# Men controlling women



## cuchuflete

Everness wrote, most accurately:



> Patriarchy as a way of organizing society, assigning sexual roles, and determining expectations of sexual behavior is still fully operational. The ideal of virginity is a great example of how men want to control women's bodies determining what's right or wrong, desirable or reprovable. Most of emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual violence against women has its roots in a patriarchal ideology.



How does this statement operate in terms of mostly male legislatures setting the rules about termination of pregnancy, which clearly has a lot to do with a woman's body?
*
The topic of this thread is NOT whether or not you believe in a woman's right to decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy.  If you want to declare your ineluctable truth on that topic, please start your own thread.

*The question here is different:  Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?


----------



## Phryne

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Everness wrote, most accurately:
> 
> How does this statement operate in terms of mostly male legislatures setting the rules about termination of pregnancy, which clearly has a lot to do with a woman's body?
> *
> The topic of this thread is NOT whether or not you believe in a woman's right to decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy. If you want to declare your ineluctable truth on that topic, please start your own thread.
> 
> *The question here is different: Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?


 Hi Cuchu!

I do think that beyond all personal feelings, the issue of abortion is about _motherhood_, that is to say, the role of women in society. Should a woman be a mother above all and under any condition, or should she have a carrier, or anything else she may want in life? That's the real argument under the discussion on abortion, contraception, etc.

Who makes this decision? The answer is whoever legislates or is in power. In a patriarchal society, power is controlled mainly by males, thus, most decisions about female's role is obviously controlled by males. 

_Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?_ This is tough, because males are also fathers. However, since the burden always fall in women, I do believe that men's ruling should be indirectly. 

That's my personal belief. saludos


----------



## chica11

I agree with Phryne. It's interesting to note that nowadays (it may change) it is the woman not the man who is the full decision maker in regards to personally choosing to have an abortion or not. A man can't demand that his girlfriend/wife etc has or does not have an abortion not because of what will happen when the baby is born but because it is the woman who has to carry the child to term in her womb.  Therefore, a man nowadays can't dictate what she does with her body for those 9 months.   However, I read a fascinating essay once regarding all the new technology regarding reproduction and how it might effect our legal views of abortion.  If a foetus doesn't have to be carried to term in a woman's body, if it can grow into a baby ready to live outside in the world in a man made artificial womb, then where will the abortion argument go?  Afterall, the issue now is that woman has to carry the foetus to term and so the courts say that a man can't interfere in that.  The reason why I am not putting much emphasis on the motherhood/fatherhood issue is because of the possibilty of putting up a child for adoption or signing your parental rights away to the other parent.


----------



## Agnès E.

What does give men their power, apart their physical superiority on most women?
As soon as women do not fear any man's physical superiority, they will understand men cannot decide everyything by themselves.
And what is the real meaning of virginity, apart from a way for a man to get the power on a woman?
Two people of both sexes are required for pregnancy. Both might have the same power of decision regarding that matter. Women cannot claim they have all rights on their own body, as long as making a baby is a decision that must be taken by both people. And no man has the right to force a woman to have a child. This is a decision to be taken by both together, on the same level. None has more rights than the other one in that matter.


----------



## Phryne

chica11 said:
			
		

> I agree with Phryne. It's interesting to note that nowadays (it may change) it is the woman not the man who is the full decision maker in regards to personally choosing to have an abortion or not. A man can't demand that his girlfriend/wife etc has or does not have an abortion not because of what will happen when the baby is born but because it is the woman who has to carry the child to term in her womb. Therefore, a man nowadays can't dictate what she does with her body for those 9 months. However, I read a fascinating essay once regarding all the new technology regarding reproduction and how it might effect our legal views of abortion. If a foetus doesn't have to be carried to term in a woman's body, if it can grow into a baby ready to live outside in the world in a man made artificial womb, then where will the abortion argument go? Afterall, the issue now is that woman has to carry the foetus to term and so the courts say that a man can't interfere in that. The reason why I am not putting much emphasis on the motherhood/fatherhood issue is because of the possibilty of putting up a child for adoption or signing your parental rights away to the other parent.


 I agree, chica, but be careful. Women make the decisions on carying the child, but it's never that easy, when, for instance, a man decides not to take care of the child. Also, don't forget that in most of the world abortion is still illegal, so the risk is tremendous, and it's taken by the woman only.

saludos


----------



## chica11

Phryne, I totally agree with you. Actually I was specifically talking about the U.S but the world over well that's a whole different story.  Sometimes I wonder what Europeans think of us in the United States and our never ending argument of abortion.  If I am not wrong, abortion is legal in many (not all) countries in Western and Northern Europe.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The question here is different: Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?


 
If it has to do with a woman's body and ONLY a woman's body, then my belief is that women should absolutely determine what they do to themselves.  I personally would never choose to blow up my breasts to make them look like basketballs, but I support a woman's right to submit to that surgery if she wishes.  Men have no right to take away that choice.

However, a woman cannot impregnate herself.  An unborn baby is a separate entity and cannot and should not be treated otherwise.


----------



## SweetMommaSue

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Everness wrote, most accurately:
> 
> 
> 
> How does this statement operate in terms of mostly male legislatures setting the rules about termination of pregnancy, which clearly has a lot to do with a woman's body?
> 
> *The topic of this thread is NOT whether or not you believe in a woman's right to decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy. If you want to declare your ineluctable truth on that topic, please start your own thread.*
> 
> The question here is different: Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?


To play devil's advocate and take the subject a step further:
Women today have the right to vote. Women also hold political offices here in our country. So, if women do not want men to legislate for them, they'll have to get busy and replace the men!   Or, find men willing to support the majority of women's views.  

Sweet Momma (sipping coffee & eating chocolate)


----------



## VenusEnvy

SweetMommaSue said:
			
		

> So, if women do not want men to legislate for them, they'll have to get busy and replace the men!   Or, find men willing to support the majority of women's views.


Ok! ::takes out her magic wand:: Poof! Now, women are in office   

Of course, this is easier said that done. I know some men that wouldn't vote for a female to be President, regardless. Despite the fact that she may have (this was a hypothetical "discussion") more education, experience, honors, etc. they just would never do it. These same men said that, "Her monthly moodiness would get in the way of her running the country."

And, of course, it's much more difficult to do this when the powers above (not God, I'm talking about those in political positions, or positions of clout) are all men! It's sort of a catch22, if you think about it. 


I think we're forgetting that some women, believe it or not, don't think that females should hold any power at all. Backlash anyone?



*Where are all the men? *   Cuchu?


----------



## cuchuflete

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Ok! ::takes out her magic wand:: Poof! Now, women are in office
> 
> And, of course, it's much more difficult to do this when the powers above (not God, I'm talking about those in political positions, or positions of clout) are all men! It's sort of a catch22, if you think about it.
> 
> 
> Backlash anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> *Where are all the men? *   Cuchu?



No Backlash Venus.  I live in one of the two enlightened states that have ONLY FEMALE SENATORS!  Your magic wand is alive and well in Maine.

The huge majority of U.S. members of Congress are male.  They will continue to be pressured by a male president and his coterie to legislate women's rights, or legislate to constrain these.  I think that's not the way it should be.   In the system in use here, it's up to women and men to elect more females to participate in the legislation.  

