Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Cheryl Miller questions feminist hostility toward the new drug Lybrel.
|4.27.07 @ 12:42PM|#
"But women's nonchalance about Lybrel did not sit well with a
few self-appointed arbiters of women's health, who apparently (and
ironically) think they know better than individual women when it
comes to decisions about their own reproduction."
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual
women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of
meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
|4.27.07 @ 12:46PM|#
I tell ya, I have no idea what the hell feminism means anymore. Somebody needs to write a Dummy's Guide.
|4.27.07 @ 12:52PM|#
And once again joe shows that he sees no distinction between the concepts of "knows best for oneself", "knows best for others", and "is willing to put a gun to the heads of others to enforce their idea of best".
Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 12:53PM|#
It's not the same, of course, but I would have welcomed a pill
which could have prevented my having to sneak my underwear into the
wash when I was 15 & 16.
What's so great about Mother Nature and her strange ways? I say,
screw the bitch! If you don't want to suffer, then don't. If anyone
tries to stop you because of some love for the "natural order of
things", then kill that person.
ed|4.27.07 @ 1:02PM|#
women's nonchalance about Lybrel did not sit well with a few
self-appointed arbiters of women's health
Who in the Blog Age isn't a "self-appointed arbiter" of
something or another?
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 1:03PM|#
If this is not just nuts, I don't know what is:
Granola-types, like Anna C. Yang, a holistic nurse and director
of the California-based nonprofit Red Web Foundation, hinted at
possible harm to women's self-esteem. "The focus of our group is to
create positive attitudes toward the menstrual cycle; suppressing
it wouldn't be positive," she said. Giovanna Chesler, a media
production professor at the University of California, San Diego,
was so terrified by Lybrel and its likes that she
immediately stopped taking birth control.
Does she also have an English degree?
|4.27.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Lamar,
Right for whom?
We aren't allowed to suggest that something could be right or
wrong, good or bad, apparently.
I certainly wouldn't want to put a gun to anyone's head by
suggesting that someone's opinion is, or is not, correct.
|4.27.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I mean, what if I were to say that I thought Miller was - gasp -
incorrect?
That would be elitist of me.
|4.27.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"I mean, what if I were to say that I thought Miller was -
gasp - incorrect?"
So you think that these women that Miller criticizes should be
allowed to set national policy on whether or not this new drug
should be available?
FWIW, I stopped reading the article about 1/3 of the way
through.
NeonCat|4.27.07 @ 1:14PM|#
The science fiction writer Connie Willis covered similar ideas
in her short story "Even the Queen". The protagonist's daughter
wanted to go back to having periods and everyone tried to talk her
out of it. Good story.
The trouble with the Internet and blogging, it seems to me, is
a.)everyone seems to come to a conclusion very quickly and
b.)everyone seems to be a closet Manicheanist - I know I am right
so you must be evil for disagreeing with me.
|4.27.07 @ 1:14PM|#
"So you think that these women that Miller criticizes should be
allowed to set national policy on whether or not this new drug
should be available?"
No, I think that the statement "the use of this drug is bad because
of X" has nothing whatsoever to do with elitism.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Guy, seriously--what the fuck is it about you and English degrees? Did an English major break your heart?
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
oh joe get off it. these fuckfaces aren't worth defending and you know it. (and if you don't i'm going to pretend you do, for your own good)
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
You know, the dumb hippie arguments of "Oh, this is natural, so
embrace it as a matter of self esteem" are of course dumb. But it
could very well be, for all we know, that there will be some side
effects due to cumulative use. Nowhere is it written that tinkering
with reproductive hormones will be without side effects.
Which isn't to say that people shouldn't have the right to decide
whether to assume that risk, based on the best information
available. But I wouldn't be shocked if somewhere down the line
it's learned that use of this drug elevates the risk of some
disease by some small (but statistically significant) percentage.
Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if this reduces the risk of
some other disease by some other small (but statistically
significant) percentage.
In the end, of course, individuals should have the right to decide
which risks to take based on their own preferences and the advice
of their doctors. But don't be shocked if it turns out that there
are indeed some side effects. Yeah, it will mean that the broken
clocks of the "Oh, embrace all that is natural for the sake of self
esteem" crowd were right (happens twice a day!), but them's the
breaks.
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
jen, i think it's leftover blog rage from that chick who ran a
scam on him for some magazine.
personally i think he's a catch!
|4.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Joe,
I don't buy into the bunk that elitist opinions are inferior to
redneck opinions. So let 'er rip. What do you think? Me? I'm
frustrated with feminism. I don't see how taking away options
empowers women. I don't buy the whole "what kind of message does
that send" BS when it comes from the Prez, and I don't buy it when
it comes from feminists.
|4.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#
"No, I think that the statement "the use of this drug is bad
because of X" has nothing whatsoever to do with
elitism."
I suppose it depends on the definition of X.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Guy, seriously--what the fuck is it about you and English
degrees? Did an English major break your heart?
Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who say stuff
liek she did.
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:21PM|#
lamar you're not factoring in the collectivist memeplex at work here. it's like nationalism but limited to women and minorities, and has a quasi-spiritual dimension similar to orthodox hindu views on karma.
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:22PM|#
"Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who say
stuff liek she did."
that's too good not to have been intentional.
|4.27.07 @ 1:24PM|#
What's interesting (to me) is that who would have guessed that
there would be a feminist outcry against this drug? I
could expect this kind of thing from the Catholic Church for
instance, but feminists? And I am not talking about some
individuals not liking it for themselves (that's
expected), but a general feminist concern for all women,
and the oppression there of.
I would have expected just the opposite. Shows that I am not so up
to date on feminism.
|4.27.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I tell ya, I have no idea what the hell feminism means
anymore. Somebody needs to write a Dummy's Guide.
Well, some right-wing bitch wrote a
"Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, And Feminism" which
tells us that women are happier at being subservient slaves, living
in a Leave-It-To-Beaver America that never was. Of course, this is
the same series of books that had
get's a Moonie and HIV denier who poses as a scientist to write a
book on Evolution, so I doubt you'd want to take much stock in
any of them.
|4.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
"Women on the monthly-regimen pill can achieve (and have, for
years) the same effect by skipping their placebo pills and starting
right away on a new pack. The only real difference between the old
Pill and the new extended regimens is the packaging."
A friend of mine does this (she suffers from Endometriosis). But
she says she still goes through the PMS mood-swings.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Nope. It just seems to be a recurring trait of people who
say stuff liek she did.
Oh. So what college discipline explains you?
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:30PM|#
joe more seriously the "elitism" side of things comes from the
"my choices are made with holistic concern and care :: their
choices are the result of pharmaceutical company
brainwashing"
it's the same shit when some big L libertoid gets all "LOLZ MASSES
DEMAND KURV" i.e. every third conservatarian post here lately.
|4.27.07 @ 1:31PM|#
dhex,
I think they've got a point about the anti-bodily-function phobia
that exists in our society, and how it gets applied in an even
harsher way to women's bodies, but they seem to minimize the
prosaic, practical reasons why women would want to avoid the hassle
of having monthly periods.
