Have you ever been in the military? I have not, but I have spent my entire life around people who have been or currently are. I can assure you that this is the last kind of person that most people in command of troops want on the front lines. There is a reason that basic training teaches things like discipline and orderliness.
Besides, most guys who think they’re all big and bad really aren’t.
**
Are you trying to tell me that all those men who abuse their children do so without the knowledge of the mother?
**
You’re going to have to make up your mind here. If it only applies to people wanting equal opportunities what does that have to do with not wanting to come out shooting first? Nothing. So if feminism does impact those kind of decisions then it is more then gender equality isn’t it?
**
We’ve tried avoiding violence and now we no longer have the World Trade Towers.
**
Patriarchal, “manly” traits promoted the Bill of Rights and recognized that individuals did have rights. I won’t make claims as to the perfection of attitudes or the documents written in the 1700’s. However without the manly concept thta all men were created equal there would never have been feminism, would there?
That’s now what you said above. So feminism is more then just wanting gender equality?
Marc
MGibson: *You’re going to have to make up your mind here. If it [feminism] only applies to people wanting equal opportunities what does that have to do with not wanting to come out shooting first? Nothing. So if feminism does impact those kind of decisions then it is more then gender equality isn’t it? *
Um, I think the root of the problem here may be that we’re mixing up our “waves” of feminism. 
If my broad picture of the history of the women’s movement is sorta correct, then the term “feminism” came into wide use a few decades ago with the connotation of what’s now called “first wave feminism”, which put a lot of stress on equality of opportunity and the idea that women could do most things men could do (and many more things than society currently approved of their doing) and shouldn’t be shoehorned into a domestic, supportive role just because they were women. Then “second wave” feminism started stressing somewhat different aspects of gender issues, arguing that there are some important intrinsic differences between men and women, and that male-dominated society should change somewhat to reflect those “natural” differences, rather than just requiring women to act and think exactly “like men” whenever they took on what had traditionally been a man’s role. (I put those phrases in quotes because I’m pretty dubious about this line of reasoning: it seems that “intrinsic” differences between different individual members of each sex are at least as great as the differences between individual men and women.)
So you can’t really tell which type of feminism, or what blend of types of feminism, is being referred to by the label “feminist” without getting more deeply into these issues. To some people the word still means mostly gender-equality, equal-pay-for-equal-work type principles, and to others it means a general repudiation of “masculine” traits, and to most feminists it probably means a very complex mix of ideas on a broad range of related subjects. It may not really be possible to “make up one’s mind” about any simple and concise definition of “feminism”.
*‘I believe that the “fighting violence with exposure to violence” amounts to pouring gasoline on a fire; it will have a dramatic effect on the problem, but not the desired effect. Encouraging individuals to avoid violence, when possible, discourages terrorism.’
We’ve tried avoiding violence and now we no longer have the World Trade Towers. *
Hmm, I don’t think we can really describe ourselves as having been “avoiding violence”. We fought a war in Iraq, we took part in the conflicts in Eastern Europe, we bombed targets in the so-called “Operation Monica”, and so forth; and of course we have also continued to support with public and private funds a good deal of violence carried out by other regimes and groups. It’s true that most of this (except the Gulf War) didn’t really involve most Americans actively wanting violence or rooting for it; in most cases, I think most of us didn’t even know very much about it or pay very much attention to it. But from the viewpoint of the rest of the world, I doubt that they would describe us as “avoiding violence”.
So I don’t think I quite buy what you seem to be arguing, i.e., that terrorists struck at us because they felt confident we wouldn’t hit back. I don’t think terrorists think that way. After all, terrorist organizations have been striking for years and decades at various governments all over the world that continually and forcefully hit back at them. Violent reprisals don’t have a very good track record at making terrorists just give up and go away.
*Patriarchal, “manly” traits promoted the Bill of Rights and recognized that individuals did have rights. I won’t make claims as to the perfection of attitudes or the documents written in the 1700’s. However without the manly concept thta all men were created equal there would never have been feminism, would there? *
I dunno that the idea of “manliness” is really any more clearly defined than the idea of “feminism”. The ideal of the universal brotherhood and equality of man seems to me not really so much “patriarchal” as rooted in the Christian concepts of the teachings of Jesus, who is not usually portrayed (except maybe in Paradise Lost :)) as the macho dominant male.
Domestic violence is all about control. The agressor works over time to undermine the self-confidence of the victim. Psychological dominance preceeds physical violence. Once physical violence commences, the phychological battle has been won, the victim has usually been brainwashed into thinking she is worthless and to blame for all family problems, and that she deserves the abuse she is receiving. Furthermore, the victim is justifiably frightened for her life, because women are frequently murdered by their abusers when they try to escape from the abusive situation. Many women are pushed to take the risk and leave the abusive situation when the abuser starts harming the children. Some victims kill the abuser and end up in prison. Many are too beaten down physically and emotionally to defend themselves or their children. Thus, I would have to say that you are correct in assuming that some women are aware that their abuser is abusing their children, and feel unable to do anything about it. Only an emotionally sterile monster would label such women as uncaring or not protective of their children. I’m curious, does striking a woman give you a sense of power and control?
**
Bingo. I also don’t like words such as liberal or conservative because as the word is used it doesn’t really mean much.
**
In the specific cases I mentioned we have certainly avoided exposing Americans to violence as much as possible. During “Operation Monica” we lobbed a few missiles and didn’t accomplish anything. So yes I’d argue that our aversion to violence has convinced many people that the United States is in fact a paper tiger.
