Arkansas Blog

I wonder if there are any politicians who belong to that Neanderthal gang. Wonder what McSame thinks about such nonsense going on in his home state...no I don't...the Republican Party is one big gang of sexist pigs who like to leave ill wives for trophy wives and call their wives names like 'cunt.'

>>...I've never understood the appeal of men-only clubs, <<'

In certain professional circles it's called 'latent.'

.

The more these troglodyte clubs act the fool the better I like it.

I support women's efforts to crash these clubs but for the life of me can't understand why anyone, especially a woman, would want to sit around with a gaggle of bourbon-sloshing superannuated lawyers, bond daddies and coupon-clippers and cuss about how the world has gone to hell since the Warren Court let those uppity you-know-whats into the schools.

Boy, "latent" is right, eLwood.

I remember when the Downtown LR YMCA made men get nekkid to swim together in the Y's pool.

This particular club may be extreme, but is it not important for men and women to have their own activities? Junior League, Junior Auxilary, and other such groups, even some cooking clubs, painting clubs, etc., are exclusive to women. As long as such groups do not get government funding, and are set up as such, they have their rights.

There are country clubs, et al and THEN there is President Shit-for-brains Monkeyboy Bush Lite promising to VETO the "equal pay" legislation about to be (or just) passed by the House!!!
|

I believe the draw of "male only" is the lack of having to be socially acceptable.

As a former Catholic High student that then finished at LR Central I can tell you Catholic was much more fun. There was no need to "be cool" since there were no girls around.

At Central there were so many girls around you had to keep your "I'm a cool dude" image going. At Catholic the goofier you acted the funner.

That was probably why fraternity life was so damn fun since much of the time there were no girls around to dampen the enthusiasm when we had our wildest late night/early morning parties.

I don't believe that the "latent" label is very accurate and I take that to be an attempt to ridicule something and insinuate homosexualism. I believe that is more of a slam to gays than to country club men's club members.

For full disclosure I do not belong to any club with a men only club. The lowly LR Raquet Club which I frequent has no segregated ares other than the locker and shower rooms.

>>>At Central there were so many girls around you had to keep your "I'm a cool dude" image going. At Catholic the goofier you acted the funner.<<

With that simple report we can see volumes on the civilizing effect of the 'weaker sex.'

Lysistrata comes to mind.

.

Women don't really give a damn about fighting to hang out with the sexist jerks who belong to that country club. (My gosh, throw someone out for just talking about it...sheesh...sounds like our free-speech hating judicial gang). Trust me...no sane woman seeks out these kind of men. Maybe some seek their power/money or access to their resources, but they're not seeking their not-so-sterling personalities. They want access to the places where business is conducted. Those infamous, but not gone, smoke-filled rooms. We want the same access, same amenities...same treatment.

A black only or white only country club isn't allowed anymore; so why should gender discrimination be OK?

Zelda, you say that you want equality with men. Ok, when did you register for selective service? What have you you done about the exclusion of women from combat? Why are industrial injuries and deaths for men in the 90 + percentile? Why did I not see any of you girly types when I was humping it in the bush in Vietnam? Why do women end up with the children in divorce settlements in the 90th percentile? Please answer those questions.

You want to skim the cream off of the top but you don't want to bear an equal share of the responsibility. That is not equality. I have never heard or seen women protest that they have been excluded from slective service or from combat. Why aren't those protests on as grand a scale and comparable worth? Why aren't women protesting the inordinate disparity of judgments in divorce settlements? The inequities in favor of women are endless.

One of my faves:
Women who seek to be equal to men
lack ambition!
|

You can bet most of them good ol' city boys in that club are, overtly elated, giddy, exstatic, infused with happiness, gay! I go somewhere, I want women there! Strip club, Hooters, Golds Gym, anywhere there is the oportunity to give thanks to the beauty and grace of the female persuasion. There is a definate reason why women are considered, "the better half" in a relationship. How many of those "Brokeback Country Club members" are the ones passing all the let the gays get married laws? What a bunch of limpits!

Oh lordy, strange...talk about throwing a bunch of crap/strawman into the mix. But I am feeling somewhat generous today so I'll indulge you by answering your stuff:

1. I didn't register for the selective service. The government/I both know I'd be lousy at the job. (But that doesn't mean I don't want my 'sisters' to have every opportunity that my son has.)

2. I've done the usual, my usual...write/call elected reps, donate money/time... (But the issue is about equality of opportunity...not what one person has done/not done.)

3. I don't have a clue about those stats (90% work deaths)...other than the fact that men still dominate in certain job areas.

4. Probably because they weren't allowed to fight beside you. (But what does that have to do with today?)

5. Another statistic I'm not familiar with; but I'll take your word for it and say so what? Moms and their children are the norm...and excluding the periodic exception (male 'mothering'), young children are better off with a 'mother.'

If you don't think women have been shouldering their fair share of the workload, strange...you're delusional. And, I'd like to hear your wife's beliefs about her so-called 'workload.'

Zelda, sweetheart, you've been baking cookies too long. I asked about slective service registration and you answer that you were too busy working. Well, you didn't register for selective service because you are a girl and the law only requires men to register. You didn't serve in combat because, according to you, you weren't given an opportunity to serve. Zelda, you didn't serve in combat because girls are forbidden by law from serving in a combat arm in the Army or Marine Corps. These things are true today and they were true in the past. They haven't changed because you girls don't want them to change. All of the heat that you put on politicians about everything else and you have yet to put heat on that issue. You haven't and aren't going to because your 'sisters' would string you up from the nearest yardarm if you did. They aren't all crazy. You want to be able to sit at the table but you don't want to do what is necessary to have that priviledge. Guys are used to that.

Max why aren't you as peeved that men can't run in the Ark Race for the Cure, even though men get breast cancer as well?

zelda, zelda, zelda, don't you know not to dispute strangelove?

He's omniscient. He knows everything about everything.

He especially knows the reasons for everyone's behavior and the conditions that have produced all of the resultant conditions.

"you didn't register for selective service because "

"you didn't serve in combat because "

"They haven't changed because "

There's just no enlightening omniscience.

I don't need to jump off of a building to know that it will kill me.

Well, you certainly COULD be right about that, strangelove.

However, remember to define your terms.

And remember that stunt men jump off buildings for a living and it doesn't kill them. Usually.

Pilot light----I really hope for your sake that you get my obvious point. I'll ignore the rest. I realize that it is important to you to prove that you are intelligent.

No, strange. It is not important for me to prove I'm intelligent.

My intelligence is not at issue.

What is important is not to make hasty generalizations, to mis-state what someone has said, to imply that you can look into the brains of people and tell us what they are thinking, or what people long dead thought, or into the hearts of people and determine their motives.

You continually ascribe thoughts and motives to people when you have no grounds whatsoever for determining their thoughts are motives. That's part of what I object to in your postings.

Show me the fallacy of the points I made above. If they are so obviously in error then you should take each one individually and refute them. I hear a lot of wind being blown but I see no substance to them. Start with selective service. Where is the error?

Strange, darling, what in the hell does cookie baking have to do with equal rights? And, please refrain from giving me motivations (the 'because...' crap) that are beyond your knowing and that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. (I have enough trouble keeping up with my own delusions.)

As usual, strange, you have avoided the topic and went off on some disjointed tangent out of the dark recesses of your sexist mind. But I only have myself to blame...this time...should have known better than to think you were seeking real answers, an actual exchange of ideas...a conversation. Oh well...I tried.

I can only deduce from your ramblings, strange, that you think women are undeserving of all the perks that men deserve because we're lazy, inferior and faking a desire for true equality. I am not surprised that your opinion of women is so low. I am thankful that equality is not dependent on men like you.

Just how many alter egos do you have, billary?

You claim that women only desire equality with men. I have challenged that assertion by giving you some very specific examples where that isn't the case. I believe that they at the least cast doubt on your basic assertion. If you want TRUE equality then you will be as equally zealous about the inequalities that favor women. Calling me names doesn't answer those specific challenges. Unfortunately, you are like many feminists you only want the goodies without the responsibilities that go with it. One day you may be dealing with people that aren't willing to debate with you. They will simply tell you how you will live and if you object they will exercise extreme prejudice toward you. Have you been fitted for your burka yet?

strangelove, you have made similar statements in various ways in three different postings.

