Monday, June 13, 2005

You're next in line, Saudi Arabia: votes for women

When I was in second grade, my class gave an assembly presentation in which each of us read a little speech about some figure in US history, pretending to be that character. I was Susan B. Anthony.

Although I no longer remember the speech I made, I never forgot that she had helped women earn the right to vote. It seems hard to believe, but at the time I made my little debut, women had only been voting for about thirty-five years.

How long had women's struggle to gain the vote taken in this country? Approximately seventy difficult and dogged years. In fact, most of the early leaders of the movement, including Anthony herself, died before seeing the Promised Land of the 19th Amendment.

I don't know how long women in Kuwait have been petitioning to vote; my guess is that it's been less than seventy years. My guess is also that certain recent Middle Eastern events, in which the policies of one George W. Bush have played no small role, were part of the reason the Kuwaitis decided one month ago that the time had come to let women in that country vote.

Kuwait has now announced this further news, a mere month later:

The Kuwaiti government has appointed its first female Cabinet minister, a month after lawmakers in this oil-rich nation granted women the right to vote and run for office, state-owned television reported Sunday.

Political science teacher Massouma al-Mubarak, a women's rights activist and columnist, was given the planning and administrative development portfolios, Prime Minister Sheik Sabah Al Ahmed Al Sabah was quoted as saying. The two portfolios previously were held by Sheik Ahmed Abdullah Al Ahmed Al Sabah, who also is the communications minister.

"I'm happy," al-Mubarak, 54, told The Associated Press. "This honor is not bestowed on my person but on every woman who fought to prove that Kuwaiti women are capable."


The achievement of the vote for women in Kuwait, and the appointment of this first woman to a Cabinet-level position, aren't simply questions of women's rights long overdue, although they most certainly are that. They represent an extension of the scope of democracy in an area of the world that could sorely use some improvement in the position of women, developments that might one day prove to have a generalized ripple effect on the cultural ethos there (and yes, though it's not PC of me, I think it could stand some improvement).

Further facts of possible interest: Ms. al-Mubarak seems to have replaced two men, if I understand the article correctly. And Saudis, please take note:

Women can now vote in all Middle Eastern nations where elections are held except Saudi Arabia.

40 Comments:

At 10:49 AM, June 13, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

Flashing the ol' ankle bones in Kuwait, eh? Well, good for them. I hope the Kuwaitis don't have a change of heart and stone women voters to death. I shouldn't be spitting in the eye of progress - I hear the women in Saudi were at least allowed to discuss the previous election in the privacy of their homes. See? Islam is indeed a religion of peace, dedicated to developing the full potential of heathens and the righteous alike.

 
At 10:56 AM, June 13, 2005, Blogger Dr. Sanity said...

Hooray for the Kuwaitis! As you point out this is a region badly in need of reform in many areas, but particularly in the area of women's rights.

I think women's rights are inextricably entwined with the transformation of both the region and the religion.

 
At 11:26 AM, June 13, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

It's hard not to become upbeat about all of this - it's quite exciting - did you know that a man in Jordan can now get up to 6 months in jail for doing an honor killing? You've come a long ways, baby!! The UN is about to pass a significant resolution too - it is called the "Be Nice to Your Female Property" resolution. Battery and being harnassed to a plow will now bring about some stern chastisement from that august body I tell you! A little moral suasion here, a little there and before long we will see some floral prints being used for burkahs!

 
At 2:03 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous terrytj said...

neo-
I'm surprised at your PC concern. you should, we all should, shout the truth from rooftops, PC be damned. look at Irshad Manji. Speaking out for change and improvements for women and for the muslim world are her reason for living (and her reason to risk dying). I guess you mean it's un-PC for an American to judge another culture as needing improvements. sounds imperious maybe?

I commented that I thought "the arab world needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21C" to an anti-war anti- Bush and increasingly, anti-American european friend who then admomished me on how she thinks that America is arrogant and greedy for oil and that the arab world should be allowed to change and grow on it's own.

Uh, yeah. maybe NOW it can. But how far along would this extraordinarily rapid progression of events be without the initial push from Bush/Blair/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz etc etc? (actually a little credit could be given to even old Bin Laden and his gruesome boys.)

