On Being "Men"

[madame_zora]

Orionsword, while I understand that an agreement between corporations and government must exist for the nation to advance as a whole, I think the current slant is one in which only a very select few will advance, which is not the intention of this type of arrangement. The current government is not looking out for it's own future well being, which is of severe detriment to us all.

I have never understood why men have feared equality with women, what do they think we're going to do that's so horrible? I hate to think that their egos are so small that it's actually a need to feel superior, but what else are we left with? Try as I might to digest what you've said, I must vehemently disagree with your statement that "Women are still leaders in the majority of societies on the planet"- What planet are you on? You certainly CAN'T mean in terms of population, it certainly isn't true for the US, Europe, the Middle East, the Far east. I can't speak for Africa or Australia, but I seriously doubt it. There may be some tribal communities that operate that way, but by huge numbers, the women of the planet are second class citizens, or property.

As for child rearing, women have been designated care-givers largely because of childbirth. Jonb can describe more adequately than I the Native American views on village involvement in raising children, but it is much different from ours now. Here and now in the US, the nuclear family is the exception to the rule (sorry, that's reality nomatter how much you'd like to believe in "Leave it to Beaver"). Different studies convey different results, but it is clear that the number of female-only headed households is on the rise. This can in no way be seen as the child's fault! This lies wholly on the backs of men who choose to abandon their responsibilites rather than live up to them. You can try any way conceivable to dodge this, but until the men in this country step up to the plate, any chance we have for families to be healthy is null and void. The men who do this, or at least stay involved as a positive role model in the lives of their children, improve their lives by leaps and bounds, this has been proven over and over. Fatherless children are far more likely to have emotional problems, become criminals, drop outs, drug addicts. Men can get on a soapbox all they want and beat their chests, but "Where's the beef?" Women are simply not capable of being both father and mother, but many have to try. I would love to see just ONE Republican leader address the issue of who is going to be responsible to actually RAISE the children they so vehemently don't want aborted. If they cared at all about THAT, I'd listen to what they have to say. Since they don't, I'd just like to offer each and every one of them my least cordial STFU. Am I angry? You bet. These are the same bastards who cut health care! Anyone who can't see the hypocrisy in this is a complete moron. And if one more person says "In God's families, the mother and father work together..." I'll punch them in the face. There are as many fatherless children being born to "Christians" as non Christians, you are NOT above this! Christians would be taken more seriously if they would start dealing with life AS IT IS rather than how they wish it would ultimately be. I love the teachings in the New Testament as a whole, but I have a distinct distaste for the modern interpetation of it, or at least how I see the church behaving, it's reprehensible! The combination of Republican "better-than-thouism", disregard for the poor and disenfranchised, and Brittney Spears-style whorification of children is about as un-Christlike as it gets.
This is what Jesus came to overthrow.

Yes, any new leader who could make a serious impact will have to be up for the worst kind of public attack, I'm not sure who could withstand such an onslaught. I hope it will be a very imperfect person who will have the balls to say, "Yeah, I did it, so have you! Now, can we get on with fixing the nation?" Perhaps Hilary or someone like that would be the right personality type, I don't know. At the current time, I would actually prefer to see a man stand up for male accountability, that would be novel. I would love to see a man not shrivel in fear of female equality. I would love to see a straight white man fight in earnest for the rights of his fellow men, women and minorities (including gays), how can anyone NOT believe this is what is in the best interest of the country as a whole?

Rant over, but only momentarily.....

 

[jonb]

Lots of aunts and uncles in Lakota culture; in fact, the word ate also refers to your father's brothers while ina refers to your mother's sisters in addition to father and mother. At the same time, cinksi and cunksi refer to your (same-sex) siblings' children in addition to your own. (That's the part that always confuses people, but there's always the redneck joke "You didn't tell me if it was a boy or a girl. Am I an uncle or an aunt?") And step-parents, too; in fact, if a man wants a divorce, he has to bring a new husband in. Women primarily had contact with kids until around age six or seven, at which time male relatives would be brought in, especially for boys. I suppose that's a good thing; Lakota men basically could get married earlier than women: 15 for women, 15 or the first coup (A coup means you one proved you could kill a man in hand-to-hand combat, two stole a horse, or three killed a man in hand-to-hand combat. There are also dishonors for collateral damage.), whichever came first, for men. The ideal marriage was one agreed to by both families, but if a couple eloped, the family had no choice but to honor it.

