Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Fearless, Clueless, or Just Plain Mean?

Do you ever get tired of the lame bumper stickers or slogans that say, "Obedient women don't make history"--I know I do. I laugh when I hear women repeat this mantra--mainly because of the hypocrisy. Many feminists expect such strict adherence to the tenets of feminism that there are no allowances made for anyone who is "disobedient" in following their agenda.

You know the drill of feminist dogma--all women are victims, the patriarchy is evil, all women must be pro-choice, read Reviving Ophelia, vote as Democrats and wet their panties when Bill Clinton enters a room. If you are a self-assured female who believes that women can get by on their own merits, votes Republican on some issues, doesn't hold women out to be victims, or sees Condi Rice as a better role model than Hillary Clinton, you better watch out because your disobedience will not be tolerated by the enlightened.

The enlightened in this case is the author and blogger, Arianna Huffington, who gives misguided advice to women on how to make it as a fearless femme fatale in today's world. In her new book On Becoming Fearless.... in Love, Work, and Life, Huffington sets a new low for standards of fearlessess.

My favorite chapter is the one entitled, "Fearless About Leadership and Speaking Out: The Power of One." Huffington describes her run for the governor of California in 2003 and how then-Lieutentant Governor Cruz Bustmante rolled his eyes a few times whenever she would make a point or open her mouth (frankly, I would be right there with him) and Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his displeasure at having to debate a fullthrottle female--this she discerns by his suggestion that she drink more de-caf. Huffington writes that this debate made her realize how "deeply engrained our culture's fear of assertive women is and how much of this fear women have unconsciously internalized." ..."A man who doesn't toe the line is not only tolerated but even hailed as an appealing scamp or rogue..." Could it be, Ms. Huffington, that your opponents just did not like what you had to say, whether you were a man or woman? After all, they are your opponents. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. And if a man who does not toe the line is tolerated and hailed as an "appealing scamp or rogue," what the hell happened to President Bush? It seems like the whole world calls him one name after the next with no regard for his maleness. If people just suggested that he drink more decaf, he would probably consider that a walk in the park.

There are assertive women out there who are talented and have reached leadership positions just like Ms. Huffington suggests. How does Ms. Huffington treat them? Like trash.

In her leadership chapter, she describes how to be fearless at any cost. She discusses the consequences of speaking out fearlessly, and decribes a Mommy Dearest moment with her own daughter, Isabella.

Her daughter's godmother was Elaine Chao, who Huffington described as:

Married to Senator Mitch McConnell, whom I had often castigated for having been--among other things--one of the biggest obstacles to campaign finance reform. As if this were not enough, George Bush went ahead and nominated Elaine to be Secretary of Labor. ..So there she was, part of an administration that I kept insulting on pratically a daily basis. She was gracious enough to give Isabella a tour of the Labor Department when we were in Washington for spring break a few years ago, but it was clear that Isabella needed a godmother whose relationship with her goddaughter was not encumbered by her mother's political views. So I asked Isabella to pick a new godmother among my girlfriends.


So the champion of women's fearlessness has now taught her daughter the lesson that if a friend or family member does not share your political views, you can just substitute someone who does--with mothers like this, it's no wonder girls grow up to be scared to speak their minds. What if Isabella turns into (gasp!) a Republican, for goodness sakes, will her mother disown her, like she did her godmother?

Ms. Huffington closes the end of the leadership chapter with "whatever the price, we must speak out about what matters. The world needs the leadership of women now more than ever. We may lose friends in the process, but we can no longer afford to remain silent."

With friends like Huffington, who needs enemies? If we want to teach our daughters to be fearless in expressing their opinions, we probably shouldn't give them the idea that their friends will disown them for expressing a controversial idea. Men seem better at tolerating other points of view and keeping a friendship than women. Maybe tolerating dissenting points of view is how we should be teaching our daughters to be fearless.

Update: A couple of commenters have claimed that I do not allow dissenting views or that I am equally as intolerant to dissenting views as Huffington is. Huh? You are posting your opinion here freely on my blog and then accusing me of being intolerant of other points of view? That makes no sense. This post is actually about the lack of guts women like Huffington have when they are so intolerant that they kick out family and friends from their clan for dissenting points of view. If one is so fragile that they would get rid of a friend or family member because they have a different set of political beliefs, it seems that they are full of fear, not fearless.

66 Comments:

Blogger Sarebear said...

Yeah! I SO agree.

What you point about about all the distortions that contradict her touted stance on women and such, is exactly the kind of thing I often see/read/hear people doing . . .

