"The 1st Wives Club" - Man-Bashing Is A-OK!!!
Humor Impaired
Was...@Eff.ort wrote:
>Meaghan,
>Simple things can have huge consequences. Just low thyroid hormones
>can cause learning difficulties, which can certainly affect job
>performance. Some medications are neural-toxic. Surgeries seem to
>take a toll on learning ability while the body diverts its energy to
>heal. Some of us don't age well.
...(Marg comes to mind)
>Nutrition is a factor. Heredity
>might pre-dispose you to problems you haven't yet had a hint of. You
>cannot be sure that you'll keep up better than others. You are
>gloating prematurely. It's incredible to mistake being factually
>correct with morally correct, worse to be both factually and morally
>wrong.
_Worst_ to think that you know everything.
>People without compassion are likely to get lessons in it, challenges
>meant to teach them to be a little kinder to others, more
>understanding of others failures, faults, and foibles. It appears to
>me that you, Meaghan, are tempting fate, begging for some lessons.
Are you stating here that _you_ women are deserving of sympathy
because all of _you_ are failures?
>No one has to give them to you. You will draw them in. Somewhere inside
>you, you must know how basically unkind you are.
_How_ unkind to be unsympathetic to all of you failures.
>Most of us can
>disagree without insulting and degrading each other. You bring the
>worst out in us as well.
You mean that she exposes you for what you are... and you don't
like that at all, do you.
>I know you can't hear this now, Meaghan,
Better rather for you to heed your _own_ words.
>that to you it'll just trigger a maelstrom of hate, that you can't
>take it as it is offered, but remember this: Karma is a bitch.
Just like you.
>It's purpose is to teach, which it WILL do eventually.
Dear Wasted Effort:
Prophetic words.... remember them....
(from another Godess of the Net?)
Meaghan is one of the few women that I have any respect for
on these groups and largely because I suspect that she knows more
about the effects of 'Karma' than you all of you could put together
with your wee little brains and life experiences.
I too have been accused of having no sympathy for the likes of
you. I too have been accused of being a man. I too have tried
fruitlessly to state that women don't need anybody's special favors.
I too can feel only contempt for the weak little whiners and
complainers that you are.
Meaghan has got the guts and character of a winner.
Angela
http://www.canuck.com/~len/ang.htm
John Cooley
>Carol, you are indeed the carbon-copy of male chauvinsts of the 1950's.
>Your platform is identical, your various mantras are identical, and your
>sexism would be identical except it is worse - women who are sexist
>against men KNOWING from history how bad sexism is are worse than any man
>ever was - they at least didn't know the how bad the pain was that they
>inflicted.
> - Leigh
Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
ultimately against men. Carol, and quite a few women (not most, thank
God!) tend to take the art of man bashing to an extreme. Witness how
men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him! Another wife turned
his daughter against the father to spy on him. There were many scenes
where this daughter faked loving daddy only to have her "turn"
on him in a later scene. If this movie was reversed by having three
men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
- John Cooley
The Fathers Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being a divorced father shouldn't mean you can't know your own children."
The Fathers Group meets in Framingham, Massachusetts on the 2nd Tuesday
of every month. Our address, etc.: The Fathers Group, 908 Concord St.,
Framingham, MA 01701 phone (508) 879-4585. Feel free to join us!
Lillith
That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
treated.... NOT.
Disney has yet to depict a strong female character that not only has
intelligence but saves the day. All those films are showing our
children that women can be smart but the man always is the one to make
things right!
In First Wives the women made things right on their own terms. No, it
was not realistic and no, it was not very topical but get a grip.
Jamie Lee Curtis running around in a testosterone action Arnold
Schwarzenager movie in a negligee for two hours is OK but Arnold running
around in his boxers is just RIDICULOUS and never would be considered.
Go figure.
Anyway, if you are going to start on how men are treated in film, you
will lose the battle. History is against you.
L.
r...@ix.netcom.com
Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>L.
For that matter, look what Ernest Hemingway does to women???
And in turn to men? His men live by the hair on their chests and his
women just kinda lie there, full only of what the men provide. Rather
than trying to shape everyone else in history of Hollywood up, why not
start here?
Fringe Ryder
Lillith (Lil...@anon.com) wrote:
: That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
: women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
: Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
: treated.... NOT.
[snip]
: Anyway, if you are going to start on how men are treated in film, you
: will lose the battle. History is against you.
If you include commercials, he'd win. Men are ALWAYS portrayed as the
clumsy, beknightedly unintelligent, or foolish ones on TV and in radio ads.
Mark Jebens
In article <DzF4p...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley)
wrote:
> Witness how
> men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
> screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
> ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
> knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him!
[etc, etc - stuff deleted]
The LA Times recently had a commentary on this movie by Warren Farrell,
the author of "The Myth of Male Power" and a former director of NOW in
New York City. Part of his commentary follows:
"The problem is, failed marriages hurt both sexes. For each 40-year-old
wife turned in for two 20s, there is a 40-year-old husband caught between
a sexless marriage and his moral scruples, or a husband desparately
seeking understanding for his fears of being disposable if he isn't an
adequate sucess.
"For each first wife left with inadequate income, there is a dad driving
a cab 70 hours a week or collecting garbage in the hope that his
children can have a better life, that his wife can have a home more
pleasant than his garbage truck. When such a husband then is criticized
for working late, and one day comes home to a note saying his wife
has left and taken the children, his life feels meaningless and the
women's crisis centers do not invite his calls.
"For each single mother who is juggling children, a job and unpaid
child support, there is a single dad who has seen his marriage
become alimony payments, his home his ex-wife's home but his
mortgage payments, their children become child support checks for
children who have been pschologically turned against him.
"For each woman faced with a deadbeat dad, there is a desparate dad,
desparate to love his children, but told that if he comes any closer,
she will accuse him of being a child molester or a wife beater.
"For each first wife who loses income, there is a second wife who
gains income; for each first husband who loses his home and his
children, there is a second wife who struggles with a man who has
a depleted bank account and a broken heart, or there is a woman
who rejects that ma because of his depleted bank account or his
broken heart.
"For a quarter of a century, women have been articulating their
version of rejection and men have been putting their heads in the
sand, hoping the bullets would miss. We have have not had a battle of
the sexes, but a war in which only one side has shown up. The solution
lies not in the formation of First Wives clubs colluding with a
man-hating daughter to "vaporize" dad as the country cheers, but in
all of us learning to walk a mile in each others' moccasins even as
we are seeking empathy for our own pain."
--
Mark Jebens
mje...@primenet.com
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no
better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw
Arlyn J. Hubbell
In article <326635...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
>women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
>Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
>treated.... NOT.
>Anyway, if you are going to start on how men are treated in film, you
>will lose the battle. History is against you.
And therein lies the rub. Does history give us license to repeat what
we already know is wrong?
Just a thought.
Arlyn
--
Arlyn J. Hubbell webm...@shore.net; ar...@shore.net
Shore.Net http://www.shore.net/~arlyn/arlyn.html
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps."
Emo Phillips
Joshua R. Poulson
In article <326635...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
>women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
>Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
>treated.... NOT.
Both Kathy (my much-loved girlfriend) and I were unimpressed with this
lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
can say.
You're right about Hollywood, they aren't around to depict reality,
but does it really have to be the way it is? I enjoy the flicks that
diverge greatly from mass marketing's cookie cutter approach. However,
I admit that I enjoy the flicks that are even more "over the top" than
the last one.
However, consider this ratio: in real life what happens more often,
sex or violence? Which is depicted more often in the media? Even
worse, when are the consequences of either ever depicted faithfully?
--
Joshua R. Poulson, j...@pun.org, http://www.pun.org/~jrp
"finger -l j...@teleport.com" for PGP public key
Andrew Hall
Joshua R. Poulson (j...@teleport.com) wrote:
[regarding "First Wives Club"]
: Both Kathy (my much-loved girlfriend) and I were unimpressed with this
: lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
: interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
: can say.
I saw the film only because I wanted to take my mom to see a movie
she'd like (she did really enjoy it). I didn't like the film, either,
but I didn't really expect to.
[rest of this followup isn't necessary directed at Joshua's post.]
But I think it's unfair to criticize "First Wives Club" because of
its portrayal of men as weak and stupid. The simplistic movie formula
of pitting "good guys" against "bad guys" is as old as Hollywood
itself - and having clear black-and-white distinctions between the
"good" and the "bad" is the most sure way to appeal to a mass audience.
In this case, the film makers made the women the "good guys" and the
men the "bad guys". So what? It's a clear-cut (but poorly developed)
premise that's politically correct and had the potential to be funny.
Sounds like a safe way to make a blockbuster film in the 90's.
Countless films have made a distinction between good guys and bad guys
along other lines; for example: poor vs rich, black vs white, even
criminals vs the corrupt law with an anti-hero theme.
: You're right about Hollywood, they aren't around to depict reality,
: but does it really have to be the way it is? I enjoy the flicks that
: diverge greatly from mass marketing's cookie cutter approach. However,
: I admit that I enjoy the flicks that are even more "over the top" than
: the last one.
Yes, rare is the Hollywood film that doesn't descend into cliche and
formula. But that's the reality of today's movie market. If you
want good, quality films, check out the stuff that shows at Cinema 21
and KOIN Center. Two good bets currently showing at KOIN Center are
"Big Night" and "Lone Star".
Andrew
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ah...@bizave.com Bizave Infosystems *Web Design Services*
Visit Andrew's Home Page: http://www.bizave.com/~ahall/ *PDX Snow Pics*
*Portland Bridges* *PDX Map *PDX Pizza*
*Cinema21* PDX Apartment Guide * Andrew's Photo Gallery *PDX Volunteer Page*
Kathy Blain
In article <5460qc$7...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Joshua R. Poulson <j...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <326635...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>>That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
>>women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
>>Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
>>treated.... NOT.
>
>lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
>interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
>can say.
Josh (my much-loved boyfriend) is right. The movie was lifeless for
many reasons, but one of the main reasons that I noticed was the male
characters. The screenwriters created caricatures; the male characters
had very little character development; therefore, I was not interested in
what happened to them or the story.
And, if the characters were men beating up "bad" men for a heinous act
that the "bad" men had done, we would be talking about the violence in
the film and not the fact that the film was sexist. The only fact that
made the film sexist was the lack of a character to the male characters.
Hollywood and screenwriters are often accused of bad script writing and
shallow male and female characters. In this film, the caricatures were
of the men.
I definitely will not recommend this film and I feel I wasted $12 (since
I talked Josh into seeing the film). I dislike when a film is poorly
written for any reason.
>However, consider this ratio: in real life what happens more often,
>sex or violence? Which is depicted more often in the media? Even
>worse, when are the consequences of either ever depicted faithfully?
The media will sell whatever they can sell. Sex and violence both sell;
however, sex is censored and violence is not. (Unless you see a Disney
flick, of course. Then, the opposite is true). And, people want to escape
when they go to the movies; they do not want to see realism. So, Hollywood
and screenwriters will provide the escapism that people will "buy".
Kathy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Blain email:kbl...@teleport.com
Beaverton, OR http://www.teleport.com/~kblain/index.html
kl...@neosoft.com
On 17 Oct 1996 20:27:48 GMT, ah...@teleport.com (Andrew Hall) wrote:
(snip)
>formula. But that's the reality of today's movie market. If you
>want good, quality films, check out the stuff that shows at Cinema 21
>and KOIN Center. Two good bets currently showing at KOIN Center are
>"Big Night" and "Lone Star".
>
>Andrew
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ah...@bizave.com Bizave Infosystems *Web Design Services*
>Visit Andrew's Home Page: http://www.bizave.com/~ahall/ *PDX Snow Pics*
>*Portland Bridges* *PDX Map *PDX Pizza*
>*Cinema21* PDX Apartment Guide * Andrew's Photo Gallery *PDX Volunteer Page*
Well.....
Since this thread seems to have evolved into a movie discussion, I
think I'll comment on that last statement:
Did anyone notice the sub-plot in "Lone Star" that featured the result
of a long-standing and apparently quite injurious case of "parental
alienation syndrome"? It just now came to me.... And yes, the movie
*is* a good one...
Ron
Keith Wood
In article <mjebens-1710...@osds-107.fu.hac.com>,
mje...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens) wrote:
[The LA Times recently had a commentary on this movie by Warren Farrell,
[the author of "The Myth of Male Power" and a former director of NOW in
[New York City. Part of his commentary follows:
Is the rest of it available online somewhere?
Meaghan Walker
>>Your platform is identical, your various mantras are identical, and your
>>sexism would be identical except it is worse - women who are sexist
>>against men KNOWING from history how bad sexism is are worse than any man
>>ever was - they at least didn't know the how bad the pain was that they
>>inflicted.
>> - Leigh
>
>Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
>right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
>society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
>ultimately against men. Carol, and quite a few women (not most, thank
>men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
>screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
>ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
>his daughter against the father to spy on him. There were many scenes
>where this daughter faked loving daddy only to have her "turn"
>on him in a later scene. If this movie was reversed by having three
>men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
>and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
>
> - John Cooley
> The Fathers Group
>
Yeh - I love how we had to wade thru Carol Anns righteous indignation about
rubber inflatable doll that had been finger raped at a sporting event.
And less than three weeks later she is slapping her good buddy Kiralyn on the
back - despite the fact that Kiraylne has constantly made jokes about
castrtating men, cutting off their balls and chopping off their dicks and
stuffing it down their throats.
Where is her rightous indignation now?
Meaghan Walker
Patrick Tang
Keith Marlowe wrote:
> Because it happens so often! When are you guys going to stop your whining
> and get a life. Are you so constantly bitter because you can't find another
> woman who will tolerate your insensitivity?
> Spend a weekend in the emergency ward and see the real victims of spousal
> abuse. Spend a weekend with a child protection agency and see the real
> "innocent" victims of spousal abuse.
1. I had a life, I was a father until the government got involved. Now
I am just a slave who is not entitled to the fruits of his labor and not
entitled to parent my own children. If you get paid 20 cents on the
dollar, come home to an empty house because the state would not allow
your kids to be over 20% or so of the time, would you be bitter? If you
are not bitter, perhaps there is something wrong with you.
2. Yes, there are a few bad apples out there e.g. women abuse children
at roughly or larger number than men, women abuse spouses at the same
rate as men, but do I read from your post that laws should cater to
these extreme cases and apply drastic 'solutions' to the other loving,
capable fathers like me?
I will leave you to your baseless emoting, I have to return to dealing
with how I can best father my children under this oppressive state.
patrick tang
Meaghan Walker
In article <32678D...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
>
> I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
> and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
>
> Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
>
Equal pay is a ridiculous contention. Even in jobs where you have two
male people performing the same task for a company - it is well within
the companies rights to pay each employee exactly what they are worth ie
what their level of production indicates.
You already have equal rights dear lady - and respect is something that
is earned - not demanded and capitulated to.
When I hear women like you going on and on about these things, as if they
were actually logical arguements with a basis in reality - it makes me
cringe and wish to dissacoiate myself from the gender.