Very large extended families. Almost every Lakota I know can recite their genealogy at least seven generations; some can recite their genealogy four times as far.

 

[stiphphiphatumus]

i'm still on page three....

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by madame_zora+Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>....I think the current slant is one in which only a very select few will advance, which is not the intention of this type of arrangement. The current government is not looking out for it&#39;s own future well being, which is of severe detriment to us all.

[post=293040]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

Agreed.... and it is the rare person who understands that the current government is not doing what it should to either make a case for itself or perpetuate itself. I have this sense that there is a hidden valley in Colorado somewhere ala Atlas Shrugged.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM

.....I have never understood why men have feared equality with women, what do they think we&#39;re going to do that&#39;s so horrible?

[post=293040]Quoted post[/post]​

Men fear that their veneer will be compromised. Why... who knows. I&#39;ve thought a lot about this and can&#39;t come up with anything better.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM

I must vehemently disagree with your statement that "Women are still leaders in the majority of societies on the planet"- What planet are you on?.... the women of the planet are second class citizens, or property.

[post=293040]Quoted post[/post]​

In terms of visibility and title, I certainly agree, but would respectfully suggest that women really do affect the economic and social decisions (that men make) more so than the men themselves. Thank God, actually. It would take too long to say why i feel this way, so I&#39;m afraid we just look at this issue from different views of what constitutes actual power. Of course, on the issue of war, you&#39;re spot on.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM

...As for child rearing, women have been designated care-givers largely because of childbirth.....This can in no way be seen as the child&#39;s fault&#33;

[post=293040]Quoted post[/post]​

My use of the word "blame" was very poor. It has been shown that children naturally bond much closer with their mothers than their fathers for several years of development (I have no children, so have only read this), so my thinking is that the recognition of that has kept mothers home-bound to some degree for all but the most recent centuries. Women joined the hunt and were treated as equals in many early societies, however, so the real subservience must have come later. Your reference to the religious right&#39;s influences today are prophetic in reverse, as it would seem it was the church that really stuck it to women somewhere along the line. Read the recent Time article on the fact that only recently, Mary is being given much more value.

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Mar 22 2005, 12:50 PM

....I would actually prefer to see a man stand up for male accountability, that would be novel. I would love to see a man not shrivel in fear of female equality. I would love to see a straight white man fight in earnest for the rights of his fellow men, women and minorities (including gays), how can anyone NOT believe this is what is in the best interest of the country as a whole?

[post=293040]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

This is the big mystery, and once again, one may lay the blame on the religious right. I believe that a significant majority of people in this country agree with you on the last issue, so why doesn&#39;t it happen? It is only right wing zealots who fear a man (or woman) like that, for that person stands 180% from the sniveling "B&#39;liever" who is convinced that all the answers to life come THROUGH the interpretations of his particular minister FROM a book that is perported to be the direct word of the Almighty, but is in fact a series of several periodic retranslations of carefully culled wisps of writings in order to fit the needs of whoever the editors were in controlling and extorting money from their flocks.

Why doesn&#39;t such a man like that come along? Is it the risk to family and person that such a person would have to endure? Is it the futility of having to deal with an intrenched system? Is it hard enough just to set a standard of decency and compassion in ones household and counter the invasion of multi-media that seeks to find and titilate the worst that is in us? I have no answer to that one.

Thanks for the come back.

 

[madame_zora]

And thank you as well, you&#39;ve given me a lot to think about.