(neo, Thank you! I LOVE your blog.)

 
At 3:59 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous fred said...

I think women's rights are inextricably entwined with the transformation of both the region and the religion. -- Dr Sanity


Uh, yeah. maybe NOW it can. But how far along would this extraordinarily rapid progression of events be without the initial push from Bush/Blair/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz etc etc? (actually a little credit could be given to even old Bin Laden and his gruesome boys.) -- terrytj

Both comments perfectly on target. I like that "maybe NOW it can." NOW's silence is astonishing, but par for their left-wing course.

 
At 4:40 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous bob said...

Today I got up and noticed that the sun was rising and I thought to myself, I wonder if the policies of one Goerge W. Bush had anything to do with it?

 
At 4:53 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, I was thinking about the sun, too. I was marvelling at the tens of millions of people it was shining on who are now free of a totalitarian government. I saw people who now have hope for the future. I was wondering if the policies of George W. Bush had anything to do with that.

"The current poll [March 2005]further shows that more than 90 percent of Iraqis feel hopeful for their future." http://www.iri.org/03-15-05-IraqPoll.asp

 
At 5:08 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous bob said...

strike up the sentimental music

 
At 7:22 PM, June 13, 2005, Blogger ModernityBlog said...

as a European sick and tired of tedious anti-Americanisms, I wait for Saudi Arabia to enter the 21st century, surely the status quo cannot continue

terrytj: you might remind your European friend that beheadings and stonings are very rare in the US, unlike some parts of the Middle East

 
At 7:55 PM, June 13, 2005, Blogger ShrinkWrapped said...

We are in a race between liberalization in Islam and catastrophe. The primitve terror of the female that motivates much of the worst in Islam is a powerful reactionary force. Once the Islamists discover that women are people, anything is possible; they might even begin to have the glimmer of an idea that Jews and Christians are people, too. (We shouldn't get carried away, however) Of course, once a critical mass of Islam agrees that women, Jews, Christians, et al, are human beings, the fascists are finished, and don't think they dont know it.

 
At 9:21 PM, June 13, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

I'm trying to come up with some verses for a song I'm composing, "The Burkah Blues" - I'll just throw out a few rough-cut verses for your critique:
- the day they sewed my vagina shut was the day I knew there'd be no twins ( a country/western approach to this maybe?)
- I feel the stones on my back when you look my way ( I think sort of a blues genre might be right for this one)
- my knife is red, red, red with honor (definitely a heavy metal take on this one I think)
- If I had a clitoris, I'd smile in the morning, I'd smile in the evening, all over this land ( folk for sure, and I won't entertain any debate on this one)

Seriously now, are there any C&W fans out there, Alan Jackson fans??? Remember his song that goes, " pop a top again..."?? Well, you guessed it, this next potential verse would have to be pure, unadulterated country:
-snip a clit again, I've just got time for one more procedure, so tie her down my friends, then I'll be gone..
- tie a bloody veil around the old oak tree, I'm coming home, I did my 3 days in jail, I caught her talking with a non family member male, now she's in the ground, so tie a bloody veil around the old oak tree ( folksy/rock for this, clearly)

I think too often we just talk about issues and never get musical in these blogs, don't you?

 
At 11:16 PM, June 13, 2005, Anonymous kung fu said...

You said,

"The current poll [March 2005]further shows that more than 90 percent of Iraqis feel hopeful for their future." http://www.iri.org/03-15-05-IraqPoll.asp

I was really impressed by this. I didn't know things were looking up so much in Iraq. But then I checked out the source of this poll: The International Republican Institute. It's kind of like a poll that says 90% of Palastinians feel hopeful for their future, only to find out that the poll was conducted by the Israeli Defense Force. Come on, don't give me this phony bovine excrement! I like neo-neocon, but this is turning into a cartoon.

 
At 11:46 PM, June 13, 2005, Blogger Alex said...

kung fu,

I went through a similar process with the IRI poll -- disappointed that it was conducted by a partisan group and skeptical of the results. So I did some searches for other recent polls and you know what? They were extremely similar.

