If pure anger was personified and could speak, it would hope that we are driven to write this piece off as absolute piss-poor, uneducated dribble — but the best approach is probably to use logic and sense to deconstruct such an asinine argument. Also, the writer of this piece is in charge of helping to mold young, vulnerable minds, a truly disturbing thought (even more than the experience of reading the article itself), and the writer is giving speeches on this topic in different spots of the country.
We’ll first mention that this “copyrighted” piece has at least two typos– a sure sign of true care and concern for promoting a healthy message, right? Second, the credentials listed for this writer are scant at best, and nowhere near where they should be for anyone to consider her an expert on the topic. But speaking of her education, let’s
point out that if feminism did not exist in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the majority of women, probably including this writer, would not be writing, or have jobs such as chaplain at a university, or traveling to speak at events in New York City, at least not without the expressed consent of a father or husband. Also, like any ideological movement, Feminism takes various forms and is applied in various ways among various people – it is not one homogeneous creature but an amalgam of many different beliefs and applications. To narrowly define an entire manner of thought with many different aspects and sects inside the movement would be a mistake. There are forms of feminism that take on many “masculine” aspects in order to effect change, however, that is only one sliver in a much larger stump of wood (and let’s remember that the definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” are only social constructions, made not by god or nature but pure inherited social expectation).
Feminism is not defined as “pretending to be men,” but to receive EQUAL treatment and rights under law that men enjoy. The writer would be correct if she had said the the state of feminism isn’t without its problems. Feminism isn’t perfect, for the exact reason that it has not succeeded in eradicating the unequal treatment of women, including wage disparity, sexual harassment, reproductive freedom, etc. But, it has made great gains, and without feminism, many problems and inequalities would still exist in American society: including, to name a few:
– no female property rights
– no equal marriage contracts (i.e. LEGAL ownership of women by husbands)
– women voting rights
– slavery (would have been abolished later, because women, especially feminists, influenced the push for emancipation)
– no equal educational opportunities
– no special protections from domestic violence
– no special laws against sexual harassment and rape
– virtually no women’s sports, including no funding
The author also proclaims that American Feminism has had widespread negative effects, and has “broken down” not only American society, but the “global societies” that America influences. Here’s one society that America has influenced lately: Iraq. And the writer is correct, our view on the rights of women has played a part in the forced societal breakdown of parts of the Iraqi culture through our war in Iraq. Putting aside our need for oil and the threat of jihad and terrorism, Americans get queasy when they hear of the stories of Iraqi women who are stoned, victims of rape, victims of “honor killings” due to the rape, or are forced to wear veils and adhere to strict rules, including forced non-interaction (i.e. complete seclusion) with any males outside the family, etc. Americans, feminists or no, would usually agree that this type of pseudo religious-fundamentalism backed by the Iraqi government translates into enforced oppression. So yes, the idea of female equality, backed by feminist thought is rearing it’s ugly head in the Middle East, according to this writer.
Someone once said to me in conversation (paraphrasing) “there aren’t many women theologians and writers such that I know off throughout history, but that’s good because they had more important things to do,” implying that they were taking care of children, etc., and therefore patronizing the historically oppressed roles of women. Setting aside the strange and rampant anger that this quote ignited, it is utterly false. Women have been and will continue to write and think and create — it is that they do not receive recognition by the greater (mostly male) population. They are chosen to be ignored, quashed, and smothered by the patriarchal pillow that rests squarely at the center of the world’s cradle. Feminism isn’t about domination of men, or discarding of men, it’s about equal footing with men, and recognition of accomplishments free from any association with the accomplisher’s sex.
The time needed to fully elucidate the evils of this article would be decades.Hopefully, enough has been said to show it’s nature as complete mental turpentine.
The author only potentially gets one thing slightly right –Feminism is still an experiment in imperfection. That’s why this article is so insidious– it hopes to sidetrack any further efforts to improve the situation of women in America and across the world. Here’s your movement of zen to show how far we truly still have to go:
“…’in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work, receive 10 percent of the income and own less than one percent of the property.”
