It is so right on.

http://timewarpwife.com/?p=790

Women's Rights News

https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS?ref=br_tf

luminous animal would have you believe that I was scouring a RW evangelical christian site.

But it's a good thing that you posted where you got it from. Not that that will keep the conspirators from conspiring.

Thanks.

So sorry to have to disappoint the masses. I don't shop the RW evangelical christian site.

If they knew what I posted in the past, they would understand that. Yet they jumped on and blasted away they were stirring the pot...I love Urban Dictionaries description~

Stir the pot
Someone who loves to proliferate the tension and drama between 2 or more feuding people/groups in public to get a raise of people in hopes of starting a shitstorm of drama and uncomfortable conflict, sometimes for personal gain but oftentimes just for the thrill of confrontation.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stir+the+pot

23

Now more than ever because of the enormous amount of things they are exposed to via social media. I have 2 teenage nieces & a 15 yr old son & a son about to be 12. These are all things that are impressed on all of them constantly. I thank you for posting this, sheshe. I'm sending it to the 3 teenagers now, gotta be proactive.

I have grown nieces and nephews. Now, 3 grand niece and nephews. I love them all to pieces.

Once when my grand nephew was at the dentist, the hygienist came in and said, Okay who's first? The nephew said his sister should go, because in their house the girls always go first. He was 5 at the time.

Thanks, gifted girl.

in case you're unfamiliar with the "hold the door open for a woman" wars... lol.

It's called "benevolent sexism" and is very offensive to some women here.

I'm not one of them - but thought it was funny within the context of recent discussions - both the sort of politeness you mention and the tasteless porn others have defended are attacked by the same people.

life is full of ironies.

Our family has flaws, yet there is a lot of love and respect too.

I hold as many doors open as are opened for me, nor do I believe that it is sexism. I find that an act of kindness. Maybe that is just me.

What our daughters and sons need to understand is respect and honor. Not a bad thing at all really.

but that's different than the statement in the other OP about girls going first.

personally, none of these things are worth getting in a snit over, imo.

there are a lot more pro-active ways people can help women - and one of the most important would be a minimum living wage.

More women than men make minimum wage, some of these women are sole income for families, some of them are over the age of 30, and a majority of them are minorities.

So, that's the sort of politeness I would REALLY like to see.

for good or bad, proactive. You teach them to stand on their own. The source for this crap is an evangelical christian site.

http://timewarpwife.com

You are sending reactive pablum.

props around here lately one picture simply explaining the fact that the young women in our lives need to realize the difference between being treatreated propproperly by a man & not treated like a piece of meat & so should our young men. That's all it was, it doesn't matter one iota where the stupid picture came from.

We're on a discussion board. Don't sit here & pretend like you have the first clue about how we are raising the children in our lives. My children & nieces are strong & independent & respectful to others & themselves. They have been taught that you get into a relationship because you love someone not because you need someone.

Being lusted after and being loved; between being flattered and being complimented.

I WISH I was taught all those things.
That was not the case. I was taught that the most important thing is to look pretty and sexy and latch onto any attention from any guy with a vice grip..

....and so desperate was I for warm affection that I have a long string of NPD's, BPD's, psychotics, and alcoholics behind me in my quest for a plain old loving partner.

I didn't check the link so didn't know it was from a fundy site---

But I am not so overwrought with hatred for fundies (though I do hate 'em and their perverted dangerous views) that I can't tell a bit of authentically good wisdon when I see it.

Women's Rights News~

http://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS?ref=br_tf

The pot has been stirred and LA is leading the charge. There are 2 Op's calling me out on GD.

Go figure~

Blanche.

fundy jerks occasionally do appreciate and post "good old-fashioned wisdom". And that memes get posted and passed along through many many different sources.

It is best to be able to discern wisdom when it's in front of you. Regardless of how or who put it there.

Yep.

Try (to be smart) you cannot. Develop wisdom, you must.

< º_º >

lessons right there in the proverbial nutshell!

They are the best life lessons that our daughters and sons can live by.

Respect, Honor and Cherish~

Thanks Cha

valuable lessons.. right there written down so eloquently!

http://timewarpwife.com

Do you understand that this "advice" teaches girls to judge themselves by boy's standards?

