An open challenge to Amicus

[amicus]

Quite a self portrait, there.
Obviously, your opinion is very important to you; I would never attempt to change it. I do wonder why you bother with this forum, though. I know you've said that hundreds of unknown lurkers might be reading your words. I thought you scorned unsubstantiated belief.

I do want to address one particular thought of yours; 1) I know you prefer generalisations. But tell me, what changes have you perceived as a result of women's participation in the affairs of society?

2)There are areas of society which are still controlled mostly by men. Many of the world's governments, for instance, are overwhelmingly male in the top echelons-- including our own. Have you seen any hint that these male bastions of power are more effective than any group of women would be? I don't see that G.W. Bush, for instance, is any more rational or wise than I am.

`~~~

Ya know, Stella, if you would stop obsessing over your need to attack my character and me personally and reflect on the opinions I offer, as you did in the last part of your post, we might have more enjoyable exchanges.

"...But tell me, what changes have you perceived as a result of women's participation in the affairs of society? ..."

The changes I perceive are mainly socially oriented legislation at local, state and federal levels since women began to vote. Begin with Prohibition which women actively campaigned for, follow that with National Parks and Preservation of natural sites that women heavily influenced as we came into the 20th century. Follow that with Eleanor Roosevelt and social security and the United Nations, both abject failures.

Then a rush of feminine inspired legislation the the 60's forward that gave prejudicial bias to minorities, tax funds for women's causes, abortion, changes in laws concerning homosexuality and gender differences, tax supported maternity leave, day care, welfare, aid to dependent children, college loans, lower standards for female students, Title Nine, equality in sports in public school, a long, long list of feminine inspired and supported legislation that I am sure you see as long overdue and I see as invasive of individual rights and private property.


"...2)There are areas of society which are still controlled mostly by men. Many of the world's governments, for instance, are overwhelmingly male in the top echelons-- including our own. Have you seen any hint that these male bastions of power are more effective than any group of women would be? I don't see that G.W. Bush, for instance, is any more rational or wise than I am..."

Well, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier(sp), not withstanding, just Hilary Clinton's advocacy of socialized medicine in President Clinton's time in office for one, and his passive non response to acts of terrorism against American interests around the world during his tenure, which she no doubt influenced, is another example.

Women, in general, tend to have a different 'world view' than men in government. Now while I know many of you think that would be an excellent thing; a more passive and less aggressive posture, in my mind (being a male), in an invitation to disaster.

The best offense is a better offense and a good defense; women tend to think in defensive terms only. It is the mindset I object to.

Not that you will appreciate my answers...but...you did ask.

Amicus...

 

[Brute_Force]

For Your Consideration, Amicus

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF MALE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

One man's violence against one woman may seem to result from his individual psychological problems, sexual frustration, unbearable life pressures, or some innate urge toward aggression. Though each of these "reasons" has been used to explain and even justify male violence, they oversimplify a complex reality: men have been taught to relate to the world in terms of dominance and control, and they have been taught that violence is an acceptable method of maintaining control, resolving conflicts, and expressing anger. When a boss sexually harasses an employee, he exerts his power to restrict her freedom to work and improve her position. When a battering husband uses beatings to confine his wife to the home and to prevent her from seeing friends and family or from pursuing outside work, he exerts dominance and control. When men rape women, they act out of a wish to dominate or punish.

Whether or not an individual man who commits an act of violence views it as an expression of power is not the point. The fact that so many individual men feel entitled to express their frustration or anger by being violent to so many individual women shows how deeply these lessons of dominance and violence have been learned.



Countless daily acts of violence create a climate of fear and powerlessness that limits women's freedom of action and controls many of the movements of our lives. The threat of male violence continues to keep us from stepping out from behind the traditional roles that we, as women, have been taught. Violence and the threat of violence keep us "in our place."

Now that I am on my own and living free of my abuser, I can see how my life was altered when I was being battered. Little by little, he isolated me from my friends, he convinced me to quit working, he complained about how I kept the house, he kept track of the mileage on the car to make sure that I wasn't going anywhere. Eventually, when the beatings were regular and severe, I had no one to turn to and I felt completely alone.

On the surface, it seems that men benefit from sexism--from this system of male dominance, control, and violence. On a deeper level, we know that sexism harms men as well as women. Sexism, and more specifically violence against women, harms men because it harms the women and girls in their lives and because it keeps them from having positive and loving relationships with women. In recent years, some men have begun to recognize and acknowledge the ways in which relating violently toward women (and other men) harms them. Groups like "Real Men" and "Men to End Sexism" have been working to raise consciousness among other men and to teach men how to be allies of women in the effort to bring an end to violence against women.



Copyright © 1984, 1992, 1998 by the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. All rights reserved. Published by Touchstone, a division of Simon & Schuster Inc.

 

[rgraham666]

Nice one, Brute. (That's got such an amusing dichotomy to it. )

I quite agree with it. There is something horribly limiting to the roles society has assigned to men. What we've been told defines our masculinity has become a burden instead.

Sigh. We humans still have so much to learn.

 

[Brute_Force]

Thank you.

And, I'm glad you appreciate dichotomy . it is kinda funny that my name is Brute_Force when I advocate non-violence. But, then, I love dichotomies in every way.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Your observation, in bold face, also depresses me, somewhat...that will need explaining...

I claim, as you might suspect, that I have no deep hostilities towards women, but that you perceive that I do, causes me to question, not myself, but your motives.

I am sorry that you choose that interpretation. I have only my word to offer, as is true of any person on the Internet, but I tell you sincerely that it would have been a source of considerable comfort and relief to me to have found some other interpretation of your words. I would much rather see some other message in them.

While I reject all religion in principle, that does not mean that I am ignorant of religious teachings or biblical literature, although I am certainly not a student.

You cannot deny that almost every major religion has relegated woman to second class status throughout all of recorded history and many still do.

Although I would not provide a compendium of philosophers through the ages, they too, if memory serves, reserved a different and special category for women.

So, at first blush, in your criticism of my thoughts, you deny or confront the brunt of religious and intellectual history of the entire world throughout all time.

Quite an undertaking.

Yes, I do. For throughout time nearly all religions, philosophies, and systems of thought have assumed certain other things as well. They have assumed that persons with slightly darker skin or flatter noses are less human; they have assumed that believers in other faiths are less human; they have assumed that persons living in distant countries, or following other leaders, or having differently-shaped eyes are less human.

They have been wrong, each and every time. Each time, they have assumed that they themselves, in their narrowest cultural, racial, and religious definition, have been the peak of achievement in the human race, and all other things lesser. And then eventually, around about 1945, someone finally demonstrated in the most clear and absolute possible way where all such thinking eventually leads - and people began to question if it was such an excellent idea as it had until that point seemed.

Much has changed in the world, and much of that change has been good.

Women's emancipation and the legislated equality they enjoy in parts of the world today, are just that; bestowed upon women, under the law, basically as a gift and a recognition, that by definition, they are individuals, to be viewed as such under the law.

If that is your point of view, then you must acknowledge that the same is true of men. None of us have rights but at the grace of our government.

I say this without emotion and without hostility and with as much objectivity as I can muster; that in the less than one hundred years of equality, women in general have not demonstrated their ability to function with equal purpose in society in general.

What precisely is this meant to indicate? That they are not identical to men? That I do not doubt at all. That they do not perform equal work? That I think highly unlikely. They form an active part of the workforce and in addition still perform a lion's share of domestic work and of child rearing. If anyone is falling behind a bit in demonstrating equal capacity for useful labor, I'd have to suggest a different gender.

But it is bootless to guess when I might ask. How is it that you feel they fail to demonstrate their ability to function with equal purpose?