Feminism as a belief system has become extremely academic, so
questions that are fraught with ideological meaning are valued over
practical questions, all out of proportion to their real-world
significance, by a lot self-defined feminists.
That's what I think about their argument.
Robert|4.27.07 @ 1:32PM|#
See, until this came out, I hadn't realized that all the current standard BCPs were marketed as sequentials. I'd thought a large fraction of the marketed products were continuous-estrogen type already, not that women had to game the packages by starting a new one before getting into the fillers of the sequentials. But then, it'd been 30 years since I'd studied obs-gyn.
|4.27.07 @ 1:34PM|#
"in a Leave-It-To-Beaver America that never was."
Despite claims like this, for some people, it actually was. Maybe
not for Puerto Ricans or African-Americans, but for some, yes, that
America actually was.
|4.27.07 @ 1:35PM|#
mediageek,
"I suppose it depends on the definition of X."
I agree. If X = "the little people will get above their station,"
it's an elitist argument.
Other than that, there is nothing elitist in arguing that your
position is more valid than someone else's.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Melissa McEwan of the now defunct Shakespeare's Sister (and
one of the "resigned" Edwards bloggers) frets that these drugs are
just another way for women to better accommodate men: "[T]here's a
part of me who wonders how much women are getting rid of their
periods for their own convenience as opposed to the convenience of
male sex partners."
Another example of elitism: "These poor bimbos think
they're doing this for their own sakes, because they're just too
damned stupid to realize they're only doing it for The Men."
ron|4.27.07 @ 1:36PM|#
my gf loves depo because getting rid of her period meant getting rid of horribly painful cramps.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:39PM|#
getting rid of her period meant getting rid of horribly
painful cramps.
No, no, she should have learned to develop a positive attitude
about them instead. The whole "pain avoidance is a virtue" meme is
another male plot.
Man Montage|4.27.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Did an English major break your heart?
I lost my haert
Too English majors
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:42PM|#
More elitism:
Andist tisked-tisked the respondents for their readiness to
give up their periods, saying "We don't want to confront our bodily
functions anymore. We're too busy."
Yes, wanting to avoid the inconveninece, discomfort and even
outright pain That Time provides proves that one is too lazy and
frivolous to handle things responsibly. The way Andist does.
Bee|4.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Hasn't there been some talk that it is actually healthier for
modern women to skip some periods? Because women today have fewer
children and also live longer than in the past, they are having
more periods than nature perhaps intended. I'm not clear what the
medical upside of stopping menstruation would be, though.
But I'm all up with joe's practical, prosaic women. Maybe it's not
a crisis of female identity, or conscious submission to male
patriarchy, or self-loathing....maybe you just want to do something
easy and reversible that stops your frigging period.
dhex|4.27.07 @ 1:46PM|#
"I think they've got a point about the anti-bodily-function
phobia that exists in our society, and how it gets applied in an
even harsher way to women's bodies, but they seem to minimize the
prosaic, practical reasons why women would want to avoid the hassle
of having monthly periods."
i can feel that, joe.
|4.27.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Jennifer,
Have you ever noticed how fond you are of using words like "only,"
"proves," and "whole," in response to arguments that contain words
like "part of me," "wonders," and "how much?"
SugarFree|4.27.07 @ 1:48PM|#
The dirty little secret* of oral contraceptives? In the case of
many women, when they go off them they lose weight and their sex
drives take off like NASCAR.
*Not really a secret, but it sounded funnier that way...
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Have you ever noticed how fond you are of using words like
"only," "proves," and "whole," in response to arguments that
contain words like "part of me," "wonders," and "how
much?"
I have a scratch on the lens of my glasses, which may be why I
can't see the words "part of me," "wonders" and "how much" in your
first comment here:
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those individual
women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle of
meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
|4.27.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Bee
I have heard that point made, Something like "...back in the day,
after her first period, a women would spend the rest of her like
nursing or pregnant...and therefore...."
I think it was NPR? The story also discussed the marketing reasons
behind why the original pill included the faux period option, and
that it wasn't necessary.
Anyway.
Brian E|4.27.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Oh. So what college discipline explains you?
Just speaking for myself, I'd say that my double CS / Math major
explains me pretty well.
TallDave|4.27.07 @ 1:54PM|#
"[T]here's a part of me who wonders how much women are getting
rid of their periods for their own convenience as opposed to the
convenience of male sex partners."
Right, because men never do anything for the "convenience of female
sex partners."
And what about lesbians? Wouldn't eliminating menstruation be
particularly attractive when two women are involved in a sexual
relationship?
Dave W.|4.27.07 @ 1:55PM|#
I don't see a problem with the way Big Pharma is acting here. I don't think it has ever been denied that birth control pills carry certain risks, and women are intelligent enough to decide whether to take those risks. While the risks seem real, they also seem small.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Oh. So what college discipline explains you?
None, I suppose, but I do have a BS in Finance, was an Army Aviator
and worked quite a bit in civilian aviation, Defense Finance and
Resourcing, other areas.
The thing is, I don't read people of my background writing/doing
crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other women quoted
in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured escapees from
the Humanities department that we see on the news on an all too
regular basis.
|4.27.07 @ 1:57PM|#
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those
individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle
of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
There is no point in being joe's troll, when no troll could do
better than.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 1:59PM|#
birth control pills carry certain risks, and women are
intelligent enough to decide whether to take those risks
I agree, and think it's fucking pathetic that the people insisting
women are NOT intelligent enough to make that decision have the
gall to call themselves feminists.
|4.27.07 @ 1:59PM|#
"The thing is, I don't read people of my background
writing/doing crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other
women quoted in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured
escapees from the Humanities department that we see on the news on
an all too regular basis."
Guy Montage hasn't seen Full Metal Jacket, apparently.
"There is no point in being joe's troll, when no troll could do
better than."
Yeah, you should totally just shut the fuck up already.
|4.27.07 @ 2:00PM|#
"...insisting women are NOT intelligent enough to make that decision..." = stating the case for deciding against, apparently.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:01PM|#
Jennifer, I was referring to your response to McEwen's
comment.
Joe, cut the semantic bullshit. You know goddamned well that when
McEwen "wondered" how much of the anti-period attitude came from
patriarchal blah blah blah, the answer was NOT going to be "None at
all! The women who make this choice are making a personal decision
that has nothing to do with male oppression!"
|4.27.07 @ 2:05PM|#
It's not semantic.
You consistently respond with blind rage and a complete lack of
subtlety - not just linguistic, but intellectual - to even the most
tentative expression of the thought that there might be a downside
for women using a consumer product. You have this Pavlovian
response to anything that uses feminist language "patriarchy blah
blah blah," and you put out a lot more heat than light.