For myself, I always thought feminism was some scary, left-wing ultra-liberal, burn your bra stereotype thing when I was growing up (although I wouldn't mind burning some of the horridly uncomfortable bra's that I jokingly wonder if they were designed by men . . . hee), but in my blogpost HERE, I finally decided and realized it's whatever I decide supports and encourages my full capacity and self-sense as a woman, among other things. It's what I DECIDE, for me.

Thanks for the post.

5:45 PM, August 16, 2006  
Blogger David Foster said...

There's a steady drumbeat of articles, lectures, etc advising people to be "assertive"...however, when assertiveness shades into opportunism, it can destroy career and organizations. A couple of years ago, IBD published some thoughts for executives on how to keep opportunists out of positions where they can do damage.

Some of the advice directed at women doesn't seem to make the ambition/opportunism distinction very well, and can really damage the careers of those it is intended to help.

5:47 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The feminist directive to be "assertive" is just the logical next step to their last push to promote "confidence". Both are disconnected from reality. Confidence, in their view, is a disassociated state of being, not a consequence of self-evaluation. It is expressed in the act of hedonistically doing whatever their little whims desire without having to be encumbered by values or consequences (Girls Gone Wild, anyone?)

Whereas their version of confidence was mostly self-contained and self-destructive (apart from the shame of their families and the precipitous decline in men's evaluation of them), their version of assertiveness is an expression of their "confidence" in their relations with other people. Unencumbered, as before, by such things as reality, values, and consequences, feminist assertiveness will cause incredible harm to both the males who strangely continue to cater to them, as well as the future generations of women.

9:22 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason that Californians, and not just male Californians, roll their eyes at Heirianna is that she's an archtypical trophy wife w/ a weathervane for a political compass. She's also a member of the MSIA and prone to conflating lifestyle issues w/ those of pressing global importance (e.g. hybrid cars). It's typical of her to assume that other candidates' condescension towards her is a statement of their condescension to all women - because Arianna is the all women and all women are her (?!?)

11:03 PM, August 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen,

For some reason you consistently have rants against the changing stereotype of women. You seem to be angry. Did some woman hurt you in the past?

feminism: a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

If you want to rant about Arianna Huffington, so be it. But to rant about women trying to grow and change society is bitter.

I saw that bumper sticker ( "Obedient women don't make history"--) in the last month and it made me chuckle. Not because I thought it was ridiculous, but because I thought there was some truth to it. I would think that Eleanor Roosevelt, Bes Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Margaret Thatcher, Grace Hopper, to name a few, would disagree with your ideas.

6:54 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

femsuccess,

When the definition of feminisim in our society is actually as the one you described--I will probably stop writing about it.

7:12 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait a minute.

You said: "If you are a self-assured female...you better watch out because your disobedience will not be tolerated by the enlightened." But you are just as dismissive and uncompromising as Huffington. Hell, look at your title. Fearless, Clueless, or Just Plain Mean? So, Huffington must be either stupid or a bitch, huh? And you close out the post saying maybe we should be teaching our daughters tolerance of dissenting points of view? Your proclaiming that lesson is about like Bill Clinton proclaiming the importance of marital fidelity.

At any rate, you wanna dispute Huffington's views? Fine. I'm no fan. But I don't think you can honestly dispute that some men (and I wont say all, because, unlike you, I do not paint with broad, crude, childish brushstrokes)--but some men do have a problem with assertive women. And that is very odd, and frankly pathetic, in my opinion considering it's 2006. And since I'm an attorney, it affects my work.


Andrea

7:16 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Andrea,

Yeah, I also hear Bill Clinton is promoting eating well for fat kids. It seems to be going pretty well for him.

7:37 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To Femsuccess:

Your definition of feminism is the BS that is fed men. However, it is not the definition under which most hard-core feminists operate. Their operational definition is:

Feminism: the relentless demonization, stigmatization and ostracism of men, resulting in a society where women have extended options and men have little but obligations.

(I wish that I had video tapes of the "Psychology of Gender" course sessions (cross-listed by both the psychology and womens studies departments) when I mentioned "male choice" and "paternity fraud". The women's "assertiveness" was just amazing.)

Assertive women present the same problem as assertive men - they are an great advantage when they are allies but they can present enormous problems if and when they become enemies.

8:07 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The incisiveness of your post is only bolstered by some of the comments here. Don't you _dare_ stray off the plantation, indeed!

8:54 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Jay-Dubya,

Thanks for the link!

8:59 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My definition is in the dictionary. I guess the dictionary is part of that "liberal" media.

Helen did not say hard-core feminists. What number of feminists are hard-core? I suggest a very few. What number of "feminists" want to demonize, stigmatize and ostracize men? I suggest even fewer.

