What is feminism?

[Keroin]

Ok. I don't think you need to be dressed for street fighting when you go out. There are plenty of techniques that don't require comfortable clothes per se. Whatever though - I don't think this is a big deal - I guess I am just uncomfortable with getting into what women can wear.

I've done enough fight scenes in heels and dresses to know how impractical they are, i'm not just spouting out of my ass. Not many women know how to fight to begin with, poor footwear choice is just one more handicap.

When I went out on those occassions, I didn't look like a street fighter. And if I was with a group or with a big enough/strong enough man or going to a place where I didn't think there would be any potential danger, then fine, I'll dress impractically, (though I usually don't anyway).

Plus, I think you and Black Bunny are missing the point. It's not just the dress and shoes, it's the whole combo I was referring to. Dress, shoes, drunk as a skunk, alone.

 

[intothewoods]

I've done enough fight scenes in heels and dresses to know how impractical they are, i'm not just spouting out of my ass. Not many women know how to fight to begin with, poor footwear choice is just one more handicap.

When I went out on those occassions, I didn't look like a street fighter. And if I was with a group or with a big enough/strong enough man or going to a place where I didn't think there would be any potential danger, then fine, I'll dress impractically, (though I usually don't anyway).

I'm just not ever going to change the way I dress out of fear over what might happen, because to me that's no way to live. It's not about fashion. I'm just not going to come from a place of fear. I'm sure you see it as just being prepared. It just seems excessive to me. If it's that dangerous, I'll just give up and move.

I've lived in a lot of cities and have done fine with staying in a group, staying in well-lit areas, keeping my wits about me, etc. At this point, if something is going to happen, it will probably be for money, in which case I'll just turn it over. Or, sadly, a stray bullet, which there's nothing I can do about anyway, other than not go out too late (which I don't do, mostly because I like my sleep!). The violence that comes out of the drinking/partying scene? I think if you stay away from confrontational fucked up people, you'll be just fine. I never once had a problem when I was younger.

ETA - I just saw your edit. If the point is to not go out and get trashed and go home alone, that I can agree with. Trashed and alone = bad combo. I see clothing choices as far less important on the scale here.

 

[WriterDom]

http://gunowners.org/wv06.htm

My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 00:45
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999

Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.

Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.

When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.

I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.

I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.

My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.

I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.

I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.
The Liberal Years

I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.

Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.

I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.

After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.

It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."
The "Bubble" Bursts

After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.

I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.

I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.

The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.

The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.

I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.

With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.

I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.

But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.
Armed in L.A.; guns save lives

I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.

A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.

He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.

One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.

I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.

The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.

No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.
L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters

Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.

I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.

I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.

Guns were saving lives and property.

As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.

Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.
Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA

My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.

I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.

And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.

The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.

In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?

And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.

And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.

When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.

In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.
Katherine von Tour is presently working on a book comprised of interviews of women who support the Second Amendment; she is looking for women who have personal stories about having used a gun for self-defense, or who simply believe in the right to own and use a firearm. Anyone wishing to be interviewed for this project can contact her through GOA.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I can run quite easily in heels, and I don't see a mini skirt as posing a problem either.

That's gotta be something to see.

 

[Keroin]

I'm just not ever going to change the way I dress out of fear over what might happen, because to me that's no way to live. It's not about fashion. I'm just not going to come from a place of fear. I'm sure you see it as just being prepared. It just seems excessive to me. If it's that dangerous, I'll just give up and move.

Yes, it's very much about being prepared and knowing my environment. If I go biking, I wear a helmet. If I hike in the woods here, I carry bear spray. If I go to the beach, I put on sunscreen. Are those precautions based on fear or common sense?

Now if I were to go out to a club here, I wouldn't worry about how I dressed no matter what. A club in Vancouver, in Gastown? Well then, yes, I'm going to put a little more thought into things. Fear doesn't enter into it, preparation does.

I've lived in a lot of cities and have done fine with staying in a group, staying in well-lit areas, keeping my wits about me, etc. At this point, if something is going to happen, it will probably be for money, in which case I'll just turn it over. Or, sadly, a stray bullet, which there's nothing I can do about anyway, other than not go out too late (which I don't do, mostly because I like my sleep!). The violence that comes out of the drinking/partying scene? I think if you stay away from confrontational fucked up people, you'll be just fine. I never once had a problem when I was younger.