Women have no doubt, changed the world since their full participation in the affairs of society overall. I for one, am not convinced that those changes have been beneficial, overall, to mankind in general. In other words, in my book, the jury is still out on the issue.

I recognize that some of the changes might challenge your own world view, but frankly, I find this sort of speculation as distasteful as speculation over whether abolishing slavery was "beneficial, overall, to mankind." Whatever dings to the general state of things might have been taken, the liberation of millions of human beings from utter misery is an overbalancing priorty, and I think the same of the equality of women. Whether one cares entirely for the political and social ramifications, I think it offensive to suggest that some problems there might overbalance the gains made from freeing half the population from a state of utter dependence and servitude.

Even a dog, constantly abused by a poking child, will eventually turn on the child. If the child must poke and the woman must nag, then who really is to blame when the dog or the man bites?

A dog has a limited mental capacity, poor impulse control, and in your example, someone physically assaulting it. An adult man is ... a man, Amicus. What are you making of him, when you compare him to an helpless animal? Are women children, then, and men mongrels that they poke with sticks? Or are we all human beings, with a sense of decency and of responsibility toward each other? Have we any characters, any will, anything that is us ourselves, or are we all simply slaves and tools to the prodding of the least among us?

I ask this very sincerely, because I put this to you: such creatures as this latter sort of men and women are incapable of liberty. If they have no more role in life than to snap and snarl at each other over their food and bite the nearest thing that annoys them, then they have and deserve no more freedom than our own dog - kept on a leash for her safety, as she has not the judgement nor the restraint to know what to do with liberty. No person can have more freedom than he or she has responsibility; the moment we relinquish accountability for our own actions, we relinquish the freedom to determine them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

`~~~

Ya know, Stella, if you would stop obsessing over your need to attack my character and me personally and reflect on the opinions I offer, as you did in the last part of your post, we might have more enjoyable exchanges.

"...But tell me, what changes have you perceived as a result of women's participation in the affairs of society? ..."

The changes I perceive are mainly socially oriented legislation at local, state and federal levels since women began to vote. Begin with Prohibition which women actively campaigned for, follow that with National Parks and Preservation of natural sites that women heavily influenced as we came into the 20th century. Follow that with Eleanor Roosevelt and social security and the United Nations, both abject failures.

Then a rush of feminine inspired legislation the the 60's forward that gave prejudicial bias to minorities, tax funds for women's causes, abortion, changes in laws concerning homosexuality and gender differences, tax supported maternity leave, day care, welfare, aid to dependent children, college loans, lower standards for female students, Title Nine, equality in sports in public school, a long, long list of feminine inspired and supported legislation that I am sure you see as long overdue and I see as invasive of individual rights and private property.


"...2)There are areas of society which are still controlled mostly by men. Many of the world's governments, for instance, are overwhelmingly male in the top echelons-- including our own. Have you seen any hint that these male bastions of power are more effective than any group of women would be? I don't see that G.W. Bush, for instance, is any more rational or wise than I am..."

Well, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier(sp), not withstanding, just Hilary Clinton's advocacy of socialized medicine in President Clinton's time in office for one, and his passive non response to acts of terrorism against American interests around the world during his tenure, which she no doubt influenced, is another example.

Women, in general, tend to have a different 'world view' than men in government. Now while I know many of you think that would be an excellent thing; a more passive and less aggressive posture, in my mind (being a male), in an invitation to disaster.

The best offense is a better offense and a good defense; women tend to think in defensive terms only. It is the mindset I object to.

Not that you will appreciate my answers...but...you did ask.

Amicus...

And thank you for answering.

And you are correct; Many of these things you feel are reprehensible, I find admirable. I would submit, however, that your parenthetical (being a male) assumes that all right-thinking men agree with you; I'm sure you know that's not the case. These things you accuse women of effecting could not have happened if men had not also been very actively involved in the decision-making process, just for a start.

Unlike you, I do not use generalities when I want to address one person. If you feel that I am insulting towards your character, you may rest assured that my opinion is guided by the words which you say, the character which you present here, and that I am not discounting you because "all Randists are like that." This means that I've paid attention to you for your own sake. When you talk about "menopausal hippies" I have to assume that you've paid attention to me.

Time and again, your conversations here have been derailed by the incredulous reactions of your listeners, who hear you offer the most extraordinary insults-- insults directed towards entire groups of people. Given the opinions you've expressed towards my sex, just for starters, I doubt that you can give me the respect that would make any exchange between us satisfying in any way. Since I know that my opinions are due solely to my inferior understanding and extremely emotional nature-- as far as you're concerned-- I would only be demonstrating my lower intelligence if I wasted my time trying to convince you otherwise. You've expressed your opinions in such a way that it's simple to extrapolate any particular that you haven't yet offered. Any time I've asked, such as this time, you've confirmed what I already know about you; your worldview is unalterable. Presumably, you're content that way.

You seem (I can only extrapolate this from what you say here) to think that you should be considered "a nice guy." Sometimes, you seem to feel that some great conspiracy has ostracised you, and that if you accuse loudly, the majority of regulars will realise that you've been treated unjustly. This, despite the continual insults you offer to pretty much every intellect that visits here. If you tell us that you feel that women are essentially inferior, and this to a group that prides itself on its intelligence, how can you possibly think any of them will respond favorably to your flirting? If you tell us that you feel that liberals are herpes-lipped idiots, and this in a group where most of the men are liberally-minded, why should these men respond to you in a casual conversation?

Forgive me for my temerity in offering you this advice; You ought to learn to lie a little, just to oil the social rails a little. Pretend you respect women, libs. Or find a group of women (and men) that agree with you.

 

[amicus]

I am sorry that you choose that interpretation. I have only my word to offer, as is true of any person on the Internet, but I tell you sincerely that it would have been a source of considerable comfort and relief to me to have found some other interpretation of your words. I would much rather see some other message in them.



Yes, I do. For throughout time nearly all religions, philosophies, and systems of thought have assumed certain other things as well. They have assumed that persons with slightly darker skin or flatter noses are less human; they have assumed that believers in other faiths are less human; they have assumed that persons living in distant countries, or following other leaders, or having differently-shaped eyes are less human.

They have been wrong, each and every time. Each time, they have assumed that they themselves, in their narrowest cultural, racial, and religious definition, have been the peak of achievement in the human race, and all other things lesser. And then eventually, around about 1945, someone finally demonstrated in the most clear and absolute possible way where all such thinking eventually leads - and people began to question if it was such an excellent idea as it had until that point seemed.

Much has changed in the world, and much of that change has been good.



If that is your point of view, then you must acknowledge that the same is true of men. None of us have rights but at the grace of our government.



What precisely is this meant to indicate? That they are not identical to men? That I do not doubt at all. That they do not perform equal work? That I think highly unlikely. They form an active part of the workforce and in addition still perform a lion's share of domestic work and of child rearing. If anyone is falling behind a bit in demonstrating equal capacity for useful labor, I'd have to suggest a different gender.

But it is bootless to guess when I might ask. How is it that you feel they fail to demonstrate their ability to function with equal purpose?



I recognize that some of the changes might challenge your own world view, but frankly, I find this sort of speculation as distasteful as speculation over whether abolishing slavery was "beneficial, overall, to mankind." Whatever dings to the general state of things might have been taken, the liberation of millions of human beings from utter misery is an overbalancing priorty, and I think the same of the equality of women. Whether one cares entirely for the political and social ramifications, I think it offensive to suggest that some problems there might overbalance the gains made from freeing half the population from a state of utter dependence and servitude.