You are not asking for equality - you are demanding Equality of result -
which is nothing more than demanding the legal permission to take the
unearned and the undeserved.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <326818...@ucs.orst.edu>, bjo...@ucs.orst.edu says...
> <lilith dialog snipped>
>
> Meaghan Walker wrote in response to lilith:
>
> > Equal pay is a ridiculous contention. Even in jobs where you have two
> > male people performing the same task for a company - it is well within
> > the companies rights to pay each employee exactly what they are worth ie
> > what their level of production indicates.
>
> there are numerous studies and articles written all the time that
> address this issue. Women are paid less than men across the board even
> though doing the SAME job, and doing it AS WELL AS the men.
I can cite several studies that show that this is false - and I doubt you
can prove your claim. You may have heard about them second hand but do
you actually have a grasp of economics and the implications of your
statements with regards to how they apply to the free market.
For furture Reading I direct your attention to "Wealth and Poverty" By
George Gilder, "the conquest of Poverty" by Henry Hazlit and "Human
Action" by Ludwig Von Mises"
> Women are paid less, its a fact, and its not because our work is
> inferior which is what you seem to be suggesting, its because we haven't
> stepped up to the plate, taken up the reins of power and cast our vote.
Oh please - drop the rhetoric.
"Most of the differences of pay between men and women derive from the
fact that women between the ages of 25 to 59 are 11 times more likely
than men to voluntarily leave work. and the average woman spends 8 months
on a job as compared to the almost 3 years for a man.
Throughout the economy moreover men and women ALIKE with college degrees
and doctorates, techincial feilds included , often earn less than
plumbers, and garbage men and miners and truck drivers who hold no more
than a highhschool diploma.
It seems everybody wants indoor work, with no heavy lifting but only
women nearly always get it. thus driving down their pay. Equal pay for
equal work is a principle that applies NOWHERE. Even among men - Even in
identicle jobs, work effort vaires, vastly from worker to worker, What
EEOC implicitly demands is carteblance powers over the whole job market
and thus the vital freedom of workers to chose their own jobs from among
competeing offers of employers."
-- George Gilder - The conquest of poverty - page 157
cited refferences to this claim.
***Kim B Clark and Lawrence H.Summers "Labour Market Dynamics and
Unemployment : A Reconsideratin," Brookings Institution pg 52
***Cotton Mather Lindsay "Equal Pay for Comparable Work; An Economic
Analysis of a NEW ANTI-DESCRIMINATION DOCTRINE. AN LEC Occasional Paper
(Coral Gables FLa.Law and Economics Center, Univeristy of Miami , School
of Law)
> Sure some of us do, I do, but until we realize the strength we have by
> our sheer numbers and get out there and vote for what we want we're
> always going to be paid less, shouted down by neanderthals when we say
> we don't like something and called feminazis when a few of us dare to
> speak out.
I am not a neanderthal - I am a woman who is disgusted by what lenghts
other women will go to claim victimization. I would be happy to see your
Empiric Evidence that suggests my claim is false. Good luck finding it!
>
> Katherine (who thinks its about time women took power into their own
> hands and got out there and voted!)
>
Great Katherine - then Just dont blather about these ideas where people
who have done their homework can point out how patently untrue they are.
Save it for your coffee clatches with your other angry feminazi friends.
Meaghan Walker
Keith Marlowe
>
> Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
> right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
> society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
> ultimately against men. Witness how
> men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
> screw a guy over. If this movie was reversed by having three
> men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
> and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
Because it happens so often! When are you guys going to stop your whining
and get a life. Are you so constantly bitter because you can't find another
woman who will tolerate your insensitivity?
Spend a weekend in the emergency ward and see the real victims of spousal
abuse. Spend a weekend with a child protection agency and see the real
"innocent" victims of spousal abuse.
but I know I protest in vain. you don't want the truth. You just want to
spill your venom anywhere you can. The tragedy is you perpetuate the
problem in your own children. Very sad indeed.
> - John Cooley
> The Fathers Group
>
>
Some...@somewhere.sometime
Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
:women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
:Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
:treated.... NOT.
What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
Some...@somewhere.sometime
Excellent post. I don't expect the champions of victimology, the feminists,
to possibly see any other point of view but their own, though.
mje...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens) wrote:
:In article <DzF4p...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley)
:wrote:
:> Witness how
:> men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
:> screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
:> ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
:> knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him!
:[etc, etc - stuff deleted]
:The LA Times recently had a commentary on this movie by Warren Farrell,
:the author of "The Myth of Male Power" and a former director of NOW in
:New York City. Part of his commentary follows:
:"The problem is, failed marriages hurt both sexes. For each 40-year-old
Lillith
>
> What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
> rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
> my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
> we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
> have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
shall we?
(Every pun intended)
Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
of being put as second place in all things?
No, I do not know what is inherently offensive to men because I am not a
man, but for decades men have proclaimed what is best for women.
I never used the word feminist to describe myself but I would have to
say that I am. Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
seriously.
I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
L.
Mark Jebens
> In article <mjebens-1710...@osds-107.fu.hac.com>,
> mje...@primenet.com (Mark Jebens) wrote:
>
> [The LA Times recently had a commentary on this movie by Warren Farrell,
> [the author of "The Myth of Male Power" and a former director of NOW in
> [New York City. Part of his commentary follows:
>
> Is the rest of it available online somewhere?
I couldn't find it. You can try yourself at www.latimes.com. It was
in the Op-Ed section on 18 Oct and the title was "First Wives Club:
Thelma and Louise Exhale".
The rest of the piece dealt with similarities of this movie and "Thelma and
Louise" and "Exhale". It also talks about how this is art imitating real
life by bringing in Betty Broderick, the woman who killed her ex-husband
and his second wife as they slept in their bed and who received support
from feminists. I didn't think these were particularly relevent to
anything.
rha007.tco...@ohsu.edu
In article <DzF4p...@world.std.com> jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
>From: jco...@world.std.com (John Cooley)
>Subject: "The 1st Wives Club" - Man-Bashing Is A-OK!!!
>Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:46:13 GMT
>>Carol, you are indeed the carbon-copy of male chauvinsts of the 1950's.
>>Your platform is identical, your various mantras are identical, and your
>>sexism would be identical except it is worse - women who are sexist
>>against men KNOWING from history how bad sexism is are worse than any man
>>ever was - they at least didn't know the how bad the pain was that they
>>inflicted.
>> - Leigh
>Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
>right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
>society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
>ultimately against men. Carol, and quite a few women (not most, thank
>God!) tend to take the art of man bashing to an extreme. Witness how
>men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
>screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
>ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
>knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him!
It wasn't that he was clean and they fabricated anything - he was unknowingly
having sex with an under-aged female. While a lot of us don't hold with
sleeping with anyone that strikes our fancy, it wasn't a good thing to sleep
with "jailbait". The fact that he treated her badly, was a jerk in general
(the reason she felt she had to get revenge) was more to the point.
>Another wife turned his daughter against the father to spy on him.
Wrong. The daughter volunteered. That points to a basic problem between not
only the parents but the way the daughter saw her father treating her mother.
Not a case of man bashing, just one version of one story.
> There were many scenes where this daughter faked loving daddy only to have
>her "turn" on him in a later scene. If this movie was reversed by having
>three men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
>and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
I don't know. It depends on how rotten the women were depicted. I don't say
that all men are bastards and women are saints. People are people. There are
many versions of people depicted in each sex. There are put-upon humans,
mistreated by family members or friends or strangers or a combination of
these. Unluckily, the more family oriented stuff that depicts families working
together seem to be a thing of the past.
I still like the movie "Yours, Mine, and Ours" and it's like.
I point out a positive movie about men in general that even had a sequal with
both good and bad men. "Three Men and a Baby" and "Three Men and a Little
Lady". These movies depicted basically good people in situations they didn't
expect. I enjoyed both of them.
Look into "While You Were Sleeping" and you will see examples of both men and
women in positive and not-so-positive lights.
If you look hard enough, you will find better movies to watch. Ignore the
dreck, ignore the wreck. Just watch the ones that you enjoy and the ones you
enjoy watching with others. Keep positive thoughts. Not everything will go
perfectly but things in general will get better. (It works for me.)
Patricia
Arlyn J. Hubbell
In article <32678D...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>>
>> What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
>> rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
>> my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
>> we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
>> have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
>
>Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
>shall we?
>(Every pun intended)
>
>Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
>unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
>women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
>they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
>of being put as second place in all things?
>
>No, I do not know what is inherently offensive to men because I am not a
>man, but for decades men have proclaimed what is best for women.
But does this mean that women should be allowed to apply the same
injustice to men? I think not. Shall I go out and grab some male ass
on the trains just because that has been done to me? I don't think so.
Should I do my damnedest to stunt the professional growth of my young
male colleague because he works so well *for me* as a boss did to me
years ago when he decided my "typing skills and dancer's legs weren't
going nowhere?" No.
This attitude, "I've been wronged by *them* for eons. Now that I have
the ability, I'm going to do exactly the same thing to them," makes me
cringe.
>I never used the word feminist to describe myself but I would have to
>say that I am. Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
>history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
>seriously.
>I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
>and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
Not at all. Equal rights, equal pay, and respect are completely
reasonable expectations. The right to belittle and demean the opposite
sex is not. And I doubt that he is "frightened" by the idea of a woman
wanting equal rights et al, I'm certainly not. What frightens me, is
the fact that there are women out there that seem to think that turnabout
is the only way to proceed. It sort of feels like a dangerous Sadie
Hawkins Day....
>Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
Go Helen Reddy. Feh.
Yours,
Glenna Rose
In article <5474e3$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
[snip]
>
>What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
>rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
>my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
>we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
>have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
>
Something you should keep in mind here about the movies to which you refer:
They are primarily written by men.....directed by men......and targeting a
male audience. Those movies do not appeal to the female audience and really
have a relatively small percentage of the female members of our population
singing their praises.
Now, you tell us women why it is that you are only upset about male bashing in
a movie such as "First Wives' Club" and not in the types of movies you
mentioned above....is it because, perhaps, you call it something different
there? Or does it have more to do with the average man being able to identify
with "First Wives' Club" at some level?
Question: At what point does a perceived negative image of men start being
called "male bashing" rather than "drama" or "adventure" or "mystery." etc.?
I do mean this as a sincere question, not as flame bait.
Glenna
Word Warrior
Patrick Tang <pat...@ptang.com> wrote:
>1. I had a life, I was a father until the government got involved.
You can't be trying to claim here that everything was just hunky-dory
until suddenly, out of the blue, the 'government' swooped down on you
in your unsuspecting innocence and destroyed your life.
That would seem totally ludicrous except that it makes a more palatable
belief to someone trying to hide from the reality of having married the
wrong person, become unable to get along with that person, and having
had children with that person in ignorance of the problems.
> Now
>I am just a slave
You are what you make of yourself, no more and no less.
Your attempt to blame others for your problems is nonproductive at best.
> who is not entitled to the fruits of his labor and not
>entitled to parent my own children.
Perhaps if their mother weren't so disgusted with you, it wouldn't be
that way. I guess next you'll just claim that she decided to dislike
you, again, out of the blue.
> If you get paid 20 cents on the
>dollar, come home to an empty house because the state would not allow
>your kids to be over 20% or so of the time, would you be bitter? If you
>are not bitter, perhaps there is something wrong with you.
There is definitely something wrong with you if the state has to take
over with respect to your familial relationships.
That's a hard pill to swallow, perhaps, but so is much medicine.
>2. Yes, there are a few bad apples out there e.g. women abuse children
>at roughly or larger number than men, women abuse spouses at the same
>rate as men, but do I read from your post that laws should cater to
>these extreme cases and apply drastic 'solutions' to the other loving,
>capable fathers like me?
Truly loving, capable fathers find little problem getting the mothers
of their children to share them.
In case that hadn't occurred to you ...
> I will leave you to your baseless emoting, I have to return to dealing
>with how I can best father my children under this oppressive state.
If you ever manage to get back to cooperation with your former spouse,
the state will have no interest in or ability to interfere.
Even imaginary adversaries can still hurt you.
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Respectfully, Sheila ~~~Word Warrior~~~ gr...@pipeline.com|
|Obligatory tribute to the founding fathers of the United States of America:|
| This is not to be read by anyone under 18 years of age, who should read up|
| on history and the First Amendment to the Constitution, as an alternative.|
| *Animals, including humans, fart, piss, shit, masturbate, fuck and abort.*|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stands By the Wild Rose
Somebody hiding behind an alias sez:
> > What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
> > rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
> > my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
> > we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
> > have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
Lillith wrote:
> Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
> shall we?
> (Every pun intended)
>
> Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
> unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
> women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
> they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
> of being put as second place in all things?
<some snipped>
> Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
> history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
> seriously.
>
> I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
> and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
>
> Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
>
> L.
RE: being called a feminist. I've noticed a pattern among some men in
some newsgroups...those that feel threatened by women, who will not be
brought to heel, often labeled those women as feminists, as if it were
a dirty word or as if it defined a woman who hates men, another thing
some men call women who have opinions and feelings which differ from
their own.
Real men take the time to understand where women are coming from.
Real men don't resort to name calling when they can't control or
dominate the conversation. Real men don't use what they percieve to be
as man bashing as an excuse to bash women. Real men aren't scared of
real women.
So...@one.else
Patrick Tang <pat...@ptang.com> wrote:
>Keith Marlowe wrote:
>> Because it happens so often! When are you guys going to stop your whining
>> and get a life. Are you so constantly bitter because you can't find another
>> woman who will tolerate your insensitivity?
>> Spend a weekend in the emergency ward and see the real victims of spousal
>> abuse. Spend a weekend with a child protection agency and see the real
>> "innocent" victims of spousal abuse.
>1. I had a life, I was a father until the government got involved.
You previously said you are happier now, a content member of an
improved family. Which is it?
> Now I am just a slave who is not entitled to the fruits of his labor and not
>entitled to parent my own children. If you get paid 20 cents on the
>dollar, come home to an empty house because the state would not allow
>your kids to be over 20% or so of the time, would you be bitter? If you
>are not bitter, perhaps there is something wrong with you.
>2. Yes, there are a few bad apples out there e.g. women abuse children
>at roughly or larger number than men, women abuse spouses at the same
>rate as men, but do I read from your post that laws should cater to
>these extreme cases and apply drastic 'solutions' to the other loving,
>capable fathers like me?
> I will leave you to your baseless emoting, I have to return to dealing
>with how I can best father my children under this oppressive state.
> patrick tang
Odd, on one hand tang claims to be doing a beautiful job as a
custodial parent delighted with his current family and life. Liquid
facts? Typical anti-feminist truth? And then he clumsily loads his
language to condemn even those who advocate equality... (to be more
than equal is no longer equal, tang) He wants more at the same time
he trivializes everyone else's feelings. He's happy, satisfied,
remarried, but an oppressed slave in an empty house.
Jackie
In article <DzF4p...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com says...
>Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
>right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
>society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
>ultimately against men. Carol, and quite a few women (not most, thank
>God!) tend to take the art of man bashing to an extreme. Witness how
>men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
>screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
>ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
>knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him! Another wife turned
>his daughter against the father to spy on him. There were many scenes
>where this daughter faked loving daddy only to have her "turn"
>on him in a later scene. If this movie was reversed by having three
>men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
>and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
>
> - John Cooley
John, I think you are right about the movie (I didn't read Lefty's post). If it
would have been a movie about three men screwing over women, certain organizations
would have had a conniption. Yah, maybe there are guys that are jerks, but
there are just as many women. It's not like those women in the film didn't have
a choice in who they married -- so why did they choose jerks. I think it's more
of a put down for women than anything. It shows that the only way we can protect
ourselves or get revenge, is by playing conniving tricks. But I still would like to
see the movie for entertainment purposes (I like Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler,
and Diane Keaton). Being a strong person and standing up for your rights is
being a strong person but being sexist is not. I can't blame men nowadays for
being so paranoid to do anything around or to a woman. A guy I'm seeing right
now (who is very sweet), at times, doesn't know whether he's coming or going with
me. I think he's thinking too much about whether certain behaviors or certain
statements would upset me. I think men get that way because of the man-hating
women (which I am most definitely NOT), which creates a stereotype -- how could that
be good for any woman? Men and women deserved to be treated the same way -- and
that's with respect.
Jackie
Lillith
Excuse me,
Did I say that women should rush out and do what men have been doing for
eons? NOOOOOOOO.
What I was pointing out was that for a loooooooooong time women have
been misrepresented on many different levels.
Many injustices have been done to many people of both genders. None of
which should probably have been done to anyone! BUT the fact still
stands that men have the upper hand, both literally and physically, and
women have a right to stand beside their partners equally in all things.
I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right but it fascinates me that as
women become equal in society men are taking offense at things, that not
too long ago, were solely the gripe of women.
The shoe is on the other foot and it is obviously pinching.
L.
Marg Petersen
In article <5464s4$9...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Andrew Hall <ah...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Joshua R. Poulson (j...@teleport.com) wrote:
>
>[regarding "First Wives Club"]
>
>: lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
>: interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
>: can say.
>
>she'd like (she did really enjoy it). I didn't like the film, either,
>but I didn't really expect to.
I saw it with my husband and we both liked it. Of *course* it isn't
reality; we don't go to movies to see reality.
>[rest of this followup isn't necessary directed at Joshua's post.]
>
>But I think it's unfair to criticize "First Wives Club" because of
>its portrayal of men as weak and stupid. The simplistic movie formula
>of pitting "good guys" against "bad guys" is as old as Hollywood
>itself - and having clear black-and-white distinctions between the
>"good" and the "bad" is the most sure way to appeal to a mass audience.
Agree about a lot of movies being "good guys against bad guys", BUT
was this movies really about that?
>In this case, the film makers made the women the "good guys" and the
>men the "bad guys". So what? It's a clear-cut (but poorly developed)
>premise that's politically correct and had the potential to be funny.
>Sounds like a safe way to make a blockbuster film in the 90's.
>Countless films have made a distinction between good guys and bad guys
>along other lines; for example: poor vs rich, black vs white, even
>criminals vs the corrupt law with an anti-hero theme.
Is this really true? Were the women in this film really "good guys?"
I didn't see the women, as portrayed in this film that way at all.
For example:
1) One woman kills herself. Is *this* really the action of
a "good guy"?
2) One woman is the *epitomy* of shallow *older* actress;
ie, strictly concerned with her looks and trying to still
get the roles that she used to get as a younger "sex goddess",
to the extent that she has undergone countless surgeries as
well as really only being interested in others' comments
about how "good she looks."
3) One woman has SO *lost* herself in her husband's identity,
that she can't even admit to anger when she IS. She has become
a doormat in ALL her relations with others. Not much fun
living with a doormat.
4) One woman has SO lost herself in her *mother* role that
she doesn't have a *self* anymore. She has no personal
interests or activities and doesn't even care what she looks
like.
What *I* saw in this movie was a group of women who, faced with
*reality* caused by a crisis (divorce) discover that they have to
make changes in *themselves*. Now, some may take issue with the
*how*, but this IS a movie after all. And what is the end result?
Well, the dead can't be alive, so that is a tragedy, but the others?
One actually *dares* to attempt an area that she has not tried
before (the actress) and to resounding personal success. Another,
begins to be honest with *herself* in that she accepts that she
*does* have angry feelings and actually learns to express them.
Another, begins to believe in herself as a person (accepting that
her child WILL eventually grow up and leave) and finds an interesting
person inside herself. (That coincidentally, her ex-husband also
begins to find interesting, again.)
So, where was the "man bashing" in this film? If anything, one
could state categorically that it was a "woman bashing" film. Or,
if you will, a *person* bashing film. At least, all those persons
who can't or won't get their act together (which pretty much includes
all of us at one time or another.)
Of COURSE the ending was unrealistic and silly. Again, this WAS a
movie after all.
>: You're right about Hollywood, they aren't around to depict reality,
>: but does it really have to be the way it is? I enjoy the flicks that
>: diverge greatly from mass marketing's cookie cutter approach. However,
>: I admit that I enjoy the flicks that are even more "over the top" than
>: the last one.
>
>Yes, rare is the Hollywood film that doesn't descend into cliche and
>formula. But that's the reality of today's movie market. If you
>want good, quality films, check out the stuff that shows at Cinema 21
>and KOIN Center. Two good bets currently showing at KOIN Center are
>"Big Night" and "Lone Star".
>
>Andrew
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
arm...@livenet.net
Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>:That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look how
>:women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The First
>:Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men are
>:treated.... NOT.
>What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
>rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
>my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
>we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
>have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
One question: where are your protests about those stalker movies that
portray men as rapists and butchers of women? They are on the tube
*every night of the week*! Yet where are the protests? And these are
the thngs our children are seeing!
--'Mina--
As the Wind blows,
So the living tree bends..
http://www.livenet.net/~armina
Zenoink
In <5460qc$7...@nadine.teleport.com> j...@teleport.com (Joshua R.
Poulson) writes:
>
>In article <326635...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com>
wrote:
>>That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look
how
>>women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The
First
>>Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men
are
>>treated.... NOT.
>
>lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
>interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
>can say.
>
>but does it really have to be the way it is? I enjoy the flicks that
>diverge greatly from mass marketing's cookie cutter approach. However,
>I admit that I enjoy the flicks that are even more "over the top" than
>the last one.
>
>sex or violence? Which is depicted more often in the media? Even
>worse, when are the consequences of either ever depicted faithfully?
>Joshua R. Poulson, j...@pun.org, http://www.pun.org/~jrp
>"finger -l j...@teleport.com" for PGP public key
I was just wondering if you or your girlfriend Kathy had ever been
sufficiently offended by a woman-bashing movie (of which there are
literally hundreds) to bother to post anything to a newsgroup or even
to react verbally by critcizing it out loud?
I suspect I already know the answer.
Kay
Dave Smith
arm...@livenet.net wrote:
> One question: where are your protests about those stalker movies that
> portray men as rapists and butchers of women? They are on the tube
> *every night of the week*! Yet where are the protests? And these are
> the thngs our children are seeing!
These are the things your children are seeing if you allow them to watch
it. Don't blame TV for how you bring up your children.
Dave
> --'Mina--
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Smith dhs...@mfg.sgi.com
Silicon Graphics Inc. (415) 933-6831
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA 94043
"every word is nonsense, but I understand..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zenoink
In <548tjm$p...@PaperBoy.LiveNet.Net> arm...@livenet.net writes:
>Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>
>>Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>:That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look
how
>>:women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The
First
>>:Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men
are
>>:treated.... NOT.
>
>>rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
>>my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
>>we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
>>have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
>
>portray men as rapists and butchers of women? They are on the tube
>*every night of the week*! Yet where are the protests? And these are
>the thngs our children are seeing!
>
>
>
>
Thank you, Mina. You are quite right that the silence over how women
are constantly being mistreated in the movies speaks volumes.
It reveals the real agenda behind complaints about the First Wives
Club. The movie threatens men even though it is pretty trite and
predictable...they just don't want anybody even thinking that way!
However, it is perfectly fine to have women portrayed as stalkers...
that's exciting and the stalker gets punished after all. So we get
movies were women are stalked and where they stalk and are punished for
it. We constantly get movies where women are victims of men, but let
one little comedy out of the bag and all those guys are twisted out of
shape!
Kay
Dave Smith
Everyone needs to lighten the hell up. Movies and TV shows exist to
entertain us. You can choose what you and your children watch - nobody
has a gun to your head. Would you rather promote censorship? Teach
your kids what's right and wrong. All this political correctness and
walking on pins and needles not to offend any specific class of people
has gotten so out of hand. Life's too short to worry about how damaging
tonight's movie of the week is. It's not damaging anyone if they don't
watch it. So don't watch these shows and movies - just don't think you
can tell me what I can or can't watch.
Dave
--
Lillith
>
> Equal pay is a ridiculous contention. Even in jobs where you have two
> male people performing the same task for a company - it is well within
> the companies rights to pay each employee exactly what they are worth ie
> what their level of production indicates.
Ahem, it is a noted fact that women earn $.60 for every man's $1.00.
Get real and realize that not all things are based on "level of production."
>
> You already have equal rights dear lady - and respect is something that
> is earned - not demanded and capitulated to.
Define for me what you consider equal rights. See response below.
>
> When I hear women like you going on and on about these things, as if they
> were actually logical arguements with a basis in reality
There are many logical arguments for "these things" as you put it. These things
are called gender equality - in the home, in the work place, anywhere. (This
refers to both genders) It is you who needs to take a trip into reality. If you
truly believe that women are equal in all things then I would like to live in your
world. It must be nice.
- it makes me
> cringe and wish to dissacoiate myself from the gender.
Please do. I hear there are surgeons in Sweden happy to aid you. For a small fee
of course.
> You are not asking for equality - you are demanding Equality of result -
> which is nothing more than demanding the legal permission to take the
> unearned and the undeserved.
I am demanding that I be treated as human being. I am demanding that because I am
part of the race called human that I be treated as a person with a brain,
abilities and skills. I ask that just because I am woman that I not be treated as
a lesser person for choosing to be with my family than taking a career path or
visa versa. Women are often judged solely on their looks where as men are judged
by their accomplishments. Don't hand me that bull that this doesn't happen "these
days" because it still does. Women still have to worry about whether or not they
can make decisions about their own bodies.
There is long road to be travelled before women are truly equal but, I forget, in
your world women already are.
L.
Kathy Blain
In article <32678D...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
>shall we?
>(Every pun intended)
I am also a woman and proud of it. So, I think we should worry about
"tit for tat". We should not have to use the same tactics that have
been used against us to gain the rights that we should have. By
"male-bashing", we will only place men on the defensive (like we have
with these posts). The only way to achieve equal rights with dignity
is to receive them as equals and not portraying ourselves as better.
The equal rights issues fight has become a bloody divorce. No one
is just talking. Everyone wants to yell.
>I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
>and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
I also want equal right, equal pay and respect. How are you going to
get respect without first being respectful? How are you going to get
respect when you place men on the defensive? Respect from who...other
women or men?
And, because this person does not want to be degraded and demoralized,
he is not empathic?
>Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
>
>L.
I am a woman, hear me talk respectfully and assertively (not aggressively
and with disrespect). I plan on fighting for my rights more like
Martin Luther King, Jr. than Malcolm X.
Kathy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Blain email:kbl...@teleport.com
Beaverton, OR http://www.teleport.com/~kblain/index.html
Stands By the Wild Rose
Keith Wood wrote:
<much, much dialog snipped>
> One of the things that I do is write science fiction. Space opera.
> And do you know how we tell if an SF story holds together? We give
> it the "Gunsmoke Test" by taking the personal elements of the story
> and seeing if they would fit in the Middle Ages or the Old West -- if
> not, then the story needs work, because PEOPLE are PEOPLE.
>
> This movie fails the Gunsmoke Test. Big time.
Popping your story into one time period or the other is about formula.
Real life isn't like sci fi, or romance novels or old time westerns.
Real life doesn't fit into any formula. People are about life not about
formulas. And times change.
I haven't seen 1st wives club yet, but one thing I know what happens in
the 90's isn't about what happens in the dark ages. In the dark ages
women were killed for having opinions, bargained off in marraige at the
whims of their husbands or sons, and generally treated like chattel.
Women have had the vote for less time than black men in this country.
Women have been battered and abused and murdered just for being women
all through written history. Many still are in this country and
elsewhere. And your mad about a movie where a few women get back at
their ex husbands for dumping them?
From what I have seen of the previews of 1st wives club, its not about
women bashing men in general, as several people have suggested, but is
about older woman getting back at the husbands who dumped them for
younger chicks. Maybe when more women start dumping their old husbands
for younger men you'll see the humor in any of it.
Stands By the Wild Rose
Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Everyone needs to lighten the hell up. Movies and TV shows exist to
> entertain us. You can choose what you and your children watch - nobody
> has a gun to your head. Would you rather promote censorship? Teach
> your kids what's right and wrong. All this political correctness and
> walking on pins and needles not to offend any specific class of people
> has gotten so out of hand. Life's too short to worry about how damaging
> tonight's movie of the week is. It's not damaging anyone if they don't
> watch it. So don't watch these shows and movies - just don't think you
> can tell me what I can or can't watch.
>
> Dave
>
> Zenoink wrote:
> > >
> > >One question: where are your protests about those stalker movies that
> > >portray men as rapists and butchers of women? They are on the tube
> > >*every night of the week*! Yet where are the protests? And these are
> > >the thngs our children are seeing!
> > >--'Mina--
> >
> > Thank you, Mina. You are quite right that the silence over how women
> > are constantly being mistreated in the movies speaks volumes.
> >
> > It reveals the real agenda behind complaints about the First Wives
> > Club. The movie threatens men even though it is pretty trite and
> > predictable...they just don't want anybody even thinking that way!
<snip>
> > it. We constantly get movies where women are victims of men, but let
> > one little comedy out of the bag and all those guys are twisted out of
> > shape!
> > Kay
what I am hearing is that its not okay to have movies written and
produced by men about older women getting back at their ex husbands, but
its all right to have women murdered and stalked on tv by men, just as
long as we don't let our children watch it. I'm not hearing this from
one person but it seems to be something running throughout this thread.
A man berates women who enjoyed the movie, when a woman says "what about
all those flicks where women get beaten killed or maimed everynight of
the week", and another guy or maybe the same, says women are just
whining and complaining about being victims...isn't that what the first
fellow griping about 1st wives club is doing...whining about being a
victim?
Nuts!
Sour grapes...Men feeling threatened? Shoe on the other foot? Tight
pinch?
I love bette midler!