Actual reality can never be know to a certainty so I am always more interested in hearing the thoughts of someone who asks questions than someone who claims to have all the answers. I know I just go limp when I hear rhetoric and slogans being used to push a principle that doesn&#39;t have merit on it&#39;s own. I&#39;ve said before and I&#39;ll repeat, anyone in the higher income brackets who voted Republican, I can find no fault with that, at least they were voting for self-interest and that makes sense. What doesn&#39;t make sense is lower income, poorly educated, uninsured people voting to make their own lives worse, just because bush said "Gawd" on tv&#33; I asked sooooo many people why they were voting Republican in the month before the election, and not ONE person I asked gave any ANY reason related to politics. Mind you, I was working with Move On Pac, going door-to-door, talking to people at the grocery, Wal-mart, etc. I had an opportunity to talk to a lot of people&#33; The vast majority said they voted for him because he is a Christian. When I asked them why they believed that, most looked at me as if I was a cannibal. Apparently, questioning the president&#39;s Christianity is just something you may not do. There wree a few who cited reasons that had to do with not wanting gays to marry, or being against abortion. THAT WAS IT&#33; I didn&#39;t get ONE answer that pertained to the war (where clearly an argument cannot be won on his behalf), the economy, healthcare- nothing. Now, I just live in one little town, and I know there are Republicans out there capable of coherent thought (Pecker, for one), but I must say I was aghast at how many "Christians" just followed their preacher&#39;s advice and voted as they were told, not investigating the issues at all.

Bill Clinton was also a Christian. Are you not supposed to strengthen your brother when he stumbles? The way he was treated was very telling to me of what Christianity in America has become, and it makes me sick.

Where is the person who could stand up to the public scrutiny? Anyone could do it&#33; They would just have to not give a shit at all what people think. They would have to be satisfied with the presidential salary and not sell out to special interest groups, they would have to manage first to GET elected While the opposing party is ripping them to shreds- why have WE allowed this to happen? Why have WE allowed the media to control our lives? I guess it must just be apathy and comfort. I&#39;m not storming off to Washington to picket either, so I include myself in this group.

I want someone to answer me on the question of, "If men are so great, why do they abandon their families?" I would like a serious reply to how we should handle the situation of single parent families and healthcare for lower income families. If men won&#39;t step up to the plate on an individual level, then we HAVE to do it on a governmental level. Otherwise, we&#39;re just giving a big "don&#39;t forget to fuck yourself" to the women of this country, which I just can&#39;t abide. No abortion, no healthcare, can&#39;t find baby-daddy, tough shit, lady. He had 15 minutes of fun, you get a lifetime of poverty and neglect. Very Christian, I must say.

Orionsword, women have some INFLUENCE on certain issues, but at about 30% less income AND the financial responsibility of raising the children, who has the POWER? These are very different issues. Politically, financially, physical strength-wise, men rule, and with a very heavy hand.

I raised a child alone, and while I made a decision not to ask for child support (I&#39;m sure he would have paid it if I had), I know of too many women who could not have gone that route without serious consequences to their lives. I don&#39;t regret my decision nor am I bitter about it, I followed my conscience and that has brought me joy, but what if I had been one of the very young, or underemployed? What if I had not been married, and her father dipped? This, but for a few small changes, could have been me, so I take it very serious. No one in Government wants to hear about accountability, yet this one thing could be the undoing of our whole way of life. It could also be the strengthening and backbone of our civilisation, I guess we&#39;ll have to wait and see. Thus far, it&#39;s not even a topic of discussion.

Thanks for the exchange of ideas, it&#39;s been very interesting.

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by madame_zora@Mar 23 2005, 11:56 AM
And thank you as well, you&#39;ve given me a lot to think about.

.....anyone in the higher income brackets who voted Republican, I can find no fault with that, at least they were voting for self-interest and that makes sense. What doesn&#39;t make sense is lower income, poorly educated, uninsured people voting to make their own lives worse, just because Bush said "Gawd" on tv&#33; I asked sooooo many people why they were voting Republican in the month before the election, and not ONE person I asked gave any ANY reason related to politics......The vast majority said they voted for him because he is a Christian.....I didn&#39;t get ONE answer that pertained to the war, the economy, healthcare- nothing..... I was aghast at how many "Christians" just followed their preacher&#39;s advice and voted as they were told, not investigating the issues at all.

.....Christianity in America has become..... sick.

Where is the person who could stand up to the public scrutiny? Anyone could do it&#33; They would just have to not give a shit at all what people think.....

Why have WE allowed the media to control our lives?