In theory a man ought to be able to both love and lust after the same woman.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

Practice is virtue. Theory is thinking you might be a good person.

I think that is makes lust seem pejorative, when, in fact, it is great for two people in love with each other to other be in lust with each other.

My picker is seriously flawed fucked to hell.

Blanche

http://timewarpwife.com

She selling a book, too.



See more at: http://timewarpwife.com/?p=790#sthash.2hP5gQty.dpuf

Teach our daughters something other than the idea that her world should revolve around a man's flattery, compliments, money, views, lust, love, or beliefs. Teach her to flatter herself, compliment herself, earn her own money, develop her own views, enjoy her lusts, follow her loves, accept her gifts. Teach her to find who she is, be that person, and like that person. If she can do that, then the whole men part will take care of itself.

Teach our sons to respect that.

I'm so sorry to dump on your thread, SheShe; normally I love your posts, but I loathe this meme.

This reinforces the patriarchal paradigm.

My husband (who is 66) has this female friend that he went to high school with in Texas who also happens to live here in Anchorage, and she has got to be the most needy female I've ever met in my life. She's been divorced for some time, apparently, but her whole entire life revolves around trying to find a man. And for some reason she's decided that my husband should be the dispenser of "advice to the lovelorn." For a while she was calling here once or twice a week and yapping at him for literally hours crying about her (lack of) love life. Honestly, she's lucky I'm not a jealous person, but still...

I just wish that at some point in her life she had figured out how to be alone with herself.

Her that love is a two way street...women act bad in relationships, too...not just men.

I am actually pretty fucking angry about it. I have a 23 year old daughter. I never once considered raising her from a MAN'S point of view. If I sent this to her, she would agree that the message is opposite to how I raised her because I raised her: "to flatter herself, compliment herself, earn her own money, develop her own views, enjoy her lusts, follow her loves, accept her gifts."

Like you, I get the sentiment in the OP, and it is a good one. But today's realities are much more complicated.

Both seem to be about teaching our daughters to expect more and embrace themselves and not settle for shit. I don't see how someone could "loathe" either your post or sheshe's.

on embracing the proper man instead.

Also, it's heteronormative, which bugs me quite a bit.

more than just about anything. I think that's why I'm surprised at the people that look at this and somehow see it as teaching women to think that they're lives revolve around men. I think it's saying that their lives revolve around THEMSELVES and they need to find a partner that recognizes that.

I hear you about the "heteronormative" bit, though.

doesn't need this kind of a lesson- she already knows what kind of partner (gender neutral) is right for her. Also the "lusts after her vs. loves her" bit struck me as puritanical.

JMO of course.

self-esteem. If I had a dollar for every smart, intelligent, soul full woman I know wasting her time on a piece of nothing for a man, I'd never need to work again. And some of these women are much, much older than I am.

I think these types of messages are for those women. It's never too late to learn that loving yourself will always be better than accepting less just to have somebody hanging off of your arm.

Hell, I've been that woman.

I just wish the self-esteem messages weren't so often based around "this will help you meet the right man". I get what you're saying about the target audience, though.

Hell, adding a trifling man into the mix is honestly the LAST thing a struggling woman needs.

My youngest aunt is one of those women too. I love her dearly but she is someone who needs to see these types of messages. In fact, I thought of her immediately when I saw this OP. Adorable, smart, funny as all hell, immensely educated and world traveled and she is one of the most insecure people I know. She could get a PhD from the University of Mars and her greatest concern will still be finding a man. I worry about her terribly.

http://timewarpwife.com

Disagree with alot on that site. Agree with this. Life's funny that way.

Edit: And for a thread that you obviously hate, you have posted in it damn near as much as the OP has. That's almost funny.

this is nothing but conservative pablum? That advises young women to judge themselves by how young men perceive them rather than taking charge of their own self perception?

My daughter is 6' 2" tall and looks like a super model, WITHOUT MAKE UP. I raised her that, both flattery and compliments, should have ZERO influence on her own self-worth.

Since age 10 she has been courted and pursued by agents. She is harassed by MEN wherever she goes who use both flattery and compliments.