I love goldie hawn!
and thats what will take me to this movie! :-)
Lsn001
Stands By the Wild Rose wrote:
>
> <lilith dialog snipped>
>
> Meaghan Walker wrote in response to lilith:
>
> > male people performing the same task for a company - it is well within
> > the companies rights to pay each employee exactly what they are worth ie
> > what their level of production indicates.
>
> there are numerous studies and articles written all the time that
> address this issue. Women are paid less than men across the board even
> though doing the SAME job, and doing it AS WELL AS the men.
> inferior which is what you seem to be suggesting, its because we haven't
> stepped up to the plate, taken up the reins of power and cast our vote.
> our sheer numbers and get out there and vote for what we want we're
> always going to be paid less, shouted down by neanderthals when we say
> we don't like something and called feminazis when a few of us dare to
> speak out.
>
> hands and got out there and voted!)
Good response! Cheers to you!
Lillith
HEEEELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO!!!
The original point being made was that The 1st Wives Club is a MOVIE!!
You know, ENTERTAINMENT! If people want to say that this mediocre use of
film is something so deep as to call up the names of Martin Luther King
and Malcolm X then forget it.
Lighten up, even I was going too deep. Laugh a little, it won't kill
you.
L.
jchapman
Lillith wrote:
>
> >
> > What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
> > rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
> > my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
> > we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
> > have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
>
> shall we?
> (Every pun intended)
Yes, unfortunately revenge *does* form much of the basis of modern
feminism doesn't it?
> Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
> unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
> women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
> they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
> of being put as second place in all things?
So now it is okay to try and do the same to men? There's that
revenge motive again.
> No, I do not know what is inherently offensive to men because I am not a
> man, but for decades men have proclaimed what is best for women.
>
> I never used the word feminist to describe myself but I would have to
> say that I am. Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
> history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
> seriously.
Ahh, yes, and if you can't get revenge against those that wronged in
the past why hey, why not get revenge on their decendants, or even
anyone with the same chromosomal pattern? Kind of interesting how
you completely skip over "guilt by association" right to "guilt
by sex".
> I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
> and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
The typical feminist red herring. If the above were what feminists
really wanted men would have no trouble with it at all. It is
"your" obvious desire for superior rights, not mention revenge, that
bothers us. That is, bothers us, not frightens us. Oh, and I notice
in your description of "what women want" that you didn't include
equal responsibility. What a surprise.
> Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
Well, we hear you moan and carp and say "poor little me, give
me more, give me more" a lot, but roar? Haven't heard that.
> L.
Lillith
I find it amusing that people on newsgroups will take one point out of
many and twist it to their own use.
Fine, be anal. That point was one of many.
Well, whether you are male or female your ignorance is showing if you
feel that dollars are the only reflection of equality in the workplace.
I, frankly, truly do not care about stats. The reality of being a woman
today is a whole lot easier in some ways than others. Women are taking
on many of the male roles but men continue to find it difficult to let
them do it. The workplace is a great example of gender inequality. Soon
this will also be obsolete but it takes WOMEN and MEN to change it. This
also includes evening out the salary discrepancies, WHATEVER they may
be.
You use the word feminist like is was something ugly and misshapen.
Feminism is defined as a doctorine that demands for women the same
rights granted men, as in political or economic status. I am all for it
and if it disgusts you that much, so be it.
Later.
L.
Lillith
You go girl!
L.
Lillith
I truly believe that you really messed up in some relationship and you
are the one looking for revenge.
You obvious anger is pretty close to ranting.
Go get some counseling and get back to the rest of us later. You know,
after your done foaming at the mouth and they've given you your shots.
:-)
L.
Stands By the Wild Rose
Zenoink
In <5474e3$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net> Some...@somewhere.sometime
writes:
>Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
>
>:That is why movies are ENTERTAINMENT! The theatre is escapism. Look
how
>:women have been treated in film for decades and tell me that The
First
>:Wives Club is one of "hundreds" of film depictions of how badly men
are
>:treated.... NOT.
>
>rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
>my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
>we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
>have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
>
>
Hmmmm...seems to me most of the icky stalker type movies are of two
types: ones where men are the stalkers and the audience is supposed to
enjoy seeing women victims get hurt and ones where women are the
stakers and the audience is supposed to enjoy seeing the men get back
at the women.
The "reversal" just isn't quite.
Kay
Kathy Blain
In article <548o3e$a...@kira.peak.org>,
Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>In article <5464s4$9...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>Andrew Hall <ah...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>Joshua R. Poulson (j...@teleport.com) wrote:
>>[regarding "First Wives Club"]
>>: Both Kathy (my much-loved girlfriend) and I were unimpressed with this
>>: lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
>>: interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
>>: can say.
>>
>>I saw the film only because I wanted to take my mom to see a movie
>>she'd like (she did really enjoy it). I didn't like the film, either,
>>but I didn't really expect to.
>
>I saw it with my husband and we both liked it. Of *course* it isn't
>reality; we don't go to movies to see reality.
The idea that Josh put forth was the movie was lifeless and uninteresting.
I don't always expect reality from a movie; however, I expect a script
with interesting characters and an interesting plot. I was not expecting
a realistic view of divorce (first indcator: Goldie Hawn was in a starring
role).
>>But I think it's unfair to criticize "First Wives Club" because of
>>its portrayal of men as weak and stupid. The simplistic movie formula
>>of pitting "good guys" against "bad guys" is as old as Hollywood
>>itself - and having clear black-and-white distinctions between the
>>"good" and the "bad" is the most sure way to appeal to a mass audience.
>
>Agree about a lot of movies being "good guys against bad guys", BUT
>was this movies really about that?
Well, most plots have a protagonist and an antagonist. So, yes, the
plot should have a "good" guy and a "bad" guy. The good and bad does
not point to their moral character.
>>In this case, the film makers made the women the "good guys" and the
>>men the "bad guys". So what? It's a clear-cut (but poorly developed)
>>premise that's politically correct and had the potential to be funny.
>
>Is this really true? Were the women in this film really "good guys?"
>I didn't see the women, as portrayed in this film that way at all.
The good guys and bad guys was based on the distinction between
protagonist and antagonist. Good guys and bad guys are not always
based on the moral character or actions of the main characters.
>What *I* saw in this movie was a group of women who, faced with
>*reality* caused by a crisis (divorce) discover that they have to
>make changes in *themselves*. Now, some may take issue with the
>*how*, but this IS a movie after all. And what is the end result?
>Well, the dead can't be alive, so that is a tragedy, but the others?
>One actually *dares* to attempt an area that she has not tried
>before (the actress) and to resounding personal success. Another,
>begins to be honest with *herself* in that she accepts that she
>*does* have angry feelings and actually learns to express them.
>Another, begins to believe in herself as a person (accepting that
>her child WILL eventually grow up and leave) and finds an interesting
>person inside herself. (That coincidentally, her ex-husband also
>begins to find interesting, again.)
I saw a group of lifeless women with no interesting characteristics
who were in the middle of a divorce with some lifeless male characters.
The women never found that they needed to make changes in themselves. The
screenwriter did have them created the clinic, but only after the Diane
Keaton character had a tantrum (in the middle of their collective
tantrum). A tantrum is an act of an emotionally immature person and the
tantrums happened at the end of the movie when the characters had already
wasted over an hour of my time. They had a few minutes of "development"
when they created the clinic at the very end of the film.
>Of COURSE the ending was unrealistic and silly. Again, this WAS a
>movie after all.
The whole movie was unrealistice and silly. And, if you were going to
read a book and that book costs everyone who was going to read it $6
(plus the added expenses of snacks), would you recommend a poorly
written boring Harlequin romance or a well-written novel with real
character development (not written from a guaranteed-to-sell formula)?
>>
>>Yes, rare is the Hollywood film that doesn't descend into cliche and
>>formula. But that's the reality of today's movie market. If you
>>want good, quality films, check out the stuff that shows at Cinema 21
>>and KOIN Center. Two good bets currently showing at KOIN Center are
>>"Big Night" and "Lone Star".
>>
>>Andrew
>
>Marg
>
Also I agree with Andrew's remarks in the paragraph above.
Keith Wood
[> What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
[> rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
[> my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
[> we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
[> have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
[Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
[(Every pun intended)
[Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
[women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
[they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
[of being put as second place in all things?
Well, considering the fact that Hollywood was portraying strong lead
"alpha" women back in days of the silent movies, I'm not sure just
which "years" you're talking about.
And are you saying that it's somehow okay to swap one bigotry for
another?
[No, I do not know what is inherently offensive to men because I am not a
[man,
Come on, Lillith, give your brain a chance! By and large the same
things offend a man as a women, a black man as a white man, an Ovambo
as a Yavapai as an Icelander.
[ but for decades men have proclaimed what is best for women.
For millennia -- and women have returned the favor. Show me ONE
heterosexual male who doesn't pay attention to what women want (not
necessarily his own mate, but women in general). Hell, after what
Kyla has been putting me through, I'm TERRIFIED of ever trusting a
woman that much again -- but I still wear aftershave, decent clothes
and keep in shape because that's what women demand.
[I never used the word feminist to describe myself but I would have to
[say that I am. Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
[history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
[seriously.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean taking the whip and using it against
men -- it means BURYING the whip.
[I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
[and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
Funny how this mantra always gets thrown into the argument somewhere.
But is seems to me that the issue is equal rights and respect for
MEN.
The movie was an example of NEITHER. If it were white men "getting
back at" minority women GUILTY OF THE SAME OFFENSES, would it have
been "entertainment"? If it were kids getting back at adults, would
it have been worthwhile?
Kathy Blain
In article <548v4l$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
Zenoink <zen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I was just wondering if you or your girlfriend Kathy had ever been
>sufficiently offended by a woman-bashing movie (of which there are
>literally hundreds) to bother to post anything to a newsgroup or even
>to react verbally by critcizing it out loud?
>
>I suspect I already know the answer.
>
>Kay
Oh good. Could you tell me the answer to my other personality questions?
I'd like to know why the fashion industry and diet industry worries me?
Well, yeah, we take all of our body image ideas from a bunch of people
that use heroin, but really, why can't I just accept it? And, well,
I've always been wondering what I really feel about most of the issues
that upset me. If you know me so well, maybe you can help me answer the
other questions too.
Kathy
P.S. I suspect you don't really know me and I suspect that we have
never met. If I am mistaken in my assumption that you don't know me,
please let me know how you might have mistaken me for someone that you
really have met and intimately know.
Richard Bennett
phyr...@usa.net wrote:
>I heard stats yesterday of KFWB that said women have taken a step
>deeper into the corporate world this year. Last year women made up 7%
>of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. This year women are up to
>10%. Since we're more than half of the population, don't you think
>this indicates that there's still some disadvantage to being a woman
>in the corporate world?
Isn't this just a tiny little bit simplistic?
RB
--
Richard Bennett Cupertino, CA
Meaghan Walker
In article <3268E1...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Alan writes
>
> >
> > speaking of reality, how's the objective response coming along...?
>
>
> I like your sense of humor and good point.
>
> L.
>
In case you didnt read Alans previous post - he misquoted me and went on
a long rant against an arguement that I never suggested.
Its very easy to make up arguements against what one *wishes* their
opponent had said - instead of dealing with what they actually did say.
but I guess you already are aware of that , right Lillith.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <3268EB...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Maybe writes:
> > Not a fact. Your incorrect opinion.
>
> My opinion is incorrect? My opinion is my opinion.
>
Great - and you know what oppinions are worth if they arent based in
facts....
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <3268DD...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Feminazi -
>
> Bad choice of word.
>
> Ms. Walker, look at the definitions of both part and shut your mouth.
> Whoever invented the word was a moron.
>
I see you are so very interested in rights here.... except the right of
another female to express herself - when she disagrees with you.
> Being a feminist has nothing to do with genocide. And don't give me that
> *rhetoric* about "Oh, men are being replaced....." Over it.
>
No - i know exactly what a nazi is - national socialist.
Masters of propoganda, Distorters of truth, cruel, inhuman, unable to
recognize that all people had rights, socialists.
> Because a woman is ardent about equality and standing up for her rights,
> that doesn't make her that awful term you used.
>
Well in your case - I have seen direct evidence of qualifying for at
least 3 of the alternative descriptors.
> It is always the squeaky wheels are heard the most often. Many women use
> the guise of feminism when it not what they are truly about. There are
> plenty of women working quietly and those are the ones *I* applaud.
What does any of this have to do with what I posted? Right more useless
ranting.
>
> Stop with the anal statistics and look at the overall picture. REALITY
> is women do not have the same rights and priviledges as men and that is
> what the "women's movement" (lack of better term) is about.
>
Yes - I know you dont like things like FACTS, and STATS -
because such things make it so very hard to come to terms with reality.
get a shrink. Deal with the facts of reality.
you are the most pathetic case I have seen.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <3268E0...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO Steve-
>
> The point is I am an advocate for change but my point was that it still
> needs to be made and that women still are NOT equals in many facets in
> many things.
>
> L.
>
Hello Lily ,
and in what specific areas, and facets of life, and where is the evidence
that shows your claim to be true.
I see.
You have none.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <32691B...@ucs.orst.edu>, bjo...@ucs.orst.edu says...
> Maybe wrote:
>
> <In response to womens issues:
> <See previous if your interested in the finer details of the person
> maybe is spitting at:>
>
> > Why don't you get a job and stop trying to live off the backs of men.
> > Try being responsible for yourself for a change.
>
>
> Maybe somebody has a real problem understanding that woman are human
> beings. maybe somebody seems in fact, based on the last seven posts of
> his, that I have read, to hate woman to a very great degree.
>
> maybe, thats just my opinion.
>
> Katherine
>
I dont know - I think he just hate women that think they have a right to
men's money because they have a uterus and boobs and can squirt out a
kid.
He doesnt mind me. (it would appear) because I dont think like that.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <326920...@ucs.orst.edu>, bjo...@ucs.orst.edu says...
> Steve Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Lillith wrote:
> >
> > > I find it amusing that people on newsgroups will take one point out of
> > > many and twist it to their own use.
> > >
> > > Fine, be anal. That point was one of many.
>
> > I find it amusing that when someone raises an issue, then gets called
> > on it, they resort to name-calling. Lilith, *you* were the one who
> > brought up the statistic to prove women earned less than men.
>
> I find it amusing when a person responds to an issue, gets called names
> at the same time she is being "called on it", but the only thing you
> notice is that she's used the word anal. She's been called a lot worse
> by the person she was responding to.
> If you want to get down on her for name calling I suggest you get down
> on everyone for doing it.
>
frothy emotional appeal snipped for brevity,
Your pal lillith made a statement about equality in the workforce.
I asked her to back up her claim. I offered actual evidence that her
claim was invalid - she says "stats arent important" then went on a long
tirade about how horrible a person I was for daring to criticize her
oppinion. Even told me to shut up.
Well Sorry Katherine... Lillith doesnt get to have it both ways, your
arguement in defence of her might have some merit if in fact lilith
actually made any claims, that were based in reality. They arent. If you
have more integrity than she, and are willing to look at the science of
economics, and the studies done on the so called lack of parity in the
work place between men and women - I would be happy to do so.
