Somewhat offtopic, his other posts are interesting too, especially the one that points to Camille Paglia's column at Salon re: Sarah Palin.

Aw shucks, that first link wasn't the roundhouse punch, the was just lil' left hook to get the juices flowing. This is the excellent article from Sommers about feminism.

Crid, that was an excellent article about feminism. Sommer's article was written and published before Sarah Palin became the VP nominee, so I think this is an interesting paragraph that in hindsight might be seen to discuss Palin's form of feminism:

In her 1990 book, In Search of Islamic Feminism, University of Texas Middle Eastern studies professor Elizabeth Warnock Fernea described a new style of feminism coming to life throughout the Muslim world. Traveling through Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Turkey, and Iraq, Fernea met great numbers of women's advocates working hard to improve the status of women. There have always been Western-style egalitarian feminists in these countries, but they are small in number and tend to be found among the most educated elites. The "Islamic feminists" Fernea was meeting were different. They were traditional, religious, and family-centered--and they had a following among women from all social classes. They were proud of women's role as mother, wife, and caregiver. Several rejected what they saw as divisiveness in today's American women's movement. As one Iraqi women's advocate, Haifa Abdul Rahman, told her, "We see feminism in America as dividing women from men, separating women from the family. This is bad for everyone." Fernea settled on the term "family feminism" to describe this new movement. Experts on the history of Western feminism will here recognize its affinities with Willard's long-lost teachings. Today, almost twenty years after Fernea's book, conservative feminism is surging in the Muslim world.

I do not have any desire to see "The Vagina Monologues". Christ, how fucking ridiculous. I have to agree that American feminism has really taken a bad turn. I think it's gotten like affirmative action, really -- so unnecessary that it's absurd. I am really, really tired of any ad wherein a woman wears a dress and make-up being called sexist and accused of promoting low self-esteem. And can Dove get any more hypocritical? I dread the women my grandson will have to pick from. He'll be lucky if he won't have to be servile just to avoid being considered a pig.

I have to concur with this post. We have to deal with the world as it really is not as we wish it were. It's one thing to work towards a goal we'd like to see accomplished. It is, however, quite another thing to go about with blinders on acting as if it's already been accomplished and since you insist it is, everyone else can just fall in line with the plan. If only everyone would act the way you think they should, the world would be such a nice, lovely place -- for you. (Because everyone has some different ideal in mind and the best we can hope for is to come close to one we can all live with.) That kind of burying the head in the sand tends to get you bit on the ass.

One reality is, for example, women's looks matter (it's our hardwired biology), and to deny that is not helpful. In fact, to not instruct girls to do the best with what they have, both intellectually and in terms of their looks, does them a disservice.

Christina Hoff Sommers is one of my favorites. "The War Against Boys" and "Who Stole Feminism" are must reads, really. You can catch vids of her on YouTube and over at The Independent Womens Forum, and she is so graceful, well read and forceful it isn't hard to see why she is so despised by the Vagina Monologues Crowd.
T's Grammy is right. The VM is ridiculous.

Jerry's comment reminded me of something I saw once. it was a letter in the form of a guide for "Yankees visiting the South for the first time." One of the entries was something like this -

"Down here, women fish, 4 wheel, hunt deer and drink beer out of the can because THEY WANT TO.
So you're a feminist?
Isn't that cute."

I feel constrined to point out that we were losing the cold war, if not for the Russian heirachys incompitence and predilictions for bribes and kickbacks we would have lost that conflict

He'll [T's grandson] be lucky if he won't have to be servile just to avoid being considered a pig. (T's Grammy)

Ahem. It's already like that. Now. Your grandson should prepare to avoid American women and seek out European or Asian women. Otherwise, he'll get win-at-all-costs competitor instead of a companion. Among American women, your grandson is likely to find only women who carry a submerged anger at him, just because he was born male. They will use every humiliation against him, especially assaults on his manliness and manliness itself.