It's like John with the Iraq War sometimes.
SugarFree|4.27.07 @ 2:07PM|#
TallDave,
The fault in your argument lies in the assumption that lesbian
couples have sex.
You can have your period and still go the farmer's market.
(I kid because I love...)
|4.27.07 @ 2:07PM|#
"After you love."
Nope. I make points.
You just admitted you have none.
Seriously, how useful do you think writing "Ohnoes! joe wrote
something I don't like like!" ten times a day is to the readers of
this page?
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:08PM|#
You consistently respond with blind rage and a complete lack
of subtlety - not just linguistic, but intellectual - to even the
most tentative expression of the thought that there might be a
downside for women using a consumer product.
McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the product; she
wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED to, or were
being deluded into it by their boyfriends.
Last summer I had a wisdom tooth pulled out because it grew in at
an angle and abraded my cheek. But a part of McEwen wonders if I
did that for my own convenience, or for that of my male sex partner
who wanted me to kiss him again.
|4.27.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Jennifer,
"the answer was NOT going to be "None at all!'"
Ohnoes! The answer was not going to be an absolute statement that
there is no feminist point to make!
I can see why that could be upsetting.
|4.27.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"I agree. If X = "the little people will get above their
station," it's an elitist argument."
Actually, I was thinking more along the following lines:
If X = "It has documented side effects that render it unfit for
human consumption."
But if X = "because big pharma is sexist, and this is just another
way for the male patriarchy to control womanhood."
|4.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#
joe:
You detect no element of elitism in a position premised on
restriction of a choice because you don't know what is good for
you?
The elitist argument comes up repeatedly here, but the essence is
that libertarians view the argument against the availability of a
personal choice with personal consequences as essentially
elitist.
|4.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#
"...was an Army Aviator and worked quite a bit in civilian
aviation, Defense Finance and Resourcing, other areas."
Guy once landed a crippled fighter jet on the top of an 18-wheeler
full of avocados.
Didn't squish a one.
/too obscure?
I. Self. Divine.|4.27.07 @ 2:12PM|#
What's interesting (to me) is that who would have guessed
that there would be a feminist outcry against this drug? I could
expect this kind of thing from the Catholic Church for instance,
but feminists?
Ten bucks says that if the Catholic church HAD come out against it,
these feminists would have supported it.
|4.27.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Nope. I make points.
You also cheat by misrepresenting outside sources while refusing to
provide pointers to those references.
You frequently, and savagely, resort to ad hominem attacks.
And when all else fails, you insult people's mothers.
So in total, you are generally not worth conversing with which is a
shame, because you clearly are a bright, well-educated dude who
frequently brings valuable insights to a discussion.
My problem is I am just to lazy to figure out how to filter
you.
|4.27.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the product;
she wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED to, or
were being deluded into it by their boyfriends."
OK. And your problem is that women don't ever have pressure put on
them in their sexual relationships with their boyfriends?
*bing* Lightbulb just went on.
How old was that dude who shtupped you when you were 14? Not that
you're defensive about it.
No Jennifer, men never put pressure on women for sex. Women always
make decisions without the slightest bit of pressure, and no one
had better dare suggest otherwise to you, because they're WRONG
WRONG WRONG!!!
|4.27.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"The thing is, I don't read people of my background
writing/doing crazy stuff like the quoted woman (and several other
women quoted in the piece), Cho, or any other of these tortured
escapees from the Humanities department that we see on the news on
an all too regular basis."
Ted Kaczynski has a PHD in mathematics.
|4.27.07 @ 2:17PM|#
JasonL,
"You detect no element of elitism in a position premised on
restriction of a choice because you don't know what is good for
you?"
Sure I do. I also find it rather common for people to desperately
over-reach on this site to find arguments "premised on restriction
of a choice" or based on "you don't know what's good for
you."
"That's a bad idea" does not equal "Doing that should be
forbidden."
"Those with resources and power can influence your decisions" does
not equal "You don't know what's good for you."
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Ted Kaczynski has a PHD in mathematics.
And he wrote like a raving post-modernist.
Next?
|4.27.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Joe-
Yes, but couldn't that justification be used for any form
of birth control?
Guy-
I was just funnin' ya. :-)
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
"McEwen wasn't wondering if there was a downside to the
product; she wondered whether those who would use it really WANTED
to, or were being deluded into it by their boyfriends." OK. And
your problem is that women don't ever have pressure put on them in
their sexual relationships with their boyfriends?
Oh, for fuck's sake. Maybe the people who say you've been evolving
into a troll are right. But I'll answer this on the assumption that
you're being sincerely dense: medical science now holds out the
possibility of granting women escape from something that's been an
annoying pain in the ass (or parts nearby) for as long as there
have been women. And McEwen's first thought is to wonder if the
women REALLY want to escape this for its own sake, or only because
they're being pressured into it by their boyfriends. Yes, I view
that as a very condescending view to have toward women.
If a man made the same comment he'd be called a condescending
sexist fuckwit, and the people who called him thus would be
right.
Imagine McEwen when The Pill first came out: "These women who want
to take the pill; part of me wonders how much is for their own
convenience, and how many of them are being pressured into it by
boyfriends who don't want to bother with condoms."
|4.27.07 @ 2:22PM|#
"And he wrote like a raving post-modernist.
Next?"
Actually, he wrote like a raving anarcho-primitivist.
Doesn't change the fact that he isn't an "esacpee from the
humanities department" as you asserted earlier.
|4.27.07 @ 2:22PM|#
This thread has already derailed, but I thought I'd still
mention that I find it disturbing to think that most feminists
don't know that the Pill already allows them to control their
menstruation. No, actually, disturbing is the wrong word -- I find
it unbelievable, given that every woman I know including my mother
and grandmother knows this. I kept waiting for Miller to point to
some long-standing feminist literature on this issue. I know this
is the wrong forum to ask, but does such literature really not
exist?
Also, Rachel Sullivan's argument (as abbreviated by Miller) doesn't
seem absurd to me. Redefining birth control as period control seems
a sensible tack for the pharmaceutical industry to take -- it is
certainly the less controversial presentation of the issues -- and
I'm sure such a framing of discussion would have consequences. The
linked post on Alas is long and I don't have time to read it all,
but Sullivan does start her post by emphasizing that she is not
making a "natural is better" argument, unlike some of the other
folks described in Miller's article.
Anon
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 2:23PM|#
I was just funnin' ya. :-)
Actually, I meant silly but hit the wrong button before
revising.
|4.27.07 @ 2:24PM|#
mediageek,
For the new car, the Carribbean trip, the diamond ring, and the
lifetime supply of Turtle Wax...
What am I justifying?
And that's exactly my point right there; these are legitimate
questions that these women raise. (Well, some of them, anyway).