My point is/was that Helen wants to rant about Huffington, but to get a headline she has to disparage women and feminsts in general. Huffington is one person that gets headlines, sort of like Ann Coulter. Neither represent women or feminists.

9:17 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jay-Dubya that many of these comments underscore our hostess's point. As for dictionaries, they often still define "gay" as "excited with merriment." People who rely on that definition will be behind the times, just as people who rely on 1960s definitions of feminism will miss what's going on now.

9:20 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen,

Regarding your post's update ... it wasn't necessary.

Statements that a person is a hypocrite are the laziest non-refutation refutation of a person who actually holds easily provable ideas. The easiest and most socially acceptable ad hominem attack.

Intelligent people know this, so your update wasn't necessary. Unintelligent people ... well, your attempt to defend and explain yourself is just another sign of your guilt.

9:43 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, the dictionary I reference is 14 years old and it has a "gay" definition as homosexual, as well as the "excited with merriment" definition. It still does not vary on the definition of feminism to include "relentless demonization, stigmatization and ostracism of men".

9:47 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger David Foster said...

femsuccess...you mention Grace Hopper, who indeed provides an interesting example. RADM Hopper was clearly not an "obedient" person if by "obedient" you mean someone who lives her life according to the stereotypes established by others, or who sticks to received ideas rather than developing new ones. She did, however, pursue a lifelong and highly-successful career in a highly structured and disciplined institution--the U.S. Navy--in which obedience to all lawful orders is required.

There is a distinction between the kind of "disobedience" represented by RADM Hopper and the kind of disobedience that destroys organizations and societies. The distinction between them is too often fuzzed over.

10:06 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Wet their panties when Bill Clinton enters the room?

Hey! I drink my coffe whle reading your blog. If you are going to put my keyboard at risk with such coffee spewing hilarity, I will be forced to swallow before I read.

Trey

10:14 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, david, that is one of the points I am trying to make. The bumper stick referenced by Helen, "Obedient women don't make history" doesn't have to relate to feminist/feminism. It can relate to being disobedient to the stereotypes. Grace Hopper was an excellent example of someone who was disobedient to the then current stereotypes for woman, but also made allowances for having to follow others agendas. Helen generalizes the bumper sticker to be hypocritical of women in history. I say no, it is not hypocritical, it is a woman wanting to change societal norms to be different and possibly make a difference in history, as did Grace Hopper.

10:30 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Rizzo said...

So present day feminism is not about the "relentless demonization, stigmatization and ostracism of men" because a 14 year old dictionary definition says it's not? Good to know.

I don't know what percentage of feminists are hard-core and want to demonize, stigmatize, and ostracize men, but I do know that many of their words and actions achieve this result regardless of what they want. There seems to be a rather thin line between "pro-female" and "anti-male" that gets crossed all too often.

And the "feminism is just about equality" line gets rather tiresome. Yes, obviously some people who call themselves "feminists" just support equality between the sexes, nothing less, nothing more. But these are hardly the more powerful or vocal members. Hell, they're barely considered feminists at all (at least by the more hard-core feminists).

10:37 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Ms. Huffington is entitled to her opinion. Ms. Helen is entitled to her opinion as well. Blogger is free, anyone can say what they want if they create a blog. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I must say that I am getting sick and tired of a certain political group that is desperate to make "feminism" a dirty word as well as "liberal democrat".

As far as "obedient women" are concerned, abused womans' shelters are filled with them.

10:38 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger David Foster said...

My concern is that many people will interpret "be disobedient" to mean "be obnoxious and arrogant" rather than to mean "think for yourself." See my earlier link about the plague of opportunists in business.

10:38 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, not all change is good even though it may be good from the perspective of its progenitor. The virulent form of feminism spawned by the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Katherine MacKinnon, and Naomi Wolfe, not to mention the entire members of the National Organization for Women has been nothing but destructive to men, to boys, and most importantly, to families while really bringing little to the benefit of women.

Rusty

10:57 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it was clear that Isabella needed a godmother whose relationship with her goddaughter was not encumbered by her mother's political views. So I asked Isabella to pick a new godmother among my girlfriends."

uh? What is a godmother in her world, I wonder?

quasimodo

11:10 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey femsuccess, just a few questions for you...