A dog has a limited mental capacity, poor impulse control, and in your example, someone physically assaulting it. An adult man is ... a man, Amicus. What are you making of him, when you compare him to an helpless animal? Are women children, then, and men mongrels that they poke with sticks? Or are we all human beings, with a sense of decency and of responsibility toward each other? Have we any characters, any will, anything that is us ourselves, or are we all simply slaves and tools to the prodding of the least among us?

I ask this very sincerely, because I put this to you: such creatures as this latter sort of men and women are incapable of liberty. If they have no more role in life than to snap and snarl at each other over their food and bite the nearest thing that annoys them, then they have and deserve no more freedom than our own dog - kept on a leash for her safety, as she has not the judgement nor the restraint to know what to do with liberty. No person can have more freedom than he or she has responsibility; the moment we relinquish accountability for our own actions, we relinquish the freedom to determine them.

~~~

Excellent post BlackShanglan, thank you.

Your are, I sense, on the brink or the verge on condemning me and my thoughts to oblivion and ignorance.

Ideas in the marketplace, I believe, must display their efficacy and bear the scrutiny of opposition from all directions. By that means, as with any other product, ideas must stand up to all challenges and maintain the basic integrity and form to continue to exist and have influence.

The path towards individual human freedom has undertaken a long and arduous journey to the present time and those concepts hold firm to this day yet still undergo continuing challenges from all direction and at all levels.

The only thing that could have been better about your essay would be if a woman had written it and stood by to defend it. Instead, I usually get the hysterical screaming about my ignorance and stupidity in even broaching the subject.

Throughout the volumes of my historical novel, set in time ten thousand years ago, the struggle for recognition of human rights is portrayed, time and time again, in all aspects as I attempt to comprehend the evolving awareness of the primacy of human life and liberty.

It is fiction of course, as all writing concerning that period is, as we know scant little about how our distant ancestors actually lived.

There was no stone tablet of commandments for men to follow and obey, only their basic instincts and inherent humanity. It is those things I try to explore as a writer.

It took all of human history up to about three hundred years ago before the concepts of individual liberty were discovered and put into place. And women's rights even later than that, not yet a hundred years acknowledged.

Individual rights are neither bestowed nor granted by government; to differ with you on that aspect, an individuals right to exist is innate and can only be protected and defended by government.

At the time of the formulation and writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both the emancipation of women and people of color were debated and discussed and intended to become part of those founding documents. The ideas failed at that time but did not fade away.

Freedom cannot be imposed upon people. It must be desired and sought and with passion and dedication and unending endeavor.

My long winded effort here sums up to this, in general: I suggest that women do not appreciate and make full use of the freedom they now have. Quite like the former slaves, many seem angry about the past and want retribution for the centuries of oppression.

They seem to want compensation and special treatment and privileges to be 'granted' by society. They do not defend the very concept of individual freedom, but like the freed slaves, simply look for another master, usually in the form of a 'nanny state', to grant their wishes.

My underlying intent was not to impose or even express my viewpoints, rather to challenge the status quo and attempt to inspire discussion of the basic issues involved.

It is not a 'given', not written in stone that the grand experiment of women's emancipation is a 'done deal' and will only improve. Much like the Islamic nations who continue female domination and oppression, that belief has many adherents even here.

It is self evident and a truth to me that every human being, regardless of gender or ethnic heritage, possesses those basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit. However, these rights must be guarded and protected over and over again, with each new generation gaining the knowledge of the roots of liberty and nurturing the fruits of human freedom.

It is a long process, one that never ends as the passion and the fire must be rekindled through time.

That is why I continually challenge the socialists and the Marxists, and yes, the Church, to insist that the basic principles of human freedom become the foundation of all human endeavors as the fundamental value by which we exist.

I mistakenly thought, early in my broadcasting and journalistic career, that explaining and defending human freedom was a simple task, easy to do, as it is so self evident and axiomatic at the fundamental level.

I found just the opposite. It is very difficult. Perhaps my skills are not as they should be, but never doubt my passion.

Always a pleasure, Shanglan, thank you for defending a portion of that freedom I so love.

Amicus...

 

[impressive]

Oh, neigh.

 

[rgraham666]

No person can have more freedom than he or she has responsibility; the moment we relinquish accountability for our own actions, we relinquish the freedom to determine them.

Oh yay, Shang! Exactly so!

My beef with all ideologies from Libertarianism to Marxism is that all, it seems to me, are flights from responsibility.

"I can't do that," or "I have to do that", with the addition of "my beliefs tell me so" added as an excuse. The ideology takes the responsibility, leaving its believers free from blame.

I'm sure Timothy McVeigh went to his death certain that he was responsible for his actions.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The only thing that could have been better about your essay would be if a woman had written it and stood by to defend it. Instead, I usually get the hysterical screaming about my ignorance and stupidity in even broaching the subject.

Perhaps it was. The horsie's never given a definitive yea or neigh when it comes to its gender...

And I don't ever doubt your passion, Ami.

I like the straight arrow of you... I just think sometimes, it flies far from the target.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Excellent post BlackShanglan, thank you.

I thank you for reading it and giving it your consideration.

Ideas in the marketplace, I believe, must display their efficacy and bear the scrutiny of opposition from all directions. By that means, as with any other product, ideas must stand up to all challenges and maintain the basic integrity and form to continue to exist and have influence.

The path towards individual human freedom has undertaken a long and arduous journey to the present time and those concepts hold firm to this day yet still undergo continuing challenges from all direction and at all levels.

The only thing that could have been better about your essay would be if a woman had written it and stood by to defend it. Instead, I usually get the hysterical screaming about my ignorance and stupidity in even broaching the subject.

I think that the latter paragraph might benefit from being viewed in together with the first. Possibly the reason you're meeting with so little consideration of your ideas is that while you are indeed testing and challenging concepts to determine their merit, some of those concepts - like, for example, the idea that women are better off living in liberty rather than servitude - are so well-accepted and have so little evidence opposing them that it's something like debating whether animals feel pain. A hundred years ago, people debated that question; now they don't, because there is ample evidence, mostly from the animals themselves, to prove that they do feel pain. We might debate how they process it or what levels of pain different actions inflict upon them, but we recognize as not only fallacious but self-serving the past arguments by vivisectionists that dogs with their paws nailed to walls were not experiencing pain.

Arguing that women in specific and mankind in general haven't benefitted from women's liberation is an equally exploded proposition. Women themselves are able to tell us that, and the evidence is all around us. I'm surprised that you, who prize liberty as the birthright of mankind, could possibly oppose it. Can we argue that the changes haven't been unanimously positive or easy? Certainly. Liberty brings challenges, and always has. It's good to recogize them. However, if you drift into "maybe the whole liberation thing was a bad idea," then they do deride you - not because you're testing a potentially flawed hypothesis, but because you're arguing something that has been thoroughly disproven. They suspect your motives, as well, both because they've seen how often in the past that argument has been made by people intent on maintaining a comfortable position of control, and because they can't see how one can reconcile a love of human liberty with the oppression of half of the population. They see the contradiction and they suspect an ugly motive for it because it's difficult to imagine a good one.