ETA - I just saw your edit. If the point is to not go out and get trashed and go home alone, that I can agree with. Trashed and alone = bad combo. I see clothing choices as far less important on the scale here.

My original point was simply that when it comes to safety, women need to own theirs - which you've illustrated with the part in bold.

 

[Keroin]

http://gunowners.org/wv06.htm

Look at you, trying to slip guns into the conversation, WD. LOL.

 

[JMohegan]

The Central Park Jogger was young, athletic, and most assuredly not dressed like a skank. She was attacked while running through Central Park in the dark.

Central Park in the dark. Jesus Christ. With a Wellesley/Yale/Salomon pedigree, you'd think she'd be smarter than that.

As a result of her foolishness, government misconduct, and the depravity of her attacker, five boys innocent of the crime spent years behind bars.

For the non-U.S. among us, and those too young to have heard about the case, here you go.

I have a lot more sympathy for those boys than I do for the jogger in this case.

 

[Homburg]

Wow.

Um, the *reason* men are shown as bumbling idiots every ten seconds is so that the "smarter" female can then solve the problem (usually domestic emotional or logistical) proving that the world goes to shit if you let men do "women's work" of any kind. It works, too, if I had a dime for every woman I know who "doesn't let" her husband do X Y or Z because he "screws it up" rather than striking on the issue until it's either not done or done by him. Me, I'm more lazy and fairness minded about the house than particular.

It actually reinforces all the bullshit. It's not a win. And it's an old shell game, too, it's been on TV since the fifties.

I use my domestic incompetence to great effect. Don't harsh my scheme.

Overall, I think great strides have been made. The comparison of today to the 1920's, for example, shows some VERY clear strides. That said, it certainly hasn't swung the other way in a meaningful fashion. I still have privilege because of my sexual organs.

I don't even have a problem with feminists shooting for advantage. When you strive for something this important, it makes sense to aim high. You sure as hell won't hit your target if you aim low.

--

So, you in heels and me in my running shoes x 100 metres? Who do you think will win? Now make me bigger and stronger and make you drunk and/or scared.

Exactly. You may be able to run in heels fine while sober, but drunk?

I also do not see it as changing my behaviour out of fear. It's just taking the right precautions due to the environment. As Keroin said, I wear a helmet while biking, and I take appropriate precautions while in other potentially dangerous environs.

 

[Netzach]

I'm just not ever going to change the way I dress out of fear over what might happen, because to me that's no way to live. It's not about fashion. I'm just not going to come from a place of fear. I'm sure you see it as just being prepared. It just seems excessive to me. If it's that dangerous, I'll just give up and move.

I've lived in a lot of cities and have done fine with staying in a group, staying in well-lit areas, keeping my wits about me, etc. At this point, if something is going to happen, it will probably be for money, in which case I'll just turn it over. Or, sadly, a stray bullet, which there's nothing I can do about anyway, other than not go out too late (which I don't do, mostly because I like my sleep!). The violence that comes out of the drinking/partying scene? I think if you stay away from confrontational fucked up people, you'll be just fine. I never once had a problem when I was younger.

ETA - I just saw your edit. If the point is to not go out and get trashed and go home alone, that I can agree with. Trashed and alone = bad combo. I see clothing choices as far less important on the scale here.

I wear heels in large groups going to dinner and driving home. I wear boots or tennies to punk basement shows in the rock n roll hood and if I'm with one dude, we have a you run that way I run that way agreement.

 

[Netzach]

I have a lot more sympathy for those boys than I do for the jogger in this case.

I remember this. There was a lot about it that left me pretty sick about it, uneasy, even in HS, about the coverage of it - it was pretty clear these kids were being convicted in the press.

". She was found unconscious with her skull fractured, her body temperature at 84 degrees, and 75 percent of her blood drained from her body.:

That's an interesting statement. I believe she missed out on a lot of those years too. I don't think she's the source of a racist system.

The midnight jog up on 120th was retarded though, everyone pretty much agreed on that, but I think that's a pretty heavy pricetag on some wishful naivete.

 

[JMohegan]

I remember this. There was a lot about it that left me pretty sick about it, uneasy, even in HS, about the coverage of it - it was pretty clear these kids were being convicted in the press.

