ERA equals equality

Comments

53 comments posted
Trackback to DKos

I responded on the [url=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/5/32825/88061#23]Daily Kos[/url] to the individual who thought the ERA was about abortion. There isn't one word about abortion in the ERA.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 6:16am
women's equality isn't quite equal enough?

I'm all for equality between all individuals, but I'm not a woman so I'm not going to get involved in issues which do not concern me. I'll get involved if you wish to broaden the debate.

And: "The reason I don't support womens rights." I'm just going to leave that hanging there.

Bitch Czarina, I think you have hung him there. Now, no bitchy comments about how he was hung or not.

The Heretik, Menister of Proper Gander applauds your quick work with the wicked. Sheelzebub will be so proud.

The Heretik's picture
Posted by The Heretik on 5 March 2005 - 7:59am
Unfortunately he's not alone

Unfortunately I'm starting to come to the conclusion that Matsu suggests: (Most) men (and women, too) do not believe women are equal.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 10:28am
Listen to Harvard's Summers

As I said elsewhere, there are so-called scholars who have the cheek to suggest women are inferior to men and to do so openly and in the name of academic freedom.

The radical right and it's "fellow travelers" (there's a blast from the past) are pushing the anti-woman agenda and trying to turn sexism into a respectable point of view.

My, my, my. Confident, are we not?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 10:36am
This is a great insight

...and something to be explored more in a new thread, perhaps.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 10:54am
What about feminists who say men are inferior?

There's a lot of feminist research that goes towards suggesting men and women think differently and that women are more morally developed than men. I assume you know what I'm talking about (I won't need to give examples?)

What do you think about them?

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 5 March 2005 - 9:51pm
"...women are more morally developed..."

Give examples; didn't anyone ever teach you to cite your sources? If you refer to Carol Gilligan's work at Harvard (In A Different Voice) I can only say it does not surprise me by now that you misrepresent it so dramatically.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:05pm
I've cited twice as much as you have

Since double nothing is still nothing....

You seem quite angry. Do you hate men?

Kidding! :)

It's not just my opinion

Could it be that women generally are more ethical than men? Yes, wrote Harvard University's Carol Gilligan more than two decades ago in the book "In a Different Voice." While some hemmed and hawed, Gilligan's argument was largely embraced by feminists. Now others are saying that women are more likely to be the straight shooters who cry foul when they see their corporate companions jiggering the books. "Women Are More Likely to Blow Whistle" announced a 2002 headline in the Los Angeles Times.

"Women see things in a much bigger context than do men," says Judith Rosener, a professor at the University of California at Irvine. In "Ways Women Lead," a 2002 Harvard Business School e-book, Rosener proclaims that a woman's way of leading -- interactive, cooperative, inclusive and personal -- is profoundly different from the traditional male way of leading, which she calls "command and control." She goes on to say that women consider the larger implications of their actions when making a business decision, while men focus on the immediate: that is, how much money they're going to make, or whether they're likely to get caught.

Rosener's statements barely caused a ripple, and women generally nodded in agreement. In contrast, all hell broke loose when Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, said that....

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 5 March 2005 - 10:14pm
Angry

Yes. I am angry. Yes, I hate some of them. You seem not to be quoting Gilligan, but an article from the LA Times and another source I cannot identify. Is this accurate? I cited Gilligan's work ,which I have read and used.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:38pm
Citations

Ah! The source of Mr. Byron's generalization about " a lot of feminist research...You know what I'm talking about?" is Lorraine Dusky. "Just Like a Woman". Salon: March 2, 2005.

An "F", Mr. Byron.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:55pm
Exclusion leads to differents

If someone is excluded. do they think differently. Will an "in" group think of itself differently? Do multi-millionaires think differently than working stiffs?

What I understand Rosner to be saying is women's leadership styles, by necessity, are different from men's.

Although a piece of fiction look at the film "Courage Under Fire." Ask any woman leader about the dilemma Meg Ryan (Captain Walden) faces. Styles vary from culture to culture. From economic class to economic class.

Part of "Brown v Education" in 1954, that outlawed "separate but equal" said that separate is not equal and that's why the ERA should be passed.

Agree with her politics on not, 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable for a black female to be Secretary of State, or any black person to be in the fifth in line to succeed the President.

Once artificial distinctions are abolished, people will do the jobs according to their gifts, irrespective of their plumbing.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 6 March 2005 - 5:10am
"Feminist" Research?

You speak of "feminist research." Is there such a thing a "masculinist research?"

Isn't saying that there is "feminist" research front-loading the conclusion?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 6 March 2005 - 4:54am
Yes there is masculist resear

Yes there is masculist research too but not much of course because they can't get gravy government jobs to pay them to do it. That's only for feminists. Some prefer "masculinist" but it always sounded cumbersome to me.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 2:11pm
Masculinist Researcher

Like Larry Summers who can't get a gravy job in government, so he gets one as a college President?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 6 March 2005 - 2:23pm
You seem to think "male" = "m

You seem to think "male" = "masculist".

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 3:43pm
retribution

Your Bitchczarinaness,

May your unworthy servant share an idea that sometimes pops up unbidden? Modify the Second Amendment to state that only female persons may own, possess, or carry firearms. It may or may not be a capital offense for males to do so: you decide. (who is you? heh, heh) Use of a firearm by a female against a male(s) would presume she was justified, to be decided by a jury of her peers. (heh, heh)

I offer this only in the interests of public safety and an increase in courtesy and understanding.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 9:46am
You mean like

"An armed woman is a liberated woman."

and

"Disarming men makes the world safer."

?

If only it were that simple.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 2:22pm
Kate Hepburn

Worthy men often find a liberated woman disarming.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 2:28pm
Gracious No, Bitch Czarina!

Gracious No, Bitch Czarina! It is certainly not that simple! Nor, I fear, is it entirely practical: simply a provocation to imagine the transitions necessary (??) to greater justice. What if no woman need be afraid of any man's violence and this was in no way dependent on his attitudes/ training/ good behavior, but on any woman's immediate, practical power? Perhaps I have put it badly; I beg forgiveness.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 8:10pm
ERA

Every time I hear some guy deny that women have equal rights and in the same breath demand a call for "human equality" instead of "gender equality," I can hear him squealing "me too! me too!" in the background. These guys don't get it that equal rights for women does affect men. They also don't get that equal rights for women will not denigrate men.

Trish Wilson's picture
Posted by Trish Wilson (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 1:29pm
It seems so simple and obviou

It seems so simple and obvious, doesn't it? It's not ignorance--that can be treated. Nor does it seem to be willfulness, except perhaps of the childish "I don wanna, I don wanna" sort. I think it is most like the lack of a sense that one doesn't know other people have.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:13pm
Reply for you at Bump

Reply for you at Bump.

I don't think you know all the facts about the ERA media girl. At least I hope you don't. I hope you are sincere about equality and not just another female supremacist -- but these days that kind of feminist sees ERA as a backward step.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 5:54pm
The facts? The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) says:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

That's the ERA. So what's the "backwards step?" T

I think the only backward step is backing away from male supremacy.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 6:05pm
ERA would endanger everything

ERA would endanger everything feminism has achieved in the way of female supremacist discrimination in the last 40 years or so. Small wonder NOW opposes the ERA.

For example the billion dollar slush fund feminists have with their female-only domestic violence scam would be wiped out. That's a lot of money.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 6:15pm
Okay.

So, you support ERA, then, to get end "female supremacist discrimination." Yes?

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 6:20pm
Damn right I support ERA

Ironic isn't it?

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 6:27pm
I'm curious

How many men need to find shelter because their wives are beating the shit out of them? Are you trying to suggest that protecting women from abusive husbands -- or treating women who have been raped and beaten by men -- are examples of "female supremacy"?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 6:43pm
First answer me this

How many victims of domestic violence do you think should be turned away because they are the wrong sex? I'd say none and so would the ERA. Feminists say all men should be turned away and so does the legislation they framed to provide the billions of dollars that feeds the industry. That money would be unconstitutional under ERA.

Treating raped women isn't supremacist.

Preventing the treatment of men is.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 9:00pm
What are your statistics?

Everything I've heard is that it's men who are doing violence upon women. I've experienced it. It's very common. How many men are victims of violence from women?

Women's shelters for domestic abuse are single-sex for a reason. If men want to set up single-sex shelters for absue of men, I say go right on ahead.

Thing is, I don't think you'd find much demand.

There is an epidemic of violence in this country towards women. It's part of an entire global phenomenon. To my mind, it goes to the fragile male ego that cannot cope with the idea that, of all the things he can control, he cannot control his woman, his womb.

Maybe you have a better insight into why men abuse women so.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 11:24pm
You didn't answer me

It's a big topic but basically feminists have deliberately acted to hide any mention of male victims for 40 years because they wanted the money. For four decades researches have known both sexes are victims. The woman who set up the first shelter - Erin Pizzey - knew it too. Her solution was to let the men in too. Simple. Feminists took over her organisation and booted her out. Introduced the gender apartheid and claimed that it was for some bulshit reason about women being too traumatised by male presence. As blue says down the thread even male repairmen were not allowed in except when necessary. Perfect cover for a feminist graveytrain. No meddling government bureucrats could come and check on how the cash was being spent. A recipie for corruption and all based on gender apartheid. Erin Pizzey came out against the corruption and received death threats from the feminists.

It's a long story alright.

If men want to set up single-sex shelters for absue of men, I say go right on ahead.

Can't. The feminists passed a law saying only female victims can be helped if the shelter receives any monies from the federal government's billion dollars of grants.

Gee. I wonder why a bunch of equality loving women would do that? Now please answer my question. How many victims of domestic violence should be kicked out becauise they are male?

At any rate this is why NOW hates the ERA. Billions of dollars worth of gravy depends on no men ever setting foot in their shelters. It's an explicitly sexist law and a ton of money.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 12:53am
That's a real stretch

You're pulling statistics out of thin air and then ascribing motives to people you do not know, while ignoring the epidemic of violence perpetrated by men against women. You've noted yourself that men get raped in prisons. The raping happens, and it's done by men. You seem to want to blame the victim, and turn what is scarcely a band-aid on a horrific problem into some sort of financial boondoggle.

In addition, your responses are moving away from what could be considered "spirited engagement" and getting into trolling. If you want to get into a 'tis so, 'taint so argument, I suggest you take it elsewhere. Consider this a kindly warning.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 March 2005 - 1:19am
No it's you

You're getting cornered and defensive so you react by threatening me with force.

What do you want from me? A recap of 40 years of history? If you want to learn all about Erin Pizzey and the researchers that pioneered domestic violence and found that male victims were there just the same as female then go to any of hundreds of web sites on the topic and read up on it. I wont try to convince you of all that. I'm just telling you it's there. It's up to you now.

I'm not going to get into a game of "prove it" when you are clearly skeptical on this topic and unwilling to hear me out. Amazingly you still dismiss me after Blue confirmed the import aspects of my account -- that men are not allowed into these shelters to the point that even when they need a plumber they have to make special arrangements. Many won't even allow teenage sons of the female clients. It's sick. Who'd do that?

I've stated the facts that are what you need to know and I stand by them -- that the federal funding for domestic violence shelters is by law (Violence Agianst Women Act I and II)-- laws feminists fought for and drew up the wording of -- by law discriminates against men.

Now what do you say to that? This goes against everything you claim to beleive in doesn't it? This is explicit sex discrimination. There's no reason at all that they had to write into law explicitly that no male victim could be helped by these shelters that received federal funding.

In fact if as you seem to think there are so few male victims then it makes even less sense to victimise them further. If there were really so few male victims why worry about excluding them?

So you don't think billions of dollars won't corrupt?

Ok then but whether it's money corrupting them or otherwise the fact remains that the feminist movement deliberately introduced legislation to prevent victims of domestic violence from getting help and I think that's utterly disgusting as well as explicitly sexist and I'd really like to know what you think about it too.

Take your time to answer if you must but I want to know how you feel about people who would do that.

And as for ERA - like I say ERA would destroy VAWA and VAWA2.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 1:46am
I replied

there:

Thanks for the response, but I have to say that the logic of your last two paragraphs escapes me.

My understanding of NOW's motives is to forge alliances by making it broader. Personally I think it's way too complicated to pass muster in this sound-bite era of politics -- and with the ERA just three states away from passage, it seems like an easier strategy to start. (I'm for all those other rights, too, btw.)