Man-hating feminism is pervasive among American women. 'Is' not 'will be.' Fixing feminism isn't about prevention but about taking on feminist bullshit directly, an act almost guaranteed to elicit open misandry from even otherwise decent women. The nonsense concept of 'patriarchy' has even made it into criminal law. Man-hating is mainstream.

I just finished Moxton's interesting argument from evolutionary psychology, The Woman Racket. It traces the extreme-leftist origin of modern American feminism. It's always been anti-family and anti-man and anti-American. Extreme prejudice in society has always been directed at men, not women.

This anti-male prejudice had been balanced by special honors granted to men. When women were privileged with life-boats on the Titanic, condemning all the men aboard to death, monuments were erected and encomiums written. Not today. If such a tragedy happened today, we would take extreme care to give honors equally to women and men.

So, if you are the kind of woman who wonders why men aren't "nice" or "gentlemen" anymore, now you know. The social prejudices against men have greatly increased while simultaneously men are everywhere and at all times dishonored. Manliness is openly disrespected, yet the duties of manliness have only increased. Men refuse to play that shit.

Feminism caused it, not men.

Ahem. It's already like that. Now. Among American women, your grandson is likely to find only women who carry a submerged anger at him, just because he was born male. They will use every humiliation against him, especially assaults on his manliness and manliness itself.

Oh come on with this shit, Jeff, it's not true and you know it! There are plenty of decent women out there. There are plenty of women who recognzie the feminazi shit and totally disagree with it, including myself. STOP lumping ALL women into the same category. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. And this shit:
So, if you are the kind of woman who wonders why men aren't "nice" or "gentlemen" anymore, now you know. The social prejudices against men have greatly increased while simultaneously men are everywhere and at all times dishonored. Manliness is openly disrespected, yet the duties of manliness have only increased. is patently wrong. I don't know where you live, but egads! you are bitter in the extreme, and I'm terribly sorry that some women have treated you badly, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't any of the women who post here, so take your nasty rhetoric elsewhere, please. You are bordering on being absurd here! I know plenty of nice gentlemen, I see and interact with them every day of my life. I most certainly respect them, and they respect me. What is wrong with you?

I absolutely need no respond to this lame argument:

"Theirs is a world where we can just talk to opposing nations and work things out, instead of having to pour tons of money into military equipment to keep them at bay. The left calls this "change" but in fact it is a set of notions that were tried out by the Western democracies in the 1930s -- and which led to the most catastrophic war in history."

Um..rather I think that the most catastrophic war in history (if something can truly be measured...and by what criteria?) would be WWI...which was caused in part by an arms race between the British and the Germans. And if one goes by the standard teleology WWII was caused by the aftermath of WWI, in that the tenants of the Versailles Treaty were so punitive towards the Germans that it destroyed their democracy. In other words, it was the lack of real "talking" at the end of WWI that caused WWII. By the time Chamberlain handed over Czechoslovakia (ie. appeasement) it was already too late. Of course if they had bothered to "talk" to the Czechs than that would not have happened either would it?

"or those who bother to study history, it was precisely the opposite policies in the 1980s -- pouring tons of money into military equipment -- which brought the Cold War and its threat of nuclear annihilation to an end."

This is a shallow, inappropriate argument. Have you ever studied the Cold War? Even though the supposed object of all that armament was the Soviets we never used any of it against them. No. Instead we fought proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and most of Latin America (look around at today's world..where you see instability it is probably because of our actions during the Cold War). The Soviet system collapsed under its own weight not because we poured billions into weapons in the eighties. By the time Gorbechev came to power it was already over, the rest of the world just didn't know it yet. The money we spent on weapons was much more to finance our imperialist functions in Latin America (and the fumbling of the CIA).

Those who bother to study history indeed!

Oh come on with this shit, Jeff, it's not true and you know it! (Flynne)

I'm giving my honest view. I do not "know it."

There are plenty of decent women out there. There are plenty of women who recognzie the feminazi shit and totally disagree with it, including myself. (Flynne)

Yes, I believe this is true.

