(The guys on the staff got together and put it back for you.)
THIS was probably a big reason. Court rulings based on the plain text of the ERA could easily find that any draft that didn’t include women would violate the equal rights of men. Lots of people of both sexes on either side of the political spectrum weren’t keen on the idea of drafting women.
Here’s a link to that thread:
Why was the Equal Rights Amendment so controversial?
Proponents don’t want the ERA for merely symbolic reasons. They simply realize that, though our current culture largely supports granting autonomy and equality to women, history shows that this could change. For example, if fundamentalist religious views continue to gain prominence, we could see a reversal of the hard-won social progress instigated by feminists over the last century. If the ERA had made it into the Constitution, it would be harder for such cultural backsliding to affect the law by removing safeguards that are now in place.
traitor
I lived in Cambridge at the same time - almost adult 
I knew some women who did not like men to open doors for them, but none who hated men. I think the answer to the OP is the same as why some right wingers call anyone to the left of Attila the Hun a radical if any extremist writes anything crazy.
Another example of how bad it was - in 1978 my wife discovered that she could not get a checking card at the supermarket without my signature, despite the fact that she worked and I was in grad school. Louisiana still had a Head and Master Law, saying that the man was head of the household. It did get repealed, but not without the protests of some legislators who said they got married under the law and it was unfair to change the rules. :mad:
Yes, that is my exact thought process, and thank you for so eloquently stating it. I am completely for 100,000 men dying. In fact, there is nothing in the world that I would rather see than 100,000 men dead.
Since my position is the conventional wisdom, I see no need to defend it. Why don’t you make your case to show me the error of my ways?
Because your position amounts to the claim that male lives are worthless, and female lives are valuable, and that’s not a nice thing to say ? It’s also the kind of attitude that makes it hard to take seriously the claim that feminism has anything to do with equality.
Really, feminism has done more to smear itself than conservatives could ever do.
I have a suggestion for those of you who think the issue of inequalities or differences in society’s attitudes towards men and women are settled. Picture what the differences between what would happen if a man went into a bar and announced, “God I’m horny! I just want to get laid!” and what would happen if a woman said the same thing. 
It’s trite and a cliche coming from me, but we haven’t reached true equality yet. I also, by the way, worked for an employer who would only have women cover the reception desk during the receptionist’s lunch hour and hired a woman saying she’d be in charge of Quality Control and then refused to give her the position (she sued). This company also practiced racial discrimination. They’re out of business now, but not for any of these reasons.
I’m an unabashed feminist who reads Ms. Magazine regularly, and I have an idea where the stereotype’s coming from. There are feminists who apprarently believe that you’re not a true feminist unless you hate men and are lesbian. Come to think of it, there’s a Pit rant right now about a lecturer at a university who’s in that school. There’ve been a few times when I’ve been tempted to write to Ms. and point out that one reason I became a feminist in the first place is because I like men and it looked to me like the guys got to do a lot more fun stuff than the girls did. An old love once told me I wasn’t a feminist because I believe in women’s equality, not superiority.
My feminism is a bit like my Christianity to me. I know that the most obnoxious, extreme stereotypes are the ones which make the news, and I’ll stand up and say I’m not like that and I don’t support it. On the other hand, while I may not like it, people like Ms. Dworkin and Mr. Falwell will continue to exist.
CJ
And they’re just supposed to ignore the gap in her work history and the fact that she’s been out of the loop and may not be up to date on all the things they’re working with because women who quit working due to their kids get a special pass?
She’s going to be treated just like any man who was off the playing field for an extended period of time, and it’s going to be harder for her to get a position now. As it should be.
Cite?
Maybe your sister and her husband should’ve decided differently. Society didn’t force your sister to quit her job instead of her husband. That’s a decision they made.
Every woman in the place would be lined up to kick him in the balls for being an inconsiderate pig who objectifies women, whereas if I say that, I get applause.
They may well be talking about Jeanie, prolific poster at the now defunct Ms. Message Boards, who fully admitted to treating men unfairly in the Women’s Studies courses she taught.
I still see the occasional asshole, but I don’t exactly think that in 2005 United States there is anything like what feminists call ‘the patriarchy’.
“Now we got here in the state of Louisiana what’s known as the Napoleonic code. You see, now according to that, what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband also, and vice versa…”
</Stanley Kowalski>
How did machismo become synonymous with misogyny in the popular mind?
