Still a Misogynist...Apparently

05/14/2004
As with any issue celebrities have the best perspective on it.
OK, so maybe "It's my body" isn't the dumbest battle cry, but it's close.
So I promised our loyal readers (both of them) back at the beginning of the semester when I wrote the first article that I would write an article to discuss how my views have changed.

My assumption was that my views would be changed more in favor of women's rights. However, I'm pretty sure my views have changed more in the opposite direction. As Jon said when I told him of this fact, "Extremists will do that."

Abortion


I can honestly say I'm more against abortion than ever. I'd still consider myself pro-choice but hearing abortion discussed in class and our textbook like it is a right up there with the right to breathe has really soured me on the issue.

If I hear one more "But it's my body!" I think I might just go on a 5 state killing spree. When your primary defense of a right is something as utterly moronic as this you are going to lose the battle. You can make pro-choice arguments like it might be more humane to terminate the pregnancy rather than giving birth to a kid later that will bounce around from foster home to foster home or live in poverty but "It's my body" is the DUMBEST thing to ever come out of someone's mouth.

First of all, the whole point, and certainly their opponent's (the anti-abortion people) whole argument, is that it is NOT just their body anymore, there's another life in there. Secondly couldn't this argument be used by anyone? If heroine users marched on Washington chanting "Keep your laws off my body" they would be laughed out of the district, but somehow the same argument is the beat all, end all for women's rights activists. It would actually make more sense for anyone BUT pro-choice people to use that argument. Why should I have to wear a seat belt? It's my body.

Lastly stop talking about abortions like they should be a right like the right to breathe, or talking about pregnancy like women can just randomly get pregnant walking down the street. After all pro-choice and pro-abortion are two very different things, but holding up wire hangers and saying "We were one vote from going back to this" not only blurs that distinction but also leaves the impression that every women gets ten abortions in their life time. Pro-choice people want to put the "once in a lifetime emergency" spin on abortions, not make it sound like a daily activity.

More having your cake and eating it too.


While discussing the changing tradition of women taking the last name of the man the most vocal girl in the class went on a big rant about how she just got engaged couldn't believe her fiance wanted her to take his name. She said that the best argument he could come up with of why she should is that it was just tradition. Since when is tradition not a valid reason for doing something? My family doesn't drag a tree into our house every December because we want to get the feeling that we're camping out while watching football games. Is there probably a root of the Christmas tree tradition? I'm sure there is. Is it outdated and not really applicable today? Probably. Does anyone cite the origin of the tradition when they get a Christmas tree or do people get a Christmas tree because that's what you do for Christmas? Furthermore, why are only traditions that go in men's favor argued against? She had a huge problem with him wanting her to take his name but I would wager that she had on an engagement ring while ranting about it and I would wager his hands have no such ring on them.

The OMFG they can't be serious stuff.


The same girl complained about video games because she had just seen a skateboarding game where you could choose female characters but they were large-chested scantily clad characters. The teacher said that's because all games are still made for boys. At this point I leaned to the guy next to me and said "Yeah, designing a product for your target market, what a moronic idea." I think the unintentional comedy scales broke when after discussing the issue for 10 minutes the girl finally voiced that her main problem with the game was that you couldn't change the girl characters' shoes.

We had a whole class dedicated to the fact that the way the sperm and egg are portrayed in text books just furthers the sexual stereotypes in society. The sperm is portrayed as going on a perilous journey and burrowing into the egg while the egg is portrayed as just sitting there waiting for it all to happen. This view supposedly extended from the roles of females and males in our world and was being blamed for helping form the gender roles of children learning about the process.

Sperm DOES go on a perilous journey. Millions are "deployed" in the hope that one makes it. The only factual mistake that the textbooks made is that recent studies have found that the egg plays a role in getting sperm into it, rather than the sperm burrowing into it. In fact the egg does most of the work. The author of the article we were discussing praises these new studies for a while then later blasts them for portraying "women" in an equally bad light since the egg went from being portrayed in such a passive light to a "man hungry, temptress" role.

At one point the article quotes a part of a textbook that talks about despite being born with 300,000 eggs only 400 to 500 are used throughout a woman's reproductive life. The textbook being discussed then goes onto say "The real mystery is why so many eggs are formed only to die in the ovaries" The author then interprets the text to imply that it means to say it's wasteful and then goes onto complain about how the average man makes 2 trillion sperm in his life and yet it's not seen as wasteful.

Not only does the quoted text not imply eggs are "wasted" the situations are two COMPLETELY different ones. The female's system is on a fairly rigorous schedule, in other words the body knows about how many it would need and makes way more than that number. Why it does that is a mystery. The male system needs to have a huge amount on hand ready to go at any given (and unpredictable) time.

In a different article discussing how medical science has done nothing to better life on Earth the author goes on to discuss the doctor patient relationship and how doctors doubt what women say. I think it would be safe to assume that doctors doubt what everyone says for the same reason I doubt what someone says when they call for tech support. 99.999% of people have no clue what they are talking about so when they give me their diagnosis of what they think is wrong with their computer I don't really listen. I suspect the same is true for doctors. Would you want a doctor that if you walked in and said "I have Babeseosis" the doctor replied "Ok, lets start the treatment" without doing a single test?

Another article found an author making a point about how women that want to be construction workers or work in other "heavy lifting" jobs are being "discriminated" against because the job requires heavy lifting. If someone physically is not able to do the job how on earth is it discrimination to not hire them? I remember not too long ago hearing about how a fire department was in hot water since there were very few women on the force because they required people to be able to carry 200 pounds because the equipment is heavy and they might very well have to carry someone out of a building. How is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen? If a woman can do what they ask should she be considered? Of course. However, if a firefighter can't carry equipment or rescue people what good are they? If your life depended on it who would you like to see kick in your door, a 6'4" 260lb former football player or a 5'9" computer programmer? Should we hire cripples to our firefighting forces in the name of being PC as well?

My thoughts on other issues


The same article was about women being discriminated against. The article was about unfair treatment in the workplace, courtroom, and pretty much anywhere outside of the house.

It starts off by talking about woman in the economy. Women make less than men, are more likely to be poor, and have less of a chance to rectify the situation. This point, however, is contradicted later by pointing out the fact that 53% of students in colleges are female. (In fact at UWEC it's almost a 2:1 ratio.)

In 1998 the average female lawyer or judge made about $62K while the average male made $115K. This was one of numerous numbers thrown out there to try and prove women make less than men. The flaw with these studies is that they tend to look at what would traditionally be male jobs, those in which only recently females started getting into and then average everyone's salary and claim the only difference must be sex. In some fields the most senior women have been in the field for 10 years while their male counterparts have been there 30+ years. Why would a person stay in a job for 20 more years with no chance of advancement. Of course male, lawyers, doctors, ect make more, they've been there longer. The discrepancy in salaries will begin to close when the predominantly male work force from earlier begins to retire. She contradicts her own point and enforces mine by later pointing out that half of married couples (who are generally the same age, and thus enter the workforce at the same time) who both work have the woman making just as much, or more, than the husband.

The article goes on to discuss the glass ceiling in business and politics sighting that of the 4,012 people in charge of the 1,000 largest companies, only 19 are female. Is that a big discrepancy? Yes. However, the author, as well as others, continue the trend of discussing the glass ceiling as if all the men at the companies take turns running it or even could ever have a shot at running it. There are thousands of employees at these businesses and an average of 4 people in charge. Most of those 1,000's of people are going to only go so high in the ranks.

This also ties into to my earlier points. First off, these companies are being run by the same people for huge stretches of time, it's not like they hire people on a daily basis and never hire a female. Secondly, the guys were there first and as such moved up the ladder first so it's only fair they have first crack at any openings. Women move up behind the people that were there first and hit the same ceiling everyone else with their seniority does. You reach a point where there is no turnover and 2,000 people wanting the same job.

What also bugs me about the glass ceiling is that it's one of those sliding stats that will never go away but can always be tossed out there as an argument. "There's never been a female ___." Then when a female gets put in that situation does the argument go away? No, it just moves on to the next higher up place. It's like that stat that gets brought up any time the Bucs play a cold weather game. "The Buccaneers are 0-14 when the temp is below 32 degrees" then they win a cold game against the Packers and the stat is just adjusted to 0-12 when under 30 or something like that.

There has never been a female (or black) president because there are very few people with the clout, finances, and political background to make a legitimate run at it. Sometimes you get the sense that some of the people playing the glass ceiling card seriously think that any white "Joe Six-Pack" has a real shot to be president. Which (unless you rig the election) isn't true. I'm a white male and I can tell you without hesitation that I will never be president of the USA or CEO of a Fortune 500 company no matter now badly I want to be. If Hillary Clinton would have entered the race she would have won the democratic primary and then would win the upcoming election in a landslide.

There are so many variables involved that it is unfair to claim that women in today's political scene don't get a fair shake just because we can look back and see they didn't. After all, the sun has come up every day in recorded history and yet nobody can prove without a doubt, based on that fact, that it will come up tomorrow.

The glass ceiling is not a myth but it is certainly not without (at least partial) explanation.

-Jeremy Lindgren is sick of just Sarah being flamed.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/15/2004 @ 06:58:44 PM
 Quote this comment
But Hillary would get women voters to come out in record numbers, I dont think it would have been close, but I guess there is no evidence either way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
05/15/2004 @ 07:09:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy, I think this might be your best article yet.

For the record, I don't think Hillary would win the election in a landslide. The current race is split half and half and I just don't see how Hillary would persuade a large portion of Bush voters to move to her side. Much like Bush, Hillary is a polarizing figure. Of course, that wasn't what the article was about so I don't even know why I'm commenting on it. Anyway, good article...you chauvinist pig you.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
05/15/2004 @ 08:28:10 PM
 Quote this comment
The Bucs haven't beat the Packers in a cold weather game.

The "It's my body" issue: Shouldn't the kid have that same argument? Did you choose to have sex? What's that you say? It was an accident? you didn't mean to get pregnent? Did the guy trip and fall and happen to have sex with you? anyone get the point?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
05/15/2004 @ 09:40:09 PM
 Quote this comment
It was a hypothetical sitution anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
05/15/2004 @ 09:40:32 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not going to voice my full opinion here, because I am not even exactly sure of it, but there are issues of rape and the knowledge that the mother could die with the pregnancy. So I believe that at least on those levels the "it's my body" comment has credence. But don't get me started on all those people who get pregnant and then get handouts from the government, like college tuition and free food. That's just not right g.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
05/15/2004 @ 09:42:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Rape and the mother being in danger have NOTHING to do with the "it's my body" argument.

Zero, Zip, Ziltch, Nada.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifCarl (Guest)
05/17/2004 @ 03:12:38 PM
 Quote this comment
Awesome article, great facts, right on.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gificbizzle - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
05/18/2004 @ 02:40:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Pretty much.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifBrett (Guest)
06/23/2004 @ 09:28:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Well thought out positions.

I almost had to leave your site immediately when I saw a picture of whoppi goldberg, my most hated hack on film.

The more people look into abortion the less they are for it. I had kids when we were ready, in our mid 20's. Personally I can live with an abortion BEFORE the fetus becomes human, probably 2 months or less. The partial birth abortions are just sick.

If my now wife would not have taken my last name I would not have married her. I'm serious. It is a statement that she does not want to become one family unit. She still is not confident that she will be seen as someone other than the man's wife. Bad sign.

Cool stuff.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
06/24/2004 @ 05:07:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Partial birth abortions are kinda wrong, but I found out recently it's a bit of a misnomer.

I assumed the fervor surrounding them was that the baby was close to being born and was then aborted during that process. Turns out that, in fact, it's usually done pre third trimester and just refers to the fact that rather than abort the fetus and pull it out piece by piece they pull it par of the way out and then abort it. It sounds kinda wrong either way, but the second way is safer for the mother, so I guess it's a necessary evil.

As for the name taking issue my point was merely that women, like all groups I suppose, complain about things that dont go their way while failing to notice all the things that do. If Sarah was adamant about not wanting to take my name I would be disappointed but it wouldnt affect any thing. I just really fail to see the feminist issue with it. Married couples should have the same last name, one of the people had to give theres up. Im sure when the tradition of the female giving hers up began there was something to take issue with, since I believe it had something to do with basicly transferring ownership from the father to the husband. However in todays society its just a tradition like any other. I mean lets face it, women wear the pants in like 90% of relationships and anytime the man wears the pants its deemed old fashion (ie feminist views on the promise keepers) or ever abusive. In a way you could view getting married as men being stripped of everything BUT their name.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifKevin Solway (Guest)
12/31/2005 @ 11:41:33 PM
 Quote this comment
I think your'e making a mistake in looking for *reasons* behind the feminist arguments. There are none. They just *are*. All we can do is ignore it, since it can't be argued against.

If you use reason to try and analyse their position, you are doing so from the male perspective, and using male values: ie, reason, truth, etc . . . and are therefore proceeding from a wrong starting point. At least, that's how they might explain it to you!

www.theabsolute.net/misogyny
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
01/28/2008 @ 01:03:30 PM
 Quote this comment
BUMP

"There has never been a female (or black) president because there are very few people with the clout, finances, and political background to make a legitimate run at it. Sometimes you get the sense that some of the people playing the glass ceiling card seriously think that any white "Joe Six-Pack" has a real shot to be president. Which (unless you rig the election) isn?t true. I?m a white male and I can tell you without hesitation that I will never be president of the USA or CEO of a Fortune 500 company no matter now badly I want to be. If Hillary Clinton would have entered the race she would have won the democratic primary and then would win the upcoming election in a landslide."

Jeremy Wrote - 05/15/2004 @ 06:58:44 PM
But Hillary would get women voters to come out in record numbers, I dont think it would have been close, but I guess there is no evidence either way.


What do you say about this now?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
01/28/2008 @ 02:08:26 PM
 Quote this comment
It's a different election this time. The "anyone but Bush" factor isn't in play and people aren't dying for a change. (or at the very least, all the politicians represent change) The democrats are back in control of congress and it's still business as usual. Not to mention the dems have other viable candidates this time.

There are a few factors that don't match up anymore.

Did we lose some comments on this article? I doubt I rebutted nothing. I think maybe the times got messed up and the first two are out of order.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/28/2008 2:11:06 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
01/28/2008 @ 02:13:55 PM
 Quote this comment
I think that your first two statements are off a bit-

"...anyone but Bush" I think this is still very much in play- it's just that this time they are distancing themselves from him, saying "anyone- just as long as they're not LIKE Bush."

"...aren't dying for change" Obama and Clinton are all about change- www.obamaforchange.com and Hil's "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead." They're using the whole "for change" platform to separate themselves from the Administration of the last 7 years.

I think we did lose some of the article. I remember there being more substance.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
01/28/2008 @ 02:32:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Funny guy!

People want change, sure, but everyone is "change" from Bush, even the republican candidates are. When people say they want "change" what they mean is they want a Washington not full of bureaucratic f-ups who just do what lobbyists and special interest groups tell them while spending half their time campaigning for the next term. Rest assured bureaucratic f-ups are our only options. The candidates have picked up on people's distaste for the status quo. The dems have started a competition so see who can say the word "change" the most, while still speaking coherent sentences. Republicans, at least when they aren't having their who-would-make-Guantanamo-bigger pissing contest, have started using the word too, in regards to their un-bush-ness. None of them represent the change people are really wanting.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 01/28/2008 2:32:55 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
01/28/2008 @ 03:31:34 PM
 Quote this comment
"Change" is also a big Buzz word that get's people's attention.

Has anyone wondered about Hillary's 30-something years of experience? I mean, I can sit there and watch someone drive a car for 30 years, but that doesn't mean I can do it myself. Also, when I hear John Edwards talk, all I hear about is "my dad" this, and "when my dad lost his job" that, etc. Even if Obama worked for a slum lord in Chicago, I'd vote for him before a lot of Repubs.

In that case- I hear very little about the Republican candidates anymore. It seems to be already decided by the media (that I see anyway) that a Dem will win- so why worry about the Repubs? I know for sure I don't like Huckleberry... other than that, we'll have to see.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
01/28/2008 @ 03:53:00 PM
 Quote this comment
I think classifying Hillary as a "bystander to experience" is a little unfair, she's done a lot of stuff on her own and did an awful lot as a First Lady. Really though, I'd need some convincing that experience is even a good thing in politics anyway. It seems like a bulk of the job is using your judgment, and the advice of those around you, to solve problems, all of which are unpredictable and unique in someway, as they come up. When I hear someone who has "Washington Experience" all that means to me is they have experience jobbing the system.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 01/28/2008 3:53:17 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
01/28/2008 @ 04:22:54 PM
 Quote this comment
I agree- experience in Washington is a negative thing, overall to me.

3 nuts for you sir- would have given 5, but nobody can tell me what experience Hillary actually had or what she actually did that was unique or that special as compared to others have in her rolls.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
01/28/2008 @ 04:34:44 PM
 Quote this comment
She lived the life of a person in office in the executive branch for 8 years, was the First Lady at the state level before that, and has as much experience in the Senate as most of her counterparts in this election. If experience is what you cared about I don't see how you could find a better candidate then Hilary. The only thing she's missing is she was never in the supreme court.

It's silly to me to say that her 8 years in the oval office doesn't count as experience because she technically wasn't president. She was involved in tons of stuff, and by stuff I don't mean arranging bake sales. Although the buck stops at the president and Bill was ultimately accountable, which in and of itself might mean a lot, you don't think First Ladies are integral in a vast majority of a president's decisions? Even being APPRISED of, let alone involved in, the day to day decisions of a president has to count as some experience of what being a president would be like, wouldn't it?

To me the "but she was just the First Lady so she can't count it" thing isn't that far from someone trying to argue a former Vice President can't count anything he did as experience in a presidential role.

As a matter of fact, I would be willing to bet the First Lady is WAY more involved in the decisions the president makes than the VP is.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 01/28/2008 4:39:54 pm
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
01/28/2008 @ 07:33:29 PM
 Quote this comment
I think your second sentence sums up a lot, but I don't and won't, frankly, give her full credit for the job. Even on half credit, she still has more experience on the job than Obama.

I don't necessarily like Obama, nor do I truly dislike Clinton. I just dislike them both on certain principles, but would vote for Obama first.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/29/2008 @ 10:33:47 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, I mean I don't see it as being as good as being president, I just don't think it's fair to argue that it doesn't count for anything. I'm hoping Obama gets the nomination.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
01/29/2008 @ 11:49:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Speaking of buzzwords, I love all the new IBM commercials, including buzzword bingo. It's funny cause it's true.

Booo 4 Dems. There's no way that the Clintons are ending up back in the White House.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo?
01/30/2008 @ 07:58:12 AM
 Quote this comment
I also like the IBM commercials. We have a policy here against buzz words. Did you know that if you use 3 buzzwords a client/customer/otherperson doesn't know they completely stop listening to you? Interesting!

I dunno, the Clintons have a lot of backing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.