Otherwise you are barking up the wrong tree with the appeal that people
shouldnt go around calling other people names.. it isnt nice.. etc...
These are issues that concern me, they concern other people. Some of
these issues are in fact the difference between a decent life for men,
and a pitiful existence at the whim of the State.
I have a very simple rule for dealing with people with whom I disagree -
be as nasty as you want, insult me if you have to , but at least for
christs sake *BE CORRECT*.
If this is too much to ask for the tender and fragile likes of lilith
then you might suggest to her, that is maybe isnt really a good idea for
her to be on the newsgroups spouting off oppinions that she has no basis
for, and no evidence to support.
If you are unwilling to back up your claims that there really is a
descimination problem in the work force - I would be most interested in
seeing it. I have spent about 2 years studying economics - particularly
labour market information. I know my stuff, I have done my homework.
There is no basis for these claims... and I am willing to demonstrate it
to people who are rational enough to actually offer counter evidence.
To go to the effort of doing so only to be told by this skank idiot "I
dont much care about stats" after she mentioned a vague refferenece to
them for her arguement is not in my best interest.
So what do you think, willing to put your evidence where your post is?
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <326952...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Ms. Walker:
>
> Statistics are what you call *facts*.
>
> I was in error using a statistic because in truth, surveys and
> statistics are a *snapshot* of a moment of tainted to serve those who
> create the survey.
>
> I know - I have created and tested many for a variety of people and
> companies. ALWAYS the results are turned to serve the purpose of the
> ones asking for the survey.
>
> The point is that you need to step into THE REAL WORLD where people live
> and work and experience what is out there.
>
> Numbers and percentages do not reflect what is really going on in the
> world. People and experiences do.
Great - so the study of labour Market information is a useless occupation
and Career counselors (much like my fiance) can't base their advice to
people on things like stats, and market studies and information obtained
through Empiric Testing.
Shhhh dont tell his boss - or the people we do work for.. They appreciate
studies done on reality - even if you dont.
>
> You are the person who will not see beyond your little world.
>
Hmm I am 24 years old, single mom, enagage to be married to a career
cousnellor. Native Indian of Canada, Never once been descriminated
against. Also, Attended one of the best private schools in Canada for
women, Took several credits worth of courses on "womyns studies" - I
found that economics was a much more REALITY based field to enage my
attention in.
> I'm sure if I were in the market for a psychiatrist you could recommend
> your own. No, I take that back - if your mental health professional
> advocates your narrow point of view then I'll do well without them.
>
>
You have as much as admitted that in cases that you were studying
statistics or gathering information - you were biased towards a certain
result. That you think this is evidence that ALL results are biased
amazes me. I mean your dishonesty is not carteblanche on everybody elses
morality. (oh that is a pathological tendancy you might want to concerned
about).
But KNOWING this - you then offer "numeous studies have shown women to be
blah blah blah ____<--- insert your admittedly biased view point here"
Thankyou for invalidating your own arguement, your own morality and your
own position.
Meaghan Walker
L.
>
Meaghan Walker
In article <326953...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Ms. Walker writes:>
> > Hello Lily ,
> >
> > and in what specific areas, and facets of life, and where is the evidence
> > that shows your claim to be true.
> >
> > I see.
> >
> > You have none.
> >
>
> Personal Note:
>
> My name is spelled LILLITH. That is my name. It is very presumptive of
> you to call me "Lily." Lilly is spelled with 2 L's but it does not truly
> matter for I do not answer to that name and never have. After this post
> I won't.
>
Gee touchy about names are we... Well then.. while we are at it.. I
prefer to be addressed by my full name - Miss Meaghan Walker.
And I will start treating you with the respect you claim you are entitled
to , the very minute you show me evidence that you deserve it.
not a second before hand.
Lil!
Meaghan Walker
(and on a note to the other readers - if you want this troll to stop
trolling gently down the cyberstream, she has promised to not respond to
any posts that address her as anything but Lillith.) I intend to do so
often and with a great deal of regularity.
Meaghan Walker
In article <32699F...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Leigh writes:
>
> > Get off your femiNazi pity pot, Lillybell. You aren't a victim and some of us females are tired of the whining. Get a life.
>
>
> Again, where I am asking for pity? I am saying that change is needed.m
> No, I am not a victim, and, again, I never said I was.
>
> You continue to toss around an extremely offensive word that you feel
> describes my viewpoint - it does not.
>
And you tossing around the word ANAL isnt maybe offensive to some people?
> IMO it seems that since I choose to look around, ask my peers' opinions
> and find out some truths through experience I am crucified
> for wanting to raise certain standards that, in the end, will benefit
> both genders.
>
> Why is everyone harping on just the work place?
You brought it up, I pointed out that you were either a.lying b.ignorant.
I showed emperic evidence that proved my claim. You offered nothing and
then said "Stats dont mean anything"
everybody is *harping* on it because you left yourself wide open, I
brought the evidence that showed your claim was wrong, and you refused to
admit that evidence is valid - Not by offering countering evidence , but
by claiming all such evidince (including the stat you vauguely mentioned)
was suspect to bias , and therefore unacceptable.
Now you are upest that people are saying "BULLSHIT" and "HYPOCRIT"
Here.. maybe these are terms you will understand... You Lied. Somebody
pointed out your lies, you claimed "I dont have to tell the truth -
because everybody lies"....
Yes - I can understand why a lot of people are having fun taking pot
shots at you. Thats the price you pay for openly making a fool of
yourself lilly.
In the home there is
> extreme inequalities - both for men and women.
inequalities for both MEN and Woman - could you say something that
actually makes sense. Whats your point?
Both genders have
> unreasonable expectations for themselves, their relationships and,
> oftentimes their children.
And this is a problem of psychology, not a political one. Why not leave
people alone to figure out what they want out of life instead of
demanding political reform.. then calling those who disagree with you
"anal".
If I thought I was getting the short stick of the marriage - I would
leave. I wouldnt be whining about it and claiming victim status and then
moaning about how UNFAIR people are to woman. And demanding :"equal
rights while being unwilling to take personal responsiblity for my own
life"
Want equal rights? - then be responsible for your own goddamn life, and
let other people decide what they want to do, and let them be responsible
for their own decisions. No need to go making laws and asking for
political reform.
If the parents were partners, equal in
> responsibility, (this is not necessarily income versus income) many
> problems may be averted. Who knows, if people looked at each other as
> people and not always a "You man, me woman," things may come out
> different.
>
> L.
Does anybody but me see how lame this is? What does this stuff about how
men and women treat each other in theri daily interactions have to do
with that other bullshit you were spewing....political reform rah rah
rah!
This has got to be the most creative attempt at a back peddle I have ever
seen.
The only gender war is in your mind - and the mind of people like you
bent on making everybody adhere to your twisted dreams. Thank god there
are more and more young woman my age who don't accept the battle ground
that you have left for us to clean up. Thank God more and more young
women are realizing that all the feminist movement was nothing but a
farce and great propoganda job. keep posting Lilly dear - You make it
easier to clean up the shit you and your generation of men-bashers left
behind.
Meaghan Walker
>
Meaghan Walker
In article <3269A3...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Leigh writes;
>
> >
> > Horseshit. I'm the wife of a retired SFer. I KNOW how many of the women got off
> > the front line - spreading their legs for deliberate and wanted impregnation.
> > Take the truth with your feminazism, Lillybell.
>
>
> I dare you to walk up to any woman in the military, especially those who
> served in Kuwait, and say exactly what you wrote here.
>
> You finally did it, YOU MAKE ME SICK.
>
> L.
>
Oh no - Lilly is getting sick... this should be interesting.. how are we
going to differntiate between the two types of vommit coming from her...
the mental vommit or the food vommit.
I think you should vommit Lilly, its a lot more honest than this other
stuff you have been puking on this group.
Meaghan Walker
- by the way - I have 3 women friends who did serve in Kuwait - and their
observation about this behaviour was exactly what Leigh remarked. They
were pretty disguested by the behaviour of these women, as I am, and as
Leigh is.
Meaghan Walker
In article <54bji5$j...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, phyr...@usa.net
says...
> even though you'd like to make that stick
Great we can count on your support of c4m then. thanks!
>
> >He doesnt mind me. (it would appear) because I dont think like that.
>
> >Meaghan Walker
>
>
> And certainly not because you parrot the c4m line, hm?
>
Oh - gee - I was hoping for some consistency at least till you hit the
*send button*- too bad.
I dont parrot anything idiot-woman. I think about what the lack of c4m
means to hundreds of men and children who are caught by the twisty sick
ideas of people like you- who DO seem to think that if you can convince a
man to fuck you - and manage to get pregnant - you are entitled to 20% of
his income for 18-21 years (and sometimes even longer)
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <3269A...@roanoke.infi.net>, lsn...@roanoke.infi.net
says...
> >
> > Katherine
>
> Right on, Katherine. I too admire Lillith her restraint. I lost mine
> for this group long ago. I have quit trying to simply state my
> arguments, as it doesn't matter here whether you state things
> diplomatically or emotionally, unless you agree with the women-bashers
> and/or CP bashers, then you are going to get responded to with untruths,
> your words twisted around and lots and lots of insults, name calling and
> foul mouths.
Aw.... does this mean you are going to take your toys and go home?
You came to the wrong place for your money grubbing bullshit and greedy
claims on men. Nobody (save other money grubbing greedy propogandizers)
gives a flying fuck about your oppinions.
Katherine so far is the best representation of her "feminist" position -
but even her resorting to frothy emotional appeals instead of actually
backing up her claims with proof makes me suspicious.
I have been a student of feminism for 6 years - I have yet to meet ONE of
you rabid bullshiters that is willing to actually back up their
arguements with proof. Then the highest insult of all - the STATS that
they claim was justification for the crappy divorce and child support
laws turned out to be completley false.. and do you freaking feminazi's
do the proper thing, the honourable thing and recant your whole line of
rhetoric based on Weitzsmans work and the people that followed her
claims?
NO - you have the nerve to turn around and say "No stats are factual"
Well Fuck you ALL - you are a bunch of lying shit spewing idiots -
nihilists socialist dogmatic unthinking secondhanders (In every
conceivable use of the term).
We're on to it... the Men are on to it - and your reign of Error is OVER!
Deal with it baby - take your toys and go home - nobody wants to play
your reindeer games.
> I have noticed that the balance is changing here a little. More of us
> on here who don't hate women, and don't think child support is wrong to
> expect to help raise your children. I'm glad to see it happening.
>
> Linda
I dont hate women - I am actually a bisexual - I LOVE real women - the
ones who arent afraid to take *personal* responsiblity for their lives,
choices and abilities. I like women who are actually confident in the
abilities of their other women - and who dont find it nesseccarry to pick
up torches to storm the bastions of "the old boys" clubs - rather we
recognize that the old boys have the right to their stuff - and we
capable and confident women have a right to get them to pay it to us -
*IN TRADE* not for flat backing - or because we whined about how our
grandmothers had it tough.
Instead we make our money and our successes the old fashioned way - we
work for them, and we *earn* them.
_Business_ is a *far* better tool to effect the changes one wants than bs
political grandstanding and whining.
If you can't manage to find an employer in the 1990's who will pay you
exactly what you think you are worth - Start your own damn business OR do
a real honest inventory of your skills and abilities. Aside from
*equality under the law* every other claim of *equal rights* is nothing
more than thinly veiled attempt to get by force - equality of result.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <54bi97$o...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ama...@dorsai.org says...
> Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
> : In article <3268EB...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> but perception of fact is a problem, isn't it...?
>
> :)...
>
>
No - not unless you are a blind, deaf mute, with all your tactile sensory
nerves severed, and your nose cut off, and your tongue cut out.
The perception of the evidence that your senses offer you of the world is
quite reasonable to accept. Dont start on the primacy of consciousness
Alan, I'll only end up making you look ridiculous.
Meaghan Walker
> --
> alan madsen - new york, n.y.
>
Meaghan Walker
In article <326987...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
> Okay, Ms. Walker:
>
> Answer me this, do you truly believe that women are treated as equals in
> all walks of life?
here it is and I give you full permission to quote me on this in it's
entirety :
"In North America .. yes they are. (the only type of equality that I give
a damn about is equality under the law) Also in Europe, and even in the
Soviet Union. I also believe that Men are NOT treated equally in the
current legal arena of child support court, and with regards to their
reproductive rights. Futher - this is my conclusion about women today -
and it can be demonstrated to be true, going back to at least 1970"
>
> This is a simple question. No statistical data is needed. I know you are
> capable of an actual opinion.(At least I would like to believe that you
> do have an opinion - I am under no pretense that I know you. To make
> this assumption I based it on general observation which, I know doesn't
> count in your marketing surveys, has shown that most people have
> opinions. One example of this observation was made within the last
> hour.)
>
> Yes or no. That is all.
You know - its really funny. In a court of law - Where you are legally
compelled to tell the truth - questions like you ask are not taken at all
seriously when you put these "yes or no". disclaimers on them . I will
not make a statement about women's equality for all women, everywhere,
that have ever lived." Things change. What may have been true in 1900 is
not true anymore in 1996.
Take a break from watching court room dramas, and try to come up with
sensible questions that can be answered with a yes or no, that make
sense.
>
> L.
>
> P.S. Please notice that I did not refer to YOU in any derogatory way
> which seems to be your preference when referring to ME in other posts.
>
Sure you did, you called me anal.
And I thought I wouldnt be hearning anything more from you - Lilly - You
threatened to not respond to my posts if I addressed you as anything but
"lillith". I was hoping you would keep your promise.
Meaghan Walker
Meaghan Walker
In article <3269B0...@roanoke.infi.net>, lsn...@roanoke.infi.net
says...
> Meaghan Walker wrote:
> >
> > In article <32691B...@ucs.orst.edu>, bjo...@ucs.orst.edu says...
> > > Maybe wrote:
> > >
> > > <In response to womens issues:
> > > <See previous if your interested in the finer details of the person
> > > maybe is spitting at:>
> > >
> > > > Why don't you get a job and stop trying to live off the backs of men.
> > > > Try being responsible for yourself for a change.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe somebody has a real problem understanding that woman are human
> > > beings. maybe somebody seems in fact, based on the last seven posts of
> > > his, that I have read, to hate woman to a very great degree.
> > >
> > > maybe, thats just my opinion.
> > >
> > > Katherine
> > >
> >
> > I dont know - I think he just hate women that think they have a right to
> > men's money because they have a uterus and boobs and can squirt out a
> > kid.
> >
> >
> > Meaghan Walker
>
> personally found the birth of my child much too much miraculous and
> wonderful to describe it in such a disgusting way.
Thats right - it was a *personal* miraculous expereince for you. And it
was a personal miraculous feeling for *me* - Which implies that I have no
need or no *right* to claim other people should cowtow to my values
simply because I am capable of gestating, and giving birth.
I dont know- I have the whole event video taped - and with all the fluid
that came out - before and after josh did - I dont think *squirting* is
an inapropriate descriptor... Except oooze and squeeze might be more
accurate.
Maybe you had one of those really immaculate births - no mess, no sweat,
no strain, and no *disgusting* body fluids.
I think you are trying to paint a pretty picture of something - to claim
some sort of superiority to men. Sigh - does it ever let up?
But then again,
> this term you use goes along with your obvious view of children.
>
> We " squirt out kids"? - well, you spit hatred. I know which I
> would consider a more admirable action.
>
> Linda
Hell, I sure as shit spit hatred - particularly at the likes of you -
who are doing your level best to deny rights to my son, my lover and my
male friends.
Meaghan Walker
>
Shawn Larsen
In article 5...@anon.com, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> () writes:
>
>Ahem, it is a noted fact that women earn $.60 for every man's $1.00.
>Get real and realize that not all things are based on "level of production."
Maybe, but by-and-large salaries are based on occupation, experience, and
hours worked per week.
It is not true that women earn $0.60 for every man's $1.00. This was true
in 1960, but the ratio today is more than $0.75. The fact that you use
a figure more than 30 years out of date suggests that you don't know
what you're talking about.
But the $0.75 cent number is not a comparison of female/male salaries for
people with the same job and the same level of experience. It is a comparison
of weekly salaries of all full-time workers regardless of job function.
And full-time doesn't really mean full-time. It's usually defined as at
least 32 hours of work per week. Not surprisingly, women are more likely
to be "part-time" full-time workers. Most of the ($0.25) discrepancy is
because men (as a group): 1) work more hours per week; 2) are more likely
to be in fields that pay more money (e.g., engineering); 3) have been in the
workforce longer; 4) other simple reasons. When these factors are taken into
account, it turns out that women make about $0.90 - $0.95 cents for every
dollar a man earns. This discrepancy could be the result of discrimination,
or it could be the result of unmodeled effects.
For example, there is an expectation by society that men are to be the
providers in their families. This is clearly seen when we look at salaries of
married vs. unmarried individuals. Unmarried women make $0.93 cents for every
dollar earned by unmarried men (this is not adjusted by the above factors
such as occupation or hours per week worked). For college educated women,
the figure is on the order of $0.98. However, married women make $0.31
cents for every dollar a married man makes. In addition, married men earn
over $1.50 for every dollar earned by an unmarried man. There are lots of
reasons for these differences, but put simply, society expects men to be
the primary financial providers of their families. And men work hard to
meet this sex-role obligation.
But you see, you use a number such as $0.60 which is completely outdated
and wrong. Why do (some) people still use this number? The answer is
propaganda. Using $0.60 makes women appear to be much greater victims than
using $0.75 (and most of this number is easily explained by
non-discriminatory effects). So when feminists go around using completely
out dated figures such as $0.60, my conclusion is that they are more
interested in *playing* the role of victim as opposed to dealing with
real bias that might exist.
phyr...@usa.net
><lilith dialog snipped>
I heard stats yesterday of KFWB that said women have taken a step
Cici Clovis
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 06:09:06 -0700, har...@bcsupernet.com (Meaghan
Walker) wrote:
>You already have equal rights dear lady - and respect is something that
>is earned - not demanded and capitulated to.
...............rest of post snipped....................
>Meaghan Walker
Meaghan, this bit caught my eye and started me to thinking, which
usually gets me into trouble, but oh, well.
It's tough to define, but . . . I tend to respect people sort of
semi-automatically until they give me reason to NOT respect them.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "treat people with respect"?
I mean, I may not have an opinion about a person one way or another,
but I do tend to assume that any given person is a reasonably upright
person until they show me that they're not. Because really, most
folks are pretty decent, just trying to get through the day.
One thing that concerns me is the observation made by Robert Heinlein
(through one of his fictional characters) that there are many signs of
a sick society, but there are two inevitable signs of a DYING society
-- filthy public restrooms and a sharp rise in interpersonal rudeness.
Any newsgroup on the Net is ample evidence that the phrase "common
courtesy" is rapidly becoming an oxymoron. Sure, a lot of that is
because it's a faceless medium. But what scares me is that too many
people will get accustomed to interacting in this manner, calling
names, ridiculing others, using language that would cause a
longshoreman to blush with shame, and they will carry this
communication style out into the "real" world. Talk about sowing the
wind and reaping the whirlwind!
I remember what my dad used to say when one of us kids would come
stomping in, enraged at the way some other kid had treated us. He
would quote the scripture about 'return good for evil, do good to
those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you' . . .
and then, with a twinkle in his eye, he would add 'which is not only
scriptural, it will piss 'em off more than anything else you could
do!'
Cici in Texas
ccl...@mail.gte.net
John Cooley
Dave Smith <dhs...@mfg.sgi.com> wrote:
>Everyone needs to lighten the hell up. Movies and TV shows exist to
>entertain us. You can choose what you and your children watch - nobody
>has a gun to your head. Would you rather promote censorship? Teach
>your kids what's right and wrong. All this political correctness and
>walking on pins and needles not to offend any specific class of people
>has gotten so out of hand. Life's too short to worry about how damaging
>tonight's movie of the week is. It's not damaging anyone if they don't
>watch it. So don't watch these shows and movies - just don't think you
>can tell me what I can or can't watch.
>
>Dave
Dave, I wish "Aw, it's JUST entertainment, folks!" could put this to rest,
but it doesn't. The Mass Media shapes our lives and how laws are made
and enforced in more ways than you think. Create a public image that
some group is getting mistreated, and, eventually, that group actually
starts getting special laws and special treatment to "undo" these
transgressions. Really, think about it. The modern American political
experiences is replete with examples of how mass opinion has changed
laws governing how we're hired & fired, admitted or denied to schools,
given medical care, what chemicals are seen as "drugs" or not, how
divorces are settled, what sexual practices are or are not legal, how
animals are treated, what speech we can use in public or at work, even
how fast we can drive our cars! Image is everything! And if you
sit back and tolerate images advocating something you find offensive,
don't be surprized when that offensive viewpoint becomes law.
- John Cooley
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Being a divorced father shouldn't mean you can't know your own children."
The Fathers Group meets in Framingham, Massachusetts on the 2nd Tuesday
of every month. Our address, etc.: The Fathers Group, 908 Concord St.,
Framingham, MA 01701 phone (508) 879-4585. Feel free to join us!
dg...@gateway.ecn.com
Kathy Blain (kbl...@teleport.com) wrote:
: The only fact that
: made the film sexist was the lack of a character to the male characters.
: Hollywood and screenwriters are often accused of bad script writing and
: shallow male and female characters. In this film, the caricatures were
: of the men.
<SNIP>
: The media will sell whatever they can sell. Sex and violence both sell;
: however, sex is censored and violence is not. (Unless you see a Disney
: flick, of course. Then, the opposite is true). And, people want to escape
: when they go to the movies; they do not want to see realism. So, Hollywood
: and screenwriters will provide the escapism that people will "buy".
: Kathy
Quite right. "First Wives Club" was written for a female audience, that's
who the producers were trying to satisfy, and they probably felt "balance"
just diminish the story in the eyes of the target audience. This is how
most films are made. It's why action films, for instance, almost always
have a macho male lead and some young woman thrown in for window dressing.
The belief is men buy most of the tickets for those movies anyway so why
not appeal to their tastes? That's sexism in a way but there's no need
to go overboard. Most movies ARE NOT reflections of real life, they're
fantasies, which means most films made today are now tailored to the
sensibilities of of men or women.
Consider:
"The Truth About Cats and Dogs". This was a fun movie, but does anyone
doubt that the story was written to appeal to women's fantasies and
insecurities? The gorgeous model had to be a ditz? The guy in question
had to be a hunky Englishman who just happens to find in the end that
he's more attracted to the "plain" (but really beautiful) wise cracking
veternarian? And did you see the caption on the posters, "A True Story
(So Far As He Knows")? This was a film that didn't bash guys, but it
was written to appeal to women in their twenties who are somewhat
insecure about their looks who might have fantasies about some tall and
handsome English guy and wants to win out in the end. That's a HUGE
audience. Any change in the story would have ruined it.
"Waiting to Exhale". Another good movie which didn't bash men (at least
I didn't think so), but it was written for women. What were the problems
of the four main characters? One couldn't find an unmarried man who
could live up to her standards, another was pretty but her boyfriends
were jerks, another was very strong but had a husband who left her, and
the last was overweight, not confident in herself, and had to raise her
son. Any drug addicts? Cold fish? Women who were too controlling? Of
course not, that would have ruined the whole story! And don't get me
wrong, I thought this was a fine film. But movies are written with a
target audience in mind, and in this instance it was written for women
in their twenties and thirties.
So now with "First Wives Club" you have a movie written for women who are
in their thirties and forties. It's not supposed to be a treatise in
anthropology. Entertainment is the name of the game. Before guys get
their panties in a bunch because there aren't any sympathetic men in it,
let me ask this: how many men are going to go to see a film called
"First Wives Club" anyway? If the producers thought there was a large
crossover audience out there they would have made a different film. And
as it happens, I think a guy can enjoy a film like this if he goes in
with the right frame of mind (I haven't seen it so I can't say for sure,
but I liked the above two films).
The only problem I can see is this. Given the importance of
entertainment in this culture, films do shape what we think about the
world. That's true of all films. "Rambo" probably contributed to the
reelection of Ronald Reagan. "JFK" probably had something to do with
the growth of cynicism in the culture. And there probably are a lot
of people who think that real life is what they see in the movie
theatres and on tv. I'm not sure what you can do about that. Our
collective unconscious has been captured by people whose main interest
is selling movie tickets and popcorn. The only thing people can do,
I suppose, is be aware of the influence and not take it too seriously.
PS. Also, there's this chicken and egg argument: do films like this
exist so they can shape an audience or because the audience already
exists and producers are trying to take advantage of it? From what
I've heard "First Wives Club" is just like "Nine to Five" (only then
it was Jane, Lily, and Dolly). More significant are the films which
producers DON'T make because audiences don't turn out for them. Take
"Cutthroat Island", for instance, a pirate movie with Gena Davis and
Matthew Modine. Worst bomb of the year. Why? Women don't flock to
pirate movies, men don't go to movies where chicks are pirates (net
result: fewer action movies with female leads). Or "Striptease".
What woman pays to see another woman strip? How many men pay to
see a film which tells them they're slime for wanting to see a
woman strip? Get the idea? It's safer to go in one direction or
the other, and Hollywood is very conservative.
Enough Siskel and Ebert for now.
Alan Madsen
Richard Bennett (Ric...@Bennett.com) wrote:
: phyr...@usa.net wrote:
: >I heard stats yesterday of KFWB that said women have taken a step
: >deeper into the corporate world this year. Last year women made up 7%
: >of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. This year women are up to
: >10%. Since we're more than half of the population, don't you think
: >this indicates that there's still some disadvantage to being a woman
: >in the corporate world?
: Isn't this just a tiny little bit simplistic?
i'd say so... why didn't you do more with your question (having
taken the opportunity to ask it)..?
Alan Madsen
Meaghan Walker (har...@bcsupernet.com) wrote:
: In article <32684D...@anon.com>, Lil...@anon.com says...
: > I find it amusing that people on newsgroups will take one point out of
: >
: > Fine, be anal. That point was one of many.
: > Well, whether you are male or female your ignorance is showing if you
: > feel that dollars are the only reflection of equality in the workplace.
: >
: > I, frankly, truly do not care about stats.
: Yes - I know - Proof would require you to actually base your quaint
: feminazi ideas on reality - too much to bear.
<snip>
speaking of reality, how's the objective response coming along...?
--
Bryan McGuire
Stands By the Wild Rose <bjo...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>there are numerous studies and articles written all the time that
>address this issue. Women are paid less than men across the board even
>though doing the SAME job, and doing it AS WELL AS the men.
It's time for a review of basic eighth grade economics.
Law of Demand - All else being equal, the lower the price of a good,
the greater the quanity of that good demaded by the purchaser.
Employers purchase a good, your labor.
If women are really every bit as good as men but work for less money,
the law of demand proves that women will be favored over men each and
every time. But this obviously cannot be true, especially since
quotas are required just to get women hired in the first place.
Marg Petersen
In article <5493hr$2...@nadine.teleport.com>,
Kathy Blain <kbl...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <548o3e$a...@kira.peak.org>,
>Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>>In article <5464s4$9...@nadine.teleport.com>,
>>Andrew Hall <ah...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>Joshua R. Poulson (j...@teleport.com) wrote:
>>>[regarding "First Wives Club"]
>>>: Both Kathy (my much-loved girlfriend) and I were unimpressed with this
>>>: lifeless movie. The overt double standards were actually more
>>>: interesting than the plot. That's more damning than what anyone else
>>>: can say.
>>>
>>>I saw the film only because I wanted to take my mom to see a movie
>>>she'd like (she did really enjoy it). I didn't like the film, either,
>>>but I didn't really expect to.
>>
>>I saw it with my husband and we both liked it. Of *course* it isn't
>>reality; we don't go to movies to see reality.
>
>The idea that Josh put forth was the movie was lifeless and uninteresting.
>I don't always expect reality from a movie; however, I expect a script
>with interesting characters and an interesting plot. I was not expecting
>a realistic view of divorce (first indcator: Goldie Hawn was in a starring
>role).
Ah, so you have something against Goldie Hawn? I like her.
>>>But I think it's unfair to criticize "First Wives Club" because of
>>>its portrayal of men as weak and stupid. The simplistic movie formula
>>>of pitting "good guys" against "bad guys" is as old as Hollywood
>>>itself - and having clear black-and-white distinctions between the
>>>"good" and the "bad" is the most sure way to appeal to a mass audience.
>>
>>Agree about a lot of movies being "good guys against bad guys", BUT
>>was this movies really about that?
>
>Well, most plots have a protagonist and an antagonist. So, yes, the
>plot should have a "good" guy and a "bad" guy. The good and bad does
>not point to their moral character.
I think you are quibbling here. Most people *definitely are seeing
this from the point of view of their moral character. And who says
that a movie HAS TO HAVE a protagonit and an antagonist always?
This was a "coming of age" film for older women (and men). It
was a refreshing change from all the "coming of age" films of
teens that we have been sujected to recently. Not that that is
bad in itself, it isn't. However, it was nice, for me, to see
something a bit different for once.
>>>In this case, the film makers made the women the "good guys" and the
>>>men the "bad guys". So what? It's a clear-cut (but poorly developed)
>>>premise that's politically correct and had the potential to be funny.
>>
>>Is this really true? Were the women in this film really "good guys?"
>>I didn't see the women, as portrayed in this film that way at all.
>
>The good guys and bad guys was based on the distinction between
>protagonist and antagonist. Good guys and bad guys are not always
>based on the moral character or actions of the main characters.
You're repeating yourself.
>>What *I* saw in this movie was a group of women who, faced with
>>*reality* caused by a crisis (divorce) discover that they have to
>>make changes in *themselves*. Now, some may take issue with the
>>*how*, but this IS a movie after all. And what is the end result?