". She was found unconscious with her skull fractured, her body temperature at 84 degrees, and 75 percent of her blood drained from her body.:

That's an interesting statement. I believe she missed out on a lot of those years too. I don't think she's the source of a racist system.

The midnight jog up on 120th was retarded though, everyone pretty much agreed on that, but I think that's a pretty heavy pricetag on some wishful naivete.

A heavy price tag indeed. I don't dispute that.

I do wonder about that "wishful naivete," however. That's exactly how she was characterized in the press. The pretty blonde Wellesley graduate, naive and defenseless in the dark! If the jogger had been male, would he have been described that way? What if the victim had been a Salomon guy in Brooks Brothers suit, strolling across 120th in the dark while flashing a Rolex and counting the bills in his wallet? Would that be generally seen as naivete, or blind arrogance borne of extraordinary privilege, or something else?

I'm not wondering whether she deserved what happened to her. Obviously she did not. What I'm wondering is when, if ever, well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old females will be measured by the same standards of conduct as well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old males.

 

[DVS]

It seems there have been a lot of discussions in different threads recently about “feminism” so I thought, ‘What the fuck, why can’t it have its own thread?’

What is feminism?

I think I know what it was prior to women getting the right to vote and even what it was in the bra-burning era of the 60’s but what is it in 2010, in the first world? Do we still need feminism?

Thinking about MisterSir’s recent thread…

What about men? Do they get a fair shake all the time? Has the pendulum swung too far?



How equal are we these days?

I think there are many women who would love equality, but there are just as many who are quite happy with the status quo. And, many men prefer women should be allowed into "their" line of work, but there are just as many that feel women don't have the physical abilities to do the job. I've known more than a few situations where women were hired to work security positions. These were situations where, if a breech of security was to occur, said women would be at a disadvantage in a physical confrontation.

I know of one such situation where a woman 5 foot tall and maybe 100 pounds dripping wet was working as an access agent for a contract security company. She had nothing to back her up except the uniform she wore. No firearm, no pepper spray and no handcuffs. A firearm would give her more equality against someone, but it's rare that contract security personnel are ever issued firearms because of the high insurance premiums.

And even if she had been trained in the use of pepper spray or handcuffs, her size would have been a great disadvantage against someone looking to get past the security line she was hired to uphold. The pepper spray wouldn't have helped and I doubt she would have had the opportunity to put handcuffs into use. Still, she worked the same job and made the same amount of money as someone more physically able. But whenever a situation arose, she was given more backup than someone else, because it was known she wasn't physically capable.

She was hired because the law (EEOC) required it. She told me that if someone confronted her, she would "kick them between the knees" which the law and her police commission considers undue and unnecessary force. In fact, what little training she was given didn't even include the possibility she would ever have to confront someone. So, if she had ever been put in the situation and kicked them as she specified, she could be sued, her employer could be sued and the client that hired her employer for security could be sued for taking unusual and unnecessary force.

I give her props for wanting the job, but she was physically unable to carry it out. Of course, I should point out that a man of the same size and weight would be at the same disadvantage and also should not be hired for the job. Many times, but just because someone wants to be seen as equal, it doesn't mean that they are.

I'm not against women (or men) with the desire for such work, if they are physically able to fight off a suspect using the proper training and techniques security officers are taught. But, "kick them between the knees" isn't on the list. I'm more for hiring them for less physical positions where they can be paid the same, but the position doesn't require physical stature.

Many security positions only require an officer to "observe and report" so someone with less physical mass could do the job just fine. But many times laws don't allow any discrimination from someone persuing a "potentially" physical demanding job such as security.

Unlike iron workers, construction workers, fireman or police that require a certain amount of bulk to do the job, some security positions have become just another office type job where anybody can be hired. There is no real training, nor does there seem to be any desire for training. People are hired without any thought of "what if" so their fellow employees end up assisting when in an actual equal work environment, this wouldn't be necessary.

Is this a result of woman's lib or some other EEOC equality laws? I don't know, but I see it a lot. I'm all for someone wanting an equal opportunity, as long as they are equally able. Again, this includes men, too. So maybe this isn't just a feminism issue, but more of an equal labor issue. But, it still happens more than it should.


Damn, can I be long winded or what! Hey, that was a rhetorical question. It has nothing to do with a chicken or a road.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm tall, fit, and fast. But if I were cornered, a guy like Betticus probably wouldn't have much trouble taking me down. And if I were in range, WD's least powerful pistol could take me down, no question.