Take this one for example. It was done by the Oxford Research Group at the request of the BBC, whose bias one might expect would go in the opposite direction of the IRI's. Look at the graphs in the "more details" section. An eyeball estimate shows that 70% of Iraqis say that they believe that a year from now their lives will be "much better" or "somewhat better". About 8% think it will be the same and only 5% think it will be worse (13% or so didn't know). It's not the 90% of the IRI, but it is kind of remarkable that only 5% think things are getting worse. And the IRI's polling was slightly more recent, so there really might have been a change since then.

 
At 12:01 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous kung fu said...

Alex,

Thanks for the tip on that poll. I still don't trust the IRI poll, however, and I'd like to see an update of the Oxford poll, since the one you've mentioned is over a year old. A lot has happened since then. I read the rest of the article as well, which is quite insightful in terms of attitudes towards invasion, occupation, insurgency, etc. Thanks for the help.

 
At 12:03 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Mixed Humor said...

Good piece here, definately a positive for Kuwait and hopefully something that can begin gaining ground in other areas at some point down the road. The liberalization, or moderation, of the Middle East would greatly benefit if the traditional Islamist view of women was unveiled.

Nice looking blog too.

 
At 12:07 AM, June 14, 2005, Blogger an unrepentant kulak said...

Good for Kuwaiti women, and for others in the Arab world who I hope will have the opportunity to follow in their footsteps. I wish we were seeing more acknowledgement by feminist groups in the U.S. of this kind of progress.

 
At 6:03 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kung fu - perhaps you and Howard Dean could conduct a poll to disprove what the other polls are saying.

 
At 6:56 AM, June 14, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

I am skeptical of any poll being taken in Iraq. Aside from the cultural differences, language barriers and nuances of translation with English and Arabic, there are just a host of other uncontroled vairables that pollsters don't encounter at home. How does proximity to a recent attack factor in? Are women being interviewed alone or in the presence of men? Are women even being interviewed? Were people interviewed in a mosque? What is the ratio of women declining to comment or agreeing to participate as compared to men? Were the 3 major groups of Sunni, Shia' and Kurd equally polled? What about location? Would the residents of Fallujah have different responses compared to residents of an upscale residential area in Baghdad with a strong security presence and a history of few attacks? Do all respondents have an equal history of oppression under saddam hussein? How was that accounted for and weighed? How many respondents have lost an immediate family member due to violence since the invasion? etc etc etc

 
At 8:57 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

70 years is one human lifetime.

The custom that female suffrage replaced had been the rule of human society for how long... 5,000 years?

The notion that human custom and tradition should immediately be transformed in response to rational demands was, in fact, the idea that led to the slaughter of over 100 million souls in the 20th century.

I think we have not adequately considered the damage that the destruction of custom and tradition causes. When I read this, and the plethora of rational, intellectual blogs, I see that damage.

The damage is to the soul of humans. What we have created in place of the traditional human is a stunted creature lacking in emotional and psychological dimensions that are difficult to describe, and cannot be quantified.

I'm not arguing for the subjugation of women. I just think that the author of this site, and most of its posters, are blind to the other side of the equation.

 
At 9:43 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

Thomas. What rational demands are you talking about?

What changes in traditional society led the Kaiser to attack everybody he could find on a map?
Germany post WW I was in difficulty, but not, as far as I can tell, because the people were being de-tribalized and left as autonomous atoms with no connections.
Japan? A traditional society right through the time MacArthur unpacked his suitcase in the Dai Ichi building to become viceroy. Which, I should point out to those who studied history in public school, is after the end of WW II.
What was rational about communism? It seems to have been entirely irrational in its determination to ignore human nature.
I should say that I don't include a connotation of "good" or "virtuous" when I use "rational". It is merely a logical issue based on facts. And the causes of the slaughter of a hundred million don't seem to have been logically based on facts. They seemed to have been a desire to escape facts.
It is clear that people can get their heads around small groups more easily than large. Still, most Americans are more loyal to the country than to their state, although the issue has not been put to the test since the Sixties.

A society can survive the enfranchisement of women, presuming the men aren't assholes. If the men are assholes, we'd have problems anyway.