Abortion rights was probably a bad choice of topic to discuss this point, as it is often not only the woman who is involved.


----------



## asm

Could you clarify this? I do not get the idea. Sorry, sometimes my English is not enough (sometimes it is my "unwired brain" )



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Abortion rights was probably a bad choice of topic to discuss this point, as it is often not only the woman who is involved.


----------



## Everness

Check out this interesting article.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/08/06/caucus_on_religion_thumbs_the_past?mode=PF

First, who said patriarchy is passé? _In Pakistan, the government interprets Islamic law to permit the arrest for adultery of a woman who says she was raped unless she can produce four male Muslims to attest that they witnessed the assault._ So if you are a woman, live in Pakistan, and you're raped or gang-raped but you didn't have an audience of at least 4 voyeurs who didn't do anything to help you, you're screwed! (punt intended). Ah, if you are a gal and you witnessed the rape, we are not interested in your testimony. Your word isn't good enough. 

Second, with friends like these, who needs enemies? _Bernadette Brooten... says government policy is a ''total perversion" of traditional Islamic law, which says that a woman can only be convicted of adultery if four male witnesses testify against her._ The 4 to 1 ratio clearly shows that the basic problem is the religious and legal abuses that patriarchical systems generate. Husbands would abuse the system in order to get rid of their wives. The way religions tried to fix this was to inflate the number of male witnesses. Wouldn't it be a better idea to revise and change the patriarchal values in order to generate equality between genders? Let's think out of the box. 

Third, let's not confuse illness with symptoms. Brooten correctly states, _'Patriarchy is really embedded within these three religious traditions_ (Bible, Talmud, Koran)." She adds, _'But the question is, can women adapt these traditions to bring out the best?_ I like her realistic approach. Replacing patriarchy with matriarchy isn't the way to go. Extreme forms of feminism unwillingly point in that direction. We need to sit down and reflect on the premises that guide our social behavior and institutions, identify double standards, and foster equality across genders.


----------



## Phryne

Everness said:
			
		

> Third, let's not confuse illness with symptoms. Brooten correctly states, _'Patriarchy is really embedded within these three religious traditions_ (*Bible*, Talmud, Koran)." She adds, _'But the question is, can women adapt these traditions to bring out the best?_ I like her realistic approach. Replacing patriarchy with matriarchy isn't the way to go. Extreme forms of feminism unwillingly point in that direction. We need to sit down and reflect on the premises that guide our social behavior and institutions, identify double standards, and foster equality across genders.


 Right, Everness! Patriarchy exists even in Western culture... who has a doubt about it? 

saludos


----------



## Everness

Phryne said:
			
		

> Right, Everness! Patriarchy exists even in Western culture... who has a doubt about it?
> saludos



I think that the 3 major monotheist religions have been more part of the problem than of the solution. They have been oppressive to women. However, Christianity, _in theory and potentially, _  represents an improvement in terms of women's rights. The article I quoted above says, 

_The other strain of Judaism at that time -- the Jesus movement that became Christianity -- produced Gospels with women who were often theologically smarter than their male counterparts._ Credit must be given to our first sisters!

_''They got it," said Geller. ''The women are presented as the followers of Jesus who understood his nature." St. Paul's letters refer to female partners in his missionary work, she added._

Just think about what Paul said in Galatians 3:28 (New International Version):

_There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus._


----------



## asm

Me and my daddy 





			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> Right, Everness! Patriarchy exists even in Western culture... who has a doubt about it?
> 
> saludos


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The huge majority of U.S. members of Congress are male. They will continue to be pressured by a male president and his coterie to legislate women's rights, or legislate to constrain these. I think that's not the way it should be.


 
Speaking of the United States only, what rights do women not have?

Do you think that because fewer women are CEOs and politicians, it is automatically because of discrimination?


----------



## chica11

To answer your question modgirl the answer is yes.  I know for a fact that there have been studies done on the glass ceiling effect and it does exist.  There is discrimination in the workplace against women, against minorities, against gays, against people with disabilities etc.  It's a given.  However, this does not mean that everytime a woman doesn't get hired or promoted it's because of her gender.  Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.  It depends on each situation.


----------



## modgirl

chica11 said:
			
		

> There is discrimination in the workplace against women, against minorities, against gays, against people with disabilities etc. It's a given.


 
Add one more class: white men.

At some major corporations, when a supervisor does not hire a minority, he is required to justify that decision. It happened to a friend of mine who hired a person whose experience, jobs skills, and education were superior to any of the candidates. This candidate also happened to be a white male. My friend eventually was able to prove that this person really was best for the job, but he had to go to great lengths to do so. I'd argue that minorities have a greater chance to get hired today, in some arenas in the US, even if their qualifications aren't up to snuff.

Apparently, discrimination is okay, depending upon whom it's against.

As for the "yes" answer to my question, then do you think that discrimination is the reason that more women are not plumbers or electricians? Is discrimination the reason more men are not nurses or kindergarten teachers?

Unfortunately, it's very convenient to yell discrimination when men and women aren't represented equally, but there are often reasons. For instance, as a general rule, CEOs do not work 40 hours a week. They often work 80+ hours a week. Women with children often make the choice not to work that frequently and thus do not seek those positions.

I'm not suggesting that discrimination against women does not exist. But it doesn't exist nearly to the extent that many Americans mistakenly think.

I don't know what the latest figure is, but we're all familiar with the phrase "Women make only X amount (less than a dollar) of money to every dollar a man makes."

That's probably true. However, what is vital is that few question what exactly is being compared. EVERY woman is included in that category, including the stay-at-home mom who earns $50 a month doing secretarial work for a religious or sports organization. Also, many women choose to work part-time in order to stay home and raise their children. Thus, it only makes sense that, on the whole, men's salaries will be higher than women's. Given a man and woman with equal education, experience, and skills, women are surpassing men in many careers.


----------



## SweetMommaSue

Everness said:
			
		

> Check out this interesting article.(I had to remove the link--it would not allow me to post!)
> Third, let's not confuse illness with symptoms. Brooten correctly states, _'Patriarchy is really embedded within these three religious traditions_ (Bible, Talmud, Koran)." She adds, _'But the question is, can women adapt these traditions to bring out the best?_ I like her realistic approach. Replacing patriarchy with matriarchy isn't the way to go. Extreme forms of feminism unwillingly point in that direction. We need to sit down and reflect on the premises that guide our social behavior and institutions, identify double standards, and foster equality across genders.


Dear Everness,
Thanks for the link to the article. It's quite interesting. 
I agree with you here. I believe that extremism usually will lead to an equally miserable situation as the one for which it was implemented to correct. The misery will be in a different form, but still just as uncomfortable and undesirable as the original condition.  Moderation, and consideration of all inputs, is usually a better path to take when formulating policies. One can never please all the people all of the time; however, one can sure be diligent in one's efforts to assess a situation and develop a plan for the majority. The Bible also advocates moderation. 

