Are Their Mouths Duct Taped Shut?
I Googled the site Feministing, and the blurb that came up was this:
On those occasions when I'm not "given the opportunity to speak," if I have something to say, I open my big mouth and let the words fly out, one after the next.
Is there some vast secret swath of female society in America that's been born without the power of speech?
It's code Amy - "speak out" means "get their way" or possibly "force you to take their views seriously". You can always speak, doesn't mean people have to listen. And that's their real complaint.
Ltw at May 7, 2010 1:45 AM
This is a perfect example of why passive voice should be banned.
If women, young or otherwise, need to be given the opportunity in order to speak, then the whole notion of feminism is holed below the water line.
Hey Skipper at May 7, 2010 2:00 AM
Well a woman in america too timid to speak up because of her own insecurities is an emotional gang rape victim of the "patriarchy" and a bigger victim the the thousands of women routinly slaughtered in third world countries.
I was flipping around the channels the other day and ran across a rerun of 7th Heaven. And it occured to me that a US profit based corperation run by men and half a dozen staff writters(again mostly men) did more to protest the taliban in the 90's then any major women group
lujlp at May 7, 2010 2:09 AM
The folks over at Feministing are a pretty nutty bunch of leftists. I imagine that they would take issue with just about everything you write, even though you also describe yourself as a feminist.
Given the frequency and visibility of your output, I'm a bit surprised that they've yet to attack and smear you. I figure it's only a matter of time. Women like you are their worst nightmare.
JamieB at May 7, 2010 5:28 AM
I say what I want when I want, even to the point of opening my mouth only to insert my foot, some of the time. I WILL speak my mind. I DO teach my daughters to speak theirs. I also try to teach them when it's a good idea to listen before speaking. You know, that silly old common sense thing?
Flynne at May 7, 2010 5:29 AM
I am reading this and I am laughing out loud. Yesterday, I spend two hours with my girlfriend on the phone talking about everything under the sun and our relationship.
Do these young women actually know how to operate a phone?
Toubrouk at May 7, 2010 5:46 AM
That's a well coached statement and not easily disproved. Just to point out they were smart enough not to give a geographical location so taken at face value they are correct. A young women's opinion is generally ignored in many parts of the world. We all know damn well they mean the US but they leave themselves that logical out and making the argument valid. That's some sneaky shit right there.
vlad at May 7, 2010 6:05 AM
No, no, no...."given the opportunity" means "given compensation for time and education required to speak out, preferably by the government, rather than by a private organization that finds your views worthwhile and well-articulated."
You know, like National Endowment for the Arts exists because young artists don't have enough "opportunities" to offend middle-class Americans.
Jenny Had A Chance at May 7, 2010 6:06 AM
I see they have something to say about masculinity as well. No, I am not interested enough to read it.
MarkD at May 7, 2010 6:12 AM
What they are really saying is that they organize a protests claiming that many young woman would show up. They don't therefore it must have been because they were prevented from coming not because they didn't want to go..
josephineMO7 at May 7, 2010 6:22 AM
Actually it is totally false. It is the opposite.
Young men are not given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that effect their lives and their futures.
I am speaking about family court and college campuses.
Females have way more of a chance to speak and more opportunities than men.
This is the feminist beating the same old drum.
David M. at May 7, 2010 6:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/07/are_their_mouth.html#comment-1713496">comment from JamieBThe folks over at Feministing are a pretty nutty bunch of leftists. I imagine that they would take issue with just about everything you write, even though you also describe yourself as a feminist.
JamieB, I don't know where you're getting that (I guess, deciding it rather than ever having read it). I don't describe myself as a feminist -- in fact, I say specifically I am not. I'm a humanist -- for fair treatment for all people, not for special treatment under the guise of equal treatment, which feminism too often is these days.
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2010 6:34 AM
Young men are not given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that effect their lives and their futures.
Same thing goes for men and women: Take the opportunity. Men can organize and speak as well as women can, and they have just as much access to the Internet, so why play the victim about how they don't have the opportunity?