Throughout the volumes of my historical novel, set in time ten thousand years ago, the struggle for recognition of human rights is portrayed, time and time again, in all aspects as I attempt to comprehend the evolving awareness of the primacy of human life and liberty.

It is fiction of course, as all writing concerning that period is, as we know scant little about how our distant ancestors actually lived.

There was no stone tablet of commandments for men to follow and obey, only their basic instincts and inherent humanity. It is those things I try to explore as a writer.

It took all of human history up to about three hundred years ago before the concepts of individual liberty were discovered and put into place. And women's rights even later than that, not yet a hundred years acknowledged.

Indeed. And yet, like you, I think that those rights existed. They may not have been enforced, but the craving of each human being to have those rights was there.

Individual rights are neither bestowed nor granted by government; to differ with you on that aspect, an individuals right to exist is innate and can only be protected and defended by government.

Acutally, I agree with you on this point. Now, perhaps you will agree with me: those rights were never "given" to women by men, any more than they were given to men by anyone else. They may have been brought to legal recognition at a later date, but they weren't a charming gesture of chivalry on the part of gentlemen. They were something as innate to women as to men, and as instinctively desired and fought for. Women were simply at a disadvantage in enforcing them, as were oppressed people of all sorts.

At the time of the formulation and writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, both the emancipation of women and people of color were debated and discussed and intended to become part of those founding documents. The ideas failed at that time but did not fade away.

Freedom cannot be imposed upon people. It must be desired and sought and with passion and dedication and unending endeavor.

As indeed it was. I do find that last paragraph interesting, however, and am stowing it away mentally for future debate. I don't wish to bog this current issue down in semantic tangents, but it's an intriguing statement.

My long winded effort here sums up to this, in general: I suggest that women do not appreciate and make full use of the freedom they now have. Quite like the former slaves, many seem angry about the past and want retribution for the centuries of oppression.

They seem to want compensation and special treatment and privileges to be 'granted' by society. They do not defend the very concept of individual freedom, but like the freed slaves, simply look for another master, usually in the form of a 'nanny state', to grant their wishes.

How, then, do you explain the fact that males founded and drove the ideas of commuism and socialism?

I propose that the answer lies at least in part in recognizing what those systems actually sought. You suggest that women and freed slaves desired masters, but if one looks at such "preferential" laws as I assume you're thinking of - say, for instance, affirmative action - they're not asking anyone to "nanny" them (the formerly oppressed). They're asking for the power of the people who had enslaved them to be slightly abated so that they can get their feet under themselves and begin to acquire economic power of their own.

Now, one can argue that such laws are a good way to go about that, or one can argue that they are a bad way. However, I think that any good capitalist must confess two chief things when looking at the economic history of women and of enslaved peoples:

(1) For most of history, they were unable to acquire capital or to participate in the marketplace in a role other than "commodity."

(2) They entered the marketplace heavily handicapped by a lack of capital and education, and were further disadvantaged by social class structures that resulted in their economic marginalization.

Given those facts, I ask you what was done to enable to them to compete as equals. Affirmative action, whether one cares for it or not, was a response to a real concern that nothing else addressed. One may well argue that it didn't address it either, but that doesn't make the problem itself disappear. They may have had the same rights as white males, but that did not change the very skewed playing field on which they had to exercise them.

It is not a 'given', not written in stone that the grand experiment of women's emancipation is a 'done deal' and will only improve. Much like the Islamic nations who continue female domination and oppression, that belief has many adherents even here.

It is self evident and a truth to me that every human being, regardless of gender or ethnic heritage, possesses those basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit. However, these rights must be guarded and protected over and over again, with each new generation gaining the knowledge of the roots of liberty and nurturing the fruits of human freedom.

In what way are you guarding or protecting those rights when you suggest that some people might be less deserving of them than others? Why is women's emancipation an "experiment" whose many pitfalls must be rigorously brought to light, yet men's emancipation an accepted absolute? Why do you describe women's freedom as being "given" to them by men, yet men's freedom as an inherent and inviolable thing born into them?

These things trouble me, Amicus, as I think that they trouble others, because they present contradictions. People like Stella react badly to your ideas because you do present women's rights differently to the way you present men's rights. I've stepped back from this thread several times in the past day or so and tried every way I can think of re-engage with it from different perspectives. I've read through your posts many times, doing all that I can to assume the best of good will and wholehearted support for the rights of all people. I cannot find a way to read your posts that does not imply to me what Stella saw as well - that you do not hold the rights and ideas of women in the same respect as you hold those of men, based purely on the gender of the person involved. I still strive to read with an open mind and to listen carefully when you further explain your perspective, but I tell you sincerely and without malice, that is what your posts are saying. You may not intend them to, but they are.

As for this earlier thought -

The only thing that could have been better about your essay would be if a woman had written it and stood by to defend it.

At the moment, I'm afraid you'll have to settle for a horse. But surely my logic either stands or falls on its own. What possible difference could my gender make?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Rob, Imp, I'm much obliged.

 

[amicus]

And thank you for answering.

And you are correct; Many of these things you feel are reprehensible, I find admirable. I would submit, however, that your parenthetical (being a male) assumes that all right-thinking men agree with you; I'm sure you know that's not the case. These things you accuse women of effecting could not have happened if men had not also been very actively involved in the decision-making process, just for a start.

Unlike you, I do not use generalities when I want to address one person. If you feel that I am insulting towards your character, you may rest assured that my opinion is guided by the words which you say, the character which you present here, and that I am not discounting you because "all Randists are like that." This means that I've paid attention to you for your own sake. When you talk about "menopausal hippies" I have to assume that you've paid attention to me.

Time and again, your conversations here have been derailed by the incredulous reactions of your listeners, who hear you offer the most extraordinary insults-- insults directed towards entire groups of people. Given the opinions you've expressed towards my sex, just for starters, I doubt that you can give me the respect that would make any exchange between us satisfying in any way. Since I know that my opinions are due solely to my inferior understanding and extremely emotional nature-- as far as you're concerned-- I would only be demonstrating my lower intelligence if I wasted my time trying to convince you otherwise. You've expressed your opinions in such a way that it's simple to extrapolate any particular that you haven't yet offered. Any time I've asked, such as this time, you've confirmed what I already know about you; your worldview is unalterable. Presumably, you're content that way.

You seem (I can only extrapolate this from what you say here) to think that you should be considered "a nice guy." Sometimes, you seem to feel that some great conspiracy has ostracised you, and that if you accuse loudly, the majority of regulars will realise that you've been treated unjustly. This, despite the continual insults you offer to pretty much every intellect that visits here. If you tell us that you feel that women are essentially inferior, and this to a group that prides itself on its intelligence, how can you possibly think any of them will respond favorably to your flirting? If you tell us that you feel that liberals are herpes-lipped idiots, and this in a group where most of the men are liberally-minded, why should these men respond to you in a casual conversation?

Forgive me for my temerity in offering you this advice; You ought to learn to lie a little, just to oil the social rails a little. Pretend you respect women, libs. Or find a group of women (and men) that agree with you.