People in this society really do get icked out about their bodies,
especially female bodies, too easily. The culture at large, and
some individual men in particular, do sometimes put undue pressure
on women to make themselves sexually available to men.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting people to think about
these matters.
Guy Montag|4.27.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Doesn't change the fact that he isn't an "esacpee from the
humanities department" as you asserted earlier.
There are many exceptions in nature and he was one of them.
|4.27.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Jennifer,
Between the cursing and the absolutism, you've obviously got your
back up. I've seen you like this before, and I know from experience
that it isn't going to be worthwhile to continue the
conversation.
Have a good one.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Between the cursing and the absolutism, you've obviously got
your back up. I've seen you like this before, and I know from
experience that it isn't going to be worthwhile to continue the
conversation.
What a dishonest little coward you are.
I also notice you never did answer my question on the
incandescent-ban thread. Doesn't take much to scare you off, does
it?
VM|4.27.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Media - that was Bart Savagewood (didn't hafta look it up.
You, Sir, demonstrate yet again why you're one of the bestest
posters evar!
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 2:30PM|#
What a dishonest little coward you are.
I also notice you never did answer my question on the
incandescent-ban thread. Doesn't take much to scare you off, does
it?
Careful, Jennifer. You sound like you want to go running on Little
Round Top when you say things like that.
*Chuckle*
VM|4.27.07 @ 2:32PM|#
joe - nice counter with Opus, too! And to your most recent
comment, I'd like to throw out a line from Captain Renault: "a wise
foreign policy"
*passes out warm milk to everybody.
**group hug. (no yiffing, tho)
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Joe, I think ALL arguments that rely on the concept of "false
consciousness" are inherently elitist.
To believe the arguments referenced in the article, you have to
believe that the women who want to take the drug are experiencing a
"false consciousness" - they think they want something they don't
actually want. To make such an argument, you have to implicitly
believe that your own thought processes are reliable, but others
experience thoughts that aren't actually their own, but instead are
imposed on the thinker by malevolent outside forces.
Sorry, that's elitist.
Cheryl's not doing anything of the kind. She is just calling people
dumbasses. That may be elitist too, but not in the manner under
discussion here.
|4.27.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Jennifer,
Believe it or not, deciding it's not fun to be shreiked at by you
can have other motivations than fear at the overwhelming intellect
evident in your last three profanity-laden diatribes.
|4.27.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Fluffy,
I don't actually think the author was being elitist. I was just
demonstrating the silliness behind her lazy reach for that
argument.
And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into too
many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah,
this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that
people can't ever be mistaken about what they want.
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 2:40PM|#
And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into
too many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah,
this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that
people can't ever be mistaken about what they want.
That's never happened to me with McDonald's, but it happens to me
all the time with movie theater popcorn. It smells so damn good,
but the taste is almost always underwhelming.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:41PM|#
deciding it's not fun to be shreiked at by you can have
other motivations than fear at the overwhelming intellect evident
in your last three profanity-laden diatribes.
No doubt. And what's been motivating you of late to make all these
coy comments full of implications which you later insist you had no
intention of making?
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Joe -
"I would tend to consider that 'changing your mind' or 'deciding in
haste and repenting at leisure'," - but if you want to invalidate
your consciousness during the time when you were enjoying a quarter
pounder with cheese, I guess that's your business.
But if someone met you at the door of McDonald's on your way in,
and sneeringly told you that you didn't really want to go there,
would you consider their behavior condescending?
|4.27.07 @ 2:49PM|#
thoreau,
Popcorn? Have you seen the box office for "Rising Sun?"
Jennifer,
Worry less about "implications," and more about the words on the
screen.
|4.27.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Fluffy,
I might have that emotional reaction.
But you know what? He'd probably be right.
It's not a bad thing to stop and think, and it's not a bad thing
for writers to give us something to think about.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Still missing your answer on the bulb thread, Joe. And if I recall correctly, I didn't use scary words like "fuck" so you can't even claim avoidance due to protecting your delicate little sensibilities.
|4.27.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"And let me tell you, I have walked with watering mouth into too
many McDonald's, only to remember ten minutes later, "Oh, yeah,
this food sucks," to be swayed by the politicized assertion that
people can't ever be mistaken about what they want."
It isn't that no one can ever be mistaken about what they want, it
is more that in areas with a certain quality of subjectivity and
personal nature, there is an amount of ego involved in someone else
telling you that nobody should be eating a 1/4 pounder.
Even if we aren't talking about a call for a government ban on the
pill, there is the bold claim that nobody should take the option -
that the demand sustained by many women arriving separately at the
choice to alter this very personal aspect of their lives is
invalid. You'd better follow up that kind of claim with a
compelling argument about harm or rational self interest or
something.
|4.27.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"And that's exactly my point right there; these are
legitimate questions that these women raise. (Well, some of them,
anyway). People in this society really do get icked out about their
bodies, especially female bodies, too easily. The culture at large,
and some individual men in particular, do sometimes put undue
pressure on women to make themselves sexually available to
men."
That's what you're trying to justify.
As I stated above, if these critics are pointing out that there are
valid medical concerns about this medicine, then yes, you have a
point.
But from what I gathered, these feminists want to restrict the
access of other women to this drug not based on provable medical
concern, but on statements based around womanhood, body perception,
etc.
And I find the claim that a woman can be coerced by her boyfriend
into using this particular birth control pill to be a red herring.
After all, the same argument can be used for any form of birth
control.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:07PM|#
I answered you, and answered you again.
No, you did not. You said the ban wasn't necessarily useless or
wrongheaded, I asked what was useful or rightheaded about it, and
you never made another post after that.
|4.27.07 @ 3:08PM|#
JasonL,
I can agree that it is better to raise concerns like this as
questions than as answers. Eh, people with political beliefs
outside the mainstream go off the deep end and write in absolutes.
The "English majors" Guy is always going on about really did raise
some good issues about textualism and authorial intent during the
20th century, even if they did tend to phrase them in
overly-certain absolutes like "there is not author, there is no
text."
Maybe I just have more tolerance for that sort of thing. I am,
after all, a liberal who reads Reason.
tlxtftrf|4.27.07 @ 3:08PM|#
As a once man, now ugly lesbo woman once said
"I don't trust anything that bleeds for seven days and doesn't
die."
This pill is a scientific breakthrough.
By the way, did you know that reason did an interview with Trey and
Matt Stone?
|4.27.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Jennifer,
Ah. I didn't see that comment, because I'd gone onto other threads
by then.
Anyway, I already answered that question, upthread: such a ban
makes the development of better technologies immediately lucrative,
and thus motivates the private sector to bring bulbs that are both
more efficient and warmer to market.
I think my "just became lucrative" statement was in my first or
second comment.
Now stop insulting me and using foul language, you castrating
bitch!
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:11PM|#
How old was that dude who shtupped you when you were 14? Not
that you're defensive about it.