>>Well, the dead can't be alive, so that is a tragedy, but the others?
>>One actually *dares* to attempt an area that she has not tried
>>before (the actress) and to resounding personal success. Another,
>>begins to be honest with *herself* in that she accepts that she
>>*does* have angry feelings and actually learns to express them.
>>Another, begins to believe in herself as a person (accepting that
>>her child WILL eventually grow up and leave) and finds an interesting
>>person inside herself. (That coincidentally, her ex-husband also
>>begins to find interesting, again.)
>
>I saw a group of lifeless women with no interesting characteristics
>who were in the middle of a divorce with some lifeless male characters.
Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. What I saw was the
portrayal of many women of my generation.
>The women never found that they needed to make changes in themselves. The
>screenwriter did have them created the clinic, but only after the Diane
>Keaton character had a tantrum (in the middle of their collective
>tantrum). A tantrum is an act of an emotionally immature person and the
>tantrums happened at the end of the movie when the characters had already
>wasted over an hour of my time. They had a few minutes of "development"
>when they created the clinic at the very end of the film.
Ah, I see, so any other growth (to you) was irrelevant. Well, I
saw it differently. We disagree.
>>Of COURSE the ending was unrealistic and silly. Again, this WAS a
>>movie after all.
>
>The whole movie was unrealistice and silly. And, if you were going to
>read a book and that book costs everyone who was going to read it $6
>(plus the added expenses of snacks), would you recommend a poorly
>written boring Harlequin romance or a well-written novel with real
>character development (not written from a guaranteed-to-sell formula)?
I think it would depend on my perspective. However, I have never
read a harlequin romance nor would I consider doing so. Anyway,
as I said, it depends on your perspective. You saw no character
development, I saw a lot. Whatever.
>Kathy
>
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Steve Mueller
phyr...@usa.net wrote:
> I heard stats yesterday of KFWB that said women have taken a step
> deeper into the corporate world this year. Last year women made up 7%
> of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies. This year women are up to
> 10%. Since we're more than half of the population, don't you think
> this indicates that there's still some disadvantage to being a woman
> in the corporate world?
Seriously? Not necessarily. It could reflect the simple reality
that more men have been in the professional workforce longer than women
have, and thus more have risen to those positions where they are
promotable to CEO (president, VP, etc.).
Also, what's the ratio of men to women in the field the company works
in, and what is the ratio of men to women who graduated college in those
years where Fortune 500 CEOs are likely to have started their careers?
When 50% or more of college graduates are women (which may already
have occurred) and 50% or more of Fortune 500 VPs, Presidents, etc. are
women, then I would hope to see 50% of CEOs being women (with a few
years fudge factor to account for the current CEO to retire or move on).
I bet there are more men than women in blue-collar jobs (like
garbagemen, automotive assembly line workers, etc.), too. Are you
complaining about missing those jobs? :-)
Steve
Steve Mueller
Lillith wrote:
> I find it amusing that people on newsgroups will take one point out of
> many and twist it to their own use.
>
> Fine, be anal. That point was one of many.
I find it amusing that when someone raises an issue, then gets called
on it, they resort to name-calling. Lilith, *you* were the one who
brought up the statistic to prove women earned less than men.
Insulting someone who tries to correct your statistic (I know who if
Shawn was right, but that's not relevant) and point out how you were
misusing it is disingenuous at best.
> I, frankly, truly do not care about stats. The reality of being a woman
> today is a whole lot easier in some ways than others. Women are taking
> on many of the male roles but men continue to find it difficult to let
> them do it. The workplace is a great example of gender inequality. Soon
> this will also be obsolete but it takes WOMEN and MEN to change it. This
> also includes evening out the salary discrepancies, WHATEVER they may
> be.
Interesting, claiming you don't care about statistics after *you*
introduced them.
And I like your generalization that "men continue to find it
difficult" to let women take on many of the "male roles". Maybe *some*
men do, but at my company, the head of Human Resources (aka Personnel),
the Treasurer (or Controller or VP of Finance or whatever), the new
Director of Quality Assurance, and the leader of the engineering group
of one of our core technologies are all women. This is a small computer
software company (a tradionally male dominated field) with about 200
employees.
If you mean "some men", say "some men".
> You use the word feminist like is was something ugly and misshapen.
He used the word once in your cited post. Here is the reference:
: So when feminists go around using completely
: out dated figures such as $0.60, my conclusion is that they are more
: interested in *playing* the role of victim as opposed to dealing with
: real bias that might exist.
What is "ugly and misshapen" there? He didn't say *all* feminists
did this, he said "when feminists" do this. Nor did he deny there was
bias; he just said your statistic wasn't relevant.
Don't blame him for the chip on your shoulder. Society is changing,
and women are being accepted into all (or most) facets of it (albeit
perhaps too slowly for some). You can either be a positive advocate for
change, or sit sniping at people.
Steve
Steve Mueller
Yea! A reasonable post. But I'll still comment anyway. :-)
Kathy Blain wrote:
> I am also a woman and proud of it. So, I think we should worry about
> "tit for tat". We should not have to use the same tactics that have
> been used against us to gain the rights that we should have. By
> "male-bashing", we will only place men on the defensive (like we have
> with these posts). The only way to achieve equal rights with dignity
> is to receive them as equals and not portraying ourselves as better.
That's true about "male-bashing" putting men on the defensive. Men
will probably be *more* sensitive since they aren't used to it.
> The equal rights issues fight has become a bloody divorce. No one
> is just talking. Everyone wants to yell.
I'll be more than happy to talk when someone is as reasonable as you
have shown yourself to be. There are some people who yelling seems to
be the only way to communicate with though (if you've followed the
choice-for-men/child support debates, you'll have seen some).
> >I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
> >and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
>
> I also want equal right, equal pay and respect. How are you going to
> get respect without first being respectful? How are you going to get
> respect when you place men on the defensive? Respect from who...other
> women or men?
To be fair, some men will probably go on the defensive because more
women getting power means less chance for them to have power. But those
men would probably be equally defensive when any other qualified people
appeared to challenge their positions. It just might be harder to dig
up issues to defend their positions ("women will leave to get pregnant",
etc.).
Equal opportunity for all, affirmative action for none. Our school
system is the place where we should make up for any "historical
discrimination", not our work force.
Steve
John Cooley
Keith Marlowe <kmar...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>When are you guys going to stop your whining
>and get a life. Are you so constantly bitter because you can't find another
>woman who will tolerate your insensitivity?
Keith, I think you see the world through stereotypes & media created images.
I do the Father's Rights thing because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I've
never been married, but I've always had (and currently do have) a girlfriend.
I've never fathered any kids, never been accused of any crime, nothing. I
just think that if we're going to stop the breakdown of American Society,
we've got to have intact families. And when divorce comes up, it's settled
in such a way that EVERYONE has a chance to restart their lives. Perhaps
you may not like this, but The Father Group is 20 percent women and 99
percent of us guys are either re-married or have steady girlfriends. We're
all working to insure that children, after a divorce, still have a right
to know their dads *despite* what their mothers think of them.
>Spend a weekend in the emergency ward and see the real victims of spousal
>abuse. Spend a weekend with a child protection agency and see the real
>"innocent" victims of spousal abuse.
>but I know I protest in vain. you don't want the truth. You just want to
>spill your venom anywhere you can. The tragedy is you perpetuate the
>problem in your own children. Very sad indeed.
Keith, I know that there are men who abuse women -- and it's horrible! I'm
not, nor is The Fathers Group, condoning such abuse! But, do you know
how the abuse accusation is handled in Massachusetts? Effectively, here,
accusation equals guilt. I just got back from visiting a friend in jail
who is in jail because he's been ACCUSED of abusing his wife who is
divorcing him. The moment he was *accused* of being abusive he suddenly
couldn't go home, his wife got an automatic Child Support payment awarded,
he can't see his own kids, and the wife gets the house. He ended up
living in a friend's basement because he couldn't afford any place to
live. He ended up in jail because he couldn't post bail when he was
brought into court for not completely paying his 37 percent "temporary"
Child Support payments *and* for a defense lawyer, too.
In Massachusetts, being ACCUSED of abuse results in a guy going through
$20,000 to $40,000 for lawyers plus having to deal with angry judges,
pissed off Social Workers, psychologists, even angrier Battered Women's
Advocates, and an indifferent "System". It's a real witch-hunt. I hope
you get to experience this first hand some day, Keith -- it'll be a real
eye opener for you on how the System doles out "justice." The Fathers
Group is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST abuse but feels that the regular misuse of
these well intended laws against fathers as even more of a crime.
- John Cooley
The Fathers Group
phyr...@usa.net
Stands By the Wild Rose <bjo...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> Everyone needs to lighten the hell up. Movies and TV shows exist to
>> entertain us. You can choose what you and your children watch - nobody
>> has a gun to your head. Would you rather promote censorship? Teach
>> your kids what's right and wrong. All this political correctness and
>> walking on pins and needles not to offend any specific class of people
>> has gotten so out of hand. Life's too short to worry about how damaging
>> tonight's movie of the week is. It's not damaging anyone if they don't
>> watch it. So don't watch these shows and movies - just don't think you
>> can tell me what I can or can't watch.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> Zenoink wrote:
><stuff snipped for bandwidth>
>> > >
>> > >One question: where are your protests about those stalker movies that
>> > >portray men as rapists and butchers of women? They are on the tube
>> > >*every night of the week*! Yet where are the protests? And these are
>> > >the thngs our children are seeing!
>> > >--'Mina--
>> >
>> > Thank you, Mina. You are quite right that the silence over how women
>> > are constantly being mistreated in the movies speaks volumes.
>> >
>> > It reveals the real agenda behind complaints about the First Wives
>> > Club. The movie threatens men even though it is pretty trite and
>> > predictable...they just don't want anybody even thinking that way!
><snip>
>> > it. We constantly get movies where women are victims of men, but let
>> > one little comedy out of the bag and all those guys are twisted out of
>> > shape!
>> > Kay
>what I am hearing is that its not okay to have movies written and
>produced by men about older women getting back at their ex husbands, but
>its all right to have women murdered and stalked on tv by men, just as
>long as we don't let our children watch it. I'm not hearing this from
>one person but it seems to be something running throughout this thread.
>A man berates women who enjoyed the movie, when a woman says "what about
>all those flicks where women get beaten killed or maimed everynight of
>the week", and another guy or maybe the same, says women are just
>whining and complaining about being victims...isn't that what the first
>fellow griping about 1st wives club is doing...whining about being a
>victim?
>Nuts!
>Sour grapes...Men feeling threatened? Shoe on the other foot? Tight
>pinch?
>I love bette midler!
>I love goldie hawn!
>and thats what will take me to this movie! :-)
I am reminded of Jim Henson, of Muppet Fame. He said that early on he
got some flak about the violence of the Muppets. He defended it. He
said that where else does violence belong but in the fantasy of
puppets and animation. He felt that didn't translate to violent
action in real life. I feel somewhat that way about movies in
general. It's entertainment (or meant to be.) I don't enjoy suspense
and gore, mayhem and murder, but if I did, I'd rather it be an
on-screen fiction than the front page of the newspaper or on my
sidewalk. I think we need to not mistake on-screen fictions as
models. There is value even in the things that make us uncomfortable,
revolt us, stir the juices... Look at the dialog this film has
launched! If revenge on my ex is my dirty little fantasy, let me
enjoy a movie like this the same way people run private films in their
heads to enhance sex. What's it hurt? As long as you're sure of the
boundaries between fiction and real life, who else would be
comfortable appointing as Censor? I'll do that for myself.
Steve Mueller
Stands By the Wild Rose wrote:
> there are numerous studies and articles written all the time that
> address this issue. Women are paid less than men across the board even
> though doing the SAME job, and doing it AS WELL AS the men.
Remember, though, that there are more issues involved in pay --
objective issues, not just subjective ones. Objective issues include:
* How long someone has been doing the job. Someone with 10 years
experience doing the job well probably should be paid more than someone
with 3 years on the job.
* What education or experience someone has. Someone with a broader
education or experience base, who can step into other roles as needed by
an employer, probably should be paid more than someone who is only
trained for one job.
There are subjective issues, too, but they may (or may not) allow
discrimination to creep in:
* How well someone gets along with their supervisor
* How well someone gets along with their coworkers
* How "political" one is
* Company loyalty
* and so on.
> Women are paid less, its a fact, and its not because our work is
> inferior which is what you seem to be suggesting, its because we haven't
> stepped up to the plate, taken up the reins of power and cast our vote.
That's part of it, but I'll accept that some men haven't made it easy
to do that. A few years ago I realized that black men had the right to
vote before white women did, and I was shocked. (I knew this a long
time ago, of course, but the realization of what that meant was the
shock.) Basically, a group white Americans treated as slaves -- little
better than animals in some cases -- got to vote before women did -- a
group that men claimed to love and need as mothers and wives.
> Sure some of us do, I do, but until we realize the strength we have by
> our sheer numbers and get out there and vote for what we want we're
> always going to be paid less, shouted down by neanderthals when we say
> we don't like something and called feminazis when a few of us dare to
> speak out.
Well, you shouldn't *have* to vote (or fight) for equality. In a
truly fair society, equality should be the default. It's still not, so
you still have to fight for it, but hopefully both sides are moving --
women are taking more responsibility for their lives and men are willing
to give up that responsibility.
However, regarding FemiNazis, remember that *how* you do something
will partially determine how you're treated. If you *act* like a Nazi
(like Hitler in the beer hall putsch trying to seize power), you'll be
treated like one. If you shout that you don't like something, don't be
surprised if your shouted back at -- and not just by "neanderthals"
(which isn't to say you won't be shouted at unfairly).
Work within the system where possible, go outside it when you need
to, and you should minimize the defensive reactions men will have. And
of course, once you get power, don't use it as a chance to get even with
those who screwed you over; use it as a chance to show them how the job
should have *really* been done.
Steve
Lillith
So is saying that women have now reached equality because they make such
and such cents per dollar compared to men making such and such cents per
dollar.
Lillith
> I bet there are more men than women in blue-collar jobs (like
> garbagemen, automotive assembly line workers, etc.), too. Are you
> complaining about missing those jobs? :-)
>
L.
Lillith
Steve writes:
>
> The fact that men are complaining quicker than women may say that men
> are "losing power" and notice it more easily than women who didn't have
> power for a long time. Or, if I wanted to be snide, I could say don't
> blame men for complaining in years about things that took women
> centuries to complain about.
How about men learning from years of their own mistakes and trying to stop
things before those same mistakes happen to themselves?
L.
Lillith
Feminazi -
Bad choice of word.
Ms. Walker, look at the definitions of both part and shut your mouth.
Whoever invented the word was a moron.
Being a feminist has nothing to do with genocide. And don't give me that
*rhetoric* about "Oh, men are being replaced....." Over it.
Because a woman is ardent about equality and standing up for her rights,
that doesn't make her that awful term you used.
It is always the squeaky wheels are heard the most often. Many women use
the guise of feminism when it not what they are truly about. There are
plenty of women working quietly and those are the ones *I* applaud.
Stop with the anal statistics and look at the overall picture. REALITY
is women do not have the same rights and priviledges as men and that is
what the "women's movement" (lack of better term) is about.
L.
Lillith
HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO Steve-
The point is I am an advocate for change but my point was that it still
needs to be made and that women still are NOT equals in many facets in
many things.
L.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <32681A...@ucs.orst.edu> Stands By the Wild Rose
<bjo...@ucs.orst.edu> writes:
>
>Keith Wood wrote:
><much, much dialog snipped>
>> One of the things that I do is write science fiction. Space opera.
>> And do you know how we tell if an SF story holds together? We give
>> it the "Gunsmoke Test" by taking the personal elements of the story
>> and seeing if they would fit in the Middle Ages or the Old West --
if not, then the story needs work, because PEOPLE are PEOPLE.
>>
>> This movie fails the Gunsmoke Test. Big time.
>
>
>Popping your story into one time period or the other is about formula.
>Real life isn't like sci fi, or romance novels or old time westerns.
>Real life doesn't fit into any formula. People are about life not
about>formulas. And times change.
>
>I haven't seen 1st wives club yet, but one thing I know what happens
in>the 90's isn't about what happens in the dark ages. In the dark ages
>women were killed for having opinions, bargained off in marraige at
the>whims of their husbands or sons, and generally treated like
chattel.>Women have had the vote for less time than black men in this
country.>Women have been battered and abused and murdered just for
being women>all through written history. Many still are in this country
and>elsewhere. And your mad about a movie where a few women get back at
>their ex husbands for dumping them?>From what I have seen of the
previews of 1st wives club, its not about>women bashing men in
general, as several people have suggested, but is>about older woman
getting back at the husbands who dumped them for>younger chicks. Maybe
when more women start dumping their old husbands>for younger men you'll
see the humor in any of it.
-----
What is really making bigots angry is women are flocking to the
theater in droves to see this film, and film makers are paying at
tention to the huge untapped audience of women that has been, by
and large, overlooked. Well, they're looking now, and Whoopie
Goldberg and other actresses like her are going to reap the
rewards, along with producers who want to rake it in.
Lefty
Lillith
Alan writes
>
> speaking of reality, how's the objective response coming along...?
I like your sense of humor and good point.
L.
Steve Mueller
Stands By the Wild Rose wrote:
> Real men take the time to understand where women are coming from.
> Real men don't resort to name calling when they can't control or
> dominate the conversation. Real men don't use what they percieve to be
> as man bashing as an excuse to bash women. Real men aren't scared of
> real women.
Katherine, please define for us what a "real man" is and what a "real
woman" is -- not in subjective terms, but in objective terms.
To me, a "real man" has an X and Y chromosome, and a real woman has
two X chromosomes, and that's about as much as I can say. Any other
definition is subjective.
Maybe by "real" you mean a man *you'd* be interested in....
Steve
Steve Mueller
Lillith wrote:
> I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right but it fascinates me that as
> women become equal in society men are taking offense at things, that not
> too long ago, were solely the gripe of women.
>
> The shoe is on the other foot and it is obviously pinching.
And this "fascinates" you? What did you expect? If women didn't
like some things through history, why is it "fascinating" that men don't
like those things? If you complained about it, why shouldn't men? If
the shoe pinches one foot, did you seriously expect it wouldn't pinch
the other?
The fact that men are complaining quicker than women may say that men
are "losing power" and notice it more easily than women who didn't have
power for a long time. Or, if I wanted to be snide, I could say don't
blame men for complaining in years about things that took women
centuries to complain about.
Steve
Steve Mueller
Zenoink wrote:
> Hmmmm...seems to me most of the icky stalker type movies are of two
> types: ones where men are the stalkers and the audience is supposed to
> enjoy seeing women victims get hurt and ones where women are the
> stakers and the audience is supposed to enjoy seeing the men get back
> at the women.
Really? In most stalker films I've seen, you may enjoy *how* the
people get killed (like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies), but
you're always rooting for the stalker to get killed in some horrible
way.
But I guess your political agenda is showing itself. Most stalker
movies (if you're talking about the horror films like "Friday the 13th",
"Halloween", etc.) I've seen have both male and female victims. So what
makes it enjoyable seeing the women killed but not the men?
Steve
Maybe
jga...@dbsr.com (Jackie) wrote:
:In article <DzF4p...@world.std.com>, jco...@world.std.com says...
:>Leigh, I think your assessment of Carol Ann Hemingway (aka "Lefty") is
:>right on target. Sadly, though, it's become quite tolerated in our
:>society to be extremely sexist and prejudiced -- as long as it's
:>ultimately against men. Carol, and quite a few women (not most, thank
:>God!) tend to take the art of man bashing to an extreme. Witness how
:>men were viewed in "The First Wives Club" -- any excuse was legit to
:>screw a guy over. The characters even had a problem where one of the
:>ex-husbands was completely "clean" and above board -- so the wives
:>knowingly fabricated some charge to blackmail him! Another wife turned
:>his daughter against the father to spy on him. There were many scenes
:>where this daughter faked loving daddy only to have her "turn"
:>on him in a later scene. If this movie was reversed by having three
:>men out to mess with the lives of their ex-wives by using the courts
:>and underhanded trickery, it wouldn't have been seen as a comedy!
:>
:> - John Cooley
:John, I think you are right about the movie (I didn't read Lefty's post). If it
:would have been a movie about three men screwing over women, certain organizations
:would have had a conniption. Yah, maybe there are guys that are jerks, but
:there are just as many women. It's not like those women in the film didn't have
:a choice in who they married -- so why did they choose jerks. I think it's more
:of a put down for women than anything. It shows that the only way we can protect
:ourselves or get revenge, is by playing conniving tricks. But I still would like to
:see the movie for entertainment purposes (I like Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler,
:and Diane Keaton). Being a strong person and standing up for your rights is
:being a strong person but being sexist is not. I can't blame men nowadays for
:being so paranoid to do anything around or to a woman. A guy I'm seeing right
:now (who is very sweet), at times, doesn't know whether he's coming or going with
:me. I think he's thinking too much about whether certain behaviors or certain
:statements would upset me. I think men get that way because of the man-hating
:women (which I am most definitely NOT), which creates a stereotype -- how could that
:be good for any woman? Men and women deserved to be treated the same way -- and
:that's with respect.
I agree. Now if we can just get feminists to understand the concept of respect.
Maybe
Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:Excuse me,
:Did I say that women should rush out and do what men have been doing for
:eons? NOOOOOOOO.
:What I was pointing out was that for a loooooooooong time women have
:been misrepresented on many different levels.
:Many injustices have been done to many people of both genders. None of
:which should probably have been done to anyone! BUT the fact still
:stands that men have the upper hand, both literally and physically, and
:women have a right to stand beside their partners equally in all things.
Not a fact. Your incorrect opinion. It's men who are marched to war
to have their bodies destroyed. (I guess "my body/my choice" doesn't
apply to military service for MEN ONLY, does it?) It may not seem very
important to you that men's bodies are being destroyed, since it's not
your body, but to a lot of men who have been lamed, or have lost their hands, or
lost their eyesight, it's pretty important. And it may seem like a nuisance
that wounded veterans may have special needs that impact on our economy
when they returned from war. (Now that they've done their job, they're no
doubt disposable to you.) When the ship goes down, it's women who are
the first off (women and children first.) Women get custody of children 80%
of the time, despite a blind psychology review of custody cases advising
custody to the fathers, and despite women being the most violent segment
of our society, especially toward children.
:I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right but it fascinates me that as
:women become equal in society men are taking offense at things, that not
:too long ago, were solely the gripe of women.
:The shoe is on the other foot and it is obviously pinching.
Yes, I would say women, who have been coddled and pampered by our
society for millenia, are now feeling the pinch of having to be responsible
for themselves for a change. Tough luck.
Maybe
Stands By the Wild Rose <bjo...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote:
:Somebody hiding behind an alias sez:
:> > What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
:> > rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
:> > my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
:> > we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
:> > have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
:Lillith wrote:
:> Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
:> shall we?
:> (Every pun intended)
:>
:> Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
:> unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
:> women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
:> they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
:> of being put as second place in all things?
:<some snipped>
:> Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
:> history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
:> seriously.
:>
:> I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
:> and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
:>
:> Yes, I am WOMAN and hear me ROAR! :-)
:>
:> L.
:RE: being called a feminist. I've noticed a pattern among some men in
:some newsgroups...those that feel threatened by women, who will not be
:brought to heel, often labeled those women as feminists, as if it were
:a dirty word or as if it defined a woman who hates men, another thing
:some men call women who have opinions and feelings which differ from
:their own.
:Real men take the time to understand where women are coming from.
:Real men don't resort to name calling when they can't control or
:dominate the conversation. Real men don't use what they percieve to be
:as man bashing as an excuse to bash women. Real men aren't scared of
:real women.
I've noticed a pattern among feminists to tell men what they feel (in the
case of this post, threatened,) despite that it's for any individual to say
what he/she feels. But that doesn't stop feminists; truth is just an
obstacle to be ignored.
Real women don't spout hypocrisy. Real women can pass Per's "Honest
Feminist" test. Real women aren't cold, selfish, egocentric, insensitive
male bashers like feminists are. Real women aren't afraid to be truly equal
with men. Real women aren't whiny, simpering cowards who's mantra is
"victim." Real women know how to communicate with men. Feminists
haven't the vaguest clue what men feel and think because they're basically
incapable of empathy. Real women are honest and responsible and
courageous, unlike their feminist counterparts. Feminists cannot, and will
never be able to, understand men because they are too self-centered, and
"me-me-me" oriented to be aware of anyone but themselves.
Real women know how to nurture and value people. Feminists know only how
to destroy.
Maybe
ar...@shore.net (Arlyn J. Hubbell) wrote:
:In article <32678D...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:>>
:>> What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
:>> rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
:>> my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
:>> we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
:>> have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
:>
:>Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
:>shall we?
:>(Every pun intended)
:>
:>Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
:>unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
:>women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
:>they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
:>of being put as second place in all things?
:>
:>No, I do not know what is inherently offensive to men because I am not a
:>man, but for decades men have proclaimed what is best for women.
Bull. All the "romance" movies that came out of Hollywood weren't directed
toward men. It's been women who, throughout herstory, have dictated what's
best for men. I say, it's time for men to dictate what's best for men, and let
women take care of themselves from now on. We men don't need parasitic
feminists bleeding the lifeblood from our society. Women, particularly
feminists, are the most violent segment of our society, especially toward
our children. We need to rescue our children from the clutches of mean
spirited, selfish feminist mothers who are killling, maiming, and emotionally
traumatizing our children.
Maybe
kei...@bctv.com (Keith Wood) wrote:
:In article <32678D...@anon.com>, Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:[I never used the word feminist to describe myself but I would have to
:[say that I am. Men have been the dominating gender for the majority of
:[history as we know it and it is about time women took themselves
:[seriously.
:Agreed. But that doesn't mean taking the whip and using it against
:men -- it means BURYING the whip.
Not agreed.
Who are the ones hiding safely at home when the wars wage? Women.
Who are the first ones off of a sinking ship? Women.
Which segment of the population is most violent, especially against children? Women.
Feminists think by just saying something they can make it true. Well, it won't work for me.
Just because feminists SAY men have dominated for the majority of herstory doesn't
make it true.
:[I am sorry if it frightens you that women want equal rights, equal pay,
:[and respect. It is obvious you are not an empathic man.
I'm sorry if you, Lilith, can't accept that women are the priveleged class of our
society, and women have been waited on hand and foot. I'm sorry if women
have been so thoroughly pampered and coddled that the idea of being
responsible for themselves seems horribly cruel.
:Funny how this mantra always gets thrown into the argument somewhere.
:But is seems to me that the issue is equal rights and respect for
:MEN.
:The movie was an example of NEITHER. If it were white men "getting
:back at" minority women GUILTY OF THE SAME OFFENSES, would it have
:been "entertainment"? If it were kids getting back at adults, would
:it have been worthwhile?
:One of the things that I do is write science fiction. Space opera.
:And do you know how we tell if an SF story holds together? We give
:it the "Gunsmoke Test" by taking the personal elements of the story
:and seeing if they would fit in the Middle Ages or the Old West -- if
:not, then the story needs work, because PEOPLE are PEOPLE.
:This movie fails the Gunsmoke Test. Big time.
This movie fails the basic test of decency and compassion. It represents
feminist attitudes in all its ugly, selfish cowardice.
Maybe
Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:>
:> What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
:> rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
:> my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
:> we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
:> have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
:Yes, I am a woman and I am proud of it. Let's do a little tit for tat,
:shall we?
:(Every pun intended)
:Hmmmm, how about all the years women were portrayed as subserviant,
:unintelligent slaves to there husbands? How about all the years that
:women were given second best roles in major motion pictures because
:they, supposedly, wouldn't bring in the dollars? How about just decades
:of being put as second place in all things?
Yeah, like last in line to have their bodies destroyes in war,
last in line to stay on a sinking ship, last in line to have their
children ripped from their lives, last in line when it comes to
non-violence, especially toward children.
Yes, you women are definitely last in many, many things.
Maybe
gle...@teleport.com (Glenna Rose) wrote:
:In article <5474e3$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
: Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
:[snip]
:>
:>What about the raft of stalker movies portraying men as animals who
:>rape and butcher women? Hardly a positive way to depict men, in
:>my opinion. Oh, but of course, as a feminist, YOU know better than
:>we men what is offensive to us, and what our experiences are and
:>have been. YOU ARE WOMAN!
:>
:Something you should keep in mind here about the movies to which you refer:
:They are primarily written by men.....directed by men......and targeting a
:male audience. Those movies do not appeal to the female audience and really
:have a relatively small percentage of the female members of our population
:singing their praises.
No it isn't.
Maybe
You should quote the original post, so we all know what you're referring to.
Somewhere in your newsreader is menu selection that allows you to
automatically include the original post in your reply so that we can read the
original post you're responding to. Just keep selecting menu items, until you
get an option with words like "Include original post in reply?"
Lillith <Lil...@anon.com> wrote:
:I truly believe that you really messed up in some relationship and you
:are the one looking for revenge.
You are entitled to your opinion.
:You obvious anger is pretty close to ranting.
As one of the male antifeminist posters here, I feel anger myself.
If you feel that men having and expressing anger is wrong, then
that is your problem.
:Go get some counseling and get back to the rest of us later.
Practicing psychology without a license? Or just giving unsolicited
advice. You are, of course, a feminist. It's understandable that you
would think you are the final authority on EVERYTHING.
:You know,
:after your done foaming at the mouth and they've given you your shots.
You mean, after we're done disagreeing with you. How dare us men
disagree with you, huh? Well let's just remember that it's women who
are the most violent segment of our population, and it's no surprise that
a woman, confronted with someone who expresses ideas she doesn't
agree with, would resort to verbal violence.