Detribalization (see a fictional description in Ruark's "Something of Value) can be a problem. But we mostly see the problem with detribalization without seeing the prior difficulties. When western civilization arrives, detribalization starts. The records of what difficulties tribalism caused prior to that are generally not available.

 
At 9:47 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous kung fu said...

anonymous,

You said, "Kung fu - perhaps you and Howard Dean could conduct a poll to disprove what the other polls are saying."

Come on, be real. I wouldn't trust a Howard Dean poll any more than I would a George Bush poll. The whole point is about bias. You can't rely on that poll as being without prejudice and you know it. If you make an assertion and your only evidence is this one crumb of evidence from a source that is partial to the outcome, then your assertion isn't valid. That's all I'm saying. Hell, I'd love it if 90% of Iraqis were hopeful for their future. I suggest you check out the poll Alex mentions in his post and I also think goesh makes a good point about polls in general.

 
At 9:48 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous terrytj said...

HI Modernity european,
to my italian friend I phrased your point like this:"which is worse? head covered with bag... or head rolling on floor? head topped with women's panties..or head rolling on floor? etc" she dismissed this comment as silly. (ok. it's sensational. but YOU will see my point.) To this (former ) friend, Everything is seen through a prism of certitude that the arrogant imperialist agressive America is first and foremost dispised over the also dispised islamofacists.
"I don't like how you (the USA) fight" she told me.

I asked this woman to imagine her own free modern life under Islamic sharia law.I wanted to make it personal. she avoided answering but told me a story about when traveling in Egypt once,she was horrified when a young woman who's picture she snapped was slapped hard on the head by her father for allowing it.
in other words, she sees some problems with the arab world,with Islam, but is against change initiated from outside.

During this long (bloody) discussion with her, I once listed every terror attack initated by muslim extremists against Americans & other innocents, starting with the hostage-taking in Iran in 1979.
My point that America has been a target of an amorphous but formidable enemy for some time fell on deaf ears.

I think (hope) we are witnessing an unstoppable force. The bottle has been uncorked and scary but glorious stuff is pouring out.

 
At 9:55 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

"A society can survive the enfranchisement of women, presuming the men aren't assholes. If the men are assholes, we'd have problems anyway."

The problem that you cannot see is vividly displayed in your comment.

You've assumed that traditional society "disenfranchised" women for no other reason than that "men are assholes." That the human custom of placing women above men might have had damned good reason for existing seems beyond your comprehension. That something might be lost by changing this tradition seems equally beyond you.

And, might I add, I believe that you are moved in your statements by chivalry, not by reason. Women, especially leftist women, are remarkably adept at manipulating men by an apparent plea to reason, which is actually a plea to chivalry in disguise.

It would take hours to explain just how wrong headed you are, and how totally ruled by abstract intellect you are in making this statement. That you are so willing to attack your fellow men might be a good place for you to begin reflection. You do this, not out of reason, by out of primitive rage at other men.

 
At 10:16 AM, June 14, 2005, Blogger Goesh said...

There were and are Matriarchal societies on the planet. Political and economic dominance by males is not inherent in nature, so I'm not really sure what you mean Shouting Thomas when you say we have "not considered the damage that the destruction of custom and tradition causes". I do know that women in Afghanistan are no longer being beaten by religious thugs on patrol looking for veils that are too low on the face. I saw the covert video, made by a woman of all people, smuggled out of Afghanistan 3-4 years ago showing just that. It's really hard to fathom Muslim women not wanting this kind of subjugation to end for sake of cultural convenience. Look at the culture of mental illness that existed here in America as recent as 60 years ago where the mentally ill were chained in some institutions and parts of their brains were being cut out. Who has experienced major life disruptions because those practices were abolished? Do I really need to mention being Black and not getting to vote and having to ride in the back of the bus here? I was in the Peace Corps in West Africa years ago, working with agricultural development and I recall some training I had with my counter-parts. At the end of the training, it was announced that all participants were going to receive a little Honda motorcycle to use in their duties. When it was learned that the 5-6 women trainees were to get motorcycles too, the men literally pitched a major fit. I actually thought a couple of the guys were going to get violent about it. I got on my little Honda and got the hell out of there, so I don't really know how it all ended. There can be no real evolution when half the population of any society is in bondage, and human bondage ends with one link of the chain broken at a time. As a male, I strongly resent the superstition that I will become overcome with lust upon seeing a woman's face or ankles. That primitive mentalitiy seeks to exert itself in many ways and not just as it directly bears upon Muslim women. It simply must be strongly resisted and opposed.