Wow, Joe, you're a classy dude. Why discuss the topic at hand when
you can instead talk about when I lost my virginity in such a way
that implies it has something to do with the topic of this
thread?
Tell me, Joe: how different do you think my posts here would read
if my first time had been at age 16? What if I had waited until age
20; would that make a difference, do you think?
Surely you must have good answers for these questions. The only
other option is that you're engaging in cheap ad hominems. Surely
you'd never do that, would you?
|4.27.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Jennifer:
"Another example of elitism: 'These poor bimbos think they're doing
this for their own sakes, because they're just too damned stupid to
realize they're only doing it for The Men.'"
Yeah -- a reflection of the hard core lefty reliance on
discrediting opposing opinions whenever possible by characterizing
them as products of "false consciousness."
We can thank Marx for that very tired concept.
|4.27.07 @ 3:18PM|#
TallDave:
"And what about lesbians? Wouldn't eliminating menstruation be
particularly attractive when two women are involved in a sexual
relationship?"
Could weaken a substantial barrier for me. Dealing with my own is
enough.
SugarFree:
"The fault in your argument lies in the assumption that lesbian
couples have sex."
Oh no you didn't!
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Yeah -- a reflection of the hard core lefty reliance on
discrediting opposing opinions whenever possible by characterizing
them as products of "false consciousness."
I'm pretty left-wing and used to be far more so, but I never
thought any such thing.
|4.27.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Now stop insulting me and using foul language, you
castrating bitch!
Wow joe. You must be really proud of that one.
|4.27.07 @ 3:34PM|#
"Wow, Joe, you're a classy dude." Oh, suddenly your delicate
sensibilities require that we play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules?
Tell you what, Jennifer, if want a certain tone, then set one.
"fucking pathetic," "cut the semantic bullshit," "know goddamn
well." I wouldn't have expected the wounded little girl shtick from
you.
"Why discuss the topic at hand when you can instead talk about when
I lost my virginity in such a way that implies it has something to
do with the topic of this thread?"
Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote that was
the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any suggestion
that women can be subject to pressure to conform to men's desires.
In case you don't remember, you brought up that topic in a
previoius thread about age of consent laws, and then should that
I'd better not DARE to suggest that there could possibly be any
reason to find that episode questionable. As a matter of fact, I
wasn't planning to suggest any such thing on that thread. Though
you still felt the need to warn me that I'd better not DARE say it
was inappropriate.
"Tell me, Joe: how different do you think my posts here would read
if my first time had been at age 16? What if I had waited until age
20; would that make a difference, do you think?" I have no idea if
you'd still be so full of irrational rage about the subject.
|4.27.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"Wow joe. You must be really proud of that one."
Yes, I am. See, the way I told her not to be foul mouthed and
insulting, in the same sentence as I called her a "castrating
bitch," is a pretty good use of irony to achieve a humourous
effect. You see, "bitch" is a vulgar good, and "castrating bitch"
is an insult. Get it?
I actually wondered whether it would be necessary to add a smiley
emoticon to make sure everyone got that joke, but I decided, "Nah,
these people are smart. They'll get it."
Tell you what, carrick, I'll start dumbing it down for you when
you're active on the thread.
|4.27.07 @ 3:41PM|#
castrating bitch
Sorry joe, I just can't see the humor in that one. And a smiley
face just doesn't cut it either.
Tell you what, carrick, I'll start dumbing it down for you when
you're active on the thread.
No need. I don't want to be smart enough or hip enough to see that
calling a women a castrating bitch can be funny in any context.
|4.27.07 @ 3:43PM|#
"I'm pretty left-wing and used to be far more so, but I never
thought any such thing."
I see it underlying arguments about race, feminism, and
homosexuality -- basically anytime a member of an "oppressed" group
holds an opinion that contradicts leftist/progressive prescriptions
for liberating their group. Calling a black Republican an "Uncle
Tom," for example.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote
that was the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any
suggestion that women can be subject to pressure to conform to
men's desires.
No, Joe, I don't deny that women can be pressured into things by
men, and vice-versa too. But I damned sure find it condescending
when an alleged feminist assumes that a woman who disagrees with
her is probably just being pressured by a man.
I wouldn't have expected the wounded little girl shtick from
you.
Who said anything about a wounded little girl? I'm asking you what
my sex life as a teenager has to do with my current annoyance with
alleged feminists who think that a woman who disagrees with them
must be suffering from faulty thinking.
|4.27.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"No need. I don't want to be smart enough or hip enough to see
that calling a women a castrating bitch can be funny in any
context."
I didn't realize you were posting from the Womyn's Center.
|4.27.07 @ 3:46PM|#
I just don't get what the big deal is about periods. It's there
for, what, a week, and is a minor nuisance. If you want that week
to define you as a person, cool. Kvetch. Take synthetic hormones
that leak into the water supply via potties and produce asexual
frogs for all I care.
Or you could grow a pair (of tits, ha) and get over it. Maybe find
something worthwhile to bitch about.
|4.27.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Oh, and I'm one of those period-having things. Before anyone rags (oh PUN) me for being unsympathetic.
|4.27.07 @ 3:48PM|#
And Cheryl Miller thinks she knows better than those
individual women who disapprove of the drug. And thus, the circle
of meaningless "elitist" accusations is complete.
I think it comes down to what extent you are willing to use the
power of the state to prevent someone doing something you don't
like.
Not allowing someone to do something to enforce your version of
what you like or don't like I think falls squarely into the realm
of elitism.
This is about motivating feminist PACs into putting money towards a
political campaign to outlaw the use the Pill right?
That said Jennifer was way to easy at a way to early age, and i
have no plans to write essays to secure PAC funds to stop young
versions of Jennifer from acting as she she did in her youth.
Fluffy|4.27.07 @ 3:49PM|#
"Because the topic you and I were discussing when I wrote that
was the emotionalism and defensiveness that you bring to any
suggestion that women can be subject to pressure to conform to
men's desires."
So what if they are? Assuming we aren't talking about violence
being brought to bear, that is.
"I want to obtain a product that will make me more attractive to
'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable calculation for someone
to make.
Joe is really getting into the multiple levels at which the
objections being raised to this drug are offensive and
condescending.
|4.27.07 @ 3:50PM|#
thoreau,
"Uh, joe, something seems off with you today."
You're right.
When you roll around in the mud with the pigs, you get muddy. I
made a temperate point, Jennifer hurled invective at me, and I took
the bait. I should know better by now.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:54PM|#
That said Jennifer was way to easy at a way to early
age
Wow. "Easy?" My boyfriends would beg to differ.
|4.27.07 @ 3:55PM|#
joshua corning,
"This is about motivating feminist PACs into putting money towards
a political campaign to outlaw the use the Pill right?"
Holy Assumption, Batman!