I might be more useful, in some situations, than that 100 lb. female, or one of the old geezers I've seen wandering around apartments and small office buildings. But considering the possibilities for assault with serious intent to get by me, I too would suck as a barrier to entry. And I seriously question how an unarmed person, of any size, could be considered an effective deterrent to armed intruders.

 

[DVS]

A heavy price tag indeed. I don't dispute that.

I do wonder about that "wishful naivete," however. That's exactly how she was characterized in the press. The pretty blonde Wellesley graduate, naive and defenseless in the dark! If the jogger had been male, would he have been described that way? What if the victim had been a Salomon guy in Brooks Brothers suit, strolling across 120th in the dark while flashing a Rolex and counting the bills in his wallet? Would that be generally seen as naivete, or blind arrogance borne of extraordinary privilege, or something else?

I'm not wondering whether she deserved what happened to her. Obviously she did not. What I'm wondering is when, if ever, well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old females will be measured by the same standards of conduct as well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old males.

Um, I know you were only using this fictitious guy to make a point, but would such an individual even exist in that area? Well, maybe if he had car trouble and his cell phone battery was dead. At least the jogger had the sense to be running.

 

[DVS]

I'm tall, fit, and fast. But if I were cornered, a guy like Betticus probably wouldn't have much trouble taking me down. And if I were in range, WD's least powerful pistol could take me down, no question.

I might be more useful, in some situations, than that 100 lb. female, or one of the old geezers I've seen wandering around apartments and small office buildings. But considering the possibilities for assault with serious intent to get by me, I too would suck as a barrier to entry. And I seriously question how an unarmed person, of any size, could be considered an effective deterrent to armed intruders.

Ah, but the 100 pound woman is an obvious target. Someone with more weight, maybe some more height, you would at least look more convincing in the uniform. Now, if someone is going to confront you, that's not always easy, even the trained individual. Often you're caught off guard (sorry for the pun). But, that 100 pound security guard, an obvious and easy prey to someone who happens to be looking.

 

[JMohegan]

Ah, but the 100 pound woman is an obvious target. Someone with more weight, maybe some more height, you would at least look more convincing in the uniform. Now, if someone is going to confront you, that's not always easy, even the trained individual. Often you're caught off guard (sorry for the pun). But, that 100 pound security guard, an obvious and easy prey to someone who happens to be looking.

If I were serious about the "security" part of that security guard position, I wouldn't hire an unarmed person. Not me, not the 100 lb. female, not even Betticus. That's my point.

As a night watchperson? Sure, any of us could do that. "Observe and report," as you said.

 

[Netzach]

A heavy price tag indeed. I don't dispute that.

I do wonder about that "wishful naivete," however. That's exactly how she was characterized in the press. The pretty blonde Wellesley graduate, naive and defenseless in the dark! If the jogger had been male, would he have been described that way? What if the victim had been a Salomon guy in Brooks Brothers suit, strolling across 120th in the dark while flashing a Rolex and counting the bills in his wallet? Would that be generally seen as naivete, or blind arrogance borne of extraordinary privilege, or something else?

I'm not wondering whether she deserved what happened to her. Obviously she did not. What I'm wondering is when, if ever, well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old females will be measured by the same standards of conduct as well-educated, well-employed, affluent 29 year old males.

I don't know, it's kind of impossible to roll back my clock to the fucked up wasteland that NYC was in the 80's - but I do know that prior to gentrification above 96th, there was a lot of "there are no bad neighborhoods only poor neighborhoods" discussion in ivory tower liberal schools that simply didn't pass the smell test of harsh reality, and boys bought in as much as girls.

I remember listening to this and thinking "that's beside the point really, poor or bad so much as dangerous." Had your male banker been up there I think it would have been one more illustration of all the seventies jokes about the danger of Central park, but I also *do* think naivete would be ascribed - about class, about the park, about neighborhood borderlines.

The borders are shaken up by gentrification now in a way that they NEVER were in the 80's. The city is a different one.

 

[DVS]

If I were serious about the "security" part of that security guard position, I wouldn't hire an unarmed person. Not me, not the 100 lb. female, not even Betticus. That's my point.

As a night watchperson? Sure, any of us could do that. "Observe and report," as you said.