Smiles ,
Sweet Momma Sue


----------



## SweetMommaSue

modgirl said:
			
		

> As for the "yes" answer to my question, then do you think that discrimination is the reason that more women are not plumbers or electricians? Is discrimination the reason more men are not nurses or kindergarten teachers?
> 
> Unfortunately, it's very convenient to yell discrimination when men and women aren't represented equally, but there are often reasons. For instance, as a general rule, CEOs do not work 40 hours a week. They often work 80+ hours a week. Women with children often make the choice not to work that frequently and thus do not seek those positions.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that discrimination against women does not exist. But it doesn't exist nearly to the extent that many Americans mistakenly think.
> 
> I don't know what the latest figure is, but we're all familiar with the phrase "Women make only X amount (less than a dollar) of money to every dollar a man makes."
> 
> That's probably true. However, what is vital is that few question what exactly is being compared. EVERY woman is included in that category, including the stay-at-home mom who earns $50 a month doing secretarial work for a religious or sports organization. Also, many women choose to work part-time in order to stay home and raise their children. Thus, it only makes sense that, on the whole, men's salaries will be higher than women's. Given a man and woman with equal education, experience, and skills, women are surpassing men in many careers.


Hello Modgirl,
You are so right that we must be careful to compare apples with apples and not oranges! That is a mistake that is frequently made, to incorrectly compare unrelated groups. 
You bring up an excellent point about why women are not in some vocations, or are not found in them frequently, like plumbing, at least in the civilian world.  In the military, and now more than ever with so many women onboard Navy ships, the disparity is less. But in the civilian world, my guess is that some traditions still hold true. Older thought patterns about what "men's jobs" and "women's jobs" constitute are still in place to a certain extent. Plumbing is an excellent example. I just don't think women consider it when they think "what do I want to be when I grow up. . ." as little girls.  The movie, "Meet the Fockers" even pokes fun at the fact that Ben Stiller's character is a male nurse.
What I also find interesting is that you say that ALL women are being included in the salary comparisons.   I honestly thought that the salary studies had been done comparing men and women in the same jobs with the same education and at least similar seniority or experience.  If this is not the case, then the studies are bogus, meaningless, and hence a complete waste of time, effort and related resources. How do those people who conduct such worthless "studies" (I must find another term as these do not merit being called studies) get away with it? They are putting forth nonsensical, meaningless data and being hailed for it. How sad. And they are considered "experts" in their fields. . .  .  Hopefully, they will soon be replaced by more competent women (), who think things through more thoroughly. . . such as yourself.  What does this say for our society? . . that we accept so readily w/o investigation or verification the claims that someone with a title (and how do we know the credentials are valid?) makes. Mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmm.
Great discussion here! 
Smiles,
Sweet Momma Sue


----------



## modgirl

chica11 said:
			
		

> I know for a fact that there have been studies done on the glass ceiling effect and it does exist.


 
A kind suggestion: read the book "Women's Figures:  _An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America_ by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba.  It explains the glass ceiling myth.

Also:  _Who Stole Feminism?:  How Women Have Betrayed Women_ by Christina Hoff Sommers.  Sommers IS a feminist and yet exposes several popular but untrue myths.  Several angry feminists wrote her after the book demanding to know her sources.  She gave them and hasn't heard from them since.

Sadly, women in the US have been screwed by the very group of people who first banded together to _help _women.


----------



## modgirl

SweetMommaSue said:
			
		

> What I also find interesting is that you say that ALL women are being included in the salary comparisons.  I honestly thought that the salary studies had been done comparing men and women in the same jobs with the same education and at least similar seniority or experience.


 
That's what we all thought! Little did we know.... 



> What does this say for our society? . . that we accept so readily w/o investigation or verification the claims that someone with a title (and how do we know the credentials are valid?)


 
We're all guilty. You know the rumor that violence against women is more rampant on Super Bowl Sundays? One author traced it back, and it was ALL fabricated! Allegedly, one woman said that "probably" on those days, violence against women was greater. So, the word "probably" got dropped, and the rumor nearly became fact.

Someone gave a statistic that 150,000 of American girls DIE each year from anorexia. Someone actually did the research and the number from the Center for Disease Control was 54 in 1991.  Fifty-four is a _wee_ bit different from 150,000.

 When anyone gives statistics or studies, we really have to question them thoroughly.


----------



## Phryne

Hi modgirl,

I don’t know about “white males” being discriminated in the work place. Where’s the discrimination? Your friend got the job, didn’t he? Also white males are definitely those who hold better jobs, better wages now and always…  Nevertheless, I do understand today’s pressure to prove that you really deserve your job, but they are not the only ones having to do it. So do minorities. They have to prove that they deserve their job and they did not get because of “affirmative action”. 

Women have to prove they can do their jobs too. They have to prove that they can be efficient regardless “PMS”, or getting "too emotional". In addition, women need to prove that they won’t leave it to raise their children or that their personal lives won’t influence their job. Also, often times, some places don’t want to hire women in case they get pregnant ( see cases against Michael Bloomberg--pregnant employee—and raped employee).

IMHO there’s still sexual discrimination in this country, when males assume that women "are in those days", when you can’t have paid maternal leave, or when it is assumed that women are the ones that have to stay home taking care of the offspring.  As you said 





> _” Women with children often make the choice not to work that frequently and thus do not seek those positions._


 Why “women” with children? Where are the fathers? Or CEOs don’t have children?

I did not read the books you recommended; however I did peek at some book reviews. I can’t agree or argue with something that I have not read. Anyhow, I understand that Hoff Sommers criticizes the “second wave” of feminism for using misleading information, but she does not say that feminism is wrong per se, or that discrimination is over. Is that so?

Regarding Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, I also found some critique over the Internet sating that some of the number they used were also misleading. For instance, when they claim that women get the same salaries with everything else being equal, since they studied males and females 33 years old and younger. Why? Older people don't count? The site gave a list of other studies that do prove that women in same position as men, everything else being equal get paid only 81.5%.  Also they state that “	_Texaco, which agreed to pay $3.1 million to 186 female employees who were found to be systematically underpaid compared to their male counterparts. […]Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield, which paid $264,901 in back pay to 34 women managers who were paid less than male managers of equal qualifications and seniority. “_ source and more about it

Statistics can be used for very different purposes and unfortunately, I’m in no position right now to be able to distinguish much on either side. I do know, anyway, that the roles of males and females are still well defined and that the position of (relatively IMHO) equality is due to a long struggle. Let’s not forget the bigger picture. Women’s rights, actions against discrimination and racism are very recent and were extremely costly.

saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> Speaking of the United States only, what rights do women not have?
> 
> Do you think that because fewer women are CEOs and politicians, it is automatically because of discrimination?



Modgirl,

I won't waste your time and mine knocking down straw men or straw women.  I stated that Congress, pushed by a male and his coterie, would legislate about women's rights.   The right to determine whether to carry a fetus to term or abort is one such topic.  

As to discrimination, I've seen it used against women, and for women, to the detriment of men.   Most political organizations used to be all male clubs, favoring their own cohorts in the nomination process.   That has changed substantially.  

Because those running for higher office often come from the ranks of incumbents in lower offices, it will take time to achieve a true meritocracy.   We have begun the process.  It wouldn't hurt to accelerate it.  A very large proportion of public elected officials have law degrees.  Women are now applying to, and being accepted at, law schools in great numbers.  This is part of the way to "fill the funnel".   

