Feminism isn't dead, but a new book wounds it badly

Jewish World Review ^ | Jan. 13, 2006 | Mona Charen

[najida]

I agree,

It used to be marrying up mean money and security.

Now it means someone with rock hard abs who thinks you hung the moon ;)

[najida]

As Doris Duke once said:

"You can't buy a person. But you sure can rent one for a while."

A Ukranian, strong as a bull...hmmm...

I like the way you think girlie!

[cgk]

(nice to see a lively discussion on a Charen thread!)

Charen ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Mona Charen ping list...

[Rummyfan]

Ann Coulter on feminism:

We are now more frequently raped, pimped, divorced, cheated on, and - if one's dating proclivities run toward Democrats - expected to spring for dinner. But at least no sane man would dare speak the word 'Miss'. Freedom at last! It's not just because bras burned while men fiddled that I hate feminists. The real reason I loathe and detest feminists is that real feminists, the core group, the Great Thinkers of the movement, which I had until now dismissed as the invention of a frat boy on a dare, have been at the forefront of tearing down the very institutions that protect women: monogamy, marriage, chastity, and chivalry. And surveying the wreckage the best they have to offer is 'Call me Ms.'

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the ping.

Caught Kate O'Beirne debating NARAL`s Kate Michelman on MTP recently. Conservative and Brooklynite O'Beirne kicked Michelman's butt on every issue. Michelman look liked shes been dipped in Borax. Crusty *itch.

[Cacique]

The natural reason for not having women in combat is quite simple. It has to do with nature and biology. One man can impregnate 100 women easily but it does not work in reverse. A society survives if it's population is able to expand. The fact of the matter is that women posses the womb and men do not. We could lose 90% of our male population and still have enough of a gene pool among the remaining 10% to progress, polygamy of course would have to be adopted. But even there it would be difficult to recover. In the war of the Triple Alliance in 1865 Paraguay lost most of it's male population. its prewar population of approximately 525,000 was reduced to about 221,000 in 1871, of which only about 28,000 were men. Paraguay has never recovered. However, if we lost 90% of our female population we would be at an even worse disadvatage. There is always the Roman solution and seek out Sabine women.

There is a reason why civilized societies frown on the idea of killing women and children. It is also no accident that Palestinians and muslims specifically target women and children as they view them as the future potential of their enemies.

We should be opposed to women in combat for that very reason. Yes they may be quite capable in combat, but their loss is much greater than that individual.

[martin_fierro]

*snort*

[firebrand]

Thanks for the ping. I couldn't agree more about women in combat.

As usual, a lot of things are being lumped together on this thread (and possibly in the book) that should be separated and judged individually.

For example: day care is a good thing if a woman needs to work, not such a great thing if she is just indulging herself, and is also better in small doses when the kids are young. Another example: promiscuity is bad for both sexes, but the attitude that a man can be promiscuous with less opprobrium is not good. Etc.

As long as men are the dominant sex, and they probably always will be, they are going to keep as many good things for themselves as they can--that's just human nature. Publishing, always a haven for capable women, has allowed women to break through the glass ceiling to CEO positions, but now I read of the glass treehouse: the secret men-only group that really makes all the decisions, outside the view or access of the women CEOs. Thus it will always be.

[meowmeow]

The feminist movement didn't "open" doors so much and blast the doorways open, making them wide enough to include great numbers of average women coming through along with the extraordinary individuals who were also women, to come through alongside them.

Well said and you are right. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. But I've always slightly suspected that if I was born 100 years ealier - or any time in history, I still would have accomplished the same things and snagged a sexy guy in my late 30s :)

It's good to be strong willed.

[Niuhuru]

"The common factor with both is that the males (each child has a different father, a total of 4) had their fun and left. It is tragic, that the freedom of feminism, to free women from all sexual constraints, has enslaved them and only freed the males."

I fully agree. Not to mention it makes every male assume all women are whores, so rather than simply let a woman be herself, the men test and test and test the woman to see how much they can get and constantly challenge her values. It also encourages them to go after the decent but vulnerable females and it's up to the females to defend themselves.

"The men are free to do whatever they want."

I rather agree. It encourages men to objectify and hurt women consistently. It also then falls to the woman to defend herself and always be a 'challenge'. Heaven forbid that men should appreciate a loving human being who loves them unconditionally.

[Nowhere Man]

ping....

[pcottraux]

Stupid feminists.

[little jeremiah]

One for the list?

[Rca2000]

Guess everyone was too busy arguing about feminism, feminazis and femilezis, to even notice your post, and it's significance.

I happen to know what it is. Hedy Lamarr, for all intents and purposes brought us SPREAD SPECTRUM COMMUNICATIONS--where the frequency of transmission changes constantly, to make interception much more difficult. Today(and for a long time) it has been Digital spread spectrum, or DSS, but the principle is the same!!

It is rumored she came up with the idea, while her and a male friend(companion) were both playing pianos, and both were on separate pianos, playing the same tune. It occurred to her, that if a sender and receiver could both switch the transmission frequencies AT THE SAME TIME, they could communicate with each other, BUT the enemy would have a VERY hard time, intercepting or jamming the transmissions. Thus, the idea for Spread spectrum, and eventually DSS, was born.