STOP lumping ALL women into the same category. WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. (Flynne)

We have been through this before. I am making generalizations. If you will take the time to read just a little about overlapping normal distributions, you will discover that it is possible that both of the following claims can be true:

• There are plenty of decent women out there. There are plenty of women who recognzie the feminazi shit and totally disagree with it.
• Among American women, your grandson is likely to find only women who carry a submerged anger at him, just because he was born male.

[A claim of Jeff's] is patently wrong...You are bordering on being absurd here! I know plenty of nice gentlemen, I see and interact with them every day of my life. I most certainly respect them, and they respect me. (Flynne)

I know many gentlemen, too. I also know many, if not most, women who complain of a recently perceived lack of gentlemanly behavior. Again, consider reading a bit about overlapping normal distributions. You will see that your counter-claims don't work. In both cases here, we have subcontraries not contradictories.

There are many gentlemen, and simultaneously many women who complain of a lack of them.

you are bitter in the extreme, and I'm terribly sorry that some women have treated you badly, but it wasn't me, and it wasn't any of the women who post here, so take your nasty rhetoric elsewhere, please...What is wrong with you? (Flynne)

Please take care to guard your own rhetoric, Flynne. I will not allow you to tell me where to go, what to say, nor what to do. In return, I will not tell you what to say, where to go, or what to do. This course seems reasonable to me.

You might perhaps follow your traditional, explicitly stated, intention to avoid conversation with me altogether. Not that I'd tell you what to do, of course.

Please take care to guard your own rhetoric, Flynne.

What did I say that was rhetorical?

I will not allow you to tell me where to go, what to say, nor what to do.

Ah well, a girl can dream...I just meant for you to stop with the demeaning, sweeping generalizations is all. (It seemed to me that you had toned it down for a while, there. I guess I was mistaken.) Complain all you want about the women you know. Fine. Just please keep the rest of us out of it. Thanks. o_O

> Ah well, a girl can dream...

It was getting a little butch in here today. Flynne comes through with a shot o' estrogen at just the right moment

which was caused in part by an arms race between the British and the Germans (Stacy)

Consider salt in the ancient world. A state with access to large quantities of salt could preserve food for armies. This allowed states to concentrate more troops in one location. A state with salt could, temporarily at least, get up to 100,000 troops into a single battle. A state without salt had to disperse forces over a large quartering area, preventing rapid concentration. 100,000 vs. 10,000. Salt was the nuclear weapon of it's day, assuring battlefield victory against a state without it.

Did salt cause ancient wars? Heh, no. Salt was a means for human being to satisfy their purposes. Some of those purposes are in opposition to other purposes. Geography, history, culture, traditions and many ineffable factors bring states into conflict. Arms are merely a means.

For something to be a cause, it must be proximate, necessary, and in possible combination with other factors it must be sufficient. An arms race fails the last two criteria for being a cause. We see wars without arms races, and we see arms races without wars. Then an arms race cannot be considered a cause.

This error is exactly analogous to the leftist "guns cause crime" canard.

Humanity: the original spectrum disorder. Thank God, or else we're either all June Cleaver or Hillary Clinton, and nowhere in between.

Man-hating feminism is indeed a problem, but please don't confuse it with strong-woman feminism. Man-hating will try to neuter the male, but there are also women who want men to feel strong by their own merit, and not need women to play the helpless female to complete their machismo. I respect my husband all the more for not feeling threatened by my accomplishments, intellect, and abilities; and I don't need to beat him down for his XY chromosomes to feel good about myself. Oh, and here's a twist- I'm a stay-at-home-mom, but I can hold my own in a man's world. Aside joke: a friend was horrified to hear that my husband didn't field dress my deer for me when hunting, that he should do it because he was The Man. I'm sorry, but if I'm not acting like a lady, I cannot reasonably expect someone to be a gentleman.