As to the corporate world, discrimination in promotion and compensation, it can cut both ways.  For years, I worked for a company that was very 'politically correct', and had many women in top executive and middle management jobs.   Some of them were superbly qualified.  Others were filling quotas for female promotion.   In other words, their quality and competence was much like that of the men in similar slots in that company.  Some highly qualified men left the company, based on a valid expectation that they would not be promoted; the jobs to which they aspired were seemingly 'reserved' for females.  

Let me be quick to add that I've seen a lot more discrimination against women than in their favor.  It's diminishing, but it continues to be widespread.


----------



## modgirl

Phryne said:
			
		

> Hi modgirl,
> 
> I don’t know about “white males” being discriminated in the work place. Where’s the discrimination? Your friend got the job, didn’t he?


 
My friend was doing the hiring. He was STRONGLY urged to hire a woman or a minority, even if qualifications weren't as good as those of men. Thus, if he had followed his company's recommendation, the best person for the job would not have been hired. Isn't the "best person for the job" the desired outcome?!



> Also white males are definitely those who hold better jobs, better wages now and always…


 
Unfortunately, this is a blanket statement with no support.



> As you said Why “women” with children? Where are the fathers? Or CEOs don’t have children?


 
Women carry the babies, for one thing. And many fathers are staying home with their children. Why don't you ask young fathers that you know why they aren't staying home full-time or only working part-time while their wives work full-time? The fact seems to be that it's simply the woman's choice not to work full-time. Do men even have that choice?  When you have two parents with high-powered jobs, it's simply too easy to ignore the kids. That's why it's often one parent who concentrates more fully on the job. There's no reason it can't be the other way (men staying home)! But simply more women choose that path. Perhaps we should work on making it more socially acceptable for men to do the same.



> Anyhow, I understand that Hoff Sommers criticizes the “second wave” of feminism for using misleading information, but she does not say that feminism is wrong per se, or that discrimination is over. Is that so?


 
Oh no, she is just saying that the extremist factions are hijacking feminism. I personally agree.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I stated that Congress, pushed by a male and his coterie, would legislate about women's rights.


 
They also gave us the right to vote and gave us the Civil Rights Act!




> The right to determine whether to carry a fetus to term or abort is one such topic.


 
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Personally, I do not think that any person, male or female, should have the *right* to kill an unborn child. Snuffing out a human life, whether it's 10 years old or 10 days old, has nothing to do with women's rights. It has to do with human rights. Call an unborn baby what you will; he's still human. A vegetable or mineral does not automatically become "human" the minute it crosses the birth canal. Why on earth should mothers be so arrogant and selfish as to think they should have control over whether their own offspring lives or dies?



> As to discrimination, I've seen it used against women, and for women, to the detriment of men. Most political organizations used to be all male clubs, favoring their own cohorts in the nomination process. That has changed substantially.


 
That's true, but something else happened: when it was reversed and men petitioned to get into Smith College and other _women-only_ clubs and institutions, all of a sudden the women didn't want equal rights; they wanted _superior_ rights: no men allowed.



> Because those running for higher office often come from the ranks of incumbents in lower offices, it will take time to achieve a true meritocracy.


 
But -- what if enough women aren't interested? Shall we force women to take positions they don't want? Also, you seem to be suggesting that only women can represent women. Yet, as I mentioned, men gave women the right to vote, and white men passed the Civil Rights Act. Maybe men aren't quite the villains they're made out to be.



> Let me be quick to add that I've seen a lot more discrimination against women than in their favor.


 
In the past, I'd agree. Today, in the United States, I'm not so sure at all.


----------



## Phryne

Hi mod girl,





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> My friend was doing the hiring. He was STRONGLY urged to hire a woman or a minority, even if qualifications weren't as good as those of men. Thus, if he had followed his company's recommendation, the best person for the job would not have been hired. Isn't the "best person for the job" the desired outcome?!


Of course it is. Your friend's experience is not everybody's experience. Not all jobs have to fill quotas, and also many find ways around it. As you said, your friend was urged to hire a minority but he hired whomever he thought it was the best suited for the job. 





> Unfortunately, this is a blanket statement with no support.


 Ok, I have no numbers (for now). Nevertheles, historically, white men held the most desired jobs and had better access to education.  And as Cuchu said " it will take time to achieve a true meritocracy". Can you argue about that? 

Anyway, you made me think.... Do you really think discrimination is over????? Seriously... [Edit: I guess you answer that to Cuchu already...  ]

saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

Modgirl,
I suspect we agree more than disagree on most of this.  I'll comment on a couple of areas where our interpretations vary.  





			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> They also gave us the right to vote and gave us the Civil Rights Act!
> 
> "Gave us the right...."  Perhaps.  Or maybe they undid the immoral and potentially illegal *taking* of that right.  The Civil Rights Act pertained to the entire citizenry, not just to women or to men.  It said, in a nutshell, one cannot legally discriminate.  That was not the granting of a right.  It was a reaffirmation of the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
> 
> That's true, but something else happened: when it was reversed and men petitioned to get into Smith College and other _women-only_ clubs and institutions, all of a sudden the women didn't want equal rights; they wanted _superior_ rights: no men allowed. Absolutely true.  Also far off-topic.
> 
> 
> 
> But -- what if enough women aren't interested? Shall we force women to take positions they don't want?  You do so love to set up straw men and straw women.   I will not conjecture about 'what if's'.
> 
> Also, you seem to be suggesting that only women can represent women. No, I'm suggesting that a large majority of the membership of both houses of congress is male.    Maybe men aren't quite the villains they're made out to be.  I've met some good ones in my day.  It's not about villainy.  Everness expressed the idea that men subjugate women.  I'm saying that, historically, men had most of the political power, and like any group with power, they are loath to relinquish it. The same is true of any group, including women.


----------



## modgirl

Phryne said:
			
		

> Nevertheles, historically, white men held the most desired jobs and had better access to education.


 
I can't begin to argue with that;  I fully agree.

However, I don't see many doors being closed in women's faces today. Are there some? Yes, I do believe so. But I also believe that rampant discrimination has ceased.



> And as Cuchu said " it will take time to achieve a true meritocracy". Can you argue about that?


 
Based on the meaning of the word _meritocracy_, I'm not sure how it fits into the conversation.



> Do you really think discrimination is over????? Seriously...


 
Not at all. But it's more evenly spread today, at least.... sigh....

Question for you:  If you are female, what have you not been able to do simply because you're a woman (beyond the obvious biological limitations of father, son, and so forth)?  If you're male, what female in your life has been denied opportunities based solely on her sex?


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The Civil Rights Act pertained to the entire citizenry, not just to women or to men.




True, but your message seems to be that only women can represent women. My examples were that men do speak up for non-men and men of other races. So, why is it that you feel so strongly that men can't represent the interests of women and of men of other races? They've clearly done so before.




> You do so love to set up straw men and straw women.



Sorry you missed the connection: you seem to be insistent that our representation in government has to be half women and half men. Do you know that women want that? Obviously, you want it. Are you running for political office? Why don't more women run for office if they think it's that important? Today, in 2005, nothing is holding them back. 




> Everness expressed the idea that men subjugate women. I'm saying that, historically, men had most of the political power, and like any group with power, they are loath to relinquish it.



If women feel that strongly, then why don't more run for office?


----------



## Phryne

modgirl said:
			
		

> Question for you:  If you are female, what have you not been able to do simply because you're a woman (beyond the obvious biological limitations of father, son, and so forth)?  If you're male, what female in your life has been denied opportunities based solely on her sex?


