Ew.

In other words: Creepy as hell.

I think he's driving home the point found in the Book of Revelation 17-18.

Of course that ties back to Gen 2 and 3.

What are the limits of masculinity? Can masculinity be taken advantage of and, if so, to what limit?

I'm not trying to be all egalitarian about things but the first thought I had, when I tried to imagine infinite and limitless femininity, is how does that differ from masculinity? It seems to me like it views masculine as the 'default' and feminine as, thus, not-masculine. Kind of like how cold is the absence of heat -- the base from which infinite temperature heights can be reached.

Alexandra - think procreation.

Alexandra - think the Bible. This may not apply to you. Don't sweat it.

"There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage of it."

-----------------------------------------------------

This clever jibe is directed primarily at 'feminists', but seems to apply broadly to women in general.

I will never forget the time my wife told my five year old daughter to, "Go ask your dad."

So she came over to where I was sitting and started rubbing my forearm and looking at me with those pleading brown eyes, saying, "Daddy, can I......"

My wife never approached me that way. If she wanted something she just asked. She did not attempt to manipulate me. We had no television. Where did my daughter learn this behavior?

I have heard it said that women can get out of traffic tickets by crying when the officer asks for their license, registration and proof of insurance, but it is even more effective if it is a man who is crying.

"I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability."

Jack Nicholson from 'As Good As It Gets'.

(close eyes and picture stereotypically bleached blonde bobble head with big boobs and beedy eyes)
--------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Alexandra at February 14, 2009 8:23 AM

'What are the limits of masculinity? Can masculinity be taken advantage of and, if so, to what limit?'

Yes, but only to the extent that women allow them to do so.

I am the head of MY house and I have my wife's permission to say so.

yor bro ken

Thanks for that, Chris, but I still don't really see how it's different -- in terms of limitlessness -- than masculinity.

Could you please explain to me, from a procreational standpoint, what are the limits of masculinity that femininity is exempt from? Obviously masculinity and femininity differ in function, but how do they differ in limitation?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 14, 2009 8:03 AM

I think he's driving home the point found in the
Book of Revelation 17-18.

------------------------------------------------------

Chris,

I have been working at a 'church building' expansion. They are installing an indoor play land, like you see at McDonalds and Chic Fil A, in one building and in a new 12,000 sq. ft. satellite youth building with 66 tons of a/c they will have their own Starbucks coffe bar.

I know Jesus will show up there occasionally. HE said as much. (The 2 or 3 gathered thing.) HE showed up at the temple in Jerusalem, gave some instruction, did some house cleaning, took out the trash, and declared it's eventual destruction.

When I read Rev 17 and 18 I think of organized religion in general and Wall Street christianity in particular. (Think about it.)

'Babylon' is about manipulation, an affiction of the human race, common to both male and female persons. It is practiced most commonly on Sunday mornings in the USA. But manipulation is not peculiar to religion. People of all religions or no religous persuasion practice it. Maybe manipulation is the 'one world religion'.

If there is a literal incarnation of the the anti-Christ spirit, then he/she may be a woman masquerading as a man or man masquerading as a woman kind of like the imagined likenesses of Jesus you see displayed in religious places.

Jesus is a masculine male. God could have chosen a feminine female for the Messiah, HE is GOD after all, but for heaven only knows what reason, HE chose a masculine male. HE knew the end from the beginning. It was HIS story to write. oy vey Maria!

A few years ago on a five hour flight from DFW to SeaTac I took the opportunity to read straight through Revelation without a break.

I came away with this revelation: You cannot understand Revelation (or for that matter the 'book') without revelation.

Ask. Seek. Knock.

yor bro ken

I don't think there is anything untoward in the quote. It's just a fact. Look at Anne Boleyn, Abigail Adams, Cleopatra, etc. History is full of VERY feminine women who made the most of it. I don't think anyone looks at them as anything but the powerful women they were.

Kristen,

Of course, Anne Boleyn got her head chopped off by order of her own husband. So much for the power of femininity.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 14, 2009 10:22 AM

Of course, Anne Boleyn got her head chopped off by order of her own husband. So much for the power of femininity.

---------------------------------------------------------

A good example of 'equality of outcome' as guaranteed by the state.

yor bro ken

Poor Anne Boelyn did in fact use her wiles to snare old Henry. He was bonkers over her, especially when she refused his advances prior to their marriage. Looking at him you can see why.
Some thought she even "bewitched" him as they couldn't understand how such an ordinary looking, flat chested woman could entice any man.

Anne was the mother of Elizabeth I who would go on to quite a career as queen. Talk about some feminine power.

BTW, Cleopatra has often been betrayed as a vamp and bedhopper. Portraying powerful women as such apparently is as old as history.
In fact she was highly educated, spoke several languages, and was a very effective queen.
Its speculated from old coins, etc. that she was in fact a very plain if not homely woman and while she had children by her Roman lovers, was not a promiscuous woman who had sex with anything that moved.

kbhvac 10:28am

...or a better example of how one should be very careful what they wish for.....

Well, to try to respond more directly to Jill's quote from Deal Hudson, I would remark that the more inherent power of beauty something has, the more it can be deformed and used in a negative way.

What do I mean, "power of beauty?" Well, I would firmly make the old-fashioned (but very true) claim that women possess, by their very nature, much more beauty than men. I don't mean this in a patronizing way. I mean "beauty" here as a wonderful, positive, awesome thing. And I see this as essential and integral to "femininity" as I think Deal means it. Something that has inherent beauty, has, by this very fact, an inherent power over those who are attracted to beauty.

Now, men, as only the blind and hopelessly PC would object, are attracted to the beauty in women in an especially powerful way. This gives women a certain kind of power over men that men simply do not possess in reverse. And please note, I am not speaking here of physical power or political power--it is a different sort of power that beauty wields over the hearts of others.

This power of the beautiful can be used in wonderful and good, uplifting ways. But, it can also be twisted to manipulate and take advantage of others in unjust ways.

It would be strange to our human nature if there were a Greek myth about a man's beauty starting a great war when he was kidnapped because of his beauty. It is not strange to imagine such a possibility in regard to Helen and the war of Troy.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 14, 2009 10:22 AM

Of course, Anne Boleyn got her head chopped off by order of her own husband. So much for the power of femininity.

--------------------------------------------------

The 'unlimited' power of her femininity may have been enough to get her there, but when her fertility failed, it could not keep her there.

The bloom would have fallen off the rose eventually, but the thorns remain.

yor bro

Hmmm, somehow I don't think Elizabeth I's direct power over the treasury and military of her kingdom is quite what Mr. Hudson meant by "feminine power."

Elizabeth I was totally kick-ass though!

I don't follow the comment about equality of outcome at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Tiad_JQCw

Damn those feminists, empowering women!

Posted by: Scott Johnston at February 14, 2009 10:39 AM

It would be strange to our human nature if there were a Greek myth about a man's beauty starting a great war when he was kidnapped because of his beauty. It is not strange to imagine such a possibility in regard to Helen and the war of Troy.
--------------------------------------------------

Wow, Scott you have just birthed the idea for a 'gay' blockbuster film or at least a made for TV mini-series.

The farce so ugly that it would make a freight train take a dirt road,

yor bro ken

Scott Johnston, 10:39am

Years ago I read an article called "sex power, women have it".
You'd think this was about jumping in the sack but was anything but.
The writer stated that every woman has the ability to attract men. She also says physical beauty has nothing to do with it. In fact she says physical beauty may initially attract a man, but it won't hold him.
She said every woman has some kind of feature, it may be her hair, voice, figure, eyes, whatever, that she can use to her advantage.
She also stressed the importance of femininity. She said how sad it was that women, (the article was written 30 years ago), considered being called female an insult and feminine even worse.
She said when women try so hard to be like men they lose their most powerful weapon, their remininity.

I think that he is referring to femininity in the context of what it should be ideally. Wisdom, gentleness, the innate desire to nurture, self-sacrificing love. What good man could resist this and not want to lay down his life for her. I think that may be what he is implying. This is the opposite of what feminists embrace.

Mary -- excellent as usual.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 14, 2009 10:41 AM

'I don't follow the comment about equality of outcome at all.'

-----------------------------------------------------

My bad. Poor communication.

If one demands the 'entitlement' to compete with the big dogs, then one must be willing to suffer the same fate as all the other losers without whining about 'inequities of power'.

No preferencial treatment allowed. It is just another form of discrimination.

Feminism + liberal + state = guaranteed equality of outcome

regardless of race, creed, color, sexual preference, gender, hair color, taste in clothes, intelligence, athletic ability, weight to height ratio, etc, etc, etc.

Entitlement versus demonstrated proven ability.

It is difficult, if not impossible to separate feminism from liberalism. A conservative feminist is a almost an oxymoron, at least in the eyes of liberal feminists.

yor bro ken

kbhvac,

I understand the criticism that feminists only want "equality of outcome."

What I don't follow is why Anne Boleyn is an example of that. I don't think Tudor England was a bastion of modern liberal feminism. I don't think anyone then was clamoring for gender-neutral hiring or executions. It seems that Anne Boleyn tried to do it the old-fashioned way -- gain influence by attracting a man sexually -- and she got hoisted by her own petard.

Eileen #2

Thank you. I think the writer of the article was referring to what you mention as well. She did emphasize she was not referring to physical beauty. In fact, she said many physically beautiful women do not have any sex power.
Her point was, and this is 30 years ago, that women trying so hard to be like men lose their feminine qualities, some of which you mention as well. She said the real irony is they are losing their most powerful weapon.

In the article she also mentioned women who men were so attracted to that she an other women saw as nothing exceptional. She was so perplexed she even asked a man about what attracted men to these women. Some said "its just something about her". "She's such a brilliant conversationlist",i.e. she sits there and listens to the guy talk about himself!

kbhvac 10:49am

...or the face that launched a thousand ships...in the other direction.

Disclaimer:

kbhvac often tries to be humorously sarcastic and sometimes the attempt at humor takes predence over the sarcasm and as a result the truth of the matter may suffer some violence.

Anne Boleyn's female neck offerred no more resistance to the executioners ax than any males who went before her or after her. The outcome was equal regardless of what was below the neck or above it.

yor bro ken

Being the face that launched 1000 ships doesn't seem like a great example to me (even assuming there is any historical basis to believe that her face was truly the motivation for the Trojan, which seems extremely unlikely) of POWER.

In the Iliad, Helen's precise role and feelings are a bit ambiguous. I am not sure we even know whether she ran off with Paris willingly (in which case it would follow that she wouldn't have WANTED the 1000 ships). I don't think there is any evidence to believe she had any say-so or influence over the conduct of the war whatsoever, or that the men controlling the 1000 ships would have cared one way or the other about HER actual wishes. Her role was more along the lines of booty to be fought over.

See here is another example of my sloppy quotes.

Was it the 'face' or the 'love' that launched a thousand ships.

Maybe it was her likeness on the coin of the realm that was the motivation for the launch. Maybe they were just after the other guys money.

Power, greed, lust.

I prefer love, generosity, kindness.

yor bro ken

Just read like the first 5 comments and I think it's funny how feminists are threatened by femininity.