Fluffy,
'"I want to obtain a product that will make me more attractive to
'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable calculation for someone
to make.'
Sure it is; or at least, it can be. On the other hand, it can also
be the behavior of someone who isn't giving the matter enough
thought, or is allowing herself to be manipulated. As each
individual woman makes up her mind about what she wants, it is
better for her to think about the motivations and implications than
not to think about them.
How can it possibly be bad to put out ideas for people to take into
account as they make decisions?
|4.27.07 @ 3:57PM|#
She never said she was bopping around, joshua.
She wrote about having a serious, long-term relationship with some
guy who'd been buying beer for a few years, when she was a
freshman.
And don't you DARE say there's anything untoward about that.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 3:58PM|#
'"I want to obtain a product that will make me more
attractive to 'male group X'," is a perfectly reasonable
calculation for someone to make.' Sure it is; or at least, it can
be. On the other hand, it can also be the behavior of someone who
isn't giving the matter enough thought, or is allowing herself to
be manipulated. As each individual woman makes up her mind about
what she wants, it is better for her to think about the motivations
and implications than not to think about them.
Ditto for the men who take Viagra or get hair transplants or
toupees. Is this desire to recapture the appearance and ability of
youth something the guys want for their own sakes, or are they
being manipulated into it by women who find potent guys with a full
head of hair more attractive than flaccid baldies?
|4.27.07 @ 3:59PM|#
I didn't realize you were posting from the Womyn's
Center.
That pretty well sums everything there is to like about joe.
And for the record joe. I am 50, have been married to the same
woman for 30 years, have 2 adult children, and 4 grand
children.
I don't think that calling a woman a castrating bitch is a bad
thing because I have been subordinated by the feminist cause. I
have always believed that it is wrong to insult women with that
kind of language.
I am neither dumb nor overly sensitive. You on the other hand,
should consider getting treatments for your frequent bouts of
PMS.
VM|4.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
joe -
it happens sometimes. The keyboard doesn't always come with a
filter from the brain.
bad moments (such as taking the bait) when you do know better do
happen. Oh well. Next thread you won't. Think of it that way!
You're just playing against a loaded deck in this case. You'll note
that it seems to be only your behavior that people are mentioning/
objecting to...
(Interesting.)
but considering the abuse that gets heaped on you from time to time
(even when it's against the joe in their minds), I guess a stealth
taking the bait is gonna happen.
(Carrick - it's UMS, please. Ugly Mood Swings.)
*opens bag of wasabi peas.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 4:06PM|#
She wrote about having a serious, long-term relationship
with some guy who'd been buying beer for a few years, when she was
a freshman. And don't you DARE say there's anything untoward about
that.
She also paid for school by working as a stripper!
Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand. But that, like
teenage sex, is a sex-themed topic considered unsavory by many, so
it MUST have something to do with the topic at hand. Right,
Joe?
Does her phone-sex experience matter as well, or does she get a
pass there because she did it for journalism-related reasons?
|4.27.07 @ 4:11PM|#
This thread is a hit and run classic. So far, we have joe making a joke that falls flat (I feel your pain, buddy) and then playing the too-hip-for-the-room card. We have a discussion of jennifer's underaged sex life (always a crowd pleaser). Even a little English major vs. Math major debate. The only thing missing is discussion of the subject at hand.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 4:13PM|#
We have a discussion of jennifer's underaged sex life
(always a crowd pleaser).
Not to mention incredibly relevant to the topic at hand, which is
why Joe brought it up.
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Dude without dog-
We should include this in the "Hit and Run Greatest Hits"
compilation. Along with the 1000 post Thanksgiving thread, a few of
the haiku threads, and something with gaius marius.
Oh, and "The Ideal Platonic Blog Post."
|4.27.07 @ 4:16PM|#
jennifer, joe, other interested parties:
i have declared this argument UNFUNNY and demand you two stop
immediately.
seriously, guy montag is more entertaining. you can do better, i
know.
|4.27.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Lamar: Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
H&R crowd: girls.
Lamar: carry on. [leaves with totally wrong impression]
|4.27.07 @ 4:19PM|#
"You, Sir, demonstrate yet again why you're one of the
bestest posters evar!"
Thanks, Moose! :-D
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 4:21PM|#
i have declared this argument UNFUNNY and demand you two
stop immediately.
I don't find it amusing either. But somewhere in the middle of his
flailings must be an actual point, and I'm curious to know what it
is.
VM|4.27.07 @ 4:22PM|#
carrick! :)
Missing Canine man - gak! Sure sign that Mr. Crane's warning should
have been predicted :)
Mr. Crane speaks clear minded!
(not only did he deliver his speech in authentic Hip, northside
neighborhood gibberish...)
Anti-Banshee|4.27.07 @ 4:28PM|#
Well, well, well, finally someone has had the nerve to call the rude screaching bitch onto the carpet. She'll go on ruining the site of course, but at least the banshee has been called out for what she is.
M|4.27.07 @ 4:29PM|#
What, pray tell, is wrong with elitism? I never read by choice unless I'm expecting to read something that is in some sense elite.
|4.27.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Jennifer,
First, I apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to
encourage a more thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response
than you were coming up with. There was no need for me to drag up
the past like that.
"Not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand." You were
ferociously defensive about the implication that there might have
been some manipulation going on there, just as were are ferociously
defensive about the same concept in regards to the topic of this
blog post. That's why I broght it up - because I think you have
irrationally hostile reactions to the suggestion that women can be
subject to pressure and manipulation to make thsemselves sexually
available to men.
"Ditto for the men who take Viagra or get hair transplants or
toupees. Is this desire to recapture the appearance and ability of
youth something the guys want for their own sakes, or are they
being manipulated into it by women who find potent guys with a full
head of hair more attractive than flaccid baldies?"
I suppose so. Might it be somewhat short of medieval of me to
suggest that women in our society are pushed into conforming to the
sexual preferences of men more commonly than vice-versa?
grumpy realist|4.27.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Comments from the peanut gallery:
1) Hesitation on the part of women to go "non-period" because you
know what else makes you go "non-period"? You got it--a pregnancy.
I think a lot of women like the reassurance they get with a period
every month, even if it's a fake period. And with the expected
continued narrowing of possibilities of abortion, you really,
really don't want to discover you're pregnant 3 months down the
road and be already dealing with the hassle of trying to get a
second-trimester abortion.
2) There's good historical reason for women to be sceptical about
medical breakthroughs touted for women and then discover several
years down the road that, ummm, well, sorry, there are some really
nasty side effects you opened yourself (or your daughter) up to.
DES, the Pill and smoking, estrogen therapy....heck, it wasn't
until relatively recently that the medical establishment got around
to admitting the women's pains during their periods were real and
not just "all in their heads." So permit us to remain
skeptical.
3) Having said all this, I think several years down the road, after
all the bugs are figured out and we have enough data to indicate
that there won't be adverse side effects, we'll be seeing a world
very much like that which Connie Willis outlines in "Even the
Queen" (which is a very funny story from all directions.)
|4.27.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"...heck, it wasn't until relatively recently that the medical
establishment got around to admitting the women's pains during
their periods were real and not just 'all in their heads.'"
True, but you know, feminists have been known to propose this very
same thing. With the twist that women's psychosomatic reactions to
their periods were caused by the negativity of patriarchal society
towards women's bodies. I am not sure, but it might have been in
Naomi Wolf's *The Beauty Myth* that I encountered this
argument.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 4:47PM|#
You were ferociously defensive about the implication that
there might have been some manipulation going on there
First, learn the difference between "annoyed" and "defensive." Yes,
I'm damned annoyed by an alleged feminist who would look at a woman
who wants to be freed from the inconvenience (or worse) of periods
and assume that it must be because a man's prressuring her into
it.
I think you have irrationally hostile reactions to the
suggestion that women can be subject to pressure and manipulation
to make thsemselves sexually available to men.
No, I fully agree women and men are subject to pressure from the
opposite sex. But I, unlike the elitists you're defending, don't
look at a woman who disagrees with me about something sex-based and
automatically assume "She can't truly believe this. She's being
pressured by the man in her life."
I apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to encourage
a more thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response than you
were coming up with.
Apology accepted. And in the same vein: remember when you demanded
I apologize for saying you were racist for insisting that black
students should be held to lower standards than white ones, who in
turn should be held to lower standards than Asians? Here goes: "I
apologize. I didn't mean to start a fight, just to encourage a more
thoughtful, less reactive and emotional response than you were
coming up with."
thoreau|4.27.07 @ 4:53PM|#
...heck, it wasn't until relatively recently that the
medical establishment got around to admitting the women's pains
during their periods were real and not just 'all in their
heads.'
Wait, what? There have been women in medical research for some time
now, it took that long to change that mindset?
I want to ask a devil's advocate question: When you say 'all in
their heads', well, all pain is in some sense 'all in your head',
in that a nerve sends a signal to the brain which then says "Ouch!"
Was the debate over whether the pain came from aggravation of a
nerve in the pelvic area, or instead something happening in the
brain?
Either way, if you feel pain then you have pain. But I can see how
there might be some debate over the origin of the
pain.
Or were they really just a bunch of jerks?
|4.27.07 @ 4:58PM|#
thoreau, the whole medical community has been terrible about the
subject of treating debilitating pain until the last decade or
so.
A huge driving factor in the prosecution of pain doctors is the
still widely accepted idea that no one can really need that much
morphine on a daily basis.
|4.27.07 @ 4:59PM|#
VM: howard street is right!
jennifer: I don't find it amusing either. But somewhere in the
middle of his flailings must be an actual point, and I'm curious to
know what it is. does not constitute stopping.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Mr. Steven Crane, as soon as you show me the contract I signed agreeing to chat on the Internet only when you find it amusing, I'll definitely give your suggestion much serious consideration. Until then, go amuse yourself somewhere else.
|4.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#
see, jennifer? there you go. you made me laugh. that's all it
took!
carry on, my wayward sons. there'll be peace when you are
done.
VM: the sherriff is a n-(orth sider!)
Brian E|4.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Might it be somewhat short of medieval of me to suggest that
women in our society are pushed into conforming to the sexual
preferences of men more commonly than vice-versa?
It's a valid point, but the irony of the situation is that there's
a good reason for this treatment which has at its root the desire
for further freedom of everyday choice for women. Instead of
encouraging those who are considering this course to do so for the
right reasons, the supposed feminists consulted by the NYT took the
view that if women were deciding this way, it was out of a sense of
shame for being women, rather than the more obvious and more
practical reasons. That, if I may say so, is incredibly
condescending.
If the stated goal of feminism is female liberation, then feminists
should encourage women to make decisions for liberated reasons,
even if it leads to actions which could also (somewhat
theoretically) be caused by reasons associated with patriarchy.
Telling someone the real reasons behind their actions without
knowing any of the details first simply smacks of elitism.
|4.27.07 @ 5:25PM|#
>This thread is a hit and run classic.
Yes, but there is point at which "classic" becomes repetitious,
fagged out, and just plain dull.
|4.27.07 @ 5:28PM|#
"What a dishonest little coward you are."
You know, every three months or so I check out Reason's Hit &
Run with the hope that things have changed.
But I'm always disappointed to find that Jennifer is still a horrid
person that doesn't play well with the other kids. Rather like that
know-it-all bitch in Beaver Cleaver's 5th grade class. Pretty
pathetic really.
Will check back July.
|4.27.07 @ 5:34PM|#
"(I) can instead talk about when I lost my virginity"
I would very much like a detailed account...
|4.27.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Yes, I'm damned annoyed by an alleged feminist who would
look at a woman who wants to be freed from the inconvenience (or
worse) of periods and assume that it must be
because a man's prressuring her into it.
Looking at the quote:
"[T]here's a part of me who wonders how much women are getting
rid of their periods for their own convenience as opposed to the
convenience of male sex partners."
It seems fairly obvious, when that statement is taken at face
value, that the "feminist" didn't seem to be taking an absolutist
position, but rather merely bringing up the possibility and
wondering the possibility if that could be the case with X number
of women.
Of course if one is inclined to be rather anti-feminist they could
infer things that haven't actually been said.
Jennifer|4.27.07 @ 6:16PM|#
Looking at the quote: "[T]here's a part of me who wonders
how much women are getting rid of their periods for their own
convenience as opposed to the convenience of male sex partners." It
seems fairly obvious, when that statement is taken at face value,
that the "feminist" didn't seem to be taking an absolutist
position, but rather merely bringing up the possibility and
wondering the possibility if that could be the case with X number
of women.
Oh. Okay. By the way, there's a part of me that wonders how many
libertarians oppose affirmative action because they believe it's
harmful, as opposed to being racist pigs who want to see non-whites
suffer.
It seems fairly obvious, when my statement is taken at face value,
that I don't seem to be taking an absolutist position, but rather
am merely bringing up the possibility.
edna|4.27.07 @ 7:27PM|#
there's a part of me that wonders how many libertarians
oppose affirmative action because they believe it's harmful, as
opposed to being racist pigs who want to see non-whites
suffer.
considering that the primary victims of so-called aa are nonwhite,
this is a part of you that ought to be shed along with your uterine
epithelium.
Paul|4.27.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Nowhere is it written that tinkering with reproductive
hormones will be without side effects.
Right, like making the choice to take birth control pills.
If taking a pill making it nigh impossible to get pregnant isn't
"suppress[ing] our fundamental nature", I don't know what is.
What's your point, thoreau?
Paul|4.27.07 @ 7:52PM|#
there's a part of me that wonders how many libertarians
oppose affirmative action because they believe it's harmful, as
opposed to being racist pigs who want to see non-whites
suffer.