Marc
Yes, and I also enjoy drowning kittens, kicking puppies, and stealing candy from babies. You’re question was uncalled for and offensive in the extreme. If you want go down that road I suggest you take it to the Pit.
Marc
There’s plenty of room for saying “Hey, you forgot to define your terms”, but it seems to me that if you’re going to start off with the assertion that America is being or has been “feminized”, or that its boys have been or are being “feminized”, you end up looking pretty silly protesting, farther down, that other people are “making unfair generalizations when you say such-and-such characteristics are ‘patriarchal’”.
Certainly most feminists do not believe there are a collection of evil characteristics built into the male form itself. Were this not so, I would not be enamored of feminism, since I’m male myself. At the same time, to the same extent that you can count on us knowing what you mean when you say “feminized”, I think it is fair for us to say you know what “patriarchal” values and priorities are.
MGibson: *In the specific cases I mentioned we have certainly avoided exposing Americans to violence as much as possible. During “Operation Monica” we lobbed a few missiles and didn’t accomplish anything. So yes I’d argue that our aversion to violence has convinced many people that the United States is in fact a paper tiger. *
(Emphasis mine.) Wait a sec here, I think we may be conflating two separate notions with very important differences. To be “averse to exposing Americans to violence” is not the same thing as being “averse to violence”. In fact, the kind of military attacks that are safest for American personnel (like the air strikes in Kosovo and Iraq) tend to be the most indiscriminate with regard to targets, and the most likely to inflict violence unintentionally on non-combatant victims. (In the same vein, the “Operation Monica” bombings did actually accomplish the destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant that was never actually shown to have any connection to terrorists, but was very important in manufacturing medicines. Once again, that ended up hurting a lot of people we didn’t mean to hurt, which doesn’t make us look good.)
So I still don’t think it’s really justified to describe U.S. policy as “averse to violence”, or that we’re widely perceived as a “paper tiger”. It might be more apt to say that many people perceive us as a “mean but blind tiger”: when someone pulls our tail, we lash out with claws and teeth, but we can’t really tell and don’t very much care whom we get, as long as we get somebody. I think this is exactly how terrorists want us to be perceived, since they can use that in their spiel that we’re all cruel and dangerous oppressors who don’t care whom we hurt as long as we get our own way, so they must launch a holy war against us, blah blah blah. That’s why I think we need to be really, really careful and restrained about the use of violence, because whatever we do that attacks innocent victims (however unintentionally) will in the long run end up creating more terrorists than it kills.
MG: Yes, and I also enjoy drowning kittens, kicking puppies, and stealing candy from babies.
Hang on a minute here, I thought we established the last time we discussed this that it was kittens you liked to kick. Get it right, Marc, willya? 
Cites?
**
Have you sat in on a college lecture? Especially at a high-profile research university? Do you realize that some college professors are–gasp–bad educators ? Do also realize that even if a professor gets bad evaluations, there are often few repercussions?
**
I don’t want to turn into a broken record, but do you have some cites for this?
**
There are some things that you can’t evaluate any other way. I live with an art major–the only way I can see for her to be meaningfully graded is by creating a portfolio. I am an engineering student. I am in my fifth semester of design. This involves working on a “project” up to 10-15 hours a week. I get one credit for this.
**
Syllabi are generally useful. For instance, they allow me to plan my readings accordingly. Some of my classes state in the timetable that tests will be in the evening, and reccomend that students not take the class if they would be unable to attend because no make-up exams would be given. Most of my classes schedule “make-up” exams before the regularly-scheduled exam.
I am confused–earlier you seemed angry that grades were based on attendance, now you’re mad that no one takes attendance. What is the point of taking attendance if it doesn’t influence grades. I’ll admit, I have skipped class. And either I’m capable of recovering from the mistake, or I realize that it was not a good thing to do and suffer as a result. So I say “I’m paying, and I have to deal with the consequences of my actions.” As to your allegations about grading, here are some examples:
Stat 541: 20% homework, 2 exams, 20% each, one final 40%
Mechanical Engineering (ME) 231: 30% lab assignments, 70% exams
ME 418: okay, I don’t have that syllabus with me. I believe it’s something like 15% homework and 85% exams
Biochem 501: all exams (3 midterms @ 100 pts, 1 final at 150 pts).
Maybe I’m an exception, but that’s why you shouldn’t throw generalizations around.
**
Again, a generalization. I am a white female in engineering. Holy shit, stop the presses. Yes, there is a concentration of international students in the sciences. And yes, it’s probably due to different educational systems. Yes, we need to intensify our programs. But as I will mention later, many students are quite capable of stepping-up the intensity of their education.
**
I guess you didn’t meet some of my high school classmates, who were taking calculus classes most people don’t reach until their 3rd semester in college. Or the people who got college credit by taking 6 AP exams over their high school career (oops, I didn’t mean me, did I?). Or the people who worked in high school, while doing these things (me again?). Or the students who work part-time jobs while taking full credit loads. Given that all of my professors recommend that I spend 2 hours outside of class for every one hour inside class, that works out to 15 hours in class + 30 hours outside of class + 13 hours of work = 58 hours per week. And I didn’t even include drinking time!
Lots of stuff cut. I really should be studying.
**
You realize this?
**
Oh, I get it. It’s because I live in Wisconsin!
I’m usually not like this, but when I see someone spout off some crap like this, I just can’t help myself. I know I shouldn’t resort to an ad hominem attack, but when I read what don willard has been saying, and how he’s said it, I wonder how much time he spent on his studies.