-have you ever entered court with a presumption of guilt based solely on the fact that you are one gender and your accuser, whose accusation is the only "evidence" (even in contradiction of physical evidence) against you, is another?
-have you ever been asked to change seats on a plane because a child is sitting next to you, and your society accepts that everyone of your gender is presumed to be a child molester?
-have you ever gone to family court and known that you had an uphill battle merely not to be a declared a slave, let alone retaining the possibility of ever seeing your children again, or, for that matter, staying out of jail (since accusations against your gender are taken as fact)?
-has your entire gender been condemned as knowing nothing about relationships because members of your gender have traditionally focused primarily on providing the basic necessities of survival to those they value?
-have you ever had it publicly declared that your entire gender must be considered presumptive rapists? Have the courts acted accordingly?
-have you ever had every hormonally-influenced action on the part of your gender be condemned as evil while every hormonally-influenced action on the part of the other gender excused as natural or, at least, mitigated?
-have you ever had a common natural learning style of your gender declared an illness requiring medication?
-have you ever been fired from a job because a person of another gender asserted that you said something they considered offensive?
-have you ever feared firing a flagrantly incompetent person because they were not of your gender, and any statement against you in court would be taken as true?
-have you ever been thrown out of your house because your housemates, of another gender, stated that they felt threatened by your presence?
-have you ever been kind to a person of the opposite gender who was down on its luck, provided a place to stay for a couple of months, and then been declared a parent figure of that person's child and forced to pay child support?

These are just a few of the more overt examples of things that happen daily to men in this country (I won't get into the multitude of subtleties). These are all consequences of the ideas of the so-called "hard-line" feminists as promoted in, for instance, "women's studies" courses throughout the country. Why has our society been so influenced by their ideas?

For the same reason that it is legitimate to describe and condemn "Muslim terrorists" despite the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists. Because feminists of all stripes know that they'll benefit from the most virulent of their ilk. Because feminists know that condemnation of the irrational extremes performed in the name of a cause in which they believe will harm their cause. Because contradicting the hard-line will invite condemnation and retribution by, not only the hard-liners, but by those who fear being equally condemned.

And just as we see "moderate" Muslims declare that they can't be associated with their extreme brothers, here you are disassociating yourself from "that other" feminism. And just as we see the murders of "collaborators" in the Middle East, here you are, eagerly casting stones.

If a person performs an evil act or makes an evil statement in the name of something of which you believe, your silence is impicit approval. Denial that there is any reason for condemnation is tacit support. Why can we attribute hard-line beliefs to feminists in general? Because society is being harmed by them, and the only people who can prevent that ... other women ... are silent.

Helen is a rare exception, and for that, I thank her.

11:11 AM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my definition of feminism:

The bushel load of lies contrived by suburban white women to tried to portray themselves as suffering in the same manner as blacks in the Jim Crow south.

The first to purvey this lie was Betty Friedan.

The purpose of lying so egregiously was to play upon white men's guilt at the end of the black civil rights movement.

The fact that said women were spoiled brats with a college education seemed to have no impact upon anybody consciousness.

And, thus, we were showered with 50 years of lies, each greater than the next. These lies, collectively, defined "feminism."

Homosexuals looked upon the success of this pantload of lies, and decided to try the same strategy. White liberal men found themselves powerless to oppose the absuridy of these lies.

The rest is history: an entire society rotting in laughable lies.

11:21 AM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Fine, Graham, I'll take you in. But if you have even one extra pound on you, it's got to go. I can't stand excess weight. You will probably be expected to spend as much time in the gym as I do.

My house could be much cleaner, and there are a few repairs that I have neglected as well. I am considering relocating so be prepared to keep your bags pack as I choose where our new home will be located.

The bills will be paid very promptly, however.

12:14 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight, Cham ...
You're offering a position to Graham in which he has to maintain his health, do a little housework and a little home repair, all of which he's probably already doing for himself, and he gets all his basic necessities of life met entirely. Other than the time to work out and clean and maintain the home, he is then free to pursue his own values, goals, and associations as much as he wants and without fear of ever harming his basic needs for survival, with the added bonus of meeting new people and opportunities with periodic moves?

Tell me ... is this gig open to anyone?

12:45 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

femsuccess,

Based on your stated definition of feminism, I would assume you are in substantial agreement with the following authors who share your definition and have been personally active in the womens movement:

Wendy McElroy (Ifeminists.com), Daphne Patai (author of Heterophobia and Professing Feminism), Cathy Young (author of Ceasefire- Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve Equality), Camille Paglia, Doris Lessing (feminist icon who has strongly criticized feminist doctrine in recent years), Erin Pizzey (founder of first womens shelters in UK), Katherine K. Young (McGill prof and author of Spreading Misandry.

I would further assume based on you definition of feminism that you are in favor of presumptive joint custody after divorce (unless one parent is violent), that you are are just as disgusted by DV against men as against women (and are cognizent of the massive research base showing that it is about as common as DV against women), and that you support prosecution of women who use false allegations of abuse or rape for personal gain or revenge.

