babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » babble book lounge   » 04/06/2005: "Does feminism still matter"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 04/06/2005: "Does feminism still matter"
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 09 April 2005 03:13 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yesterday like in every other city I have visited, I did the CBC Radio Noon call in show and like in other cities they asked, "Is feminism still relevant to you." And like in every other city everyone said yes. In Toronto there might have been one no. I realize that the CBC audience is alot more progressive than the norm but given that so many women and we are talking about women in small towns too since each of these call-ins cover the province, then why is it that the women's movement gets so little attention?

When I wrote Ten Thousand Roses, I figured that life is much better for young women because of the gains made by the women's movement and in many ways it is, of course. But at the same time, I have been a little astonished by how much remains to be done and how little we hear about it.


Full entry here.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131

posted 11 April 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for Jesse Dignity   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm somewhat surprised that the calls would tend to be uniformly positive - I would say that most women within ten years of my age (I'm 25) that I've spoken to on the matter are vehement in stating that feminism is at best obsolete, if not a bad thing to begin with.

The definition they're working with is terrible, of course. Straight out of the worst nightmares of the least progressive ape-man on the planet, these chicks have learned somewhere that feminism is neccessarily about promoting female superiority whilst whining about a bunch of stuff that doesn't really matter if you ignore it.

I guess what this tells me is that girls who see things that way probably don't listen to a whole lot of CBC radio, let alone call in to leave their feedback.

I wonder which sample is more biased, and which viewpoint is ultimately more prevalent amongst women (and heck, men) today?

Maybe the negative attitude is more popular today - that would probably help to explain the diminished apparent activism.


From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 April 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesse, why don't you tell us what you think?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 11 April 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Chicks?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 11 April 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is true that CBC radio reaches a certain audience but still.

It is true that the first question I get at almost every event and usually from a young woman is "Why don't young women call themselves feminists?" We've had that discussion before on babble but here is what four young women that I got together to discuss my book have to say about it. Go to
rabble's front pageand look at the Netted News. It's there

[ 11 April 2005: Message edited by: Judes ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 11 April 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Young women journalists have been most outspoken with me, asking why they didn't know more about the struggles described in my book...

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that they didn't know more, I'm sorry to say. Progressive movements haven't had much of an institutional memory, at least compared to reactionary ones. (That the reactionary memories are mostly selective and resentful is neither here nor there -- they've had well-funded think-tanks to spew out millions of words in all media, and keep their rank and file informed and mobilized).

I was active in the student press at one time, and even there, the main Canadian organization (Canadian University Press) didn't have much in the way of an official history. Most everything was handed down by word of mouth. Astonishing, in retrospect.

Obviously more books like Judy's are sorely needed.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131

posted 11 April 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for Jesse Dignity   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Jesse, why don't you tell us what you think?

I thought you were being sarcastic for a second there, but I think I just realized that you weren't. That was close!

What I think is that feminism as *I* understand it still matters a great deal.

I don't know if I can come out with a coherent explanation of what the word means to me right now, though. I haven't got the strongest background in theoretical language and I'd probably mess it up.

quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
Chicks?

Yeah, I hope you don't mind the vernacular. I grew up listening to rap music and watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I type more or less like I speak and my speech is idiosyncratic to say the least.

Is there a reason I shouldn't say "chicks"? I don't intend it to be disrespectful.


From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 12 April 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a messy thing
After Judy Rebick finished writing the first draft of her book, Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution, she asked four young feminists to comment on the manuscript. It turns out they were annoyed, inspired, saddened, excited and surprised. Here's what they had to say - about the women who fought for equality, and the movement's future.

This week's feature story on coolwomen.ca


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 April 2005 11:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Jesse: I wasn't being sarcastic, although when I just read my own comment over again, it startled me because it looks that way, doesn't it.

I also sometimes use "chicks" in a fond way, for friends, although there have been arguments about that before on babble. Some people really don't like it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 April 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesse is one of my favourite humans. I can vouch for his non-jerkitude!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 12 April 2005 01:42 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounded more accusatory than I intended Jesse, when it was more inquisitive. I don't think it's inheritly sexist to say "chicks"; to me, the "problem" was a kind of dissonance between the gravity of the issue and the definite lack thereof in that term.

I also don't know you, and as all threads about feminism are pretty much troll-fodder, I thought I'd send out a feeler. Audra standing for you helps to dispell what concerns one might have, however.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Dignity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7131

posted 14 April 2005 01:43 AM      Profile for Jesse Dignity   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Judes:
It is true that the first question I get at almost every event and usually from a young woman is "Why don't young women call themselves feminists?" We've had that discussion before on babble but here is what four young women that I got together to discuss my book have to say about it. Go to rabble's front pageand look at the Netted News. It's there

Ah, there certainly are some very germane points made in that discussion. It took me a while to go read it, but I think this part best explains what's going on with the girls and women I know:

quote:
Annahid: I think a lot of young women do not call themselves feminist because of the legacy of second-wave feminism, which means that, if I'm a feminist, I am against men and I hate men. Let's get beyond the victim/perpetrator dichotomy.

...

Denise: In talking with young women, the ridiculous stereotype that feminists are man-hating lesbians comes up. This book is important, because it deconstructs that. I don't have any patience for the perception that feminism is against men; I just see that as the success of the backlash.


"The success of the backlash" seems to have pretty much dictated that the main place a lot of young girls hear about feminism is from someone complaining about it or mischaracterizing it in one of the ways described above. It's not that they don't have goals and beliefs that aren't completely consistant with feminism, it's that the term itself has been stigmatized by a bitter patriarchy. Many women are afraid to associate themselves with a term that has such unfortunate baggage lashed around its neck.

I'm glad to hear it's not that way for everyone everywhere, though.

----

skdadl> Don't worry, I quickly realized that you weren't being sarcastic, I just thought it was kind of funny that it could be taken either way and that I nearly made a mistake and probably would have been a little surly over nothing.

I wasn't aware of the history of the term "chicks" on Babble. Hopefully if I use it again it will be in a less jarring context.

But I do mean it fondly, I hope that's clear. I also hope it doesn't sound patronizing, because that's not my intent either!

----

audra> thanks for the endorsement! you remain the very greatest.

----

Coyote> I see now why you asked. I may have been a bit defensive just because I wasn't sure if I may have struck a raw nerve (as I, likewise, don't know you ^_^).

I promise I'm not a troll! I just have a predisposition toward flippancy. Sometimes it's a rhetorical device, but sometimes it's just my writing voice. I should definitely be more careful to make sure I'm understood before I relax into it, though, to avoid setting off alarms like that.

----

Okay we're back on track!


From: punch a misogynist today | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rumrumrumrum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3832

posted 15 July 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Rumrumrumrum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

http://search.ebay.com/feminist
check it out
What do you think


does this FREE women


If men are not free--how can women be


or visa versa

See

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Rumrumrumrum ]

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Rumrumrumrum ]


From: BC | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rumrumrumrum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3832

posted 15 July 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Rumrumrumrum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sex is GREAT

Sexism ain't


From: BC | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690

posted 15 July 2005 08:28 PM      Profile for Lukewarm        Edit/Delete Post
I'm becoming dislexic, I thought I read "feminism aint".

I was about to start the Banning countdown.

[ 15 July 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]


From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 17 July 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Feminism leaves me with the impression that it works at a glacial pace -- God knows this society is still in great need of correction.

In my humble opinion, anyone who believes that continued and substantial progress can be made in this society without feminism, is not living in the same country as I am.

I can't believe how little Canada has truly evolved...makes me think of the ERA debate in the 1980s. Boy, did feminism ever get rolled on that one.

If someone has encouraging news for me, am I ever ready to hear it.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646

posted 17 July 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for puzzlic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some examples of contemporary feminist successes:

Most Canadians, including most conservatives, now agree that sexual assault, including marital rape and acquaintance rape, is always wrong and never excusable. I'm not saying no one still believes these things -- rape still happens, and judges still sometimes excuse it for sexist, racist or homophobic reasons. But at least when these events come to public attention, you see outraged op-ed columns, editorials and letters to the editor. The mainstream view is that sexual assault is never OK. Over about 10 years -- the mid-80s to the mid-90s -- feminists were able to turn public opinion around on this issue.

There is now much greater public acceptance of sexual diversity than before, including the legal recognition of SSM. (Obviously feminists can't take all the credit for this one, as activist gay men as well as feminist lesbians were at the forefront of this struggle.)

Abortion has been decriminalized, the majority of Canadians are now pro-choice, and is currently politically impossible [crosses fingers] for any Canadian government to pass a law recriminalizing it.

Parents (usually women) can get up to 12 months' paid maternity leave through Employment Insurance. The other parent can get ... is it 2 months? Help me out here -- I'm not a parent and I forget the details ...

In the '80s, women made about $0.65 for every dollar men earned. Now, their earning power is up to $0.81 per man's dollar.

Women are now the majority of students in law and nearly half of students in medicine -- both professions which were previously (and still are) dominated overwhelmingly by men.

Obviously, we're still a long way from a utopia of gender equality. But it's not as though feminists are wasting our time.

[ 17 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]


From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 18 July 2005 11:55 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Feminism has had great impact towards human equality and the deconstruction of patriarchy specifically, and oppression in general. The movement has caused a massive re-thinking across the globe about gender roles, hierarchy, and human rights.
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 July 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
puzzlic: excellent list!

I'd like to add some info about younger feminists. I'm not one, being almost 39, but there are incredible books and magazines out there by young women under 25 doing amazing feminist actions:

*Bitch Magazine and Bust Magazine. They are both USian but they rock!
*for Can con, try Shameless Magazine, put together by 2 groovy women from Ryerson U.
*Turbo Chicks ed by Mitchell et al
*Manifesta! ed by Hernandez et al

And one more thing. The current anti-violence against women movement is trying to get VAW considered as a public health issue, as a way to get further funding and support from governments. Examples are impact on child-rearing, workplace productivity, cost to the health care system, etc. Whatever works! They are modelling it after the anti-drunk driving movement which in about 10-15 years turned the issue of it being wrong and careless to have a drink and then driving into a social norm. Sure it still happens, but most of us consider it to be wrong.