 
At 10:25 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

You know, Thomas, I coincidentally stumbled on something you might like.
There was a columnist who used to run a filler when he was out of material. He called it things he learned on the way to looking up something else.
And thus it happened.
See "Gor", the two dozen or so novels by John Norman.
If you read them as fast as you can, stopping only for nourishment, you might, in some fashion, go there. You'll be happier.

 
At 10:44 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

Both of the respondents to my comments have focused entirely on injustices and injuries to women.

Somehow, the fact that 13 year old boys are dragooned into the militaries of the societies you have described does not register on you.

Once again, your minds are so dominated by chivalry that you've left the ills that affect men entirely out of the equation.

Why does the suffering of women so obsess you? Why does the suffering men fail to make any impression on you at all?

 
At 10:49 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

Further thought, from anecdote.
A couple of years ago, walking into our local grocery store, I found myself behind a young woman. She had a good figure, straight hair to the butt, athletic shoulders in a tank top and well-fitting slacks. I saw her later, and she also was quite attractive. Good bone structure, as my grandmothers used to say.

And then a young man came around the corner. She stopped and smiled at him as if he were her boyfriend whom she hadn't seen in a month and hadn't expected to. The radiant heat from that smile, even at an angle, was palpable.
She was, clearly, glad to see him.
Men would kill for that smile, or die. Have, certainly.
The problem for some guys is that, to get that smile, voluntarily, from a free woman, means you have to be worthy of it.
And the more capable and strong a woman is, the more effort it takes to be worthy.
Think that doesn't scare some guys?
How do you think they deal with it, individually or as a culture?

Kipling: From Epitaphs of The Great War.

Raped and Revenged.

One used and butchered me.
Another spied me, broken.
For which thing an hundred died.
Thus it was learned among the heathen hosts
How much a freeborn woman's favor costs.

In other societies, which shall not be named, should the vic survive the attack, she won't survive her family.

Does it strike you there might be some kind of difference here?

 
At 10:49 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re Doubting Thomas's warning that "human custom & tradition immediately be transformed to rational demands..."

Is it so clear that events occurring now and those yet to occur are really so sudden and "immediate"?

Some aspects of changes we see starting to occurr in the middle east appear to be "immediate" but I imagine that the psyches of women (and men) could tell a story of a long slow still-evolving evolution.

 
At 10:52 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

Thomas. WRT the trials of men:
Why aren't we concerned? Wrong question

Right question: Why aren't we talking about it?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.

 
At 10:54 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

I want to thank both of my respondents, as well, for demonstrating the way in which men become very strange creatures in these discussions about other men.

"I'm not one of the evil ones, ladies," the leftist man says. "I'm one of the good ones."

In other words, you are motivated by a mating tactic.

The next statement, usually not uttered, but aimed at women, is: "You should sleep with me."

You see what I mean. You think that you are operating from your intellect. You are fighting with other men over the favors of women.

Could it be that this has been going on throughout those above-mentioned 70 years?

Could it be that your willingness to villify other men has its roots in jealousy?

Could it be that the women who manipulate you to behave in this fashion might have other motives than the wonderful ones you attribute to them?

Now, you've flattered yourselves that you are such original thinkers. I'll flatter myself. I'm the first person on this blog to posit an original idea. Try considering it, instead of the knee-jerk reaction.

 
At 11:06 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Thomas:
we're discussing the rights of women living in middle eastern nations and how they are being affected by events unfolding before our 21c eyes.

no one has said that men have never been victimized. that is simply not the discussion here.