Given your stated definition, I assume that you have sought out the truth about many so-called gender issues, and are therefore aware of the overwhelming mass of data that shows that women with the same qualifications, time in the labor force, hours of work per week, same industry, etc are paid the same as men on average and you always take the time to challenge erroneous statements to the contrary.

Based on your definition of feminism, I would assume that you have read Christina Hoff Sommers book Who Stole Feminism with tremendous interest and open-mindedness and support her criticisms of the excesses of feminism. I would assume that you followed up on her many references when you did not believe any particular thing she said.

I would assume that you are interested in how men perceive some of these issues and have read Warren Farrell (author the Myth of Male Power, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say) with an open mind.

Given your stated definition of feminism I would assume all of the above as a minimum.

Am I correct?

Will

12:49 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

of a certain description, yeah.

12:52 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

It's a short limb to go out on, but I'm going to guess much of Arianna's problem has to do with a confusion of assertiveness with obnoxiousness. Being an obnox isn't acceptible in men, either, and a variety of specifically male descriptors exist to demonstrate it.

12:55 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As far as "obedient women" are concerned, abused womans' shelters are filled with them."

What womens' shelters are mostly filled with are women who made foolish choices, choices which they freely made.

1:06 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Womens' shelters are filled with women who are codependent with abusive men. Often the women spend years thinking that if they are a little more submissive, if the spend more time and effort to please, keep a cleaner home, keep the children quieter that their men will stop beating them. Physically abusive men often seek out submissive and obedient women.

1:22 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Anonymous 12:45:

A few days ago we had a discussion about women who working looking for just such a deal in life. If I offer the same deal to men I wonder how many enthusiastic volunteers I will get.

It might be nice to have a great looking man around, one that doesn't give me a lot of lip and can keep track of the housework.

But I forgot to add some more specifications, please...no debt, no health problems, and psychiatric baggage. I can't deal.

Cham

1:27 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abusive _people_, whether that abuse is physical or otherwise, seek out the strongest of the completely safe targets for their abuse. Strong men abuse weak or compliant men, weak men abuse weaker or compliant women, strong women abuse weak or compliant men, weak women abuse children, children abuse weak or compliant children, weak children abuse animals, animals defecate on the carpet. Poor, poor carpet.

Instead of saying that women's shelters are full of submissive and obedient women (and, conversely, men's shelters are ... oh ... never mind), what should be addressed is why _people_ are abusive in this way. Personally, I think it is the disconnection of self image from reality and values that I've mentioned before ... if you can't determine your personal worth by introspection, and other people don't express your worth for you, then how do you convince yourself that you're a worthwhile person? By demonstrating that you have power.

To make it a gender issue is beside the point and, ultimately, ineffectual, if not self-defeating, at diminishing the problem.

1:43 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My definition of feminism, "feminism: a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to those of men." is to work towards those goals in my personal and professional lives.

I have experienced the inequalities and worked towards lessening the inequalities.

And, theophany, I have encountered scenarios of inequality as a woman. As a "feminist", responsible, woman I chose not to have children, thus not encountering the courts for child custody. In addition, my husband is the perfect equal partner.

I have known someone who speaks just as you do. However, this male lies about the whole situation and has been violent to his female spouses, has failed to contribute to the household, expects his women to be slim and trim when he no longer is, asks his children to play mean jokes, and is just plain mean. Then he wonders, like so many people like yourself do, why everyone is out to get him.

1:44 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cham, as you yourself posited, abusive relationships are co-dependent in nature, which means that there is a systemic component. Women play their part. And, yes, "physically abusive men often seek out submissive and obedient women," but the corollary to that is that abused women seek out abusive men, and in this dynamic most often leave the womens' shelter and return to the man who abused her, or otherwise find another such man who fits the profile so they can push his buttons. Serially.

Which takes me back to my original statement that what womens' shelters are mostly filled with are women who made foolish choices, choices which they freely made

The first step to change that is to take ownership of decisions freely made, and in the future make different ones, better ones.

1:50 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To Cham 1:22

Your last sentence is probably true. But it is also probably a bias which women have bred into men.

See: http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/TheManWho.pdf

1:52 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hm. Femsuccess, I've never been married, have no children, support myself and have for over 20 years, have several female friends who appreciate my support and friendship, have never dated a woman who could have been described as slender, have never been violent to anyone except my brother in junior high school, have been totally responsible for my own values, goals, actions, and life, and have never, ever, asserted that everyone is out to get me. I'm also very careful about criticizing ideas commonly associated with the name, "feminism", and their consequences upon society (of which I've spent years researching), and distinguishing those things from actions that coincidentally happen to be performed by a woman.

But you go ahead and equate me to the reprehensible person you described if it makes you feel better.