What concerns me more is to suggest that our sons look to other countries to get women who are... what? You didn't state very specifically, aside from a woman who is not "win-at-all-costs". What is the alternative? Look at the poor Eastern European/ Russian women who are subjecting themselves to arranged marriages to escape desperate situations. There's a great foundation for a healthy life-long union- I hope that's not what you're alluding to. The big allure for men who seek Asian brides is their submissiveness. If a guy wants someone to dominate, you have to wonder why it's such a priority.

Eeeeeew.

Sorry Amy, we did go off on a bit of a tangent, but CRID STARTED IT!!! (grin) He linked Sommers' article and off we went down the rabbit hole....I'll go look for the lost cow now (contrite look on my face)

.....BTW, loved the article, Crid ;)

I just meant for you to stop with the demeaning, sweeping generalizations is all. (Flynne)

I know that, Flynne. The locus of our disputes are always over decorum. I don't think my generalizations are demeaning or inapropropriately sweeping.

omplain all you want about the women you know. Fine. Just please keep the rest of us out of it. Thanks. (Flynne)

If you knew the first thing about generalizations, you'd know that they characterize properties of a group, not individuals or even sub groups. So, you see it's not possible to leave you out of it. Again, I urge you to read about normal distributions.

We'll be selling milkshakes in the back later this afternoon if we can find our lost cow. (Amy)

I still offer an orange drink, Amy. I'm a gentleman after all.

I don't think my generalizations are demeaning or inapropropriately sweeping.

Of course you don't. And that's where we disagree.

If you knew the first thing about generalizations, you'd know that they characterize properties of a group, not individuals or even sub groups.

I don't care.

So, you see it's not possible to leave you out of it.

Of course it is. You do that by saying "most", not "all".

Again, I urge you to read about normal distributions.

Nope. If I can say "most, not all", so can you. Stop being a big baby about it all.

Amy, make mine chocolate, please. o_O

Jeff

Well then per your reasoning the end of the Cold War could not have been "caused" by nuclear proliferation, which still supports my thesis that it is a silly argument.

I would also like to point out that the notion of nations only "build(ing) armaments in response to a perceived threat" is certainly not the case when that nation IS the perceived threat. Unless you count all checks on a nation's power as a threat, which is a scary case to legitimize all military action I suppose.

To simplify: The Roman Empire did not build the largest army in their time to deal with a perceived threat (at least once Carthage was well salted) but to kick some barbarian booty.

Man-hating feminism is indeed a problem, but please don't confuse it with strong-woman feminism. Man-hating will try to neuter the male, but there are also women who want men to feel strong by their own merit, and not need women to play the helpless female to complete their machismo...I'm sorry, but if I'm not acting like a lady, I cannot reasonably expect someone to be a gentleman. (Julianna)

That's exactly my view. I will tell you, when I've written or said "[a woman who's] not acting like a lady [...] cannot reasonably expect someone to be a gentleman" in any venue, otherwise nice women get extremely touchy. The principle seems obvious to me, but I will inevitably be asked "what's wrong with you?" Heh.

What concerns me more is to suggest that our sons look to other countries to get women who are... what? (Juliana)

Good point. I wasn't very clear, and so your uncharitable interpretation is certainly reasonable. My bad.

Here's what I mean, and it's all anecdotal. I've lived in the UK for four years, Hong Kong for four years, and Japan for one year. I did that all in one stretch, so I had quite a culture shock when I returned to the US and began dating American women again in 2003.

It is a plain fact of evolutionary psychology: men have a hard-wired dominance instinct. The male brain is literally a hierarchical machine. Largely, men compete for dominance with other males. Now, enter modern feminism which urges women to compete with males as males. In a completely hard-wired way, men will instantly come to see women in the field of dominance competition. This expansion of dominance contests has been promoted as a positive social good by radical feminists, and as no big deal by mainstream feminists.

It is a big deal. Asian women are not submissive. Actually, they are excessively demanding, with very high expectations for their mates. But Asian women do not enter the dominance competition with their mates. Asian women have mastered the art of staying feminine and therefore desirable to men, while not being door mats. How do they do this? They give. Early and often. What do they give? Honor, sex, and moral support against male rivals. For example, Asian women will not humiliate their husbands in public, but this is an art form among American women, dissection with a sharp knife and a girlish giggle.

Go yourself and talk to French, Chinese, almost any foreign woman. You will see that they too have dim view of the American woman as a mate. Your mileage may differ, but that's been my experience and many other men.

Amy has been to France often. Perhaps she can tell of the attitudes of French women towards American women. Maybe she's encountered a different attitude. It'd be interesting to read.

> The big allure for men
> who seek Asian brides
> is their submissiveness

I agree with most of your comment. (And having reviewed the summer's postings here, will now [provisionally] concede that you exist. But don't press it.)

But i'm not sure that last part is exactly true.

A smaller point is that there isn't any trend in international coupling that sustains your fears. The only stereotype that seems to deliver the goods is the Asian wife and the western Jewish husband. I've met a lot of couples like that in recent years (middle-aged ones, mostly) and they seem to be doing well. These tend to be mature and grounded personalities anyway... It's not like those husbands are dick-swinging macho men, or like the women are little China dolls with bound feet.

(I've also seen a couple cases of women marrying guys to get green cards, but that's a different can of worms. In those cases, sure, the woman's being submissive if she so much as pours a cup of coffee, but it's hard to worry for her immortal soul. And actually, one case was the other way around: A ferocious British sex kitten married a slow-witted guy from Akron. At parties, it was awkward for everyone.)

And the bigger point is that in the western world, I don't think there's a great disparity between the male and female preferences for submissive mates, either in frequency or depth of expression. That is... Some men want a mate who only occasionally offers suggestions on what he should do with his time. A small number want to be told exactly what to do every day. And it's the same with women.

But I think in the west, where there's so much more freedom generally, men want women to be more adult and assertive... Because there's no payoff in the world like a woman in the mood to do grown-up behavior.

Obviously, there are some parts of the world where this doesn't apply. But those places don't represent the default postures of either sex.

There's other theory about this that I'm going cough up here in a couple weeks. All we need is the context, and it'll be here soon enough....

I don't care. (Flynne)

Well, ignorance can persist any misunderstanding, which I take as your goal.

If I can say "most, not all", so can you. Stop being a big baby about it all. (Flynne)

See, that last sentence is rhetorical. Heh.

Well, in normal conversation we don't usually say 'most, not all.' There's a good reason: economy. Since tha vast majority of our claims are about generalizations, we'd we cluttering up the language with "mostly, not all" modifying almost every noun we uttered. Instead, we assume the speaker is generalizing unless they say "all," "universally" or the like.

You have reversed conversational norms, so you can play the role of female victim who is "demeaned" by the normal, everyday way we speak. Uh huh. Feminists do the faux victim thing a lot. Next we'll read that English conversational norms are phallocentric and patriarchical.

I think now is a good time to note that this all started from me writing,

your grandson is likely to find only women who carry a submerged anger at him, just because he was born male. They will use every humiliation against him, especially assaults on his manliness and manliness itself. (Jeff)

11 Simple Rules for Living Well

1. Do a job you'd pay for the chance to do.

2. Live within YOUR means, not within your neighbors means.

3. Have children because you want children...not so you want to have new friends.

4. Don't date women who don't like MEN.

5. Don't date a feminist. See rule 4 for clarification.

6. Don't MARRY a feminist. If it lasts, you're a guilty servant, if it doesn't, you'll lose a chunk of your check to pay for your "failings". See rules 4 & 5.

7. Date women who LIKE men, not women who want to BE men.

8. Marry a woman that loves you...but can take care of herself.

9. When you marry...have a prenup.

10. Have something fun to do, independent of your spouse. (don't make her a widow to it)

11. Make sure your spouse has something fun to do...independent of YOU.

> 9. When you marry...have
> a prenup.

It's a world of treachery and nuance!

Good luck out there, fella.

Well, ignorance can persist any misunderstanding, which I take as your goal.

You are condescending in the worst way. I'm not ignorant, thanks, and misunderstanding you is assuredly not my goal. I understand you all too well. I also recognize that trying to get through to you the simple idea that there is no need to generalize just to make you more comfortable with the English language is an exercise in futility.

Well, in normal conversation we don't usually say 'most, not all.'

We certainly do, when the occasion calls for it. Or are you really that lazy that a couple more syllables will wear you out?

...so you can play the role of female victim who is "demeaned" by the normal, everyday way we speak.

Not on a bet, Jeff. I'm no one's victim, especially not yours.

Stacy,

I believe you are correct in stating that the "arms race" did not lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union; the fact that communism is a failed system that produces extreme poverty and misery is the reason. The Soviet Union collapsed upon itself because it was rotten to the core.

You, however, seem to be guilty of making spurious correlations. The arms race occured in response to Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union was a dangerous and aggressive regime that was bent on subjugating the rest of the world. The "arms race" helped prevent the Soviet Union from achieving the global domination it longed for. Of course, in your "studies", you have been taught that everything the US did was to further an imperialist agenda ... how can one possibly argue against such "truth"? But back to reality, the Soviets were aggressive, the arms race ensued, and wars (or proxy wars) resulted. You are basically making a spurious correlation. Arms races do not cause wars ... just like, as Amy said, guns do not cause crime.

I'm no one's victim, especially not yours. (Flynne)

I'm not ignorant, thanks, and misunderstanding you is assuredly not my goal. (Flynne)

We certainly do, when the occasion calls for it. Or are you really that lazy that a couple more syllables will wear you out? (Flynne)

Most, but not all, of us certainly do, most of the time but not always, when most occasions, but not all, call for it.

On this occasion, I am writing in the constrained space of a blog comment. Surely the need for a thoroughgoing parsimony is obvious. While you surpass me in the means of rhetorical slights, I seem to surpass you in adapting to the occasion. And once again, we arrive at a dispute over decorum.

Please, stop. You're giving me a headache.

Please, stop. You're giving me a headache. (Flynne)

I find our discussions pedantic and unhelpful. But you can't reasonably expect me to let personal slights lay on the page without reply.

I'll stop when you do, Flynne.

More victim pratter.

Oh, fuck off, asshole. Your holier-than-thou shit is getting really old. It's always "I'll stop when you do." Give it a fucking rest already. So sorry you got so offended that I pointed out your thinly disguised misogony yet again.

>>But you can't reasonably expect me to let personal slights lay on the page without reply.

Jeff,
It's actually a fabulous trick - letting inconsequential "slights" die through inattention!

Then we can all have a decent row!

I'm not trying to play sisters with Flynne, but your latest comments are making my temples thud too.

Oh, fuck off, asshole. Your holier-than-thou shit is getting really old. It's always "I'll stop when you do." Give it a fucking rest already. (Flynne)

Heh.

So sorry you got so offended that I pointed out your thinly disguised misogony yet again. (Flynne)

Crid, thank you so much for posting that excellent article Frankly, you f'ing swear too much on here for my taste, but I did appreciate that link.

It provides such a contrast with these recent hate pieces from "feminists" Eve Ensler and Heather Mallick.

If PDS = "Palin Derangement Syndrome", imagine what we'd read from these radical feminists if Amy Alkon were running for VP!!!

It's actually a fabulous trick - letting inconsequential "slights" die through inattention! Then we can all have a decent row! I'm not trying to play sisters with Flynne, but your latest comments are making my temples thud too. (Jody)

OK. You've talked some sense into me. I'm out!

Thanks for refereeing Jody.

"The arms race occured in response to Soviet aggression. The Soviet Union was a dangerous and aggressive regime that was bent on subjugating the rest of the world. The "arms race" helped prevent the Soviet Union from achieving the global domination it longed for."

I disagree. After the US nuked the Japanese civilians in 1945, it sent a message to the rest of the world that the US is willing to use it again if necessary. The rest of the world including Soviet Union had to arm themselves real fast before that happens. Thus, arms race started

The proxy war, Korean War, had no nuke attacks. During the Korean war, MacArthur wanted to nuke the China, so Truman fired him instead. Why? Soviet Union was armed with nuclear bombs. That arms race saved the humanity, specially Chinese and Koreans, from the second nuke attack.

Things are not that black and white

heh, so Amy maybe you should split this post in two...

although the idea that we'd wish things to be different but there is reality to account for prolly applies equally to capitalism/maxism divide as to gender/androgyny divide...

Radical feminism is that to me, seeking to make everyone not equal but the Same. Although from the rad fem approach, this would be the same from their perspective, not so much the male one. The male one would be much more cuthroat in it's competition, with no quarter given. the rad fem much more the 'everyone gets the same thing and likes it'.

It's amazing how poor that extreme sameness makes everyone. Missing the point on how finding a mate that complements your strengths and weakensses while being able to hold their own is unfortunate. I'm tall and have very long arms, so when I am in various stores, I often offer my help to get things down from top shelves... to women who stopped growing at 5'5". Should I demand that they go find their own frelling ladder?

The important thing is that I know they could do it themselves, it's just that I also wish to help them, why should that be wrong?

It's the difference between only allowing certain behaviors by proscription, and allowing people to help wherever needed. On the one hand what gets done is only what is allowed, on the other all sorts of strange and wonderous things happen. Sometimes some not wonderful things happen as well... on balance you may find it less.

Somehow? I see that rad fem require the imposition of rigid dogma from without, somewhat the same as marxism...

a really funny thing about boys and girls sometimes... girls want you to know what they think you should be doing... and boys? Surprisingly they are just waiting to be asked.

So sorry you got so offended that I pointed out your thinly disguised misogony yet again.

I skipped over all the bickering, but when I read this, my mind (such as it is) flashed to:

A: "You've got your misogyny in my misandry!"
B: "You've got your misandry in my misogyny!"

A&B Together: "Hey, that tastes pretty good!"

(Flynne, I am not making any statement about you, and I didn't read any of exchange between you and Jeff. I blame my unconscious....)

Jeff,

Most about what I've "learned" about American imperialism during the cold war came from research...including many trips to the CIA archive online. I suggest that you try it:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/

Try searching for documents relating to any of the following:

Guatemala (start with 1954 and go from there).
Cuba
Chile
Nicaragua
El Salvidor
The Congo
Honduras
Venezuela

Much of the information you find relates to the US/CIA's attempts to keep their financial interests in the locations secure (ie. United Fruit) at any cost...in other words economic imperialism. Attempted links to the spectre of communism would provide a convenient scapegoat should they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. There are documents in the archive that show this...the one that comes to mind most readily is about the US-attempted coup in Guatemala in 1954...and how they scrambled to fabricate a communist link when it went sour.

Dang, go to pick the kids up from school and miss out on all the fun-

Robert- dittos for your 11 simple rules. I can be a bit Pollyanna-ish at times, but if people had even half the rules down, their lives would be reasonably good.

Hallo Crid-

"I agree with most of your comment. (And having reviewed the summer's postings here, will now [provisionally] concede that you exist. But don't press it.)"

How can I not press it now that you've said not to? Yes, I'm the kid who burned her finger on the hot stove when mummy said "Don't touch". Thank you for the [provisional] validation of my existence- no sarcasm intended. *chuckle*

Those of you who are prone to use the term, "was" about Russia should probably look around via Google Maps or Earth. They still have surprising military capacity.

> no sarcasm intended. *chuckle*

You're skating on the edge there, Missy...

Will someone write a seventeen-word summary of the Flynne/Jeff dustup so I don't have to consult the Permanent Record?

"I feel constrined to point out that we were losing the cold war, if not for the Russian heirachys incompitence and predilictions for bribes and kickbacks we would have lost that conflict"

You may feel this way, but you're wrong. We won because Reagan forced the Soviets to spend, spend, and spend again in order to keep up with Star Wars, and their feeble system collapsed.

Facts trump feelings, when you discuss history.

What Kate said.

> if not for the Russian heirachys
> incompitence and predilictions for
> bribes and kickbacks

That's like saying that Michael Phelps wouldn't have been such a successful Olympian if he'd didn't have natural gifts in so many swimming strokes which he'd honed over many years of painstaking, thoughtful, disciplined practice.

We're, like, yeah.

If the Russian "heirachy" hadn't been incompetent and corrupt, we wouldn't have been worried about it, would we? After all, we didn't get into a Cold War with Great Britain or France.

Will someone write a seventeen-word summary of the Flynne/Jeff dustup so I don't have to consult the Permanent Record?

Heh. Here's my summary.

Flynne: Jeff, you crypto-misogynist! Jeff: Flynne, you semiotic invalid. Jody: Chill. Jeff: Flynne: Crid: What happened?

Will someone write a seventeen-word summary of the Flynne/Jeff dustup so I don't have to consult the Permanent Record?

Heh. Here's my summary. This time with line breaks.

Flynne: Jeff, you crypto-misogynist!

Jeff: Flynne, you semiotic invalid.

Jody: Chill.

Jeff:

Flynne:

Crid: What happened?

"We won because Reagan forced the Soviets to spend, spend, and spend again in order to keep up with Star Wars, and their feeble system collapsed."

And guess what, the U.S. can't spend anymore.

It's like a big competition between countries, who can live longest beyond their means? Life in the large-scale mimics life in the small-scale, yet again ...

You bet we could, PJ, if we were threatened. We spend plenty right now, even though we're very safe

Juliana said it best. Strong woman but not woman as oppressor. Equal footing from both sides, and as Jeff puts it, both partners being grown-ups. He expresses himself somewhat badly and can come off sounding more sexist than I suspect he is but he does have some valid points about the treatment of men in our society today and I am concerned if it's gonna be men that are when my grandson grows up, kind of like Amy was attacked for justly criticizing someone darker than she is.

As for T's luck with women, he's just about to turn 5 so we'll see.

He's been a player since birth, flirting with anything female from 2 to 92 and his ego will serve him well. If they do not respond to his obvious charm, he just doesn't get it. The look on his face is always one of confounded but I don't get it. How can they not like me? I'm great. (What makes you think I've done something to reinforce that? Just because I call him my charm fellow?)

He has always liked the girlie girls, me being the exception. (I don't wear either dresses or make-up and am allergic to perfume and can't wear heels due to arthritis and foot problems; I just don't think a woman should be disparaged for liking things I don't care for. Though if I had a nickel for every lacy or silky top my daughter rolled her eyes at meanwhile wearing much more "femine" clothes than I do generally.) Lately, he's been wanting to get his hands on mom's make-up, especially wanting his nails painted. And when we were watching TV and a commercial came on for eye shadow that bragged about brilliant color for your eyes, he started going I want to color my eyes. Who the hell knows if he'll even have to worry about "girls" down the road? (Yes, lighten up. I'm being faceticious. Don't read too much into a not-quite-five-year-old lately into coloring wanting to color eyes in reaction to a TV commercial that references doing so, for Pete's sake.)

But, yeah, I am concerned about his being stereo-typed for being male at this current pace. I also worry that with his natural tendency to flirt that he'll be the next little boy expelled from grade school for sexual harrassment. Every time I see one of these stories, I find it so ridiculous and T could be in trouble. He is a flirt, likes pretty girls and is very physically affectionate, loves to hug and kiss and be hugged and kissed. He will even up and hug his friends that are boys, the ones that he is very good friends with anyway. And the girls, he always greets them with a hug and is not above seeking out a kiss on the cheek. He'll be very lucky if he makes it to junior high without being written up and that is ridiculous.

When his mom was 3, she announced that she was getting married. Turned out her little playground boyfriend had "proposed". Now if she had been 16, I'd have been worried but at 3, hell, I laughed and just said, you are? In the hands of one of today's feminazis, I don't even want to think. But the boy's parents and I started arranging play dates, bringing them over to play and became friends ourselves. And that is more as it should be.