Well said.

Amen, Jacob.

All animals are created equal. Some are more equal than others. -- George Orwell, from Animal Farm

That always seems to be the way the GOP thinks over the past few decades. They are the more equal animals, of course.

Walker in Wi. has arider in his budget bill that insurance cos. in Wi no longer will cover payments for birth control.

Republicanism is a domineering religion. If you don't convert? Persecution and damnation.

R U explaining the "Scott Walker Syndrome"?

I think you're correct on the most extreme end, but I also think a lot of goodhearted men are like this guy: They've been conditioned with the expectation that they'll be taken care of, and that expectation isn't met.

I think a lot of this is wrapped up in the fact that not only did early feminists reject their assigned roles, they then raised their daughters as feminists. Yet boys are still overwhelmingly being raised essentially on the 1950s model of boyhood. On average, girls are raised more gender-neutrally than boys. The result is something like Rachel's pulling-the-center-right model: as more girls join little league and more moms bring home the bacon, boys and men have to choose between androgyny or hyper-masculinity, and since androgyny is mislabeled as emasculation, many move to the extreme rather than the middle. I think this is something that's been happening slowly for a very, very long time.

You are right. Something is very wrong with our lack of male-identification. Part of this is self defeating though. Men are so gorram terrified of being called "gay" or somehow "female" that they shy away from anything and everything that they might otherwise identify w/. Men are facing a crisis of identity and it hasn't been addressed. Men need to go through their own renaissance era so they can wake up and rejoin the rest of us. How we do that I don't know. Those who push hardest against things like women's rights also tend to screw men up in that those very same people won't allow men to grow. Fears of gender roles punish men as much as women and I totally agree it has to stop. I have blogged about that before, although perhaps not as much as I should have. I do not pretend that these men aren't also victims, but perhaps I let my outrage blind my fairness. I feel that our society currently favors men, but you are correct that there's a catch-22 that comes w/ that. The point is men should learn to evaluate reality based on themselves just as women do. And both men and women should learn to come together as individuals to work in harmony. Men don't need to idealize "masculinity" or "femininity" and neither do women. The idea that something is "man" and "woman" I believe is the problem. We need to realize we're all people and we differ and we need to accept ourselves for who we are instead of always constantly trying to appease others. Many men likely move to the extreme, as you say, because they recognize that their reality doesn't match w/ (as Tru-TV calls it) actuality. And that's sad.

Aw Jeez. It wouldn't be human if it wasn't messy. Its how we come into the world whether male or female...messy! And as often as not its how we leave it.

Mickey, I agree our social/cultural idea of what defines "being a man" needs a serious reworking. Unfortunately, our current culture is a little schizophrenic about this. Boys and men get competing and very divergent messages about what it means to be male. The "men" that are held out as role models are usually sports figures, firefighters, cops, and military. In a general sense, tough, unemotional, "fighters." At the same time, our culture snickers behind their hands at the men that are portrayed in "nurturing roles." All you have to do is look at pop culture and advertising to see this duality. There's no "mens' movement" to counter this messaging. Yet, in reality, men need to be both of these things. We need to be tough and gentle, at the right times. It's left up to men to realize and figure this all out for themselves. So yeah, our culture is screwed up and men don't know how to act or what's expected of them.

I don't think we need to throw gender roles out the window completely, mind you, but we need to be less rigid in the application.

This is the model for the 21st Century mother-of-a-boy, and it's getting a HELL of a backlash. But you'll note not one of these moms is forcing their boys into anything, they are supporting them, and protecting them from attacks. Isn't that what parents are supposed to do?

These boys are following in the footsteps of girls like me who had Barbies AND Hot Wheels. I'm more than a little glad there are boys like these, who will be men when my daughter grows up, whether they end up being her dating pool or not.

To add to what Mickey Mouser is blatantly alluding to, it is WELL known that most, if not all, Conservatives live their lives by the Holy Bible. In those scriptures it is told that the day will come when 1 Timothy 4:1-3 "1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars(us-the liberals), whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They(the unrighteous-us liberals) forbid people to marry..."--And since, as believers, they(the righteous-the conservatives) believe what they read, black and white, without question, they will also read into that there will not be any children born into "righteous" families unless they do something about the present situation...reversing the abomination of one-parent families and same-sex families. The Conservatives see that part of the answer to this problem is for them to reproduce faster and more often in order to offset all of the problems of 1) one-parent illegitimate (substandard) offspring; 2) same-sex (substandard) offspring 3) off-color (non-Caucasian) (substandard) offspring. However, at the same time they have to find a way for population control. It's a tight balancing act. Isn't it interesting that there is so much devastation in countries not of the Caucasian race, and even devastation largely populated with races other than Caucasians in cities in the U.S. being wiped off of our map? Think about it.

Yes, you are the white conservative I am blatantly averting to. Please everyone who would disagree w/ this man step up. NO I'm serious. I don't care what you're political beliefs are please share that you do not agree w/ this man.

My great grandfather was Mexican, my wife is black and most of the people I have loved and admired most are/were homosexual. Who let this godamn bigotted troll in through the front door!? You sir are the Christian equivalent of a shariast, a Christian version of the Taliban and you are inimical to American freedom and liberty. If you don't like it here, feel free to immigrate to Uganda which the Christian fascists of C Street in DC have managed to turn into a colony. Of course it is just crawling with Negroes so maybe you are just SOL, unless you can make it with your mother or sister...like Lot did with his daughters, so incest is okay...because you never know just what horrors lie in wait in the bloodline of any woman you aren't directly related to. Go make some brothers and sisters, or nephews and neices and leave us civilized types to enjoy our freedom liberty and interracial and gay and lesbian sex the way our Founding Fathers intended. This is AMERICA not some goddamn Christian Iran.

It doesn't matter if marriage was initially an institution to oppress women. It has already evolved. Some may resist that evolution, but they are fighting uphill.

I believe Willostory is just trying to interpret conservative thinking. I don't believe it's that conspiratorial. Most Christians don't know the specifics of scripture. Using the scripture to explain modern events is just postdiction. It's plain to see that American culture has changed pretty radically in just 60 years. It scary to not know what the future will look like.

In other words, this is sociological, not psychological. Most individuals aren't deranged sociopaths. They're just very bad at predicting outcomes when they can't see the forest for the trees. Unintended consequences and all that.

If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be their God given right.

Perhaps the stealth part of the "birthers" is to compete with latinos and muslims for number of births." Womb as weapon" has been the motto of some right wingnuts. What a problem for future resource limits. 10 and 15 dollar gas with sky high fuel prices might get somebody's attention eventually. Air you can really see and unpredictable climate problems. "Slip sliding away" as Paul Simon wrote.

And who is screaming about Vigara among those repubs? Anyone? Hey, guys, it takes two to get a woman preggers, how about holding the men equally responsible???? She gets convicted for killing a baby, he gets put in the cell next to her. Wonder why that always makes the indiscriminate, uncaring seed throwers so nervous.

Oh, yeah and that Rush Limbaugh thing -- it may be true that 20 percent of the population pays 80 percent of the taxes, but 20 percent of the population owns 97 percent of the wealth, so aren't they getting a pretty good deal???

MICKEY MOUSER!!! I was stating what the Conservatives believe, I was not stating that I, myself believe those values!!! I totally DO NOT agree with those values!!! GrrrlRomeo is right, I am interpreting the Conservative thinking, and I can because that is my background. I was raised in that environment and I deplore and abhor it so much that I defected from it. I am now living as a VERY Liberal person who thinks for myself, free, out of the box and proud of it!

GrrlRomeo is right even more when he/she states that most Christians do not know or understand the true meaning of scripture, they use each verse, phrase to their own advantage, as needed, as if the Bible can be molded and shape-shifted to each situation as the situation arises. It's pure BS the way they use their own doctrine and dogma.

Now we have the "Dominionists"(led by the Conservative right wind extremists) who wish to return to the Old Testament way of life after all of these centuries of telling us that we are to accept the New Testament way of life. They are suddenly abandoning the New Testament life and returning to the OT lifestyle. The Old Testament is based on Law and punishment (Sharia anyone?) and the New Testament is based on Grace and forgiveness. Suddenly the Christians have taken this weird turn to use Law, punishment and war to control and annihilate anyone who doesn't see the world their way. Nope, don't want anything to do with the likes of them.

Yes Willo I see that I totally misread that. I am sorry; I don't know how I missed your first sentence but I did.