1:58 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger DADvocate said...

"Eleanor Roosevelt, Bes Truman, Mamie Eisenhower"

No doubt they are unique women with greater impact that most First Ladies, but I always wonder if we'd have even heard of them if they hadn't married a man who became President.

The bit about the godmother blows my mind. I could see doing that if the godmother was a member of a murderous extremist group but just because she's a Democrat. Heck, my sister who's a dyed in the wool Democrat (her daughter interned for Clinton and Gore) dates a Republican. I can only imagine the warped values Ms. Huffington is giving her daughter.

2:07 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Cham wrote: "As far as "obedient women" are concerned, abused womans' shelters are filled with them."

Actually, those are the disobedient ones! The obedient ones are still getting the shit beat out of them.

Ya know, we in the field of dealing with adult on adult abuse used to think in terms of victims and perpetrators, but more data based approaches view the people in terms of how much time they spend in the victim role and how much time they spend in the perpetrator role. The data showed that there were practically NO 100% victims in this population.

But, this data based view does not fit well with the whole men bad/women good mythos, so it does not often get mentioned.

Aggravating isn't it, when reality does not match up with a nice, neat theory.

Trey

3:16 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger Melissa Clouthier said...

Arianna Huffington is a vapid elite intent on telling women how to be better women. Answer: Be like Meeeee!

Women telling women what makes a good woman seems to be a theme these days. Ann Althouse was on Bloggingheads discussing the BlogHer conference where she was a presenter. I posted about it in response to the Passionate Users author (who, I just found out through this thing, happens to be a woman) who decried such conferences. It caused a bit of a tempest in the tea party.

Do I have to be part of the feminist group think to be considered a strong woman? Evidently. All the more reason to avoid these groups.

By the way, I named my son after my very liberal progressive friend. Uh oh! By Arianna's logic, I should change it right away. We disagree politically. My son could be harmed. Suddenly I have the vapors.

3:27 PM, August 17, 2006  
Blogger TMink said...

Right. The problem is not that Arianna is a woman, the problem is that she is a vapid moonbat with a personality disorder. There is no sexism here, that is just a convienent excuse for her lack of effectiveness.

4:01 PM, August 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

graham strouse, yes, you are off your head.

6:34 AM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The women of my generation (and I'm 56) have been so damned awful. We men were weak. Our fathers were exhausted from combat in the World War II, and my contemporaries were reeling from the Vietnam War.

Just read the insane, self-interested BS above and try to imagine how educated (and almost entirely white, I guarantee) women became so selfish, vicious and demented. The failure of male authority is the source of the insanity.

I exited from personal relationships with white women 25 years ago. My late wife was Filipina, and my next wife is going to be Filipina, too. (Can't wait to hear the ignorant racist chorus.) White women, for the most part, are just not worth a damn.

My late wife, by contrast, grew up in the slums of Olongopo. By the time of her death at age 49, she was earning 100 grand, managing the training department of an international corporate law firm and plying a second career with me as a cafe singer. She had none of the bitches you'll read above, she loved men and she had nothing but contempt for the spoiled brat complaining in this thread.

My girlfriend and future wife is also a delightful Filipina who makes a good living and takes great pride in sending me out in the door in freshly ironed shirts.

Girls, you really should be ashamed of yourselves. This spoiled brat bitching is disgusting. Most of the time, I refuse to even listen to it. When I am in the presence of some pig woman who insists on it, I walk away.

7:55 AM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham, you are not off your head. I have both seen it and had it described to me many times (although, of the places I've lived, which does not include the West coast, it seems more prevalent in the North-East of the country.)

There are usually two reasons given (by the women describing the situations to me) ... the socialist hatred of achievement that exceeds their own (which is why you primarily see it in the liberals), and a situation analgous to the fact that it's frequently the mothers in Egyptian society demanding that their daughters be circumcised (although the psychology behind this one, I have no idea).

9:32 AM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor people have thin choices in just about everything they do. That's the nature of that beast. It's the sine qua non of being poor. I won't sign onto the concept that poor women must choose to be abused again and again and again and again because poverty has slimmed their choices down to that and to that only. You can sign onto that if you want to, but I won't.

Me, I say there's something else primarily afoot in this dynamic, and poverty per se has relatively little to do with it.

2:59 PM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shouting Thomas said:
"My girlfriend and future wife is also a delightful Filipina who makes a good living and takes great pride in sending me out in the door in freshly ironed shirts."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ugh!?!?!

3:07 PM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

femsuccess said:
Shouting Thomas said:
"My girlfriend and future wife is also a delightful Filipina who makes a good living and takes great pride in sending me out in the door in freshly ironed shirts."

