patrick.net

FunTime says

The danger in statements like this, as carefully as they might be made, is that we've come from a recent past society which so degraded the life of women that even a suggestion that women are somehow inferior to me might be a continued participation in that past society. Plus, we know very little about the brain, gender, and genetics. Give it another thousand years or so.

You cannot avoid the possibility that people with deliberately misinterpret your statements by hiding the truth. Only full transparency and complete honesty can counter the tactics of the unethical.

Telling lies to counter other people's lies is a fool's errand. And attacking the truth bringers is unethical even if you are well-intended.

it sounds like basically you are saying that societal rules were created for women to follow -- the men writing the rules of course had the best interests of the women at heart -- because if they did not follow the rules men would banish and/or kill them.

As a college student in the late 80s I was blown away by the total inability of some of my otherwise intelligent female friends to consider that gender roles everywhere on the planet must have evolved for reasons of survival, and that even 100 years earlier most of the limitations that they blamed on men were really determined by the physical facts of life. It was only the technological advancements brought about by ("evil") masculine industry that allowed women to make new choices-- stuff like safe and effective birth control, paved roads, cars, machines that life heavy objects, and everything else that reduces our dependence on muscle power to survive. Of course you always had some small minority of women who might have been strong enough to plow a field or fell a tree, and perhaps you even have had those mythical herbal abortions available from the priestess as I saw in some romantic feministic movie once-- but these must have been quite the exceptions, and the limits of life were more fixed in nature than the flexibility that technology now permits.

So at this point women appear to have more life role options than men ("get a job or go to prison, dude"), and women have become the majority of college graduates etc. And the persisting feminists-- those who never got beyond the self help anger venting of their college courses-- take credit for this yet refuse to give up the victim status, because to do so would necessarily point toward the fact that they are irrelevant. Interestingly we may begin to see a decline in the life span of women who opt for more high stress, traditionally masculine roles.

it sounds like basically you are saying that societal rules were created for women to follow -- the men writing the rules of course had the best interests of the women at heart -- because if they did not follow the rules men would banish and/or kill them.

As a college student in the late 80s I was blown away by the total inability of some of my otherwise intelligent female friends to consider that gender roles everywhere on the planet must have evolved for reasons of survival, and that even 100 years earlier most of the limitations that they blamed on men were really determined by the physical facts of life. It was only the technological advancements brought about by ("evil") masculine industry that allowed women to make new choices-- stuff like safe and effective birth control, paved roads, cars, machines that life heavy objects, and everything else that reduces our dependence on muscle power to survive. Of course you always had some small minority of women who might have been strong enough to plow a field or fell a tree, and perhaps you even have had those mythical herbal abortions available from the priestess as I saw in some romantic feministic movie once-- but these must have been quite the exceptions, and the limits of life were more fixed in nature than the flexibility that technology now permits.

So at this point women appear to have more life role options than men ("get a job or go to prison, dude"), and women have become the majority of college graduates etc. And the persisting feminists-- those who never got beyond the self help anger venting of their college courses-- take credit for this yet refuse to give up their victim status, because to do so would necessarily point toward the fact that their ideology is irrelevant. Interestingly we may begin to see a decline in the life span of women who opt for more high stress, traditionally masculine roles.

Dan8267 says

African American means "black American" not "black". A black Englishman isn't an African American. So if you are talking about social or economic differences affected on race in America, it makes sense to say African American.

Eh....not exactly. I've met many people from Cape Verde and Haiti that would be prefered to be called Cape Verdian or Haitian rather than African American since they did not come from Africa. More importantly not everyone from Africa is actually black. North African is largely arab and actually included as "white" in official affirmative action forms. Kinda reminds me that as of yet I haven't met anyone black from south africa.

Dan8267 says

Indian does not mean Native American. Indians live in India. Native Americans are descendant from the tribes that lived in America for thousands of years before Europeans arrived.

While that might make sense now what about the American Indian Movement (AIM) in the 70's? American Indian makes more sense than Native American because the continent is the Americas and there were natives all over the place. Tribal differences varied dramatically (just look up Incans and Mayans). To lump all natives together is insulting to some.

It is hard for some to tell differences off the bat with groups. Before I went to China I assumed they'd be all the same more or less but there are actually significant ethnic differences in the country and the currency has about five different languages on it.