 I'm a female. 

It's hard for me to answer to your question because there are too many other factors that affect my life right now, considering that I'm foreign and I've been living in the US for almost 5 years. In any case, discrimination works in subtle ways. Legally, employers are not allowed to close your door for being female, so if they do have a problem with it, they find ways around it. That's why it's so hard to denounce. 

I remember a teacher (sociologist and a lawyer) sharing a case of African American women being discriminated at either a Wal-Mart or a K-Mart. They sued them for not being hired, but they couldn't prove it because legally there's no concept of double discrimination. According to my teacher, they were discriminated for being females, and for being black. X-Mart, proved that they had black workers, all males though, and female workers, all white, so in their opinion, there was no discrimination at all.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't find it on the Internet, or in my class notes. 

Saludos


----------



## Merlin

Hi guys!
I remember reading an article from a newspaper related to this topic/issue. I just want to share it with you. 
It was a study why women (sometimes) are not hired especially higher positions like manager, ceo and president. Some employers believe in their capabilities. But what give them doubts is the ability to endure long hours of work, reserach and endless generation of reports. The study also noted that motherhood sometimes hinder women in achieving thier goals. For example, if she got pregnant, she will have a hard time coping and making follow ups on her previous projects. Sometimes they will have to have another training to refresh thier memories. And sometimes they have limited time for work so that they can take care of thier family. (Which is ok since we are working not only for ourselves but for our family as well) The study also said that single women have higher percentage of having positions. Any idea guys?
As for me, Men and Women are equal.


----------



## cuchuflete

You are debating with yourself, and using statements I didn't make to support half of your argument.



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> [/color]
> 
> True, but your message *seems to be* that only women can represent women.    Your interpretation, not my statement.    So, why is it that you feel so strongly that men can't represent the interests of women and of men of other races?  I don't "feel" it, nor have I stated it.
> 
> 
> ...you *seem to* be insistent that our representation in government has to be half women and half men.  You seem to be dedicated to jumping, insistently, to conclusions not supported by a close reading of text. I have never said that government has to, or ought to, be half women and half men. Do you know that women want that?  No, and thus I didn't say either that women woman that, nor did I propose it as an objective.  Obviously, you want it. Only true if you believe whatever you are determined to believe, regardless of what I may have written.   Are you running for political office?  Yes, as much as my previous statements *seem* to imply.
> 
> Why don't more women run for office if they think it's that important? The number of women running for office has increased drammatically over the last few decades.  That might *seem* to imply that some do believe it's that important. Hang around for a few years. You will likely see the percentage of female candidates continue to increase.
> 
> 
> If women feel that strongly, then why don't more run for office?


When I was a kid, there was a single female U.S. Senator. Today there are 14. That's a count of those elected. I don't know the numbers for candidates, but obviously candidacy is a prerequisite for election, so I conclude that more women are running for office. 

Since 1789, of all those elected to the U.S. Congress, 2% have been women. During the entire history of this country, 33 women have served in the Senate, some by appointment rather than election. With 14 currently serving, I seem to detect a change from historical patterns. 

This seems to support two or your points: That discrimination is reduced from historical levels, and that women can, if they so choose, seek and win office.

15% of the current members of the House of Representatives are women. 
More than one third of all the women who have ever served in the House, 67 of 185, are currently in office. That seems to indicate that a growing number of women are expressing, successfully, an interest in running for office. 

Here are some data, women in the U.S. Congress, to show the recent trend:

 [CODE]
year			House of Reps.			 Senate
1979-1981		 16					 1
1995-1997		 19					 0
1991-1993		 28					 4
1995-1997		 48 			 		 9
2001-2003 		 59 					 13
2005-2007		 67					 14 [/CODE]


----------



## cuchuflete

While some people may expend energy trying to detect what others' posts seem to imply, here are some data:

Female candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
Year............Senate...........House
1970.................1...............25
1972.................2...............32
1974.................3...............44
1976.................1...............54
1978.................2...............46
1980.................5...............52
1982.................3...............55
1984................10..............65
1986.................6...............64
1988.................2...............59
1990.................8...............69
1992................11.............106
1994.................9..............112
1996.................9..............120
1998................10..............121
2000.................6...............122
2002................11..............124
2004................10..............141


----------



## modgirl

Cuchuflete, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You agree that white men can represent the interests of those unlike them (that was the entire reason for bringing up the 19th Amendment and 1964 Civil Rights Act).

Yet, your original question is: _Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?_

Since you agree that men can represent the interests of women, the big question for you is:

_*What's your beef?*_


----------



## cuchuflete

Hey Modgirl,

What's yours?  I don't have one.  I was provoked by Everness's comment in another thread, and was interested to see what fellow foreros thought about the topic.

You state accurately that men --"white" is your very own addition...yet another example of a debate style that often includes putting words in other people's mouths....passed the Civil Rights Act and 19th Amendment which "gave" U.S. women one of the basic rights of citizenship: the vote.

Men also withheld that right for about a century and a half.

Perhaps you are comfortable with the ability of a predominantly male legislature to control women's destiny.   Do you have a beef with someone raising a question about this?  

Come to think of it, I have a beef with debate styles that include intentional or unintended distortions, but that's a matter for PMs or another thread.  

regards,
Cuchu

PS- There is no logical contradiction in asking a question.   That men *may* do something useful and decent, and that they have done so on more than one ocassion, does not imply that they will always do so.  

That very same institution, composed mainly or exclusively of men also passed laws about the legality of slavery, and ran the unconstitutional witchhunt known as HUAC.  Your are probably too young to remember the atmosphere of fear and all the legal, moral, and ethical injustice done by those male legislators.  




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You agree that white men can represent the interests of those unlike them (that was the entire reason for bringing up the 19th Amendment and 1964 Civil Rights Act).
> 
> Yet, your original question is: _Should men have the power to make such rulings that concern women directly, and men rather more indirectly?_
> 
> Since you agree that men can represent the interests of women, the big question for you is:
> 
> _*What's your beef?*_


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Perhaps you are comfortable with the ability of a predominantly male legislature to control women's destiny. Do you have a beef with someone raising a question about this?


 
You're being very vague about this. You did mention the abortion issue, and although I think we disagree, it is a good example. But sometimes just debating generalities seems to provide little substance to an argument. 

*As for my being comfortable with a predominantly male legislature to control women's destiny, I think it has far more to do with the personal views of the men -- not the fact that they are men!  Yet, by your original query, you are questioning whether men are capable of acting in the interests of others.   I think that's a question of individuality:  some men can; some men cannot.  Some women can do the same; some women cannot.  *



> Come to think of it, I have a beef with debate styles that include intentional or unintended distortions, but that's a matter for PMs or another thread.


 
You've been guilty, as well as I.



> PS- There is no logical contradiction in asking a question. That men *may* do something useful and decent, and that they have done so on more than one ocassion, does not imply that they will always do so.


 
Since all women do not think the same way, having half of our government representatives as women does not mean that most women will be happy with the decisions they make.

I strongly think representatives should be chosen on their actions and beliefs, not because of how they were born (sex, race, and so forth).