Touche. There's a part of me that wonders how many liberals support
affirmative action because they believe it's helpful, as opposed to
honestly believing that non-whites are of sub-human intelligence
and like the
orchid, they need care, feedin' and cultivatin'.
M|4.27.07 @ 8:19PM|#
Yikes. Look what happens
(Yo, what's wrong with elitism?)
when there's no haiku.
______|4.27.07 @ 8:58PM|#
After finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Al Gore switched majors and worked hard in his government courses and graduated cum laude from Harvard in June 1969
|4.28.07 @ 4:49AM|#
Thoreau, the story I heard was that it wasn't until the
researchers hooked women up to a bunch of equipment and discovered
that for a lot of the women they were getting stronger contractions
during their menses than happens in the average childbirth that the
doctors grudgingly admitted that "all right, you might actually be
feeling pain."
Yeah, there are a lot of dingbat self-identified feminists out
there--as a grumpy realist I label Naomi Wolf as one. (As one
anthropologist pointed out, for a feminist who lectures incessantly
on fashion, sexist stuff, and Not Being Taken Seriously, she's
managed to pick the most stereotypically sex-kitten bimbo hairstyle
of them all. Either she's trying to change the meaning of the
hairstyle, or doesn't know what image she's sending.)
|4.28.07 @ 10:44PM|#
Brian E,
"Instead of encouraging those who are considering this course to do
so for the right reasons, the supposed feminists consulted by the
NYT took the view that if women were deciding this way, it was out
of a sense of shame for being women, rather than the more obvious
and more practical reasons."
I don't know, man. The way they raise their concerns looks pretty
conditional and tentative to me. Lots of "could be"s and "I'm
concerned that some"s in there. I don't see 1% of the absolutist
language I find in, oh I don't know, one of Jennifer's
caterwauls.
If, as even a backed-into-a-corner Jennifer will admit, women are
pressured into making themselves sexually available to men, and if
the use of these drugs could be pushed on women, explicitly or
less-so, then there has to be some room for raising these concerns
and asking women to think about them. But apparently, those are
thought crimes in certain circles, and such things should not be
mentioned.
It's pretty clear that no matter how tentative and cautionary a
feminist raises such a concern, certain people are going to read
her comments as absolutist and overreaching. I don't think such
bullying is an ethical or intellectually honest reaction.
|4.29.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Despite claims like this, for some people, it actually was.
Maybe not for Puerto Ricans or African-Americans, but for some,
yes, that America actually was.
Maybe if you were an especially dense child, but otherwise not so
much. Even the whitest of white people were constantly terrified of
sudden nuclear annihilation, to say nothing of the widespread
familial problems that even today cause baby boomers to complain
about how "daddy was too busy working to play catch with me! And I
didn't get a war that made him proud either!"
The 50s can't possibly have been good, because if they had, then
the 60s wouldn't have happened.
|4.30.07 @ 6:42AM|#
Jennifer wins; Liberal elitists (feminists are mostly liberal
elitists, although I do like the "do-me" feminists) always wind up
telling others what to think, hence what to do.
Joe loses; Rational, intelligent people will always reject the
whiny, condescending, politically correct charge that their
reasoning is flawed because it does not conform.
Men manipulate women for sex... oh yes indeed. Women manipulate men
with sex... oh yes indeed. Men are good! Women are good! It has
ever been so.
Carrick... get a sense of humor!
|4.30.07 @ 6:49AM|#
Joe, Did you read this pack of lies?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119920.html
|4.30.07 @ 6:51AM|#
Q: how many feminists does it take to screw in a light
bulb?
A: While scowling and in a harsh, annoyed voice... "That's not
funny!"
|4.30.07 @ 9:46AM|#
wayne,
I didn't consider that Reason piece a pack of lies, so much as
useless.
The author describes how most of the pay gap results from reasons
other than discrimination, then notes that the report says the same
thing.
Then the author notes that the remaining 25% is attributed in the
report to "possibly discrimination," then quotes another researcher
saying that the remaining 25% could come from difficult to measure
factors.
The only point of the piece seemed to be to say that attributing
the unexplained portion of the pay gap to gender discrimination
doesn't feel right to the auther.
Jennifer|4.30.07 @ 10:22AM|#
how many feminists does it take to screw in a light
bulb?
That depends. Do they really want to change the light
bulb, or are they being pressured into it by the men in their
lives? Maybe the woman would have been perfectly happy to sit in
the dark, but then some man came along and convinced her that light
is somehow better. Damned value judgments.
|4.30.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Joe,
Did you miss the part at the end where it was said that when one
compared never-married women to never-married men, the pay gap
disappeared altogether?
|4.30.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Q: What do you say to a feminist with two black eyes?
A: with a sneer, "nothing, she obviously won't listen".
Carrick, if you are still on the thread, this was a joke, although
I admit it has a cruel streak to it.
|4.30.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Let's take a highly unscientific poll. In your experience (all
of you readers), are the women you work with paid less than the
men. Please use similar jobs when you do the comparisons.
I will start this out by observing that the opposite has been true
in my experience. I have worked as a software engineer all of my
adult life, and the women in the field usually are rapidly promoted
and paid more. I think this is a "quota" thing most of the
time.
|4.30.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Jennifer,
Is your boyfriend coercing you into posting here? This can't be
your own doing after all?
Jennifer|4.30.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Is your boyfriend coercing you into posting here? This can't
be your own doing after all?
Of course I'm not doing this voluntarily, Wayne. I'm a
woman.
You know something that just occurred to me? I've been posting here
for over three years now, and as a woman in a male-dominated forum
I've naturally faced my share of asshole comments. But this thread
was the only time I can recall that any man tried using my sexual
history as a way of saying "Don't take seriously anything she
says."
So who was the misogynist that did this? Was it Mr. F. "Feminists
are destroying America" Le Mur? Was it Ron "damn those soap-opera
watching women" Hardin? Was it Thomas Paine's "shrieking hysterical
woman" Goiter?
Nope. It was Mr. Left-Wing Uberfeminist Friend-of-Women Joe who
thought that those aspects of my sex life of which he disapproves
had anything to do with the argument at hand.
No wonder you're siding with Melissa McEwen, Joe! You share her
belief that a woman who doesn't compose herself exactly as you say
she should is not worth listening to at all.
|4.30.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Partly because I know it annoys many of you and partly because I
am a fan, here is a link to Ann Coulter's latest column... a good
one!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/04/25/nuts_in_the_crosshairs
|4.30.07 @ 1:42PM|#
It is late where I am, so I am going off to bed now; alone, damn
my luck.
I shall sleep well knowing that H&R will fill up with all kinds
of silly postings, a few that make me laugh, and fewer still that
make me think a bit.
Good night Joe and Jennifer. I like you both, although it might not
always seem so.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245