If you want to read a book about some of the differences of development of women I'd highly recommend William Easterly's White Man's Burden (it references the Kipling poem). The went to Bangladesh a few decades ago and found most women had large number of children. I don't mean a few I mean 5+. Today thanks to more education they have fewer which also means more time to do other tasks which increases income etc. The dowery system is still around in Asia. There's a whole loss of missing girls due to this preference.

I'd note that the social structure that existed decades ago no longer is in place. It is fine to date/marry someone of a different religion, race, ethnic, same sex etc. But from this brings more competition which means it is not as easy as it once was to find a mate.

Adding a bit to what Ignatius said I know of someone working with american indian women who have been imprisoned. While there might be some sympathy towards them being american indians the fact of the matter is they did significant crimes to put themselves in jail. Sympathy cannot exist in such circumstances. The victim status ends. Also is that what is the difference between "victim" and "survivor" other than semantics?

In terms of guns certainly it can be argued that they can kill but then again so can cars. Access to cars is easier than a gun because we allow younger people and generally do not test people as hard. Drivers licenses are not FID cards.

If you want to examine a bit more about violence in the country I'd highly recommend watching this film. Yes it is about 30 years old but it's graphic, to the point and makes it well
http://www.youtube.com/embed/xlvRFfoSk1U

The issue with weapons is that making them illegal does not prevent them from being acquired. If you make something illegal then the recourse is either to smuggle it in or use something in its place. There are urban areas near me that have sound systems set up that detect gunshots. If shots are fired police will be there. But knives do not give off a sound, brass knuckles don't either..same with bats. It is hard to ban anything...while in China I didn't see weapons on police for the most part..in Hong Kong they look like Robocop. I read in the paper while there that someone jumped some cops and stole the weapons..so much for the laws.

Right now as I write this apparently 47 people or so have been injured in an attack with guns and grenades in belgium
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16161746 If laws prevented crime then surely we wouldn't have crime now would we? Vermont has the most lax gun laws in the country..even compaired to NV or even NH. You don't need to register a gun, you don't need a firearms permit etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Vermont

You don't see much for gun crimes in VT because...well they don't really have much for crime..period. VT ranked 48 out of 51 (dc included) in 2006
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html In terms of actual homicide (all weapons and methods) it would rank as a 15th highest cause of death (2009)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_04.pdf Non violent death kills much more than violent death.

When I grew up, Indian was unambiguous because there were almost no Asian Indians around. And even now, the context is usually enough to distinguish. If not, I just say "from India" rather than Indian, as in "He's from India."

I heard WOG was a term used in young rowdy british groups. Probably not PC as it was included in "Paki Bashing" conversations !

WOG-Western Oriental Gentlemen.

Carlos Mencia - My Spokesman for racism. Rah Rah Raza !

The left refuses to admit that men and women are different and that each gender has advantages for some mental tasks.

Yes, I agree, andnot just mental tasks. I got dissed once just for pointing out that ALL of the top weight-lifters are men, and that that is simply biological. There are clear biological non-reproductive differences between men and women, but it's just not PC on the left to admit that.

DO NOT tell anyone women were NOT considered credit worthy for a mortgage prior to 1974. Like a homeless dude, You just become invisible.

Almost forgot: both left and right are categorically forbidden from criticizing Israel for any reason:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

Dan8267 says

Of course, had we been snuffed out either the Neanderthals or Homo Erectus would have been able to survive.

Oh, but Neanderthals have been able to survive.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110809/full/476136a.html

leoj707 says

Oh, but Neanderthals have been able to survive.

Most scientist think it's unlikely we're descendant fro Neanderthals because of insufficient similarities in Mitochondria DNA. The evidence isn't conclusive either way, yet, but in any case, genetically we're not as similar to Neanderthals as to the Africans 200,000 years ago.

Almost forgot: both left and right are categorically forbidden from criticizing Israel for any reason:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

When this book was published it created a significant uproar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
There was also They Dare to Speak Out that came out around in '85...

Some of this is really way out there because even though countries rattle sabers much of it is just to prop up energy prices. Israel actually buys oil from Iran..just not directly. Usually it gets into Rotterdam and they buy it there
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/04/israelstehranconnection

The scary thing about Mershimers book isn't so much what it said but where it left off. It stated future revisions would contain what fundamentalist Christians believe on top of this. Some of the terminologies and concepts of identity are so illogical. If Israel claims they are a Jewish state how can it be democratic given that religions themselves are not democratic. Otherwise we'd all just vote each other into heaven.

Fortunately there are other lobbies such as J Street that can counter AIPAC.

the same winter solstice holday as Hanukkah

Hanukkah is not and never was a winter solstice holyday. In fact it is not a Holyday in jewish tradition, but a minor period of remembering. Of course, Christmas was initially celebrated on January 6th with the Baptism, later on moved earlier to Dec 25th, thus creating the 12 days of Christmas between Dec 25th and Jan 6th. This was done to cover North European Yule celebration.

Only in America the celebrations were moved to the period prior to Dec 25th partially for commercial reasons and partially to get close to Hanukkah, which got elevated out of any proportion for the same exact reason.

So, Happy Holydays sound like better greeting than Merry Christmas, which is a nonsense before Dec 25th.

But I think the most appropriate greeting would be "Happy Shopping".

Dan8267 says

And Hanukkah is about the massacre of assimilated Greek-speaking Jews by the more conservative faction of Jews.

I thought it was the festival of lights. You know when you smoke your marawanika.

And beef brisket and homemade jelly donuts. At least at my house!

When I say "Happy Holidays", I actually mean "fuck you, I don't give enough of a shit about your life to say anything with actual sentiment behind it".

The original post here is kind of dumb (no offense Patrick!)

These are the opinions of Juan Williams. People will hold it up to argue for stuff because they assume he's a genuine, objective person because he used to be on NPR but got fired for making a mildly bigoted comment on fox news.

The reality is that Williams is an economically liberal, socially conservative person. There used to be a lot of these folks back when Democrats were the party of the deep south, but they're rare lately. His statements over the years reflect that, and nothing he's saying here disputes it.

Half of these things are opinions, not facts, so saying that people on the left or right don't want to talk about it out of "political correctness" is absurd. These are simply "things that Juan Williams believes but not everybody agrees with him on".

mdovell says

Eh....not exactly. I've met many people from Cape Verde and Haiti that would be prefered to be called Cape Verdian or Haitian rather than African American since they did not come from Africa.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. It seems to support my statement.

Auntiegrav says

They need food, shelter, clean air and water, etc, but most of all, they need to be useful and connected to their own future (and we cannot separate our future from the future of our environment).

The future, for every single one of us, is death.*

*unless some major medical breakthrough occurs

Are you implying that there is some ultimate, higher purpose to human life? Don't say that too loudly, you might get shouted down...

wthrfrk80 says

unless some major medical breakthrough occurs

Medical breakthroughs can only delay death. Eventually, the universe itself will not be able to support life as usable energy approaches zero as The Second Law of Thermodynamics demands. You'd have to be able to jump to another universe, if one even exists, or create a new universe to escape the heat death of ours.

leoj707 says

We may have to agree to disagree on this, but it was time that allowed women to demand equality.

How is equality defined though? On a legal basis it is the same..well actually a women technically can be argued to have more due to abortion. No man can outright force a given choice onto a women, it is legally up to her. Therefore whoever the father is then legally depending on her choice for the matter..

Technology nullified much of the housework and manual labor performed by women. Feminists are 100% right on the mark that back in the day the brunt of this was performed by women. But factor in today running water, washers, driers, dish washers, ovens, microwaves, refrigerators etc and the labor drops dramatically. Other aspects were certainly taken up by men. 40 years ago if a man wanted to take home ec in high school it would look odd. Turn on any cooking show these days and plenty of guys can cook. It isn't that hard given you are following simple directions.

the old mantra of "equal work for equal pay" is odd. If a given group(s) of people can be paid less than other groups then why would employers even hire those other groups? In other words if women always make less money than men why would any company hire a man then? It's that odd contradiction with age as well. Younger people aren't always cheaper because if you hire someone above the age of 65 you don't have to deal with them going back to school, having children, health insurance, 401k etc.

It was annoying to work a bit in home improvement and see women sometimes demanding to see male employees come over and explain everything to them even though it would be 100% exactly what another women told them.

It can also be argued that when womens rights and civil rights were added it did not create more jobs to anticipate the higher labor participation rate. As a result wages dropped. No one in their right mind would want to roll back the clock but we always have to maintain the environment for jobs to be viable.

Within the concept of equality how exactly can that exist if the concept of identity is different? If everyone is equal then why separate bathrooms by gender? Heck why not make all clothing lines unisex then? If everyone is equal how an affirmative action exist or if it is to exist what metrics would be used to dismantle it?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/FE_nr2t6fKQ
How can the government *make* people equal? Certainly there are methods created to help like the ADA for those with less mobility (wheelchairs, crutches, walkers), closed captioning mandates on tv's for those that are deaf, audio content for books for the blind and sight impediments/larger print etc. As good as all of these things are I do not believe that it establishes a concept of equality.

leoj707 says

Do all the cooking, from scratch, by hand -- OK, you can use the electric/gas stove-top/oven even if it is cheating a bit

Wash and dry all clothing by hand

Keep the house clean by hand

All child care done by you without the aid of anything electric or disposable (yes, wash by hand those cloth diapers and reuse them) -- hopefully you have kids, makes the experiment more fun

No use of indoor plumbing! all water must be carried into the house by you;

Damn, life before electricity and modern appliances sucked. In related news, have you hugged an engineer today? I think Leoj's posting proves that engineers have improved the quality of your life more than any politician or priest ever could.

Some interesting news from the UK:

The number of mothers with children under four who thought that family life would suffer if women worked full-time fell in the years before Tony Blair took office, dropping from 43 per cent in 1990 to 21 per cent in 1998. But by 2002 it was rising and in 2006 had soared to 37 per cent.

Similarly the number of women in the same category who agreed that most women want a home and children fell between 1994 and 2002 to 15 per cent.

But in 2006, the last time the question was asked in the survey, that number had rocketed to 32 per cent - higher even than back in 1986 when it stood at 20 per cent.

By far the biggest leap came when women were asked whether they agreed that men and women should have different roles.

In 1986, 40 per cent of women with children under four said 'yes', four years later that had plummeted to 13 per cent and by 2002 it had dropped still lower to 2 per cent.

In 2006, however, that had jumped back up to 17 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251873/What-women-want-2010-A-husband-wholl-main-breadwinner.html#ixzz1gibaqd9f

Dan8267 says

wog says

Call 50 plumbers in the San Francisco Bay Area and 50 plumbers who show up will be men. This is not an exaggeration.

That's because all the female plumbers work in the porn industry. I'm basing that assertion off of a cursory Google Image search of "female plumbers".

lol, thanks for a good morning laugh...

bdrasin says

Dan says

That's because all the female plumbers work in the porn industry. I'm basing that assertion off of a cursory Google Image search of "female plumbers".

lol, thanks for a good morning laugh...

Word of advice, don't Google Image Search "Rick Santorum".

Dan8267 says

if you are talking about social or economic differences affected on race in America, it makes sense to say African American.

That's one are where I have to disagree with you Dan. African American implies you are of African descent and you personally immigrated here from Africa and became an American. It doesn't say anything about race (not all africans are black), and it doesn't say anything about people who's ancestors have lived on this continent for generations. The term black americans, or blacks, or black people, is much more accurate when trying to identify someone by their race. Confusing nationality for race in an effort to be politically correct just muddies the water, so to speak.

ReasonNotFaith says

African American implies you are of African descent and you personally immigrated here from Africa and became an American.

I call myself an Italian American, but I did not immigrate here from Italy. Neither did my parents or grandparents. The farthest back I can trace my Italian heritage is New Jersey / NYC. So am I wrong to call myself an Italian American?

I also call myself an Irish American, but same story.

A very interesting discussion on a subject which needs a lot more debate.

I would like to go one step further and bring up something that has not been discussed here, namely, what is the real forbidden speech in American society. If one decides to go into any profession and achieve a position of influence, be it public or private, one finds that there are a number of absolute truths that one must publically agree to.

They are in effect, a form of loyalty test, articles of faith that must be absolutely believed if one is to be at the top tier of society.

Among them are:

* The U.S. government had no forewarning of the attacks on Sept 11 2001.

* The HIV/ AIDS virus came from Monkeys

* There were no MIAs at the end of the Vietnam war.

* Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election in Florida.

* Ronald Reagan was the "Great Communicator"

* We have two political parties in the U.S.

And lastly, the linchpin of loyalty to the establishment-

* Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut and acted alone on 22 November, 1963.

And what is really shocking is that the leadership of both the political right and left, when all is said and done, absolutely support the above list of beliefs, especially the last one.

Should one in any way publically question any of the above, the gatekeepers of society will immediately do whatever is necessasry to halt your career. You will be denounced, denied advancement, and even removed from your position should you persist. You are considered a heretic, an outcast, or worst of all a "Conspiracy Theorist"

" I know of no land where there is such little freedom of speech and discussion as America"
Alexis de Tocqueville