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ugh!?!?!


femsuccess,
Your meaning is not entirely clear here. Are you saying that you object to marriage partners doing nice things for each other? If so, is this in general or only when the thing being done conforms to some traditional gender role? Or do you mean something else entirely?
Please explain.

3:44 PM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen,

To quote you in this blog post, "You know the drill of feminist dogma--all women are victims, the patriarchy is evil, all women must be pro-choice, read Reviving Ophelia, vote as Democrats and wet their panties when Bill Clinton enters a room."
You begin with a stereotype which begins as a classic straw woman (intended) argument. Then you bring up Huffington, who isn't worthy of comment as she is possibly shrill to the degree that she thinks it serves her financial interests. I'm not sure, because I don't pay attention to "pundits," even if they try to claim anti-pundit status.

What's your point? How many women actually think this way? I can't say I've ever met one. You take the loonies on the far fringe of a womens' rights movement (there is more than movement) and seem to imply there is some kind threat to society imposed by such ideas. I challenge you to demonstrate the potency of such a threat outside of the silly womens' studies curriculums or the bay area in California. Before you point out this or that senator or representative, mention the percentage of votes they have among congressional Democrats and the congress as a whole. I challenge you.

8:49 PM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dr melissa,

To quote you: "Women telling women what makes a good woman seems to be a theme these days. Ann Althouse was on Bloggingheads discussing the BlogHer conference where she was a presenter. I posted about it in response to the Passionate Users author (who, I just found out through this thing, happens to be a woman) who decried such conferences. It caused a bit of a tempest in the tea party.

Do I have to be part of the feminist group think to be considered a strong woman? Evidently. All the more reason to avoid these groups."

You know, I wouldn't join NOW. I think it's run by a bunch of sillies who are naive as to human biology. But, I've never had NOW knock on my door and disturb me during dinner like some whacko Christians. To demonstrate my openmindedness, I invite the attractive ones in for sex. Otherwise, I properly tell them to get lost and slam the door in their faces. It's not NOW that is going door-to-door trying to convert people with the fanaticism of the Nazis or Islamic terrorists. Christian ideas are no less silly.

9:24 PM, August 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aside from being a golddigger, a moral, intellectual, and political opportunist; and reminding everyone above a certain age of Za Za Gabor, Ms. Huffington is a compelling role model for women, I suppose. But then, I think the whole idea of role models needs to be scrapped. Most of the public figures I idolized when I was growing up now look fairly pathetic to me.

12:47 AM, August 19, 2006  
Blogger Cham said...

Specialopsdude:

So how are women supposed to act? Is there some set of acting guidelines of which I am not aware?

While you are at it, I'd like to review the men's guidelines as well.

10:01 AM, August 19, 2006  
Blogger BobH said...

To specialopsdude:

I think that you're crossing domains.

My definition of "attractive": possessing attributes causing other to want to enter into a relationship with you, IN THE DOMAIN OF INTEREST.

Since you're a paratrooper, would you agree that "attractive" attributes might be different in the following domains: (1) a woman that you meet at a bar and are considering for a one-night stand; (2) a wife and mother to (hopefully) your children; (3) a fellow (female) soldier next to you in a firefight after your convoy is ambushed (4) the (female) surgeon who saves your life after you get shot up in the firefight?

12:47 PM, August 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

shouting thomas said: "(Can't wait to hear the ignorant racist chorus.) White women, for the most part, are just not worth a damn."

*slaps forehead* oohhhh, the ironyyyyyy!


helen: allowing comments on your blog alone proves you're tolerant of dissenting opinions? uh, no.

Andrea

2:54 PM, August 19, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

graham strouse:

that's it. my offer to be your sugar mama is OFF the table!

hehe. i kid, i kid.

i don't think she has the option of "kicking us out of her sandbox". but being tolerant of opposing views requires, in my opinion, alot more than simply not censoring them. it requires actually being respectful. helen herself is quite snarky, testy, churlish and rude.

again, the example here most recently being her comments about huffington, for whom i have no love, mind you. but the post is entitled: "fearless, clueless, or just plain mean". continuing on, while you can certainly criticize some feminists, it is just plain silly to treat all feminists as one homogeneous group and criticize the lot of them.

and honestly, i don't have a problem in many cases with intolerance or flat out bitchiness. but the irony and hypocrisy in the post was just so plain, the lack of personal insight, that i had to comment.

andrea

2:42 PM, August 20, 2006  
Blogger Chap said...

Dr. Smith rude?

I don't think so. Anonymous commenters on her blog, on the other hand, might see it differently. What with the hypocrisy and all.

More and more I see Heinlein was right...