MonicaP at May 7, 2010 6:48 AM
Well, it is a lot more fun playing up the high drama of oppression (as opposed to actually being oppressed, with isn't any fun at all). Why spoil all that with actually speaking out, and taking the chance of finding out you're not really all that interesting?
old rpm daddy at May 7, 2010 6:59 AM
What most miss is that if you wish to speak, you must have something to say.
"Do these young women actually know how to operate a phone?"
Yes, and the vast majority of phone traffic is inane chatter. It might be time to consider just what wonderful insights are supposedly bottled up.
Radwaste at May 7, 2010 7:14 AM
Women often take things personally in debates. If I say I don't like X, they take that as an insult to their taste, because X is their favorite thing, ever! I have been working with mostly men for two decades now and one thing I appreciate is the ability to be blunt, argue without rancor, and not worry too much about hurt feelings. The code on that site is that anyone who expresses an opinion that disagrees with the prevailing opinion will be banned, to maintain the "supportive" atmosphere.
Astra at May 7, 2010 8:03 AM
There is some weird kooky theory these days that the First Amendment right to speech somehow includes the right to compel people to listen. It's the corollary of the theory that criticism of speech somehow constitutes an abridgment of the speaker's First Amendment rights.
Cousin Dave at May 7, 2010 8:09 AM
What have Feminists ever stood for on a consistent basis besides abortion. They curiously let Sarah Palin get media raped without ever uttering a word in complaint, it's a state of mind without true conviction.
jksisco at May 7, 2010 8:17 AM
They curiously let Sarah Palin get media raped without ever uttering a word in complaint
Sarah Palin was not media raped. Rape is forcing someone to have sex against their will. Sarah Palin got a heap of criticism and ridicule tossed her way just like everyone else running for office. If feminists had defended her, they would have been charged with voting with their collective vagina.
MonicaP at May 7, 2010 8:22 AM
Things like this always remind me of back during the runup to the Iraq War, when idiot Tim Robbins called a national press conference to whine about the "chill wind" blowing in the nation or some such crap.
So here we have a private citizen who is able to gather dozens of press members and have his comments featured on news programs across the country, complaining that he can't speak his mind freely.
Jake at May 7, 2010 8:33 AM
Mmm. It took me a lllllllong time to learn to speak my mind, but it's because my dad verbally and emotionally abused us as kids, not because I'm a girl. Neither I nor my brother grew up to be great communicators-- I took on a "people-pleaser" aspect and my brother became "strong-and-silent." One could argue that societal gender roles played a part in how we each coped with the abuse, but in my opinion, that's not at all helpful. What is helpful is taking responsibility for your own happiness. I am proud to say that both of us have worked our way out of it and now live great lives.
I dislike reading feminist websites, because they would love to deny me my whole experience as a human and make it all about my experience as a woman.
Melissa G at May 7, 2010 10:06 AM
Why is 'masculinity' one of the main topics at a Feminist site?
Side Note: Sarah Palin was treated FAR harsher than any of her rivals- though Hillary Clinton's critics came close. I am definitely not a feminist- at least not by the modern day definition of the word. I believe men and women should be treated as they are. If a lady is not qualified to run for office, than fine. I see no problem with pointing that out. But denigrating a woman because she's attractive (or isn't) or because she's a mother (or isn't) IS wrong.
Jewels at May 7, 2010 10:06 AM
(At the risk of double-posting, I'm going to submit this again, as the server tends to eat my comments here.)
Mmm. It took me a lllllllong time to learn to speak my mind, but it's because my dad verbally and emotionally abused us as kids, not because I'm a girl. Neither I nor my brother grew up to be great communicators-- I took on a "people-pleaser" aspect and my brother became "strong-and-silent." One could argue that societal gender roles played a part in how we each coped with the abuse, but in my opinion, that's not at all helpful. What is helpful is taking responsibility for your own happiness. I am proud to say that both of us have worked our way out of it and now live great lives.
I dislike reading feminist websites, because they would love to deny me my whole experience as a human and make it all about my experience as a woman.
Melissa G at May 7, 2010 10:09 AM
"That's a well coached statement and not easily disproved. Just to point out they were smart enough not to give a geographical location so taken at face value they are correct. A young women's opinion is generally ignored in many parts of the world. We all know damn well they mean the US but they leave themselves that logical out and making the argument valid. That's some sneaky shit right there.
Posted by: vlad at May 7, 2010 6:05 "
You are exactly right! And yet, the womyn over at feministing are more concerned with imaginary issues here in the U.S. than they are with the true atrocities around the world.
Jewels at May 7, 2010 10:12 AM
Amy:
I thought you had once described yourself as a classical feminist, in the mold of the early women's rights advocates like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. That's what I was referring to. I must have gotten that mixed up!
JamieB at May 7, 2010 10:17 AM
Men can organize and speak as well as women can
And be slandered as "haters" and "misogynists" in the process. I'll pass, but thanks for asking.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 7, 2010 10:23 AM
I look at Feministing every day just to see how really sexist this site is, and to get a good laugh every day. What is even better than the articles though, is the comments from the same old tired gender feminists who think that everything in the world that is a problem to them is caused by men.
It was so transparent to me during the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad controversey, and alot of folks in the blogosphere, that feminism, and feministing in particular, is a one-issue movement centered solely around abortion. Read some of the comments about abortion issues---what a bunch of whackos.
Fortunately, American Women are not so stupid as to believe all of this nonsense spewed by hypocritical Jessica Valenti and her "staff". Their viewership is down as evidenced by the almost total apathetic lack of commenting on ANY issue lately. Its sad really, to see Samhita, as the new editor, try to prop up flagging readership. Jessica surely got out of the blog in a hurry with her new marriage and a baby now on the way. Just in time too, as Feministing's time is now short.
Feministing, though once a prominent feminist blog, is now irrelevent. Too leftist, too radical, too sexist, and too full of self-victimization. I cringe when I read every day in Feministing about all of the so-called rapes and domestic violence...there must not be a safe place in the country for any of them.
mike at May 7, 2010 10:24 AM
And be slandered as "haters" and "misogynists" in the process. I'll pass, but thanks for asking.
Yeah, the risk of speaking your mind is that people might not like what you have to say, and they may harsh on you for it. It's far safer to sit meekly in the corner. Your call.
MonicaP at May 7, 2010 10:26 AM
"On those occasions when I'm not "given the opportunity to speak," if I have something to say, I open my big mouth and let the words fly out, one after the next. "
Yes, well that's because you're grown woman, Amy, not a petulant, spoiled girl. Big difference.
Jim at May 7, 2010 10:38 AM
ltw had it in the first comment.
To any professional grievance-monger, people not listening is the same as being denied the right to speak.
They want free "speech", but they don't want people being able to not listen.
brian at May 7, 2010 10:56 AM
I Googled 'menafisting' and I was truly shocked at what I saw.
a at May 7, 2010 11:02 AM
I dont see why you were shocked, a hand is much smaller then a baby
lujlp at May 7, 2010 11:12 AM
>>eah, the risk of speaking your mind is that people might not like what you have to say, and they may harsh on you for it. It's far safer to sit meekly in the corner. Your call.
Good try, but no cigar. It is hard enough for men to find jobs to lose them for daring to speak out on any topic which might offend the dearies in their work place and get them fired. All the women have to do is go to the boss en masse and tell him whatsisname makes us uncomfortable, and he is toast.
I am reminded of my late mother, who also projected her own life experiences as somehow applying to men and boys as well.
I took a lot of bullying in school. She made it clear if I defended myself at school, I would be severely punished at home. She said, "Ignore them and they will respect you and leave you alone."
I was not a girl in school in the Thirties. When a boy bullied me, the other boys did not drag him out behind the woodshed and pound him to a pulp for hitting a girl. Ignoring them meant I just got beat up a lot.
She had no idea she was getting special treatment that boys didn't get.
Ditto for any woman who blithely tells men to speak up or too bad. You have no clue what it is like to be a man. As a woman, if you start screaming about something, everyone runs this way or that, trying to find a solution. A man who tries that will be escorted off the job. Or, a bullet will be placed in his brain.
In my activist years, I spoke out loudly and clearly, and got called every name in the book. I was a union member, and efforts to get me fired for off-work activities failed. Most men don't have that protection.
irlandes at May 7, 2010 11:49 AM
Feminists are funny.
What if God's a woman? Not only am I going to hell, I'll never know why.
lsomber at May 7, 2010 12:12 PM
Here's something the feminists should be angry with, but probably won't:
http://ricketyclick.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/07/offend-a-feminist-lolicon-edition/
lsomber at May 7, 2010 12:16 PM
MonicaP,
I didn't want to write this - I have neither the time or the energy for internet debates, so habitually disregard them. But your post demands a response, in addition to what Irlandes said.
Men who speak up against the Feminist machine face the certainty - not the possibility, the certainty - of far greater consequences than being "harshed on." "Hater" and "Misogynist" are labels that carry severe, negative penalties in our society today. Furthermore, no actual hatred or misogyny is necessary to incur them, once incurred they are impossible to shake off, and they are hurled with impunity at any man who has the temerity to question the tenets of feminism in an academic or professional setting. The end of a mans career, lawsuits, name smeared for all time, loss of his freedom, home, family - all of these things are not only possible, not only frighteningly easy for a woman so inclined to accomplish, they are happening, every day. I do not overstate the case.And for these unfortunate men, it is shocking for them to realize the truth is no defense.
Yes, I do speak from from personal experience, as well as a lifetime in the criminal justice system and military observing the experiences of others.
MonicaP, I know nothing of your motivations, affiliations, etc. So I don't want to sound insulting - it is entirely possible you simply have no idea what you are talking about and on this topic, you have a lot of company - all too tragically many people still think as you do.
But in a nation where Lawrence Summers - the president of Harvard, for Gods sake - was forced to first publicly grovel and then suffer dismissal from his position because he dared to suggest - not even suggest, really, suggest someone might ask "if" - there might be biological factors that disadvantage women in the sciences (he even said he hoped that would not turn out to be the case), to suggest that men don't speak up because they might be "harshed on" is preposterous. To the point of blind stupidity.
They don't speak up because they wish to remain free, employed and/or enrolled.
Mike at May 7, 2010 12:49 PM
Ditto for any woman who blithely tells men to speak up or too bad. You have no clue what it is like to be a man. As a woman, if you start screaming about something, everyone runs this way or that, trying to find a solution.
So my original point remains: Men have the same opportunities to speak out for themselves, but they are afraid of the consequences, which is not the same thing.
Of course there are risks inherent in social change. If there weren't, we wouldn't even be discussing this, because it wouldn't be an issue. But it seems men have a choice. They can either take those risks, as women have over the past century, or they can grow increasingly bitter that women are not fighting this fight for them. You are completely right about one thing: I have no idea what it's like to be a man. Neither do any of the women at NOW or Feministing. Which is why if men don't try to change things for themselves, they'll have to settle for society being what it is.
BTW: The women I know who go around screaming about things are often accused of being on the rag. My husband even suggested I chart my sister's menstrual cycle to decide whether to take her shit seriously.
MonicaP at May 7, 2010 12:58 PM
They don't speak up because they wish to remain free, employed and/or enrolled.
Sorry for the double post. I hit reply before I saw Mike's post.
I do not discount the real fear and issues men face here. Like I said above, I have no idea what it's like to be a man. But from the experiences of some of the men on this blog and in real life, doing the duck and cover isn't making it better.
I actually had a conversation with my husband a few weeks ago in which I had to defend men's role in society. I'm appalled that I had to defend men to my own husband, and when I see incidents of men getting hosed, I call it. But it's intensely frustrating to see men so bitter and so unwilling to take the risks necessary to help other men. Women are not going to fight this fight for them if they don't show any willingness to fight it for themselves.
I do see things getting better in some areas. My sister's boyfriend recently beat off both his ex-wife and mother for full custody of his daughter, even after losing custody because of serious drug abuse. He has been clean for some time and has proven that he's ready to be a god father, and the court recognized that.
MonicaP at May 7, 2010 1:13 PM
"So my original point remains: Men have the same opportunities to speak out for themselves, but they are afraid of the consequences, which is not the same thing. "
You still don't get it M onica - what we are saying is that penalties are much, much harsher for men that for women. Women are exposed to ridicule - "Oh, she must be on the rag". Men are exposed to loss of livleihood or physical violence, and unlike women, for men loss of livelihood usually means loss of their family. So tell us all about taking risks.
You want to talk about taking risks for social change? When women agitated for the vote, the worst they faced was a night in jail, maybe a scuffel in the street where they were freer to use physical violence on the police than the other way around. When men first tried to get the vote, it usually cost blood on a battlefield. when women agutated to abolish slavery, it cost pare for a novel and time spent in meetings. When men fought to abolish it, it cost 625,000 lives. Male lives. So let's talk about the risks we run to bring about social change, shall we?
But you do get it, and you saw first hand where the real problem is - with other men, in this case your own husband. I bet the judge in that final custody hearing was a woman.
Women do not and should have to fight this fight. You are right about that.
The key weaponn is ridicule. Men need to start ridiculing men who are White Knights, we need to start ridiculing bigoted women - calling them sexist pigs, right out in public - and men. It carries a lot of weight, anyone can do it and there is not much defense because people prefer a good laugh to other people's dignity
Jim at May 7, 2010 1:42 PM
This exchange with Monica repeats many conversations I have had with women since the mid-60's. They always pretend to be so sympathetic to men, but in the end, they are not capable of understanding life for men IS DIFFERENT THAN FOR WOMEN.
Three men described what is very obviously social and/or economic suicide for men as a result of speaking out openly. Yet, Monica still uses the shaming term duck and cover, continuing to accuse men of cowardice.
This utter futility in trying to discuss it with women is exactly why I am running a mini-Operation Rescue to convince men to Get The Hell Out. On one MRA board the former admin e-mailed me recently from China to tell me all the moderators are also gone.
irlandes at May 7, 2010 2:24 PM
My old boss said to me daily, "You're a woman. You ask too many questions," whenever I had a question about one of his MANY vague directives.
Now, was that an insult? A violation of my civil rights? Or just a joke?
I can't tell that it had any effect one way or the other on my "career" there. He treated everyone like crap.
The one time he pulled a penknife on me, again mostly as an insult, not a real assault - I DID call him on it by telling him that threats and violent speech were inappropriate for a professional office. The unstated threat was, of course, that I'd embarrass him publicly and professionally. He didn't do that again.
Free speech is OK but you've got to be able to back it up to make it count.
vi at May 7, 2010 2:28 PM
Part of being a grownup is learning to deal with insults.
When I was going to be up in Traverse City, a friend told me the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (Yanomamo) lived there, so I invited him to dinner. No sooner did I sit down than he said "That's a gaudy bag" (meaning my purse). I laughed and shot some remark back, and we had a really fun and interesting dinner.
(He also said I pronounced Yanomamo like it was a Japanese venereal disease -- loved that.)
Amy Alkon at May 7, 2010 3:34 PM
They curiously let Sarah Palin get media raped without ever uttering a word in complaint
I don't understand this at all. Palin voluntarily moved into the most public of spotlights, and then proceeded to say some of the most inane, ill-informed things that have ever been spoken in the arena of American politics. If the media gleefully quoted much of it, where does "rape" come in?
Steve H at May 7, 2010 4:29 PM
SteveH, I would posit that Hillary got the same treatment as Palin, and they didn't say much about that either. Certainly Bidem said some pretty stupid crap, and still does, but you don't get people obsessing over whose mother Trig Palin had, or why she wore the clothes she did. Or the whole thing about if she was some kind of sexy vixen librarian. The was a great deal written about her that had nothing at all to do with what she said. Certainly more attention was paid her than Biden, relative to the people who would ACTUALLY be president.
And the femmes said nothing, just like when they Gave B Clinton a pass, years ago.
SwissArmyD at May 7, 2010 4:38 PM
...it seems men have a choice. They can either take those risks, as women have over the past century, or they can grow increasingly bitter that women are not fighting this fight for them.
MonicaP,
Sorry. I've been around for awhile, and the only western women I have noticed taking any risks are those who have stood up to feminists and feminism - the Carey Lukas,' Wendy McElroys, Heather MacDonalds, Kate O'Beirne's, Christina Hoff-Sommers,and our own Amy Alkon to name a few notables. These women have taken risks by bucking up against the feminist establishment, and they have done so because they recognized that the feminist establishment has men in a legal bind that women were never, ever in. Further, they recognized that Western Women are the most privileged, protected and indulged PEOPLE (not women, PEOPLE) in the history of the world because of male chivalry, and the male desire to do what is right, and please women. Are there bad men who hurt women and would oppress them if they could? Of course there are. And there are many more men who will literally put themselves into an inferior status legally and societally to keep those men from hurting women. For their trouble, these women (like the men)have been savaged in ways only the men they have defended can relate to - not you, or the feminists of yore to whom you attribute such profound suffering. Profound gratitude to them - not as women, but as humans who stood and stand up for whats right at considerable expense to themselves.
But from such as you, men hear some or other version of "I'm privileged by what feminism has done, and while I recognize and will grudgingly admit it is at the expense of mens human rights, thats YOUR problem, so f*ck you - start your own movement."
Well, we've never met, MonicaP. But someday we might. If, on a dark and stormy night you find yourself broken down by the side of the highway, cars whizzing past, noone stopping to help;If you find yourself with your arms full, and that healthy looking guy doesn't open the door for you; If you find yourself (God forbid, and I do mean that) a victim of a crime in progress, and noone chooses to help you; if when you would like someone to walk you out to your car after hours, noone is willing to; if you get on the metro and no man gets up to offer you his seat;or if, as happens so often, you need men to gather a lynch mob on your behalf, and noone does -
Thats me.
Mike at May 7, 2010 4:43 PM
> Your call.
Monica, don't be frightened, but i often like you.
> Men who speak up against the Feminist machine
> face the certainty - not the possibility, the
> certainty - of far greater consequences than
> being "harshed on."
Silly.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 7, 2010 9:29 PM
irlandes, it's interesting that you claim to want to stand up for men's rights in this country when you have repeatedly told people on here to get the hell out of the country.
I agree with your and Mike's assessment of the state of men in America. What I don't agree with is your approach.
It wasn't all that long ago that we were telling women that, instead of sitting back whining about not being treated fairly, they should do something and make people listen. Well, that's my advice here.
No, I don't know what it's like to be a man in America, but I find it hard to sympathize with people who have the means to speak up and don't. You say that the consequences are greater for men who speak up about injustice against them. I agree with that, and I think that men are horribly misrepresented in the media, which contributes greatly to the problem (the majority of men are not drooling idiots like sitcoms would have you believe). But how is not doing anything helping?
You say it's worse now for men than it ever was for women. I'm not debating the assessment, but where is the line? At what point is the oppression too great to fight against? At what point do you resign yourself and all men to lives of misery?
You whine an awful lot on here about how American women have treated you and how men are so beaten down by women (again, not denying it happens). If you feel so passionately about it, why haven't you tried to remedy the situation? Try to expose the hateful people for what they are.
Mike, you women who go toe-to-toe with the feminist establishment. Why can't men be included in that? I would think they would get some support on their side if they had the backing of people like Christina Hoff Sommers, who I love, by the way, for The War Against Boys. And even if it doesn't work, isn't attempting to stand up for yourself better than shrinking back because of the perceived consequences? You'll probably tell me that I can't possibly understand because I'm a woman, and that's true, I can't, but I champion people who can get past their fear and speak up.
NumberSix at May 7, 2010 9:45 PM
Whoops, a word didn't post for some reason. That last paragraph should say "you champion women who go toe-to-toe with the feminist establishment." Sorry, folks.
NumberSix at May 7, 2010 9:47 PM
I love it when feminists call themselves cowards.
Robert at May 7, 2010 10:29 PM
I just paid a visit to the feministing site.
I had to laugh that they had a sexy advertisement for "Evony" an online role playing game known for its "almost" pornographic advertising.
The other thing I noticed was the hot chick outline on top. The finger was interesting, but by and large...these bitches are blind to their own stupidity. *L*
Robert at May 7, 2010 10:39 PM
I once knew a woman who thought like these women. Her best example was that when she was young and got a job at Target, one her male bosses, after becoming comfortable around her, finished asking her to do something with the word "babe". OOOH!
Now if she were she a guy who he'd become comfortable with, and were no one else near, he very well might have called the him "dipshit" or "cocksucker" or "assface", or whatever the latest derogatory term was in use for that guy. That's basically how males refer to one another when free to do so. Think military.
D at May 7, 2010 11:31 PM
I like your posts, Amy. They're an island of sensibility in an ocean of bullsh*t.
~ Gila (a female).
Gila at May 8, 2010 10:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/07/are_their_mouth.html#comment-1713785">comment from GilaThanks so much, Gila.
Amy Alkon at May 8, 2010 11:15 AM
Oh, bull sheet. Most women love to talk, IMO, and so they will get their say on just about anything. This feminist should take her risperidone or halcyon or whatever.
mpetrie98 at May 8, 2010 6:30 PM
I occasionally read F'isting, but it isn't good for my blood pressure. Those women are bloody insane.
Murgatroyd at May 9, 2010 8:57 PM
"Oh, bull sheet. Most women love to talk, IMO, and so they will get their say on just about anything."
Women love to talk but not directly.
On an an aside they might say "Oh I cant believe he/she did that to me" and complain to everyone except the person who did it. Very annoying.
Ppen at May 9, 2010 10:46 PM
WRT Larry Summers, "professional future", etc.
You know, at some point in life, I think that everyone has to decide whether they value themselves, or whether they want to choose to suck up to all sorts of other people in return for a salary. Every day, perhaps, one has to re-evaluate where the boundaries are.
Larry Summers grossed me out. He seemed slimy about the whole thing. He could have at least gone out with his pride intact, like, "I'm an economics guy. I look at numbers. And we have 10 men for every woman applying for a faculty position in that department, and on average 7 of the men are clearly better candidates than the woman. I don't know why that is. Harvard would be happy if you secured some fat research grants to figure it out. But as it stands, the numbers just don't work. We either destroy our position as an institution, and hire faculty who look like they won't be tenured here, or we hire from the pool we have. What'll it be? Well?"
Personally, I think that what Larry Summers was saying has a lot of merit: most women probably don't WANT these positions. I wouldn't, either, and I'm a man. So maybe that's why there are fewer women in these departments. But from what I recall, he chickened out and made things worse, not better.
The moral of the story, to me, was, if you're going to challenge an entrenched group with power, be forthright, don't pull punches, and have some BALLS (whether you're male or female).
Barry D at May 11, 2010 2:47 PM
We are the oppressive heteronormative patriarchy.
You will be domesticated.
Resistance is futile.
ThePatriarchBorg at May 11, 2010 3:25 PM
It's code Amy - "speak out" means "get their way" or possibly "force you to take their views seriously". You can always speak, doesn't mean people have to listen. And that's their real complaint.
I was thinking that it would be impossible to articulate my opinion easily, but this quote covers about 85% of my feelings.
I worked in a student run organization in college that had a big weekly meeting for discussing management issues.
Everyone was free to speak, even people who did not work there. Yet, we got the same kind of comment from some WMST majors who worked there.
They wanted the "atmosphere to be safe" for their views. In other words, they wanted to be shielded from being disagreed with and they wanted people to bend over backwards to graciously invite them to air their views and then they wanted to applauded for it.
Steve at June 6, 2010 12:01 PM
I read that blog a few years ago for a while.
I got the impression that Jessica and her ilk suffer from on overblown sense of entitlement and quite possibly narcissism.
Steve at June 6, 2010 12:06 PM
Leave a comment