.....No abortion, no healthcare, can&#39;t find baby-daddy, tough shit, lady. He had 15 minutes of fun, you get a lifetime of poverty and neglect. Very Christian, I must say.

....women have some INFLUENCE  on certain issues, but at about 30% less income AND the financial responsibility of raising the children, who has the POWER? These are very different issues. Politically, financially, physical strength-wise, men rule, and with a very heavy hand.

....I raised a child alone

.....No one in Government wants to hear about accountability, yet this one thing could be the undoing of our whole way of life.  It could also be the strengthening and backbone of our civilisation, I guess we&#39;ll have to wait and see. Thus far, it&#39;s not even a topic of discussion.

[post=293421]Quoted post[/post]​

So much good and powerful stuff...

I find this same passion and concern in others of the people I choose to be with, but I do get some flack because I&#39;m a bit more conservative than they are on a few issues. To your points (hope you don&#39;t mind my comebacks)....

In another post somewhere on these boards, I used the analogy of people holding on to the mast of a ship while it is tossing about in a turbulent sea being unable to gain enough foothold to mutiny against a Captain Bligh. We have been put into this position of fear and distrust (the rocky deck) by our economic and social circumstances, and there is a large part of me that truly believes that this has been done by design. "Media" tells us how unhappy/ugly/smelly/uncool/deprived we are on a minute by minute basis. There has been a return to religion that was characterized in the 70&#39;s as being a search for understanding and protection. We&#39;re a scared people, and we cling to the "mast" that we somehow think the church to be. Right wing religion espouses a doctrine so opposite from that of Jesus the way-shower that it is almost a joke. To criticize the power of Muslim clerics and then defend the ministers in these fundamentalist dens of misogeny is ludicrous.

There have been two times in my life where I had the chance to take a public stand on a particular issue, but shrunk away from the challenge because it wasn&#39;t just me who would take the brickbats. I&#39;m certainly not proud of myself for that, and perhaps I justified my cowardliness by saying I was protecting another person(s), but having others in the line of fire is a strong deterrant, I believe. Just my situation, however, so really don&#39;t have an answer.

The issue about women&#39;s power and its link to income inferiority is one where I guess we still are not quite on the same wave length. The 30% inferiority certainly is true, but more women go to the polls than men and women make the majority of purchasing decisions in our country (using the male&#39;s money, I guess), so I can&#39;t see that they are devoid of power. That they have not been able to (or have not chosen to) convince government to rectify the kind of plights you mentioned (single-motherhood) may indicate that they are dissuaded or cowed for some reason. That&#39;s giving up power, not being void of it.

Accountability is a word and concept that seems to have disappeared from every aspect of our society, even at accounting firms. It is our biggest problem, and one wonders what Common Cause and similar organizations are doing. I believe that certain liberal leaderships have been corrupted to this end. I believe it was you who wrote somewhere else that things eventually will swing back, and I agree with you. I&#39;m also convinced that there will be real financial carnage when that happens, and anyone without a strong cache of near-cash reserves will feel great hardships for a while. Call me a doomsayer, but everything seems to be pointing to it. It would only take one or two meltdowns of one of these huge hedge funds to take a lot of institutions into the dumper.

Finally, I have known two women who have been single mothers and who "went it alone". They are both strong people with good opinions about themselves. They understand that life happens "in the mirror in the morning" where being able to live with oneself is the greatest choice one can make. Not surprisingly, both women had strong libidos and, to allude to another discussion, knew that they deserved a fulfilling sex life.

 

[13788]

carolinacurious:

Carolinacuroious, I think your insights on Corporations in America are right on target. The reason we are still blaming the government is that they are so closely aligned, it is the same set of wealthy and priveledged that run both.

Of course, you are correct. But outside of a new Henry Ford it will not be the corporations that will change our lives for the better. The government hasn&#39;t been doing a good job of working for the betterment of all the people and I agree that it was originally setup to protect the few(rich) from the many(poor). However, it is a system of rules and still could be used for the betterment of all. The government is one of our last lines of defense against the coporate hegemony but the people who need it most are trying to tear it down.

Orionsword is right about "bread and circuses" and "divide and conquer", I&#39;d say we are essentially talking about the same thing.