Someday violence against women will be seen that way. And it will be because of feminists. Yay!


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646

posted 19 July 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for puzzlic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And one more thing. The current anti-violence against women movement is trying to get VAW considered as a public health issue,
Wow, thanks for that info, bcg. I didn't know that -- sounds like a great idea. It *is* a public health issue, but I'd never heard it framed that way.

From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 26 July 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Someday violence against women will be seen that way. And it will be because of feminists. Yay!

Violence against all humans is already seen that way by decent people. Why are feminists taking this victory? I admit I haven't read the thread but I think feminism has really lost the plot.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
puzzlic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9646

posted 26 July 2005 11:25 PM      Profile for puzzlic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I'll try to answer that: because before feminism, most people *didn't* think violence against women was a problem. It was legal for men to beat and rape their wives. Feminists worked to raise consciousness among men and women, and although these awful acts still occur, they are now widely recognized as crimes. That didn't just happen -- feminists made it happen by persuading other women and men that criminalizing VAW was the right thing to do.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: puzzlic ]


From: it's too damn hot | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 05:13 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by puzzlic:
Okay, I'll try to answer that: because before feminism, most people *didn't* think violence against women was a problem. It was legal for men to beat and rape their wives. Feminists worked to raise consciousness among men and women, and although these awful acts still occur, they are now widely recognized as crimes. That didn't just happen -- feminists made it happen by persuading other women and men that criminalizing VAW was the right thing to do.

Feminists have done some great things, to be sure. But, really, can you know for sure that we wouldn't have criminalized violence against all people anyway? The world's improved for lots of people in lots of ways and I don't think feminism can take all the credit. I guess I just don't think women are more worthy than men, nor do I understand why they are referred to as a minority. I support women's rights only insofar as I support human rights. And I hear a lot of feminists taking positions that I can't tolerate. Here are some that trouble me:

- the sorry state of family law in this country
- inability to understand emotional abuse
- the myth of the wage gap
- the push for national daycare

By way of example, take the union movement. They definitely did some great work and I don't think anyone would dispute that. But when I read pro-unionists who say we all owe unions for the 5 day work week, I think that's just crap. I have almost always been able to negotiate extra concessions at work and I don't think it's attributable to unions.

There is an ugly side to feminism and I think a few feminists are honest enough to admit it. Painting men in a horrible light doesn't really benefit anybody.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 27 July 2005 10:05 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Being a feminist doesn't mean we paint men in a horrible light. I love men. I don't love the patriarchy.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 27 July 2005 10:12 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is an ugly side to everything - that is human nature. I also think that feminism is a pretty rational stance, considering history and all. I don't hate men, either, but I don't like what patriarchal structures do to their minds.

I also don't get what you don't like about the national push for daycare. If it's well done, it will arguably be the most effective way of ensuring a more egalitarian society.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 July 2005 10:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
EFA, it's not appropriate for you to trash feminists using feminist stereotypes. There are lots of other boards where they welcome feminist bashing. This isn't one of them. Please refrain.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 10:33 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I wasn't bashing, just stating my point of view. I am allowed to have a point of view, aren't I? I'm even a woman.

Brebis Noire, feminism is definitely rational and I acknowledge they've done good work. I'm questioning if the movement still has value, though, given some of the directions it's gone.

You say you don't hate men but you don't like what patriarchal structures do to their minds. So you're just criticizing men's minds? I don't like what feminism has done to a lot of women's minds. (Now I'm going to be criticized by Michelle for using a stereotype.)

As for daycare, I think it devalues children and the essential role women play in their early lives. I don't think a national daycare program will lead to an egalitarian society. I think it will lead to an even greedier society with two parents earning, earning, earning so they can keep consuming, consuming, consuming.

And I have a lot of experience with family law. The feminist agenda has really hurt a lot of kids. And divorced fathers have a lot to complain about.

I'll leave the feminist threads alone, however, as I can see that any criticism is not tolerated.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 10:41 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
EFA, it is overgeneralization that is not welcomed and that looks like stereotyping. Also, this board has been viciously trolled a few times by "fathers' rights" advocates, so we're a little prepped.

In other news, two Toronto-area men have been charged within the last week, I believe, with killing their wives. The toll always seems to go up in the summer -- last summer was especially awful, given two very public killings, one of which led to a hostage-taking at Union Station.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 27 July 2005 10:42 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:
As for daycare, I think it devalues children and the essential role women play in their early lives. I don't think a national daycare program will lead to an egalitarian society. I think it will lead to an even greedier society with two parents earning, earning, earning so they can keep consuming, consuming, consuming.

I totally disagree with this statement; it is contrary to what I've experienced personally with national subsidized daycare in Quebec. I just finished reading the latest issue of the Revue de Notre-Dame, distributed in the credit unions (Desjardins) across Quebec, the issue was wholly devoted to the daycare question. The interviews and discussions illustrate the many ways in which children are highly valued as persons in this society. The question of consumption was pretty much absent, and I'd add that it's one I encounter more explicitly when I visit other provinces where daycare is seen as a profit-based motive and children are viewed as belonging solely to their parents, for better or for worse. I think you are totally wrong on this, and suggest to acquaint yourself better with the Quebec system so that you can get a different perspective on the matter.

As for your other statements, I recognize them as opinions based on your experience, and won't comment since my experiences have been different.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 July 2005 10:55 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:
As for daycare, I think it devalues children and the essential role women play in their early lives.

Women, not men?


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:11 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
Women, not men?

I think that, for the most part, women have a more important role in caring for infants. They definitely do most of the breast feeding. I don't mean to suggest that there aren't any men who are primary caregivers but I do believe that most of them are women.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:14 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
EFA, it is overgeneralization that is not welcomed and that looks like stereotyping. Also, this board has been viciously trolled a few times by "fathers' rights" advocates, so we're a little prepped.

Fair enough, skdadl, but those "stereotypes" are based on a lifetime of observation, including working for a lawyer who represents wife after wife after wife, as she decimates her husband financially and shuts him out of her children's lives. I most certainly do support fathers' rights, but I'll try to keep my vicious trolling down to a dull roar, though, just for you.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
The interviews and discussions illustrate the many ways in which children are highly valued as persons in this society.

It's just common sense: If children were highly valued, they wouldn't be farmed out and parked in daycare. If raising a child well were seen for what it is (the most important job on the planet), people would understand that it's completely honourable to stay home while your kid is growing up.

quote:
I think you are totally wrong on this, and suggest to acquaint yourself better with the Quebec system so that you can get a different perspective on the matter.

If Quebec's system is better then that's great. My only second-hand experience is with daycare centres in BC.

quote:
As for your other statements, I recognize them as opinions based on your experience, and won't comment since my experiences have been different.

Some of them aren't really opinions. It's a fact that in a disputed custody case, the mother wins about 99% of the time.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 July 2005 11:21 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

Some of them aren't really opinions. It's a fact that in a disputed custody case, the mother wins about 99% of the time.


But isn't that OK, if the mother plays the more important role in raising children? I'm lost.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 27 July 2005 11:23 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So basically you're confounding early infancy or care of babies of up to one or one-and-a-half years with early childhood education, or daycare.

They're not the same thing. For example, there is an EI maternity leave program that enables women to stay home for the first year of their child's life. Most women I know here in Quebec opt for that, then gradually re-integrate into jobs and/or education. You've got to realize that even a 10-year old child cannot be left to his or her own devices after school hours. If a woman decides to have more than one child, and there is no affordable daycare at any point, then you're effectively erasing at least a decade of life for that person in an occupation outside the home - unless their place of employment is unusually and exceptionally flexible.

I dunno, but I get the feeling that if it weren't for feminism, none of this would have been properly addressed, and we'd all still be minding the children at home, all the time. It's fine for some, but if that had been my only option, I really don't know how I'd cope.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 July 2005 11:26 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

It's just common sense: If children were highly valued, they wouldn't be farmed out and parked in daycare. If raising a child well were seen for what it is (the most important job on the planet), people would understand that it's completely honourable to stay home while your kid is growing up.



I think that if children were highly valued, and if raising a child well were seen for what it is, people would understand that leaving your child in the care of an early education specialist isn't "farming her out" or "parking" her.

I also think that, if children were highly valued, tax dollars would be spend on quality care for them.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
I think that if children were highly valued, and if raising a child well were seen for what it is, people would understand that leaving your child in the care of an early education specialist isn't "farming her out" or "parking" her.

I also think that, if children were highly valued, tax dollars would be spend on quality care for them.


Women are the ultimate "early education specialists." I think a lot of stay-at-home mothers would be quite offended at your suggestion that a government employee could do her job better.

I think we should be spending those tax dollars on children in different ways -- quality education, sports, art and music programs, libraries, parks, summer camps and (my personal favourite) free pony rides.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:31 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
But isn't that OK, if the mother plays the more important role in raising children? I'm lost.

Nope, 'cause custody and access are issues until the child is of age.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
Most women I know here in Quebec opt for that, then gradually re-integrate into jobs and/or education.

Most women I know would have opted for a 5 year stint on maternal EI if there was such a thing.

quote:
You've got to realize that even a 10-year old child cannot be left to his or her own devices after school hours.

Of course.

quote:
If a woman decides to have more than one child, and there is no affordable daycare at any point, then you're effectively erasing at least a decade of life for that person in an occupation outside the home - unless their place of employment is unusually and exceptionally flexible.

Which is why it's a good idea for a woman to consider approaching motherhood as a career.

quote:
I dunno, but I get the feeling that if it weren't for feminism, none of this would have been properly addressed, and we'd all still be minding the children at home, all the time. It's fine for some, but if that had been my only option, I really don't know how I'd cope.

I don't think the issue has been properly addressed. And I don't think the rising percentage of kids on Ritalin is a coincidence, either.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 27 July 2005 11:36 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

Some of them aren't really opinions. It's a fact that in a disputed custody case, the mother wins about 99% of the time.


Source, please ?


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:
Source, please ?

I'm in BC. Perhaps you could search for Ontario stats?

EDITED TO ADD: Truthfully, I don't know if statistics are kept on this subject (a cursory Google search didn't turn up anything). But I know from dealing with hundreds and hundreds of family law files, that mum wins, end of story. The only exceptions were mothers guilty of egregious abuse, drug users or (most frightening of all) the psychiatrically labelled.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: EFA ]


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 July 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

Women are the ultimate "early education specialists." I think a lot of stay-at-home mothers would be quite offended at your suggestion that a government employee could do her job better.


To clarify - I absolutely did not suggest anything of the sort about stay at home mothers. I value all caregivers highly, stay at home mothers and educators alike. Please don't inflame the discussion by putting inaccurate words in my mouth.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:41 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
To clarify - I absolutely did not suggest anything of the sort about stay at home mothers. I value all caregivers highly, stay at home mothers and educators alike. Please don't inflame the discussion by putting inaccurate words in my mouth.

I took your words to imply that you felt the care would be superior at daycare.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Which is why it's a good idea for a woman to consider approaching motherhood as a career.

EFA, without the women's movement, very few women would have had a chance to "consider approaching motherhood" from any point of view. It was enforced, biology as destiny. Punkt.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 July 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:
Michelle, I wasn't bashing, just stating my point of view. I am allowed to have a point of view, aren't I? I'm even a woman.

Listen, every right-wing troll that comes to babble and posts stereotypes about left-wingers, feminists or whatever, complains that we're censoring "their point of view" when we tell them to knock the feminist bashing and stereotyping or hit the highway.

You're not a right-wing troll, but you're crossing the line here. The answer is, yes, even if stereotypes of feminists are "your point of view", that is just one of your points of view that you'll have to suppress while you're here.

And I'm not planning to debate this with you in a thousand posts either. In any case, reading further through the thread, I see you've already said you're going to lay off the stereotyping, which is good.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:45 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
EFA, without the women's movement, very few women would have had a chance to "consider approaching motherhood" from any point of view. It was enforced, biology as destiny. Punkt.

Skdadl, what about Emily Carr? What about all of the Emily Carrs? Why do feminists blame men for everything? Did women (even in the bad old days) not have the opportunity to opt out? Who enforced pregnancy? Good grief.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 27 July 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

I'm in BC. Perhaps you could search for Ontario stats?


You are the one making the outlandish assertion. BC source, please. Calling Mr. Day, Calling Mr. Day ... No, no, not you, Stockwell ...


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 27 July 2005 11:47 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been reading this thread and to this point just stayed out of it but now we've gotten into the child care debate! We had two other threads about this that just disintegrated into disunity. I don't think Audra's original intention was to get into that issue. I think it's a thread drift. Just my opinion, I am not looking to go back and forth on this.

Edited to add - I am really sad you wrote that EFA in your post about pregnancy

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:47 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
You're not a right-wing troll, but you're crossing the line here. The answer is, yes, even if stereotypes of feminists are "your point of view", that is just one of your points of view that you'll have to suppress while you're here.

Actually, Michelle, I'll post whatever I like, whenever I like, wherever I like, until I'm banned. And, at that point, I will have even less respect for feminism than I do right now.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 11:48 AM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:

You are the one making the outlandish assertion. BC source, please. Calling Mr. Day, Calling Mr. Day ... No, no, not you, Stockwell ...


Please read my edit on that post. Oh yeah, and FUCK YOU!


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 July 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:
Actually, Michelle, I'll post whatever I like, whenever I like, wherever I like, until I'm banned. And, at that point, I will have even less respect for feminism than I do right now.

Actually, EFA, as the moderator, it is up to me to ensure that babble policy is enforced. So you will post within that policy or you WILL find your posting abilities suspended.

And as for your completely unwarranted attack on James in the post after the one I quoted, you can consider this a warning, that if you keep it up, you're going to be gone.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

Skdadl, what about Emily Carr? What about all of the Emily Carrs? Why do feminists blame men for everything? Did women (even in the bad old days) not have the opportunity to opt out? Who enforced pregnancy? Good grief.


Huh? Who was "blaming men"? That's an illogical leap.

The problem was loving men, much rather; or sex, at least. Before birth control and abortion were legal in this country (and I go back further than that, as an adult woman), having sex meant getting pregnant.

You don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex (with men, anyway).

That was the deal. You think that was a good deal?

And what do you mean, all the Emily Carrs? There were precious few of them, although many of them, usually by virtue of class privilege, had figured out to get birth control and/or abortions. Read the bios. I have. It wasn't an easy life.

Here's to Doris McCarthy, btw, ninety-five years old and still painting strong!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
saskatchewan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9644

posted 27 July 2005 11:53 AM      Profile for saskatchewan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you have children? Because this dichotomy between the stay-at-home vs. working-outside-the-home mother, is, in my experience, about as absolutely followed (and as rife with problems) as the old virgin/whore issue. It also tends to be espoused by those with very little experience about the issue at hand.

I’ve had a both of my children at home, in part-time day-care, in full-time day-care, in school, and in after-school care. MOST women work for money at some point in their lives and, if they have children, MOST of them have spent some time alone at home with an infant or small child. I have really yet to meet a mother who couldn’t at least picture herself in both sets of shoes.

Also? The comment about ‘parking’ at day-care is utter and absolute bullshit.

There are a lot of issues with family law. A huge part of the problem is a legal system that attempts to bring fairness and justice to a situation that is inherently unequal. Women remain at a disadvantage in this society and particularly inside a marriage relationship. It’s ignorant to expect that the best way to address this would be to treat women and men as though they had had equal opportunities, division of domestic care, and economic power.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 July 2005 11:54 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In any case, reading further through the thread, I see you've already said you're going to lay off the stereotyping, which is good.

quote:
Why do feminists blame men for everything?

I couldn't resist.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
saskatchewan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9644

posted 27 July 2005 11:55 AM      Profile for saskatchewan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And since when is parenting ‘her job’ anyway?
From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 11:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Doris McCarthy, working at the home she built herself in Scarborough, which she calls "Fool's Paradise."


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 27 July 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Speaking as a hairy guy who took a beating in family court (Ontario),

I have to say that, ....

..... ............


.......... feminism is still very important.

It has been thoughtlessly slagged by many, responding to the conscious distortions spread by its enemies.

There's a lot of stuff some feminists say that I might take issue with, ... that goes on between feminists of different stripes though too.

There is such a thing as patriarchy, and there were/are barriers to women's realization of themselves as complete individuals.

And i usually stay out of this forum (i'm a bit careless with words sometimes, or i've nothing of insight to add), but i thought i'd drop that in.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 02:13 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Actually, EFA, as the moderator, it is up to me to ensure that babble policy is enforced. So you will post within that policy or you WILL find your posting abilities suspended.

Michelle, this is exactly why I said I would continue to post until banned. Yes, yes, I know, you've got the power. Wow. A little thing seems to have escaped you ... this EFA is the same EFA who posts about PETA, about our mental health system, about any number of things. You'll notice I didn't magically become a right-wing line-crossing troll until I spoke on this issue. You might want to consider for one second why that is.

quote:
And as for your completely unwarranted attack on James in the post after the one I quoted, you can consider this a warning, that if you keep it up, you're going to be gone.

Call someone Stockwell Day, with or without a smiley face, and you're going to get the "fuck you." And James, why deny the obvious? Ask any family law practitioner about who wins the vast, vast, vast majority of custody battles.

And to the other poster taking umbrage at my reference to "parking" your kids, suck it up, that's what full-time daycare is: an abrogation of your parenting responsibilities in favour of the almighty dollar.

And to the poster who implied I shouldn't speak because I don't have kids, I think that is a completely preposterous argument. Let's not let men discussion abortion because, you know, they can't get pregnant so it's only fair ... right, right, right???

This is what feminism has disintegrated into. The men aren't allowed to tell us what to think. That role's been taken over by feminists. Frankly, I think both systems suck. We need a new movement which aims to include everybody, even those yucky men.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 27 July 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:

And to the other poster taking umbrage at my reference to "parking" your kids, suck it up, that's what full-time daycare is: an abrogation of your parenting responsibilities in favour of the almighty dollar.

It's becoming patently obvious that not only do you know next to nothing about childcare, but you also have little respect for parents, so why not shut up this time at least? Why don't you let parents themselves decide what they want from daycare and lay off this issue? Your comments are offensive to all of us who rely on daycare and who find support through daycare - as well as those who don't but wish they could.
I am a responsible mother who loves her kids and gives the vast majority of her free time to their needs - and I use full-time daycare. So suck it up yourself.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
EFA
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9673

posted 27 July 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for EFA        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
It's becoming patently obvious that not only do you know next to nothing about childcare, but you also have little respect for parents, so why not shut up this time at least? Why don't you let parents themselves decide what they want from daycare and lay off this issue? Your comments are offensive to all of us who rely on daycare and who find support through daycare - as well as those who don't but wish they could.
I am a responsible mother who loves her kids and gives the vast majority of her free time to their needs - and I use full-time daycare. So suck it up yourself.

I have plenty of respect for parents, if they want to parent. And I have plenty of respect for parents who want to juggle some combination of being at home plus daycare. But I will continue to discourage my tax dollars being used to raise other people's children in federal daycare. I'm sure you do love your kids -- that's not what the argument is about -- and perhaps you have enough energy to work full-time and parent effectively. That's great for you but most working mothers don't and end up doing a half-assed job at work and at home.


From: Victoria, BC | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 July 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First of all, James didn't call you "Stockwell Day". He was calling for WILFRED Day to come check out the thread because he's a family lawyer who can counter your totally bogus 99% stat.

Furthermore, I didn't call you a "right-wing troll". I specifically said you WEREN'T one.

Finally, brebis noire is right. You obviously aren't willing to have a discussion without stereotyping and attacking feminists and parents who work and use day care. That sort of thing has no place on a progressive forum. You also can't seem to stop making personal attacks on people who disagree with you, both here and in the PETA thread. So you can take a break until Audra gets back and she can decide when the suspension is lifted, if at all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 July 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Call someone Stockwell Day, with or without a smiley face, and you're going to get the "fuck you."

James didn't call you Stockwell Day.

He "paged" Mr. [Wilf] Day, a resident babble legal beagle, and made a joke about Stockwell Day responding.

Also, I find it fascinating that you've got it all laid out for mothers, despite not being one yourself. Sure, that shouldn't exempt you from having an opinion on child rearing, but to suggest selfish greed and desire for filthy lucre as the reason parents use daycare is, IMHO, beyond the pale.

I think it would be best for everyone if you did indeed continue badmouthing women's choices until you're banned. It's clearly what you want, and now you're making us want it too.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 27 July 2005 02:37 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EFA:
Call someone Stockwell Day, with or without a smiley face, and you're going to get the "fuck you." And James, why deny the obvious? Ask any family law practitioner about who wins the vast, vast, vast majority of custody battles.

Well, see, that's the thing, EFA. I do talk to family law practitioners, lot's of them, all the time. One of them is Wilfred Day, a regular poster to this board. And I regularly read family law cases, and articles on the subject. And that is where I come to the perception entirely contrary to what you assert as trite fact here. And that is why I called on you to provide a source.

And the only "someone" I called Stockwell Day, was, well ..., Stockwell Day. The point was that Stockwell is pretentious enough to presume that when I was paging the other Mr. Day to quickly puncture your balloon to think that I meant him.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
saskatchewan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9644

posted 27 July 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for saskatchewan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What the hell?

Okay, I have a serious problem with this idea that my parental responsibility, as a woman with children, is twenty-four hour on-call care. I presume, since they aren’t mentioned, that father’s ‘parental responsibility’ is not similarly so narrowly defined.

I’d like to know what evidence you could possibly have for your assertion that “most working mothers [. . . ] end up doing a half-assed job at work and at home.” And who, pray tell, is my ‘boss’ at home? My husband?

Being someone’s mother is a relationship and not a ‘job’. My mother remains my mother though she isn’t washing out my diapers anymore. If my mother had had a diapering service and had not had to wash them out by hand, would she have been less my mother? On the sliding scale of menial chores means more mothering cred, my great-grandmother had everyone beat because she washed those diapers out by hand.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 27 July 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
to me, being a feminist is not at all about man-bashing, and stereotyping all males as sexist. it's not about gaining power and superiority over males. it's about being achieving equality, for example, in terms of wages. reading efa's posts on this thread has aroused a lot of anger in me because they are unfair, illogical, misinformed and ignorant. i see that other babblers have already posted fabulous responses to efa, but i need to vent a little anger too. so here goes.

quote:
Violence against all humans is already seen that way by decent people. Why are feminists taking this victory? I admit I haven't read the thread but I think feminism has really lost the plot.

well, puzzlic already provided a great response to why feminists are taking the victory. the feminists (mostly women) who struggled to make VAW illegal deserve the credit 100%. and no, femnisim hasn't "lost it's plot". unfortunately, there are still way too many not-so-decent people we need to reach. there is so much work that needs to be done. there are men who still believe that they "own" their wives, that women are there to worship them in wedlock, and if a woman can't always give him what he wants, then it's okay to scare her, demean her or hit her. abuse against women still takes place in spite of being illegal, and we'll never know the real stats because too many cases of abuse go unreported. as feminists, we still have a lot of work to do as far as educating men goes (i don't know if it would be possible to educate many abusive men - it has worked on occasion), and we still have a lot of work to do in letting abused women know that they deserve more respect and providing more shelters and such places for them to feel safe in. it's quite common that women still don't get the same wages for the same job as a man would. i've seen this happen where i work - not the same department though. no, feminism hasn't lost its purpose, its goal, not by a long shot.

quote:
And I hear a lot of feminists taking positions that I can't tolerate. Here are some that trouble me:

- the sorry state of family law in this country
- inability to understand emotional abuse
- the myth of the wage gap
- the push for national daycare


family law: i concede i don't know enough about this, and from the little i've heard, father's rights aren't always as respected as i feel they should be. but again, i know next to nothing on family law, especially in canada ... so please don't judge me for what i've said.

emotional abuse: you've already demonstrated on another thread that you don't understand the full impact of spousal abuse on a woman. i don't know how willing you are to learn. i would be interested in knowing what exactly it is that troubles you about a feminist's view of emotional abuse.

the myth of the wage gap: it's not a myth, honey. it's a reality. guy i know where i work put up a job posting without stating the salary. first round of interviews, a man got the job, was offered a certain salary, and the interviewee declined the job offer. second round of interviews, a woman was offered the position, and guess what, she was offered a much lesser salary. why the discrepancy? could it be that a woman's labour (at a desk) is not valued as highly as a man's by a man? he got quite the verbal beating from a woman at HR when she heard about it, and upped the salary for the woman to what the man would have made.

daycare: you're making a careless and accusatory assumption when you say that women are giving up their responsibilities so they can earn, earn, earn only to get richer and consume, consume, consume. in the past, women were expected to have babies and carry on the man's name into future generations. also, mothers were just not allowed to work. it was their job to rear the children, while the men could spend all day outdoors advancing their careers and/or goofing off. they didn't feel that men could change diapers too, or partake of other responsibilities. now, thanks to feminists (bless their hearts), more and more women have a choice in this important matter of whether to have a baby or not. it's not enforced upon them. and guess what, men realize their presence around their kids is just as important as the womens'. also, in the past, cost of living was cheaper. it was easier for a woman to engage in full-time motherhood. cost of living is much, much higher now, and i can't imagine how parents would be able to afford a lifestyle of non-poverty for their kids unless both of them work. daycare is not about giving up responsibility so that mothers can get more shopping done. that's an extremely careless, narrow point of view. most mothers i've ever known sacrifice anything they want to give their kiddies even momentary joy. and single mothers absolutely need daycare. can't leave the kids alone when they have to go to work.

quote:
But when I read pro-unionists who say we all owe unions for the 5 day work week, I think that's just crap. I have almost always been able to negotiate extra concessions at work and I don't think it's attributable to unions.

well, good for you. you did it all on your own. keep in mind that working conditions are far different from what they used to be when unions first started (thanks to unions, btw). labour conditions were so bad - especially for black people, it would have been impossible for one person to improve his own wages or workplace conditions (safety and health hazards). unions helped to achieve equality in the workplace for people of colour. i recommend you watch the movie 'matewan'. a little bit of history.

skdadl: thanks for the picture of doris mccarthy.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 27 July 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
Great post, ephemeral. I need to vent too. Citing other 'progressive' credentials or positions does not give one a right to insult, demean, and pooh-pooh others on another subject. There, I feel better.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 27 July 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Here's a good article on abuse from Hamilton's own Mayday Magazine
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 27 July 2005 05:52 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl...brebis noir...ephemeral...hang onto my ankles, please, grandma is going up like a helium balloon.

Sometimes people so enjoy word-jousting and idea-sparring that they go for it until they've gone a little too far. Then hubris keeps them from bowing out or backing down or even saying they were just being devil's advocate.

Saying good daycare is wrong because it isn't good enough is like asking someone who is dying of dehydradtion to say no to a glass of cool clear springwater because what they really need is a bucketful. Of COURSE we need more and better of absolutely everything to do with and for our children. Feminists have been saying for YEARS we need a generous national annual allowance for all people. We have been saying we want MORE for all kids, whether ours or anyone else's. But anyone who has ever done any kind of negotiating, especially with a surly, churlish or mean spirited boss knows you have to try in increments. So you struggle for plenty of good daycare spaces, then you up that, and then up that until eventually you're within sight of what everyone knew all along was REALLY needed.

Women taking men to the cleaners at the time of divorce. I've heard of these women. I am 67. I have YET to meet a woman who managed what EFA described. I have seen men hide income, hide savings, hide assets, I have seen women reduced to poverty because the husband wanted to replace them with younger trophies. I have seen kids living in squalor while daddy-oh lived in a posh apartment and ate the finest of food. But I haven't seen these women who ripped it off in strips and then cha-cha'd on the Riviera. But even if one or two did..why not,especially if there are kids in the picture because the truth of it is that the vast majority of court orders for child maintainence are forfeithed within the first year. So get it during the divorce because the kids won't get any afterward! A major problem for the welfare system is trying to collect child maintainence and if THEY can't do it with the weight of the ha ha government behind them how in hell does some woman who can't even afford a lawyer get back payments.

And then we come to the other part of this women-ripping it off in strips thing..most of the elected officials are men, most of the cabinet members are men, most of the law makers are men, most of the supreme court judges are men..and the laws were written by men, for men for years. If a woman finds a lawyer who can tip toe through the bullshit and bafflegab and GET something for her and the kids then she has found someone who is managing to do something IN SPITE of the power structure in this country.

Anyone who thinks emotional abuse doesn't exist is someone who has their head so firmly planted up their basic fundament they can't see even a hint of daylight. And emotional abuse usually escalates to become physical abuse. What emotional abuse does to kids is a sin and should be a crime.

If you dont believe UNIONS got the five day work week then I can only say DO SOME RESEARCH. EVERY benefit you enjoy today was wrenched from industry by unions. If you can today negotiate by yourself you are lucky but you stand on firm ground only because men and women like my grandparents had their blood spilled for safe working conditions. You are priviledged and I have no objection to that, but I do object if you are not aware of how lucky you are and at what cost to other people that luck was obtained.

Charles Dickens did not invent Scrooge. He SAW him, he worked for him, he worked to have all the Scrooges overcome. My grandfather was in the coal mines before he was ten years old. HE worked a twelve to fourteen hour day six days a week. I wish to God there had been some kind of daycare for him!! Or for my grandmother who was "in service" before she was thirteen.

As for women choosing motherhood as a career. Jesus weeps. Tell that to the fourteen year old who is pregnant. Tell her to keep her legs crossed until .......when, her baby is ready for college? Tell the woman who is 25 years old, has two kids and has just been dumped by the man she thought she'd grow old with...she DID choose motherhood as a career and now what? Can't send'em back where they came from...welfare doesn't allow much by way of employment training... maybe she should just lovingly smother them in their sleep so she can be sent to prison to learn to make license plates?

I do not hate men. I am the mother of sons, the grandmother of grandsons, but I do hate what some men do. And I really hate what other men do not protest.