Here’s the upsetting article: (Disclaimer: this article is pure, poisonous, unadulterated, undiluted crap.) THE WAY TO WOMANHOOD
By Kimberly Rogers
Women today face many problems from financial difficulties to divorce to raising children alone, just to name a few. Our purpose here it to provide a place for women to get scriptural and moral support, help with difficulties and information through articles, links and a forum.
Now, more than ever, it is important that women lead this nation and the world out of the mess we have created through Feminism. We created this mess, collectively. Now, we must solve it collectively. The only way out is through our collective return to following Jesus Christ and His Salvation Plan.
The return to a better society starts within each of us individually. Then, we must gently teach those around us what it really means to be FEMININE and not a Feminist. The two terms are mutually exclusive because of how the definition of Feminism evolved.
Feminism is truly at the heart of the breakdown of American society, and by extension, the other global societies that America influences. It is never too late to amend our mistakes, but we must truly begin the process now.
Womanhood, on the other hand, requires that we uplift, nurture and help others. These ideas are foreign to the nature of Feminism. Feminists are not women – they are women pretending to be men. True women have much more to offer than whether we are able to usurp the abilities and natures of men to ourselves. It is much more of a challenge to be a Godly woman than it is to be an ungodly one.
The End Times have arrived. All we need to do is look around us to verify this fact. We must help to save as many people as possible before it is too late. Women must return to prayer and caring for others. The time is coming, very soon, when these active qualities will be needed. There are not enough of these activites or qualities in the world’s women today, so we must return to our true femininity and learn all over again what it means to be a woman.
Copyright 2007 – All Rights Reserved
Want true insight? go to the UN commission on the status of women website, here.
Final comment: Yesterday, someone made the suggestion that god and cancer could be given the same name. While many might take offense at such a suggestion, it’s articles such as the above that trend the suggestion towards “convincing,” or at least “warrants merit.”
Here’s the response M. Snowe just received from Senior Vice President of Anonymous College. See this letter from a previous post to catch up on the word-spewing crassness.This letter is COMPLETELY UNDOCTORED (Including the original spellings). All that has been changed are names, to protect the otherwise unprotectable.
February 25, 2008
Thank you for the reply and God bless,
Senior Vice President of Anonymous College
Commentary: There are at the very least three typos in this. Also, doing a quick scan of a few St. Ignatius website biographies, there is no mention of gathering donations, though there is no argument here that he must have solicited some funds. And “begging” for alms is a much different situation in this case–Ignatius’s monies went directly to the Church and the Jesuits. This money goes to sports centers and alumni banquets. And as for alumni giving being a true measure of satisfaction: One might love pineapples to death, and truly enjoy the experience of eating one, but does that mean they have to go out and invest in Dole stock?
Also, a little simple math for you:
Tuition per year (with room and board): over $47,000
Four Year Total Tuition: $190,408
Total college aid available: $30,000,000
Total Enrollment: 2,817
Total Students who have financial need: 58%
Total amount of students whose tuition could be covered in full by the $30 million: 157
58% of 2,817 students (amount who need financial aid): 1,634
This morning’s New York Times has a political memo written by Jeff Zeleny, opening with the following question:
“There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?”
The one problem with this article is thus:
The questions asked are mostly unanswerable. No actual threats are really highlighted, and none in depth. Yes, our country’s climate is not as hospitable as it should be, and Obama’s security should be a concern. But honestly, there are some problems with this article, and they run deep.
#1. Obvious Point: How many polls are out there right now, talking about Hillary Clinton’s lack of charisma, or personal appeal. Everyday, there’s a new story about likability, and Clinton’s lack-thereof. Yet it is Obama people are worried about. You would think if someone was so reportedly despised, their summit to potential presidency would make them a target. And yet the Obama worries are legitimate, to some extent. Charismatic figures have, on one hand, the ability to spur people on and get them excited about their message. Obama can do that in spades. Yet charisma runs the risk of inciting not just high praise, but high disapproval— and in the people completely opposite those that get riled up in a good way. Because people who decide to assassinate are usually angry, in a hyper-heightened way, just as the diametrically different Obama supporters can be enthusiastic. That is not to say that overly enthusiastic supporters of any campaign are unhinged, but mild obsession is a necessary quality for a staffer, no matter whose campaign it is.
#2. Not-So-Obvious Point: Zeleny ‘s angling of Obama’s likability. A quick glance at the first three or four pages of his most recently archived political stories show title after title helpful towards Obama, and harsh towards Clinton (even the pictures tell the story, with Obama looking up with hopeful eyes, whereas all the pics of Clinton seem to be authoritative ones, with finger points and mid-shout. She may do these things more, but it’s pretty clear that the photogs don’t try too hard to capture her “softer” side.) The problem with a story about “hushed” worries for Obama’s safety is that it unfairly raises an alarm that may or may not be that legitimate while simultaneously reinforcing Obama’s profile, and providing fodder for ample comparisons with past American heroes who were assassinated. In Zeleny’s article, the Kennedys and MLK jr. are mentioned almost as often as Obama is himself. There is no clever coating to this one- it’s all about comparison and similarities. And while it should be preambled that there is always a threat to any candidate, and probably a slight bit more worry attached to a black candidate, the comparison seems a bit weaker than the author would like us to believe. Dr. King was a hunted man; and similar to the eerie recent interviews with figures such as Benazir Bhutto, King knew that the threats against his life were real and dangerous. Whether he knew they would be his undoing, one can only guess; but he was under constant threat — the flight to Memphis were he gave his last speech and was later assassinated at his hotel –was delayed due to a bomb threat. Because of the work of Dr. King and his supporters and the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, the atmosphere is much better and safer for candidates of either race (though improvements still need to be made, surely).
Zeleny’s article is basically angling to help Obama survive, both physically and politically by making him into the amalgamation of RFK, JFK, and MLK… if only they had survived just a bit longer. Now this blogger is undecided in choice of which Democrat to prefer, but the problem with articles like this is they don’t merely report facts, they harken back to the past by making comparisons that only serve to muddy up the already murky waters of political choice. Talking about threats to Obama is one thing, but talking about threats in relation to other assassinations seems a bit off the point. To be fair, Clinton and the media surrounding her also harken back to past events in order to gain support or alternatively shake up support of the electorate, depending on the purpose that snipit of history is meant to serve rhetorically. And the republicans can’t seem to get the misnomer of “Reagan Era Politics” off their minds and tips of their tongues. Comparison is an important tool, but the public should go into any piece of news with the ability to understand stories, their angles, and just why they were written in certain ways. Obama isn’t polling well in the older age groups– Clinton has the majority in of older white women. Well, if you were to look through the old paper stashes of older white women, you would find a newspaper clipping or saved copy of any magazine with JFK’s picture, or perhaps a commemorative biography with embossed photos of Jackie Oanasis (before she was an Oananiss). You might might the same smart white or red suit with matching hat. The icon association is high. This blogger was forced to take multiple pictures of the Eternal Flame in Arlington for a grandmother and grandfather. Its a vital piece of history, and memory association is powerful… All that’s important to remember is that one situation can be similar, but it’s never the same, and false hope, especially in the candidate of hope, but also everyone else, only sets up for a let down. Let’s hope Obama doesn’t start building a complex in Hyannis, MA. And Clinton won’t automatically ring in the financially stable years of her husband’s jaunt either.
Quote from MSNBC:
“Obama’s strong showing has made him the man to beat in a historic struggle between a black man and a white woman, and even some of Clinton’s own supporters conceded she needs victories in both Ohio and Texas early next month to preserve her candidacy.”
This made us think of the other Historic Struggles between Black Men and White Women. Here are a few, for your viewing pleasure:
“Historic Struggle for Daytime Television”:
Montel Williams vs. Ricki Lake
“Historic Struggle for Best Recent MA Governorship”:
Deval Patrick vs. Jane Swift
“Historic Struggle for Life”:
O.J. Simpson vs. Nicole Brown Simpson
“Historic Struggle for Primetime Ratings”:
Bill Cosby vs. Rosanne
“Historic Struggle for Pop-Supremacy”:
Michael Jackson vs. Madonna
“Historic Struggle for Best Lipsync Fiasco”:
Milli Vanilli vs. Ashlee Simpson
“Historic Struggle for the 1988 Democratic Presidential Nomination”:
Jesse Jackson vs. Patricia Schroeder
“Historic Struggle for Sesame Street”:
Gordon Robinson (school teacher played by Roscoe Orman) vs. Linda (local librarian played by Linda Bove)
“Historic Struggle for Popular Young Minority Golfer”:
Tiger Woods vs. Michelle Wie
“Historic Struggle for Pop-Band Supremacy”:
Boyz 2 Men vs. Spice Girls
“Historic Struggle for Best Blind Celebrity”:
Ray Charles vs. Helen Keller
“Historic Struggle for Favorite Singing Muppet”:
Rowlf the Dog (technically of indeterminate breed) vs. Miss Piggy
(more to follow – and we’d love to hear your suggestions)
As you can see, the utter ridiculousness of such an exercise in historic struggles is fun and makes for an interesting spin on the same old political news, yet it proves inconclusive and completely pointless…and with the exception of the Simpson struggle, each exampled struggle is fairly undecided, and a matter of personal tastes/opinions (or lack thereof).
A day in the life of an alumnus to a small liberal arts college is never dull. Here’s an email received yesterday, with the names blocked out to ensure anonymity.
Dear M. Snowe,
As Senior Vice President of Anonymous College, I am writing to ask you for some very valuable feedback. Our records indicate that you have not recently made contributions to the College. I am not asking for money at this time; I am merely looking for information. Will you share with us why you do not give?
If you take a moment to let me know why you don’t give to Anonymous College, I promise to respond to you personally. We are working to make Anonymous College the top choice for ambitious students eager to discover themselves in an intellectually rigorous, Jesuit, liberal arts environment. We need the support of alumni to make that happen. That is why it is imperative for us understand why some alumni do not give. If you’re willing to share that information, I would be very grateful.
Just email me at anonymous email address with your response, and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts with me.
Senior Vice President
And here is an appropriate response to such an outrageous request, sent back to Mr. Anonymous this morning, for your viewing pleasure.
February 19, 2008
Dear Mr. Anonymous:
Thank you for your letter. Because you took the time to address me, I intend to answer you in full, and address the question of why I do not give.
I must remark first that I was a bit taken aback by your email. While I have received many direct mail and email queries for alumni giving, I’ve never received a letter quite like this, addressed directly to me. Your letter might not be the tack I would necessarily employ, but your candor should be applauded.
I truly enjoyed my four years at Anonymous College, and I agree with you that Anonymous College should be a top choice for ambitious students, and that Anonymous College is an intellectually rigorous liberal arts environment – I have seen and heard from students at many other schools whose experiences don’t come close to the one offered at Anonymous College. I have Anonymous College pride, and I am never hesitant to recommend the school to any potential college student.
But one of the many life lessons that Anonymous College helped to instill upon me is something I would like to share with you, and hope it gives you a better understanding as to why I take offense to your letter. Being taught in a Jesuit and liberal arts tradition, I learned the importance of the virtues of morality, justice and intellectual questioning. New ideas and diverse interpretations are breeding ground for a fulfilling and empathetic life. But when you ask me: why then I do not give? I must ask you: how can giving be defined so narrowly?
During my freshman year in 2001, I participated in the anonymous program. The key question appended to each theme is, as I am sure you know: How then shall we live? – Which strikes a familiar chord to me when I re-read your question of why then I do not give. I don’t know whether you phrased your question as an intentional mnemonic to make me flash back to freshman year, but if you did—it worked. So let me tell you about my freshman year. I took classes on searching for the true self, and the self in society. I made wonderful friendships. I worked in the dining hall and took extra shifts to try and contribute more towards my tuition. I worked on school breaks when at home. I studied hard, and did well. I learned what it was like to live by myself, and also how to live with my peers.
From Freshman year on, Anonymous College only continued to help develop a fuller sense of myself, the world around me, and the change I wanted to affect to better that world. Anonymous College has given me a lot, and I do owe it some form of repayment. And eventually, that repayment might take the form of cold. hard. cash.
But my question that I will repeat again is: how can giving be defined so narrowly? And why do I ask this? Let me go through any given day of mine. In the morning, I get on a subway train into New York City to go to work. It is always packed, and people are always bustling to gain those extremely coveted seats. I see a woman who is pregnant forced to stand, or an older couple shunted to the corner, clutching handlebars. Without a second thought–I offer my seat. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I get to work an hour or two early and work well past the standard quitting time, in order to prove my work ethic and be the best I can be. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I collect donations for food kitchens and cancer research to donate before I run in 15Ks. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I stay up late in order to edit my younger sibling’s college papers. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I volunteer regularly after work. And you ask me why then I don’t give. And most importantly, many know of where I went to college, as I laud my alma mater with pride. And all these small yet important acts contribute to the larger goal of showing people the tools that Anonymous College provides, and what a Anonymous College graduate can become. And so I repeat: And you ask me why then I don’t give.
On a less abstract note, I’d like to say that I do want to give financially to the school. Eventually. Right now, I am still paying off three college loans. Perhaps I would have more incentive to give financially if I was sure that my gift would be going directly to the aid of someone like me, who had to work their way through college, and whose parents, who tried to help, could only contribute a few extra dollars from their already tight salaries. Also, Anonymous College helped me to realize that the aspect of money is not anywhere near as important as happiness, fulfillment, and service to others – and my job right now fulfills and satisfies me. It does not however, allow me to veer from a very strict budget, which to me is fine, but perhaps you take offense. But in terms of my service to others, I feel as though I have given much. I feel as if my support to Anonymous College has been unwavering, but if defined by your terms, I have been found wanting. Yes, financial stability is an important aspect of any college, but if Anonymous College believes in itself, and the messages and gifts it conveys to its students, it will never be bankrupt. I fear that too much focus on the monetary will lead Anonymous College towards a bear intellectual market. So perhaps the questions that should be asked are not why then don’t you give? but what does it mean to give, and can giving be more than what is measured in dollar signs, line charts, and profit margins?
So once again, I thank you for your letter, and for considering my response.
Class of Anonymous
“We have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would attend to it, than any other person can be.”
which means very funny. (click the “more” button to get additional barackopedia headwords)
which means very funny. (click the “more” button to get additional barackopedia headwords)
…and that stands for fighting violence against women day, of course.
Here’s a few unhealthy facts for you:
– Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.
– One in six American women are victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men.
– In 2005-2006, there were an average annual 232,010 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
– About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.
(stats from RAINN.org)
– 17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape.
– The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.
– Following the Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 to strike down the civil-rights provision of the Federal Violence Against Women Act (ruling that only states could enact such legislation), only two states in the country (Illinois and California) have defined gender-based violence, such as rape and domestic violence, as sex discrimination, and created specific laws that survivors can use to sue their perpetrators in civil court. (Kaethe Morris Hoffer, 2004).
And now on to the global numbers:
– At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are “missing” from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect.
– Globally, at least one in three women and girls is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. (UN Commission on the Status of Women, 2/28/00)
– An estimated one million children, mostly girls, enter the sex trade each year (UNICEF)
– More than 90 million African women and girls are victims of female circumcision or other forms of genital mutilation.
“Violence against women has profound implications for health but is often ignored. WHO’s World Report on Violence and Health notes that “one of the most common forms of violence against women is that performed by a husband or male partner.” This type of violence is frequently invisible since it happens behind closed doors, and effectively, when legal systems and cultural norms do not treat as a crime, but rather as a “private” family matter, or a normal part of life.”
-World Health Organization
**And let’s not forget that violence against women does not just come in the highly brutal, physical form. It also smacks each of us in the face every morning, when we wake up to find ourselves locked in an abusive relationship with those who (being primarily men) decided women must not have the mental capabilities to control the machinations of their own reproductive lives, and who try to strike down a woman’s right to a choice, to birth control, and to freedom from parental or a partner’s consent when making choices which will effect our health, bodies, and overall well-being. Disrespect is not just physical abuse — it is any action that seeks to break you down into bite-able pieces and serve you up to fit other’s needs like chocolates in a russell stover box. Instead of reminding people you already love today of a fact they should already know, how about showing some love for those unfortunate people who are shown the opposite daily?
we finally can expect good (actually, just “better”) Television, and less reruns!
Times story here
“A crucial break came when the two sides crafted a provision that provides the guilds a gain in the payment for digital distribution of entertainment beyond the terms of a recent deal between Hollywood producers and the Directors Guild of America”
Wonder what the “gain in payment” amounts to? It must be hoped that it’s substantial.