If you will state your positions as assertions in individual sentences, I'll see what I can do with them. But at the moment, I wouldn't begin to try to unravel them in an attempt to ferret out precisely which points you have in mind.

Give me something precise and discrete to work with here.

Just precisely what is your assertion concerning selective service, to start?

1. Selective service registration is limited to men only.

2. Women are exempted from the combat arms in the Army and Marine Corps.

3. Industrial injuries and deaths are significantly greater for men.

4. Divorce awards in terms of who gets the children and monetary awards such as who gets the home are almost exclusively awarded to women.

5. Feminist groups have NOT exhibited any significant effort to get the above changed.

6. On the average, Men die five years earlier than women.

7. Prostate cancer receives significantly less federal money for research than breast cancer even though both kill at least about the same number of people each year.

8. Far fewer men attend and graduate from college, graduate school, law school and medical school than women yet NO affirmative action program exists for men to correct this fact.

How about that for just a start.

strangelove: Thanks for your post. I can work with that.

In fact, I just spent nearly an hour working with it, only to lose my post through some computer glitch or accidental pressing of the wrong buttons.

I'll come back to it in the morning and try to recompose my response.

You've laid out some good statements.

Thanks, strangelove. You have given me some good statements. I can work with these.
"1. Selective service registration is limited to men only."
As best I know, that is true.
"2. Women are exempted from the combat arms in the Army and Marine Corps."
So far as I know, technically this is true. However, you didn't mention the Air Force or Navy.
And some women's experiences suggest that this may not be all black-and-white:
"Since 2002, women have served nearly 170,000 tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and make up about 10 percent of U.S. forces in those two conflicts."
"Pentagon rules dictate that women may not be assigned to ground combat units. But the nature of the Iraq war has led to a blurring of distinction between front-line and rear areas, and more women are finding themselves in the thick of battle."
"Sgt. Griselda Benavides and Lance Cpl. Mary Carnes of the U.S. Marines, and Army Staff Sgt. Laurie Perez Hawkins have all served in Iraq. They share their experiences in a war zone and their thoughts on the service of women in the military."
"Current Pentagon policy that excludes women from ground combat units dates back to 1994. An opponent of women in combat say that rule is being violated, while a Pentagon official says the policy remains relevant and reasonable today."
These circumstances suggest there's considerable blurring of the lines. Certainly room for some disagreement here.
"3. Industrial injuries and deaths are significantly greater for men."
Possibly true. When you say "significantly greater," just what does that mean?
Are the accident ratios similar to the ratios of men and women performing essentially identical tasks? Are they "significantly greater" because there are significantly more men than women working in industrial positions?
There's room for a lot of interpretation here. And probably the need for considerable clarification.
"4. Divorce awards in terms of who gets the children and monetary awards such as who gets the home are almost exclusively awarded to women. "
I'd have to know what you mean by "almost exclusively," then I'd need to see some statistics.
"5. Feminist groups have NOT exhibited any significant effort to get the above changed."
That's a universal generalization. Do you mean "all feminist groups," "no feminist group," "few feminist groups"?
And just what constitutes "significant effort"?
And which of "the above"? Another universal generalization. "All of the above," "none of the above," "most of the above," "any of the above"?
"6. On the average, Men die five years earlier than women."
This may be true. I haven't seen recent statistics. But does that lead to the conclusion that women should do something so they can die as early as men? Just what is the point here?
"7. Prostate cancer receives significantly less federal money for research than breast cancer even though both kill at least about the same number of people each year. "
I haven't seen the statistics on these death rates. I'd want some specific figures to know "at least about the same number."
When you say "significantly less," how much is that in dollars?
And are the parameters of research the same for prostate cancer and breast cancer? Are there as many forms of prostate cancer as there are of breast cancer? Does the incidence of prostate cancer appear in men in comparable ages to when breast cancer appears in women? Are you giving any awareness to the circumstance that breast cancer also occurs in men?
"8. Far fewer men attend and graduate from college, graduate school, law school and medical school than women yet NO affirmative action program exists for men to correct this fact."
How about that for just a start.
The statistics I found (none later than A.D. 2000) support the contention of "fewer," but "far fewer" is open to interpretation. In some cases the number is not even 5 per 100. Among older students, however, the number may be as great as 30 per 100. And I didn't find statistics for medicine and law, although I have to admit that I didn't make an exhaustive search.

For the sake of discussion, let's take your statement at face value.

What is your contention: That men are being unfairly denied admission to or graduation from colleges, graduate schools, et cetera? That women should initiate an affirmative action program? That men should get off their duffs and initiate an affirmative action program? That it is women's fault that no affirmative action program exists to correct this?

Is this a condition that requires an affirmative action program?

Do you remember a few generations ago when women weren't even allowed to attend universities?

Do you remember the days when the two primary-almost exclusive-employment opportunities for educated women were teaching and nursing? With a good high school diploma and the right courses, a woman could aspire to become a secretary. With less education, women in general could expect to be employed primarily as waitresses and household servants or janitorial crew.

While I was in graduate school, at the age of 23, I worked one summer in the shipping department of a large retailer in a large city handling complaints about merchandise that hadn't been delivered on time. Four of us sat at a desk with identical telephones and did identical work for identical periods of time. The three women, wives and mothers, a few years older than I, received $0.75 an hour. I received $1.00 an hour. Just because I had male genitalia!!!

And that's what women are upset about: the disparity of treatment in the workplace. And it still exists, because women are still paid about the same percentage less for equal or equivalent work as men.

But maybe I'm assuming too much. Maybe that's not your main point.

So, what is your main point, your central idea? What is the one contention of which you want to convince us?

This discussion grew out of the report that a country club in Phoenix does not admit women to its grill and that one of its members has been excluded from membership because he disagreed-in public.

You have offered us eight statements in support of some core proposition. What is that proposition?

Footnote: Just found these figures in population data from 2006 census:

Males: 147,434,940 (49.2% of pop.)
Females: 151,963,545 (50.8% of pop.)

From another source, U.S. male live births ran about a 1050/1000 ratio to female live births.

From yet another source, much smaller population (one city): Up until about age 20, the population of men remains larger than the population of women. After that age, the population of women grows continually larger than the population of men.

Don't know what these figures may be used to "prove"; but there they are.

I've read some strange arguments, strange, sweetie, but...my oh my...the current twists/turns are dizzying.

You argue that because government discriminates against women (the no-women in combat stuff) it's proof that women don't want to be equal. You argue that because more men are hurt on the job...it's proof that women don't want to be equal. You argue that centuries of the law giving preference to keeping young children with their mothers is proof that women don't want to be equal. You argue that because men generally die earlier than women...it's proof women don't want to be equal. You proffer a broad generalization about an entire movement, feminism, as if it was a fact...'Feminist groups have NOT exhibited any significant effort to get the above changed.' You argue that because there's more money spent on boob stuff than on prostrate stuff it's proof that...that women don't want to be equal? You argue that because more women are getting higher education degrees it's proof that...well...that women don't want to be equal or that men are dumber than women.

Surely, deep down, you realize the silliness of those assertions...surely you jest.

Zelda, my wife gave me a little pop-quiz the other day:

"Sweetheart, do you know what they call women who are equal with men?"

"No; what dear?"

"Retarded."

Your wife is a wise woman, skypilot.

It's obviously about the political and business deals. It always is. The men don't want any competition, plain and simple. They know that if women are involved, they will be able to make more and better deals than they can now.

I don't agree any one-gender-only groups/clubs/associations. To discriminate on the basis of how you were born is not the way I want to go.

Oh, and that silly list of things that women have supposedly not pushed for, don't guess that strange ever thought that there is only so much energy and time available to those that will work towards goals, and you have to pick your battles. If men are so discriminated against, then why ask the WOMEN to work for the men to fix it? Talk about whining!