Posted on 12/09/2004 1:16:14 PM PST by Lindykim
Yep, but you get used to it..:-)
I consider myself a 'pragmatic' feminist---"feminist" in that I think women need to be afforded opportunity based on their abilities, NOT kept from it based on their gender. Same with payscale of course.
I also believe that anybody--woman or man--has to prove they are capable of fulfilling a job based on talent, merit etc. and not given it based on their gender.
In other words, I am NOT an advocate of quotas to advance women.
We need to prove our chops like anybody--BUT we do need to be given the opportunities to do that.
For instance, I don't think women in combat should get a sliding scale litmus test to account for inferior physical strength. This should be a self-filtering reality, and thus not "political"...anyone that is weaker, smaller, slower does not get into jobs that require physical standards thay cannot meet.
That means if a strong, butch Amazon female passes muster---so be it--the standard should be unwavering. But the truth is, women like that will be far in the exception rather than the rule.
If we just would not tinker with common sense and stay true to proven standards of performance (look to the non-politcally correct systems in nature--that's a pretty enduring system!), so much of this would sort itself out.
(I realize how "efficient" and ruthless that may sound..but it is the bedrock, sustainable dynamic)
Having said all that, we certainly do not need to hang onto ages-old bias for their own sake--we DO need to be enlightened and FAIR--give opportunity and credit where it is due.
'Scuse the tangent..sheesh, I got going again..:)
Well then, do your homework and look up all the other reference on it, it's out there...a lot of it.
I'd still like hear why you consider the Supreme Court's decision in US v Morrison to be wrong, and what you find wrong with their arguments.
Agreed. The sadest thing of all is that men don't seem to know what their use of this stuff makes their wives/girlfriends feel like. At a minimum it makes a women die a little inside. Then there are wives who want to die over finding the evidence, in order that they might be 'out of the way' so their husbands can find 'happiness' with someone else. At the very end of the continuum are the women who literally die as a result of it - i.e., victims of the likes of Ted Bundy.
Well, this:
Regarding Morrison: (abridged for your edification)
>>Section 5 of the 14th Amendment enables Congress to enforce the constitutional guarantees found within the 14th Amendment, namely the guarantee that no State shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person equal protection of the laws. It allows Congress to enact legislation that prohibits conduct that is not itself unconstitutional.
In its four years of legislative hearings, Congress learned that state justice systems fall short when it comes to dealing with rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence; systemic discrimination as well as a host of informal but entrenched practices preclude women from obtaining equal justice for discriminatory crimes of violence.
Included in these findings were State Gender Bias Task Force Reports revealing that state law enforcement policies and practices treated violence committed against women less seriously than comparable violence against men, and that state officials often respond with stereotypic treatment of women who complain of gender-motivated violence.
Further, 41 state attorneys general from 38 states filed a letter in support of federal assistance in this area. Congress enacted the Civil Rights Remedy to counteract practices motivated by discrimination that persisted at the state level by providing an alternative to state remedies. The Remedy was a supplemental federal remedy that the Plaintiff controlled, allowing her to chose her forum for redress.
The Court in Morrison nevertheless rejected Section 5 as a valid basis for Congressional authority for the Civil Rights Remedy, stating that Congress exceeded the limits placed on its Section 5 powers. Specifically, the Court rejected the argument that Section 5 allows Congress to create a cause of action against private actors in an attempt to remedy state discrimination.<<
Seems to me that the more conservative members of the court attached to a tight and rigid definition of Congress's latitude since this act involved acting against 'persons' rather than 'states'.
Dunno if I fully comprehend the ruling, but from here, in my dilettente perspective, it seems like the substance of the matter was steamrolled by case law and an intransigent intepretation of the Civil Rights Remedy.
I dont agree with it and it has left women vulnerable.
As are many things in life, the court and it's decisions are a mixed bag--I am passionate about this and it is disppointing--but in my final analysis, a conservative court still reigns superior over the reckless, naive hazards of a left leaning court.
Perhaps I am a cock-eyed opimist, but I like to believe that continuing dialogue will eventually find a better answer here.
The court's decision was based on the limitations of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. What you have posted is a blatant mischaracterization of their arguments and conclusions.
So what?
What I posted here is factually true...what is your problem?
I am not trying to hide a damn thing--my point remains absolutely the same and the last part was my own opinion.
Not that I should explain this to you, with your tacky trying to sandbag me or something, but I looked at several sources and this had the most succinct explanation of what I had picked up in a casual way previously.
I'm no fan of NOW, hated the way they left Kathleen Wiley and Clintons' other cast of victims twisting in the wind--they are very hypocritical in their attack dog baises and radical Lesbian agenda (which I am dead set against..gay marriage, adoption etc)
However, this piece was on target with what I was trying to explain--gimme a break..I really do not get the hostility.
Pornography appeals only to our darkest, most base appetites.
No, it appeals to yours. Seeing as you've already cited the CCW, the likelihood that you could speak for anyone other than yourself is exceedingly small, if not non-existant.
There is nothing 'good' about it.
Really? The free market screams otherwise. Not suprised that you missed it.
It cannot be said of it that it promotes dignity, honor, trustworthiness, selfcontrol, selfrespect, decency, fidelity, commitment, or any other of the virtues.
