate of the feminist movement to demand equal numbers of men and women go off to defend the homeland, rather than training men from infancy to believe it's their job to protect those somehow "innocent women".

What a sham. Men are butchered by our matriarchal society from day one, the moment they leave the comparitive comfort of the womb.
Men created the world women live in, while women just bitch about all the things they perceive men do wrong.

What men need to do is sit back on their laurels for the next thousand years or so, and let women put their money, effort and creativity where their mouths are.

Then we'd truly see that women are just as evil as evil men, just as good as good men, and just as mediochre as everyone else.

Feminism is not about equality, and it never was.
It is about pushing the agenda of those women who bleat the loudest, catering yet again to their own need to "be a victim".

If "women are the niggers of the world" - how did they get the vote? If men have always held the power, then men must have given the vote to women. Therefore, men must care when it is brought to their attention about the plight of the underdog. Or are they just so stupid that when women bitch enough, men just cave in because they can't bear the whining?

And another thing. I didn't stoop "to insult the women who are serving our country in order to feed (my) need to be a victim".

What I am doing is wondering where are the other women who are cowering behind the comfort and protection of their gender, not expected to stand up "like a man" and be counted amongst the number of their "fellow man" who HAVE gone to serve, for whatever reason. If you see it as defending your country, then if that works for you, great . . .

Why is it that when we see yet another documentary about pedophiles in the Jehova's Witnesses, or the Catholic Church, that the sermons and the services go on?

Why don't the women who are members of these congregations where the abuse occurs, vote with their feet?

Sheep.

[Caitriona]

Paul,

Methinks you need to get out more, to meet different women than those you apparently know at this point.

Both men and women are human. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Most men I know wouldn't deal with things that most women I know deal with. The men I know are more comfortable dealing with physical things that need to be done. They leave it to the women in their lives to deal with most of the emotional work that needs to be done, even when those women are working along side them in completing the physical tasks.

I was talking to one man yesterday about the exchange students with whom I work. His response was that he'd only take a student into his home if he could punch the student if the student wasn't doing what s/he should. He just got the last of his own children out of the house and doesn't want more. Needless to say, I won't be asking him to host a student, and he knows it.

When I talk to women about exchange students, their concerns are usually time - will they have the time to spend with the student, to give the emotional support the student needs. The men are usually concerned more with liability issues - if something happens (student gets sick, hurt, etc), is the host family financially responsible? Both are needed perspectives, but it's interesting to me that it's usually the women who ask the emotional support questions and usually the men who ask the physical support questions.

Men and women see things differently, focus on different issues. We were meant to work TOGETHER, to use the differing perspectives to help us see the whole picture on any issue. So why do we spend so much time fighting over whose perspective is right and whose is wrong?

When it comes to military service, my husband, who left the USMC as a conscientious objector after 15 years of service, says he can't understand why women want to go to the front lines, he always thought they were smarter than that. I've always wished that *everyone* was "smarter than that," to use my husband's words.

Gender-bashing, by men or by women, is pointless and fruitless. It does nothing to solve the difficulties we all experience. Why engage in an activity that only makes things worse, that solves nothing?

[dissertation writing help]

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!

http://www.ukdissertation.co.uk

[Laurie Fields]

When my husband and I went out on our first date I paid because I did the asking. I believe the person who asks is the person who should pay. For a while he did try to open doors for me--he thought it was romantic--but I said "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm capable." I think that capable women frighten some men and make them wonder "Does she need me anymore?"