As for no discrimination against women today, well, that just strikes me as plain silly. But it would take more than a short comment in a blog post to explain that; my experience has been that men are pretty blind to it. There are many posts on mediagirl.org (and links to many other better sites) on male privilege and the various ways women are subjugated. You are welcome to post there and participate in civil discourse, even with disagreements.

I'll just finish by sharing the belief that conservatives did not oppose the ERA over the draft -- though that was a big squawk of theirs -- but rather because in the Old Confederacy there seems to be an inherent assumption that women simply are not equal. The ERA would be an abomination to them, because to them equal rights for women would place women above their station. Now we are starting to see their true colors, with laws and policies that keep women away from birth control and prevent women from divorcing their men.

Thanks but no thanks.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 6:14pm
I think you'd ban me if I sta

I think you'd ban me if I started to post here and refute or criticise your points. Feminist boards always censor in my not inconsiderable experience. I'm not trying to be nasty in saying that. You may be sincere in your offer but that's because you don't know what a total battering your opinions would take if I did post here. You would not like it. They would tell you to give me the boot.

On the ERA thing you suggested that NOW backed away from the ERA because they wanted a broader appeal. But if you read their reasoning on it they seem to be chasing a far less broad appeal by specifically including abortion for example which evenn half women oppose whereas ERA has 90%+ support.

And looking at the states that didn't pass ERA - do you really think NOW is trying to pander to them by putting abortion in there? No.

The CEA isn't supposed to pass. It's like the Repuiblicans and gays or flag burning. It's just meant to get you worked up. It'll be a cold day in hell before CEA passes. ERA's practically there so why would NOW back away from it?

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 6:25pm
Good grief, you flatter the h

Good grief, you flatter the hell out of yourself, don't you?

I haven't seen a whit of evidence of your "not inconsiderable experience," here or on any other board. You just wank off your ego without actually offering any substantive points.

You seem to be shocked when people don't accept your unsupported assertions at face value, and assume that people who don't want to waste their time on a hateful ignoramus are afraid of getting a "total battering" in debate with you.

As for the liberal misogynist who was the subject of this post, that seems like a common strategy - insist that women's issues shouldn't be addressed until every man is happy.

anonymous lurker's picture
Posted by anonymous lurker (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 7:07pm
May your humble servant sugge

May your humble servant suggest that this very silly person is not worthy of your Bitch Czarinaness's time or attention?

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 8:20pm
Well, umm, that wasn't me

...and we can keep things informal and drop my official title. ;)

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 11:27pm
Women's Equality Oppresses Men

The discussion of equality all too often drifts off point. Women asking for equality are greeted with anger or apathy. If someone in South Africa asked for equality, would people say, "blacks in South Africa [under apartheid] already enjoy 'special' rights" and to ask for equality would be "reverse discrimination?" Or would there be those who would say, "I'm not black and I don't live in South Africa, so who cares."

Also, I doubt people would say we should turn a blind eye to apartheid because there already is violence against black people, so let's focus on that first. Or that giving Black South Africans freedom would increase the abortion rate so we shouldn't give black South African equality because "I support life at conception?"

Why doesn't anyone seriously say that in the mainstream USA? Because many South Africans oppressed under apartheid included men and it is an outrage that a man would be oppressed in that way. But a woman? Who cares? It's just like women; and you know them; it's always bitch, bitch, bitch, about something.

Get a life, you broads!

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 8:49pm
I agree Matsu

I can and have named an area where men are discriminated against in the US (domestic violence). Here's another: healthcare - men live six or seven years shorter lives than women (as blacks live shorter lives than whites). Here's another: education: women attend college almost twice as often as men (just as whites attend much more often than blacks).

Can you name ANY area where women face such discrimination? I agree with your logic. Saying women are oppressed is like pretending whites were oppressed in apartheid South Africa. It's just ridiciulous.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 9:09pm
Women aren't doing their share

Women should be stepping up to the plate. I think half of Congress should be women. We should have a woman President. Five of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court should be women. Half of the F-500 line operating officers should be women. And to boot, I say we pay women as much as men. if women want equal pay, then by golly, we better give them the top jobs and make them earn that pay. 8)

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 5 March 2005 - 9:22pm
I agree women are not doing their share

but isn't that an issue of discrimination against men? For example female judges are known to give fairer (ie more harsh) sentences to women than male judges so the lack of female judges is a discrimination issue against men - who are routinely treated worse than women throughout the injustice system.

I don't know of any details about whether women in congress are less likely to enact the sort of bigoted pro-woman legislation that usually gets support from both corporate parties. As far as I know they act just the same as the men. I imagine that any women who get elected have to satisfy the same criteria of corruption and psycopathy as men and therefore it matters little what the gender of the president is. That's certainly been true in other countries which have had female premiers. For example women have declared war more often than male premiers.

I guess I'm not seeing your angle here Matsu. Are you saying that female corrupt psycopaths are not getting a fair whack at becoming congressmen? Perhaps there are just less women like that? It's going to be a pretty tiny number of people either way. The great majority of women and men are effected by the gender of their congressional representatives only if you assume that gender implies policy. Are you assuming that?

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 5 March 2005 - 10:01pm
That's a riot!

I have to say that this is all giving me a good hearty laugh. Having more women as judges is discrimination against men? I don't get that. Female premiers are more warlike? How do you figure that? By Margaret Thatcher? If we just look at the 20th century, we have how many tens of millions killed by patriarchal dictatorships? It seems that men have the corner on war.

Or am I mistaking wry humor for absurd belief? You're making a great big absurd Dr. Seuss-like joke, right?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 5 March 2005 - 11:34pm
But that's 1 for 1!

Isn't that a 100% hit rate there? How about Golda Meir? Wasn't she premiere of Israel when she precipitated the Yom Kippur war or something? Needless to say I can name of scores of men who didn't get their countries involved in wars during their premiership (*)

I'm actually glad you found that funny because I confess I more or less made up that statement about women leaders being more war-like. In my defence I couldn't be bothered to do the research and I figured if feminists can simply state that the opposite is true with no effort then why not me?

how many tens of millions killed by patriarchal dictatorships?

Cheating!

We're only counting wars not casualties. Really though do you have any clue on this one? It's my impression that any woman that makes it into power has to act like such an ass kicker to make it in the "male world" that she makes war MORE often than a man would. Look at Queen Elizabeth I, or Catherine the Great or Empress Wu of China (the only female empress and a total utter bitch by all accounts).

I'm quite serious about the female judges though - the stats say they give tougher sentences to women than male judges do.

The thing is feminists always fall for what Warren Farrell named "the leading man fallacy". Just because there's a man at the top doesn't mean all men are at the top. 99.999999% of men are not president. That's pretty damn close to the percentage of women who are not president.

Instead of judging the discriminatory effect of an all male congress in terms of the few people in those offices, logically it's the effect those people have on the rest of the country that determines whether a congress benefits one sex or the other. Feminists assume that gender implies policy. Nonsense.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 12:24am
Catch 22
We're only counting wars not casualties. Really though do you have any clue on this one?

We can do some roughs. I'm pulling this from college memory, so it may be off a bit. Let's see, 10 million killed in WW1. I don't know the soldier casualty count for WW2 off-hand, but the Nazis killed 10-12 million people, 6 million of which were Jews but many others were other souls found undeserving by the "fatherland." Stalin managed what, 40 million? Cambodia and Armenia had their share. Need I go on?

It's my impression that any woman that makes it into power has to act like such an ass kicker to make it in the "male world" that she makes war MORE often than a man would.

Gee, we just can't win, can we? Funny how the men have a lock on all this. Do you realize that your assumption underneath this argument is that women will have to be as bad as men in order to gain power?

The thing is, the culture of power is defined by men, because there are few women in power to actually change the culture of power.

There's even a utilitarian argument against the exluding of women from government. Nations that have more female participation tend to thrive much more.

This also works in business. According to this Wired article,

Companies with the most women in senior management had a 35 percent higher return on equity than those with the fewest, according to a study (.pdf) by Catalyst, a nonprofit group that studies women in business. It also found those companies paid their shareholders 34 percent more than companies with the fewest women in top management.

And yet women are shut out of the top spots. Why? When women start the most small businesses, why is it that men dominate the overwhelming majority of large businesses? Why do men to it even at the expense of their own profit?

There's a cultural blindness. Women tend to be invisible to men, except as sex objects or accommodating assistants. And when a man (such as yourself) asserts that women's culture is no good, and women are no good when they try to compete in a male culture, the only conclusion to be drawn is this: You consider women to be no good.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 March 2005 - 12:48am
You don't get it. You're say

You don't get it. You're saying women are inherently better than men. And then you go and loudly criticise that Harvard professor whatsisname.

I'm saying people have to be corrupt psycopaths to get into power so when women attain power they act just like the men do. But men who are not in power - the 99.999999% they don't act that way particularly. It's a culture defined by power not gender.

The figures on female headed companies will be greatly biased by the idiotic laws that discriminate in favour of female owned businesses. Basically if you have the right equipment between your legs the governemnt gives you a hand out so on paper women look better but it's just the discrimination. I tell you there's a lot of money in pretending you're a victim. Of course most of those women owned businesses are just that way on paper. It's more gravy.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 1:03am
Not true

I never said women were better. Where did I say that?

I said that businesses with more women involved to better. That's just a fact. And it's a reflection of gender integration, not female dominance.

The reason there are more female entrepreneurs than male entrepreneurs is that women have to turn away from the normal employment track in order to find satisfaction in their careers. Women do not have the same opportunities in the mainstream.

Oh, and most men enjoy plenty of power over women. I suggest you do some reading on male privilege. Of course, that suggestion comes from the assumption that you would like to learn something from women.

This is my last response on this thread. My perception, David Byron, is that you are behaving like a troll.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 6 March 2005 - 1:28am
Uhuh

The reason there are more female entrepreneurs than male entrepreneurs is that women have to turn away from the normal employment track in order to find satisfaction in their careers.

Nothing to do with the extra money that women get then, huh? It's nothing but sex discrimination.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 2:05am
(*) except in America where e

(*) except in America where every president has been involved in wars of course

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 12:26am
I have served on the board of

I have served on the board of a domestic violence shelter. I worked with the homeless for a decade, 20% of whom were women and dependent children fleeing men for their safety. Your assertion that men are discriminated against in these programs is a evil fucking lie. Claiming that shorter life spans are a result of discrimination is ridiculous. Why are you here? Why don't you voluntarily ban yourself?

Come on, dipstick; out yourself a little. How is it you "know" your assertions are "true"?

You may check DKos for more of this if you like.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 9:52pm
Name the shelter

I'm not saying you're a liar for sure because there are rumoured to be a tiny number of shelters that take men.... (none in my state) but the VAWA legislation that funds these shelter specifically says no men are allowed. The text is available on-line asshole. And don't call me a liar again.

Men live shorter lives than women. Men's health is funded less than women's. Do you really think it's a stretch to suggest the two are related?

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 5 March 2005 - 10:07pm
Firstly, relation is not caus

Firstly, relation is not causation. Secondly, I did not call you a liar; I said you told an evil fucking lie. Is that simple enough for you?

Finally, to go over the obvious for those whose experience comes solely from Internet sources, men are not allowed (without escort in the case of repairs, etc.) so as not to incur further trauma and to protect the lives of those whom the shelter serves.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:23pm
I'm concerned

I'm concerned that this increasingly silly exchange is offending many correspondents, who may be thinking (rightly) that it resembles a shoving match in a bar. I apologize to everyone but David. I can only add that I am fully disabled with PTSD (service connected) and that I sometimes lose it.

blue rebel's picture
Posted by blue rebel (not verified) on 5 March 2005 - 10:29pm
What exactly are you claiming?

You said,

"Your assertion that men are discriminated against in these programs is a evil fucking lie."

And then you also said,

"men are not allowed"

Are you saying men were not allowed into your domestic violence shelter (unless they were escorted in as the repairman!) but then saying it is an "evil fucking lie" to suggest men were treated any different from women?

Dude, you just called me a liar and then admited I was telling the complete truth.

Firstly, relation is not causation. Secondly, I did not call you a liar; I said you told an evil fucking lie. Is that simple enough for you?

Finally, to go over the obvious for those whose experience comes solely from Internet sources, men are not allowed (without escort in the case of repairs, etc.) so as not to incur further trauma and to protect the lives of those whom the shelter serves.

DavidByron's picture
Posted by DavidByron on 6 March 2005 - 12:34am