4:34 PM, August 20, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Graham Strouse,

It is not a big deal to me if people call me by the wrong name--with a last name like Smith, it is easy. I once was called Helen Hunt (the actress) throughout a newspaper article about me and thought it rather funny.

4:38 PM, August 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

chap:

what exactly is it you mean to imply aboout anonymous commenters and hypocrisy? after all, you yourself are posting anonymously.

Andrea

7:28 PM, August 20, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neuromath: I challenge you to demonstrate the potency of such a threat outside of the silly womens' studies curriculums or the bay area in California.

You conveniently missed Theophanys post above outlining everything radical feminism has done to society.

Unless you think everything below isn't worth your time.



-have you ever entered court with a presumption of guilt based solely on the fact that you are one gender and your accuser, whose accusation is the only "evidence" (even in contradiction of physical evidence) against you, is another?
-have you ever been asked to change seats on a plane because a child is sitting next to you, and your society accepts that everyone of your gender is presumed to be a child molester?
-have you ever gone to family court and known that you had an uphill battle merely not to be a declared a slave, let alone retaining the possibility of ever seeing your children again, or, for that matter, staying out of jail (since accusations against your gender are taken as fact)?
-has your entire gender been condemned as knowing nothing about relationships because members of your gender have traditionally focused primarily on providing the basic necessities of survival to those they value?
-have you ever had it publicly declared that your entire gender must be considered presumptive rapists? Have the courts acted accordingly?
-have you ever had every hormonally-influenced action on the part of your gender be condemned as evil while every hormonally-influenced action on the part of the other gender excused as natural or, at least, mitigated?
-have you ever had a common natural learning style of your gender declared an illness requiring medication?
-have you ever been fired from a job because a person of another gender asserted that you said something they considered offensive?
-have you ever feared firing a flagrantly incompetent person because they were not of your gender, and any statement against you in court would be taken as true?
-have you ever been thrown out of your house because your housemates, of another gender, stated that they felt threatened by your presence?
-have you ever been kind to a person of the opposite gender who was down on its luck, provided a place to stay for a couple of months, and then been declared a parent figure of that person's child and forced to pay child support?

10:25 AM, August 21, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

graham:

That's a dangerous weakness indeed.

I hate to break the spell sooo, err, uh--NO, under NO circumstances should we "do" lunch!...or something....

;)

Andrea

12:00 AM, August 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

graham:

Silicon? No, they're real.

I do regret to inform you, however, that I am a lawyer, which apparently consigns me to an "'A' or 'B' debate style."

And, honey, I offered to be your sugar mama. No need to stick to the Daily Special. We can live large and order off the MENU at the Steak & Hoagie Shop!

Andrea

P.S. Give me a break. Even I know that dying at the hand of Angelina Jolie after a night in her arms is a "consummation devoutly to be wished".

11:44 PM, August 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are posting your opinion here freely on my blog and then accusing me of being intolerant of other points of view? That makes no sense."

Of course it makes no sense. These critics aren't interested in making sense, they are interested in attacking and deligitimizing. This is the postmodern left in all its glory. We should not expect rationality from those who reject reason. The whole point of the attack is to get you defending yourself against something that can be portrayed as indefensible. The solution to this idiocy is to change the rule-sets. This is the idea war. Whose ideas provide the general framework for interpreting events? What tactics does it take to effect the opinions of a country with 300 million people? We have to wage a campaign against the postmodernist left in order for our interpretation to prevail. And that is what it will take to succeed. Some ideas are wrong, and the wrong ideas need to be defeated. And we need to implement the right plans for defeating the wrong ideas. So how do we do that? This requires action; who is willing to act?

9:01 PM, August 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few years ago, when every top-level office in the Arizona government was held by a woman, the feminists didn't applaud-because they were all Republicans. They also don't like Snowe and Collins in Maine, the two (fairly liberal) female Senators, because they're also in the worng party.

10:32 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Helen said...

Phil,

I know that what you say is very true--sadly, no one cares about reason, facts or critical thinking--using emotion and propaganda is what the Nazis used to win people over--"think with your heart" was their slogan. Sadly, this seems to be the slogan of the left more and more and many people are buying it.

8:47 AM, August 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

10:56 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ut正妹 聊天室倉井空免費a影片伊莉論壇tw 18 net18禁成人網免費性愛影片aa 片俱樂部 免費avsexy girl video moviea片18禁地少女遊戲嘟嘟成人網洪爺後官電影院辣妺視訊線上 aa 片試看黑澀會美眉容瑄sex520免費電影sexy girl video moviesex520免費影片線上 aa 片試看嘟嘟h成人夜色sex999免費影片性愛貼圖區

11:37 PM, June 07, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home