I think that you're intentionally overlooking the fact that the United States of America was founded by patriarchs with the intent of creating a patriarchal society. When Amelia Earhart was made famous for being the first woman to fly across the Atlantic it wasn't because she was "...simply the first women..." it was because she was the first to go against the beliefs and boundaries that were set for women in the U.S. at that point in history.

Lara Craft the computer heroine: "Contrary to feminism, men love women who are strong and carry a gun.." You purposely overlooked the blatant fact that this particular "heroine" has bare breasts. Have you considered factoring that in? Why have you intentionally overlooked this? Do you not think that this could be one particular reason she is being adored?

"Feminists love to hate Kate Moss because she is slim..." Have you looked into studies to examine reasons why people suffer from bulimia and anorexia in the U.S. and around the world? Feminist is a term with many definitions. This is because issues are seen differently by feminist of different religious backgrounds, ethnicities, classes, sexual orientation or sex (a feminists can be a male)...and all feminist aren't all obese. Feminists are of all shapes and sizes with backgrounds that may be painted slightly different from another. Therefore your suggestion is inconclusive and ludicrous. It is possible to say that there are fathers and mothers whose children are lost to these diseases that may "...love to hate.." the gatekeepers who let these "models" get into the magazines for the youth to adore and try and emulate.

Why are you presenting the information so onesided...it's obviously inconclusive for its lack negative perspectives on feminists? Your point is feminism is bad so women are bad and to prove your point you're just pulling these ideas from who knows where and they just don't make any since at all. My opinion is that the material is just not good enough to be published.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
It appears that you made the effort to read through a substantial part of the history page. Let me just respond briefly.

I am not myself American and I have not grown up with an extensive knowledge about the founding "fathers" of America. Therefore I could not comment really competently about it. Obviously men were specifically the main creatures of the constitution and its ideas. Arguably the political world was dominated to a greater degree by men than women in this period. I don't know however that they specifically wanted to create a patriarchal society. I have never heard such a thing said before. Furthermore, it is inappropriate to say that just because specific men of the "ruling class" developed concepts of society, that the society then necessarily was formed in their image and in their interest. Not all men are part of the patriarchy...if it even exists, which I deny.

As regards Amelia Earhart, your argument suffers from the feminist condition of always denying the significance of any argument that goes against your philosophy. I was partly joking when I said that Earhart had a male equivalent who failed to be recognised. She was certainly partly glorified for eing the first woman and it was an unusual achievement. However it was also an achievement in its own right and deserves acknowledgment without qualification. There were no boundaries set for women, in a legal sense. She broke no taboos, but she did surprise people by being a woman who dared. That was the boundary she broke, no other. It was breaking a boundary of belief that women would never do what she did, rather than that women could not or must not do that. (Incidentally I think it was not until the late 1980s that an all female Boeing 747 flew by an American airline and I think the first all Australian female flight crew may have occurred in the mid 90s.

As to the subject of Kate Moss, it was said flippantly. I do believe what I said, in part. But I would have to spend more time justifying my opinion and its complexity.

From: Malchicky@hotmail.com
Subject: Human in general need a makeover!
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000

Some women hate men with a passion; some women wish that men could be assimilated. They have their reasons, which I don't really care about.

Some men are chauvenistic; some men wish that society was more "conservative" and patriarchal. They Just like the notion. I don't care about their reasons either.

There are serious problems on BOTH sides of the fence, and people need to recognize that instead of playing the one-sided game. I am female, and I know that some members of my gender are vicious, conniving, etc etc and play with men like toys. Men do all these things as well. What I'm saying is that human beings have created this complex, sad game of sexual, physical, and mental warfare, fighting fire with fire. Revenge, jealousy, greed, lust...all these things plague us all. It's not just about one gender or the other.

Skip to next entry or continue with my reply.
I appreciate the balance of your perspective on the subject of gender. I recognise that both men and women suffer the intolerance and cruelty of the opposite sex, if not their own sex. The main point I wanted to make is that society nowadays virtually only declares interest in the "suffering" of women. It is certainly necessary to show another side in order to begin to see sexual relations for what they are. A better understanding of human sexual conflict can only come from a fair assessment of men and women.

From: FrankNave@aol.com
Subject: Men save yourselves for marriage
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000

I think that we men need to take back our power. Women obviously have the power when it comes to sex. A beautiful woman who is middle to lower class can quickly find a man of any income class to go to bed with the instant she dumps her boyfriend or husband, because she is more in demand to the opposite sex than her average income significant other. Also, many women are no longer finding the term whore to be offensive. Many of them are welcoming the term with open arms because they acknowledge that they find greater joy in sleeping around, or dumping their current lover for a more financially successful lover who they will use until finding another man who is sexier, more exciting or wealthier than the guy they're with. Many women prey upon men's powerful libidos and then manipulate them to get what they want. So few women want to settle down. The men of Saudi Arabia make their women cover themselves because they are aware of the havoc that women's sexuality can cause. Female circumcision while extreme is a way to control the woman's potentially unruly behavior. It is so easy for a woman to go out and find a boy toy, or a man to use for sex, and then get rid of. Our pop culture magazines like Cosmopolitan and Glamour are teaching women how to break up with men. What about the family? Why is it becoming less popular for women to get married and settle down?

Skip to next archive (August 00) or continue with my reply.
I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. However it needs some qualification. Although a lot of women conform to the loose sexual attitude, many do not. Many women are very moralistic about being sexually promiscuous. This is also for a number of reasons. Women are far more concerned about being seen to be "whorish".

Also, a lot of what you say about women's actions are also applicable to men. It has surprised me in the past to find that men can be just as cunning, bitchy and manipulative as women.

Finally, whether women picking and choosing among men is immoral is also subject to scrutiny. Most people do some choosing. Only people with a very low self esteem think that they have no choice. Sometimes women seem to do all the choosing but it is not only like that. Women often complain about the ability of wealthy men to dump their wives for younger women. Be careful of denying your power in all this.

Who'se Next??

Skip to next archive (August 00)