I am trying very hard not to blow my cool here. I am trying to remain polite. But fuckemall, it's been too many years, too many tears, and too many self satisfied four letter expletive deleted slagging feminists and feminism.

Can't you smell the coffee? You've swallowed the backlash bullshit. Most of your points have been well and amply rebutted but I bet you remain convinced that all feminists ride brooms, hate men, and can't cook, either.

Yeah, I'd like all kids to have free pony rides. I'd prefer they get three nourishing meals a day and get to live in decent housing. For too many kids NONE of that will happen. Yet. But feminists and feminism will continue and we will MAKE it happen, one day.

THis is excedrin headache number four four four!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 06:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ephemeral and anne: great posts -- you're singing my songs too.

I especially understand anne's point about the need and yet the frustrations of accepting the increments. I recognize that there's a paradox/compromise in claiming that women's liberation lies in going out to work if most women are still forced to join the workforce out of economic need, and most of the jobs they are going to are hardly soul-fulfilling. That has definitely been a life-challenge for me, I tell you.

But it is a small step along that long road, the road we hope we're blazing for everybody, including the men and the kids we're carrying along with us. What was the alternative?

Me, a man-hater. To anyone who knows me, that would be so funny. It would be like calling me a kitten-hater.

Where does this nonsense about feminists hating men come from, anyway?

I feel bad about what has happened with EFA because I really admire her as a person, and we have been friends. I hope we still are. I don't believe that she was trolling here, or that she was running on another kind of "cred." I genuinely think that she just hasn't thought through some of these arguments before, probably because she is fixed on another set of problems and sees so much through those lenses.

But I agree that she needed to slow down and consider some.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 27 July 2005 06:10 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
THREE CHEERS FOR FEMINISM! RAH RAH RAH!

anne, you're making me laugh, and you almost made me cry, and you made the hairs on my head stand up. *mmvvaa*

psst, that's the sound of a kiss.

oh, and btw, if you want to learn how to insert a smilie: after you hit reply to a thread, scroll down on the page that comes up (where you type), and you'll see 11 smilies on the left of the screen. you just click one of them to insert at the end of whatever you're typing, and bob's your uncle! or should i say, and jane's your aunt!

skdadl: we cross-posted. yea, it sucks to accept increments and be compromised that way. but it's all part of the struggle inching closer and closer to what we want. and it's better than nothing. vive le feminist resistance!

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 27 July 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Three cheers for Anne. That was inspiring.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now, y'see, there is Wingy. He is a man. And I simply adore him.

Hugs and kisses, Wingy.

Ok. Now I dare anyone to call me a man-hater after that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 27 July 2005 06:27 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, anne cameron for that and for your post on the PETA thread. This had been a good babbleday.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 27 July 2005 06:38 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, thanks for Doris McCarthy! Have you visited her house?

Perhaps we should start a thread about "women painters", "women artists" etc, thinking of Germaine Greer's book "The Obstacle Race". In culture or in feminism?

As you know by now, I know a 96-year-old Viennese Jewish lady who still paints landscapes. She lives on a left-wing kibbutz in the south of Israel (and of course, can't stand Ariel Sharon), her third continent after Vienna and Brazil... I try to think of her, and now Ms McCarthy, every time I feel too old and bereft of inspiration and energy to paint...

Feminism matters a lot. So does the workers' movement. And feminism in the workers' movement even more!

In some of the places I'd worked on organising, the workers - especially workers of colour and women - and even more women workers of colour - were treated like utter shit - and I'm not referring only to low wages and hard jobs. Their own fight brought them hard-won RESPECT. (As Aretha sang! )


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 27 July 2005 06:56 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lagatta, I have never been to Fool's Paradise, alas, no, but I have met Doris several times over the years, and I ended up copy-editing one of her memoirs some years after I'd met her.

The first time: we were at a book launch for something else -- this would have been maybe 1987? The gathering was quite small, and there were hardly any women there at all. I was there by virtue of family connection to author, relative of Thorfinn.

So I was standing a bit apart on my own, just taking in the scene, when suddenly this human dynamo, wearing her trademark flip-flops (it was deepest winter), came barrelling towards me and said, "You look interesting. Who are you?"

Duh duh duh ... At the time, obviously, I was an idiot! But I was just so charmed by her. She is committed to women, to art, to life, to all good things (even men!).

If you read her memoirs, you'll find out why she wears flip-flops. It has to do with trying to travel in tropical places wearing high heels. Effective end of most shoe-wearing.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 27 July 2005 07:08 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to try the smiley thing

all's I see is a colon and a capital D. ??

I regret the decision to ban EFA, we might have had a slight chance of pointing out to her that she speaks from a position of priviledge. Now, well, we've probably pissed her off for all time.

I got a bit emotional... which I also regret. But only a little bit of regret... well, maybe not much at all

Thanx for the support. I don't understand why people who don't have kids object to paying taxes for daycare but want ME, who doesn't have a horse, to provide riding trails in public parks. Or bike paths when I don't ride a bike. Or....etc.

Gorgeous day in Tahsis and you know it is hot as hell because grandma is wearing shorts.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 27 July 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, flip flops...I remember the days when... now I wear Doc Martens boots almost all of the time because my balance is crapped, my left leg seems to have a mind of it's own and might or might not show up for work at any given time. Today, however, it is as hot as the outer hobs of Hades, and in my opinion you'd look like a total jerk in shorts, with black boots so I hauled out the years old rubber sandals..which I wear with socks..I get a great deal of teasing about wearing socks with sandals...which is why I seldom wear sandals...it is not true grandma sleeps in her socks, that is a foul and slanderous lie. But I have nerve damage in that leg which is so often on strike and the nerve damage has twisted my foot and there's no reason to inflict on a sometimes innocent and almost always unsuspecting world the sight of that foot.

The brown-eyed grandbabes have gorgeous feet. Usually I detest the sight of feet, most people have feet so ugly they should be banned as visual pollution, but little kids feet can turn me to mush.

No, this note is not about a damned thing! I guess this is "thread drift". After the typhoon we've just survived maybe we need some thread drift.

I am still upset. This has been the week from hell. I feel as if my emotions have been used as a punching bag by someone with all the couth and charm of Mike Tyson at his worst.

Do we still need feminism? Ithink if we look at the plight of increasing numbers of children in this nation the need for feminism is greater than ever. Much of the backlash comes by way of the Religious Reich, which increasingly resembles the Taliban, in my view. Feminism taught me to look at a problem and ask "is this an accident" and then to ask "who benefits"... when I apply those two questions to Religious Reich vs Feminism I come to what I realize is a foregone conclusion. Can't keep us pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen if we're feminists!

I think I became particularly upset because I have so often admired EFA's writing. What she contributed about the psychiatric industry has been very helpful to me because I have a grandson who is in very serious trouble mentally and I am heartbroken at his condition. Then to get such a bucket of shit thrown from her direction today rocked me (socks and all).

I wanted to pour on the front line statistics; you know, most violent crime committed by males, most sexual abuse of children done by..etc., but that seemed about as smart as going nyah nyah and yet to say nothing seemed too much like betrayal.

I guess her stance today was "reactionary"...and I wonder at what she was reacting...or whom or...

Again, much thanx to all of you. I repeat my invitation, if you ever come to Tahsis, there's sleeping bag room at my place.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 27 July 2005 10:08 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I've been trying to keep it in but I can't. Here's why I think feminism and daycare matter an awful lot.

99% of the secretaries and personal assistants ar my place of work are women.

I know this isn't the biggest example of sexism. I know it's pretty minor. But it reminds me that, despite the gains of the past, the fact remains that "low-level employee" is synonymous with "woman" here. And virtually all have young children.

At least white woman are assumed to be secretaries. The majority of black women are assumed to be janitors.

So don't talk to me about how daycare is for greedy mothers to worship the almighty dollar. As long as women think mothering inevitably conflicts with gainful employment, yet mothers are required to provide economically for their children, there's work to be done in this area.

Edited to remove a lot of personal information that, on reflection, I didn't want out there...

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 July 2005 08:08 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that is an important point to keep making, vmichel. If people believe (and obviously, many do) the popular media, why, all us grils are out there in our power suits, controlling the world from our corner offices, bringing in major bucks, preening our egos with the toughest guys, and stowing the kids with nanny.

That is such a far cry from the truth for the overwhelming majority of women, of working women, and most people here know it. Even when you've had jobs like some of mine, which sound good in theory (and do take some advanced training to qualify for), you could be earning peanuts, subsistence pay for skilled work -- I don't know whether that's most working women, but it is still sure a lot of us.

If you're my age and started out working at a time when open pay discrimination was widespread, then you're looking at a considerably smaller CPP than your brothers are. Probably no private pension, or one that kicked in very late. Maybe you've taken years out of the workforce to have children (and many women don't qualify for any benefits at all on that score), or to act as a caregiver for parents or spouse (that's me) -- it all adds up, or maybe I should say, it all subtracts down.

The Margaret Wentes of the world make a good living by pretending that we're all living like her so that she can then trash women who are living just like her -- there's a modern paradigm and paradox of female self-hatred that I can explain only by noting that someone is eager to pay her to do that.

The larger truth is all those secretaries and janitors who are working just to make ends meet.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 July 2005 08:14 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anne, EFA has helped me too, but she picks and chooses her politics -- this isn't the first time -- and beyond that, she was openly challenging Michelle, knowing that she wasn't just disagreeing with us but defying reasonable debate. She didn't get suspended for being reactionary but for baiting people, I think.

Anyway, I think we should find some way to get back in touch with her, maybe after a bit of a cooling-off time.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 28 July 2005 08:22 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, it wasn't the openly challenging part that I had a problem with - Audra and I both get open defiance regularly. In fact, both Audra and I tend NOT to give warnings and bannings to people who deliver insults to us personally that might get them a warning or a banning if they did it to someone else.