~~~

Hello again Stella...

No Mea Culpa forthcoming here, not that you expected one, but I shall bore you with a little story, if you don't mind too awfully much...

Travel with me for a moment, back in time to the mid 1960's and recall the era, early Vietnam era, recent assassination of JFK, the 'free love' hippie generation in full bloom, a Cold War, heating and cooling and much more in a changing time.

I was married, with a little girl, still a Sergeant in the Air Force, a college student at the U of H, and part time work at a popular radio station as a disk jockey.

A busy, busy guy. It cost me a marriage and a family, I applied for an early discharge from the military and confronted a Poly Sci professor in class when he stated that anyone supporting Barry Goldwater was an idiot. Well, even in my youth, I stood and confronted him...it worked out that I received a passing grade for the class if I agreed never to darken his doorstep again. So be it.

Formal education soured for me shortly thereafter and I concentrated on a budding radio career, selling advertising and doing live shows from nightclubs; I went to another station and one night opened the telephone lines for listeners as I was featuring a different artist, Thelonious Monk, a pianist with discordant and atonal sounds that I found curious.

Something amazing happened over the next few hours, I stopped playing music and began talking with people about the music...long story short...the owner of the radio station called, (I figured I was gonna get the ax), and offered me a daytime, 'talk radio show', hell, I never heard of 'talk radio' at that point.

It turned into an amazing experience for all involved as people seemed eager to want to talk on the radio, all six phone lines were jammed the entire three hours of my show and despite the wide eyed stares of the radio station staff and owners as I broached controversy after controversy, softened, when for the first time ever, the station broke into the top three in the ratings game and kept getting better each quarter.

I slowly began live interviews, in person, in the studio, face to face across a table, with increasingly important individuals from all walks of life, Politics, Business, Education, Entertainers show biz visiting Hollywood personalities, an exciting time for me and the station and Honolulu in general.

I was already fairly comfortable in a studio, behind the microphone and my skills in conducting interviews began to solidify and I became fairly adept at getting a good interview, but it happened a little at a time and each person was a little different.

I also began to improve in my debate skills and more and more found the 'activists' that began to drift in, were also very skilled and knowledgeable.

I suppose a transition occurred over one incident; the Catholic Bishop of Honolulu contacted the station and arranged to be interviewed. We had been discussing, "The List", a list of books that Catholics were forbidden to read.

So, in full regalia, this rather intimidating figure of a man, large, bulky, his mere presence demanding respect, settled in a chair across from me in the studio.

I was in my mid twenties then, confident, if not cocky and arrogant, almost by necessity on my part, in the highly competitive broadcasting business, but this Bishop filled the little studio and I could almost feel myself shrinking.

We exchanged pleasantries for a few moments and then approached some current issues of the Church and society in general, religion was just coming under attack, there were Marxist, activist Priests confronting both the church and society in Canada and all over South America at the time as International Communism was sending out tendrils everywhere in the world.

He smiled and kindly and gently, almost father to son, recited the Litany of his church and that all was well in the fold.

When I mentioned 'The List', as a topic of phone conversations for the last week on the program, his demeanor changed instantly. The Jolly old St. Nick, disappeared, his eyes hardened, his posture changed and he leaned menacingly forward across the table and challenged me to present my case.

Well...I did...and I did...and I did yet again. His face got redder and redder, he became agitated with each refutation, in a 'how dare you!" attitude, finally tossed a sheaf of papers at me, rose and left the studio.

It was quite an experience and it left me with the feeling that if I could stand up to this man, I could stand up to any advocate of any position and hold my own.

It is not just bombast or wittiness, or quick repertoire, or even sophisticated subtleness, it is also careful and in depth preparation for the subject of discourse.

I did that for a bunch of years in Honolulu and elsewhere, on both radio and television and with the years came experience and knowledge.

Literotica and the AH Forum are a microcosm in a much larger world. The forum is populated by an shrinking but very vocal minority that dominate the discussions here.

You complain that I address this 'minority' in general terms of disregard, and so I do. I have several times listed the common causes of the vocal left here, it is the same everywhere, a core group of issues that they band together on, combating all comers. They dominate to the extent that few with different opinions will even brook the incoming tide when they gather and descend on an unfortunate 'newby', who seldom realizes what happene.

If you desire to be treated as other than a 'herd' animal, then leave the herd, strike out on your own, leave the safety of the mass and risk having and defending an individual opinion.

I am not selling a political viewpoint, I am not promoting a political book, I enjoy discussions and debate on issues with other minds who have opinions they can support and defend, not hysterical accusations and personal attacks and a superior socialist/altruist attitude about helping women, or society, or all mankind, who gives a rat's ass about your social proclivities.

Actually 'think' for a change and put the rhetoric aside for a while, drop the mantra of the left and approach issues and ideas with your mind and not your emotions.

There are few things better in life than an educated, intelligent, witty woman, capable and willing, even excited to share her thoughts, I treasure the few I have met.

I keep hoping to meet more.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

~~~

Hello again Stella...

No Mea Culpa forthcoming here, not that you expected one, but I shall bore you with a little story, if you don't mind too awfully much...

Travel with me for a moment, back in time to the mid 1960's and recall the era, early Vietnam era, recent assassination of JFK, the 'free love' hippie generation in full bloom, a Cold War, heating and cooling and much more in a changing time.

I was married, with a little girl, still a Sergeant in the Air Force, a college student at the U of H, and part time work at a popular radio station as a disk jockey.

A busy, busy guy. It cost me a marriage and a family, I applied for an early discharge from the military and confronted a Poly Sci professor in class when he stated that anyone supporting Barry Goldwater was an idiot. Well, even in my youth, I stood and confronted him...it worked out that I received a passing grade for the class if I agreed never to darken his doorstep again. So be it.

Formal education soured for me shortly thereafter and I concentrated on a budding radio career, selling advertising and doing live shows from nightclubs; I went to another station and one night opened the telephone lines for listeners as I was featuring a different artist, Thelonious Monk, a pianist with discordant and atonal sounds that I found curious.

Something amazing happened over the next few hours, I stopped playing music and began talking with people about the music...long story short...the owner of the radio station called, (I figured I was gonna get the ax), and offered me a daytime, 'talk radio show', hell, I never heard of 'talk radio' at that point.

It turned into an amazing experience for all involved as people seemed eager to want to talk on the radio, all six phone lines were jammed the entire three hours of my show and despite the wide eyed stares of the radio station staff and owners as I broached controversy after controversy, softened, when for the first time ever, the station broke into the top three in the ratings game and kept getting better each quarter.

I slowly began live interviews, in person, in the studio, face to face across a table, with increasingly important individuals from all walks of life, Politics, Business, Education, Entertainers show biz visiting Hollywood personalities, an exciting time for me and the station and Honolulu in general.

I was already fairly comfortable in a studio, behind the microphone and my skills in conducting interviews began to solidify and I became fairly adept at getting a good interview, but it happened a little at a time and each person was a little different.

I also began to improve in my debate skills and more and more found the 'activists' that began to drift in, were also very skilled and knowledgeable.

I suppose a transition occurred over one incident; the Catholic Bishop of Honolulu contacted the station and arranged to be interviewed. We had been discussing, "The List", a list of books that Catholics were forbidden to read.

So, in full regalia, this rather intimidating figure of a man, large, bulky, his mere presence demanding respect, settled in a chair across from me in the studio.

I was in my mid twenties then, confident, if not cocky and arrogant, almost by necessity on my part, in the highly competitive broadcasting business, but this Bishop filled the little studio and I could almost feel myself shrinking.

We exchanged pleasantries for a few moments and then approached some current issues of the Church and society in general, religion was just coming under attack, there were Marxist, activist Priests confronting both the church and society in Canada and all over South America at the time as International Communism was sending out tendrils everywhere in the world.

He smiled and kindly and gently, almost father to son, recited the Litany of his church and that all was well in the fold.

When I mentioned 'The List', as a topic of phone conversations for the last week on the program, his demeanor changed instantly. The Jolly old St. Nick, disappeared, his eyes hardened, his posture changed and he leaned menacingly forward across the table and challenged me to present my case.

Well...I did...and I did...and I did yet again. His face got redder and redder, he became agitated with each refutation, in a 'how dare you!" attitude, finally tossed a sheaf of papers at me, rose and left the studio.

It was quite an experience and it left me with the feeling that if I could stand up to this man, I could stand up to any advocate of any position and hold my own.

It is not just bombast or wittiness, or quick repertoire, or even sophisticated subtleness, it is also careful and in depth preparation for the subject of discourse.

I did that for a bunch of years in Honolulu and elsewhere, on both radio and television and with the years came experience and knowledge.

Literotica and the AH Forum are a microcosm in a much larger world. The forum is populated by an shrinking but very vocal minority that dominate the discussions here.

You complain that I address this 'minority' in general terms of disregard, and so I do. I have several times listed the common causes of the vocal left here, it is the same everywhere, a core group of issues that they band together on, combating all comers. They dominate to the extent that few with different opinions will even brook the incoming tide when they gather and descend on an unfortunate 'newby', who seldom realizes what happene.

If you desire to be treated as other than a 'herd' animal, then leave the herd, strike out on your own, leave the safety of the mass and risk having and defending an individual opinion.

I am not selling a political viewpoint, I am not promoting a political book, I enjoy discussions and debate on issues with other minds who have opinions they can support and defend, not hysterical accusations and personal attacks and a superior socialist/altruist attitude about helping women, or society, or all mankind, who gives a rat's ass about your social proclivities.

Actually 'think' for a change and put the rhetoric aside for a while, drop the mantra of the left and approach issues and ideas with your mind and not your emotions.

There are few things better in life than an educated, intelligent, witty woman, capable and willing, even excited to share her thoughts, I treasure the few I have met.

I keep hoping to meet more.

Amicus...

And, Ami, I have seen you, red-faced and hollering "How Dare You!" many a time.

I have presented my opinions as my own. That you see me as taking safety in the herd tells me once again that you do not respect my opinions. I cannot take an opposite opinion solely for the sake of being different; that would be lieing. As a matter of fact, I have a number of opinions that differ from most of the "herd"-- most of them still differ with yours, and you won't respect them if we spoke of them. (I make this prediction based on your own statements.)

You have the wrong word there; it's "majority" not "minority."

You are indeed selling a political viewpoint, you do not seem to enjoy discussions with others-- when you can't change their minds, you retreat to the "herd mind" defense, as you are doing here.

I personally have not hysterically attacked you. I most certainly have offered my observations on your character; as I've said, I don't deal much in generalities. You, however, have already lumped me, in your mind, in with the women who have "hysterically attacked" you. Any failings in one woman's discourse, you will point to as an example of what all women are like.

You make the assumption that Shanglan is a male. The horse is much more erudite than I am, far more eloquent, and possessed of patience that I have not got. Yet -he, if you like-, is telling you essentially the same things that I have. I see you discounting "his" words as fast as you do my own. But you're not saying "All men are all alike" about "his" opinions.

I do hope you have the chance to meet, someday, another "intelligent, witty woman." Your chances are slim on this forum!

 

[amicus]

"...At the moment, I'm afraid you'll have to settle for a horse. But surely my logic either stands or falls on its own. What possible difference could my gender make?..."

Shanglan