Thank you, Mickey Mouser. I'm glad we have that cleared up! ;)

They love to take the bible as fact it's nothing more then a hoax. Man wrote the bible and not Jesus they keep everthing about Jesus out and spin their facts as truth.

@Palmquist1....That's the main reason why I don't follow a church or the Bible. They are hoaxes designed to shape minds to fit into their little scheme of things. The majority of those who strictly follow the tenets of a church and it's teachings are brain-washed sheep who would jump off a cliff if asked to do so. More people have died in the name of religion than any other issue.

there are plenty of non-reproductive services they offer and i'm sure that gay men and women make use of them, also.

Exactly. Conservatives have long been opposed to gay sex precisely because it falls outside of procreation. And so, conservatives have historically fought government funding towards services they believe would "encourage" homosexual behavior.

You can trace this back to the 80s when the Republican response to the AIDS crisis was that it was nature's way of discouraging homosexual sex. However, I think taking that position now would be politically toxic for them. It seems that going after abortion directly while claiming everything else is just unfortunate collateral damage is the path of least resistance.

They really do believe that the nuclear family the foundation of American society, and anything that leads people away from that is framed as a threat to American society.

Conservatives have long been opposed to gay sex precisely because it falls outside of procreation.

It's more than that. Listen to how they talk about "teh ghey" and you realize that they're terrified that men will find it more attractive than being shackled into their defined roles too.

There's a heavy dose of pure authoritarianism going on here that Tomas de Torquemada would have fit right into.

Procreation is the shackle. If a man gets a woman pregnant, it's his duty to marry her.

And they're just as worried about women not needing men and becoming lesbians.

If birth control should become unavailable, I surely won't be having sex with men.

it's his duty to marry her

Ah, but only if she's the "right kind of girl." If not, then it's her parents'/churche's/government's duty to shuffle her off to a home for wayward girls and take her baby from her and give it to the "right kind of parents."

Unless of course, she's the really, really really wrong kind of girl, in which case it's everyone's duty to turn their backs on her and her "bad seed" until said offspring is old enough to be a criminal, and then imprison said offspring and pass self-important judgement on mother, child, and the "deplorable state of morals in our country today."

Unless of course, she's the really, really really wrong kind of girl, in which case it's everyone's duty to turn their backs on her and her "bad seed" until said offspring is old enough to be a criminal,

Or old enough to be President of the United States.

Everyone should realize that contraception was illegal in most places in the USA until 1964. Griswold vs Conn changed that by declaring that a husband and wife had a right to privacy regarding the use of birth control.

Planned Parenthood was the main advocate for decades to bring this civil right to use birth control forward. Now do you get why what we now call Cons have it in for PP?

Remember the Catholic Church has forbidden all forms of contraception except the rhythm method. Catholic.com has an interesting history of this if you search birth control. They seem very worried about men spilling the seed, interestingly women get to have more variety.

I think a history of birth control could make an interesting segment.

One last thought, I wonder how much the drug companies that had created the pill by the early 1960'ies had to do with getting Griswold vs Conn settled in favor of birth control?

Hells YES.

Little story 'bout me: I became a single mother 10/30/08. I had taken my babybump with me to one of his rallies in July, and the day after she was born, he had another a block away from my hospital. And I stayed up all night feeding my little week-old baby, watching the election, and just bawling with joy. (BTW, she's 2nd-generation child-of-single-mother on my side, 3rd-generation on the other side. )

His concern for bipartisanship even when it's not mutual frustrates me, but I'm still behind him 100%.

You can trace this back to the 80s when the Republican response to the AIDS crisis was that it was nature's way of discouraging homosexual sex.

AIDS is natures way of discouraging penises >.>

• Worldwide, women constitute half of all people living with HIV/AIDS.
• For women in their reproductive years (15–44), HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death and disease worldwide.
• In every region of the world, more adult women (15 years or older) than ever before are now living with HIV.
• Women are at least twice as likely to acquire HIV from men during sexual intercourse than vice versa.
• Only 20 percent of young women aged 15 to 24 can correctly identify ways of preventing HIV transmission and reject major misconceptions about HIV transmission.
• In low- and middle-income countries, only one-third of pregnant women are currently offered services to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
• In Sub-Saharan Africa, women constitute 59 percent of all people living with HIV/AIDS. Among young people aged 15-24, the HIV prevalence rate for young women is almost three times that of young men.

http://www.amfar.org/abouthiv/article.aspx?id=3594

Social Conservatives would say that it is God's Final Solution against the Black and the Poor just like it was against Gays. Also these facts are used by conservatives like Katy as evidence of their moral inferiority.

With apologies to Groucho Marx, these men won't marry any female with low enough standards to engage in the having of the sex with them.

April has her dates quite correct. The birth control pill came out when I started college, but it was not even spoken about. We didn't know about it because there was no sex education. I often state that my child was my anti-war protest, protecting my first husband from serving in Nam via the Kennedy Proclamation. But he really was just an error in education, as much as I love him to this day; for years, I called him my little Ph.D. because he is what I received in lieu of same.

Because of the Viet Nam War, which my father received an honorable discharge from, my parents seriously debated whether or not I should have a social security number.

Please don't speak for me Don. I noticed your funny post above about your civility. Cracked me up!

I am not really socially conservative, I believe in being financially conservative. But, whatever Don. You didn't actually go to prison for being honest...

So you are denying that you ever said anything about HIV/AIDS rates among blacks apropo their moral inferiority and how they don't value education? Anyone else want to call BS on this?

*sigh @ Don... miss you guys...

How you doing Mags?

No, never said that Don.

The fact is that blacks are the second largest group in the US affected by AIDS. They account for 40% of all aids related deaths. 1 in every 5 gay men have HIV, many don't even know it. I never made a moral judgement about that, but the facts are undeniable. You can't solve a problem you can't acknowledge. Why is it that these two groups are so disproporationaly affected?

For schools, I said that there has to be an emphasis in the home for children to be successful in school. Just read a study today that more money doesn't correlate with more success in schools. Minorities that are successful are groups that value education (Asians, for instance).

Instead of playing the blame game, why don't you come up with some solutions that don't involve spending someone else's money (which we already know is not the answer). In fact, it is part of the problem because it doesn't acknowledge that part of the responsibility lies with the participants themselves.

If 100 people called "BS" on this blog, it doesn't matter to me. Doesn't make it true! Just mob mentality. For all the money that we've spent on these issues, the problem is still not solved. Maybe the question we need to be asking is what can we do for free to resolve these problems within ourselves, our local schools, and our communities.

Well ain't you a GENIUS you lying sack of offal.

Why is it that these two groups are so disproporationaly affected?

... part of the responsibility lies with the participants themselves.

... what can we do for free to resolve these problems within ourselves, our local schools, and our communities.

I think the problem is the penis... maybe we should teach lesbianism as a religion? That would take care of a whoooooooole lot of penis-drama related issues, don't you think? >.> (joking guys!) ((although as a lesbian I truly am not a coddling friend of penis))

On reflection, I think Katy just confirmed everything I accused her of.

Me: So you are denying that you ever said anything about HIV/AIDS rates among blacks apropo their moral inferiority and how they don't value education?

Her: The fact is that blacks are the second largest group in the US affected by AIDS. They account for 40% of all aids related deaths. 1 in every 5 gay men have HIV, many don't even know it. I never made a moral judgement about that, but the facts are undeniable. You can't solve a problem you can't acknowledge. Why is it that these two groups are so disproporationaly affected?

Her: For schools, I said that there has to be an emphasis in the home for children to be successful in school. Just read a study today that more money doesn't correlate with more success in schools. Minorities that are successful are groups that value education (Asians, for instance).

Instead of playing the blame game, why don't you come up with some solutions that don't involve spending someone else's money (which we already know is not the answer). In fact, it is part of the problem because it doesn't acknowledge that part of the responsibility lies with the participants themselves.

Okay, I'll bite. And I'll even tie it into the topic thread. Public education funding is tied primarily to property tax in the community. The result is the same if the community's economy is wrecked as is the case with most inner-city communities, or if municipalities refuse to collect property tax on priniciple...as is the case with Oklahoma which is 48th in the nation in per pupil spending. Not coincidently we are among tops in number of people imprisoned, absolute tops in women incarcerated, not to mention high school drop-outs, teen pregnancy, children uninsured, children abused or killed by their parents or caretakers. What? You think EVERYONE is black in Oklahoma?