But I raised her to be strong in mind and spirit to flatter and compliment herself.

Continue your aerobics all up and down in this thread. Maybe at some point, some glorious day you will realize there ain't a dime's worth of difference in what you taught your daughter and what this woman is saying we need to teach ALL of our daughters.

But I'm not expecting that miracle any time soon. Not from you.

I wouldn't let that woman near any young woman. I find the OP's message submissive and repulsive. I find the website that it comes from horrifying from any modern Democratic woman's point of view.

Thanks for the thread, sheshe.

Women are their own people regardless of what men think about them.

I take this as an anecdotal to the big picture. I have two teenage nieces, one of which I am the mother figure for because my sister died a few years ago & the other one I kinda look out for because my sister is a bit clueless. Plus I have teenage boys.

Anywho, the takeaway from this is a man should respect you & not treat you like property, I think it goes both ways. A woman should do the same. But above all nobody needs to be in a relationship, independence should be a priority for both sexes. What I mean by that is they all need to go to college, get jobs, and become established & financially stable prior to settling down so they don't loose their independence.

I can actually see the relative strengths of sending each to all-girl or all-boy schools....but the merits of that are for another thread.

I was told once that men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love; neither purely gives. Of course,both genders want both, but the differences in their priorities is pretty clear for at least a few years. In any event, both girls and boys might want to consider how what they want can easily get mixed up within themselves when they feel lonely or the pressure to fit in with the crowd, or to just be validated as a person.

I like the poster. Still there's always more to say about opposite gender training. I'm never one to say that women falsely claim rape. That's almost never, ever the case. But females need to be aware of the difference between when men say they're safe, and when they're really safe.

Last edited Mon Dec 2, 2013, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)

...that men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love.

not to mention the transactional relation of that pov.

I would never want my daughter to think her sex drive doesn't exist apart from her desire to have a partner - because it does.

oh, bleh, I mean to say that females like sex and don't trade it for love because sometimes females like sex because they like sex.

men and women, but I'm trying to stick to males and females still wards of their parents.

I'm not trying to push an essentialist line here about genders, and I did explicitly state that those things are commingled within every human. But I only put the saying out there as one that I've heard that might offer a shorthand for tendencies or the complexities of stuff that happens between genders for a long formative while. Sometimes young people like to operate with a kind of shorthand, and save all the complexity talk for besties and all nighters. It's a saying that's easily discardable as one grasps all kinds of experience and boundaries, but it might just be something as useable as a list of stuff on a poster. I won't defend it. If you think we all should discard it here, be my guest.

I'm not endorsing it for the adult world, but when kids are sorting stuff out, that's what I've heard them say. If you want to sit them down and tell them what you told me, that's admirable and fine by me.

Kids' lives with opposite genders tend to get away from parental influence fairly early, so if all this stuff's going to be learned, it's got to be early and often.

so no one will be in American society very long without seeing the expression of it.

and it's the traditional teaching of abstinence-only sorts of educators, so kids will hear it since we have so much religious conservative influence in this nation.

as far as essentialist - the reality would be that both genders have sex because they have a sex drive. they don't have to learn this because it simply is.

teaching kids how to be polite and respectful of one another doesn't mean repeating right wing memes about males and females, but that's what we still get, most of the time.

...and, yeah, part of the process of maturation is figuring out what you were told were lies and what's actually useful.

for his group. Never heard it back in my youthful boomer days; so, sure, I can easily agree to toss it as traditional.

it's part of some socio-biology claims about women that have been criticized for cultural "blind spots" about women. Some anthropologists in good standing argued, basically, that men went out to hunt while women sat at home and ate bon-bons as a way to explain long-term partnerships (it's called "male provisioning&quot that is really fun in the way that it replicates 1950s middle-class assumptions about relationships and has no bearing on actual existing hunter-gatherer societies - in which both men and women "provision" their families - and have more egalitarian relationships apart from the modern sexism that exists in western culture's traditional marriage (traditional as in a few hundred years for certain classes and races, historically.)

It's been around for a while. The other version you may have heard is "why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free" - and, thus, women would have to "hold out" for marriage by controlling their sexual expressions while males were free to assume their sexual expression had no negative repercussion, socially.

It assumes that women only have sex because they want to use sex to force someone to be with them. It's kinda creepy, to me.

It also reinforces patriarchy as it existed since the advent of property - when women were the first slaves in any society - but they were called "wives." Tying it to the woman's feelings merely sanitizes it, but the sentiment, that women only want to have sex if they're in love, and then they only do it because they want something else - is really, really, really sexist.

women used to force someone to be with them...that the sex was never any guarantee.

Glad you bring up some anthropology stuff... English major, myself...

Where does the gender equality of hunter-gatherer efforts start getting unequal in the wealth context. My theory is that when protective spaces were created with guarded perimeters, etc., they were first called 'property.' After that, anything done within that space was 'owned.' So, in a way, what's been interpreted as slavery might have just emerged as a way of describing joint wealth, but when the obvious comparisons were made across families or tribes, males started competitive hunter behavior about whose "being" (manly) was defined by the most "having."

I raise the question because I'd really like to know, since the millennial effects of women's roles have also rendered them paupers relative to their numbers.

It was discredited because of its author, for a while (throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak), but recently has again gained currency because of its long-range view of the issue of property and equality and gender relations. This article is from a while back, but it's online and goes into some of the ideas.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

Interestingly, some also argue that the Iroquois were as important as a model for American democracy as any of the western European intellectuals who are given credit for it. In Iroquois society, however, women were not second-class citizens and the Iroquois didn't hold slaves, so their contribution wasn't really given the credit it deserved, since the Constitution didn't include equality for all genders or races. The Iroquois and others had the "Great Treaty of Peace" for hundreds of years before any western nation had a similar constitutional framework. Women had the power to refuse to go to war because women controlled the food supply. They sat in tribal councils regarding the big issues. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the Iroquois in regard to forming the U.S. Constitution, tho, as well as others who were crucial to its construction. But that influence was disappeared along with the Native Americans who stood in the way of private property ownership for the founders.. including human property.



Interestingly, also, Eskimos have sex much more publicly than western society finds comfortable, because they sleep and have sex together in the same spaces.



Anyway, it's a long article, and its impossible to excerpt the major points here - but the gist is that, by looking at how different societies have existed through different eras (hunter-gatherer, agricultural, etc.) it's possible to find the origin of oppression of women through the "ownership" of women by their husbands - which was law into the 20th century in the U.S. with laws that disallowed women to own property in their own names if they were married, etc.

edit to add - this view also sees marriage and prostitution as two co-existing relationships within societies. when female sexuality is "owned" by their husband through his control of assets that are passed to his children, prostitution is the flip side of the same coin.

so women get upset by what other women are doing and try to control their behavior and focus on that, to the exclusion of changing the economic position of all women - because of the fear that the women will lose their economic power by the loss of their mate.

that's where the statement you talked about comes into play, too.

someone did a recent study that looked at this issue in the form of women bonding together to attack other women who seemed to dress provocatively. that argument overlaps the early argument about the role of wife and prostitute as a social situation. But the study didn't have many participants and some don't like it for whatever reason.

sort of weird in this thread to be here... but the OP, tho well meaning, does strike a few nerves about sexism, etc. so.. maybe this is just the place for it...

When the USSR collapsed, marxism as a form of critique lost currency. Now that capitalism is suffering through another bout of collapse (for the middle and lower classes) marxist critiques across a variety of fields are getting another look, because history doesn't quite seem to be over after all (which is what one guy claimed during the 90s and democracy and capitalism were ascendant.)

Iroquois and founders, and Marx doesn't shed sufficient light on the relative worth or authority of women, either.

Being in authority and being an authority are different. Usually the latter can make you also the former, but not the other way around.

I raise this issue because these male interpreters of history haven't delved into the codified bargaining that cost women wealth and property. That's the origin of the kind of economic oppression I ask about. Economic vulnerability leads to all kinds of other inequalities... or was it the other way around...the ethic of 'might makes right' has pretty much prevailed across continents outside the insular environments of indigenous people.

So far, I've come across no answers except the presumption that men just "took it." Men went from being joined with women as "an authority" to higher valuing themselves over women as "in authority," per their official codifications and histories.

with males and females having separate spheres of influence and power and ownership.

of work to have equal value. But once surplus is produced, it's likely because of efficiencies which could have been mutually bargained for. What's left out is the greedy theft -- usually by stealth -- of the splitting of the profit equally between the two "divisions." Remember, someone made up this "division of labor." It didn't just appear in the industrial environment.

As the production "sandbox" got larger (from hunter-gatherer size to industrial-regional size) the cost/benefit of raising more workers (children) got to be devalued mainly because it was men doing the valuing. You know, food, shelter, clothing -- all those inputs got suddenly transferred to those first bonded with the worker children.

I myself would have valued the "division of labor" thusly: "Those who invest in human resources create the greatest long term value, thus, profit." Then I would have paid them more than the workers in the mills.

Global estimates of women's "invisible" labor that props capitalism today is $186,000 per woman per year. A figure worth hiding to many whose interest is staying on top of the capitalist heap. Ironically, that's probably the queen of England.

As we've seen in the move from human to robotic labor.

The benefit of raising children increased, not decreased.

The issue control of females has to do with inheritance for the children produced and assurance of the paternity of those children.

The current value of invisible labor has nothing to say about this theory. However, I agree with you that women should be paid for labor that's currently done "for free" - or done as part of a family that, if this family dissolves, leaves many women without any pension for the many hours of labor supplied "for free" under the assumption that such labor will always be compensated by her relationship to a male.

do not pay what should be paid for. The only reason they 'get away' with it is because women will not fight them for half the wealth. Women cope because they're basically peaceful and not competitive to the point of force.

Perhaps it's their adaptivity to oppression that continues it, but it's not they who are responsible for not getting their fair share of wealth. If they give their labor, it's based on the understood threat of force shown by men's win/lose competition for control of anything they value, whether food, currency, children or resources.

Men's historical oppressions are based on their assumptions that, in a relationship, they get something for nothing or they refuse to give anything. That is a 'relationship economy,' no matter what the 'system.' Iroquois, Western, you name it. The codes you listed show that men just up and 'take authority.' It's only when women are actually doing hunting-gathering that they get control of any wealth accrued thereby.

so, your conclusions aren't coming from it or the mishmash of the "I didn't get enough sleep" I posted here.

I listed no codes that I can see. Neither my examples, nor the theory about the origin of property, showed that men just show up and take authority.

Everything else you wrote is your opinion that, again, has nothing to do with what Engels or others wrote about this subject in relation to the evolution of complex societies. I don't understand how you can make these conclusions based upon the material.

Please quote exactly the words that originate women's oppression and I'll be happy to re-examine my conclusions.

I see that systems try to explain the labor or legal contexts of women's oppressions, but I'm not seeing anything in them that describes the origins of those contexts.

You can say that my conclusions have nothing to do with what you posted, but I just think that the harder I try to find explicit proof within them of the origins of women's oppression, the more you try to invalidate my effort.

There's nothing in what you posted that answered my original question. Guess we're stuck here.

All I said was your opinions didn't address what was written.

I didn't write what you thought was written. I don't know what to say to you because it would just reiterate the same things that didn't say what you thought they said.

maybe you should read the source material.

there's really nothing more to say other than that.

take care.

Last edited Mon Dec 2, 2013, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Her sex-drive cannot exist independently from her desire to have a partner? Is that what I am reading from you?

It means PwSD - posting while sleep deprived.

...and it means I'm really done with this thread...after I correct that typo.

edit to add - I can't even get the right letter of the alphabet going there. lol.

the thread gave me the creeps and I was trying to stay all full of positivity rather than make assumptions about people based upon this thread.

to feel good about themselves. That a strong woman is an admirable woman by men and women alike and that a woman does not need a partner to be whole.

Exactly, ScreamingMeemie!

evangelical christian.

Before I did due diligence finding the source, it was obvious.

- See more at: http://timewarpwife.com/?p=790#sthash.cTHfUpnQ.dpuf

There should be mutual respect between men and women; most important of all is self-respect.

Thank you, sheshe. Bookmarked.

This is ballerina, fairy, princess, pathetic.

...then they won't take any shit from anyone anyway.

That is how I read the quote. A fathers advice to his daughter.

A ballerina, fairy, princess? Yes indeed, she can be any damn thing she wishes to be.




The Great Georgia

"I feel there is something unexplored about woman that only a woman can explore." ~ Georgia O'Keeffe



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023958054

and please pardon me for butting in with this comment but there is a serious ambiguity in the last line. Maybe it should be adjusted for clarity.

That's what my mother taught me and I was born in the 40's. and I'm a guy.

If only others had a mother like mine.

Kudos to your sweet mom, my friend. It is all about respect.

Mutual respect. It goes both ways does it not. I love how my niece is raising her children. I wish more people would take the time to teach their children well. We would all be in a better place if they did.

I thank you.

And also add that she can be fully independent and her life can be good without support of any man.

Also there should be something like this for gays and lesbians...

and a woman who loves him?

If not, isn't this a bit sexist?

which is all about how a girl's worth being based on how guys view or treat her. and how her job is to not give in to sex until after marriage and some other bs.

as an example let me bring up women who want the freedom to have sex with different guys without commitment . many guys do this without any problems. but women will be called sluts and other horrible things by men and women for doing this. i think a girl should be taught that it's up to her what she wants and she doesn't n eed others approval.

http://timewarpwife.com/

See the edit in my OP...due to the trashing of this thread.

Not a purity ball and definitely not a "guys" view. A fathers view that his daughter can do anything!

She can be anything she wants to be.

It is making me sick.

http://timewarpwife.com

to someone? do you think we are incapable of finding the site without the repetition?

and have highly sensitive bullshit detectors.

Sorry, my heterosexism detector is going off.

https://www.facebook.com/WOMENSRIGHTSNEWS?ref=br_tf

My step-daughter and step-son despite the wife's darnedest intentions grew up with a more world view like mine. That be a view that is mostly that life is what you make of it more than what is done to you. Sometimes it looks scary, but it works out for the best

or does everything have to be a political statement about life?

And that last line is beyond insulting, because it's insinuating that we don't teach our boys that at all. Kind of like "do you still beat your wife"

girls are raised to see themselves as inadequate. They are bombarded with cultural images that reduce their worth to their appearance and their attractiveness to men. They grow up at war with their own bodies. Boys are raised with their own share of cultural trappings defining what masculinity means, but those messages are different. That an OP doesn't address men or boys doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning. Women are allowed to care about themselves and their daughters.

This list appears to reinforce patriarchal stereotypes.

Let's make one up for the crap women do.

Or not because both sexes pull the same crap as anyone not living under a rock with their 12 cats knows.

Just saying...

"hey, we have all these models, textures and voice actors left over from Tangled. What should we do with them?"

"Shit out another movie"
*ca-ching*


I'm honestly confused on whether or not that movie actually passes the Bechdel test. I think I'd have to watch it again with a notepad...

Loosely. It broke away from the Disney stereotype, it brought in Broadway musicals and:

"Disney's Frozen, opening Wednesday, scored the top Thanksgiving debut of all time with a five-day gross of $93 million, eclipsing the $80.1 million five-day launch of Pixar's Toy Story 2 in 1999."

No small tamales.

I was distracted by the set-up to the 'act of pure love' twist.

There's a lot less overlap in the actor list than I thought. I just compared them on IMDB, and I was sure that Hans in Frozen was Flynn in Tangled, but I guess not. There's almost no overlap at all that I can spot.

Significant overlap in the production companies though. That's what I meant by the models/textures. It was clearly visually produced by the same folks. The only change in the Frozen character models that I could spot, was additional articulation of neck muscles when speaking, that is absent in Tangled.

Respect goes both ways, does it not.

Me, I have for years flown single. The result of a bad marriage. No need to have our wings clipped. We can indeed soar. I said as much to my 26 year old niece on Thanksgiving. Damn, she reminds me of myself at that age. Yet she is doing so many wonderful things, far more than I ever did. I hugged her and told her I was so very proud.


She can damn well do anything~

to your sons or daughters is by setting a good example and walking the talk. Mothers are their daughter's primary role model and vice versa for sons and fathers.