 
At 11:06 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

Thomas, the "I understand women--so they should sleep with me." technique does not, as far as I can recall, work.
And I'm not a lefty.
I've been married for about thirty-four years, so my memory of the dating scene is hazy.
However, my recollection is that instead of appearing with moist eyes and trembling lower lip, the appearance of " rough-but-possibly-domesticable" was a better technique.
At least, in the person of the Alpha Male, it sells two billion dollars' worth of romance novels each year.
Gotta mean something.

 
At 11:25 AM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous notherbob2 said...

“Flattery is never so agreeable as to our blind side; commend a fool for his wit, or a knave for his honesty, and they will receive you into their bosoms”
Henry Fielding 1707 – 1754
Damn, Shouting Thomas, you are one swift dude.

 
At 12:18 PM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

I recommend reading this post on my weblog:

http://shoutingthomas.typepad.com/harleys_cars_girls_guitar/2005/01/a_slow_boat_to_.html

The modern feminist movement grew out of the failure of American men to properly defend their country in Vietnam. That failure enabled radical feminism to take root.

Leftist men have become completely manipulated men, struggling with one another in combat over "sensitivity."

I've asked the author of this blog before, and I'll ask it again. You've carefully reconsidered the sledge-hammer brainwashing you received about the Vietnam War. When will you begin to reconsider the sledge-hammer brainwashing in feminism that took place concurrently?

Feminism is a religion, as the tone and hysteria of my respondents makes quite clear. I support the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan because I am a patriotic American.

But, the resort to feminism as a justification is not only weak... it's a disaster. We're attacking the traditional societies of Arab cultures unjustly and insanely. There was never a rape epidemic in the West. There was never a domestic violence epidemic. These are fabrications of feminist ideology. I suspect that the depictions of Arab societies in western publications is mostly fabricated, focusing on the most extreme instances of behavior. And, I've been answered by my respondents with Feminism 101 dogma.

A better rationalization for U.S. actions would be to assist in bringing democracy to the Middle East. In fact, I think that we should use force to defend the enormous Western investment in producing oil in the Middle East. It is indicative of the weakness of Western men that they cannot say: "We bought and paid for the oil and we will fight for what we own."

The left used to call this kind of attack on another society "cultural imperialism."

Once again, I wonder when this blogger will begin to consider the endless indoctrination in feminist dogma that she endured, side by side with the leftist indoctrination in the Vietnam War. This seems to be the one dogma that cannot be questioned. Feminism is a religion.

 
At 12:24 PM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

Sorry, but part of the URL disappeared in the posting. The URL is just too long. Here's two different ways to access the post:

(1) Go to: www.HarleysCars.com

The posting of January 25, 2005 is in the archives.

(2) I'll post the full URL in three parts separated by carrier returns. Stick them together without spaces. (In other words, delete the carrier returns.)

http://shoutingthomas.typepad.com/
harleys_cars_girls_guitar/
2005/01/a_slow_boat_to_.html

 
At 12:28 PM, June 14, 2005, Blogger Alex said...

Somehow this discussion has veered into the netherrealm of effective dating technique, but I'd like to bring it back to some of the statements Shouting Thomas made earlier. To wit:

The custom that female suffrage replaced had been the rule of human society... The notion that human custom and tradition should immediately be transformed in response to rational demands was, in fact, the idea that led to the slaughter of over 100 million souls in the 20th century... I think we have not adequately considered the damage that the destruction of custom and tradition causes... The damage is to the soul of humans. What we have created in place of the traditional human is a stunted creature lacking in emotional and psychological dimensions...

So let me see if I understand the argument. 1. Women's sufferage replaced a long-standing tradition. 2. Changing some traditions led to 100 million people dying. 3. Therefore, woman's sufferage, as a change of tradition, did lots of damage. 4. We are now "stunted creature[s] lacking in emotional and psychological dimensions" because of women's sufferage.

How'd I do ST?

1. A lot of traditions have changed. Slavery was a pretty long-standing human tradition, and it changed rather suddenly in most (but still not all) parts of the world. Please tell me how we're suffering from this.

2. It was "changing traditions" that led to mass slaughter in the 20th century? You might say it was new technologies, or a larger world population, or any number of things. It's a neat trick to pin every death on the boogeyman of "changing traditions."