That said, I agree with his quote.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 14, 2009 10:22 AM

Yes, cause Henry - well you know. He was just crazy. He was paranoid and that has been well documented. He beheaded WAY more people than just Anne and Katherine. You can hardly say she was beheaded because of anything more than an unstable husband.

Mary,

I think Cleopatra was one of the great women in history. And those that really do the research know how different she was from the "hollywood" version. I swear I think people have morphed Elizabeth Taylor and Cleopatra into one person.

Mary, 10:50 AM

Yes, I agree! And it reminds me that in my comment above I did not mean to equate physical beauty only with the power of femininity, which you obviously realize. There is a hidden, spiritual beauty ("that special something") that is unique to women and that is a special part of femininity. But, as you recognize, it can be squelched.

Prochoicer, 11:36 AM

I pretty much agree with you here. Indeed, Helen herself was not especially clear on where her heart was. But, this doesn't change the fact that only Helen could have prompted to Greeks to attack Troy to get her back. It couldn't have been just any woman--Helen in particular was regarded as the most beautiful, and thus, capable of prompting a war when she was kidnapped. (And the reason the Trojans themselves wanted to take Helen was again because she was regarded as the most beautiful).

It is true also your point that Helen was treated more like booty here--a prize possession--rather than as a complete and unique person in her own right.

But none of this is relevant to my original point in mentioning Helen. I simply wanted to draw a contrast between how we would react to an imaginary situation where a man replaced Helen, and the original myth, noticing how silly the former would seem to most of us. This reaction--that it is at least conceivable that a woman's beauty could "launch a thousand ships" (even if the motives were prideful and mixed)--illustrates the notion that there is something special about the beauty of women that men do not have.

Here is another facet.

Do men, and even women, take advantage of the 'weakness' of femininity to manipulate women to acquire what they covet or desire?

'Weakness' meaning unempowered women.

It goes without saying that no men are weak, because in this patriarchal reality no men are unempowered.

Please pardon my 'conflatulating' or my 'conflatulence'.

('Conflate' seems to be a term that is popular with the new wave of 'feminists'. It means 'to bring together'.

In the context of the contemporary feminist lexicon it is predominantly negative and commonly used when the new feminists discovers she has subconscioulsy combinined concepts of the old patriarchal paradigm with modern matriarchal mind sets.

They 'conflate' a lot when they blog on feministing.com

They conflatulate as much as a bunch of old cowboys after a supper of chili and beans.)

yor bro ken

I'm not saying that femininity isn't powerful, and so forth. I'm wondering why masculinity isn't considered equally powerful. Surely, if you accept the premise that there are traits that are inherently feminine and traits that are inherently masculine, then you feel that those traits are equally valuable and complementary.

There may be no tale of a man's face launching a thousand ships, but I certainly can say for myself that there is something about men that can inspire women to great devotion, great lengths, great sacrifices -- something whose power can be a force of destruction or of great beauty, depending on your actions.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 14, 2009 9:17 AM

'Could you please explain to me, from a procreational standpoint, what are the limits of masculinity that femininity is exempt from? Obviously masculinity and femininity differ in function, but how do they differ in limitation?'

----------------------------------------------------
Here are procreational limitations of masculinity and femininity.

Men can not get pregant. Women can get pregnant.

Women can get pregnant. Men can not get pregnant.

Men cannot breast feed. Women can breast feed.

--------------------------------------------------

It was said of Margaret Thatcher that she was the strongest man in the British Empire.

Ross Perot said that the reason female journalists are so agressive is they are constantly attempting to prove their manhood.

What self respecting male would ever want to put a sweater on a commode/toilet?

yor bro ken

Question: What is the one thing a man has that a woman does not want? (

Well maybe except for Rosie O'donnell)

Answer: His beard?

yor bro ken

I certainly can say for myself that there is something about men that can inspire women to great devotion, great lengths, great sacrifices -- something whose power can be a force of destruction or of great beauty, depending on your actions.

Alexandra, thank you for this. It is good to be reminded that this is also true. Perhaps one of the problems in our contemporary culture is that men are less aware of this positive potential of masculinity, and so do not take care to make use of it in a good and healthy way. (similar to how femininity is misunderstood and misused)

Interesting discussion.

In response to Kristen, yep, I am a feminist and will cheerfully own up to feeling threatened! Not by "feminine" qualities per se, whatever those may be, but rather by the notion that women should be content with some sort of ill-defined, quasi-mystical, indirect "power" that comes with "femininity" -- which is often defined as a sort of exaggerated helplessness or exlusion from actual power. Those notions creep me out because it just seems so insulting to women's intelligence, and damaging to women's ability to have any kind of autonomy or control oover their own lives.

Scott, hmmm, I think male beauty is pretty amazing and powerful. Yum! But then I am a straight woman so it stands to reason that I would be more susceptible to the attractions of a man with a beautiful male physical appearance and/or a male beautiful character than you would. A lot of this "ooh women's beauty is so powerful" comes from a male perspective. Of course, we can't imagine women launching a thousand ships for Steve of Troy because women have never had the power to do so -- though delinquent girls have at times gotten into knife fights over an attractive male.

But to go back to my main point, these discussions over how feminists are such suckers to have sacrificed women's "real" power always strike me as inane and insulting. What is this "real" power and what does it accomplish for the condition of women exactly? Just look at the total subjugation of women in places like Saudi Arabia; those women's feminine power hasn't done much for them.

Even Abigail Adams (who was named upthread as a woman with old-fashioned feminine power and whom I also admire) got a patronizing chuckle from hubby when she told him that the founders should enact provisions to ensure that women weren't subjected to the naturally tyrannical male sex (her words, not mine). Her "power" got her exactly nothin', not even an attempt by hubby, in this regard.

Interesting discussion.

In response to Kristen, yep, I am a feminist and will cheerfully own up to feeling threatened! Not by "feminine" qualities per se, whatever those may be, but rather by the notion that women should be content with some sort of ill-defined, quasi-mystical, indirect "power" that comes with "femininity" -- which is often defined as a sort of exaggerated helplessness or exlusion from actual power. Those notions creep me out because it just seems so insulting to women's intelligence, and damaging to women's ability to have any kind of autonomy or control oover their own lives.

Scott, hmmm, I think male beauty is pretty amazing and powerful. Yum! But then I am a straight woman so it stands to reason that I would be more susceptible to the attractions of a man with a beautiful physical appearance and/or a beautiful character than you would. A lot of this "ooh women's beauty is so powerful" comes from a male perspective. Of course, we can't imagine women launching a thousand ships for Steve of Troy because women have never had the power to do so -- though delinquent girls have at times gotten into knife fights over an attractive male.

But to go back to my main point, these discussions over how feminists are such suckers to have sacrificed women's "real" power always strike me as inane and insulting. What is this "real" power and what does it accomplish for the condition of women exactly? Just look at the total subjugation of women in places like Saudi Arabia; those women's feminine power hasn't done much for them.

Even Abigail Adams (who was named upthread as a woman with old-fashioned feminine power and whom I also admire) got a patronizing chuckle from hubby when she told him that the founders should enact provisions to ensure that women weren't subjected to the naturally tyrannical male sex (her words, not mine). Her "power" got her exactly nothin', not even an attempt by hubby, in this regard.

Scott and Alexandra,

How true. I have encountered men that just seem to have an animal magnetism, they almost knock you off your feet.
What it is I don't know. "Just something about them"!

A good friend of mine has had women flash him, chase him, slip him their hotel room numbers, etc. Women have been insanely jealous of my friendship with him. Thankfully his wife isn't!
He's an attractive man, a devoted father and husband, who seems perplexed by this female admiration. But there is something about him and I defnitely see why women are attracted.
Guess it goes both ways.

PC 1:10PM

What I mean by real power is the woman's femininity. If women use their real weapon, which is feminine power, what's wrong with that?
Men use their masculinity, why shouldn't we use our femininity.
I'm not talking about enticing men to bed, I'm talking about being persausive, in control,etc. This doesn't mean women will get everything at the snap of a finger.

I've seen men who are subjugated to women.

Masculine or feminine power do not have to be about subjugating anyone.

yor bro ken @ 9:49 AM
--------

ken - you can't understand the Book of Revelation without understanding all the books that come before it. (And much of Biblical Jewish culture to boot.)

Alexandra - how literate are you with the Bible?

It's related to your statement: I'm wondering why masculinity isn't considered equally powerful.

What's the lessons of Genesis 3? How is that related to Revelation 17 passages?

Both revolve almost entirely around pro-creation.

I am no Bible scholar, but I do know what the verses discuss. What I would like to know is, how do they show not just that femininity is limitless but masculinity is limited?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 14, 2009 1:26 PM

ken - you can't understand the Book of Revelation without understanding all the books that come before it. (And much of Biblical Jewish culture to boot.)

----------------------------------------------------

What is the point in understanding all the 'Book' and all the books?

yor bro ken

Here are procreational limitations of masculinity and femininity.

Men can not get pregant. Women can get pregnant.

Women can get pregnant. Men can not get pregnant.

Men cannot breast feed. Women can breast feed.

Thank you, Ken, for reminding me that no matter how long I try to keep an open mind here and see things from points of view outside my own, this will rarely be a place where I can actually receive the same respect in return. It has been a while since someone here outright called me stupid, though, so perhaps you should have just come out and said it all in one go.

If anyone has an explanation for how female procreation is limitless but male procreation is limited -- NOT IN FUNCTION but in general -- I'd love to hear it. Because from where I'm standing, a woman, while she can get pregnant, cannot get pregnant without the equal and significant contributions of a man -- leaving aside, of course, all scientific god-playing interventions, for the sake of argument, since the argument in question is centered on the natural. So it looks to me like from a procreational point of view, the masculine and feminine are equally limited by their dependence on one another -- and are made equally limitless by their cooperation with and respect for each other. Of course we could be speaking figuratively rather than literally about procreational limitation, but I think that the pragmatic interdependence of the two genders is probably a good metaphor for the spiritual, emotional, or whatever other lenses you can view the issue through. Both have an equal ability to surpass limits, when respected; both have an equal ability to be manipulated or taken advantage of or abused.

But then again, I am the village idiot.

Mary at 1:23 p.m.:

Another issue I have with these discussions is that "femininity" is always left a vague term. Certainly, I have no objections to being persuasive and in control -- but it never occurrd to me that those were qualities are unique to women. Same, with the qualities you listed in another comment -- wisdom, gentleness, nurturing, self-sacrifice, etc. These seem like qualities which men have as well as women, and which seem useful both in the boardroom and in the nursery.

To give just one example, I don't think any feminist would object to the idea that self-sacrifice to benefit others is a great thing. We would object to the notion that women are uniquely to self-sacrifice, or that self-sacrifice should necessarily look different than for women than for men.

These terms just seem very squishy. They get used to try to score points on feminists without really tying the speaker into any solid position. (I gottta run for now, as I am engaged in the very feminine task of cooking a large family feast.)

Alexandra.

You are not the village idiot. I have the sole prior claim on that distinction. I believe it comes with the dubious honor of being recognized as 'lame brained knuckledraggin neanderthal'.

I may have misunderstood your question or you may have mis-stated your inquiry, but let us assume the former is true.

I apologize for my trivializing your question as I understood it.

yor bro ken

Alexandra,

After reading your answer to your own question it seems that I was not answering the same question.

Your answer was not restricted to the procreational perspective. Your answer was more comprehensive. It dealt very little with the procreational aspect of marriage and more with intellectual, emotional and spiritual facets of wife/husband relationship.

(I am just a testosterone poisoned male struggling to find a way to detoxify.)

I read some where that the huband/wife relationship was supposed to be a visable representation of the relationship between Jesus and the bride/body of Christ. Not that HE lords HIS power and authority over her/us, but that HE uses his superior position to serve, protect, provide and bless the apple of HIS eye.

yor bro ken

Deal Hudson said:

There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage of it.

Alexandra is asking:

What I would like to know is, how do they show not just that femininity is limitless but masculinity is limited?

First, let's not say femininity is limitless in a literal, infinite sense. That's a distortion of what's being expressed. Clearly the sense of the quote is one of going beyond the rational usage of femininity.

Second, I'm not saying the Bible indicates masculinity is limited, but one could ask - if a woman chose to kill her child via abortion, why the child's father should not be able to kill her in revenge? After all, it was his child too. Why stop him? If she uses violence, all things equal, he should be able to as well. You trade on morality when it suits you.

The Fall of Man is a failure of trust, and willful disobedience = adultery. The woman's desire is for power beyond her unity with her husband, and contrary to God's commandments. The snake comes between her and her spouse.

Today in the US, a wife can kill their child without her husband's even knowing it, because that's the law of the land. Why bother getting married?

I'd say that's pretty symbolic of the snake.

In Revelation, the unbridled aspiration of the power of femininity is represented by the whore of Babylon. She has reduced the power she holds for future generations into something that focuses on herself. She is a prostitute, who exchanges sex for personal pleasures, reducing man (masculinity) to a loaf of bread (commerce).

John saw the travesties of Rome. In the end, the prostitute is eaten by those who hate her. Selfish prosperity and devotion to feminine power soon finds itself gobbled up by the ravenous masses.

The US is like Rome and soon it will cannibalized. It has already begun.

So much for man's wisdom and the desire of the woman.

Pc 2:14PM

Certainly these are traits that can be masculine or feminine.

What the author was stressing was that when women try too hard to be like men they lose that aura of mystery that sets them apart, that truly gives them power. The author gives a rather amsuing example: Not all women can be gifted with a musical laugh, but she doesn't have to heehaw like a donkey either.
This article was written 30 years ago when I can remember that being called "feminine" was viewed negatively, as if it was weakness or inferiority. Femininity doesn't mean running around in high heels and a gown, but is an inner power that every woman has, if she knows how to use it. What the author was saying was that femininity, or sex power as she calls it, can in fact be a powerful tool for a woman.

Mary,

You display a broad range of knowledge.

Do you hold a college degree?

If so what?

What do you do for a livelihood?

yor bro ken

"There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage
of it."

This guy obviously doesn't know about the bottomless depth of the stimulus package.

"Femininity" and "masculinity" are all a scam.

Chris,

great post.

What the author was stressing was that when women try too hard to be like men they lose that aura of mystery that sets them apart, that truly gives them power. The author gives a rather amsuing example: Not all women can be gifted with a musical laugh, but she doesn't have to heehaw like a donkey either.
This article was written 30 years ago when I can remember that being called "feminine" was viewed negatively, as if it was weakness or inferiority. Femininity doesn't mean running around in high heels and a gown, but is an inner power that every woman has, if she knows how to use it. What the author was saying was that femininity, or sex power as she calls it, can in fact be a powerful tool for a woman.

Posted by: Mary at February 14, 2009 5:04 PM

awesome post Mary!! AWESOME!

The quote is exploitative and frightening.

e.g.

It is a quote from living where life is about seduction and manipulation instead of sanctified and holy love.

There is no virtue or depth of character in a relationship where a woman has to use her sexuality for something she wants or desires.

We can't stoop to this level.

anna, I think that you are misinterpreting his statements. I think that he is referring to authentic femininity and how powerful it is can be.

sorry -- I am very tired -- remove the "is" from my statement!

Femininity is being a mother and a homemaker.
Masculinity is being a father and a provider/protector.

I don't know how a woman would go about taking advantage of being a mother and a homemaker?

truthseeker: "Femininity is being a mother and a homemaker. Masculinity is being a father and a provider/protector."

The first of each is biological. The second of each is not. Sometimes, the woman is out being the provider and the man is the homemaker, and there's nothing wrong with that...

Ahh, yes. The same Deal Hudson who date-raped a drunk woman (a student of his) in the back of his car. Nice guy.

It just goes to show that its hard to reform rapists.

Oh and in case you forgot, here is the news clipping from when he was forced to RESIGN from Bush\Cheney campaign '04 because of the allegation.

He was later forced to resign from the "Catholic" publication he wrote for, was kicked out of his post at Fordam University and paid $30,000 in settlement monies. Yup. Guilty.

And now you print this quote about the guy. Wow. I was going to let him go into his own personal purgatory of repentance, but you had to drag out his own words to drag him through the mud once more! Nice. Thanks Jill!

Here's a clipping from a Right-Wing paper about lovely Mr. Hudson getting his cumuppance!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/21/20040921-114801-5122r/

Here's a clipping from a Right-Wing paper about lovely Mr. Hudson getting his cumuppance!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/21/20040921-114801-5122r/

if a woman chose to kill her child via abortion, why the child's father should not be able to kill her in revenge? After all, it was his child too. Why stop him?

Well, Chris, I assume that you would say she should not be allowed to kill her child, and he should not be allowed to kill her. Are you saying that the limits on masculinity are legal, and that the limitlessness of femininity being discussed is a legal one?

She is a prostitute, who exchanges sex for personal pleasures, reducing man (masculinity) to a loaf of bread (commerce).

Would you not say that, at the same time, the men who use the services of such a prostitute reduce women (femininity) to a loaf of bread (commerce)? It all seems so heavily interdependent to me that singling out femininity as somehow more powerful, or more powerfully disrespected, doesn't quite make sense. And I think that placing more importance on the power of femininity only serves to place more blame on the feminine when things go badly -- it becomes all about the whore, and not at all about the men without whom she could not be a whore.

"anna, I think that you are misinterpreting his statements. I think that he is referring to authentic femininity and how powerful it can be."

Eileen,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the origin of the philosophy comes from La Femme Nikita.It may work in Hollywood but has no place in Christendom.

Authentic femininity is sacrificial. It's GIVING.

We receive back of course. But, we do not generate thoughts in our heads in how to use our gifts to TAKE - most especially POWER.

Femininity as a manipulative tool to gain is a game that originates in the head.

Authentic femininity is spontaneous acts that originate from the heart.

The things I've deliberately used my beauty for, or the temptations of lust and power that were offered to me that I was weak enough to act upon, I've taken to the confessional.

Sorry, but I don't see the quote as a pearl of wisdom and I was shocked that this is where leader of his stature comes from in his thoughts about women.

Mary says: What the author was stressing was that when women try too hard to be like men they lose that aura of mystery that sets them apart, that truly gives them power.

This is pretty much what I thought the author was saying. Sure, I think that women had an "aura of mysetery" to men back in the days when enormous differences between the sexes were taken for granted.

Where I part ways with you is the idea that women's "aura of mystery" was ever a good thing. Sure, men idealized women and put us up on a pedestal. But this idealization, although complimentary to women on the surface, allowed (and even encouraged) men and the culture at large to ignore women's actual humanity. It was also used as an excuse to prevent women from having any political power (such as the vote) or allowing women into jobs by which they could earn a competitive wage to feed themselves or their children.

It is always easier to exploit someone (or a class of people) when you view that person as wholly different from yourself. That's human nature, and this tendency poses a danger to women when we are viewed as so entirely different from the default human being, i.e. men.

*** In fact, Mary, you yourself seem to be denying that we women have our own goals, desires, and authenticity when you assert that somehow modern women are trying to "be like men." This is the problem with the notion of the mysterious female sex. I take a great deal of exception to the notion that the average feminist woman or average career woman is trying to be like a man. I play ice hockey, use power tools to make repairs around my house, and earn my living in a profession that used to be closed to men. I do these things for pleasure, for my physical and emotional health, and for the well-being of my home and my family. It has nothing to do with trying to ape the male sex.

A woman's pedestal and a couple of bucks will buy her a cup of coffee, if she can manage to lug the pedestal down to the coffee shop.

It is always easier to exploit someone (or a class of people) when you view that person as wholly different from yourself. That's human nature, and this tendency poses a danger to women when we are viewed as so entirely different from the default human being, i.e. men.

Yes, Prochoicer, this is what I always fail at articulating. This view of the feminine as somehow not just functionally different but different in power, limitation, etc, from the masculine may seem like a charmingly respectful way to view women. But focusing on the power of femininity, at the expense of the power of masculinity, just "other"'s women, treats them as some exception to the general rules of society. Men and women make up equal parts of the world, and I find it silly to somehow act like there is something "special" about women -- something that is not similarly special about men. We are equally powerful -- equally capable of doing amazing things; equally capable of doing horrible things.

And of course every time I say that someone comes in and talks about how sad it is that I can't see how wonderfully amazing women are. That's not it at all! I'm not lowering women to the 'base level' default status that men so often seem to be given -- I'm saying, women are amazing and men are amazing. We are all so amazing. I generally attribute our amazingness to attributes more individual than masculine or feminine, personally, but whatev.

It really reminds me of so many weddings I've attended, where jokes at the expense of the groom are totally fine but everyone would balk at similar comments made towards the bride. "We always knew Jill would find a great, loving, responsible guy, and we're just so glad that Jack came along and snagged her before she did!" Can you imagine anyone saying that at a wedding, with the genders reversed? It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because with power comes responsibility -- and the hesitance to discuss the power of masculinity, the constant hand-wringing over the power of femininity, just seems to be a shifting of responsibility onto the women, when the responsibility can only be shared equally.

Interesting discussion.

In response to Kristen, yep, I am a feminist and will cheerfully own up to feeling threatened! Not by "feminine" qualities per se, whatever those may be, but rather by the notion that women should be content with some sort of ill-defined, quasi-mystical, indirect "power" that comes with "femininity" -- which is often defined as a sort of exaggerated helplessness or exlusion from actual power. Those notions creep me out because it just seems so insulting to women's intelligence, and damaging to women's ability to have any kind of autonomy or control oover their own lives.

Even Abigail Adams (who was named upthread as a woman with old-fashioned feminine power and whom I also admire) got a patronizing chuckle from hubby when she told him that the founders should enact provisions to ensure that women weren't subjected to the naturally tyrannical male sex (her words, not mine). Her "power" got her exactly nothin', not even an attempt by hubby, in this regard.

Posted by: Prochoicer at February 14, 2009 1:05 PM

I don't see it that way. I see it as a failure of men to be susceptible to that particular power of women. And frankly, men who do "fall under the spell" are not men that I would want to be associated with anyway. It shows a lack of intelligence and self-control.

I think that any thoughts that women are better than men (or vice versa) are counter-productive and that's the way I see MOST feminists today. They constantly scream "Look at me, look at me! I'm a woman and you're just a man." To me this just proves the stereotype that women are just a bunch of overly emotional people that can't deal with men on an even level.

The suffragettes fought for EQUALITY. Feminism today has been about putting men down to raise women up. Just think of that old trash bag commercial where the women said "I'll use it up, throw it out, and then get another one." The double meaning was hardly subtle. It's degrading to women when they do that to men. I do not want to be associated with any group that does that.

As far as John/Abigail Adams are concerned; John was very forward thinking, probably due to Abigail's influence but you could hardly blame him for his chuckle. He knew that would be a losing battle from the get go.

PC,

I have no idea how old you are but I lived in the era of the early femiist movement. Feminine was viewed as a more deragatory term, as if it denoted some kind of inferiority. Yes, unfortunately women were trying to be like men.
I don't mean they smoked stogies and got in barroom brawls. I mean that femininity was something to be repressed in order to compete.
This article was written in what is my opinion the ending of this era or perhaps the turnaround.
I in no way suggested modern women want to be like men.

Women have been powerful throughout history. Yes of course there was second class status, but women also ruled, led armies, fought as warriors, and exerted control.
I can't agree women were idolized. I think they were viewed as inferior and weak and were relegated to second class status for that reason. Women acquired the vote, through a display of their power in the early 20th centurey, not because anyone was anxious to give it to them.
Also, women were being educated and were slowly moving into more powerful and higher wage professions. I lived near a landmark woman's college that opened in 1910.
Women also played a major role in social justice movements such as abolition and child labor laws. BTW, our feminist foremothers vehemently opposed abortion.

I'm not denying a thing about women and have seen the great accomplishments of women and what they have pioneered. By the way I work in a profession pioneered by women and being taken over by men. I'm also on a search and recovery dive team which is mainly men. I consider myself very much a woman, I do not have any desire to be like men. When the men I work with rib me abuot my age I remind them I don't like looking at a bunch of mountain goats all day long either.

All I'm saying PC is that femininity is a tool for women, its powerful. Women should be proud of it and use it to their advantage.

BTW PC, when more men began joining my dept. the fawning and slobbering of some of the women around here would have made you gag.

TSTL 9:27PM

Thank you very much.

Ken, 5:18PM

Thank you. I think it just comes from being old and having lived through so much history.
Yes I am a college grad and an advanced practice nurse.

"By the way I work in a profession pioneered by women and being taken over by men. I'm also on a search and recovery dive team which is mainly men. I consider myself very much a woman, I do not have any desire to be like men. When the men I work with rib me abuot my age I remind them I don't like looking at a bunch of mountain goats all day long either.

All I'm saying PC is that femininity is a tool for women, its powerful. Women should be proud of it and use it to their advantage."

A woman can be feminine even if her proclivity is to compete with Indiana Jones.

The particular quote is defining femininity as a tool to gain power and is beckoning women with self-confidence problems to turn sacrificial love into a game to attract men.

It's poor form.

The gift of teaching love, guiding love, nurturing love involves humility and self sacrifice. If it's a tool, you've got a problem within.

The mean you will attract will be captivated but for a brief period of time. They move on when they need another dose of euphoria.

Anna,

I don't agree. Femininity is power yes, but a definite force for good. Like anything, it can be abused. Women can use their wiles for not so savory reasons also. When I say power that need not have a negative connotation. They can also use femininity to attract a mate. How else will they know the true gift of love?

Mary,

Of course we use our femininity privately in the context you are now using it. The kind of femininity you are speaking has limits. It is not used in our ambition.

The quote is about femininity as power which "has no limits".

That is an oxymoron to your example.

Using the Blessed Mother as an example - her femininity and submission and surrender was powerful.

Once you take fiat and claim we could or should "take advantage" of the "power", "without limits", I'm afraid putting a spin of innocent use of our gifts should not pass our sniff tests.

Alexandra: "I generally attribute our amazingness to attributes more individual than masculine or feminine, personally, but whatev. It really reminds me of so many weddings I've attended, where jokes at the expense of the groom are totally fine but everyone would balk at similar comments made towards the bride. 'We always knew Jill would find a great, loving, responsible guy, and we're just so glad that Jack came along and snagged her before she did!' Can you imagine anyone saying that at a wedding, with the genders reversed?"

Speaking for all the guys who are sick of that double standard, thank you, Alexandra. Men are believed to be without feelings. (I guess having feelings is considered "feminine.")

Kristen: "Just think of that old trash bag commercial where the women said 'I'll use it up, throw it out, and then get another one.'"

And thank you for bringing that one up, Kristen. I think that was for Hefty, and the women were wishing "their men" could be more like Hefty bags: strong...flexible...and then, when they were done with them, "SEEYA!" The response to the criticism of the ad was that women buy most of the trash bags, and so offending men wasn't a big deal. But just imagine if a TRUCK commercial had men wishing their women were more like trucks: "comfortable to sit on...fun to ride...and then you can trade it in for the newer model after six years." People would be outraged (and rightfully so), and wouldn't care if women aren't the target audience. But men are told they should be stoic and "not so sensitive...like women." This masculinity and femininity business usually just winds up hurting everyone.

Posted by: bri at February 15, 2009 12:47 PM

I agree! I felt bad for every man who had to see that commercial and you're right about the reverse commercial for women. The outcry would be deafening.

OK I've finally gotten a bit of time to really sit down and make a long comment about this.

I see modern society having this general attitude re: men and women.

1) "women's work" is demeaning to anyone.

2) "men's work" is desireable for everyone.

3) The traits associated with women are preferable to those associated with men. (I.E. it is better for people to be empathetic, deal with feelings ect and not brash and logical especially in regards to relationships)

4) Parenting and housework are demaning tasks that should be split 50/50 despite the fact that this is impossible given the fact that women actually give birth to and nurse young children.

5)So, children are something best avoided until....

6)You have the right to have 2 children when you want, how you want, after the age of 28.

7)But no one should actually give up anything in order to raise these children. Being at home is something any idiot could do and it is the responsiblity of the "modern" woman to go back to work.

Obviously, this sets women up for a whole lot of head aches and stress between the sexes.

I think a better dynamic would be something like this:

1) Women and men are of equal dignity and worth, yet accel in differen areas.

2)Work done at home with children and household has equal importance as work done outside of the home.

3)A relationship should be fair, but not necessarally "equal."

4)Parenting is the most important job we can do, should we be blessed with children, because we are shaping another person's life and future.

5)Both parents have roles in raising children. One role is not better, or worse than the other but the two will not look identical.

anna, please read my post on Feb.14th at 10:52 AM. If that quote was taken from some feminist ideology then it is possible that his use of the quote was taken out of context or maybe he was using it within a positive context. Authentic femininity is very powerful. Maybe what he meant by the second part of the statement was that some women misuse their femininity which can bring result in grave evil.

Posted by: Mary at February 15, 2009 9:41 AM

Mary,

'Old' is relative.

You are certainly not irrelevant no matter how many ciruits you have made around the sun. I remember in generalities, kind of horeseshoes and handgrenade close, but you have a gift for homin' right in on the bullseye.

I appreciate the wealth of wisdom and knowledge you bring to the table.

yor bro ken

whoops! Sorry about another typo -- remove "bring"!

ken, I agree with your 1:26 post :) I think the same about you and Mary, among others.

kbhvac 1:26PM

Thank you so much for your kind words.

You're right about "old". Some hair dye and a little plastic surgery can go a long way:):)

Mary, pur culture's derision of the feminine was probably a major reason I have identified as a feminist since girlhood. I was brought up with that awful catch-22 by which girls were herded into feminine activities and behaviors, while being simultaneously scorned for it! Have feminists at times responded to that catch-22 by eschewing things that are labeled "feminine"? Yes, and it has always struck me as an understandable, if unsophisticated, reaction. But feminists did not cause things and behaviors labeled "feminine" to be considered second-class, though we are often blamed for it.

That having been said, I do agree with bri that the association of certain behaviors and attitudes by sex is at best imprecise and at worst, terribly harmful to individuals of both sexes.

There has been some discussion by Anna and others on this thread that femininity involves the power that comes from submission and self-sacrifice. I agree that there is a certain kind of spiritual power that can come from those things, but I don't see those as gendered. After all, Jesus was a man, as were many of the saints. Submission and turning the other cheek are not just for women.

PC

Absolutely the association of certain behaviors and attitudes by sex is imprecise and harmful.

I don't know so much that our culture derided the feminine, as it did the woman. I think feminine strength and power have been around a long time. Our feminist foremothers fought for the right to vote and for social justice across the board.
Women struggled to provide for their children against incredible odds.
Women have never rolled over and played dead.

We see the schoolgirls of Afghanistan who literally risk their lives to attend school. Now that's feminine power.

Eileen#2

Thank you as well for your kind words.

Prochoicer, I learned from a priest's homily once that submission was misunderstood -- within the context of marriage anyway. That the wife respects her husband as head of the family and supports him in the decisions that he makes for the good of the family. That being said what good man is not going to consider his wife's feelings in those matters. The husband also lays down his life for his family just as Christ laid down his life for his bride, the Church.

"Our feminist foremothers fought for the right to vote and for social justice across the board.
Women struggled to provide for their children against incredible odds.
Women have never rolled over and played dead."

The power of those self-sacrificing women!

Mary and Eileen,

Oh now I have a warm mushy feeling inside! How rarely it is recognized the self-sacrifice of women's rights activists! And I always love to recognize the efforts of women in the most difficult situations who don't take oppression lying down!

Now gender roles in the family -- male headship and such -- is a whole 'nother can of worms, but I think I am going to sign off for now while we are on a high note! Thank you kindly for the discussion!

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 15, 2009 1:32 AM

'And now you print this quote about the guy. Wow. I was going to let him go into his own personal purgatory of repentance, but you had to drag out his own words to drag him through the mud once more! Nice. Thanks Jill!'

-------------------------------------------------------

Is your outrage against all males who use the 'inequity of power' that comes from their superior position of authority, you know kind of like the former philanderer in chief, wild Bill Clinton, or does it only apply to your ideological opponents.

Just because Deal Hudson acknowledged having sex with an adult student does not automatically make him a skirt chasin' rapist.

Please provide the corroborating evidence that establishes the 'fact' that Deal Hudson ever raped anyone.

I am not contending Hudson is innocent of the charge, but I am asserting you have a responsibility to prove your case if you make these kind of allegations.

'There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage
of it.'

Maybe Deal Hudson was referring to the very incident you cite when he wrote this line.

If he is innocent of the charges, then though his statement might be a generalization that is not always true, in the specific instance, it could be very accurate.

yor bro ken

PC,

My pleasure :) I would include the self sacrifice of women, period. Always good to end on a high note. I hope you will visit again.

Ken,

I saw nothing about rape, only "sexual misconduct" which can cover a wide range.
If YLT has documentation this was date rape then let's see it.
I have no idea who Deal Hudson is and could care less about his sexual romps. However rape is another matter.

That the wife respects her husband as head of the family and supports him in the decisions that he makes for the good of the family.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at February 15, 2009 1:56 PM

Eileen why is the husband the "head" of the family. Can husband and wife not share this role as equal partners? Why not? Can the wife also not make decisions for the good of the family and he support her in them?

Mary,

Rape IS a serious matter. That why the accusers, especially accusers that were not the alleged victim have a responsibility to support their accusations with facts.

ylt has accused Deal Hudson of rape. I submit that ylt's outrage is selective, an affliction which is commom to feministas.

'If' what little information ylt has provided is true, then all we know is that two adults canoodled in the back seat of a car and there may have been alcohol involved. The older was Deal Hudson and the younger was one of his female students.

God only knows how many times this happens every day in America. The 'women as victim' thing flies in the very face of liberal feminism. Women are supposed to take control of thier lives.
With the intensity of the feminist indoctrination in college campuses across the country, you would expect the number of rape/date rape charges to be epidemic.

Deal Hudson did demonstrate poor judgement. The first mistake he made was to have sex with a woman who was not his wife. If you are a public figure, then you become a 'target defendant'.
Remember the Duke La Crosse case. If those young rowdies had been students at the local community college, the 'alleged victim' would not have wasted her time. But both she and the prosecutor were opportunists. She saw deep pockets, he had political ambitions. They had different goals, but they both were motivated by things other than justice.

Billy Graham had a rule when he was out and about. He never got on an elevator if it was just him and another woman, other than his wife. BG knew he was a target and a target defendant.

yor bro ken

Asitis, someone has to be in charge. Decisions can be made together, but ultimately someone must have the final say.

If someone has to have the final say, why does it have to be the husband? Why not the wife?

But there's really this: Why does someone have to have the final say Lauren? Why can you not act as full partners?

Asitis, we are partners, but no partnership is 50/50. There are going to be times when there are disagreements. Maybe one person wants to take a job in Montana but the other person really wants to stay in Maine. Well, obviously there is a conflict that needs resolution.

I'm not saying that the husband should just say 'nope, we're moving to Montana, pack your bags," but if ultimately at the end off much discussion and weighing of consequences there is still a disagreement, someone has to say "well, this is the way we're going to go."

As for why this is the husband:

Here's a good article discussing what a man's role in the household should be, and why.

http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/What-Should-Be-the-Husband-s-Role-in-Marriage

We see the schoolgirls of Afghanistan who literally risk their lives to attend school. Now that's feminine power.

Why is that considered feminine power, as opposed to just power? Is any display of determination or power by women inherently feminine power? And if the labeling of the type of power depends more on the person exhibiting it than on the action being undertaken, then is there really any difference between masculine power and feminine power?

Lauren, I do agree that traditionally feminine work doesn't receive the respect it deserves. You even see it in hiring help. It's considered totally acceptable to hire a painter or a plumber, even though with a bit of learning and a bit of effort, just about anyone can paint a living room or fix a toilet. But if you hire a housecleaner, or if you pay the extra money at the laundromat to have them wash and fold your clothes for you rather than doing it yourself, or if you buy a sandwich at the deli rather than making dinner yourself -- you're lazy and wasteful. (Less so if you're a single man than if you're a woman or a married couple.) Hiring a painter costs way more than painting by yourself, just like having your laundry done costs more than doing it yourself -- but we think of one as more acceptable to pay to have done. Neither are particularly difficult, both can be time-consuming -- and yet we judge people for which "gender" of chores they may pay to have help with.

Of course this is all purely hypothetical on my part, as I -- sadly -- am not yet financially able to ask for help with most of my chores and responsibilities. I loathe mopping, but c'est la vie. ;)

Well, that's not true. My partner and I do occasionally pay to have our laundry done, if we haven't been to visit my parents in a while and it's really piled up. The laundromat machines are expensive anyway, so the small price difference is more than worth the time we save by not sitting around there for hours -- time which we often put into things like building or re-finishing furniture, re-wiring a light fixture, or otherwise working at home. What's funny is that I've had people lecture me about all the money I'm wasting by having laundry done, but they stop when they find out that I'm doing another, more "masculine," chore with the time I save. If I was just paying an electrician to re-wire some lighting, or I was paying a carpenter to re-finish a chair, I'd probably never get lectured in the first place.

Lauren, I'm not talking about what the Bible supposedly says or doesn't say about marriage.

Why does it have to be the husband that is the head?

And why does it even have to be either? Husband and wife can be equal partners. Of course there will be times when there is a disagreement that needs to be worked out. But that doesn't mean that in order to do so, one person must have more authority than the other.

Asitis, God's mandate for our lives stand regardless of if someone chooses to follow it. Casting aside His judgement in the matter would be like casting aside gravity. It doesn't cease to exist simply because I don't believe in it.

Now, pratically, the reasoning for having a head of the household in general is to have an unbrella of sorts covering the family. If someone is designated the head of the family it is that person's charge to cover the rest of the family members. That means that any storms that the family faces are taken at full force by the head of the household. Depending on the strength of this person, the rest of the family is somewhat sheltered from the problem. The more "holes" the person at the head of the house has in terms of weakness and fault, the more exposed the rest of the family becomes.

Ideally, the head of the household should be sheltering the faimly under a big tent, the other parent should have an unbrella an the children should be realitively covered from the storm.

If, instead, there is no head and everyone is acting to keep only their own self covered and maybe extend a bit over to the rest of the family, you have a situation in which there are hole and gaps where no one is filling.

The question, then, is why should the man be the one holding the big unbrella? This is because they are the ones who have the primary responsibilty to provide for their family. Practically, if we want to cast aside any hypothetical roles, a man is more able to physically provide for his family because he does not have the physical responsibilty of being pregant and nurturing a newborn.

This responsibility falls to the mother who is especially vunerable during times of pregnancy and mothering a suckling. It makes practical sense for the one not saddled with these resposibilities to take a larger role in protecting the family at large.

Of course, there is a difference between protecting a family and leading a family. I doubt many take issue with the idea of a man protecting his wife and children, but the idea of him actively leading them is a bit different.

Oliver and I actually diverge paths slightly here because he believes that there are couples in which the woman is more adept at leading the family, while I believe that this role is given specifically to the man. Of course, in our own relationship the point is moot because he leads our home.

I believe that leadership is given to the man because he is best suited to the role. I believe that there are differences between the sexes and that we are made differently and to compliment each other. Actually, personality tests show this to be the case, though it can be argued if this innate or due to social conditioning.

"Asitis, God's mandate for our lives stand regardless of if someone chooses to follow it. Casting aside His judgement in the matter would be like casting aside gravity. It doesn't cease to exist simply because I don't believe in it".

Lauren, God's mandate for life only applies to those who believe in God (and believe in that particular mandate).

"If, instead, there is no head and everyone is acting to keep only their own self covered and maybe extend a bit over to the rest of the family, you have a situation in which there are hole and gaps where no one is filling."

Lauren, the husband and wife acting as full partners are not acting to only keep each of themselves covered and maybe a bit of the other(s). They are both in charge of keeping the other(s) covered and keep all their best interests at heart.

"This is because they (men) are the ones who have the primary responsibilty to provide for their family."

Who says?

More about Deal Hudson. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E4D91E3FF93AA2575BC0A9629C8B63

Ken - It's nice of you to blame the victim, but if Mr. Hudson cannot be trusted to take responsability for his own actions and man up to the consequences, what kind of leader is he. Oh, right, he's one that cowers and has to be kicked out. I'd hate to be his wife- out $30,000 and an income for the household simply because her husband can't keep it in his pants.

No, Asitis, you're very wrong about belief in God dictating the rules for our life. The rules exist regardless of if someone chooses to follow them.

Your scenerio, in which both parties are actively covering each other and their family is what I am talking about. It just so happens that the man will be responsible for certain things beyond what the woman will be responsible for, and the woman will be responsbile for certain things at a closer level than the man.

The true failure comes when the man sherks responsibility and begins covering only himself, and the woman does the same. That's what many in our society do, and it does not result in a functional family. If both parties are working to protect their family the umbrella structure I described will naturally fall into place due to the limitations I've already discussed.

As an aside it is impossible for a woman to provide the full covering over her family. If the husband is not acting as the head of the household, there will be holes dispite the most charitable, resourceful woman's best efforts. As someone raised by a single mother, I know this first-hand. This isn't said to "bash" any single mother out there, but rather to condemn the men who leave their families exposed because of their lack of responsibility.

"No, Asitis, you're very wrong about belief in God dictating the rules for our life. The rules exist regardless of if someone chooses to follow them".

Lauren, you only say this because you frimly believe in God. And you believe he dictates those rules. If you did not believe so, you would see that those rules do not exist for anyone but the believers.

"As an aside it is impossible for a woman to provide the full covering over her family. If the husband is not acting as the head of the household, there will be holes dispite the most charitable, resourceful woman's best efforts. As someone raised by a single mother, I know this first-hand. This isn't said to "bash" any single mother out there, but rather to condemn the men who leave their families exposed because of their lack of responsibility".

Well, I'm gald you prefaced this with "as an aside" because it has nothing to do with the situation we are discussing: That a couple can act as equal partners in a marriage. And that if one person acts as head of household it could be either spouse.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 5:02 PM

"Your scenerio, in which both parties are actively covering each other and their family is what I am talking about. It just so happens that the man will be responsible for certain things beyond what the woman will be responsible for, and the woman will be responsbile for certain things at a closer level than the man".

The diffference though Lauren is that you are saying that in the end, the husband has the final word. Also, I suspect you might also assign certain responsibilities to the man and to the women simply because of their gender. But I admit tis is only a guess.

While obviously there will be certain things where this applies like being pregnant, birthing, breastfeeding. I see others such as childcare, overseeing finances, employment, housekeeping, cooking, shopping, yardwork, car maintenance, education, ...you get the picture.... are not necessarily the responsibility of either simply based on their gender but rather their abilities and situation.

Asitis, belief that rules do not apply to you do not mean that the rules do not exist.

A couple can be equal partners in terms of dignity and value, but they can not be equal in terms of leadership.

Think of it like a corporation. If you have co-owners who own the company 50/50 and they can not come to an agreement about a situation they have to either disolve their partnership or proceed to take their company in two different ways which would collapse the company.

Ultimately, someone has to have the final say. You can debate if it is the man or the woman, but no relationship is perfectly equal in balance of power and you are deluding yourself and setting yourself up for failure if you believe it to be the case.

Socialigists have long found that it is impossible for a relationship to be equal and that instead there must be the perception that the situation is "fair." I believe you are confusing the two, a common mistake which leads to many problems because if your goal is perfect equality you will rarely view anything less than this unatainable goal as "fair."

"Asitis, belief that rules do not apply to you do not mean that the rules do not exist."

If the rules are based solely on a belief that someone (God)and his mandate exist, than those rules do not exist for those that do not share this belief.

Lauren, what about the rule by certain religions that a woman must cover her face while in public. You don't share this religious belief so the rule doesn't exist for you (again, I'm making assumptions here about your beliefs!). Right?

Asitis, I agree that household duties can fall to either sex. However, I believe that women are more suited to nuturing children and thus are more frequently at home where these duties occur.

However, I think our current system of division of powers is very artificial. Until recently men and women worked together, along side their children, to earn a living. Now, due to the fact that we are no longer an agricultural society, we have divided ourselves into boxes where the man is responsible for earning a living and the woman is responsible for keeping a house.

I don't think that these roles are necessary, as long as the basic structure of the family remains intact. I do, however, think it is harder for the structure to stay in tact if modern society's rules are altered.

If someone can be the leader of his family while being a stay at home dad, great. I just think that it is harder to accomplish this way.

Sadly, the ideal situation is to have both parents home to raise and guide their children, working with them and teaching them, but that is rarely possible in today's society.

Asitis, RE: facecovering,

I don't believe that to be God's revelation. If I am wrong, and it is His revelation, then I am breaking his law by not following it. My belief that it is not a rule laid down by God does not change the fact that I disobeyed if, in fact it is.

Think of it like a corporation. If you have co-owners who own the company 50/50 and they can not come to an agreement about a situation they have to either disolve their partnership or proceed to take their company in two different ways which would collapse the company.

Ultimately, someone has to have the final say. You can debate if it is the man or the woman, but no relationship is perfectly equal in balance of power and you are deluding yourself and setting yourself up for failure if you believe it to be the case.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 5:26 PM

Sure, business partners sometimes part ways just as husbands and wives do. In both cases sometimes it's an equal partnership and sometimes it's a hierarchy. In either case it breaksdown.

Lauren, on the contrary I am not deluding myself nor setting myself up for failure by claiming a marriage can be a full partnership. Ours is such and we have been happily married for a few months shy of 20 years now. There is absolutely no hierarchy. In all our years together it is very rare that we haven't been able to come to agreement on a family decision through sometimes lengthy discussion.. And when this does happen we have always gone in favor of the person who feels must strongly about it or is impacted the most. This works very well for us because we are both dedicated to doing what's right for the whole family and have a great deal of love and respect for each other.

Asitis, RE: facecovering,

I don't believe that to be God's revelation. If I am wrong, and it is His revelation, then I am breaking his law by not following it. My belief that it is not a rule laid down by God does not change the fact that I disobeyed if, in fact it is.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 5:44 PM

What if their god is different than your God. Have you broken his law?

'A person involved with the university's investigation said that a freshman in one of Mr. Hudson's classes reported to the university that, after she had become drunk at a bar, Mr. Hudson made sexual advances toward her. After a period of weeks, she charged him with sexual harassment.'

--------------------------------------------------------

OK, ylt you are getting closer. We have an unnamed person involved in the university's investigation saying that that student of Hudson's had become drunk and Hudson made sexual advances toward her. After a period of weeks the formerly drunk student, now hopefully sober, charged Hudson with sexual harrassment.

If what is alleged is true then Hudson is/was a brutish boor. Seems like the matter was investigated and dealt with.

But where is the allegation of rape?

Sexual harrassment and rape are both wrong, but they are not the same thing.

YLT where is the evidence to support a charge of rape?

yor bro ken

Asitis, I don't see divorce as an option. That's the difference between my view of the world and the world's view of the world.

I'm not discouraging discussion. No one is. But there are times when both people will be hugely impacted by a life change and sometimes both of these people will have very different views on how to proceed. If you view marriage as a 50/50 split and you accept divorce as an option, a marriage is likely to fail in these circumstances.

Conversely if you view marriage as a partnership in which the power distribution is 51/49 and you accept that at the end of the day you will default to one party who should be acting in the best interest of the family as a whole, the couple is better able to weather the storm.

As for the face covering,

I believe my God to be the God of the universe. If I am wrong and some other god is the god of the universe, and I have disobeyed his teachings, I have obviously broken his law.

Lauren, what about the rule by certain religions that a woman must cover her face while in public. You don't share this religious belief so the rule doesn't exist for you (again, I'm making assumptions here about your beliefs!). Right?
Posted by: asitis at February 15, 2009 5:31 PM

I don't believe that to be God's revelation. If I am wrong, and it is His revelation, then I am breaking his law by not following it. My belief that it is not a rule laid down by God does not change the fact that I disobeyed if, in fact it is.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 5:44 PM

Lauren I actually asked you if this rule existed for you. Does it?

Of course it exists. I don't believe it comes from God and choose not to follow it, but it doesn't change the fact that it exits.

"If you view marriage as a 50/50 split and you accept divorce as an option, a marriage is likely to fail in these circumstances".

Okay, well.... you'll have to define "likely" because I certainly don't see mine as likely! Nor almost all the ones I know.

Of course it exists. I don't believe it comes from God and choose not to follow it, but it doesn't change the fact that it exits.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 6:00 PM

Lauren I said does it exist FOR YOU?

In other words... Does the rule apply TO YOU?

Asitis, I define likely as more than 50% of time.

we have divided ourselves into boxes where the man is responsible for earning a living and the woman is responsible for keeping a house.

If someone can be the leader of his family while being a stay at home dad, great. I just think that it is harder to accomplish this way.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 5:35 PM

Lauren, not all couples have divided themselves into those boxes. It is often the case where if one works it is the man, but not always. I know cases where it is the woman. And more often, both work.... and sometimes the wife earns more. As for housework (sigh) it does seem to fall more heavily on the woman's shoulder's whatever the situation :(

And if a family does have a "leader" I don't see why that is necessarily tied to earning power or whether they work outside the house or not.

Asitis, I define likely as more than 50% of time.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 6:08 PM

Okay, so their divorce rate would be about the same as the overall average.

Of course it exists. I don't believe it comes from God and choose not to follow it, but it doesn't change the fact that it exits.
Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 6:00 PM

Lauren I said does it exist FOR YOU?
Posted by: asitis at February 15, 2009 6:03 PM

In other words... Does the rule apply TO YOU?

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 15, 2009 1:32 AM

Ahh, yes. The same Deal Hudson who date-raped a drunk woman (a student of his) in the back of his car. Nice guy.

It just goes to show that its hard to reform rapists.
------------------------------------------------------------

ylt

Where is the evidence that Deal Hudson was accused of rape in the incident you have cited?

Either Hudson is a clever serial rapists who has successfully eluded capture or he violated the University's code about not fraternizing with students and possibly the code against sexual harrassment.

You may be right in your assertion that it is difficulty to reform rapists, but it appears that if Hudson were a rapist he has defied the odds, and been reformed.

Where is the evidence for a charge of rape?

yor bro ken

Asitis, if their god is The God, then yes the rule applies TO ME. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it is, the rule applies to me and I am breaking it. My perception of the rule's authority doesn't change the rule's authority.

Posted by: asitis at February 15, 2009 6:01 PM

Okay, well.... you'll have to define "likely" because I certainly don't see mine as likely!

Nor almost all the ones I know.

------------------------------------------------------

In the Land of Oz all the married people live happily ever after somewhere over the rainbow.

yor bro ken

Is that a reference to gay marriages ken?

Asitis, if their god is The God, then yes the rule applies TO ME. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it is, the rule applies to me and I am breaking it. My perception of the rule's authority doesn't change the rule's authority.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 6:20 PM

But lauren, what if their god is NOT your God? Does the rule apply to you?

It doesn't matter if I accept their god as The God. If their god is The God, then His rules apply to me.

I choose not to follow them, and if their god is The God, I will be judged to have broken His rules.

So it sounds like you are saying, well IF their ggod is The God, then his rules apply to me and I'm in for it later. But I don't really believe that's the case so I'm choosing not to follow them and do what I think is right based on my beliefs.

Feminism is sin. It is wrong because it is a rebellion against authority. Feminism is not about women's rights, nor equality, it's about rebellion against God's Word.

Yes, but it does nothing to change the fact that my perception of the validity of the rules does nothing to change the actual validity of the rules, which is what you originally claimed.

Alexandra 4PM,

Its an example of women refusing to roll over and play dead. Women again fighting injustice and to end their second class status. Yes, I consider this feminine power at its best.

it becomes all about the whore, and not at all about the men without whom she could not be a whore.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 15, 2009 7:16 AM
-----

A john can't buy what a whore ain't willing to sell - otherwise it's rape, isn't it?

Your response immaturely avoids the primary issue, which is a righteous use of our whole selves as opposed to abuse of our various capacities and attributes.

(BTW - your sentence is a double negative, and thus non-sensical - virtuous men do not make women whores. I knew what you meant: it's not about the men, whom with she is a whore.)

YLT is ranting about Deal Hudson's perversities, as though YLT was perfect and free from sin. I'm sure YLT wouldn't like his perversities and shortcomings paraded out in front of everyone. And you know that men are as imperfect and adulterous as women, so you're merely pulling together straws. If you want to have a cerebral argument, make it worthwhile.

Let's go back to the source of the Hudson quote - it comes from the movie La Femme Nikita. Here's commentary describing the movie quote:

Bob and his factory do their best to turn Nikita into a killing machine, cold and proficient, focused on the mission at hand.... At the same time, Nikita is trained to be a "woman," able to go undercover. This latter training is effected by Amande (Jeanne Moreau), who works on etiquette and elegance: "And don't forget," purrs Amande as she and Nikita gaze on their close-together images in a mirror, "There are two things that have no limit: femininity and the means of taking advantage of it." (This sort of line seems written by an especially fearful man.)

The entire line is about control and power, particularly against men, who would be Nikita's targets.

Back to Genesis - why would Eve desire more than what she has? It's never enough - it's discontent. Accurate? Yes - I already provided the example via Roe. Though Eve was one with Adam in a paradise, she disobeyed God's commandment willfully, because she wanted to transcend her limits. She wanted to be her own 'god'. What's changed since then? Nothing.

Back to abortion, let's take the case where only the father can decide to force an abortion, and she must comply. What's non-sensical about that?

It's easy - is he the father? She may not even know who the father is if she's been promiscuous - I'd say that's a whore. (And promiscuous men are no better)

When you break the trust of unity, all hell breaks loose. That's the result of wanting to know both good and evil.

I'd say we have a great picture of that - wouldn't you?

And only you and God know the evil that's in your own heart.

So it sounds like you are saying, well IF their god is The God, then his rules apply to me and I'm in for it later. But I don't really believe that's the case so I'm choosing not to follow them and do what I think is right based on my beliefs.

Posted by: asitis at February 15, 2009 6:37 PM

Yes, but it does nothing to change the fact that my perception of the validity of the rules does nothing to change the actual validity of the rules, which is what you originally claimed.

Posted by: Lauren at February 15, 2009 6:46 PM

Lauren, you are right. I was wrong to say they didn't apply to me because I didn't believe in them. In the end IF your God exist and those are his rules then I will be judged along with everyone. I was referring more to the here and now and how they don't necessarily apply, but I see what you mean.

Thanks for working through this with me. I hope you also can see from the facecovering example where I am coming from in choosing not to follow your God's rules and being okay with that.

Hope you are having a nice evening. I have to run... dinner is on the table, cooked by my husband (he's in for it too!)

Your response immaturely avoids the primary issue, which is a righteous use of our whole selves as opposed to abuse of our various capacities and attributes.

How did you get that from my post? I am saying the opposite and have been this whole time. I am saying, why is the discussion about the whores -- not the men as well? Your response avoids the primary question I asked, which was not, "How is femininity abused?" but rather, "How is femininity abused to an extent that masculinity is not?" I would never presume to label your avoidance immature, though.

And how did you read this to mean that virtuous men turn women into whores?

it becomes all about the whore, and not at all about the men without whom she could not be a whore.

"The men without whom she could not be a whore" are the johns. Thus "it becomes all about the whore, and not at all about the johns."

Posted by: Chris

'And only you and God know the evil that's in your own heart.'

Arsenault at February 15, 2009 7:11 PM

--------------------------------------------------

I believe the 'book' indicates that only God, and the one to whom HE reveals it, knows the secrets of a man's/woman's heart.

yor bro ken

"And don't forget," purrs Amande as she and Nikita gaze on their close-together images in a mirror, "There are two things that have no limit: femininity and the means of taking advantage of it.

The entire line is about control and power, particularly against men, who would be Nikita's targets"

Women's "liberation".

truthseeker: "Femininity is being a mother and a homemaker. Masculinity is being a father and a provider/protector."

The first of each is biological. The second of each is not. Sometimes, the woman is out being the provider and the man is the homemaker, and there's nothing wrong with that...

Posted by: bri at February 15, 2009 12:08 AM

Nothing "wrong" with that but in the majority of cases it is not ideal because a woman is more biologically suited to being a homemaker than a man and a man is biologically suited to be a provider/protector than a woman is.

"There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage
of it."

Another lie, however.........here is truth:

Colossians 2:9-11 "9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."

Hebrews 1:2-4 "2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs."

"The men without whom she could not be a whore" are the johns. Thus "it becomes all about the whore, and not at all about the johns."

"How is femininity abused to an extent that masculinity is not?"

I'm not comparing whores and johns based on their sex. Both johns and whores commit immoral behavior. The man however can't turn around and legally kill his child, but he can make her life hell, and most do.

Most people are so busy defending their own past wrongdoings they fail to rescue others, stop the pain and suffering, and may actually foist misery upon others. Misery loves company, but so does freedom:

http://ravingatheist.com/2009/02/haunted-2/

So you see the limitlessness of femininity, as compared to masculinity, as a legal difference only, then?

Bri (bmmg39): "Sometimes, the woman is out being the provider and the man is the homemaker, and there's nothing wrong with that..."

truthseeker: "Nothing 'wrong' with that but in the majority of cases it is not ideal because a woman is more biologically suited to being a homemaker than a man and a man is biologically suited to be a provider/protector than a woman is."

What I am gathering from that is a reference to breastfeeding, something women are obviously more biologically suited to do, but that difficulty can be gotten around with other arrangements.

Oh wow! Bri=bmmg39? I never knew that! I see you on SHS sometimes, right? Hi!

bri,
Breast-feeding is obvious, and other arrangements (if you are talking formula) are not as good as breast-mlk. And it is accepted medically that the holding and touching is beneficial to the baby, bottle feeding is not as good.

Men and women are complimentary in plenty of more subtle ways too. Like men are better at listening and women like to talk non-stop.
:@{)E-

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 15, 2009 1:32 AM

'Ahh, yes. The same Deal Hudson who date-raped a drunk woman (a student of his) in the back of his car. Nice guy.'

'It just goes to show that its hard to reform rapists.'
------------------------------------------------------------

For hard core man hatin' feministas all sex with a male is rape.

'There are two things that have no limit, femininity and the power of taking advantage of it.' Deal Hudson

ylt,

Your inability or your unwillingness to substantiate your accusations of rape are lending credence to Deal Hudson's quote.

One could read into the quote that Hudson is suggesting that women are gullible and easy to manipulate.

Your actions would support that view.

Or Hudson is suggesting that there has never been, nor will there ever be, an end to women using their own feminity, or other womens feminity, to gain their own advantage.

Again your actions seem to support that view as well.

Or he is suggesting that clever shrewd men, and even clever shrewd women, manipulate feministas illogic to gain politcal power for themselves without giving one hoot about femininity, feminism or feminists. They view feministas as 'tools' to be used until they lose their usefulness, then to be discarded as casually as one disposes of a soiled pamper.

You know, the same way wild Bill Clinton disposes with his playthings when he is done with them.

Your actions demonstrate that view as well.

But like the stereotypical ditzi blonde, the feministas learn slow, and forget quicker, and return for a second helpin of the same ole humiliation.

(They're ain't no edgacayshin in gettin kicked by the same mule twice!)

MEN

They buy you dinner and they open the door,
Other than that what are they good for?
Men, I'm talkin' bout men.
They all wanna girl jus like the girl
That married dear ole dad, they make me so mad.

Men, I'm talkin bout men!
Well, you can't bear em up cuz they're biggern you.
You can't live with em and ya jus caint shoot em
Men, I'm talkin bout men!

They love their toys, they make their noise,
They'r nothin but a bunch of overgrown boys,
Men, I'm talkin bout men!
If you give em what they want they never fall in luv.
Doan give em nothin' cuz they cain't get enough.

Men, I'm talkin bout men!
Well, you can't bear em up cuz they're biggern you.
You can't live with em and ya jus caint shoot em
Men, I'm talkin bout men!

In the beginnin they always aim to please,
They serve a purpose, they fill a need.
They ensure survival of the species,
They take you for a ride, run out of gas,
Most of the time they're a pain in the aaa yeah, yeah.

Men, I'm talkin bout men!
Well, you can't bear em up cuz they're biggern you.
You can't live with em and ya jus caint shoot em
Men, I'm talkin bout men!

Silve tongue devils well they're lyin thru their teeth,
Say anything juz to sweep you off yor feet,
Ooooh yeah men! I'm talkin bout men,
Meer mortal men......

Or one of my favorites by Willie Nelson, 'Red Headed Stranger'.

The yellow haired lady leaned out her window and smiled as he passed her way.
She back in fear at the sight of the stalion, but cast greedy eyes on the bay.

She sashayed on down to the tavern that evenin'
and looked up the stanger there.
He bought her some drinks and he gave her some money,
He jus didn't seem to care.

She followed him out as he saddled his stalion,
and laughed as she grasped for the bay,
He shot her so quick they had no time to warn her,
She never heard anyone say.

Don't cross him, don't boss him,
He's wild in his sorrow, ridin and hidin his pain.
Don't fight him, don't spite him, just wait til tomorrow,
Maybe he'll ride on again.

The yellow haired lady was burried at sunset,
The stranger went free of course,
Well, you can't hang a man for killin a woman whose tryin to steal his horse.

(Remove yor hayatt and turn yor mournful eyes tward heaven and remember fondly the femininity of the dearly departed who dipped once too often from the well of her womanly wiles.)

Then there is 'Earl Had To Die' courtesy of the Ditzi Dames.

With tongue firmly planted in mah cheek and mah foot in mah mouth.

yor bro ken

ytl,

I would agree Deal Hudson is guilty of sexual misconduct. Rape is a far more serious matter and I would think before you spread what could be a lie on the internet you should have some documentation.
Didn't you remind me of this on a previous thread? Point taken.

Good example of the unlimited power of femininity speaking truth to authority.

Is she just parroting words or does she really understand everything she is speaking?

Why would anyone want to censor this speech?

yor bro ken

YLT must have been on that jury that found Walter Hoye guilty of crimes he clearly did not commit.

yor bro ken

heres the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzfzxQ8eux8

Good example of the unlimited power of femininity speaking truth to authority.

Is she just parroting words or does she really understand everything she is speaking?

Why would anyone want to censor this speech?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at February 17, 2009 8:10 AM

Walter who? lol. How could I be on a jury for a wingnut I've never heard of?

re: Posted by: Mary at February 17, 2009 6:54 AM

You're right, Mr. Hudson is guilty of academic misconduct (liason with a student), sexual misconduct (cheating on his wife), and utter arrogance (he lost 2 jobs over this (one at Fordham U and one with the McCain '08 Campaign).
While his boorish defense of priests found guilty of molestation was over the line, my poor choice of words stepped over it as well. He was never charged with a crime.

I find this very interesting. My senior year of high school we had to write a thesis paper and defend it in front of our class.

My topic happened to be that women abandoned being women and attempted to be men they were giving up unique strengths inherent in being women while not fully acquiring the strengths inherent in being male... that it was not an exchange that would, in the long run, benefit either the woman or society.

Needless to say, I got pilloried for that one.

One of my classmates did her thesis on the idea that not only is it unacceptable to discriminate against homosexuals, but that homosexuality is the one correct way to live and all heterosexuals are wrong. She was applauded.

When the teacher, who was a rabid humanist and despised all things religious, asked me for my opinion of her paper, I knew it was because of my well-known religious viewpoint and that he was setting me up for something (the Webster decision had just come out and I had written a scathing editorial about it for the school newspaper)...

I tried to avoid the obvious trap and stated, "Well, she was very well organized and it was easy to follow the thread of her argument."

He pushed further and said, "Do you agree with her conclusion."

I replied merely, "No."

He pushed and asked, "Why don't you agree with her conclusion?"

I responded, "My faith in God will not allow me to agree with her conclusion."

He said, "There is no God and I will not allow that name to be spoken in my classroom." At which point I stood up, walked out, and finished senior English via correspondence course. (I gave my poor guidance counselor fits on occasion.)

My topic happened to be that women abandoned being women and attempted to be men .....

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 17, 2009 12:20 PM

Elisabeth, care to eloborate on what you mean by "being a woman" and give some examples of how women might attempt to "be men".

One of my classmates did her thesis on the idea that not only is it unacceptable to discriminate against homosexuals, but that homosexuality is the one correct way to live and all heterosexuals are wrong. She was applauded.

Maybe it was tongue-in-cheek Elisabeth? A reaction to those that say hetrosexuality is the one correct way?

Asitis, my paper was specifically about those women within the feminist movement who viewed femininity as an insult and for whom anything remotely related to childbearing or nurturing had to be put away completely. Being a little girl in the 70s there were many of these women in my parents' circle of friends and I always thought it was just so sad.

Needless to say, these are the same women today who complain to my mother that I have chosen to waste my life by raising my beautiful children and choosing such a "stereotypical female career" as nursing.

I remember as a small girl being told (lectured, more like it) that I could be "anything" I wanted to be. What I was not aware of but discovered as I got older was that "anything" meant "anything but a wife and mother"....

Do I think my friend was being tongue-in-cheek? Actually, knowing her, yes I do, she was always all about the shock value... however, that was not the point. I attempted to compliment my friend on the good parts of her work, I knew full well I was being set up, and I attempted to not bring God into the discussion but was asked a question that did not allow for any other answer... after which my teacher attacked me for believing in God. I hold no animosity and am still good friends with the other student to this day... but the teacher was out of line.

Thanks Elisabeth.

So, I take it from your answer that you believe "being a woman" is having babies. And "being a man" is having a career?

As for your reply to my second question, I do agree with you that the teacher was out of line. He can't say for certain there is no God. He would have been far better to have said "Well, how about aside from your religious beliefs is there any reason you have for not agreeing with her that homosexuality is the only correct way to live"?. That way you could have participated and he wouldn't have been disrespctful.

"Needless to say, these are the same women today who complain to my mother that I have chosen to waste my life by raising my beautiful children and choosing such a "stereotypical female career" as nursing."

I would say these women are just as wrong as those conservatives who say just the opposite: that a woman is meant to have babies and if she works it should be in a traditional career where she might use her nuturing skills.

Asitis, as usual, you completely miss the point.

I have a career, remember? I'm a nurse. I work, full-time.

Although, obviously, I *am* the one in our home having the babies. (I'm fully aware, and if I forget, the nausea kicks in....)

It has nothing to do with whether or not a woman actually bears children. I know many women who have simply not had children for one reason or another.... those are not the women I am talking about.

It is about a mindset filled with vitriol towards all things that have anything to do with "traditional" femininity. It is one thing to choose career.... it is quite another to disparage, belittle and mock those who choose a more traditional role.

If women are truly free, then why degrade those who happen to actually LIKE being SAHMs? I loved being a SAHM, I loved homeschooling. That is not where my life is right now, and I'm happy to have a wonderful job that I love... but I would never in a million years say some of the hateful things that have been said about me when I was a SAHM to my friends who still are. I think it's great that they get to do what is important to them!

If a woman is not free to choose to be a wife and SAHM, then the only "choice" is the choice to do what these bitter, hateful people think is "right"... what gives them the right to tell me or any other woman that being a wife and mother is not valuable?

Elisabeth, do you really encounter those attitudes now? I'd have to say I rarely do. I was a working mom for 10 years and have been a SAHM for almost 5 years now. Certainly, I hear woman on both sides sometimes complaining that the other side has it better. Perhaps,in a moment of bitchness, sometimes questioning their motives. But hardly anything close to the "mindset filled with vitirol" that you describe. I think in general we live in a society where it is recognized that women have a variety of choices and all are valid and we shouldn't expect every woman to want the same thing just because she is a woman.

We're not talking about now. We're talking about when I was in high school...

In addition, yes, those same women who were so bitter when I was a child are still so bitter today. One of them frequently tells me how wonderful and well-behaved my children are in one breath and then tells me in the next all the ways that I'm wrong in raising them! (She raised one son who is a career criminal. I don't think she's the voice of experience I choose to follow.)

I ran into this in nursing school... the dean of our school felt that women with children did not deserve to be nurses, that we weren't as dedicated as those who did not have children. Needless to say, with six children I did not please her. The top award in our school was the Nursing Chair Award of Excellence. There were separate awards for top grades, service, leadership, etc... this award was for the one student who encompassed all of those areas. When the dean found out that the teachers had unanimously chosen me for that award, she attempted to give it instead to her "pet" student... only to be told by the teachers that they would not accept it and that the plaque had already been ordered. Normally the dean would have given the speech to give the award but she refused. Luckily, my teachers had no such qualms and my favorite teacher gave a moving speech (I didn't know I was getting the award until part way through the speech.)

When I was in my clinicals for OB, I had to deal with an OB who found out I had six children who looked at me and said, "Only women with serious mental defects have more than two children."

So, yes, I still encounter those attitudes.

We're not talking about now. We're talking about when I was in high school...

Posted by: Elisabeth at February 17, 2009 1:49 PM

Well, while you have encountered that attitudes growing up in the 70's and on occasion more recently, I don't think it reflects today's attitude, do you?

Well, I didn't write the paper now, now did I?

I think that yes, there are still people who demean SAHMs. Luckily, It appears that many of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s as latchkey kids are now choosing to put family first because we want our children to have what we did not: a parent at home.

Single-income families and WAHMs or WAHDs are becoming more prevalent simply in response to the excesses that I pointed out in that paper...

In addition, I graduated from nursing school in 2007. Those are hardly out of date incidents.

I wasn't saying your nursing school experiences were out of date - I figured you were a recent grad seeing as you already had 6 kids while a student - I was just saying they sound more like isolated incidents. And while we all encounter harsh opinions from time to time from BOTH sides of the fence (working moms and SAHM's) my point remains that the "mindset filled with vitirol" you describe in not the norm and that in fact we live at a time when, in general, women do have choices now and they are all accepted as valid.

And Elisabeth I'd like to add that i am sorry to hear that disparaging remarks have been made to you about your having six children and also your career choice. That is unfair. You would not make similar remarks about a woman who chose to not have any children.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 17, 2009 9:34 AM

'You're right, Mr. Hudson is guilty of academic misconduct (liason with a student), sexual misconduct (cheating on his wife), and utter arrogance (he lost 2 jobs over this (one at Fordham U and one with the McCain '08 Campaign).'

----------------------------------------------------

ylt,

You are certainly quick to judge.

If you were a member of the faculty or staff or an alumnus where Hudson was on staff, then you might have some grounds for your outrage,

If you were Hudson's wife or child or sibling or parent then you might have some grounds for your outrage,

If were a fellow employee at either of the two places Hudson was employed subsequent to his dismissal from the university then you might have grounds for your outrage.

Absent those connections you have no standing in the matter. Those who did have standing have addresse the situation, as it seems has Mr. Hudson.

Your vindictiveness is almost as grievious as the crimes you falsely accused him of committing.

There is a concept called 'forgiveness'. It takes time and it takes an act of the will, but when time has worked it's healing, then it is possible to forgive someone, even when they injured you.

Now, I suspect that you have injured someone, have lied to someone, have cheated someone, have betrayed the trust of someone who loved and trusted you.

I suspect these things because you are as imperfect a human being as any of the rest of us.

Do you desire your victims to forgive you?

Then begin to practice forgiveness yourself.

yor bro ken

kbhvac - I took the time to read and post various accounts of Mr. Hudson's actions. Unlike yourself, I weighed facts before making my post. When I was asked to re-evaluate my statement, I did so. This is in marked contrast to what happens when you are approached with your own folly.
Your only tactic is to hide and smear. It's especially nausiating when you hide behind Jesus Christ. Jesus is the protector and savior for a good number of people, but I don't think he died to protect a habitual unrepentant flame-thrower such as yourself.
You're fooling yourself if you think your prayers and bible quotes get you closer to God. Prayers said for the wrong reason or intent do not reflect up to God, but rather they reflect poorly on someone such as yourself who constantly and unapologetically engages in spiritual self-aggrandizement.
I don't claim to know how Jesus feels about the matter, but I do know that for a great number of people, you seem nothing more than a fool. Not a fool for Christ, but for yourself. Given your posts, its not really about Jesus though, it's all about you.

"When I was in my clinicals for OB, I had to deal with an OB who found out I had six children who looked at me and said, "Only women with serious mental defects have more than two children."

Elisabeth,

Tell them to go to hell.

Elisabeth,

For once, I agree with Jasper. That's really out of line and that OB should keep his/her opinions to him/herself. I would never accept someone making a comment like that, and it seems you have much more grace than I...because had it been me he/she said it to, there'd be one VERY bruised OB somewhere. LOL.

ylt,

You accused a man of rape. You failed to acknowledge your error until after you could find no corroboration for your initial accusation. That is lazy at the least and cowardly at the worst. Womanup and admit you jumped to a conclusion out of a kneejerk feminista reaction motivated by your own ideaological bias. And you 'used' Mr. Hudson in an attempt to take a cheap shot at Jill Stanek.

You exhibit a caloused indifference to fairness, truth, and justice.

You do not have to read anything I post. If you do and you get offended that is your problem not mine. Particularly if I have never addressed God or Jesus or Budha or any other religious figure to you directly.

I do not give one hoot what you believe or do not believe in regards to 'god'.

I will hold you to the same standard by which you choose to judge others as difficult as it may be to follow. I will point out the inconsistent, contradictory, duplicitous content of your posts. If you cannot take the lammpooning of your opinions then employ a little more thought before you hit the 'post' button.

How does one 'hide' behind Jesus? I am as open to criticism anyone else who posts on this site.

It would seem to me and you again are making my case, that to publicly acknowledge Jesus, is to open oneself up for more intense scrutiny and the inevitable criticism that it brings.

'You' attempt to hold me to 'your' idea of who and what a 'christian' should or should not be when you know little of the 'book' and even less of the Author.

Forgiveness is universal concept not solely attributable to any people or religion. It is a concept with which you appear to have had little direct experience.

"Jesus is the protector and savior for a good number of people, but I don't think he died to protect a habitual unrepentant flame-thrower such as yourself."

I have to sympathize with you there. That concept is completley out side of the scope of reason and logic. It is a mystery that HE would give a hoot for one as vile as me. I would never have chosen me to be on HIS team.

That is a subject you will have to take up with HIM. Perhaps HE will reveal the mystery to you in a way that you can understand.

'habitual unrepentant flamthrower'. That has a nice ring to it. Goes well with 'lame brained knuckledraggin' neanderthal'. Am I both at once or am I in a transitional form from one to the other?

I hang out with prostitutes and drunks, but I draw the line at taxcollectors.

yor bro ken

Jasper and Lyssie,
I will tell you, there is one hospital in town I would NEVER work at, and it is because that is where that OB and others who act just like him deliver.

That same day I had to listen to that man schedule planned inductions for four first time mothers at 37 weeks gestation because "natural childbirth is simply irresponsible... hurricanes are natural, too!" and those same women nearly hit the ceiling when during their exam he stripped their membranes without telling them what he was about to do. (That can be a very, very painful procedure, especially for a first time mom.) They were only 36 weeks gestation and he was STRIPPING MEMBRANES... as far as I'm concerned that bordered on malpractice.

I had to make it through the day or not get credit for it... but I did stop him in the hallway and tell him that if he failed to warn the next mother before stripping her membranes I would haul him before the medical review board. I also reported him to my nursing school and nobody does clinicals in that office anymore.

Jill quoting someone who is at the very least a questionable source if not of dubious morality is cheap shot enough. I merely pointed out the irony. Being removed from two jobs for sexual misconduct does not make him the angel you wish him to be.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 18, 2009 5:41 PM

'Jill quoting someone who is at the very least a questionable source if not of dubious morality is cheap shot enough.'
-----------------------------------------------------

How many pounds of Deal Hudson's flesh do you require to satisfy your convoluted sense of justice? Actually, it is not justice in any sense of the word. It is vindictice vengence. That is not a redundant statement. It is accurate assessment of the level of your vitriol.

Hudson is no more or less an 'angel' than you or I.

Here is another concept with which you might want to get in touch: redemption. Not in the religious sense but in the sense of paying ones dues to society. From the articles you cited it would seem that Mr. Hudson has done or is doing that.

How about this: Mr. Hudson, continue your life's journey and do not do that anymore.

What else can the man do to satisfy your apetite for revenge?

Shall he commit hari kari and disembowel himself?
Will that satisfy you? Do you have to see the blood and smell the stench of his fecal matter as spills on the ground?

yor bro ken

kbhvac - Your hyperbole is humorous. What's even more comical is your continued defense of his dignity. Redemption and forgiveness includes the bit "Go forth and sin no more". The fact that he messed up twice, lost two jobs for his continued follies shows that he didn't exactly repent. Its sad that conservatives defend those whose actions send their cause down the river. Meh, it's your choice though.

ylt,

My hyperbole was figurative, but it accurately illustrates your desire for revenge.

Man's law makes some kind of consideration for 'crimes of passion'. Killing of injuring some one in the murderous insane rage of the moment.

But your revenge is calculated. You just will not let go.

I do not give a rat's behind if he/she is conervative or liberal.

I may have misread the articles you cited, but it seemed to me he lost two different jobs as a result of the one infraction.

I do not condone or excuse his behavior, but I do not condemn him either because I have no standing to do so. He did me no injury. He broke no law. He committed no crime. He has acknowledged he did wrong. Other that asking the aggrieved parties for forgiveness, what more can he do?

How many times have you committed the same mistake, error, sin, crime, trespass, violation?

I have lost count of my multiple transgressions.

Dignity. I recomend YOU contemplate that concept.

You obviously do not like it when your's or someone elses dignity whom you estimate is worthy of your compassion is trampled on.

yor bro ken

kbhvac: I've lost count of your trangressions too. That makes two of us. But I forgive you. Go forth and sin no more, my friend!