~~~


Ah, therein, perhaps, my friend, lies the rub, as the Bard opined.

Why don't you, Shanglan, pose that question to yourself?

What possible difference could gender make?

It would be redundant for me to recite, yet again, all the gender differences I perceive in all aspects of life.

Of course we all do the same similar things, such as breathe the same air...but even lung capacities are different in that basic statement.

I do hope that you and others will address that question and I offer a little tease to hurry you along.

Supposing, for the sake of conversation, if nothing else, that some of my points may have a certain vague validity. In that, the awakening, butterfly like emergence of the new free woman is still in the catalyst stage?

Or should that be 'chrysalis' stage, nevermind, either works.

I maintain that there are legitimate questions about the 'new' feminity, that have not as yet been addressed.

For example, must a woman bear a child to become 'fulfilled' in life? Those capable of such, of course, as a limiting factor, but now, as it is a matter of choice, how will just one choose and define it?

How will those who choose not to, explain? What then will fulfill them?

How important, if at all, here in the 21st century, is family? Brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, parents, grandparents paternal and maternal ancestry, does any of it play a role in the modern, 'liberated' world? If so, then how? And to what extent?

I could say a thousand more things, but I guess you either see the direction of thinking or you do not.

Amicus...

 

[Brute_Force]

I have read many books and short stories in which there is an all-knowing, omniscent narrator who knows everything about the characters, their lives, their stories, and their ends. But, never, in life, have I encountered someone who thinks they are omniscent, omnipresent even (as you seem to think, Amicus).

You seem to me like a man in love with the sound of his own voice. No words expressed with sincerity and feeling and insight seem to pierce through the veil of your own sound-system. You are so intoxicated with your own ideas that you do not hear anything. How lonely for you that must be, to fail to hear anything that does not fit into your schema.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have read many books and short stories in which there is an all-knowing, omniscent narrator who knows everything about the characters, their lives, their stories, and their ends. But, never, in life, have I encountered someone who thinks they are omniscent, omnipresent even (as you seem to think, Amicus).

You seem to me like a man in love with the sound of his own voice. No words expressed with sincerity and feeling and insight seem to pierce through the veil of your own sound-system. You are so intoxicated with your own ideas that you do not hear anything. How lonely for you that must be, to fail to hear anything that does not fit into your schema.

You're actually a woman, right? Trying to trick us? Well, it WON'T WORK!

(edited to say;

From reading Ami's last post, it seems, the horse is a girl after all.

 

[Brute_Force]

Laughing. Well, baby, that's for me to know and you to find out. LOL. No, seriously, I am a man (such as I am). But, I feel very closely identified with women. I grew up with five older sisters and was raised by a single mom.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Laughing. Well, baby, that's for me to know and you to find out. LOL. No, seriously, I am a man (such as I am). But, I feel very closely identified with women. I grew up with five older sisters and was raised by a single mom.

The single mom-- that's true for so many adults-- men and women--of this generation. And their experiences are a big part of the reason support for women with children has become more available-- none of those adults want to see any family go through what theirs did.

 

[amicus]

The single mom-- that's true for so many adults-- men and women--of this generation. And their experiences are a big part of the reason support for women with children has become more available-- none of those adults want to see any family go through what theirs did.

~~~

Not to engage you if you do not wish...however...your take on the 'single mom' phenomenon of 'this generation'?

Amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

"...At the moment, I'm afraid you'll have to settle for a horse. But surely my logic either stands or falls on its own. What possible difference could my gender make?..."

Shanglan

Ah, therein, perhaps, my friend, lies the rub, as the Bard opined.

Why don't you, Shanglan, pose that question to yourself?

Does it not seem strange to you, Amicus, that of my entire post, this is the only line you chose to address? Might it not incline readers to believe that you are indeed more concerned with the question of my gender than with the soundness of my logic, and that you would prefer to judge the latter by the former?

I've asked you, in good will and so that I might sincerely attempt to grasp your perspective, to explain how you reconcile a love of liberty for all persons with your repeated expressions of doubt about the equality of women. You've responded by asking me to hike up my caparisons and let you look underneath. It's difficult to see that as a germane response.

What possible difference could gender make?

It would be redundant for me to recite, yet again, all the gender differences I perceive in all aspects of life.

Of course we all do the same similar things, such as breathe the same air...but even lung capacities are different in that basic statement.

I do hope that you and others will address that question and I offer a little tease to hurry you along.

I'll be happy to answer the question, Amicus, but I think it fair to point out that you are not replying to any of mine. I asked what gender had to do with my logic or yours on the topics addressed in my post above, and I asked how you reconciled several apparently contradicatory claims or beliefs. My gender doesn't affect whether two specific things can be true at the same time or not, and I was hoping for an answer on those areas in which you seemed to be saying things that could not coexist.

Why do you describe rights as things inherently born into men, yet state that men "gave" them to women? Why do you present man's right to liberty as an axiomatic truth, yet insist that women's liberation must be carefully examined and its pitfalls meticulously revealed and questioned? How is questioning women's liberties part of protecting and fighting for liberty? I am earnestly and sincerely willing to listen to your answers to these questions with an open mind and good will, but you have declined to provide them - and you have also declined to demonstrate in what way my gender could possibly alter them. Surely your reasoning exists already, in your mind, without reference to my, er, undercarriage?

Supposing, for the sake of conversation, if nothing else, that some of my points may have a certain vague validity. In that, the awakening, butterfly like emergence of the new free woman is still in the catalyst stage?

Or should that be 'chrysalis' stage, nevermind, either works.

I maintain that there are legitimate questions about the 'new' feminity, that have not as yet been addressed.

For example, must a woman bear a child to become 'fulfilled' in life? Those capable of such, of course, as a limiting factor, but now, as it is a matter of choice, how will just one choose and define it?

How will those who choose not to, explain? What then will fulfill them?

Wouldn't we do pretty well for answers by asking (1) women and (2) generations of men who also have chosen not to have children?

By way of getting the ball rolling, I'll offer the perspective of a friend I worked with at the animal shelter - a woman who decided years ago not to have children. She is married to a charming man, and had been for more than ten years now. She says that she simply isn't interested in children. She enjoys many pursuits (I wish I had half her energy, I really do) and is forever travelling, scuba diving, doing charity work, and pursuing hobbies with her husband. She's not fond of small children, doesn't like the idea of being stuck in her house for years raising them, and is an ambitious and bright person keen to try every challenge the world and her career can throw at her.

Of course, one never wholly knows the inside of anyone else's head, but it looks to me that she's happily fulfilled by exactly the same things that have been happily fulfilling humans of all sorts for years - friends, ideas, stimulating work, a loving spouse, and an interesting range of leisure activities. She regards with a mixture of amusement and irritation the suggestion that her life would be completed by giving most of those up for a child she has no interest in bearing.

But really, what has this to do with liberty? As Mill observed, what is natural and necessary to women to do, they will do regardless of what liberty they have to do otherwise. If they require children in order to feel complete, they will have them; an excess of liberty will not lure them away, any more than an excess of liberty has lured men into evil ways.

How important, if at all, here in the 21st century, is family? Brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, parents, grandparents paternal and maternal ancestry, does any of it play a role in the modern, 'liberated' world? If so, then how? And to what extent?

I could say a thousand more things, but I guess you either see the direction of thinking or you do not.

Amicus...

I see the direction, and I think that your questions about family are interesting and do bear thought. However, I also think that you still haven't answered some key questions, and that's important. People like Stella aren't listening to your ideas because, for the reasons I observed in my last post, you're creating the impression that you don't consider the rights and opinions of females to be equally worthy of respect, in the general course of things. If you can resolve that issue, then perhaps they'll be willing to discuss the matter of family, too.

Personally, I think that one of the great challenges of modern feminine liberation is the question of what to do with duties traditionally wished upon women. I recognize the desire of women that they no longer be saddled with them exclusively, and yet I also recognize that if no one takes up vital duties like child-raising and home-making, trouble is indeed a-brewing for everyone. However, I understand the hesitation of some posters to engage with you on the topic. So long as you're unwilling to unambiguously state that you consider them equals with the same absolute right to liberty and equality in all senses, including the right to decide what social, political, and economic roles they want to play and to speak for themselves on the topic, then they are bound to regard your every mention of a potential difficulty in the details of feminism with suspicion. They believe that you're looking for an excuse to jam them back into the pre-liberation box, and they believe that because you haven't told them that you aren't.

 

[BlackShanglan]

From reading Ami's last post, it seems, the horse is a girl after all.

Am I? I think I missed that bit. Ah, well. Do you love me more or less, now? That's all I care about.

 

[amicus]

Shanglan...since you and Stella both seem to perceive I was inquiring about your gender, then my post was not clear. I was not.

I was referring gender as female with yours not in question.

The contradiction you keep referring to and apparently perceive, is also, not so.

I do not differentiate and have stated several times that all humans by event of birth, are possessed with those innate rights to life and liberty, regardless of gender or ethnicity and I have gone to some lengths to repeat that.

It is true that women did not have their rights codified by law in our founding documents and it took an act of Congress to achieve that.

I fully acknowledge the argument that women did not have the power, at that time in history to force inclusion of gender in the Declaration and supporting documents. Further, that most women were not permitted to gain the education or the understanding that would have allowed them to plead their own case in Philadelphia that long ago summer of '76, not a single female delegate was present.

Nor do I wish to address the rhetorical question of why, women throughout history, have, for the most part, been relegated to second class citizenship. Those mean old men of the Roman Senate, I guess.

I addressed the last line in your post because it seemed to me that question, gender differences, summed up the content of your post and is the heart of my inquiry.

I do not question or doubt the innate rights of women as equal status as men, nor do I doubt or question those rights of former slaves and Native Americans that were excluded from the founding documents. And, old as I am, I was not present at the signing neither I nor my ancestors can be assigned the fault.

I do, however, question, that women, African Americans and Native Americans have risen to the status of 'free people', by their actions and aspirations.

Some have, many have, but I think not 'most' fully comprehend and utilize the freedoms they have.

Here is where I draw fire for my perceptions. Women have rejected the traditional family concept in droves and turned to government instead of a husband for support, relying on government to replace the 'provider' in a family, they enter politics and legislate for even more aid to families and children and welfare and claim that such things a medical care, ought to be a guaranteed 'right' of every citizen.

The African American community now boasts of seven out of each ten children born are born out of wedlock, children without a father.

The Native American's live in poverty on Reservations and on the fringes of modern society, yearning for a past heritage that is gone forever.

That said, I repeat, I do not question that every human being has those innate rights. But 'freedom' is a stern taskmaster, it is frightening to comprehend the total independence of free choice in all things, terrifying to many and perhaps, beyond the ability of some to deal with.

Many people seem to require the guidance and the brotherhood of the State, of the Church or even a guild, a union or a political party to give them direction and purpose in life.

It is this general apathy towards individual freedom and choice that I point out and that apathy, to me, casts doubt on the ability of this people to fully embrace the freedoms they now possess.

We shall see, in the fullness of time (cliche') if this modern America can live up to the dreams expressed in our founding documents. I have my doubts.

I foresee a gradual decline towards a socialist oriented democracy, a state guided and controlled economy, eventual collapse into a left wing totalitarian state.

Are women playing a major role in that decline?

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just pulling out what I think is the meat of your argument;

I do, however, question, that women, African Americans and Native Americans have risen to the status of 'free people', by their actions and aspirations.

Some have, many have, but I think not 'most' fully comprehend and utilize the freedoms they have.

And this is different from white men, how?