3. This is logic of the type a) Thomas is a man, b) some men are assholes, therefore c) Thomas is an asshole. Even if we accept 1. that woman's sufferage was a change, and that 2. some changes were bad, it doesn't follow that 3. the change of women's sufferage was bad.

4. We are? I can't say I feel "stunted" by the fact that women can vote. Maybe you do? And I'd venture to guess the women themselves feel a whole lot less stunted.

All in all, you've failed to convince me of a single deleterious effect of woman's sufferage. You've made a weak analogy to, I think, the rise of communist and fascist ideologies, waved your hands a bunch, and declared us a race of stunted men. This isn't an argument, Thomas, this is whining.

It's one thing to say that men sometimes serve as whipping boys in modern society, or that violence against men sometimes gets overlooked. Fine. But you have taken the most extreme reactionary position of advocating against basic rights for women! And indeed, against change per se. If you really want to live like they did 5000 years ago, I suggest you move to the middle east. Leave us in peace in the US of A.

(Note: right before publishing I noticed ST's latest post. He writes the resort to feminism as a justification is not only weak... it's a disaster. We're attacking the traditional societies of Arab cultures unjustly and insanely. Again, this ridiculous love of "tradition" and apologia for mysogynist violence. I meant the "move to the middle east" thing as hyperbole, but maybe ST really would like it. Also, A better rationalization for U.S. actions would be to assist in bringing democracy to the Middle East. What kind of democracy do you have in mind ST? One in which only half the people vote? I'm starting to regret taking the time to respond respectfully to you, as it's become increasingly clear that you deserve no respect.)

 
At 12:57 PM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Shouting Thomas said...

The hysteria and hyperbole of feminists is also a constant.

My late wife was a Filipino immigrant, and the training manager of an international corporate law firm. She earned well in excess of what most feminist women earn. She was the most vehemently anti-feminist person I've ever encountered. She was an entirely traditional Filipino woman, and she excelled as an artist, a business woman, a mother and as a wife.

The notion that feminism is responsible for achievement by women is a lie. The notion that feminism is essential to achievement by women is a lie.

Feminism is a religion. I'll repeat that as many times as you wish. The hysteria and hyperbole of your responses are, in fact, the proof. You folks are quite thoroughly brainwashed.

What I'm telling you is quite different, something you have not heard before. Listen, little brainwashed boys and girls. The past, as depicted by feminists, is a lie. The villification of the past that is feminism is a wretched lie. Everything you've read and heard about how society functioned in the past, as related by feminists, is a lie.

Take some time to consider this.

It is interesting that this site is premised on challenging the most cherished of notions, the leftist propaganda about Vietnam. What cannot be challenged is the lie, the religion, that is feminism.

Leftist women really have you by the balls, boys. It's funny and tragic at the same time.

 
At 1:33 PM, June 14, 2005, Anonymous Richard Aubrey said...

Gor, Tom. Gor is the place for you.

 
At 1:49 PM, June 14, 2005, Blogger Brad said...

It seems that there is a lot of talking at cross purposes here. I think that what ST is ultimately defending is sexual differentiation: the notion that men and women are different and that many valid customs and traditions have been based on this concept (such as “women and children first”). And when the positive forces of civilization move a society forward, with men and women complementing one another , the result can be the betterment of all (with sexual differentiation intact), but when a rational system of thought imposes a priority (as in the worker’s paradise) the results will be a disaster. Thus, the appeal to chivalry to bring about androgyny is a play on the past to bring about an unrealistic (quasi-religious) future that only serves a few. Maybe I’m wrong. But if I’m right, I think that, despite the hostility, this is definitely a valid point.

Also, Richard is right in that what occurred in the 20th century was irrational, and I think that even the premise laid out in Kapital and the manifesto was irrational, but I think that ST’s point is that the demands were based on a rational thought process (as opposed to religious divination).

 
At 12:28 PM, April 02, 2006, Blogger Lori said...

It seems the more I'm online doing research and stuff, the less interested I am about certain things. But this one site on how to talk to women kundalini nlp how to attract got me so friggin excited, I nearly lept out of my pants. And I'm telling you, I do not get THAT excited about anything much, but this topic really had me coiled up.
how to talk to women kundalini nlp how to attract

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger