There was an excellent column in the Washington Post on Sunday that talked about the changing face of feminism -- or what should be the changing face of feminism. I found myself agreeing with almost everything that was said (despite finding it hard to swallow allying with the Christian right....but the writers do make a good point). I think modern feminism has drawn an image of being a bunch of hairy, smelly, man-hating women, and I think that does a disservice to the movement, its activists, and the important challenges still facing women in the world today.
[ February 23, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I see reproductive rights as being a fairly big issue. I don't understand those on the Christian Right who don't even want any kind of birth control discussed or funded. Of course, both sides are guilty of black and white thinking. Progressives see any restriction on abortion is a move to eradicate all abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I read that article. I was a little bothered that human rights issues for women was labeled as feminists.
For example, how is seeking to end sexual slavery a "feminist" issue?
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Kasie, your link did not work for me.
This is an interesting topic though, and I hope it becomes a good discussion. Something to move onto for those that are tired of the gay marriage threads.
Without reading your article I can't really comment on it, but I will say that one thing I've been thinking about for a while is how the feminist movement is hurt by its close association with the rabidly pro-choice groups.
quote: Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. The findings, with a 3 percent margin of error for the 1,000 women surveyed, tips the scale from the last sampling in 2001, when 45 percent of women sided against making abortion readily available or imposing only mild restrictions. Only 30 percent support making it generally available, down from 34 percent in 2001, the survey found. The New York-based center that sponsored the survey is a nonpartisan advocacy group for pro-choice women's rights. The center's president, Faye Wattleton, headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for 14 years.
Most women in America do not support abortion on demand. An overwhelming majority think there should be at least some restriction, and at least half think that it should be severely limited.
Abortion is a hotbed issue. As the feminist movement trumpets abortion on demand so loudly, more than half the women in the country turn a deaf ear to everything they say. Even when they are saying things the majority of us would agree with, like equal pay for equal work.
I wonder if someone started a non-partisan feminist organization whose statement on abortion read:
"Abortion is a private and personal decision between a woman and her healthcare provider, and this organization takes no official stance on the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion. We do, however, support stricter standards for abortion clinics in an attempt to protect women's lives."
Or something much better, because I'm no PR person. Anyway, I'd join an organization like that, whereas I would never join NOW.
Thoughts? Is it possible to have an organization that advocates for women's rights without taking a stand on abortion? Aren't there many, many other concerns that women around the world face that could be addressed?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Dagonee: sexual slavery isn't specifically a feminist issue, nor do I think the article is suggesting it is. The idea, I believe, is that it is an issue that feminism should be looking at.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
All issues which directly concern the health and well being of women are feminist issues, of course. There may be other groups concerned about those issues, too, and the more the better. But of course they are feminist issues!
Sexual slavery is getting more widespread, not less, unfortunately. It's a problem that needs to be addressed worldwide. All slavery, in fact, but particularly sexual slavery.
Domestic violence is another one. Date rape is another. Forced genital mutilation of young girls in Africa is another. The alarming number of young brides who die in suspicious kitchen fires in India, after their families have paid their husbands enormous dowries.
These are all problems that are under-reported and not addressed by governments and NGOs nearly as much as they should be, because they primarily affect a portion of the population with a low profile and little power, i.e. women.
I am a feminist. It's not a dirty word. We don't hate men at all. We need for men and women to join together in combatting problems that affect all people, particularly those which disproportionally affect the least powerful members of the world's societies, the poor, children, and women.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then can someone please provide a definition of the word "feminist" please?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Feminism started strong, but like many other social movements it was quickly tainted by the opinions of its radical extremists who painted men as evil oppressors, housewives as dupes and slaves, and all sex as rape.
The majority of feminists work towards equality without separation and without rancor. They want women to have the same opportunities as men, and they want light shone on those places where men abuse or dominate women and society ignores or condones it.
To be honest, I have problems understanding why any rational human being wouldn't be a feminist.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
An interesting thing is the assumption that it is the feminists who are defining themselves as man-hating radicals. More likely, it is those who are opposed to them who paint them with such ugly stereotypes.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I don't like this article. The main problem I have with it is the equating of prostitution with sexual slavery. Slavery and human trafficing is a serious human rights issue, I doubt anyone sane could debate that. Expanding this to include all prostitution and even pornography and calling for a union with social conservatives to eliminate it, while motivated by genuine concern, is ultimately myopic and dangerous. Prostitution has existed as long as trade, and it is not going to dissapear. Pornography will likewise also exist. The sex trade is even harder to eradicate than the drug trade.
We have a choice in how to deal with this reality. We can drive this trade underground, and expose those who work in it to danger by denying them society's protection, or we can regulate this industry, and extend the protection of the law to them. If the feminist movement choses the former, they will be working to continue the practices they deplore, such as child prostitution, and sexual slavery. They will be helping harm some of the most vulnerable members of society.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
One thing I do think the article has in its credit is a most welcome call for feminists to distance themselves from cultural relativism and condemn the Islamist movement as fascist and misogynistic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:feminism: Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
If that's so, then I once again fail to understand why sexual slavery is a feminist issue as opposed to a human rights issue. If the sexes are equal, we shouldn't be divvying up basic human rights issues among the sexes.
That definition, of course, also allows for a person to be pro-life/anti-abortion and still be a feminist, right?
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sure.
But I think you're making a needless complaint, like asking why muscular dystrophy is a Jerry Lewis issue. Why can't feminists take on this issue, or any other, for that matter? It's not like they're saying "it's our issue, back off."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have nothing against feminists "taking on this issue." But the article was about the new defining issues of feminism, not just which issues should be focused on. At least that's how it read to me.
But I did say I was only a little bothered by it. It won't keep me up nights.
Dagonee
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
From my understanding, a lot of feminists also see issues that disproportionately affect women as feminist. Such as sexual slavery, such as domestic violence, such as prostitution.
That's not to say, as Chris said, that this is an exclusive identification.
Just that feminism is about equality between the sexes - which means in practical terms more often that not equality for women - so why not address issues that denigrate, oppress and harm women disproportionately?
And Icarus... I think you're great.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe it's because the abortion issue has become intertwined with feminism so much in this country that many people who care deeply about these issues don't want to be associated with "feminism" in combating them.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
In terms of the whole abortion thing...
The reason it first became a feminist issue was because it was an issue that primarily (not only) affected women, and yet it was being legislated by men.
I think the pro-choice lobby sprang from this: not that 'abortion a-ok' but rather let the individual woman, and her individual circumstances choose.
An important clarification: pro-choice is not pro-abortion. Personally, I wouldn't have an abortion, except maybe in extreme cases - rape etc. But who the heck am I to dictate to other women (and their partners) what their choice should be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because it's important "to join together in combatting problems that affect all people, particularly those which disproportionally affect the least powerful members of the world's societies, the poor, children, and women." Who's less powerful than those who the state is forbidden from protecting because of their age?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Dagonee: I think here's were we disagree.
You see foetuses in the first trimester as people. Hence abortion is murder, and should be illegal.
I am more confused on the subject. It probably helps that I am not overtly religous. I don't think about souls in unborn children: especially those that are non-viable outside the womb. For me, when it comes to second, and especially third trimester abortions the only justification I could allow is medical. These *are* babies. But there is a point where they aren't. And for me, that extends beyond fertilisation.
But regardless. I guess I do value the life of a first trimester foetus as less than a born human. Because while I think murder is wrong, abortion is a choice.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Note that the article cites "women's reproductive rights" and "sexual autonomy" as the reasons why many feminists support abortion. Nothing to do with "fear of back-alley abortions". So whoever was arguing that with me in another thread, it looks like I've got someone on my side Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
What if you're hairy and smelly but you LOOOOOOVE men?
I claim to be a feminist, but that's because I support women in their choices. I don't think women should feel they MUST marry and have children, or be kept from pursuing whatever career best suits their talents and interests. I don't think women should be kept from participating in things based on their marital or motherhood status. I think society ought to be supportive of women and children.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Kasie, I just now got around to reading the article you linked. I'm surprised. I've always felt more at odds with you than not, but I am with you...this article was well done. We differ on where we disagree with the article but by and large, that article, I think, was a bridge-builder.
I liked it. Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
KasieH question, why do you call us the Christian right? I'm not christian and I am about as right as we get.
Rhaegar
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
<-- moderate to right atheist
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Islam
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
<---free spirit
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
*Hands bottle of spirits to Jenny*
[ February 24, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Because that's what was referenced in the article, specifically in regards to abortion. That doesn't preclude the rest of you from disagreeing with me
(((jeniwren))) I'm glad. People have been burning too many bridges lately, it's nice to build one
...I have a lot more to say about this but I have to run to class....I'll be back to attempt to add something to this on the intellectual front...