I agree with you, but my point is contract security companies do this all the time. I worked contract security for nearly 10 years and was required to do things the client assumed I was trained for. I was, but there were some doing the same job that weren't. Some were women, and 99% of the women were small or so obese they couldn't run from an attacker if they wanted to. I guess the large women could sit on him, and wait for back up. One post was armed at one time, but the client didn't want to pay the insurance premiums, but still wanted the same protection. Did the security company say that wasn't possible? No.

Most contract security people are seen as Barney Fife types, and unfortunately, many are. As for a night watchman or watchperson, that can be a bad situation for the untrained person. Sure, sitting in a booth or guard shack, watching cameras is fine. The problem is if you are doing any patrolling at night. To be fair and equal, everybody takes their turn. And the old geezers you mentioned? We had our share of them, too. Nice guys and all that, but not much help in a confrontation. Many "observe and report" guards would end up "observing what you can while running the other way", if you are fit enough to run.

 

[Ausus_girl13]

I love how the discussion of feminism usually evolves towards size, and safety. And that often, we're afraid of our own shadows, don't blame me, blame the fear mongering press. Seriously? A woman going out to drink has more to think about than her male counterpart.. don't do this, wear that, or enjoy any of it.. cause if you do.. *insert shaking shaming fist here*. Plus we continue to perpetrate this victim blaming stance when something does happen.. yeah you know.. "she asked for it". Fuck that noise.

Nevertheless! I had to put my own two cents in here, mostly cause I identify as a feminist (gasp! they do exist!) and a submissive (Double gasp!) Yeah I live with the dichotomies.

Short answer to the original question, no things aren't equal. They are just more insidious than before.

And please.. men getting unfair treatment because of feminism? Man up on this one, it's been coming for generations. And let's not pretend that the construction of masculinity is any less harmful to men as the construction of femininity is to women. Gender binaries suck.

I am all for the fall of the patriarchal western power over nonsense.

/rant over. Thank you!

 

[JMohegan]

I don't know, it's kind of impossible to roll back my clock to the fucked up wasteland that NYC was in the 80's - but I do know that prior to gentrification above 96th, there was a lot of "there are no bad neighborhoods only poor neighborhoods" discussion in ivory tower liberal schools that simply didn't pass the smell test of harsh reality, and boys bought in as much as girls.

I remember listening to this and thinking "that's beside the point really, poor or bad so much as dangerous." Had your male banker been up there I think it would have been one more illustration of all the seventies jokes about the danger of Central park, but I also *do* think naivete would be ascribed - about class, about the park, about neighborhood borderlines.

The borders are shaken up by gentrification now in a way that they NEVER were in the 80's. The city is a different one.

I'm a product of an ivory tower liberal school, and lived on the Upper West Side in the 80's.

It wasn't "there are no bad neighborhoods only poor neighborhoods." It was "there are no bad neighborhoods, only neighborhoods in which some people have been driven to crime by an unjust society." Honestly, I never heard anyone suggest that wandering through Harlem would be just as safe as wandering through Midtown for lunch.

Look at the media coverage of that case, back in the day, and the readiness with which nearly everyone bought the notion that of course those 5 boys had been out "wilding." Some liberals made excuses for how the boys could have been raised to become so ruthless, others saw it as confirmation of what they "knew" all along about poor young minorities. But hardly anyone wondered whether the story put up by the prosecution was true.

 

[DVS]

I love how the discussion of feminism usually evolves towards size, and safety. And that often, we're afraid of our own shadows, don't blame me, blame the fear mongering press. Seriously? A woman going out to drink has more to think about than her male counterpart.. don't do this, wear that, or enjoy any of it.. cause if you do.. *insert shaking shaming fist here*. Plus we continue to perpetrate this victim blaming stance when something does happen.. yeah you know.. "she asked for it". Fuck that noise.

Nevertheless! I had to put my own two cents in here, mostly cause I identify as a feminist (gasp! they do exist!) and a submissive (Double gasp!) Yeah I live with the dichotomies.

Short answer to the original question, no things aren't equal. They are just more insidious than before.

And please.. men getting unfair treatment because of feminism? Man up on this one, it's been coming for generations. And let's not pretend that the construction of masculinity is any less harmful to men as the construction of femininity is to women. Gender binaries suck.

I am all for the fall of the patriarchal western power over nonsense.

/rant over. Thank you!

In the first bold text, I think that should be *insert shaking shaming finger here*. Fist seems too aggressive. And to the second bold text, I think lawyers have gone beyond what's good and decent when trying to make the rape victim seem like "she asked for it". When you are defending an obvious rapist in court, I guess you use anything you can that might equal the odds. And unfortunately, those tactics do still work with some juries. Then, the media has picked up on that and run with it, and then a certain part of society will always join in.

 

[blane75]

I love how the discussion of feminism usually evolves towards size, and safety. And that often, we're afraid of our own shadows, don't blame me, blame the fear mongering press. Seriously? A woman going out to drink has more to think about than her male counterpart.. don't do this, wear that, or enjoy any of it.. cause if you do.. *insert shaking shaming fist here*. Plus we continue to perpetrate this victim blaming stance when something does happen.. yeah you know.. "she asked for it". Fuck that noise.

Nevertheless! I had to put my own two cents in here, mostly cause I identify as a feminist (gasp! they do exist!) and a submissive (Double gasp!) Yeah I live with the dichotomies.

Short answer to the original question, no things aren't equal. They are just more insidious than before.

And please.. men getting unfair treatment because of feminism? Man up on this one, it's been coming for generations. And let's not pretend that the construction of masculinity is any less harmful to men as the construction of femininity is to women. Gender binaries suck.

I am all for the fall of the patriarchal western power over nonsense.

/rant over. Thank you!

Two points to the lady in red.

Everybody's equal, it's just that some are more equal than others.

A bit of self defense training can offset some of the bulk of a big man, but men and women will never be equal because they aren't equal. You can push for equality where playing fields are a little more level.

But don't start adding that women and men should be equal everywhere. Never gonna happen.



And to answer the OP rant - try sitting down every time you have to pee, then complain about that we pay less at the door. Boo hoo. We pay for it in the bathrooms. And the fact that we are hit on constantly by the asswipes that think because they paid an extra tenspot at the door that they are God's gift to the genepool.

 

[Netzach]

I'm a product of an ivory tower liberal school, and lived on the Upper West Side in the 80's.

It wasn't "there are no bad neighborhoods only poor neighborhoods." It was "there are no bad neighborhoods, only neighborhoods in which some people have been driven to crime by an unjust society." Honestly, I never heard anyone suggest that wandering through Harlem would be just as safe as wandering through Midtown for lunch.

Look at the media coverage of that case, back in the day, and the readiness with which nearly everyone bought the notion that of course those 5 boys had been out "wilding." Some liberals made excuses for how the boys could have been raised to become so ruthless, others saw it as confirmation of what they "knew" all along about poor young minorities. But hardly anyone wondered whether the story put up by the prosecution was true.

I just went to HS with your neighbor's kids - and the "there are no bad neightborhoods" is a verbatim quote from my past, remembered largely because it struck me as a bit of la la land from someone who clearly lives in a good neighborhood. I do remember some wondering going on, but mostly on Pacifica radio and in the Voice.

It's the kind of thing you don't want to feel vindicated on at all, but so it goes.

 

[Keroin]

And to answer the OP rant - try sitting down every time you have to pee, then complain about that we pay less at the door. Boo hoo. We pay for it in the bathrooms. And the fact that we are hit on constantly by the asswipes that think because they paid an extra tenspot at the door that they are God's gift to the genepool.

Um, I think you are confusing me with someone else.

 

[Ausus_girl13]

And to the second bold text, I think lawyers have gone beyond what's good and decent when trying to make the rape victim seem like "she asked for it". When you are defending an obvious rapist in court, I guess you use anything you can that might equal the odds. And unfortunately, those tactics do still work with some juries. Then, the media has picked up on that and run with it, and then a certain part of society will always join in.

Agreed. I think that it's really easy to place the blame on her shoulders. Yeah I used her.. I do realize that men get raped to. But in most cases, her.

What can I say? The formative years into the acceptance of my feminism Kobe Bryant was being hauled into court on rape charges, they laid the defeat of the star at the feet of the woman who raised allegations, and then dragged her through hell. It was a bloodbath. It jaded me.

But don't start adding that women and men should be equal everywhere. Never gonna happen.

Gotta elaborate this statement.. equal where? Globally?