Here is where I draw fire for my perceptions. Women have rejected the traditional family concept in droves and turned to government instead of a husband for support, relying on government to replace the 'provider' in a family, they enter politics and legislate for even more aid to families and children and welfare and claim that such things a medical care, ought to be a guaranteed 'right' of every citizen.

There's one of your famous generalisations, again.

The African American community now boasts of seven out of each ten children born are born out of wedlock, children without a father.

And another one... did you really mean to say that this community "boasts?"

The Native American's live in poverty on Reservations and on the fringes of modern society, yearning for a past heritage that is gone forever.

Reminds me of You, Ami! who wishes the old days would return, when men were men, and wimmin and coloreds knew their place.

That said, I repeat, I do not question that every human being has those innate rights. But 'freedom' is a stern taskmaster, it is frightening to comprehend the total independence of free choice in all things, terrifying to many and perhaps, beyond the ability of some to deal with.

Many people seem to require the guidance and the brotherhood of the State, of the Church or even a guild, a union or a political party to give them direction and purpose in life.

I've noticed the very same thing. Guys who pledge allegiance to some football or baseball team-- for the rest of their lives. They don't have to ever actually play for the team-- just Be A Fan. People used to be able to be loyal to a company-- that's not so feasible any longer, sadly. You see people who will wear their army fatigues decades after they left active service.

Humans are pretty monkey-like in that respect. We are social critters. Evidently, you feel that's a bad thing, and, evidently, you feel that White Males are more immune than the rest of the species.

It is this general apathy towards individual freedom and choice that I point out and that apathy, to me, casts doubt on the ability of this people to fully embrace the freedoms they now possess.

Well... thank you, I suppose, for having pointed it out to "this people," I'm sure we are all of us shamefaced and want to do better. If we all said "Yes Ami, you're right!" would that be the kind of embrace you wish to see?

We shall see, in the fullness of time (cliche') if this modern America can live up to the dreams expressed in our founding documents. I have my doubts.

I foresee a gradual decline towards a socialist oriented democracy, a state guided and controlled economy, eventual collapse into a left wing totalitarian state.

Well, that's one prediction. I see a not-so-gradual decline into a Dickensian society less any middle class, myself.
But I plan to fight that, and time will tell. You know though, Ami, that either way You won't be part of The Proud and Priveledged-- any more than I will. You're fooling yourself if you think different.

Are women playing a major role in that decline?

Amicus...

Are you still beating your wife? Since we're asking rhetorical questions based on imaginary premises.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I do not differentiate and have stated several times that all humans by event of birth, are possessed with those innate rights to life and liberty, regardless of gender or ethnicity and I have gone to some lengths to repeat that.

It is true that women did not have their rights codified by law in our founding documents and it took an act of Congress to achieve that.

I fully acknowledge the argument that women did not have the power, at that time in history to force inclusion of gender in the Declaration and supporting documents. Further, that most women were not permitted to gain the education or the understanding that would have allowed them to plead their own case in Philadelphia that long ago summer of '76, not a single female delegate was present.

Nor do I wish to address the rhetorical question of why, women throughout history, have, for the most part, been relegated to second class citizenship. Those mean old men of the Roman Senate, I guess.

Thank you. The clarification is appreciated so greatly that I will smile at your last jabbing flourish.

I do not question or doubt the innate rights of women as equal status as men, nor do I doubt or question those rights of former slaves and Native Americans that were excluded from the founding documents. And, old as I am, I was not present at the signing neither I nor my ancestors can be assigned the fault.

*chuckle* I swear, I would never have suggested it.

I do, however, question, that women, African Americans and Native Americans have risen to the status of 'free people', by their actions and aspirations.

Some have, many have, but I think not 'most' fully comprehend and utilize the freedoms they have.

Hmmm. Do you accept the same to be true of men? If so, I have no real difficulty with the assumption per se, but I do find the phrasing of it interesting. Why single out women and minorities and leave out the white male crack addicts, wastrels, and Communist Party of America members?

Here is where I draw fire for my perceptions. Women have rejected the traditional family concept in droves and turned to government instead of a husband for support, relying on government to replace the 'provider' in a family, they enter politics and legislate for even more aid to families and children and welfare and claim that such things a medical care, ought to be a guaranteed 'right' of every citizen.

Let me challenge that view of what's happening. First, it can't be women alone who are producing babies out of wedlock. Males are required, and there really are not that many people using sperm banks. Instead, what we've got is pretty much what we always had - men are able to cut and run during a pregnancy, or choose to leave the baby with its mother - with the interesting new complication that now, at least, women can actually prove who the father is and have a chance of compelling him to pay child support.

When we look at why taxpayers in general are paying to help support children born into that condition, the answer is right there in the question. This isn't being looked at by most taxpayers as an issue of women's rights; it's an issue of children's rights. They would prefer not to see children starve, go without proper shelter and clothing, or remain uneducated because their care-giving parents made poor decisions. Indeed, if we're looking at this as a parent-support mechanism, it's as much support of fathers who don't feel like supporting their children as it is of mothers. The fathers have just historically been better at dropping the consequences into the laps of the mothers.

If you'd like to argue that there is a problem with that system, to wit that the person trusted to adminster the monetary aid to the child is one of the two adults who may be responsible for the financial problems in the first place, I am happy to agree. However, the goal is primarily to keep children from suffering poverty, not to make the parents' lives easier. That it does happen to make the care-giving parent's life easier strikes me as a reasonable balance given that the other person in the equation has often left a very substantial burden of duties behind that are his or hers by right and that not every single parent in financial straits is in that condition through his or her own choices or actions. There are still widows and orphans in the world, more so when we're sending people out to war with salaries that leave their families on food stamps.

The African American community now boasts of seven out of each ten children born are born out of wedlock, children without a father.

The Native American's live in poverty on Reservations and on the fringes of modern society, yearning for a past heritage that is gone forever.

That said, I repeat, I do not question that every human being has those innate rights. But 'freedom' is a stern taskmaster, it is frightening to comprehend the total independence of free choice in all things, terrifying to many and perhaps, beyond the ability of some to deal with.

Indeed, it is. But then, there is freedom and there is freedom here, isn't there? I don't object to adult people being asked to live with the consequences of their actions, but their children can't crawl off to another home with a better care. If liberty and freedom are going to mean anything, we've got to offer people some chance at life, even if it means that society as a whole has to offer the chance when parents can't or don't. No child desires the freedom to be hungry, and no child has the freedom to be anything else if there is no food in the home.

And I do wonder why we're on minorities and women again. Every one of those seven in ten children out of wedlock has a father, and there are certainly white-dominated towns in West Virginia as impoverished as any reservation, and fewer prospects. You seem to be singling out women and minorities for chiding over failures to use their freedom well; I see nothing here to indicate that they're in any way notably different to white males in the quality of their choices. Why are you identifying these groups specifically?

Many people seem to require the guidance and the brotherhood of the State, of the Church or even a guild, a union or a political party to give them direction and purpose in life.

It is this general apathy towards individual freedom and choice that I point out and that apathy, to me, casts doubt on the ability of this people to fully embrace the freedoms they now possess.

We shall see, in the fullness of time (cliche') if this modern America can live up to the dreams expressed in our founding documents. I have my doubts.

I foresee a gradual decline towards a socialist oriented democracy, a state guided and controlled economy, eventual collapse into a left wing totalitarian state.

Now see, here I was just about to say, "Well, you know that I don't see some basic socialist structures as quite the disaster you do, but I can see that ..."

And then you end with this:

Are women playing a major role in that decline?

Amicus...

Are people with blond hair playing a major role in that decline? Are left-handed folk? Are cellists? What difference does it make?

If you're really concerned about the social and political issues, why not ask about the socialists or the Democrats or the Reform party - things that actually have to do with the ideas and policies you're concerned about? Why lump together all women and assume that they have a unified position that is a major cause of the decline of Western civilization? Women are holding political positions all over the map and with all manner of different approaches to government, and more pointedly, they still hold the minority of all governmental posts. I don't see how a politically diverse and underepresented group possibly could be leading everyone else into this fatal decline.

But with that said, let me offer one other thought. If you recall, some time back, we exchanged some thoughts on the desirability of knowing why people believe what they believe. I'll hazard this observation: if women and minorities do more commonly oppose your point of view re: free markets and lack of governmental interference, they've got reasons for that. You may not agree with their reasoning, but it is there. If you really feel that a strictly limited government and a free capitalist market is the answer, then surely the path forward is clear: identify their reasons for preferring something else, and demonstrate to them that your system can meet their concerns. Can it? Has it?