As for Asians in America. Chinese are culturally predisposed toward isolationism, even in America. The Japanese came from highly industrial nation that was an economic world power that placed a premium on education - whereas blacks were NOT brought to America to be engineers or doctors. They were an agricultural people kidnapped, tortured and forced into agricultural labor until they dropped dead. The fact that enough of them survived to be emancipated is a testament to them and their will to survive. The Koreans came to our shores as engineers and professionals, many of them carrying degrees. And they come here to America to seek their fortunes as the model of Asian industriousness as green grocers. Quite the success story, truly. The Vietnamese have been a growing presence in gangs in competion with blacks and latinos for years.

The topic tie-in:

The fact is that blacks are the second largest group in the US affected by AIDS. They account for 40% of all aids related deaths. 1 in every 5 gay men have HIV, many don't even know it. I never made a moral judgement about that, but the facts are undeniable. You can't solve a problem you can't acknowledge. Why is it that these two groups are so disproporationaly affected?

Because of their moral inferiority and the judgement of God? What else can it be? We all know how anti-abortion you are, arguing that women have abortions for the evil joy of killing the babies that men have impregnated them with as a way of striking back at them. Planned Parenthood provides testing for HIV/AIDS and protection against STDs and pregnancy. Obviously nature must be allowed to run its course, so Planned Parenthood MUST be DESTROYED. How DARE they stand in the way of the Will of God like that!

Gosh, guess I what I just found?

Katy264

I am much younger than Governor Barber, but growing up in the South, I can tell you that in the mid 70s, our Junior High got its first black student. Now keep in mind this was a rather rural area and poor one at that. We lived there because we really couldn't afford the taxes involved with living in the city.

The year we got our first black student, the principal of the Junior High had a meeting with all the students in the school in the auditorium to emphasize how we should treat this student. Everything turned out fine.

By the time I graduated, we had 2 to 3 black students, max.

Now, my point is that unless you have lived in the south, where by in large there is the largest population of black and hispanic minorities, you have no clue about this period. The noble efforts of town leaders and school prinicpals to keep peace and provide a smooth transition for black students.

White people shouldn't be called racist because they were born into a segregated society. All changes are a process, and people do their best to transcend through them. The fact that they do transcend is promising!

The "if the sheet fits wear it" is just slander and a disgusting comment.

Also, YEA for Texas for "taking back the textbooks" from the revisionist liberals.

• !

#10 - Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:09 PM EST

So you DID in fact say that your family lived as dirt poor sharecroppers out in the sticks to avoid paying taxes. You lied when you denied it.

First, my grandparent were sharecroppers working right along side the blacks in the cotton fields of Mississippi. Making enough money to pay the man for housing, eating polk salad and collard greens. Surviving on cornbread and beans.

I was not raised there and neither was my family. But, we did live in a rather rural area (not in Mississippi) and we lived there because we couldn't afford the housing in the city. (not to avoid paying taxes!!) Where do you come up with this stuff.

The context of the above post, was that it is easy for people today, with today's knowledge, to be critical of people from the past. In the case of abortion, today we don't really know what pain is felt by the fetus. Biologically, it is a human life. Scientifically we cannot prove or disprove whether the fetus feels pain. My point was that in 100 years, maybe science will have figured that out and future generations will look at us as savages for supporting abortion, even though I don't think that anyone supporting abortions today are savages, just have a different ideological perspective.

Don, you have a problem with getting your facts straight. What is with the moral inferiority comment? I didn't say that. But there is an issue in those communities and one has to wonder why? If you are not wondering why and trying to find the root problem (instead of masking the problem with money), then you absolutely will never solve it and more people will die unnecessarily. No one can change the past, Don.

Or future generations will look at us and think we were a bunch of religious idiots? Even if a fetus does feel pain, even if it is ending life that still ignores that the death toll will be higher if you outlaw abortions and it still does nothing to address what happens to the child after birth. Although yes I would agree that one should wonder why certain groups are more affected by certain problems than others. I do believe Don is quoting a statement you made in the past about how gay men have lots of sex, yet you were opposed to sex ed for gay men. That was a conversation that took place several months ago, so I could be inappropriately recalling it. I believe the blog topic was sex ed in schools as it pertains to abortion and I made some statement about wanting public schools to be forced to discuss same sex ed as well as experimental sex education and the value of protection and safe sex regardless. And I believe you had a freak out over that. I'll have to look back. I'm thinking this was a convo from like November or even earlier. FTR if you click the number 10 on Don's entry (at the bottom) it will take you to the blog entry in which you said "We lived there because we really couldn't afford the taxes involved with living in the city." If you misspoke that's on you.

All good here Don...I see you are still trying to converse with the little pile...tsk tsk. Kinda like talking to a ten year old there Don?

Close your eyes Don...let it gooooooooooooooooooooooooo... ;)

I'm satisified.

:)

MM: I stand corrected in what I said and contend that it still is NOT how Don interpreted it. We didn't live there to AVOID paying taxes. We could not afford housing (which includes property tax) and all the ammenities that come with living in an incorporated area. What I said was that we could not afford the taxes associated with living in the city. While we did avoid paying the higher tax rate, we also did not get the perks. Don infers that we didn't want to pay our fair share and that we lived in a rural area somehow to beat the system. Not true! We also did not reap the benefits.

As far as the gay sex ed, your recollection is that I did not want sex ed for gays. My opposition was expecting all kids in school to be taught gay sex ed (not just gays). But in general I do oppose sex ed in school. I would prefer public funded schools stick to the basics.

It is not me that freaks out over any of this. I wasn't even involved here until Don decided to use my name in vain! Guess he just missed me!

Maggie continues to violate the rules, unless she meant I was a pile of gold, knowledge, information, etc. Funny she wants to control who others talk to but she just can't refrain from jumping in!

You can't single out gays for sex ed though and straight people engage in same-sex relations sometimes...which I believe is the argument we had before. Therefore your statement would be fallacious. And sex ed in schools is the only proven way to reduce the numbers, so if you're so concerned about people catching teh HIV how else do you propose reducing the numbers? I will give you that you disagree w/ Don's interpretation. Fair enough.

Why is it that these two groups are so disproporationaly affected?

Sexual insularity + institutionalized heterosexism and racism in government, education and health care system.

On sexual insularity, there are cases of STI outbreaks in predominately white heterosexual communities that are isolated. Viruses spread faster in enclosed areas. It's like that.

Now add to that a public that is rather apathetic and unempathetic when disaster strikes a minority population. When an outbreak happens in such a population, government response is slow or non-existent.

Or they call it the Will of God, or nature weeding out the weak and undeserving. It is Social Darwinism in action, the only kind of Darwinism conservatives approve of. Here's the thing though. As a society, a nation, the suffering of the few can become the suffering of all. Social dysfuction is no joke. HIV/AIDS was once thought to just be a gay man's disease. God's punishment on the queers. Now it is everyone's concern.

As far as the gay sex ed, your recollection is that I did not want sex ed for gays. My opposition was expecting all kids in school to be taught gay sex ed (not just gays). But in general I do oppose sex ed in school. I would prefer public funded schools stick to the basics.

Who knows they are gay in high school? And with the advent of "abstinence only" education, oral sex and anal sex among heterosexual kids are considered viable forms of birth control. And they are. But they are also the very best ways to spread HIV/AIDS. But hey, let's stick to the basics, yeah? Because everyone knows that parents do such a great job of educating their children about sex that there is no such thing as teen pregnancy or STDs among teens.

Not to mention how well parents do with creating young women who have great self-esteem and know that they can be anyone/thing they want without needing to have a man to tell them who and how to be. Yeah, that happens...along with the sex education.

Maggie continues to violate the rules, unless she meant I was a pile of gold, knowledge, information, etc. Funny she wants to control who others talk to but she just can't refrain from jumping in!

I am going to chime in here...because you make this personal. I am not violating any @!$%#ing rules so STFU and it would be worth being banned for a day just to tell you to GFY. I am sure you have complained about me to no avail and I am sure you will report this.

Listen up...I am fully aware that control is an illusion and am not one to even fantasize...If I want to speak to people here I am free to do so...I do not mention you or direct comments at you...so leave it and me out of your conversation. All you ever do is jab at people in here in a personal way...it's your style...I just am amused that intelligent folks continue to engage.

A little shadow boxing helps keep one fit.

FR Don...and btw...I loved your story about the dog. Sweet

*waits.... lol

Right Maggie! Read your own post and your reference to me, even if you don't call me out by name.

GrrrlRomeo:

Sexual insularity + institutionalized heterosexism and racism in government, education and health care system. On sexual insularity, there are cases of STI outbreaks in predominately white heterosexual communities that are isolated. Viruses spread faster in enclosed areas. It's like that. Now add to that a public that is rather apathetic and unempathetic when disaster strikes a minority population. When an outbreak happens in such a population, government response is slow or non-existent.

Sorry, but that just can't be the reason. Straight blacks have a high proportion of cases (heterosexual and not insulated), not having health care doesn't cause you to contract HIV, racism in education, government institutions would likely show an effect on all minorities disproporationally, which is not the case..

Could this be directly related to a lifestyle or cultural attitude. I'm not saying it isn't rooted in the past, but if low self esteem is causing promiscuous behavior (not knowing ones own worth or engaging in self destructive behavior--not using condoms), then perhaps sex education is not the issue at all. Maybe what is needed is education in self worth and the valuing of one's body and own life.

There doesn't appear to be a consensus that sex education works in the literature that I have looked at.

Right Katy! It's all about you.

And clearly moral inferiority is to blame.

What a counter-argument! And all that from the educated left!

Straight blacks have a high proportion of cases (heterosexual and not insulated)

Blacks are insulated relationship-wise. While we have come a long way since the 60s, there is still a large portion that doesn't date outside their race.

not having health care doesn't cause you to contract HIV

Not having adequate health care causes an infected person to infect others because they don't know they have it. HIV itself presents no symptoms. It's only when it damages the immune system and the infected person starts getting sick from other illnesses. Otherwise it must be detected with HIV testing.

racism in education, government institutions would likely show an effect on all minorities disproporationally, which is not the case.

Latinos are also affected disproportionately. Not all races actually experience identical racism.

Could this be directly related to a lifestyle or cultural attitude. I'm not saying it isn't rooted in the past, but if low self esteem is causing promiscuous behavior

You're only looking at one half of the problem. A person doesn't have to be promiscuous to contract HIV, they only have to have sex once with a person who is. Globally, women are disproportionately affected. Not because they have more sexual partners, but because men tend to have more sexual partners. It only takes a few carriers to spread the virus, such as an infected man that has sex with 4 women infects 4 women.

As for the past, HIV likely entered the US via a single Haitian immigrant in 1969. The first 4 groups identified to be the most affected were Haitians, Homosexuals, Heroine addicts and Hemophiliacs. There was plenty of promiscuous sex and drugs going on among white heterosexuals in the 1970s. It's just that the initial people infected weren't white heterosexuals. If they had been, government response would've been swift. But because of who was affected, it took two decades.

Lesbians have the lowest infection rate of all. There are a variety of reasons for this, and part of it is historical too.

I won't argue with your points, but locally (America) men are disproporationally affected with black women running a close second.

In terms of racism not being equal among minorities, so true. But why is that? Why is it that Asians are lowest in prison population, aids cases, and highest in education? If people hate people who are different, why then are Asians not expeiencing the same thing that other minorities are experiencing. I'm being serious here. We have had wars with Asians and yet they (apparently) are less discrimated against and commit fewer crimes.

Personally, I think there is a cultural and self esteem issue (speaking of course in groups as a whole, rather than individuals). You rarely see Asians protesting in the streets and blaming others. You rarely see Asians (and probably considered dishonarable), expecting others to make right, what only they can make right within themselves. If I am not mistaken, Asians also have a very low divorce rate. My point is, that some cultures value education more and some value other things more. Perhaps that is the reason that some groups fair better than others.

As for Asians in America. Chinese are culturally predisposed toward isolationism, even in America. The Japanese came from highly industrial nation that was an economic world power that placed a premium on education - whereas blacks were NOT brought to America to be engineers or doctors. They were an agricultural people kidnapped, tortured and forced into agricultural labor until they dropped dead. The fact that enough of them survived to be emancipated is a testament to them and their will to survive. The Koreans came to our shores as engineers and professionals, many of them carrying degrees. And they come here to America to seek their fortunes as the model of Asian industriousness as green grocers. Quite the success story, truly. The Vietnamese have been a growing presence in gangs in competion with blacks and latinos for years.

Or are you going to just say that it is a mystery and that Asians are just better and more deserving than blacks?

Katy, I have a feeling that when you say "Asian" you actually mean Japanese. The police just busted a Hmong family in my county for smuggling opium and purchasing a 14 year old girl for their son to marry. So, it's actually kind of funny to read your weird Asian fetish in contrast to today's local paper.

Every culture has it's pros and cons. I will take a high divorce rate over severe gender inequality where women are property any day.

I guess the Republican strategy of pitting Asian-Americans against African-Americans is still working. Straight outta Pat Buchanan's 1992 Culture War speech.

Then again, maybe Asians are just awesome because they're not Christian. In Buddhism for example, marriage is strictly a civil matter not a religious one. (There are many other religions in Asia since it's actually, you know, a large continent. They're not at all homogeneous nor monolithic.)

I am not pitting one race against the other, you are! I'm talking statistics! Every culture does have its pros and cons. What they value usually produces actions with lead to positive or negative results. You can't really say that you want to live YOUR way and have someone else's outcome, if YOUR WAY doesn't produce that same outcome. Nothing racist about it.

" Blacks and gays are just morally inferior and that's why they have AIDS. Nothing racist or homophobic about it."

Sorry you feel that way Don.

I had helped an ex-sister in law get an abortion. She was a staunch Christian who sang in the choir and was totally opposed to what she had to do in principle. But she was struggling with three children and an absentee husband and father who had showed up just long enough to knock her up and disappear again. It was at Planned Parenthood. Everyone who showed up without enough money was turned away and there was absolutely no rejoicing there. I heard the lady who took her papers say that despite the number of people who protest abortion, many of them wind up walking through their doors seeking their services. Reality trumps principle every time. [dammit! I've got a tear running down my nose as I type this.]

Wingers including Rush claim "liberals" are cavalier about getting abortions. Of course they are lying. No one is cavalier about an abortion. The winger belief is more of the usual evidence of their moral elitism.

The right wing also uses reproduction (specifically the "inability" thereof) to justify why gays cannot get married.

As if marriage had anything to do with procreation. Lots of Republican leaders are serial polygamists, such as Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. I wonder how many other Republicans claim "marriage is between a man and a woman" yet have had several?

@Covah- that is what they want to frame into people's minds. That for women (and I mean this specifically for women) sex is only about pro-creation and pro-creation can only happen if you are married. The idea is you, the woman, must bear your husband's seed and you must not resist him any time and every time he wants to have sex w/ you. He marries you and you belong to him. Your body is now his property; your name, your likeness, everything about you is now his and his alone. And if you defy him he has every right to verbally, physically, or otherwise emotionally abuse you to shut you up. Because you are a woman and your place is to be submissive. Your husband leads the household and that is between him and God and you are to be subservient of him. Marriage is the tool by which men can accomplish this and so (institutionally speaking) it has been as such. Now I would like to put an asterisks here and explain that I don't believe every man adheres to this mentality- I am just saying those who specifically push for these movements carry this mentality. Historically marriage has been used to oppress women, but that doesn't necessarily mean your marriage does that. I didn't make that clear enough earlier. I'm talking about a specific group of people who, because of our male-dominated society, have gotten away w/ behaviors that I am sure the majority of all of us liberalhippiecommiegays find disgusting.

I do want to ask a straight woman out there a couple of questions, if I may. Why do straight women put up w/ men who carry such beliefs? Why do straight women fear being single, fear not being a mother, fear divorce, and fear dying alone? Why do straight women go along w/ this mentality that they are "property?" You hear it in music references all the time. Women will refer to a breakup as saying "I'm not your property from today," "you no longer own me," etc. It boggles my mind how straight women can see this anti-women movement and comply w/ it. I also have another question this time for both straight men and straight women. Why is it that straight men do not care about sexually satisfying their wives/girlfriends in bed? I would think w/ the male ego that's all you'd men care about. But it seems to me the desire to have women dislike sex (meaning take no pleasure in it) comes from a place of male insecurity about the ability to satisfy their lovers in bed. I could be wrong (which is why I am asking), but that's the way it seems to me. I guess I say this because male comedians and comedy shows (when appealing to male mentality) make joke references continually to the "myth" of the female orgasm. Sorry to get so graphic, but as I said it seems to me this is the main driver behind the idea that women should find no pleasure in sex. And that is the motivator. If you look at other countries that mentality is taken to the extreme to where they mutilate the genitalia of women. Why is that? How/why do men argue that that's OK? And more importantly why do straight women allow it to happen?

Additionally why don't men not see it as, "if I don't want to create an abortion I should keep it limp?" How do men justify to themselves that they want to have sex more often w/in their relationships, but she refuses so the answer is to further make her dislike sex? Isn't that counter-intuitive? Wouldn't the answer be to try to get to a point where she wants to sleep w/ you as much as you do her? Also why would men want women to stay in the home and bear tons and tons of children for them? Hasn't it ever occurred to anyone that if both you and your partner make equal incomes that, that means your household has more money??? So in other words if you bring home 80k/yr and your wife brings home 18k/yr, then gets a promotion to where she's bringing home 30k/yr that means the two of you just gained a household income of 12k/yr. Think of all the things that 12k/yr would do for your family. What if she and you both made 80k/yr? Think of all that would do for your family. You probably wouldn't fight over bills anymore, you wouldn't be as stressed out, and you could have lots more of the things (let's be honest here) that our capitalist minds tell us to have. How exactly does oppressing women benefit men???? It makes no sense to me. And if you had less kids that would mean you'd get to spend more time together and she'd be less stressed out which would mean she'd fight w/ you less. Isn't that a good thing??? Also the less children you have=the less expenses you have as a family. The less expenses you have=the less fighting over money=the less stress=the happier you are...

Covah- Many of those women have the means to obtain safe abortions, even if they were again made illegal. The rest of them have simply had their heads filled with rigid gender roles since they were children, and are terrified of a world in which they have no protector.

Don- Very sorry about your SIL. I have a good friend who saw no option but to end an accidental but wanted pregnancy because she was going through a lot of really unpleasant stuff with no certain outcome and needed to make sure she could care for her existing child before she brought another into the world. As ardently pro-choice as I am, I also think no woman should ever be in a position like that.

Mickey- Butbutbutbut! Change is scary.

Mickey- in response to your question, because like any spectrum of human disposition, there are alllll kinds of levels of this type of thinking, and most people fall near the middle. Most men do not aggressively seek that level of domination over their wives. Most men simply expect to get laid occasionally, avoid changing diapers, and have their clothes washed and dinner cooked for them at least half the time. So, while my friends' husbands irritate me somewhat with their "dudliness," they're not actually mistreating my friends. On top of that, they contribute to the family unit in various ways that may or may not follow along traditional gender lines, but at any rate save my friends from having to do everything themselves.

Additionally, people have inherent social needs- we all need networks of emotional and practical support, in one way or another. Some women are simply conditioned to feel that a husband is the surest and best means of securing that network. And the two friends I'm thinking of in particular married guys who are much, much more loving and loyal than their previous boyfriends. They get a lot more out of their marriages than they have to sacrifice, most importantly, someone to love who makes them feel loved in return, which everyone deserves a chance to find.

For my own part, I want to be married someday, but not to a man like the two husbands I refer to here. I want someone much more like the fiance of another friend, who is an ardent liberal and a feminist (the good kind who actually gets it, not a mansplainer who thinks it's going to get him some.)

And for the record, ignore what the comedians are saying. Their job is to be funny, not right. I can't thing of a single straight man I know who wants his partner to be miserable during sex. Not a one.

It's not rational - it's all about feeling powerful. It's about being a man being "Head of the Household," the mantra that "A Man's Home is His Castle," and the rest. Carried further, it manifests with rape, which, again, has nothing to do with sex (or love) and everything to do with power. Same with pedophilia.

Don't bother speculation about my sexuality - I have been straight all of my 70 years.

Reminds of my motther's saying about how some conservatives feel about women: Keep them barefoot, pregnant, and stupid.

My mother was saying this back in the 60s. It applies now too.

I have no idea where these men you speak of who don't care about female pleasure are. I am mostly straight, female, and have had sex with lots and lots of men. And my observation has been that they are obsessed with female pleasure to a point that actually can become inconvenient for me.

As for women who stay with abusive/controlling men, I have no idea. I have had much better luck with men than that. I seem to attract men who have tons of respect for women and like strong women who speak up for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of @!$%#s out there, but that has been my experience in my 30-plus years of being sexually active.

I do totally agree with the person who pointed out that there is something very badly broken about how we raise men in this culture. We end up with these man-boys who can't ever seem to get themselves together or clean up after themselves, and who are afraid to show real feelings. People who have big dreams and plans that never get put into action. Again, I realize there are lots of men out there who do actually achieve things - I'm only speaking from my own personal observation.

So I have had a series of boyfriends who had tons of respect for me and wanted to satisfy me in bed, but couldn't quite manage to pull their lives together, basically.

I worry about the current generation of young women who seen to take the achievements of my mother's generation for granted, and don't realize that the "rights" they currently take for granted can be taken away. They have no idea about the fanatical determination of these religious right woman-hating kooks.

Er roughly 2/3's of married women report never having orgasmed or only orgasmed once or twice in their life time (regarding heterosexual relationships, of course). It's a very common problem. The other 1/3 report having orgasmed only a handful of times. Less than 10% of married women report orgasming every time they have sex. That's from the APA; although to be fair I think that study is somewhat outdated. But the problem of women not orgasming in bed is a common problem w/ straight people. And that's something I've never understood because you would think, w/ the way men think and obsess over sex, that'd be like priority 1. It's a little mind boggling to me that men can be OK w/ not getting off their partner. It's a little mind boggling to me that getting your partner off is an issue at all in a relationship. I guess maybe that's because I'm a lesbian and that's not a common problem in the lesbian world?

Mickey Mouser, I'm not going to beat around the bush, or make any excuses. But it's not so much the men as it is the parents from which the women and men came from...it's a generational thing that just keeps getting passed down and it MUST END! But it's definitely the women who will have to end it. Coming from an evangelical home, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, all of us women have been "conditioned", or to put it blatantly, brainwashed. And so effectively so that most of us don't even realize that our minds have been laundered to the point we can't think for ourselves, we actually believe we are thinking for ourselves when we make the decision to live the same kind of lives our mothers lived, with men who take us for granted and expect us to " put up w/ men who carry such beliefs" and live in "fear being single, fear not being a mother, fear divorce, and fear dying alone", and "go along w/ this mentality that they (we) are "property". But the men are victims too in a weird sort of way. They are victims of the same brainwashing, only backwards to their advantage. They are the receivers of all of the good of that twisted way of thinking. They are groomed to think they are the king of their households and they are rescuing the women from a life of poverty by marrying us and giving us their sperm to make children. And by the way, keeping us "barefoot and pregnant" is their way of making sure we don't go anywhere and keeping us under control. Unfortunately we buy it. --I don't know about women of today though. I think they may be waking up. I hope so. I am attempting to teach my daughters a different way of life and I think they are buying it. I think they are looking at my life and thinking they may not want what I have chosen...I see that as a healthy choice.

I agree it has to end and it makes me sad for both men and women. I also think you're bang on the money stating that this is a societal thing that has been passed down generation to generation. I, too, hope that people are waking up and realizing it doesn't have to be this way.

I look at my straight peers and they are constantly fighting (usually more passive aggressively) and it makes me very sad. There is a part of me that doesn't understand why you'd be in a relationship to begin with if you are always miserable in said relationship. I would think that's denying yourself happiness as well as your partner. I'd hope to hell my partner would leave me if I made her miserable in the way that I see my straight peers. BUT I will be fair here and say that I recognize even as I am saying this that I am sure I'm looking through rose colored glasses. I can't see my own hypocrisy in this case, although yes I am trying to be objective, and because of that inability I may be overstating my own reality. I just don't feel the same tension I usually see in my straight peers who're married. To be fair to straight people, as well, I should point out that I do know couples who are happy in every light. They just seem to be in the minority, not the majority. And that's the part where I'm left scratching my head. I want everyone to be happy and healthy and it seems this mindset destroys both men and women. Men collectively seem to have no identity outside of religion. Perhaps this is why conservative men cling to religion so much??? Perhaps this is why they feel entitled to be preachy about unwed mothers and abstinence? I do not know.

I am sure you are doing the right thing with your daughters- I am sure they are beautiful, strong women. I also like that you take into account their future happiness. So many parents don't. I was talking to my partner about something similar to this thread just a few hours ago. She has a boss who couldn't care less about his marriage or his children. My partner's boss has been overheard making statements like "I feel sorry for the men my daughters marry." Which is pretty f'd up. This man hates his reality so much that he is deploying to Afghanistan to get away from his family. Can you believe that bs? He literally thinks a warzone is less stressful than what he's going through w/ his family. Now someone look me in the eye and tell me that's fair to him or to his family. It's just pretty mind boggling to me. Although FTR I should clarify that I don't mean to come across as so judgmental against straight people. I realize I'm sounding like an ass. Everything I'm asking and talking about are things I've pondered my whole life and that still confuse me today. There is no maliciousness to me saying I do not understand these things. I seriously don't. I am trying to, but I still don't.

My apologies Willostory. Abjectly.

On the subject of relationships...he may not have said it himself, but one lesson you can draw from the life of Einstein is that compared to relationships quantum physics is child's play. I personally suspect that the best you can hope for is a) someone who has matching or at least co-ordinating emotional baggage and b) someone who can shore up where you are weak and vice versa. Lastly c) someone who can be strong when you are weak and you must be strong when THEY are weak.

Granted, with "c" you miss out on the truly operatic dysfunction of when someone drags someone else down the rabbit hole and both end up crazy and wearing tinfoil hats. Fun as that is, that was pretty much the milieu when my father (who was far and away both the most dominant and most damaged spouse) successfully killed himself. You will live longer, if less operatically, by being strong when your partner isn't. Take turns being the support. However much you may want to, nobody can "fix" anybody. That was the mistake my mother made. You've got to love and be able to deal with whatever is there.

Okay. I'm done pontificating, sorry about the sermon. I know I'm right about this, I had to say it, and hopefully some of you will live longer happier lives because of it.

Lmao dad have I told you how much I love you? You're awesome =)

I love you too kid! You know how proud you make me? How much hope you give me for the future? That's no small thing to a cranky bastard like myself.

Don Quixokie, apology accepted, but not needed. It's incredibly easy to misunderstand positions on threads such as these on blogs...

On another note, Mickey Mouser, you are an absolutely intelligent and wide-open thinker. I would never paint you as someone who is malicious, frustrated yes, malicious no. Many, if not most of the feelings and beliefs you have conveyed within this thread are as if you pulled them out of my own mind, heart and mouth. The words you have spoken, they are truth and need to be said and heard. The spirit of your message needs to be carried along. And it will because, like I said, it is truth.

Just try to remember, that the men of today are as much "victims" in that old way of thinking as the women are. This is a generational thing that has been passed down from the days of old. But it is the women who will bring the change about because, let's face it, why would the men want to change something that works in their favor? There are very few men who have "awakened" minds and spirits. So it takes women like you who see what the future can be, and women like me who knows what it should not be based on what I have actually lived. Working together we can help the females who don't yet understand come to understand their real worth and value, first to themselves, and then to the world in which they live. And out of that understanding their own passion, purpose and identity will be birthed.

Oh and by the way, my daughters' father has said the very same thing: "I feel sorry for the men my daughters marry." He has virtually cut off all communication with his daughters and he is now moving over 2000 miles away from them. Both daughters have decided to stop calling him "dad" and have totally disowned him. Instead they have adopted my current husband as their father because he treats them like they are his very own. In fact one daughter is actually dropping her biological father's last name and taking on my current husband's last name. It's a sad state of affairs when females don't have an original birth father to look to as their father in this world and yet we have grueling arguments in this Nation as to whom can and cannot be viewed as "parents" in children's lives, as in the case of same-sex parenting. Come on people, after centuries of parental abuse let's just agree that if a child is fortunate enough to have at least one parent who genuinely loves and cares for them in a secure manner, who cares about sexual orientation? Children need loving parents regardless of sexual orientation, period. After what I have been through as a single parent in between the time I divorced my daughter's biological father until I remarried, if I would have found a life-partner of either sex who helped me provide a loving home for my children, I believe NO ONE has the right to tell me that my children don't deserve to have that loving parent figure in their life. --Sorry, a little off topic, but I had to say it.

I'd heard someone argue that if a hand misses so much as a single finger, its not a hand. He said that he didn't know what you are supposed to call it, but its not a hand. The Conservatives have the same view on relationships, parenting and marriages. However, I'm sure that we can all agree that even a stump, used dexterously enough, much less a hook, becomes a hand. Without fingers a hand becomes a spoon.

A family is whatever fills the role of family. Family is as much about choice and necessity as much as it is biology. Home is where the family is, whatever the family is. That is the key to mankind's survival. Everything else is propaganda and commentary.

No Willo, it wasn't off-topic at all.

Missing one finger makes a hand not a hand? I wonder how that argument goes? Probably by some strict descrete biological definition of the human hand. None the less, there are many things that can fulfill all the functions of a hand without being an perfect biological replica of the human hand.

One guy I knew in the military was missing 1 finger and 2 fingertips on one hand. One guy I knew had 2 fingers and all the attached tendons removed after getting blown up in a war-zone. My uncle paul was missing 2 fingers from a work accident. They all were able to fully function in life with little detriment in a physical way. I once dislocated my shoulder and had to wear a sling for six weeks. It was troubling at first to have the use of only one hand. But by the end of that time, I was a wiz at typing, cleaning, and dressing with only one hand.

A hand and it's capability are not defined by it's type or number of digits, nor does a hand necessarily require a complement to function adequately. As goes "hands," so goes "family." Narrow definitions aid little in understanding how they really work.

Just so. [chortle, snort, cough]

Thanks DQ. Appreciated.

You guys are awesome, btw.

It's actually surprising how much of this really is intentional grooming and how much of it is groomed by interactions of a community of sorts). I was brought up mormon from my mom's side but my dad is anti-organized religion- so I've really gotten to see some of the weird places being raised in certain ways can push people. My grandma's family are all excellent people and very laid back about the principles of the church but, I have one aunt that married a very Mormon man and now they have very Mormon daughters so my closest cousin and I don't get along so well anymore. I have one aunt that fell way off the train pretty early on and ended up having to get divorced and remarried a man whom I consider a complete douche (very republican also, Texan..). So it's basically the same thing for her. My only uncle doesn't give a crap at all, and my mom got knocked up out of wedlock with my brother and so she married my dad, and despite all odds my brother manages to balance such a patriarchal religion and being an awesome man great. He's taken on a woman whom already had 2 kids from different dads and loves them so much. I of course had to be the absolute crazy one in my family and get infected with teh ghey... it was unavoidable though, the boobs, such power....

Anyway, my super-roundabout point is that we tend not to look at the brain washing as the large and scoping problem that it is, I mean, it doesn't have to just be the parents but the whole community... and so we all need to get involved in mentoring kids into being people, and not mean, selfish robot-doods.

I'm suspecting you also dig comic books as well. S'alright. Some my best friends are comic books. Some of my best and most voluminous world history education came from the muy excellent graphic novel series The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick. I highly recommend it for everyone. I also have the complete Neil Gaimen Sand Man graphic novel series and Sin City.I love Tank Girl, Lobo (Simon Bisley SPANKS) and Spawn.

As for your post...its sounds like your family was anything but neat tidy and uniform. It's all good. Neat tidy and uniform is WAY over-rated. My maternal grandfather was a racist who was also a jazz musician ( I just inherited his silver clarinet which I played in grade school) who was convinced that my mother would bring shame on the family. One uncle (mother's side) married a Filipino prostitute he met during the Vietnam War. My other uncle is a gay man. My father was born illegitimately to a family of alcoholics and criminals. He was abused badly by his older brothers, was adopted by a foster family who played mind games for his affection, which is foster father won and for which his foster mother never forgave him. His birth mother was terribly murdered by a lover when he was a teen. My father was manic depressive and brilliant, a very accomplished painter. He was also incredibly magnetic and had a messiah complex. After I was born my parents moved to California to live as hippies. Some of my earliest memories are from that time. They lived in a commune type environment with friends in an apartment on Venice Beach. They were spiritual seekers, studied Eastern philosophy (which profoundly affected my own spiritual/philosophical developement) and did some mind expanding drugs. It was while they were doing LSD that my mom threw up an apple that was the prettiest shade of pink that she knew immediately that she was pregnant with my sister. It was during that trip that they decided that it would be best that I and my sister grew up near our grandparents and so they came back to Tulsa, Oklahoma. THAT is why you shouldn't do drugs. It seriously impairs your judgement. About three or four years after they moved back, my father - who had never been accurately diagnosed or treated - killed himself. My mother thought she could fix my father. Mistake. She had fairly successfully replicated her relationship with her own father with him. She replicated her relationship with her father for us, me especially, with her choice of our step-father. He was a highly intelligent charismatic man who was a staunch right-wing atheist who had been raised by his grandmother who was a nazi from Germany. No hyperbole. I was abused in every way except sexually. I learned everything I needed to know about hating myself and by the time I was in my late teens I didn't even know why I was still alive, which is a damn shame because in middle school I tested in the 97 prcentile nationally on standardized tests. And then I discovered sex and my father's suicidal predisosition. After my mother divorced him, she raised me and my sister with help from her best friend who had two young kids herself and was divorced. I grew up from that point on with co-moms even though they were both hetero. Leonard Cohen had written a line about "he's had a woman's education, but he's not a woman yet." I totally get that. My mom had a black Baptist boyfriend from New York after she divorced my step-father. He meant well and I wish him well...but he could never have understood me and was too sure of what he knew to try. I feel a pronounced lack of a man's education, what to expect, what hope for strive for. But the good thing about all this is that I had to figure it out for myself. Its like nuclear physics. You learn how things fit together by seeing exactly how lives and people fall apart.

I'm just saying, that was MY education. It tells me you are right.

Its all starting to make sense now.....

Rot in hell Katy.

You're right Katy, please provide your evidence. Please let everyone know how smart you are and how dumb they are.

Simple equation. Its all about the math.

Dysfunction + Dysfunction = Disfunction2

Simple world, simple problems, simple answers. All wrong. Simple.

Oppression of women is a characteristic of third world mentality. I am thinking of Uganda, not just for its "kill the gays" bill but also female genital mutilation to "prepare" them for their husbands. It's backwards thinking. I did a paper in college about what the Jesus said about women. Jesus actually gave women a voice, let them hold positions in the church and a lot of new testament women worked and earned their own money. But I digress...

I think you make a very valid observation Eileen 2917998. Christians cannot stand the thought of having sex outside of marriage.

At the time that the Paul was prostletizing in Greece there was a natural gender bias for women joining the new church until the question of mandatory circumcision was settled. To be able to go to Heaven WITH a foreskin was an important innovation.

You are almost right, eaglelady11. Christians can't stand the thought of someone else having sex outside of marriage! An incredible number of "devout" Christians, many of them politicians, have sex outside of marriage all the time. Just read the headlines about the small percentage that are actually caught doing it. Sit in the front pew so that everyone can see you but make out in the back pews where the sun doesn't shine.

My entire family consists of mostly women, strong women. None of them would ever even need to discuss this stuff. THEY rule the world, not us men. And I think the biggest problem people have with Planned Parenthood is that they don't want to pay for other peoples abortions. If you want one, pay for it yourself. (yes, there are some exceptions to that statement) I'd prefer you didn't feel you needed to get one but I always vote that you keep your right to get one. Screw everyone else that tries to project their beliefs on you.

Screw everyone else that tries to project their beliefs on you.

No sarc....that's awesome.

Wow Maggie, do I feel a little love coming my way!

<blockquote>
<p>Looked at the issue even more broadly, it makes you wonder why the Muslims are held in such low regard.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Scratch the surface of a winger, you'll find a Muslim.</p>

It's unfair and not helpful to the progressive agenda to conflate Muslims with misogynistic practices in traditionally Muslim regions. Ask most moderate Muslims, and they'll tell you that nonsense isn't in the Qu'ran. It's cultural, and over time those cultures have reinforced their position by attributing it with false religious basis, just as say, the FLDS uses Biblical anecdotes to support its oppressive system of polygamy, or Scott Roeder did the murder of Dr. Tiller. Finger-pointing and using "Muslim" as a brush to tar your enemies with is no better than saying "that's so gay." It reinforces an ever-growing outlet of xenophobia, and it's not ok.

Scratch the surface of a winger, you'll find a Muslim. Not a real Muslim but the fantasy kind, the ones wingers demonize because they are afraid of converting. Wingers get down on their knees and pray "Our Father in heaven... lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." That's why they call homosexuals and Muslims "evil". They can distance themselves from running off with their same-sex lover and converting to Islam. And of course they project their own self-loathing on the objects of temptation.

I don't claim to have a tremendous expertise about muslims, extremists or otherwise. However there seems to be a built in prejudice against women that relegates them to second class citizens.

Christianity also has many of the same features. Maybe it starts from the idea that God is a male. Women was made from a rib of man. Women was made to be a helper to man.

In many ways the built in assumptions are so pervasive we don't even recognize them. We are fish in water.

I was not aware it was more legend than fact Covah. I was always told this was why you can visit towns in places like Holand and Iceland where most of the family relatives look the same? I was quoting that from a book I read. Any more info to give me?

Professor Wiki told me that.

"The more the fundamentalists worm their reactionary way into the public discourse, the more they sound like shariasts and the Taliban. That is no accident."

DQ, You are absolutely CORRECT!

Gracias.

"go back to the days of being second class citizens told what they can and can not do by old (or young) men in power."

This is what scares me. You would think that YOUNG men in power might have more progressive attitudes about women, but what I've seen of the younger men in politics, at least in my area, is that they echo very closely the attitudes of the old men in politics. I suppose it's because that's what gets them elected and re-elected. I work to change the voter base.

What scares me is the push against legal abortion in conjunction with the argument for adoption (which is a great choice if it's BY choice) and especially in conjunction with the Quiverfull movement, because that way of thinking isn't at all far from The Handmaid's Tale. It scares me generally because if you read it carefully, everyone involved is miserable, even the Commander and his wife. And it scares me personally because as a single mom/feminist/liberal/pro-choicer, I would almost certainly have my child taken from me under that type of system. And that would kill me.

Unfortunately, women often tend to be their own worst enemies. And if they are part of the religious right, this is even more the case. As a woman who grew up in the 50's and 60's, I was confused by the "Leave it to Beaver" concept of a woman vs the "I am woman, hear me roar" feminist version. It was hard to find a middle ground then, but great strides were made for women and it was a wonderful, empowering thing! Now it scares me to see so much of the progress that was made being eroded, and actually pulled right out from under us! I will tell you this, I will fight every day as hard as I can to hold on to the reproductive and other women's rights that were so hard-fought and won, for myself, and for my daughters and granddaughters, and for all women, even those who don't understand the sacrifices that were made, and will continue to be made, on their behalf.

Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time.
H. L. Mencken

GrrlRomeo, I do believe you are right about that, I grew up in a very conservative house hold..They still believe in the good old days (leave it to Beaver) they got very mad when I won't prostest for pro-life. pretty much got disowned when I told them I am Pro Choice. Father still thinks my husband should pick stocks and not me. Tried to tell him, my money my choice. But this I thought was just with my family and not a broader problem. When you live with extreme idealism it is oppressive.

@Cheryl, "I thought was just with my family and not a broader problem." No, it's not just your family. I grew up in a very restrictive county in Missouri (oldest French settlement west of the Mississippi River..hint hint) where they DO NOT allow any "outsiders" to move in.

Growing up female, my parents never groomed me or my sisters to do anything other than get married and have a family. Period. We were never encouraged to further our education, or offered an option other than the traditional lifestyle practiced in our community (German/French Catholic farm families). As children, we were to be seen but not heard. The women and children ate after the menfolk were finished eating their fill. "Adult" topics were discussed behind closed doors. Children didn't know what their parents political affiliation were. I didn't even know my address or phone number until I was about 11-12 years old. We were told, "There's no reason for you to know these things." The only jobs available to women, who were "allowed" to work outside the home, were traditional roles, ie. nurses, teachers, secretaries, etc..

My brothers were allowed to bully us around. They'd cuss at us like we were trash. They were encouraged to study a trade if they chose not to be a farmer. If a man beat his wife everybody turned their heads. A man's wife and his children were his property and responsibility. I could keep going on, but we'd be here all night. We grew up under extreme ideals and it was very oppressive. I guess that's why I moved away from there and rarely visits. I'm 47 and that county's population has not changed more than +/- 50 people in all this time.

"But I think they actually suffer from extreme idealism"

Why not call it what it is? RELIGION ! All these things are the poison of religion. I know religion does some good things but it also does some very bad things and it is time we stand up to the religious bullying.

Identify the culprits, don't let them hide behind the cloak and code words and phrases like "idealism", "conservative" or "culture war". It is time to realize the good is not worth all the bad. The least we can do is call it what it is . . . RELIGION !

There is no such thing is the real world as "religion"; there are many religions, and they vary considerably in their teachings.

It's cultural. Religion is only a single factor that influences cultural norms.

The actual history is very very VERY old. It is what informed the religions of the world. Yes...THAT old! There was a time when women were da BOMB and revered. I would go so far as to say that it was this reverence for women that first brought man his first few steps away from the world of the beasts and towards culture and civilization. Along with cave paintings, the very first examples of human art were of WOMEN. Fat bellied, pendulous breasted, big hipped women complete with pubic triangle. Several of them. They were the Venus of Willendorf and all of her stone sisters. Abstracted, idealized, and realistic all in a single stroke. These all hail back from when Man was still hunting mastadon. The Paleolithic period. This love affair could only have increased during the advent of Agriculture, when Mother Earth tended by Earth Mothers would bring forth her bounty every summer. It was the other half of farming, animal husbandry and domestication, that destroyed the status of women forever. Sex existed long before Man. The egg existed long before there was a chicken. But it wasn't until man, males, associated with animals long enough to realize the role they play in sexual reproduction, that they discovered that the children that women have could be theirs as well. If the children are theirs then the women must be as well and the status of women have never recovered since. To hear the major religions tell it, how long have women been beneathe men (that sounds SO bad)? Forever.

As I've said before, my taste in women is even more Old School than the Old Testament. My wife is built like a Paleolithic Goddess. Not big bellied so much as heavy breasted and very big hipped and tall (5'11".) We've been married 7 years and she still moves me when I look at her. Do you need to know how far we have fallen from the grace we enjoyed when we were hunting mammoths and making cave paintings? Have you looked at a Barbi doll lately?

read any book by tom robbins, though i suspect you have. that's a concept he touches on time and time again- how christianity has always tried to take power away from women, for a lot of reasons, but especially to draw people away from goddess-worship and pagan beliefs, which were oh-so-prevalent once upon a time. ...i've suddenly got the itch to re-read all his work. thanks!

Tom Robbins is one of my all time favorite authors! I love Skinny Legs and All and Jitterbug Perfume.

I was introduced to him at age 9 with Another Roadside Attraction. My personal favorite was Villa Incognito. It was also the first appearance of the event of 9/11 in a novel that I knew of. I highly recommend it.

I love Villa Incognito, though its shortness disappointed the crap out of me. Hate endings like that. I've had an OBSESSION with tanukis since then, though. Jitterbug Perfume is my favorite, though it's a close second for... all the rest. Love him!

In the immortal words of Monty Python

"every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Right wingers claim that population control is a high priority with liberals because liberals want to kill off all the people who disagree with them and take over, then turn civilization back to the stone age by denying fossil fuels and protecting the rights of malaria-bearing mosquitoes. And after the jealous liberals take all the money away from the hard-working rich the liberals will satisfy their lust in moral perversions. Abortion is one of the ways liberals seek to reduce the world population before they seize power.

But Wrong-wingers claim that life is sacred....except those on death row who have committed heinous crimes, and oh yeah, the unplanned pregnancy of their 14 year old ( but we don't talk about that, now do we?)

The Prohibition Movement, started by Rachel's personal favorite anti-heroine Carrie Nation, was at the focus of a similar crux. That of the Christian Moralizers and the Progressive Reformers. The take away from all of this, counter-intuitively, is that when groups that are generally opposed to one another find a common point of agreement...most likely both, if not all of them, are wrong.

If you are looking for people who SHOULD be opposed to it, their are social libertarians. But scratch one like Rand Paul and you will find a Christian facist, though his dad Ron might be sincere. Barry Goldwater defended a woman's right to choose because to not would have been gov'tal interference of the sort he abhorred. Fiscal conservatives should defend reproductive freedom because an abortion is far cheaper than a child raised on the public dime. The fact that none of these points are argued by those sects of conservatism denotes bad faith on the part of those who claim to be conservative.

Then of course you have all the thousand flavors of liberalism, progressivism and feminism who are so respectful of everyone else's viewpoints that they are incapable of standing up for their own. Wars have been won by people who've shed their blood. Not a single war was ever won by bloodless concession. I'm not saying that violence is the answer, but pusillanimousness serves no-one. Fight dammit!

Wankers of the world UNITE!

I know my partner could really use some of that....OK I KNOW I KNOW TMI...TMI ;-)

I had a further wine-fueled thought last night, Mouser, that the TRMS audience should pledge to have non-reproductive sex every Friday night...after TRMS, of course!

You mean have reproductive sex while we watch her, and non-reproductive sex afterwards? I'm not a young man anymore, I don't have that kind of stamina. Though I still rmember a time when I could not imagine ever NOT having the stamina. Getting old sucks!

always happy to piss off the right in anyway possible, even if that means hand lotion and playboys!!!

Oops, sorry folks, I wasn't actually referring to the act of flying solo, non-reproductive though it is. I think that the religious right and their reps in Congress are the new Puritans. People enjoying each other just for the pleasure of it are more attached to each other than they are to the state or the church. It's harder to get their attention and their loyalty to the joyless existence that the right would have in store for them.

Maybe it's just the idea that white women and black men can get it on? Remember over 40% of Republicans believe that interracial marriage is wrong

Why are the birthers trying to prove that President Obama's place of birth is illegitimate?

Three words: Because. He's. Black.

Also, because he's potentially a foreigner, or illegal immigrant, and therefore an undocumented worker.

Nobody is questioning his nationality or racial background, they are asking him to show his birth certificate. simple. I don't think anyone cares (anyone that matters) what race he is or who his parents were. It was time for a Black leader and the only thing better would have been a Black Woman.

Mickey Mouse, You need to stop with the silliness, where did you hear that about 40% of the Republicans?... just nonsense.

It was a sarcastic callback to this poll:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-46-of-missississippi-republicans-think-interracial-marriage-should-be-illegal/

Oh and BTW

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

You are right on. I wake up every morning hoping it's the 21st century in America. Every morning I'm disappointed.

That pretty much sums up the general horrors I have almost become accustomed to every morning when I turn on the news. Each day I am surprised that I am once again surprised by the insanity going on in the world. May I quote you?

Actually, it's not. Viagra might be covered by some policies, but not all.

Take it away, McCain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ub6QkY-lYw

Jodee, Abortion as "birth control"? are you kidding me? I'm all for women's rights to do what they want with their bodies but I'm also willing to bet that if women had to pay for the abortion themselves, they would learn a different way to prevent it real fast! That is why people want to take Govt. money away from Planned Parenthood. Why should the rest of the country get "punished"(by having to pay for it) because someone has an abortion?

No federal funding goes to pay for abortion services. You do not pay for someone else's abortion nor does anyone else (unless that was something you worked out w/ a person privately, of course). Women already have the responsibility of paying for their own health care and they already exercise that. I wish people would learn to read up on these things before forming an opinion. Geeze.

Mickey Mouse, 33% (roughly) of the funding for PP is taxpayer money, PP does abortions so taxpayers do pay (unless there is some kind of control preventing it) And I don't mind helping with women's healthcare. My ONLY opinion is that I do not want to pay for abortions. you can get them if you want ,but pay for them.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

I will say it again:

NO FEDERAL FUNDING GOES TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS

But beyond that you have to pay taxes for lots of things that you don't agree with, the same as I do, the same as we all do. In order to provide for the general welfare of our country that's the way taxes and government financial distribution works. Why do you get to have your way, but I don't get to have mine?

Micky Mouser, you keep providing links to me when they are not needed. I think Obama was born here, I don't like paying taxes (like anyone else) but do because that is how we run the country and I just said why the majority of the other side wants to take away money from PP. And I did say "unless there was some kind of control", you linked to the info about the title X law...end of story for me.

fair enough- devil's advocate is a lot less popular of a role to play ;-). Duly w/drawn.

Why do you get to have your way, but I don't get to have mine?

Because, like the title of the article, it has s e x in it.

(not specifically directed at Unafilliated Joe )

UJ

If PP uses the same or similar accounting software to what is used where I worked then there can be strict controls over what money is for what purpose. There are people who donate largemoney for specific purposes and want guarantees that is what their money is used for. A fund is set-up specifically for that donors money and it can't be used for any other purpose. If it was for any other purpose then we'd lose that donor's donation. And we don't want to lose that donor's donation. So it's quiet easy to ensure the Federal funds do not go towards abortions at PP clinics.