As to the OP: Remember the growth pains of feminism didn’t only lead to (what was perceived as) misandry. Feminists bashed each other too for not being sufficiently ideologically committed, it isn’t one of our prouder moments, but we learn from our mistakes. It was a natural symptom of the beginning of change. As oppressed people, women had learned how to be oppressors. When we started getting a leg up, we behaved the way we had been taught: we turned that oppression onto others. Those of us who have done transformative work consciously try not to do that any more. We recognize that the problem is the hierarchical patriarchal system, not the men or women who have been in the system. The OP is talking about a hangover from the '70s and '80s. I don’t see that happening in contemporary feminism. In my experience with feminist action in the present day, it’s very male-positive and they are happy to bring men on board as allies. Many men too have changed and come around to being less chauvinist, more understanding.
Has anyone flogging these antifeminist stereotypes actually talked with and listened to a real live feminist? If you just repeat what Rush told you to say, you will not gain knowledge. If you want to understand feminism, try engaging us as real human beings.
P.S.
Flores. Flores para los muertos.
You say ‘we’, but weren’t you living as a socially-identified man until quite recently? I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but if you didn’t start living as a woman in society until you had already established a career, then how can you speak to firsthand experience about getting a leg up or even imply that you know firsthand what it was like for someone like me who came up through a field mostly populated by men having been a girl the entire time?
Not all of us agree that there is a patriarchy. I certainly didn’t experience any of that ‘patriarchal system’ as I worked my way up through a field in which I was out numbered 10 to 1 by men. It’s not as if those doors were closed to anyone who had a second X chromosome, it’s that despite the encouragement by those in the university’s administration, the women just flat out weren’t interested in computer engineering as often as the men were.
And in my experience, it’s very anti-male and the only way that a man can gain acceptance from feminists is to become self-deprecating and slather himself with guilt and try to be more like a woman so that feminists will accept him.
Really? I think most men don’t need to change because they aren’t chauvanists.
That’s when I started hating feminism.
I did. I was severely disappointed by the attitudes of those who thought they spoke for me.
Perhaps you should have read his further comments where he already addressed that issue?
He already pointed out that the decision, and decisions like those by other people, are often the result of societal presumptions. He never made the claim that anyone forced any particular action. However, in a society where equality had been achieved, the results of similar decisions would be more likely to go closer to 50 - 50, rather than to go overwhelmingly toward the woman sacrificing her career.
We have not achieved that level of parity and so his example is used to illuminate (not to prove) the current unequal status of women in society. Coming back with a rejoinder that basically says “it’s their own fault for their decisions” does not address either the fact or the reason behind similar decisions being made in an overwhelming number of occasions in our society–which was the point he was making.
He’s on about how these ‘social presumptions’ have to be changed, but he himself points out that through their own conscious decision his very enlightened sister and brother-in-law chose to go along with the herd instead of doing something different.
They could’ve chosen the opposite, the opportunity for doing so certainly existed. Where was his sister denied an opportunity because she was female? The fact of the matter is that they had a choice. Unless AHunter3 is arguing for equality of outcome, how on earth was equality of opportunity denied to his sister and her husband in this case?
So you are talking about equality of outcome, which means that you will not be happy unless the decisions people make of their own free will agree with the decisions you would have them make. I obviously disagree with equality of outcome as a good goal to try and reach.
I don’t believe that unequal outcome proves unequal opportunity or that women are unequal in society.
Or do you think that men are unequal in society because 50% of BSN graduates aren’t male?
You are arguing against a position that no one here is arguing for.
Had you stopped after your first paragraph, you would have clearly identified the situation. The social presumptions need to change. This indicates that there is still work to be addressed from the perspective of the Feminist movement, which was the original point.
No one has proposed imposing new rules.
No one has insisted that any individual decision needs to be reversed.
No one has claimed that the de jure opportunity needs to be changed.
For that matter, no one has argued that the outcome must be based on a measure of exactly 50%.
The sole claim has been that when the numbers are entirely lopsided in one direction, then the general recognition of equality has not yet permeated society.
I have expressed no desire to be “happy” when any particular event occurs, so you can put that strawman back in the closet. On the other hand, would you really argue that there are no societal pressures that keep the rate of male BSNs very low? Go back to your first paragraph: men are not excluded from entering nursing (and many more now are), but there are still social presumptions that reduce the number of men who might.
This does not call for changes in laws or school admnissions boards or any overt action, just a general effort by people (Feminists, if you will) to change the social presumptions that render that result.
Well, in all fairness, I think we are more likely to see the idea that only men should be subject to military draft among traditionalists than among feminists. I’m certain that there are some feminists who think that only men should be drafted since they are fundamentally violent and only them are responsible for wars, but those would be the extremist feminists the OP is talking about. An average feminist is more likely to think that if there needs to be a military draft, then, there is no reason why women shouldn’t have to do their part. I know this is what I would think.
Traditionalists, on the other hand, are more likely to see women as fragile little creatures who need to be sheltered from the horrors of war, while strong men, while their lives are not worthless, are able to be heroes for their country. This is an anti-feminist opinion.
This said, I’d also like Ellis Dee to explain why dead female soldiers are more unsettling than dead male soldiers.
Tom, with all due respect, in my experience WRT to the decision about who (husband or wife) takes care of small children your notion of “closer to 50 - 50” is never going to happen in any real world context. While I’m sure there are some women who would gladly give this over to caretakers or their SO, in a dual income household where either partner can support the family, women most often decide how this is going to go, and the husband stying home with the kids while she works is not an option most women seriously entertain unless her earning power is significantly greater than his, or he is unemployed.
In other words, unless circumstances necessitate it many women with young children want to stay home with the kids and be full time mothers if the option exists. It’s something they enjoy doing and find fulfillment in, it not like they lost a paper-rock-scissors contest with their SO.
I have no firsthand experience of World War II either, to take one example, but as an American I can say “We beat the Nazis,” even though I didn’t exist at the time.
I am a woman. I identify with women’s struggle for equality and am actively committed to working for it. I identify with the feminist heritage of our foremothers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, just as do other feminists. Even though none of us existed back then, we can say “we” when we talk about early feminism because we carry on what they began. I feel spiritually connected to their struggle. Their unimaginable courage going up against insuperable odds, knowing they would not live to see any results in their lifetimes, but struggling with all their might anyway for the sake of future generations, fills me with awe and inspiration, and reminds me to have courage in the face of difficulties. Nothing we face now can be compared to what they went through. They were starting from zero but were undaunted by the impossibility of the task. We owe an incalculable debt to them for leading the way. Let this never be forgotten.
My history of being male does not take away from my feminism in the present. What would detract from it would be if I held onto the male privilege I once enjoyed. I have been conscientiously seeking out the insidious, pervasive ramifications of male privilege and discarding every last trace of it. Eeewww, get it awaaayyy from me. It’s true there are transwomen who have not made this effort, who lazily hold onto their male privilege even while they want to claim to be women. One disturbing example cited by Deirdre McCloskey: she saw MTFs sitting around talking sports just like guys while genetic women did all the housework, cooking, washing dishes, etc. These lazy transwomen bring disgrace on the rest of us. They are not true to themselves and they need to undertake serious self-examination. Feminists rightly criticize them. I personally feel disgust at the level of falsehood and self-deception they find acceptable. I am there at the kitchen sink with the other women. In the movement, you have to put your ass where your mouth is (please feel free to insert kinky sexual innuendo ) or else shut up.
When I walk alone on the street at night, there is no difference at all between me and all other women with regard to the danger we face.
I’m very happy for you. What makes you think your experience is in any way typical of what most other women go through? The statistics don’t lie, nor do the innumerable stories told by women of the gender discrimination they have been facing for all these years. I don’t detract from the personal truth you found in your individual experience, but no way can I see it as typical. I believe the women who tell of discrimination. I believe Anita.
In my experience within the movement and actually participating in it, that just is not true at all. Especially in recent years, the feminists I work with have been very welcoming of men, and conscientiously practicing full gender equality within the movement. I have traveled across the country, I have pitched in to help with one feminist movement after another, and I have never seen a single castrating feminist like you describe. Helen Reddy sang “I know I’ll make my brother understand.” This accommodating spirit lends strength and resilience to the movement and keeps it based within the real world.
I don’t know about “most men” being blatant chauvinists, it doesn’t look as though they are. But chauvinism lives on insidiously, is unconsciously, in all men who have not taken a good look within themselves and honestly examined the privileges accorded them by the system. There are still examples of blatant chauvinism too.
When I lived as male, I frequently experienced disgust when guys felt free to display their chauvinism, thinking there were no women around. You just haven’t seen what I’ve seen. When I worked in the Defense Department, I was sitting next to a whiteboy Christian U.S. serviceman and overheard him saying to an Arab Muslim: “You guys have the right idea, keeping your women under control.” Once I was working near a naval attaché in another DoD installation, and there was a P.A. announcement about celebrating March as National Women’s History Month. He loudly spewed his anger that women get a month. It was outright naked hatred.
I don’t mean to pick on our boys in uniform, I’m only giving examples of military male chauvinism because I happened to work in that milieu. You could probably find it, though, in any line of work, especially careers that emphasize toughness, violence, and machismo.
I said chauvinism is lessening among men, and it makes me very glad. Maybe you’ve been fortunate to work in a field where chauvinism isn’t rampant any more. It still persists in too many areas, the struggle is far from over, don’t stick your head in the sand.
Better to hate chauvinist attitudes that make feminism necessary, sister.
In general, we should not hate our fellow human beings (I’m not saying that you do, catsix, just saying in general). We have nothing to hate but hatred itself.
Not to hijack my own thread, but since we’re on the topic and you appear to have some experience in this realm, some years ago (about mid-late 90’s) there were various women’s groups committed to the idea of women needing male free “safe spaces”, and transgendered men to women were definitely not on the the invitation list to these “male free” events or locations, and in fact there was actively (and fairly intense) hostility by some of the more militant (mostly self identified lesbian) members of these groups toward TG M-F’s “pretending” to be women while still being genetically male, and they were quite pointedly excluded from these gatherings.
It’s now 2005 and you speak glowingly of the “sisterhood” you feel with other feminists. Have these older attitudes changed, and transgendered M-F’s are now embraced and welcomed by women’s groups, and more specifically are you welcomed by the lesbian members of those groups?
I think this illustrates one of the reasons why some people don’t have such a peachy view of feminism. What kind of sexist garbage says that a female can’t sit around and talk about sports because she’s got house work to do? I sure hope this was just a silly metaphor used to illustrate how those transgendered individuals weren’t properly allied with their sistren as they should have been and not a literal representative. One of the tenants of feminism, at least what I thought was feminism, is that everyone should have the opportunity to be themselves regardless of sex, orientation, and cultural expectations. Is this true or false? I also see it as a dig on men. Are men lazy bastards who contribute nothing to the home while women do everything?
How about the personal truth of others who had bad run ins with self-proclaimed feminist? I have met feminist whose entire philosophy could be summed up in four words, “Man bad, woman good.” Granted, that’s not the whole of feminism, but that was my first exposure to feminist.
Yep, men are pretty much assholes by default until they’re exposed to feminist thought and changed. :smack:
Of course by that same token you haven’t seen what I’ve seen. I saw Dr. M.E. Dyson give a lecture a few weeks back and he described the ocean as being the truth. You can put some of that truth in s glass and say you have the truth, but you don’t have all the truth. Our worldview is heavily influenced by whatever baggage we bring with us. You haven’t seen what I’ve seen. As I said earlier, I’ve met some feminist who were decidedly anti-male, but you seem to think that everyone critical of feminist got their information from Rush or some other similiar source.
Marc
Yes. They have changed. I’m so glad to be coming out in 2005 rather than 1980. I’ve been warmly welcomed by a newly formed lesbian feminist group as a founding member, fully accepted as a woman, with my trans never even mentioned as though it doesn’t matter in the slightest. This was a separatist group in that they respectfully asked two heterosexual women to leave, wanting to have a space specifically for queer women. (But we consensed about it first.)
They showered me with love. It was so beautiful. I’m crying tears of happiness as I contemplate how blessed I’ve been.
The Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival is still going by their infamous transphobic rules, but so many other womyn’s music festivals—dozens—have blossomed all around the country and they are all trans inclusive with Michigan remaining the only stick-in-the-mud. MWMF is increasingly seen as outdated and irrelevant. Camp Trans, which has been there for several years now, across from the entrance to MWMF, actually got a reputation as a more lively and fun scene than the original.
I’m glad you asked, astro, I’d like to get the word out that things are wayyy better now. I believe there’s ample hope on the horizon for a bright feminist future that accords equal dignity and respect to all humans. The key principle in this is to be free of authoritarian attitudes, to let each individual be her own authority. Today I just heard a description of Reclaiming Witchcraft (to which I also belong) as “anarchofeminist.” I like that word… anarchofeminist. I am sooo there.
When I was in Atlanta last month kickin it with my lesbian peeps, we went to Urban Tea Party, a teahouse run by and mainly attended by queer women of color. The proprietress welcomed me right in, she was so sweet. We heard poetry and live acoustic music by an amazing lesbian band from New Orleans, Mother Tongue, which included a transwoman, while enjoying some luxurious tea. I would much rather savor tea & poetry than alcohol & overly amplified pounding music in some bar. I got a really good impression of Atlanta’s vibrant queer scene.