My problem was that she just refused to quit with the feminist-bashing and the trashing of working mothers, and said that she would continue to do it until she was banned. And then she continued to do it, knowing the consequences, so hey. Her choice. I couldn't care less about what she says to me personally. I can take it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 28 July 2005 09:51 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anne, thanks for your lovely post - your point of view is so reassuring. Also, skdadl, vmichel, saskatchewan, Michelle and others I might be neglecting.
I suppose I don't regret that someone was put in 'time-out' over this, but I do in fact regret having told someone to shut up. I don't think I would ever do that in the flesh, sometimes I can write faster than I talk. In person, I'd probably shut up myself, which is what I did last week when visitng my family, and a dear family member was trashing daycare, unions, gays, welfare recipients, environmental activism, alouette...it's like a package deal that the media out west serves, and you can either order it à la carte or get the whole meal deal - it's hard to think differently when you're bombarded with their shallow and angry messages all the time. I'm still trying to understand where the anger and opposition comes from about these issues.

My dear family member wasn't trashing my choice as such, but his comments were bouncing off the wall behind me and hitting me in the back: 'Daycare is a bad deal', 'why can't parents raise their own kids instead of getting someone else to do it with my taxes,' etcetcetc...I should mention that this person doesn't have kids...

Anyways, some of these positions are hard to define and defend unless one has some understanding of the history of it all, and how they work out in people's lives in society. The only one I have a grasp on is daycare though I am definitely supportive of all the rest.
I wish I had more time to elaborate it all, but for a few weeks I am sans daycare, and my kids need breakfast. (When I post I try to do it on my own time, not my kids' but I do need a break from time to time...)


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 July 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
brebis noire, I thought your responses to EFA were both fair and eloquent -- well, you always are. Not to worry.

And it's hard, too, when someone really hits us where we live. I'm guilty of a couple of really spectacular explosions on babble when someone has spoken callously of something that matters to me. Actually, so is EFA, come to think of it.

Your bristling over childcare was civility itself, and entirely justified.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 28 July 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I finally broke down and bought a car I had to learn to drive (yeah, bought the car first; I figured having it would guarantee I learned to drive...that's cameron's logic, and my brand of logic has often puzzled people). Anyway, I signed on for driver training...at another time in life I took a course on fetal alcohol effect and syndrome...I took a course at the dog obedience school when a "problem" dog joined us... but I didn't have to take any kind of qualifying course to be a mom.

We might all be in better shape if I had!

My grandmother told me she learned about mothering by helping with her younger siblings and caring for cousins and for neighbour's kids.. but many of us today live virtually isolated from children until we give birth and hold their lives in our unskilled hands.

Daycare providers are trained. And I can't help but believe, on no empiric evidence at all, that they must be truly kid-empathic to work those hours for those shitty wages!

And WHY people think working mom's are a new phemon puzzles me. There's a decades old documentary "Good Daycare: One in Ten" by Barbara Martineau which examines the subject of moms-kids-work-kidcare and which shows very clearly that moms, particularly low income moms, have always worked outside the home.

It annoys me when lucky people cannot or will not acknowledge their good luck. It reduces me to useless spluttering when those same people speak of the UNlucky as if their condition is their own damned fault.

I know I am one of the luckiest people on the globe today. Every day I am made aware of how lucky I am. I try to acknowledge my good fortune and I try to give thanks for it. I also know that luck could vanish in the blink of an eye and I remember to give thanks that it hasn't.

Yesterday, still trembling with insult, I heard kids laughing. I went out on my porch and there they were, eight of them, aged from about five to maybe nine, dressed in shorts and tops, little bare feet in sandals, moving like a group of chattering brightly coloured birds, in a group under the supervision of the mom of one of them. These kids have working moms. Their moms aren't wearing designer clothes and taking lunch in exclusive watering holes, they are working, some of them at what used to be considered "mens jobs". Without the money those moms make several families would be completely strapped.

And there they were, laughing and hip-bumping each other and heading off to the river with one young woman in charge. One of the kids hip bumped her. She hip-bumped another and passed it on.

I'll gladly pay taxes to keep that good natured young woman in charge of those happy kids.

I have some moral qualms about the "safe injection sites", it seems to me to be almost as foolish as giving bank robbers a safe place to clean their guns but I know I have a "thing" about druggies so I have to wait and see if the experiment is going to work or not. I do not expect it will "work" for most, but...

I'm working on a novel about the early days on my Island when coal was king and the unions not yet established...the treatment of the miners was ghastly...there was no union in the mines here when my grandfather arrived... he was part of the generation who fought for union protection. I was lucky. He made sure I knew at what cost the mines were made marginally safer. And yes, there are deep problems with union structure right now but there would be worse problems without them..just look at places where the unions do not exist or are illegal and then tell me you'd be as well off if things were like that here...

Maybe the heat got to EFA, it's going to be a blisterer today, too. Grandma will be back in shorts before much longer.

You're a good lot of supportive women. Now I think I'll go grab a coffee and take a pill for the headache I've had since the shit hit the fan yesterday.

Then I think I'll write yet another letter to PM the PM suggesting it is just about time to remove head from basic fundament and DO something to benefit children in this country.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 28 July 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does feminism still matter?

Yes of course it does, precisely because it is not a monolith and will constantly change and evolve much like other philosophies and beliefs.
The feminism of yesterday is not the same as the feminism of today nor will it be the same as the feminism of tomorrow

If a total victory is achieved (and not teppers dismal Gate future) then it will most likely evolve to nuture those virtues needing nuturing and keep supporting and helping others to grow fully into themselves, regardless of gender.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lukewarm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8690

posted 04 August 2005 08:36 PM      Profile for Lukewarm        Edit/Delete Post
As one famous Hip hop artist commented

"whatever fizzles thy nizzle"

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: Lukewarm ]


From: hinterland's dark cubby hole | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbles
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10075

posted 07 August 2005 05:14 AM      Profile for Gibbles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still waiting for someone to contradict the "outlandish" assertion that mothers beat fathers in disputed custody cases.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 07 August 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apparently Gibbles is gone, but in case she's still reading this, may I point out that the latest Canadians statistics show that in just under 50% of disputed child custody cases is sole custody awarded to the mother:
http://142.206.72.67/02/02d/02d_002b_e.htm

Quite a bit less than the 99% you said was a "fact" with no evidence to back it up.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 07 August 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow EFA aka Gibles, you sure have screwed up in this one. Personally I'm glad I didn't see your anti-women ranting in this thread. I would have respected you far less. How can you go from a caring person, who was caught in the menatl health trap, complete with all its stereotypes, to stereotyping and demonizing women who chose and most often cannot chose, to stay home with their children?

What a slap in the face you have just sent to me and many other working mothers. You are an anti-woman's woman, as far as I can see, especially as it relates to working mothers (of which I am one). Although logic says neither are you a working mom, a stay at home mom, or even a mom. Were any of these title applicable to you, you, of all people, would see other sides.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 07 August 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Mayo:
Apparently Gibbles is gone, but in case she's still reading this, may I point out that the latest Canadians statistics show that in just under 50% of disputed child custody cases is sole custody awarded to the mother:
http://142.206.72.67/02/02d/02d_002b_e.htm

In terms of custody, I feel that it's a good idea to attempt to negotiate joint custody arrangements as much as possible, but I realise that there are instances where one parent may not be fit to be near their child. I think these things are best decided on a case-by-case basis.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 07 August 2005 06:24 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From the given link:

Of 35,000 dependents for whom custody was determined though divorce proceedings, sole custody of 49.5% of the children was awarded to their mother. As well, 8.5% of the children were placed in the custody of their father. Joint custody was ordered in the remaining cases.

No indication how many of these are disputed custody cases. Nevertheless, 49.5 to the mothers versus 8.5% to the fathers seems a trifle slanted to me.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 07 August 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
In terms of custody, I feel that it's a good idea to attempt to negotiate joint custody arrangements as much as possible, but I realise that there are instances where one parent may not be fit to be near their child. I think these things are best decided on a case-by-case basis.

For sure, joint custody and guardianship is almost always best for everybody, especially the kids. A parent unfit to be near their child is a pretty rare animal.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 07 August 2005 06:28 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But the point is that I WAS WRONG!!! Mum only wins 85% of the time.

Edited to add:

49.5 + 8.5 = 58
8.5/58 = 15%
49.5/58 = 85%

Edited again to add:

What Sara Mayo did was to take the 49.5% of cases where sole custody goes to the mother and assume that, for all other cases, sole custody went to the father.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 07 August 2005 06:36 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Back at it again EFA? Why? What's your point? Same drivel you spouted off above?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 07 August 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nope, just standing up for my assertion that family law favours mothers.

Edited to add: I happen to feel strongly that national daycare is a bad idea. Can we just disagree about that? It's not "drivel." I have good reason not to support it.

Edited to add: It's really not "anti-woman ranting." It's anti-national daycare ranting. Those are two quite different things.

[ 07 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 07 August 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What Sara Mayo did was to take the 49.5% of cases where sole custody goes to the mother and assume that, for all other cases, sole custody went to the father.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

As if any of this even matters, but just to make it painfully clear to you, believe it or not I actually read the article I posted and I stated simply the facts about how often custody was given soley to mothers. You are the one who seems to think that family law is an all-or-nothing battle and that joint custody should be ignored.

By the way, is it just me, but isn't a triffle ironic, that someone who believes that:

quote:
I don't mean to suggest that there aren't any men who are primary caregivers but I do believe that most of them are women.

...but then complains when courts don't grant sole custody to fathers more often?

quote:
A parent unfit to be near their child is a pretty rare animal.

Just to be clear, sole custody given to the mother doesn't mean the father is unfit to be near the mother. Fathers can still have ample visitation rights without having custody rights.


And just in case you're confused about why people are accusing you of anti-woman ranting, remember these words you typed?

quote:
There is an ugly side to feminism and I think a few feminists are honest enough to admit it. Painting men in a horrible light doesn't really benefit anybody.

That's total BS, but typical of what you seem to believe in: sterotypes.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 07 August 2005 07:24 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have absolutely no statistics to back up what I am about to write.

Do not believe a word of it, take some time and pay attention to what is going on around you.

Joint custody very often means the mother looks after the kids most of the time and the father gets some other woman to look after the kids the rest of the time.

Girlfriends, second wives (or third or fourth as the case may be) aging mothers, teen-aged babysitters...

I have also observed that when kids are small, cuddly, warm, loving, and manageable the fight for custody is between two people who WANT the kid fulltime.

As soon as the whiskers, underarm hair, acne, attitude and general adolescent snot manifests itself those custody fights are over who is NOT going to have the kid fulltime.

Moms might appear to have the edge in getting custody but the last stats I saw from Stats Canada said that the majority of court orders for child maintainance were forfeited in the first year...by the dads...

And then there are the kids in foster care... nobody seems to want them, or be fit to care for them...

The moms I know who have custody are , for the most part, tired, overburdened, financially strapped and owed incredible amounts of money in unpaid child support.

Those who spit and snarl at working moms might better vent their ire at the deadbeats who don't seem to care if their kid has supper or not.

Who? Me? bitter? My ex-husband had a beautiful apartment in the city, with a sun lamp in the bathroom. He had a new car. He had a sailboat. He had a motorcycle. He went on ski holidays for as much as two weeks at a time.

He had made ONE child maintainance payment. Oh, and he bought our eldest son a pair of hiking boots and our daughter a pair of "culottes" which required dry cleaning which I could not afford.

Me? bitter? Oh perish the thought. Heaven forfend I should feel bitter.

His kids seldom bother with him. I am closely involved in the lives of the others.

One day I'll tell you how I got my money back!!!

heh heh heh grandma snickers up her sleeve...


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 07 August 2005 09:33 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Joint custody very often means the mother looks after the kids most of the time and the father gets some other woman to look after the kids the rest of the time.

Girlfriends, second wives (or third or fourth as the case may be) aging mothers, teen-aged babysitters...


I respect the experiences women have had in dealing with divorce cases, however that kind of thing does cut both ways.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sara wrote:

quote:
Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

This was in response to my post:

quote:
What Sara Mayo did was to take the 49.5% of cases where sole custody goes to the mother and assume that, for all other cases, sole custody went to the father.

Sara, your post said that 49.5% was a far cry from my admittedly high 99% (the correct figure appears to be 85%). Isn't it reasonable to assume that you did exactly what I have suggested here? If I am wrong, please explain what you mean, then.

quote:
As if any of this even matters, but just to make it painfully clear to you, believe it or not I actually read the article I posted and I stated simply the facts about how often custody was given soley to mothers.

But then why did you deliberately pull that 49.5% figure out of context? You made it appear as though mothers only win disputed custody cases 49.5% of the time which is utterly untrue.

quote:
You are the one who seems to think that family law is an all-or-nothing battle and that joint custody should be ignored.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I think no such thing. I said that in disputed custody battles, mothers win an inordinate amount of the time. I also said that joint custody and guardianship is best for everybody, especially the kids.

quote:
By the way, is it just me, but isn't a triffle ironic, that someone who believes that:

"I don't mean to suggest that there aren't any men who are primary caregivers but I do believe that most of them are women."

...but then complains when courts don't grant sole custody to fathers more often?


To answer your question, I think it's just you. My complaint is that when custody is in dispute, both parents should have an equal shot at winning custody.

quote:
Just to be clear, sole custody given to the mother doesn't mean the father is unfit to be near the mother. Fathers can still have ample visitation rights without having custody rights.

Please don't attempt to explain custody and access to me as I'm quite familiar with the law. I didn't for a minute mean to suggest that sole custody means the other parent is unfit. Of course, the non-custodial parent can and usually does have access. It's not typically "ample," however. It's more usually whatever the custodial parent chooses to offer. I think having to apply to a Court to "access" one's own children is a very troubling concept.

quote:
And just in case you're confused about why people are accusing you of anti-woman ranting, remember these words you typed?

"There is an ugly side to feminism and I think a few feminists are honest enough to admit it. Painting men in a horrible light doesn't really benefit anybody."

That's total BS, but typical of what you seem to believe in: sterotypes.


No, I'm afraid it's not "total BS." There is indeed an ugly side to feminism, specifically, the notion that men are responsible for all the evil in our society. Not all feminists think this way, of course, but many of them do. As I said at the start, feminism has done some great work but it's also gone in directions that have lost supporters, including me.

Edited to add in response to Anne and Aristotle's posts: Like most people, I'm appalled at deadbeat dads. But I'm also appalled at what some mothers do to twist their kids' minds against their fathers. In some cases, I think the kids should be yanked from both parents until they go to counselling and learn how not to use their kids as weapons. I really think counselling should be mandatory in family law actions.

It seems to me that divorce is so fraught with emotion that parents often feel desperate and attack each other with whatever tools are most effective. Men typically are better off financially post-divorce and thus use money as a weapon. Women, on the other hand, seem more prone to committing emotional, rather than financial, abuse. It's just an ugly, ugly situation all around and I don't know what the answer is except to encourage people to think very carefully before marrying and having children.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 08 August 2005 09:47 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is indeed an ugly side to feminism, specifically, the notion that men are responsible for all the evil in our society. Not all feminists think this way, of course, but many of them do.

Can you point me to a single feminist who believes that "men are responsible for all the evil in our society"?


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 10:34 AM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure.

When I was in high school, I had a friend whose mother was a feminist and she detested men, considered them sperm donors and nothing more, and often mused about how we'd all be better off without them.

In college, I also had a history instructor that talked about the "mothers of confederation" and attempted to link Canadian confederation with the founders' marriages.

I've heard feminists claim that the missionary position is tantamount to rape. I've heard them compare marriage to slavery. I've heard them say that men don't even have the right to discuss abortion, never mind have their opinions considered.

And one of my favourite writers, John Irving, in The World According to Garp, anticipated the feminist reaction to Marc Lepine's massacre (where the boyfriends and husbands of those women were discouraged from attending the memorial service) by at least 20 years. In Garp, as you may recall, the protagonist was shot and killed by an uberfeminist for attending (his mother) Jenny Fields' funeral.

But here's what I am thankful for and I attribute all of it to feminism:

- being allowed to vote
- being treated as well as men and, in the absence of such equal treatment, having discrimination laws in place to sue for damages
- having female doctors and lawyers and other professionally elite women to consult
- not being written off for being female (still working on attaining the same status as a crazy person, but one thing at a time)


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 08 August 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Does feminism still matter? I think so. The rush towards world war lll and the depredations of predatory capitalism tell me that aggressive male values have failed us somehow, as a species, and endanger all of us, and that a way must be found incorporate more of women's capacities for co-operation and nurturing (and other capacities) into all our lives. In fact, one of my disappointments about the historical course of feminism is the quickness with which the struggle became about gaining power and equality in this society rather than changing this society radically. I know many feminists fought hard for the latter goal, but it hasn't really gotten any closer, has it?

Has anybody here read Ken Wilber, an American philospher (A Brief History of Everything; Shambhala, 2000) I discovered this summer? He deals in part with feminism, the "war between the sexes" and postmodern philosophy, and sheds some valuable light and reason on these topics. One concept he examines is "patriarchy" and his analysis of this term historically is lucid and important, I think, given the central role this concept has assumed in feminist thinking.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Paula Kaplan has written some great stuff. I think she's actually changing society, rather than just promoting women within it.
From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 08 August 2005 01:03 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I think no such thing. I said that in disputed custody battles, mothers win an inordinate amount of the time. I also said that joint custody and guardianship is best for everybody, especially the kids.
If you believe this, then why does your math up above look like this?:
quote:
49.5 + 8.5 = 58
8.5/58 = 15%
49.5/58 = 85%
This is the same kind of dishonest math that you employed in the debate about the STV referendum in BC (effectively attributing those who did not vote to the NO side), and were oblivious when people repeatedly pointed out your errors and misrepresentations.

Here, if the remaining 42% of cases result in joint custody or some other arrangement, why are you able to completely ignore these cases? In many of them, both parents are equally "winners" or "losers". Or perhaps the man is a "winner", because he was never a primary caregiver and yet was given shared custody. Shouldn't then your math look more like this?:

8.5 % + (0.5 * 42%) = 29.5%
49.5 + (0.5 * 42%) = 70.5%

Still farther from your 99% figure.

quote:
My complaint is that when custody is in dispute, both parents should have an equal shot at winning custody.
So then should we just automatically resolve disputes by flipping a coin? Or by granting joint custody in every case? Perhaps other factors are taken into account, like the child's interests or preference (if old enough), who might be abusive, which parent is the primary caregiver, etc. Perhaps that primary caregiver is the mother in more than 70.5% of cases, and so custody decisions being tilted toward women (but not by your absurd figure of 99%) is a reasonable result.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Albeiro, I'm not particularly good at statistics (or math, for that matter), but I think my analysis is closer than yours. Regardless, even your figures represent an inordinate number of women winning custody battles.

You've lost me on the STV thing. I don't remember posting on that issue at all. In fact, I don't have an opinion on the STV issue.

Edited to add:

quote:
So then should we just automatically resolve disputes by flipping a coin?

Of course not. I think each case should be assessed on its merits and I think fathers should have an equal shot at winning. Currently, they don't.

quote:
Or by granting joint custody in every case?

Ideal, but not always possible.

quote:
Perhaps other factors are taken into account, like the child's interests or preference (if old enough), who might be abusive, which parent is the primary caregiver, etc. Perhaps that primary caregiver is the mother in more than 70.5% of cases, and so custody decisions being tilted toward women (but not by your absurd figure of 99%) is a reasonable result.

Other factors are taken into account. And 99% was closer than the 49.5% Sara tried to scam us with. The phrase, in BC anyway, used to be "custody and residence." Basically, the custodial parent makes the decisions but that doesn't mean that the kid has to live full-time with the custodial parent.

quote:
Here, if the remaining 42% of cases result in joint custody or some other arrangement, why are you able to completely ignore these cases?

Not sure where you get "remaining 42%" but the issue we were discussing was disputed custody battles. According to the article posted, the overwhelming majority of these cases are won by the mother. So your comparison of mother versus joint or other arrangements is weak.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 08 August 2005 01:27 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course not. I think each case should be assessed on its merits and I think fathers should have an equal shot at winning. Currently, they don't.

Each case IS assessed on its merits. The fact that women win 50% or 99% or 5% does not in any way alter the fact that the decisions are made after careful analysis of the best interests of the child.

You simply disagree with the decision of the judges, and WITHOUT doing the "assessment on the merits" that they have done before reaching each individual decision.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Each case IS assessed on its merits. The fact that women win 50% or 99% or 5% does not in any way alter the fact that the decisions are made after careful analysis of the best interests of the child.

You simply disagree with the decision of the judges, and WITHOUT doing the "assessment on the merits" that they have done before reaching each individual decision.


Well, I certainly assessed the merits of every case that crossed my desk (hundreds) before disagreeing with the Judges' decisions. I happen to think that the whole field of family law is slanted towards mothers and that, if each disputed custody case was really assessed fairly, that mothers and fathers would win sole custody at an approximately 50:50 ratio.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 08 August 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sure.

When I was in high school, I had a friend whose mother was a feminist and she detested men, considered them sperm donors and nothing more, and often mused about how we'd all be better off without them.

In college, I also had a history instructor that talked about the "mothers of confederation" and attempted to link Canadian confederation with the founders' marriages.

I've heard feminists claim that the missionary position is tantamount to rape. I've heard them compare marriage to slavery. I've heard them say that men don't even have the right to discuss abortion, never mind have their opinions considered.

And one of my favourite writers, John Irving, in The World According to Garp, anticipated the feminist reaction to Marc Lepine's massacre (where the boyfriends and husbands of those women were discouraged from attending the memorial service) by at least 20 years. In Garp, as you may recall, the protagonist was shot and killed by an uberfeminist for attending (his mother) Jenny Fields' funeral.


So your anecdotal evidence about two feminists and a fictional murder (I also enjoy Irving, for the record.) adds up to many feminists thinking men are responsible for all evil in society? Criticizing missionary position or comparing marriage to slavery (John Stuart Mill was one of the first to do so, by the way) is not the same as believing men are responsible for all evil.

I've known more than a couple of men who believe women are no good for anything other than popping out kids, fulfilling their needs and cleaning house. Does that mean mean that most or even many are like that? No.


From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin:
So your anecdotal evidence about two feminists and a fictional murder (I also enjoy Irving, for the record.) adds up to many feminists thinking men are responsible for all evil in society?

Hey, I did what I was asked to do -- come up with some feminists that clearly hate men.

quote:
Criticizing missionary position or comparing marriage to slavery (John Stuart Mill was one of the first to do so, by the way) is not the same as believing men are responsible for all evil.

But that's where it starts.

quote:
I've known more than a couple of men who believe women are no good for anything other than popping out kids, fulfilling their needs and cleaning house. Does that mean mean that most or even many are like that? No.

Nope, and it just goes to show you how much trouble we get into when we generalize.

Edited to add: Since you like Irving, could you tell me what you think of the Cider House Rules and also A Prayer for Owen Meany (which I am rereading for the billionth time)?

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Gibbled ]


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 08 August 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hey, I did what I was asked to do -- come up with some feminists that clearly hate men.

Fair enough. But I'm more interested in the claim that many feminists hate all men. I don't think you've demonstrated that and while Sara may have only asked you to identify a single one, I'm more interested in the 'many' part.

quote:
But that's where it starts.

No, I don't think so. It's where exploring issues and critiquing things starts. I believe Mill linking marriage with slavery played a significant role in making available the vote to women, to giving women rights in marriage previously denied to them and to creating a society where women have professional opportunities and other things you have mentioned valuing.

quote:
Since you like Irving, could you tell me what you think of the Cider House Rules and also A Prayer for Owen Meany (which I am rereading for the billionth time)?

I like both of those books - A Prayer for Owen Meany is my second favourite of his novels, behind Hotel New Hampshire. I do however, think Irving stinks at writing female characters. Have you read A Widow For One Year? His insight into the female psyche didn't seem so astute to me...


From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Many, some, one, all, a few, whatever. I've heard feminists say things that I completely disagree with and which seem very hateful.

quote:
Originally posted by shaolin:
I like both of those books - A Prayer for Owen Meany is my second favourite of his novels, behind Hotel New Hampshire. I do however, think Irving stinks at writing female characters. Have you read A Widow For One Year? His insight into the female psyche didn't seem so astute to me...

Ages ago, yes, I did read it. Couldn't have been one of my favourites because I didn't end up buying it. I thought the Cider House Rules was a feminist tract and I liked it very much. I can't think of any of Irving's female characters (except Ruth or whatever her name was in Widow For One Year) and except for Jenny Fields in Garp, whom I did like very much.

The problem with Irving, I think, is that he's too popular. That's about the worst thing you can say about him. He's like Anne Tyler in that respect. I think such criticism is just elitist snobbery.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
shaolin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4270

posted 08 August 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for shaolin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Many, some, one, all, a few, whatever. I've heard feminists say things that I completely disagree with and which seem very hateful.

And I've heard men and non-feminists and priests and philosophers and professors and politicians and all kind of other people say thinks I completely disagree with and which seem very hateful. It doesn't mean that everyone, or even most people, who also fall into these categories are discredited because of it.

quote:
Ages ago, yes, I did read it. Couldn't have been one of my favourites because I didn't end up buying it. I thought the Cider House Rules was a feminist tract and I liked it very much. I can't think of any of Irving's female characters (except Ruth or whatever her name was in Widow For One Year) and except for Jenny Fields in Garp, whom I did like very much.

The problem with Irving, I think, is that he's too popular. That's about the worst thing you can say about him. He's like Anne Tyler in that respect. I think such criticism is just elitist snobbery.


Ruth - is that her name? I didn't relate to her and found her quite false. Jenny Fields was quite cool, but when Iriving wrote about feminism I felt he was writing on something he didn't understand. What makes his writing so good much of the time is he sticks to topics and things he knows intimately: New Hampshire, wrestling, Vienna, the life of writers...he seems to be lacking insight into women and especially feminist women.


From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 02:12 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin:
Ruth - is that her name? I didn't relate to her and found her quite false. Jenny Fields was quite cool, but when Irving wrote about feminism I felt he was writing on something he didn't understand. What makes his writing so good much of the time is he sticks to topics and things he knows intimately: New Hampshire, wrestling, Vienna, the life of writers...he seems to be lacking insight into women and especially feminist women.

I think she was Ruth but I can't remember much about her (perhaps a sign the book wasn't that compelling). Anyway, I truly love Owen Meany, almost to the point that I consider the character to be a personal friend of mine.

As for individuals ruining groups' reputations, I agree that shouldn't happen but it often does. And if it happens in a series (just through chance), it does tend to turn people off the entire movement.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 08 August 2005 02:19 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gibbled:
You've lost me on the STV thing. I don't remember posting on that issue at all. In fact, I don't have an opinion on the STV issue.

In that case, I apologize. I was confusing you with another poster.

[ 08 August 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gibbled
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10097

posted 08 August 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Gibbled     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
In that case, I apologize. I was confusing you with another poster.

That's what I figured. No harm done.


From: At The Barn | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 12 August 2005 07:38 PM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
I have a friend who wants to be a full time mother and wife. However, she fells that society has made it so this is not possible. She and her boyfriend are both from wealthy families so money is not important as they will be taken care of. But it is sad to me that the feminist ideology had pushed her into a direction she does not like.
From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 12 August 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Your friend's an idiot. So is anyone else who has the money to do what they want but doesn't do it.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 12 August 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So much so I doubt if she's real.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 12 August 2005 08:10 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, she sounds a little bit like Slimpykins' wife.
From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 12 August 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kurichina:
So much so I doubt if she's real.

Yeah that’s not odd.

Any way I understand what she means. My Uncle is a stay at home day and people are very mean about it. It is sad to see. My friend, who is very intelgent, understands that people will view her differently if she lives her dream. She was told off in a Women Studies class by the Prof when she stated her goal of being a mom and wife.


From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 12 August 2005 09:32 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Gee, and I was told off in catechism class when I told the priest my goal was to tax the Church!
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 12 August 2005 09:37 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Gee, and I was told off in catechism class when I told the priest my goal was to tax the Church!

But that was a worthy goal. Keep working on it.

I got told off by a nun for bringing up Darwinian theory. Hell, I just assumed everyone was up on it.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 12 August 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
These "I got told off" posts are reminding me of the T-shirt "I got kicked out of Girl Guides for eating a Brownie"
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Big Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5451

posted 12 August 2005 10:02 PM      Profile for Big Willy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
[QB]

But that was a worthy goal. Keep working on it.
QB]


There you have it folks, that is the kind of statement and attitude my friend is fearful of being subjected to if she becomes a home maker.

That comment is pejorative and uncalled for.


From: The West | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 12 August 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse me Big Willy?

I was responding in jest to RB's comment here:

quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Gee, and I was told off in catechism class when I told the priest my goal was to tax the Church!

Geez RB, you and I just seem to be partners in crime this evening.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 12 August 2005 10:08 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Geez RB, you and I just seem to be partners in crime this evening.

Ah, if only you were single we could be partners in so much more!


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 13 August 2005 02:04 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Big Willy, you may be heartened to know that just earlier today, I saw a woman - sorry, I mean a lady - pushing a stroller down the street. And yes, the stroller had a baby in it. I suppose I should have asked if the baby was hers, but it seemed a fair assumption.

So you see, there are still some daring souls out there who rebel against the orthodoxy that all women should work at full-time paying jobs and make Kraft Dinner when they get home. Or perhaps they've just managed to avoid indoctrination.

Anyway, it does sound like your friend should talk with Slimpikins' wife, as they have much in common. In her case, it was her husband, posting on Babble, who believed she was not being sufficiently feminist because of her inclinations toward being a homemaker. I think the thread was called "Misogeny" or something like that, in the "Activism" section of this board. It's quite an amazing coincidence that two people should raise such a specific issue here in the course of one week.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tulsamai Downey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10161

posted 16 August 2005 01:55 PM      Profile for Tulsamai Downey        Edit/Delete Post
whats feminism? Promoting womyn in society?
From: America! | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 17 August 2005 09:44 AM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yes.
From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skeezer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10118

posted 27 August 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for Skeezer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was told it is about promoting men and women?
From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 27 August 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
TOO LONG!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca