"Women more than men are asked to do things for free. Be careful of that."

I tested this theory out at the YSL store. May I have some Tribtoo's for free? Gay man answered "NO".

On to more research!

In the late '80s there was a brief fashion of psychological touchy-feely types on Los Angeles radio. Most of it was "codependency" nonsense, which grew and collapsed in popularity with the mullet and parachute pants as fellow travelers.

One aphorism from one of those guys has stuck with me nonetheless: You deserve what you accept.

Men get asked to do things for free, too. I mean, you (or at least Rachel, apparently) wouldn't believe.

This is the reason feminism has become so tragically discounted in modern America. When a Sklar-like person says something like that, it's not just that she seems resentful and twitchy: She shows herself to be isolated from the male experience of the economy as well. Any woman who's married to an entrepreneurial businessman, whether she has her own business or not, will know that he's been asked to give all sorts of bargains to customers who've done nothing to earn them.

Feminism would be more popular if it weren't sold to the young woman on the street as the purview of coddled, spiritless shy-bots who sneeze into toilet paper when they get a winter cold. They have no sense of proportion. They don't understand human nature, let alone sexual nature.

And that sucks. Because elsewhere, there's work to be done.

> Gay man answered "NO".

Well, did he even work at that store?

Why does she believe this affects women more than men? What evidence does she have?

Everyone gets asked to do free stuff, all the time. By your customers, by your boss, by your girlfriend/boyfriend, by your family, by anyone and everyone.

Sometimes you do it, sometimes you don't. Each situation is different. As Amy says, learning to say "no" is an important skill.

"Because elsewhere, there's work to be done."

Do you think if we tell them all babies start out as female, they'll become an equal opportunity aborter? You know' abort everybody.

Also India has this weird obsession with ultra pale skin a la Amy Alkon. I like pale skin too-but uh well when it's natural. Anyways everyone bleaches the shit out of their skin. When guys get married they always ask for a "pale" bride.

I get this kind of thinking in places where the majority of people are light or can become light (a la China). But in India? Arent the majority of people uber dark?

Even I'm not considered light enough and my motherfucking dad is the color of snow. I'm considered something like "dusky".

India is a fucked up place to be a woman.

> India is a fucked up place to be a woman.

True dat.

Everytime I think about this guy's plan for a globally-supplied "System Administrator" force to come in and rebuild corrupt countries after the United States has taken down the dictators, I think that force needs to be directed and executed by women... Women from all over the world.

It's like when Reagan insisted on sending black women to serve as ambassadors to South Africa during apartheid. These are the people who have to understand that the path to modernity —and to decency– often finds women in first saddle.

No we geeks are more hard pressed then women. How many times have we slaved over a corrupted hard disk and a promise of food and friendship. To be given a pack of oreos and our facebook friend request ignored.

Now I have to go help my mother - apparently I have to now show for the 23rd time how to connect her iphone to the computer.

I'll second John's comment.

But John, you need to learn how to at least hold out for beer.

"These are the people who have to understand that the path to modernity —and to decency– often finds women in first saddle."

Crid, name the three most fair, just modern societies women ran in the past or run today.

Like bacterium bumping into bleach, utopian theory involving class or gender never survives contact with reality.

I'm with Spartee.

> name the three most fair, just modern societies
> women ran in the past or run today

That's ludicrous, petulant, defensive, goofy, and immaterial. No one's talking about "running societies"... Or at least we weren't.

> I'm with Spartee.

So get a room.

The truth won't set you free.

"...name the three most fair, just modern societies women ran in the past or run today."

Planet Amazonia. Maybe not the fairest, but who cares? Did you SEE those broads? Woof!

(Amy deleted the earlier post!)

(Dear Dr. Ann: Please review this short explanation of the enormous and delicate importance of the word "significant".)

(We've all agreed there's nothing special about the health of the Inuit, right?…)

(…Great. There was kind of a Jenny McCarthy thing going on for a second there.)

Goddamit, Gog's making jokes! Good ones!

Tweet, Tweet

> The truth won't set you free.

Is that as bitter as it reads?

Little sisters shinin'.

It's like when Reagan insisted on sending black women to serve as ambassadors to South Africa during apartheid. These are the people who have to understand that the path to modernity —and to decency– often finds women in first saddle.

The US Navy did something similar during the war in Iraq when women made the announcements over the PA so Muslim mariners in nearby boats would hear women's voices emanating from US warships.

BTW, Reagan nominated a black man. Edward Perkins to be the US ambassador to the Union of South Africa. He served in that capacity from 1986 to 1989.

...name the three most fair, just modern societies women ran in the past or run today.

Countries whose governments have been presided over by women have included:
- The United Kingdom - Margaret Thatcher
- The Republic of Ireland - Mary Robinson
- Israel - Golda Meir
- The Russian Empire - Catherine the Great
- Pakistan - Benazir Bhutto
- The Philipines - Corazon Aqino
- England - Elizabeth I
- Nicaragua - Violetta Chomoro
- India - Indira Gandhi
- China - Empress Dowager Cixi
- The United States - Edith Wilson (de facto)

I'll leave it to the reader to decide how fair, just, and modern each of those were.

Arguments can be made for Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton to be added to this list.

"These are the people who have to understand that the path to modernity —and to decency– often finds women in first saddle."

That was the claim: Modern? Decent? Then, often=women in charge. So there should be a correlation. Lots of data points, right?

So, data?

The United Kingdom - Margaret Thatcher/Elizabeth (two gals over the millenia since Roman times...)
The Republic of Ireland - Mary Robinson
Israel - Golda Meir

(The others promoted as evidence were either not modern or not really up to snuff in terms of decent, I would argue. Relative terms, but I think the above three clearly pass both tests.)

So, you have a woman as head of state in each, for a relatively short period of each countries' existence. (In Israel's case, the period was longer as a percentage term, given the country's brief history, but Golda was not around for some Eternal Chancellor term of officer or anything.)

Anyone here care to assert still, like Crid, that there is some correlation between women in charge and decent, modern societies? Because it struck me then, and does now, as total hogwash promulgated to gain applause, not a sober assessment of mankind's history.

But I am open to any additional evidence.

England also had Bloody Mary.

Every country has had a woman in charge at some point or another, or at least had them in an influential position. But that wasn't the challenge now was it?

Crid: "the path to modernity —and to decency– often finds women in first saddle"

If you're going to assert something that has no basis in reality. Expect to be called on it.

Spartee is right.

If you're going to assert that modernity corresponds to female leadership, then there ought to be a great many correlations. But there simply aren't.

Modernity is built on the bones and bloodied corpses of men, through institutions built by men. Women have had important contributors, nobody is saying they haven't. But lets not pretend there is some strong correlation between female leadership & modernity.

Please review this short explanation of the enormous and delicate importance of the word "significant".

Cohen's famous paper on the problems with the typical use of null hypothesis significance testing is a good read on the subject as well. He's also a good writer; one of the few in science whose voice isn't entirely cleansed of humor and personality.

"Anyone here care to assert still, like Crid, that there is some correlation between women in charge and decent, modern societies?"

Is there a clear correlation between women being forbidden to be in charge of anything and savage shitholes full of starving beggars? Let's see - Afghanistan under the Taliban, Somalia, Saudi Arabia (they'd be starving beggars if it wasn't for the oil the West discovered for them)...

Hatshepsut is regarded as one of the most successful Pharaohs. When she was on her throne almost 3500 years ago, Egypt was # 1, leading the way in almost every area of human endeavour. Today, it's not even # 100 (ranked at # 113 on the Human Development Index). Islamists have just won the overwhelming majority of seats in the new Parliament, and they've announced that the new constitution will forbid women from ever governing Egypt. It's safe to say Egypt is not going to become a modern, decent society anytime soon.

No country can go forward into the modern age & backward into the Dark Ages for half its population at the same time.

You know what they key is to a modern civil society.

Distribution of power and knowledge. The more people with access to info and the reigns of power th better their societies generally are.

The more confined the access to knowlegde and power the worse their socieites generally are

I was going to ask Amy to make me some chocolate chip cookies, but I think I already know the answer...

There seem to be an awful lot of groups of people in society today who know nothing outside of their own experience, and the experiences of people just like them. Last year, I had the experience of talking to some young black schoolchildren, who asserted with absolute confidence that white kids are never, ever teased about any aspect of their appearance.

> The US Navy did something similar during the
> war in Iraq when women made the announcements
> over the PA so Muslim mariners in nearby
> boats would hear women's voices emanating
> from US warships.

Yeah, but the military was far too timid about the idiocy of our hosts when staging Gulf War 1... Jewish troops from the United States weren't permitted to conduct services on Saudi soil. There were a lot of stories about it at the time, but this was before the internet. This is the only cite I can find in a hurry:

During the Gulf War (1990–1991), when approximately a half million US military personal assembled in Saudi Arabia, and many were then stationed there, there were many Jewish US service personnel in Saudi Arabia. It is reported that the Saudi government insisted that Jewish religious services not be held on their soil but that Jewish soldiers be flown to nearby US warships.[6]

> BTW, Reagan nominated a black man.

This is what happens with old age. In my memory, the context was the other end of the African continent and gender was swapped. This is who I was thinking of:

washingtonpost.com
U.S.-Saudi Relations Show Signs of Stress
Reformers Labeled 'Agents of America'

By David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 21, 2004; Page A16

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -- Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the U.S. consul general here, waited outside a restaurant for evening prayers to end so she could enter. Suddenly, a Saudi religious policeman barred her way, pointing out that she was not wearing an abaya, the black cloak required of Saudi women in public.

She was a U.S. diplomat, she told him. He spit in his hand and rubbed it on the sole of his shoe. "This is what I think of your diplomatic status," he said, Abercrombie-Winstanley recounted in a recent interview.

[More...]

Sorry...magic wand seems to be out of batteries

Sooooo many thing to do with that stament my brain blew a fuse

> Countries whose governments have been
> presided over by women have included:

Now, listen... This is all too meta. First of all... Where to start?

Point 1

First of all, there's more to life than government. There's more to civilization than government. People do things (feed families, sleep with women, buy Ipods, make war, cure cancer, scuba dive) for reasons having nothing to do with government.

Two years ago I was certain that our blasé attitudes about marriage & children would be what future generations hated most about us... I thought they'd mock us for those things as we mock the slaveholders of the 18th century who wrote our founding declarations and articles.

But this year I'm starting to think our more grievous sin is a masturbatory fascination with government authority. Everyone seems to credit government and policy with determinative power even while staunchly denying that these forces have any impact on their own best conduct. People prattle about the importance of "leadership" from government servants even though they've never seen any, and would hate it if they did.

Politics can be amusing. It's fun to talk about stuff. I'm tickled to know that I'm right about everything while other people are wrong… And simultaneously consoled by certainty that the genius that's going to pull us out of all these nightmares is broadly dispersed within the people of the United States (and a very few other places).

So government is not life. People are getting confused about that. Government isn't the best expression of our courage, decency, fortitude, compassion, or any other virtue. It is –or should be– the cheapest possible solution to a few specific problems we share. That's IT… Merely chores for the lowest bidder.

If you've become confused about this because government nourishes your egocentric daydreams of irresistible power, then I don't like you. If you've become confused about this because our language is too slutty with words like 'leadership' and 'administration', then I pity you... And am somewhat ashamed for my own bad habits in chatter, which I try every day to control. If you think government is what this is about, you've missed the show while sitting in the lobby... You've missed life.

Women in government may not be the least of the feminine contributions to civilization, but who knows... It's certainly not the venue where masculinity's done its finest work.

[More...]

POINT 2 ... Secoondo-del-mundo, Dosy-doodles, etc.

Second of all, because of the childishness described in POINT 1, the power of executive leadership is often overcredited. Civil rights improvements happened in postwar America despite the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies, not because of them. Saddam Hussein was worth deposing, but no one's certain that culture has been decisively improved by his absence. This is to say, in the terms of the comments above:

"governments presided over" ≠ "societies [men/women] ran"

Ascribing national success or failure to the contents of just one pair of underpants is ludicrous…

> But lets not pretend there is some
> strong correlation between female
> leadership & modernity.

…And pathetic.

> I am open to any additional evidence.

That's ducky.


Now, when you put POINT 1 and POINT 2 together and grind up some of the specifics, it goes like this:

> That was the claim: Modern? Decent?
> Then, often=women in charge. So there
> should be a correlation. Lots of
> data points, right?

There are about three hundred million of them at hand. The United States is the rockin' -est country this globe has ever seen. We're most productive, we make the most money, we have the nicest stuff and the best food and the nicest cars and the horniest fucking. We're the nicest to the retarded and the crippled. AND WE HAVE THE BIGGEST MILITARY, the one ensuring comity for maybe half or two-thirds of the rest of the planet. And the flows of money that make it all go have (mostly) been funneled and accounted through our institutions. Since the last world war, the United States has indisputably been the shining light that made life better for people.

We had great advantages in natural resources, geography, and the personal histories of our immigrants. But I think that since the Big One, over your lifetime, the spark that really lit the American lamp was our treatment of women. Women here can lead all kinds of things that they can't lead other places. Businesses, classrooms, shop floors, offices and (if often tragically,) families. Women compete aggressively all over our country, and many of them invest their earnings as they alone see fit. So the men who compete –whether for the work, for the money or for the women themselves– have to perform at a higher level as well. And most everything Americans make is a little more refined than what you get from most other nations, even those for whom we provide international security as an incidental burden.

(Smirk about Japan if you want to... They've been in an economic funk for twenty years due essentially to organized crime. And I have to believe that if the sisters had been playing at their best in these decades, bringing their new blood into the game, it wouldn't be such a problem.)

So that's what I mean by the "saddle". And I think it's kinda tragic that all that strength and productivity is invisible to you because it wasn't found in one famous office. Besides, do you doubt that we'll see a female president before you die?

Even so, your complaint about this would have had a mild sting if you'd specifically acknowledged the assignment: I was talking about how to bring that last third of humanity into modern comfort and safety. Improving life for those WOMEN is going to be a large part of it, and an indispensable part. The power of example from the modern countries which assist might be critical. If you're trying to pull a small business together in some hideous third-world village, it will go better for you if you hire the best available women as well as the best available men.

> No country can go forward into the
> modern age & backward into the Dark Ages
> for half its population at the same time.

Martin understands.

> England also had Bloody Mary.

Bloody Mary Tweet.

—––

Also, maybe I should throw Robert a bone. It's a passage I've used often here when squabbling about gay marriage:

The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the cave man era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture. Of course you would lose individual artists of merit: I'd sorely miss Jane Austen and George Eliot, Sigrid Undset and Willa Cather. But you would eradicate few if any true giants, and hardly anyone who radically changed a form instead of simply executing it well.

I could expand on this assertion, but I doubt it is necessary. I have tried it out on several dozen male and female acquaintances who are learned and cultured, in most cases as a vocation, and they have all agreed with me, though each and every one asked not to be quoted. This does not mean women are inferior. It simply means they didn't have the opportunity. There should be no shame in this for modern women-- and certainly no reason to feel that the works of Shakespeare, Rubens and Beethoven should be less inspirational to young ladies than to young gentlemen. But this inescapable fact incenses many feminist scholars[.]

— William A. Henry III


So, like, I hear ya.

First of all, there's more to life than government. There's more to civilization than government. People do things (feed families, sleep with women, buy Ipods, make war, cure cancer, scuba dive) for reasons having nothing to do with government. -- crid

...governments presided over" ≠ "societies [men/women] ran.... -- crid

I changed spartee's call for "societies women ran" to "countries whose governments have been presided over by women" because "society" ≠ "government." Socio-economic and cultural development are not effectively constrained by governmental action.

The matriarchal society has never existed on anything above a tribal level. Even matrilineal societies were governed and ruled by men.

And the feminist-ideal concept that "if the world were run by women, we'd have fewer wars" is a pipe dream. Every one of the women in my list led her country into a war (or military action) at some point during her reign (with the possible exception of Mary Robinson whose office was mostly ceremonial and who resigned before finishing her first term).

No country can go forward into the modern age & backward into the Dark Ages for half its population at the same time. -- Martin

Exactly.

Having women in elected political positions (or at least not banned from them) does seem to be a pretty good indicator of the level of modernity and decency of a society (or at least the development thereof).

> Socio-economic and cultural development are
> not effectively constrained by
> governmental action.

Preposterous. Governments constrain culture and economies all the time. As Barnett puts it, 'I've never seen a government build an economy... But I've seen lots of economies build governments.'


> The matriarchal society has never existed on
> anything above a tribal level. Even matrilineal
> societies were governed and ruled by men.

For fuck's sake, who asked?.... Who mentioned anything about "matriarchal societies"?

Amy has this core readership of defeated little men, these wounded nebbishes who mumble around here from day-to-day, silently nurturing private grievances about brassy women who done them wrong. But they snap to attention in their Sunday blazers and clearest words at the vaguest intimation of increased female authority... e.g. "women in the saddle".

Hold on there, mister! they will bellow, sucking in air for the fight they've been waiting for as the rest of us have chatted about nutrition and international affairs: Just what are you saying? NO CONTINENT HAS EVER BEEN TOTALLY DOMINATED BY A FIFTY FOOT AMAZON WAR-QUEEN IN A LEATHER BUSTIER AND STRAPPY SANDALS! And no continent ever WILL be!

It's pathetic. Even in this most obvious application of feminist principle, the expansion of global wealth, these men's-movement wannabes still want to whine about that one lady boss they had, or that one ex-wife they had, who was a real nasty person.

What bugs me most about these weepy guys is that some passerby will presume I'm one of them.

Boys, here's how it is: Civilization has decided that women are going to have access to all the levers and conduits of modern power, because their genius is as good as anyone's. Maybe they'll thrive in the positions of tremendous authority, and humanity will move into an epoch of feminine community domination mirroring the masculine times we're now exiting. I doubt it, but who knows?

But don't pretend this is a mistake, or an unconscious choice, or a con job by some sinister little vixen.

If your own heart has been broken by some conniving little hussy, it's probably because you weren't delivering the goods. Get over yourself.

@Crid:

"Amy has this core readership of defeated little men, these wounded nebbishes who mumble around here from day-to-day, silently nurturing private grievances about brassy women who done them wrong. But they snap to attention in their Sunday blazers and clearest words at the vaguest intimation of increased female authority... e.g. "women in the saddle"."

I'm not sure I was "wounded" or that I'm fearful of "women in the saddle". I was cheated on, stolen from, and bankrupted, yes. But I remain a huge fan of both the Cowgirl and the Reverse Cowgirl. Saddle up!

So tell us crid, what’s worse? A handful of guys with quasi-legitimate grievances who vent once every 7 or 8 blog posts when Amy brings up a subject they have had experience on?

Or a whiny bitch like you who 'who mumbles around here from day-to-day, publicly nurturing private grievances about' other posters who are smarter then you on certain subjects, so you retaliate and defend your bruised ego by selectively parsing their words and arguments in order to formulate an argument against those who have the temerity to have an opinion other than yours, while constantly spamming tweerds by people you pretend to admire (but secretly loath) for being more clever than you at word play?

There's a REASON passersby assume your one of those weepy guys crid - you are one.

Also, go fuck yourself

> (but secretly loath)

Right. My loathing is tiered and nuanced. Some people I loathe out here in public at noon. Others, I loathe in a solemn, spiritual, silent and candle-lit midnight headspace, as a very personal and sacred expression of who I am. Knowutimean? Those feelings are MINE, babe.

Which tier are you, Lookoojilmik?


> I'm not sure I was "wounded"

I didn't mean you, I meant the other guys. Goddamit, don't show your poker hand like that.

> a huge fan of both the…

RG is overrated. I want to see the shame and humiliation in her eyes, right at that moment.

Yes yes, crid, make fun of my spelling, becuase god knows you'll never be smart enough to debate the CONTENT. I mean its been years and you have yet to surpass that hurdle

And tell me shit stain, in addition to poking fun at the structural deviance in my brain which makes spelling a difficulty for me - do you, in your spare time, kick chairs out in front of blind people to broadcast to the crowd how they cant see?

Perphas you enjoy going to the special olympics and make your snarky comments belittleing the hadicapped?

Also, go fuck yourself

> do you, in your spare time, kick chairs out
> in front of blind people

On the clock, if they're assholes. I'd feel bad if we weren't seeing you at your best. But as it is…

> fuck yourself

Content! You're an ideas guy!

Yes crid, I am an ideas guy. You see the thing is, spelling isn’t necessarily an indicator of intelligence in dyslexics.

You might as well make fun of me for the color of my skin or the type of sex organs I sport.

What it boils down to is that you, mentally incapable of debating anything, decide instead to harp on a genetic variance which laid out the neural paths in my brain in a way slightly dissimilar to yours - basically your mental racist

And incidentally, you are my intellectual inferior. Hell, you are everyone mental inferior.

Not 12 hours ago when you attempted to disagree with Conan you were forced to ignore a modifying preposition in order to make your piss poor counterpoint

Its almost like your are physically incapable making any honest arguments. Your entire repertoire is based “responding” to selective , edited, or down right out of context quotes

Also, go fuck yourself

> you, mentally incapable of debating

Then dude, STOP. You're done.

This is not a cute animal story from Disney Studios.

Would anyone really object to having women lead the effort to end that kind of savagery in the third world?

Then dude, STOP. You're done.

Posted by: Crid

Well, now. Was it so hard to admit you were wrong? Now all we need is an apology for your ridicule of a physical hadicap

Until then, go fuck yourself

Luj, you'll break any comment stream. A bad sex joke, a nihilist mumble about plague, or other belligerent insistence that a cruel world done you wrong... A "handicap" isn't the reason you're eager to be offended. When I say life goes modern in cultures where women have authority, a falsetto chorus is suddenly singing "the matriarchal society". You think it's "a subject they have had experience on." But there are women everywhere, and almost everyone knows one. Anything else? Are we done, or do you wanna be aggrieved some more?

"Then dude, STOP. You're done."

Gee. I'm glad you never said that to me. I would SO have to stop posting! OMG!

I know, right?

Luj, you'll break any comment stream.
This Comming from the guy who drops tweets randomly on nearly every board

A bad sex joke,
All sex jokes are bad

a nihilist mumble about plague,
Plauges are good, the bubonic plauge lead to the education of the underclass and sparked the mechanical and industrial revolutions

or other belligerent insistence that a cruel world done you wrong...
Good thing you have specific examples, vauge accusaions are so hard to refute, Oh wait a minute

A "handicap" isn't the reason you're eager to be offended.
You're right there. I'm not eager to be offended I already am. I dont give a shit if you think I'm stupid, misinformed, or writting solely for the effect of sowing dissent. I could care less if you just ignored my posts and never responded to me at all.

What pissed me off is you went out of your way to imply that my atrocious spelling is a sign of limited intellegence. I am LITERALLY incapable of seeing some of my spelling mistakes. My brian is incapable of seeing the mistakes unless I walk away from what I have written for a day or two and my brain can process the individual words rather then the entierty of what I have written. Even then I still wont see some of the errors

Unfortunatley with the speed at which the internet moves I cant wait 48hr everytime I want to make a comment longer than a senrtance or two.

This part that pisses me off is I have explained this and a person of your obvious intellegence knows this (or at the very least could spend 30 seconds reading any one of the hunndered of websites dedicated to dyslexia). The part that 'offends' me is you contiune to ridicule me for a physical abnormality, I'm never going to call it a flaw.

Do you understand it yet crid? I'm not offended on a personal level, I'm offened that you dont seem to give a damn that you are making light of what for me is a mild hinderance but for others is a serious handicap. Do you ridiucle the blind? People with physical deformites like club feet or cleft palates?

When I say life goes modern in cultures where women have authority, a falsetto chorus is suddenly singing "the matriarchal society". You think it's "a subject they have had experience on." But there are women everywhere, and almost everyone knows one. Anything else? Are we done, or do you wanna be aggrieved some more?

I never said anything to disagree with your point on women in power, yet here you are pretending I am offened by your propsed answer. And this brings us back to what I was talking about earlier.

You dont debate honestly, you claim your opponets take position the never took, or that the wrote theings they never did, and then argue against that flawed and edited reasoning.

So yes, as you've given me permission, I'll take this opportunity to be aggrieved at your duplicitous nature.

Also, go fuck yourself