Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (16361)	1/13/2002 9:31:56 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Just helped reinforce an ugly stereotype Actually, I thought it was a very cute stereotype that I, um, supported. Them were some dang bouncy rallies! kev@spankmypatriarch.oink

To: JohnM who wrote (16361)	1/13/2002 11:55:28 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Much as feminists were termed "bra burners" at one point, in which the caricature was drawn from an event that never happened.<< Not all that much a stereotype. I hate the damn things and would rather not wear them. Refused to wear them until I was about 30. Unfortunately, gravity, and gravitas, requires them when I go outside the house anymore. :( Which has little to do with legal equality. Still, it does take a certain amount of sang froid to ignore the stares. By which I mean guts. It was easier back when no one else wore them, either. I imagine this seems trivial, but remember that once upon a time women could not wear pants, and once upon a time women had to wear hoop skirts, and once upon a time, women had to have their waists laced up in corsets, etc., etc., etc. Women are supposed to wear far more restrictive clothing than men would ever tolerate. I'll trade high heels, panty hose and makeup for a tie, any day. Not that I'd look good in a tie. ;^)

To: JohnM who wrote (16361)	1/14/2002 8:25:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

(OT)You have no idea what you are talking about John, not to get too far into a semantical war with you, but referring to the general, AND ADMIRABLE, notion of EQUAL RIGHTS, with a specific term such as "feminism", seems inappropropriate. Words mean something, and so do labels. A very simple test of the appropriateness of a term would be to invoke the inverse, which in the case of Feminism, is "Masculinism", and any man advocating "Masculinism" would immediately be labeled "sexist", or mysogynistis. Both of which imply promoting a particular sex to the disadvantage of the other, and both seek to dominate the other. But equal rights is about finding the balance, WHERE BOTH SEXES can redefine the roles interchangeably, moms working while daddy stays home. It's just as much about men feeling they've been deprived of many "benefits" women have had in the past, namely seeing their children growth up and being active participants by being stay at home dads. Feminism, by the very invocation of the term, and specially as advocated by such groups as NOW, seems more bent upon dominating men, not just obtaining equal rights. It does NOT represent the view of the broad segment of women who raise families and understand the importance of both men and women working together as a team to raise their kids. And having known my share of feminists, as well as people of BOTH SEXES (including myself) who advocate equal rights between the sexes, I think I do know what I'm talking about. If you want to discuss equal rights, call it that.. Don't jusify an extremist position when it's not appropriate, or acceptable for a man to advocate the opposite position. Hawk

To: JohnM who wrote (16361)	5/25/2005 10:09:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

<<...I'll remind you again that the truth of Watergate was still well-submerged at this point in 1973. But the New York Times and the Washington Post ultimately did their jobs back then. The Post showed its colors yesterday, moving a story about the vast disparity between pre-Iraq war military assessments and what the Bush Administration chose to tell the public from its original placing on page one to a main edition spot on page twenty-six. I don't think we can count on Katherine Graham to shepherd the truth anymore, and Ben Bradlee's gone. As for the Times, it is of course the constant target of the right-wing media conspiracy which labors so hard to cover the crimes of this Administration up. The Times will try, but it needs our help...>> Revisiting the Biggest Story of Our Lives huffingtonpost.com