Edit -- I went back and re-read the part of the article about Christians, and it specifialy specifies "conservative and faith-based groups." So my apologies for excluding the rest of you. I know you don't have to be Christian to be conservative.
[ February 24, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
I am completely in favor of women's reproductive rights, yet I love children, and would hope that no child, fetus, or embryo ever has to be killed by its parents. Yet I think the right way, the Christian way, to work toward that goal is to make birth control freely available, to get hard facts into the hands of those who are approaching the age when they might become sexually active, and to provide good homes, good nutrition, good prenatal care, and loving adoptive parents to pregnant girls who can't keep their babies.
The brutality of poverty and ignorance is not something to be solved by the law or the state adding more brutality on top. If it can be solved at all, it will be with kindness, generosity, and knowledge. That's why I love the family services provided by the LDS church. I think that sort of thing prevents many needless deaths of unborn children, and is far more effective than any criminalization of abortion.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I think modern feminism has drawn an image of being a bunch of hairy, smelly, man-hating women, and I think that does a disservice to the movement, its activists, and the important challenges still facing women in the world today.
The vast majority of them aren't hairy or smelly in the least, but they sure don't like men.
I don't even really have a problem with that, but it's an honest observation.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
aka
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's why I love the family services provided by the LDS church. I think that sort of thing prevents many needless deaths of unborn children, and is far more effective than any criminalization of abortion.
Social programs can reduce many crimes. Does that mean we should stop criminalizing child molestation? Murder? Robbery?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rhaegar, I still dispute your claim that you're a Muslim. If someone came on here and bragged about their sexual conquests and their wild drunken parties, I'd have trouble believing them if they said they were Mormon; frankly, you don't act as if you're Muslim at all.
If you want to drop me an E-mail about this, I'd LOVE to discuss your perspective on submission.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Tom, believe what you will, you'll simply be misinformed. And BTW what does it mean to act like a muslim? Do we all have to speak the same, talk the same, hold the same ideas? Then why isn't about a third of the world identical? Isn't it possible just maybe that I could act different than someone else?
Rhaegar
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is, of course, possible that you could be a Muslim, in the same way that it's possible a heavy-drinking prostitute could be a Mormon. You're entitled to self-identify however you want.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I am completely in favor of women's reproductive rights, yet I love children, and would hope that no child, fetus, or embryo ever has to be killed by its parents.
(emphasis mine)
Did you really mean to say "I love children and would hope that no child has to be killed by its parents"? That sounds like there might be a good reason for someone to kill their own child.
[ February 25, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:If the term is about "equality of the sexes" why is it called "feminism"? lol The term feminism implies something that would favor women more than men.
You're starting from the assumption that women are *already* equal. Which they weren't. And still aren't, in a lot of ways. Moreso in other parts of the world than the U.S., but there are still inequities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course, there are also inequities in which women are favored over men. Are feminists working to equalize treament of mothers and fathers in custody cases?
Dagonee
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Dagonee,
That's a good point. I'm inclined to say probably not, because throughout a lot of history "taking the children" was a power men had over women that was abused -- if she threatened to leave him, he could take the kids away from her, no questions asked.
But it's an interesting question.....*hits up Google*
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Kasie, I'd be interested to know if you find anything. The only organizations I've heard of working toward equal rights for fathers were all men's groups.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because feminism arose to speak out against the inequalities in pay structure and treatment at the time, which was weighed heavily in favor of men. Their issues were defined by men's treatment of women.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
jeniwren,
Most of the groups that came up in the search were men's groups. I did find one page, however, that honored specific women and groups of women who supported fathers' rights. It can be found here.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Cool, Kasie, thanks! Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
It's inaccurate to characterize feminism as being for equality of the sexes. No one here has provided any solid evidence that feminists aren't man hating and so on. However, to belive so, although it is the popular opinion, would be foolish.
Rather, feminism is a movement dedicated to improving females position in society. It is not seeking sexual equality-please!-it's seeking a society where females are superior.
That may sound harsh, but that's how all lobbyist groups are.
Anyway, discrimination against females has gone sharply down over the past years. The majority of the remaining prejeduices are hard-wired/enviromental, and can not be changed by government polices.
On the other hand, discrimination against maels has gone sharply up (though it is still comparitivly low) over the past years. Males are now commonly viewed as slobs, idiots, tv-addicts, sexual-addicts, aggresive, and dumb. As time passes, this will only become worse.
And, as an add note, those who demand equality are naive. There never will be equality, no matter what. There can only be harmony, peace, and a sembalance of equality. But there is never, and never has been, pure equality.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Phanto, you scare the crap out of me.
It's inaccurate to characterize feminism as being for equality of the sexes.
Why? An awful lot of self-identified feminists do. I do. There are feminists that espouse beliefs and goals that other feminists disagree with, just as there are Democrats that disagree with Mr. Kerry's views, or Republicans who have issues with President Bush. You can't define a group solely by it's extremists. Well, you can, but it's foolish.
No one here has provided any solid evidence that feminists aren't man hating and so on.
I am a feminist. I am a man. I do not, as far as I know, hate myself or any other man because of their gender.
However, to belive so, although it is the popular opinion, would be foolish.
'Preciate that, but it's not the popular opinion. It's a popular opinion. There's a difference.
Rather, feminism is a movement dedicated to improving females position in society. It is not seeking sexual equality-please!-it's seeking a society where females are superior.
Some feminists are, certainly. Many are not. many are, in fact, aggravated by the radical feminists actions, for much the same reason that many gays are upset over the marrying frenzy in San Francisco; they see such actions as going too far in too extreme a manner and inviting backlash. And many of us just think that Andrea Dworkin is an idiot .
That may sound harsh, but that's how all lobbyist groups are.
There are lobbying groups trying to advance feminist issues, but feminism is not solely a lobbyist group.
Anyway, discrimination against females has gone sharply down over the past years. The majority of the remaining prejeduices are hard-wired/enviromental, and can not be changed by government polices.
Good thing feminists do more than lobby, then, huh.
On the other hand, discrimination against maels has gone sharply up (though it is still comparitivly low) over the past years. Males are now commonly viewed as slobs, idiots, tv-addicts, sexual-addicts, aggresive, and dumb. As time passes, this will only become worse.
Only if we let it. And woman are still commonly viewed as worse in sports, dumber (if they're attractive or blonde), weaker, less capable, and either more naturally virtuous or more naturally slutty, depending on who's talking. Have you never seen an idiot wife in a sitcom?
And, as an add note, those who demand equality are naive. There never will be equality, no matter what. There can only be harmony, peace, and a sembalance of equality. But there is never, and never has been, pure equality.
I don't think men and women are equal, nor should they be. I demand that they be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless their gender is provably a factor. Different thing.
[ February 25, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Chris Bridges )))
quote: Why? An awful lot of self-identified feminists do. I do.
An awful lot? Do you have any numbers? All I have are the actions of the Feminist lobby group, which theoretically represents feminists. And those actions are only pushing for an advancement in female position.
quote: Anyway, discrimination against females has gone sharply down over the past years. The majority of the remaining prejeduices are hard-wired/enviromental, and can not be changed by government polices.
Good thing feminists do more than lobby, then, huh.
Did I say that lobbying is bad? Lobbying is pressuring politicians to do what you want.
quote: Only if we let it. And woman are still commonly viewed as worse in sports, dumber (if they're attractive or blonde), weaker, less capable, and either more naturally virtuous or more naturally slutty, depending on who's talking. Have you never seen an idiot wife in a sitcom?
My point is that Feminism as a political movement only pushes for a pro-female agenda. You may call yourself a feminist, but not belive in the core party belifs.
(((Chris Bridges )))
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Phanto, are you misunderstanding the common use of parenthesis on this forum, or do you really mean to be giving hugs to everyone to whom you reply?
Just curious.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I kind of liked it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Interesting Washington Post column I just read about feminists shooting themselves in the foot: 'I Am Victim' (registration required now, unfortunately).
Anne Applebaum discusses Naomi Wolf's amazing several-thousand-word article about the trauma she experienced when Harold Bloom, the celebrated literary scholar, put his hand on her thigh at Yale University 20 years ago.
Towards the end:
"But in the end, what is most extraordinary about Wolf is the way in which she has voluntarily stripped herself of her achievements and her status, and reduced herself to a victim, nothing more. The implication here is that women are psychologically weak: One hand on the thigh, and they never get over it. The implication is also that women are naive, and powerless as well: Even Yale undergraduates are not savvy enough to avoid late-night encounters with male professors whose romantic intentions don't interest them."
[ February 25, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I should also mention that how feminism is perceived has been a painful issue for feminists for quite some time. From a review of "Feminism is Not the Story of My Life" by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese:
"This timely and well-documented book addresses the puzzle of why nearly two-thirds of American women embrace many of the goals of the feminist movement, yet say that they do not consider themselves feminists. What does it mean when a woman says, "I am not a feminist, but..."?"
"The short answer, according to historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (who describes herself as a feminist), is that most women perceive "official" feminism as indifferent to their deepest concerns. In particular, they are put off by the movement's negative attitude toward marriage and motherhood, its intolerance for dissent from its most controversial positions, its attacks on men, and its inattention to the practical problems of balancing work and family on a day-to-day basis. Hence the title, echoing a refrain running through the author's conversations with a diverse sample of women: "Feminism is not the story of my life."
"Fox-Genovese is quick to point out that today's women have equal difficulty locating themselves in traditional narratives of domesticity. Women of the nineties value their increased independence and opportunities. Though many work out of necessity, that has not prevented employment from becoming an important part of the way they think about who they are and who they wish to be. Thus, "neither polarized story will fit the rich and messy complexities of the lives we actually live."
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((dkw)))
Of course, the real issue for me at least, is what is the feminist creed? Who has the right to define it? If it's so diversified, then what view of it comes out on top?
If there's no clear definition, then we can't talk about it constructivly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Now, why did I think, "Do you know that you're hugging people?" would be a yes-no kind of question? Especially on Hatrack. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They're like any other group who's only standard of admission is that you declare you're one of them. Can you tell me exactly what platform can be agreed on, word for word, by every single Democrat in the United States? Can all Democrats be defined by Al Sharpton just because he runs as one? Pick your own Republican version, I'm not picky.
I admit freely that a large part of the public perceives feminism as man-hating. I can't let that stop me from trying to change that perception or from using my own feminist beliefs in ways I feel would better society.
Everyone knows that Democrats hate fiscal responsibility and want the world handed to them on a plate. Everyone knows that Republicans are heartless money grubbing fat cats. Everyone knows that Catholic priests are all child abusers. Everyone knows that small town people are dimwitted and backward. Everyone knows...
See, the reason I've gone on to this extent isn't because there isn't any truth in your words, but because you blithely assigned them to all feminists like it was a natural fact.
[ February 25, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Chris Bridges)))
I disagree there, Chris. Republican attitudes are defined by what their leaders do. It all elected Republican officials started trying to pass legislature that required people to eat fruit daily, then that would be part of being a Republican. And if you where a Republican, then I could assume that you are pro-fruit eating.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ever listened to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)? Here's his latest comments on Mr. Bush's budget. But wait, aren't they both Republicans? Some Republicans have come out against Mr. Bush's spending, his economic policies, his environtal policies and his war, but no one has suggested that they can't be Republicans anymore. I don't mean to pick on them, quite a few Democrats slammed Clinton for his policies when he was in office.
If all Democrats or all Republicans followed the same platforms, we wouldn't need primaries. What would be the difference? Just pick one that looks good in a suit and move on. A party platform is more vague than you'd think, consisting of basic beliefs but allowing for wide ranges of application. So does feminism.
[ February 25, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
(((Phanto)))
-----------------
Chris, I was actually going to bring up Applebaum's column in this thread today. She makes an excellent point -- I think strong women need to move past being controlled by sexual incidents in their pasts and stand up for themselves.
What can be difficult for sexually abused/assaulted women in general (not Naomi specifically) is that it is very difficult to win a legal challenge without explicitly displaying yourself as the victim. Often, rape cases are exactly that -- an argument over who, exactly, is the victim, which is why past sexual history often plays such a huge factor in rape cases (regardless of the legality of such information). The Kobe Bryant case is a good example of this: the prosecution is attempting to win the case not by proving that the incident did not occur, but that the woman was not, in fact, a victim, because she was sleeping around.
I think that unfortunately, some women are forced to victimize themselves to bring about justice.
[ February 25, 2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:What can be difficult for sexually abused/assaulted women in general (not Naomi specifically) is that it is very difficult to win a legal challenge without explicitly displaying yourself as the victim.
I would say that this is true for victims of sexual assault in general, not just women.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Funny how much of what was previously thought to be hard wired behavior by men toward women has stopped now that it carries a hefty fine.
I don't buy the hard wired nonsense for a second. That's no excuse for failing to grant someone respect, dignity, and the opportunity to succeed.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I think you're great.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
aka
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)