So the hell what? If you don't like it, don't view or purchase it.
It promotes and breeds everything ugly, dark, vile, and foul.
No, it doesn't.
Every user of it regresses to the cellar by becoming a 'peeping tom', and that is just the beginnng of the slide downwards.
Every poster of CCW matertial inevitably becomes an adult-onset tard.
Right, I read about the commerce clause--understand the commerce impediment idea due to hostile circumstances, travel, moving about with fear--thus limiting opportunity-- etc etc--ok--seems to swing far afield from the substance of the matter (woman was gangraped and hence altered her ability to advance her life plans)
Seems like 'edifice' over reality.
Explain it to me--how did I mischaracterize? I'm not an expert but something is amiss here...
Because anal penetration is an unnatural act since it's at crosspurposes with the design and purpose of the human body, the act results in stretching, tearing, and otherwise traumatizing that are of the body. Further consequences result: (a) the tears become infected by toxic bacteria that exist for the purpose of waste disposal, leading eventually to STDs and AIDs (b) tears can eventally become fistulas...tunnel like formations that connect two areas not meant to be connected. For instance, a fistula can connect the anal area to the penis, resulting in defecation through it (c)continual stetching of tissue not meant to be stretched in that manner leads to the breakdown of its elasticity. This leads to incontinence and the need to wear adult diapers.
I thought this urban myth was dispensed with quite some time ago.
Here, let's have you step up to the plate: please cite clinical data that specifically references the rate of such occurences in both the currently active and retired porn actor/actress populations, rather than posting your breathless 'what-ifs'.
Oh, that's right, you can't, because it doesn't exist.
Perhaps you'd care to cite the same statistical info in regards to the heterosexual, married couple population in the US who practise anal sex.
More of the same?
You people amaze me.
Hostility? Don't you think you're a bit defensive? Understandably so, but still...
By far, obesity/fat-related diseases kill more Americans than any other source. There is simply no rational way to make an argument that porn kills or damages more people.
Now think of this Jeff: All porn users are aiding and abetting the foregoing destruction because users are the Market. Users are culpable for the disease, death, and misery visited upon porn acters and actresses.
If I'm culpable for the bad things that happen to porn stars, then I guess I'm also culpable for the bad things that happen to coal miners or taxi drivers.
One more time: a central tenet of conservative ideology is that consenting adults are responsible for the negative consequences of their decisions.
Unrestricted pornogaphy? I live in EEEEvvvilllll "blue-state" Washington, DC and porn shops around here are restricted to quasi-industrial areas and low-end strip malls. Where do you people live where you have access to unrestricted pornography?
Flash forward to the 21st century, Modernmen. There's been a little invention "invented" by Al Gore called the INTERNET. You may have heard about it because your KIDS (who happen to spend HOURS perusing it) may have mentioned it to you...
How disingenuous.
You write this to me, "I probably wouldn't admit it either, if I were lifting from NOW's site "...implying I was trying to fly under the radar with the source I used (completely false btw)-- and then, when I become incredulous and indignant with your catty swipe at me, you ask me why I'm defensive?? Good grief.
You seems to be looking for a fight..I'm sorry I took the bait and obliged.
Stellar response. Always on target my man :-)
Hard to miss the broadside of a barn ;-)
Pahuanui.......I'm surprised to discover a "nothink-for-myself" "cookie-cutter-cue-card" citing Lib lurking in FR. Oh, I almost forgot.......in Lib-speak, cookie-cutter-cue-card spewings equal critical analysis. But gee.....I wish you Libs would ask your handlers to make you some new cue cards......the ones you're using have been recited so much that in addition to boring us, they must surely be boring you by now.
Modernman, every response of yours is in reality an apologists stance on behalf of something so foul and vile that its' defenders must resort to hiding its reality behind and under layer upon layer of deceptive terms and outright lies. Read about just Some of the foulness associated with the foulness you're defending. Read about these horrible diseases and then think about them in relation to the homosexual S&M/beastial porn acters and actresses the very next time you log onto a porn website. Think of these diseases and know that the people you're panting over are dead already but just don't know it yet. And ask yourself if the unnatural sexual titilations which you like to call "free speech" are worth the lives of those people.
The right thing is to fight against porn.......the wrong thing is to defend it.
The following websites are but a mere few examples of the vast numbers that exist for the purpose of speaking to the terrible consequences of porn {promiscuous, unnatural sex acts for the lascivious titillation of peeping toms)
Read about ano-rectal fistulas here: http://www.alwaysyourchoice.com/ayc/sex/gay/ano_rectal.php
Proctitis here: http://emedicinehealth.com/articles/18743-2.asp
Effect of Anal Epidermoid Cancer-related Viruses on the Dendritic (Langerhans') Cells of the Human Anal Mucosa -- Sobhani et al. 8 (9): 2862 -- Clinical Cancer Research
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/8/9/2862
JAMA -- Abstract: Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens. Support for the hypothesis that spermatozoa induce immune dysregulation in homosexual males,
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/251/2/237
ASCRS.....over 25 STDS (read here)
http://www.fascrs.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=111
ping
Meant to include your name on the previous response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.