Like it or not, your implication actually is that women will be better at representing other women (you bring up time and time again that men are controlling women's destiny). That may not have been your intention, but that is what is being inferred by readers.


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Like it or not, your implication actually is that women will be better at representing other women (you bring up time and time again that men are controlling women's destiny). That may not have been your intention, but that is what is being inferred by readers.


Which readers?


----------



## Everness

A brief reflection on process. 

I'm wondering if condescension could be an independent variable that we fail to recognize and name in this conversation. Could it be that taking sides with or advocating for women and against men (or better said patriarchal values) is perceived as a vestige of the same phenomenon we are trying to combat: patriarchy? Could it be that some of us feel that men critical of patriarchy are treating women with condescension?  

Another thought. I've met men who are against patriarchy and women who are for it. I still believe that we haven't yet reached the middle ground and that the whole issue is permeated with emotional reactivity. I think that there's some wisdom in avoiding the other extreme. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## cuchuflete

To Modgirl, other readers may wish to skip this,



> You're being very vague about* this*.  Please define "this".  I'll be more specific when you point me in a specific direction.   You did mention the abortion issue and asked that it not be discussed here, as it would turn into a polemic all its own.  Thus, when you introduced it, I didn't take the bait and respond.  If you want to discuss abortion, open a thread about it.   and although I think we disagree, it is a good example. But sometimes just debating generalities seems to provide little substance to an argument.
> If you want substance, please respond to the data I provided instead of arguing with comments you attribute to me, but which I didn't make.
> 
> As for my being comfortable with a predominantly male legislature to control women's destiny, I think it has far more to do with the personal views of the men -- not the fact that they are men!  We have at least partial agreement here, but men are creatures of many things, including their generation. Thus some men both you and I might deem "good" in other regards, legislated for slavery, against free speech, and maintained women in a powerless state--no vote-- for more than half the history of our nation.     Yet, by your original query, you are questioning whether men are capable of acting in the interests of others.  Don't you ever get tired of reading a non-existent answer into a question?   Why do you assume that the question was stated to promote a specific answer?  Yes, I have viewpoints, but that's not why I asked the question.  I've already told you why I asked it.  If you choose not to believe the answer, than declare victory and bring your troops home from Saigon!   I think that's a question of individuality: some men can; some men cannot. Some women can do the same; some women cannot.
> 
> Quote:
> Come to think of it, I have a beef with debate styles that include intentional or unintended distortions, but that's a matter for PMs or another thread.
> 
> 
> You've been guilty, as well as I. Show me one instance committed by me, and you shall have a public apology.  In the meantime, if you continue to distort what I write, and attribute to me statements I haven't made, I'll have no choice but to assume that you would rather win a debate than engage in it honestly.
> 
> Quote:
> PS- There is no logical contradiction in asking a question. That men may do something useful and decent, and that they have done so on more than one ocassion, does not imply that they will always do so.
> 
> 
> Since all women do not think the same way, having half of our government representatives as women does not mean that most women will be happy with the decisions they make.  *Yet again, I'll remind you that reading is a virtue.  Not ever in this thread, or elsewhere, have I advocated 'having half of our government representqtives as women' or anything like that.  You are arguing with yourself and a strawman.  Too bad you can't find anyone else in this thread worthy of arguing with.  Must be lonely up there.*
> 
> This is yet another clear example of a debate style designed to divert attention from the question of the thread.  It's commonly called a red herring, and this one is beginning to have the odor of one that's been on the dock too long, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor.
> 
> It may really stick in your craw, but here comes my first and only statement about having an equal number of male and female representatives:   It's up to the voters.  Suggesting a benefit in a less disproportional population, with about 85% of the current Congress consisting of men, is not the same thing as advocating that 50% be women.
> 
> I strongly think representatives should be chosen on their actions and beliefs, not because of how they were born (sex, race, and so forth).
> 
> Like it or not, your implication *Look up "implication" in the dictionary of your choice, and then look up "inference".  *actually is that women will be better at representing other women (you bring up time and time again that men are controlling women's destiny). That may not have been your intention, but that is what is being inferred by readers.  You and who else?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit/Delete Message
Click to expand...


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete,

First, I understand well the difference between the words _implication_ and _inference_ and employed correct usage: 

My sentence: _Like it or not, your implication actually is that women will be better at representing other women (you bring up time and time again that men are controlling women's destiny). That may not have been your intention, but that is what is being inferred by readers._

An implication is given by the messenger. An inference is how information is received by others. Please be familiar with them yourself before you accuse others of not knowing the denotations.  Imply = gives or suggests the message.  Infer = interprets the message.

modgirl: Since all women do not think the same way, having half of our government representatives as women does not mean that most women will be happy with the decisions they make. cu: *Yet again, I'll remind you that reading is a virtue. Not ever in this thread, or elsewhere, have I advocated 'having half of our government representqtives as women' or anything like that. You are arguing with yourself and a strawman. Too bad you can't find anyone else in this thread worthy of arguing with. Must be lonely up there.*

Indeed, reading is a virtue. In my sentence above, where did I say what you alleged? I said, _Since all women do not think the same way, having half of our government representatives as women does not mean that most women will be happy with the decisions they make. _Where in that sentence do I even mention you or your views at all? You're becoming very flustered and reading what isn't there. And then you turn around and accuse me of the same thing! 

Unfortunately, you are distorting much of what is written and spend most of the time arguing against what you didn't say.

In answer to your original question: I do not discriminate between the intentions of men or women in representation. The actions and words of the individual are far more important to me than whether the representative is a man or woman. I think it is insulting to think that a man cannot represent the view of his female constituents. (Before you accuse me of saying that you think otherwise: please read. I'm offering my opinion only and did not say anything about you at all)


----------



## VenusEnvy

Has this thread gone far enough? I realize that a lively debate is healthy, but this is no longer lively.   






			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I could be wrong, but I'd place bets that you're a woman


Does it matter?


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Does it matter anyway?


 
Nope, and I was in the middle of editing it when you replied!

I also asked earlier:  _Speaking of the United States only, what rights do women not have?_

No one has replied.  If women have all that we need, what is the concern for female representation?


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> I also asked earlier:  _Speaking of the United States only, what rights do women not have?_
> No one has replied.  If women have all that we need, what is the concern for female representation?




The right to not be physically and sexually abused. On paper everything has been looking good, too good for a good time. However, and in reality, the abuse toward women in our society still has epidemic proportions. The problem isn't lack of enforcement of current laws but patriarchal values that we choose not to get rid of.


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> The right to not be physically and sexually abused. On paper everything has been looking good, too good for a good time. However, and in reality, the abuse toward women in our society still has epidemic proportions.


 
Are you speaking about the United States? I would very much question the "epidemic" proportion. In fact, because awareness is so prevalent, a woman's word is often believed over that of a man, without any evidence. There are also abused men, and that situation has been swept nearly completely under the rug.

Please understand that I'm not at all saying that there are not women who are still being abused! But, I have found no evidence from credible sources that it occurs in epidemic proportions. For instance, many groups have blindly stated that one out of every four women in college has been raped. Yet, the definition of "rape," when investigated was found to be wildly exaggerated. This, in itself, is a crime against women who really were raped.

I think we have to be very, very careful with what we read. Unfortunately, many groups have thrown out highly exaggerated and misleading statistics to garner attention. Those tactics are gaining attention; however, it's negative attention (when the truth is found), and it's hurting women a great deal.

Some women are true victims. Unfortunately, however, many are not and are just using the victim card to get what they want (sexual harassment comes to mind). It's hurting the true victims and the rest of us tremendously.



> The problem isn't lack of enforcement of current laws but patriarchal values that we choose not to get rid of.


 
Patriarchal values also include those that protect women. 

I'm rather confused, though. What is the actual problem, if we are enforcing the laws that protect women?

Here are just a few things I found on the web:

"A large and growing number of university research reports is indicating that men are about as likely as women to suffer from relationship violence. One study by the renowned University of Calgary researcher Eugen Lupri, reported that while 17.8% of husbands had admitted to abusing their female partners, 23.3% of the wives admitted to abusing their male partners1. While similar studies show slightly different results, there is a consistent trend of about one in five women and one in five men suffering from domestic violence."

Source: http://home.ican.net/~goid/q&a.html

"At least one implication is that political groups that have resolved to empower battered women have hijacked our understanding of domestic abuse by any means possible - even if that means nourishing those cultural myths that portray women as forever victims."

Source: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/husbandabuse.html

"I would like to refer you to the following studies which show women are every bit as likely to initiate spousal violence as are men."

Source: http://www.menweb.org/throop/battery/pointers.html


So, are these sources any more accurate than the ones who claim that domestic abuse against women is rampant? Quite frankly, without doing an in-depth study ourselves, it's very difficult to find the truth.


----------



## Phryne

modgirl said:
			
		

> Please understand that I'm not at all saying that there are not women who are still being abused! But, I have found no evidence from credible sources that it occurs in epidemic proportions. For instance, many groups have blindly stated that one out of every four women in college has been raped. Yet, the definition of "rape," when investigated was found to be wildly exaggerated. This, in itself, is a crime against women who really were raped.


 The fact that numbers are exaggerated matters for other reasons, but not in this case. Whether it's 1 out of 4, or 1 out of 10, women (and children) are still the number one victims of violence. 



Domestic violence is the single major cause of injury to American women, exceeding muggings, gang violence, murders, and accidents. 1 
One in seven American women has been raped in her lifetime. 2 
One woman is raped every two minutes in the United States.      3 
Nearly one-third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. 5 
source It's hard to say which statistics are correct and which are not, if we don't know how they got them, or analyzed them. In any case, violence against women is undoubtedly a big problem. 



> I think we have to be very, very careful with what we read. Unfortunately, many groups have thrown out highly exaggerated and misleading statistics to garner attention. Those tactics are gaining attention; however, it's negative attention (when the truth is found), and it's hurting women a great deal.
> 
> Some women are true victims. Unfortunately, however, many are not and are just using the victim card to get what they want (sexual harassment comes to mind). It's hurting the true victims and the rest of us tremendously.


 No doubt about this.





> Patriarchal values also include those that protect women.


 I wouldn't say that patriarchal values "protect" women inherently. And if there are any intrinsic values towards women, I see them more as being condescending.


> I'm rather confused, though. What is the actual problem, if we are enforcing the laws that protect women?


 The problem is that reinforcing a law does not wipe away negative patriarchal values. And also, today’s laws that protect women were achieved by _women_ fighting for their rights in the past two centuries. 

     I'm sorry if my English is poor. I'd explain myself far better in Spanish. But English is our lingua franca now... 

saludos


----------



## VenusEnvy

modgirl said:
			
		

> Are you speaking about the United States? I would very much question the "epidemic" proportion. In fact, because awareness is so prevalent, a woman's word is often believed over that of a man, without any evidence.


Without any evidence? I highly doubt this.




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Some women are true victims. Unfortunately, however, many are not and are just using the victim card to get what they want (sexual harassment comes to mind). It's hurting the true victims and the rest of us tremendously.


Yes, this happens.  




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Patriarchal values also include those that protect women.


Which ones? I agree with Phryne on this one. Protect, or do you mean shelter and "own"? . . .  



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I'm rather confused, though. What is the actual problem, if we are enforcing the laws that protect women?


True, the laws may dictate one thing (de jure), but abuse still happens (de facto).




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> I also asked earlier: Speaking of the United States only, what rights do women not have?
> 
> No one has replied. If women have all that we need, what is the concern for female representation?


So, because no one has answered you yet, you assume this means that we think women have all that we need? Wow, you really like to put words into people's mouths, and jump away to conclusions.




			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> Here are just a few things I found on the web:


If I wanted to, I could probably manage to find _something _ on the web that told me that the sky was green, and the grass blue...



			
				modgirl said:
			
		

> So, are these sources any more accurate than the ones who claim that domestic abuse against women is rampant? Quite frankly, without doing an in-depth study ourselves, it's very difficult to find the truth.


It's not difficult to know. There are plenty of _credible _ studies that have been conducted that would have no reason not to be believed. If we "never know", then why study anything?


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> Are you speaking about the United States? I would very much question the "epidemic" proportion.



http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/03_incidence.htm

I hope you trust the CDC...


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> There are also abused men, and that situation has been swept nearly completely under the rug.



I have a hard time understanding the logic behind this argument. As you know, there's also abuse against animals, etc. Does lack of awareness and/or stats on other types of abuse make abuse toward women less grievous? Las comparaciones son odiosas...


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> Please understand that I'm not at all saying that there are not women who are still being abused! But, I have found no evidence from credible sources that it occurs in epidemic proportions.



How many is too many? Forget about the words I used (epidemic proportions) and look at the figures the CDC Injury Center put out. Their report ends with these words:"... it is clear to see that intimate partner violence against women places a significant burden on society." 


Now, let's not forget about something extremely important: Many women don't report the physical and sexual abuse that is inflicted upon them. They don't do it for many reasons: their spouses have threatened them that they will kill them and/or their children if they report the abuse; the women are undocumented and they fear they will be deported if the police gets involved; they put up with the abuse because they are so poor they can't go anywhere else; they believe that men love them and that's why they beat them up; they think they did something wrong and that therefore they deserve the punishment; etc. etc. I think that underreporting of abuse against women is more serious than your concerns about the DV establishment blowing the limited stats we have out of proportion.


----------



## modgirl

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> If I wanted to, I could probably manage to find _something _on the web that told me that the sky was green, and the grass blue...


 
Exactly. Do you personally give more credibility to stories that claim women as victims?

Or, are you truly open-minded and listen to all that is available?

What I'm seeing is the "women as victims" constantly but when other evidence is presented, it's pooh-poohed, just as you did above. 

Of course, domestic violence against women exists. To what extent is the real problem?  And why don't we want to hear about abuse that happens with men? 

Many seem to quick to condemn men and turn a blind eye to all else.  Why on earth would we do this to men?


----------



## modgirl

> So, because no one has answered you yet, you assume this means that we think women have all that we need?



Okay, Venus -- I'll ask you point blank.  What right do you not have in the United States because you are a woman?


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> Now, let's not forget about something extremely important: Many women don't report the physical and sexual abuse that is inflicted upon them.





It's true of both men and women.  We should fight against domestic violence that is aimed at ALL people:  men, women, children, and a growing segment of elderly.

I'm not at all arguing that domestic violence against women doesn't occur!  It is a very serious problem, and unfortunately, women aren't the only victims.


----------



## cuchuflete

I wonder why so many corporations, the military,  colleges and universities and even high schools in the U.S. have...

-rules against sexual harassment
-mandatory education about the topic, including teaching men that "no" means *"no" ?

*Sure, it's possible that this is just in response to falsely inflated claims of rape and other violence against women, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that view.   

Are there false claims?  Yes.
Are there a troubling number of real claims? Yes.  
Are there many unreported incidents?  Make your own judgment.

This is not a tempest in a teapot.  

The military services have practiced cover-ups for decades, and only addressed the topic when they were caught protecting the offenders.  So if agencies of the government are culpable, should we really accept the proposal that all is well in the land, and the laws are being enforced?

The web is a good source of information about the so-called Tailhook Incident.


----------



## modgirl

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I wonder why so many corporations, the military, colleges and universities and even high schools in the U.S. have...
> 
> -rules against sexual harassment
> -mandatory education about the topic, including teaching men that "no" means *"no" ?*


 
Please understand that I'm in no way arguing that violence and harassment do not occur or that the numbers are insignifcant at all. However, it is a disturbing trend to portray men, in general, as evil pertrators of violent crimes against women. Many men are. Unfortunately, though, so are some women. 

And then, there are billions of men (and women) who have never abused anyone. 

What I'm really trying to communicate is that we shouldn't just blindly accept all the statistics that feminist organizations have thrown out at us and view all men are potential rapists or abusers. Many of the claims that actually have been investigated have been wildly exaggerated, and that exaggeration is making it worse for the real victims of crime.


----------



## chica11

Modgirl, If a man wants to be a nursery school teacher and can't get work because the bosses believe that is a "woman's job" even if he is completely qualified than that it also complete discrimination against the man as well.  It's a good question, why aren't more women in certain jobs and men in other jobs.   I remember reading a letter in time magazine from a man reacting to a bunch of articles about why women weren't going into the maths and sciences and why our school system wasn't pushing them into those subjects.  The man who wrote the letter to the editor asked something to the effect of " Why are we not concerned that boys/men don't do as well on verbal tests and writing as women do?"  " Is that not something to be concerned about?"  "When did math and science become more important than reading and writing?"  I agree with those statements.  It's interesting how in our predominantly patriarchal society we got so concerned with why women aren't doing what men can do and putting more emphasis and importance on traditional male careers and abilities that we totally forgot to look at it the opposite why.  Why can't men get work that women can, why can't men/boys excel in the way women can?


----------



## Everness

modgirl said:
			
		

> What I'm really trying to communicate is that we shouldn't just blindly accept all the statistics that *feminist organizations * have thrown out at us and view all men are potential rapists or abusers. Many of the claims that actually have been investigated have been wildly exaggerated, and that exaggeration is making it worse for the real victims of crime.



Is the CDC a feminist organization? If you can prove their feminist agenda please let me know and I'll call my congressman immediately! More CDC stats. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm


----------



## modgirl

Everness said:
			
		

> Is the CDC a feminist organization?


 
 I rather doubt it  However, there are documented cases of groups exaggerating claims to ridiculous proportions.  

"NAOMI WOLFE wrote a best seller, _The Beauty Myth_, based on the premise that 150,000 American women die of anorexia nervosa each year. The actual figure for 1991 was 54, according to the US National Centre for Health Statistics, These days people will accept even the wildest claims, as long as they make women out to be victims. *Particularly if they also put men in a poor light.* 

In 1987 the Office of the Status of Women ran a campaign which stated that one in three married women was at risk from domestic violence. This number is still in wide use and was widely accepted until Melbourne film maker Don Prahn made a documentary, _The Deadly Hurt, _on which federal minister for family services, Senator Rosemary Crowley, was asked about the source of such claims. "Why are you worried about a little bit of wrong analysis?" was her answer. The sources 0SW subsequently gave for its claim were the book _Behind Closed Doors_, written by three American social researchers, Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz in 1980, and the Canadian Juristat study. _Behind Closed Doors _actually states that one in three households would experience some degree of domestic violence *but in half the cases the woman would be the perpetrator.* 

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13c.htm

The list could go on.  But you're very right -- many cases of abuse do go unreported -- both for men and for women.

Perhaps the question should be:  is violence against women WORSE than violence against men, children, or the elderly?


----------



## Everness

_In a survey of boys and girls ages 8 to 12 years, girls cited concerns about IPV while boys did not consider IPV an issue (Sheehan, Kim and Galvin 2004)._

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm

Interesting piece of information, uh! It's clear that girls start getting a taste of violence at an early age and we boys don't see what the big problem is...


----------



## cuchuflete

modgirl said:
			
		

> Please understand that I'm in no way arguing that violence and harassment do not occur or that the numbers are insignifcant at all. We agree. However, it is a disturbing trend to portray men, in general, as evil pertrators of violent crimes against women. Many men are. Unfortunately, though, so are some women. And we still agree about the many men and some women.  As to portraying men, in general, as evil.....I didn't notice anyone in this conversation doing that.  If I had, I would have objected, as it's a bogus claim.
> 
> And then, there are billions of men (and women) who have never abused anyone. Bravo for our team!
> 
> What I'm really trying to communicate is that we shouldn't just blindly accept all the statistics that feminist organizations have thrown out at us and view all men are potential rapists or abusers. Many of the claims that actually have been investigated have been wildly exaggerated, and that exaggeration is making it worse for the real victims of crime.



Some feminist orgs. probably try, for 'marketing' reasons, to make more of a serious problem than is really there.  I don't like or agree with that tactic.  Still, if it helps focus attention on that part of the problem that is real, and substantial, they may be doing some good.  I'd prefer to see the same good done with honest fact, rather than with exaggeration.  

Unfortunately, when any individual or org. inflates their claims, and is found out, some people will conclude that the claim was totally false, rather than just inflated.  In that case, the feminists may harm our collective cause: treating one another with decency.


----------



## meili

modgirl said:
			
		

> [/u]It's true of both men and women. We should fight against domestic violence that is aimed at ALL people: men, women, children, and a growing segment of elderly.
> I'm not at all arguing that domestic violence against women doesn't occur! It is a very serious problem, and unfortunately, women aren't the only victims.


I have been following this thread and I am glad that you are aware that violence against women does occur. And yes, I do not want to agree with you that they are not the only victim.

I am from the Philippines (as is very well obvious) and I am not from the US but I share the same 'sentiments' (or algo asi) that violence and/or discrimination against women will, or must, in some way or the other be given a-little-of-much attention. It might not me as obvious in the United States, but it is in the other parts of the world. 
As Everness said:



> Many women don't report the physical and sexual abuse that is inflicted upon them. They don't do it for many reasons: their spouses have threatened them that they will kill them and/or their children if they report the abuse; the women are undocumented and they fear they will be deported if the police gets involved; they put up with the abuse because they are so poor they can't go anywhere else; they believe that men love them and that's why they beat them up; they think they did something wrong and that therefore they deserve the punishment; etc. etc. I think that underreporting of abuse against women is more serious than your concerns about the DV establishment blowing the limited stats we have out of proportion.


 And so I believe, that we, as women who are very much aware of our rightful rights, help them to be aware of their own.


----------

