You're trying to be funny, huh? You don't really mean what you wrote here, right? See, I'm new around here, and that puts me at a disadvantage.

No, Lee. Apparently, she means it.

"If women started out EQUAL then they wouldn't have needed "Equal Rights", they would have always had them."

Rosemary is confusing power with rights. Basic rights are inalienable and shared equally by all humans. Power is unequally distributed through society. Just because a certain group has not had power in the past, or worse, another group affirmatively use the power they had to oppress a group without power, does not mean the group without power aren't automatically entitled to their rights.

So, when whites freed blacks from slavery, whites deserved no thanks. It was like the act of a repentant thief returning stolen property. Similarly, women owe men no thanks.

Get it now?

It just sounds like an argument that's intended to marginalize and silence rather than unite and illuminate. It would probably be more accurate to say that truly hard-line radical separatist feminists might benefit from showing some appreciation to the men who actually do get it, rather than berating them for not thanking all men every day for showing the mercy to finally grant them the right to vote and not get raped and have the shit beaten out of them when the poached eggs are too firm.

I mean, given the level of violence I've seen against women in my life, I'm pretty solidly on the side of the values of fairness, equality and kindness and underpin the original women's rights movement. See, women and men are pretty equally capable of violence, believe it or not. I think it's just that women generally don't resort to violence to the same degree that men do, for whatever reason. And if men aren't taught that violence against women -- or anyone, for that matter -- isn't okay, then they'll use violence against whomever they can, which generally means people weaker than them, which generally means women and children.

So regardless, I think that just because women don't harness violence to the same degree doesn't mean they need to look to men as the holders of the reins, as it were. Before women's liberation started bearing fruit, men were doing the wrong thing. You don't show gratitude to someone who stops doing the wrong thing. It's like congratulating an alcoholic on not drinking anymore: congratulations on doing what you should have been doing anyway. Great.

...finally grant them the right to vote and not get raped and have the shit beaten out of them when the poached eggs are too firm.

What a horribly sexist thing to say. I mean, seriously.

The vast majority of American men have never beaten their wives, ever. Including most so-called sexist men. Furthermore, anyone who has had much experience with violent households knows that these are dysfunctional relationships in which both sides play a part.

The fact of the matter is that men gave women the right to vote. Indeed, despite all the debate and hyperbole, men supported women's right to vote in overwhelming numbers. That's the real story.

There was a long and protracted debate in this country, in which strong, thoughtful, intelligent women participated in both sides. And OVERWHELMINGLY, men decided to give women the right to vote, despite the fact that most of them had women in their lives who thought that was a bad idea.

I'm sorry, I know this is harsh, but I think it's outright vicious (not to mention a very effective way to marginalize men) to portray the passage of the 19th amendment as anything except men doing the right thing, and doing it pretty damned quickly. To portray it as their "finally" giving women something they "should have had" is to ignore the historical reality that most men had no such right for most of history, and that after they finally got it it took only a couple of generations for that right to be extended to women. Over the objections of many of their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, I repeat again.

This entire practice of portraying history as one long train of brutal oppression of women is deeply misandrist. It's also misogynist, since it margnalizes most of the women of history, who had an integral part in creating, shaping, and maintaining the old social order, at every level of society, throughout the Western world.

It also, frankly, smacks of the sort of cheap pseudo-Marxist tommyrot of people like Betty Friedan, since it relies on an oppressor/oppressed dialectical view of history that, when you really look at it, makes very little sense.

(Now watch. Someone will come along and say I said that "feminism is communism" or some equally stupid distortion.)

Mithras,

Your analysis can only be true if individual actors are lumped into groups. Typical leftist drivel. The truth is that anyone who put their life at risk to right an injustice is deserving of gratitute. Not only is your position offensive and racist, you're also very much in the minority. Get it now?

While men didn't risk their lives supporting women's suffrage, they did risk being ostracized by those in power. Why some people take the position that men supporting women's suffrage are undeserving is beyond me. They came down on the right side of the major social issue of the day, which flew in the face of 5,000 years of human civilization. Why does it hurt people like Meryl to recognize this?

If Susan Anthony is a hero for fighting for women's rights, why are the men who supported her and voted with her treated with scorn? I guess sexism is alive and well.

Rosemary is confusing power with rights.

Spare us the sexist condescension toward my wife, please.

Rosemary is confusing power with rights.

Interesting. I'd say you only have rights because the rest of us pretty much agree that you should have them. Which requires a certain level of consensus, and a certain level of mutual respect, wouldn't you say?

So, when whites freed blacks from slavery, whites deserved no thanks.

Oh yes they did.

Fact: Most blacks were sold into slavery by their fellow blacks.

Fact: Hundreds of thousands of whites gave their lives to end that slavery.

Yes, the whites of history who fought and died for the emancipation of slaves do indeed deserve much thanks.

Of course, whites today deserve no such thanks, since they played no part in it. They also played no part in creating slavery, so they deserve no condemnation for it either. Neither are the blacks whose ancestors were sold by their black brethren into slavery deserving of reparations from the African nations who profited from the slave trade.

Maybe one day you'll get it, Mithras, but my wife and I have gotten all this for a while now.

Oh, and hey MJ: Right on, girlfriend.

Hey Dean:

Thanks for taking a sentence out of context that you disagreed with and ignoring the rest of my post, which is more or less in agreement with your position. Just about as divisive as Ms. Friedan there, bub.

No, most men don't beat their wives, and most men didn't beat their wives back during women's sufferage; yet the lot of women for centuries was one of physical and sexual property, to be disposed of at the discretion of whatever man was in charge, whether father, brother or husband. The end of injustice is always to be applauded, yet there's something in the tone of your trouble-seeking post that implies that what men gave, men can take away; and I think that's where I get uncomfortable.

Exactly how thankful should women, blacks, asians, gays and lesbians, and all other minorities be that the majority has allowed them to exist?

I think Dean's saying this because it's divisive, and he doesn't think it should be.

In an effort to distance ourselves from "what men gave, men can take away" ways of thinking, historical revisionists have painted history in black and white -- with white males as the bad guys in every situation. They went from one extreme to the other, with neither being close to what's right and real.

I think it's entirely fair that Dean (and Rosemary in support) remind his readers something most special interest and minority rights groups would prefer you didn't think about - that most of the white men we read about in history books were concientious, caring, and trying to do the right thing, no matter how hindsight may reveal their mistakes or omissions.

As I said in the first post, I'm researching the suffrage and anti-suffrage movements (in part as a way to demonstrate a point I'm making about my support for gay marriage). The fact that many (if not a majority of) vociferous, concientious, and concerned women DID NOT want women's suffrage is something that VERY FEW sources even mention. Instead, the struggle is shown as all women working together to overcome the oppression wrought by white men. Sounds nice, but it's not what happened.

The fact that many women did not support woman's suffrage (until a deal was struck with temperence movements, and even then, support was mixed) was one of the most contentious aspects of the fight (as shown by the political cartoons I linked to in my previous comments) and that despite this, a majority of men in this country voted to bring it about is either not discussed, or glossed over as an aberration.

So why is that so divisive? Would you prefer the Disney version of history, or the real one?

Dean, you echoed my thoughts on slavery in America in an interesting way. My thoughts on it I'd posted eariler tonight are over here.

Courtney: Please don't attempt to attribute ideas to me that you've never heard me express -- you don't live in my head, so get out.

I have never said that most women supported women's suffrage. The failure of the ERA, partially at the hands of women, is evidence enough to refute that nonsense. Nor have I ever said that all men were oppressive toward women in the past, or that no men were conscientious.

I understand the point you want to make: 1) that conscientious and well-meaning men made it possible for women to vote, even over the objections of many women who were appalled by the idea; and that 2) groups of Americans who have achieved their civil liberties with the help of the majority in power -- that being white men -- should show more gratitude toward the people who, essentially freed them. There also seems to be a subtext that we should be mindful of who gave us our freedoms, as those freedoms could also be taken away.

I don't deny that men did the right thing when they gave women the right to vote; yet at the same time, advocates against domestic violence and rape within marriage in the latter half of this century were by and large women who had to make their case to society at large and work their asses off to raise awareness before social and legal change could happen. While women should thank the men who helped jump-start their liberation, I think there are plenty of women who deserve plenty of thanks as well -- and there are women world-wide (since the lot of women isn't equally liberated around the globe) who are *still* working their assess off and who deserve thanks today.

So: yes, men did the right thing, and thank you. Yet how much thanks is in order? Was this a generous gift bestowed upon women by men, the anniversary of which should be commemorated yearly in a kind of inter-gender Thanksgiving? Or is the reality that women were not being treated fairly or equally in our society and that enough men saw that the problem needed correcting that they corrected it. In the same way that the Emancipation Proclamation began the righting of a wrong, the 19th Amendment righted a wrong.

I think the question here is: are rights a precious gift from the majority to the minority, who must be thanked on bended knee for their generosity? Or are rights something inalienable to human beings, something human beings are due simply by virtue of being alive, something which cannot be rightly denied?

Turning a queer eye on this issue, I personally am not thankful to white heterosexual men for allowing me to exist. Some have been allies, helping us reach our proper place in society, for which they deserve specific thanks, but do I start each day with a grateful prayer, giving thanks to the people who don't persecute or imprison me? Not hardly. Gay liberation -- like women's liberation -- has been bought with the blood, sweat, tears and lives of its advocates. While it's a good thing that we made our case to the majority, it's not something I think of as worthy as constant and resounding praise.

Here's a metaphor, using some of Dean's own language: imagine you've spent most of your life with a jack boot pressing on your face. Then, after a long process of rigorous argument, you convincethe owner of the jack boot to lift up their foot. How often do you thank them for no longer stepping on your face?

While yes, we should thank our allies, does that mean that our enemies somehow cease to exist? Isn't it possible to say, "Thank you to those men who gave us the right to vote all those years ago," while simultaneously saying, "Screw you those men who continue to abuse and oppress us"?

The position Dean is arguing for (in his trademark inflammatory fashion) seems as poorly-nuanced as the position he's arguing against.

Each of these lines of argument only serves to remind me of one thing: I wasn't there and can't be held responsible for what happened!

Women have the right to vote. Slavery is illegal. Non-land owners are able to vote as well. All of these advances in societal evolution - yet I am not responsible for any of them.

Women could not vote. Slavery was widely practiced. Injustices in the history of the Unites States to be sure, but I am not responsible for them.

I am tired of hearing how the white male is responsible for the alienation or oppression of every minority group to ever walk the face of the earth. Women have been able to vote much longer than I have been alive. I did not give them that right, and I am incapable of taking it away. Also, I have never owned a slave. I have never freed a slave. Therefore, I can't be held responsible for any suffering that the ancestors of current generations may have suffered. By the same token - I am not owed any thanks. By this argument, the subject of reparations is closed - not with my tax dollars, you won't!

The sons can not be held responsible for the sins (or omissions) of the fathers. Or, to paraphrase Martin Luther King: "...one day to be judged by the content of my character. Not reviled because I was "lucky" enough to be born white and male."

mj - "Your analysis can only be true if individual actors are lumped into groups. Typical leftist drivel. The truth is that anyone who put their life at risk to right an injustice is deserving of gratitute. Not only is your position offensive and racist, you're also very much in the minority."

I was just simplifying the situation to clarify my point, which you obviously missed. I was just trying to clarify the difference between the source of a right and the enforcement of that right. Men are not the source of women's rights, since those rights are innate to humans. "Endowed by their Creator," right? Right. And I grew up with racists, bigots and the Klan, so don't tell me I'm racist. You don't know what you're talking about.

Men did consciously decide to stop preventing women from enforcing those rights. Do men deserve thanks for that? You, Dean and Rosemary say yes. John Kusch and I say that the denial of those rights in the first place was unjust, and that not perpetuating an injustice is like returning stolen property. It's better than keeping it, but do you thank the repentant thief? Or do you just punish him less?

Dean-
"Spare us the sexist condescension toward my wife, please."

Oooh, you're so strong and manly - protecting the wife that way. Seriously, she just posted elsewhere the following sentence: "What I am not is one of those feminazi cunts that runs around with a need for entitlements and kudos for having a vagina." Yep, definitely a shrinking violet who needs you to stand up to big liberal bullies like me. Why should she get to use such vitriol and then be protected from vitriolic responses? Isn't that paternalistic, Big Daddy Dean?

"I'd say you only have rights because the rest of us pretty much agree that you should have them." See my argument above about the source of rights v. their enforcement. Basic rights are innate to all humans. Agree or disagree, Mr. Liberal Tradition? Do you think all rights grow from the barrel of a gun?

"Fact: Most blacks were sold into slavery by their fellow blacks." True. And irrelevant. Your argument comes down to saying that whites only purchased stolen property, they didn't steal it themselves. That doesn't make it less of a crime. Also, the blacks who enslaved fellow blacks were not doing it because they believed blacks were animals or inferior humans. Whites did. Slavery is morally wrong; slavery based on racial supremacy is worse. Agree or disagree?

"Fact: Hundreds of thousands of whites gave their lives to end that slavery. Yes, the whites of history who fought and died for the emancipation of slaves do indeed deserve much thanks." Yes, they do, the handful of whites who fought the Civil War to free slaves deserve thanks. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of whites on the Union side, from Lincoln on down to soldiers and citizens, fought the Civil War in order to reunite the Union, not to free slaves. Fact. Agree or disagree?

"Of course, whites today deserve no such thanks, since they played no part in it."

Yes, and blacks and women today do not owe thanks to whites and men today, because as you rightly point out, those groups did nothing whatsoever to deserve thanks. Right?

Er, John, I don't see where I attribute anything to you. In fact, my comment was only a response to yours in the sense that at one point, I attempted to answer your question. Really, there's no call to be rude.

John and Mithras- Here's a direct response to you. If you want to paint every person in history who did not feel the same way we do in the 21st century about civil liberties and liberty in general as evil "owners of the jackboot" who conscienciously denied people their rights because they were stupid and evil, please go right ahead. Not only is that wrong, it's complete hyperbole.

Right now, you and I are on one side of an issue that we don't even know is wrong yet. It may be something we've never even considered before, and always accepted as right. In fifty years, we may look back and think, "Wow. I can't believe I never even considered something that's SO important." Do you think it's fair for subsequent generations to condemn us at this point?

First: "If the early cavewomen didn't NEED the men to go out and kill the food, make the fire, and protect them from the elements. Then the men wouldn't have evolved as protectors and providers of the "weaker" sex. If women started out EQUAL then they wouldn't have needed "Equal Rights", they would have always had them."

This is way, way off, Rosemary. Most evolutionary biology supports the opposite opinion here. In the large primates, the male has evolved larger, more muscular bodies precisely for the purpose of dominating the females (and lesser males) and gaining reproductive 'ownership' of the females. We have a genetic inheritance predisposed to violence. Live with it.

Second problem "Fact: Most blacks were sold into slavery by their fellow blacks." Not true...the majority of slaves were BORN into slavery HERE, because our depended on their economic input, and it would have been very costly to free them.

I'm noticing that this argument is really beginning to stress the 'bull-shit-o-meter", and I think I know why.

John sez "I am tired of hearing how the white male is responsible for the alienation or oppression of every minority group to ever walk the face of the earth." Well the fact is that this is mostly true. Of course, the fact is also that they have also done more GOOD then anyone else, too! But as you say, you are not personally responsible for EITHER of these things...This is just the cultural inheritance that ALL HUMANS SHARE. So relax, and don't take these arguments so personally. Just take a deep breath, step-back, and look around the world you see TODAY, and do what you can to make it better.

Mithras:
Seriously, she just posted elsewhere the following sentence: "What I am not is one of those feminazi cunts that runs around with a need for entitlements and kudos for having a vagina." Yep, definitely a shrinking violet who needs you to stand up to big liberal bullies like me. Why should she get to use such vitriol and then be protected from vitriolic responses?

Thank you for noticing that I am not a shrinking violet. Your vitriolic response (that Dean took exception to) came before I myself used such vitriol. Nothing in what I said in my "theory of womens evolution" was at all bitter and nasty. A little profanity is not in my opinion bitter.

Dean's defense of me was not paternalistic it was simply because he knew I was sleeping and thus unable to ream you properly myself. I defend Dean when he is unavailable to see to it himself, as well. It is not maternalistic on my part either. It is out of the mutual respect that we share as husband and wife.

I will not OTOH thank you for insinuating that I am a moron that gets confused so easily. I was not confusing power with rights. I was pointing out that physical weakness of women put us in second place to men from the beginning of humanity. Societal advances allowed women to compete more equally and our "rights" came naturally along.

What rights that are "inalienable" according to our forefathers did women not possess?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Those are the Bill of Rights. Women were not denied any of those rights sometimes they were granted more leeway than that of men.

You'll notice as did I that VOTING is not an INALIENABLE RIGHT.

Those were the basic inalienable rights that you are squawking over. No actual right to vote for men or women in there at all.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Mithras,

"I was just simplifying the situation to clarify my point, which you obviously missed"

What you did was blanket-slander an entire race of people, an action you wouldn't dismiss nearly so cavalierly if it was directed at anyone other than whites.

On your other point, I said your position is racist. That seems pretty clear. Let me formulate and you tell me where you think I'm wrong. I'm sure you will agree that blacks who helped end slavery are American heroes. Why, then do you believe that whites who engaged in the same struggle toward the same goal "deserved no thanks"? The only difference is skin color. I think you had better go parse some definitions so you can pretend this isn't racist.

The "I grew up with racists" defense doesn't carry a lot of weight. Perhaps you should rethink this one.

I point out your error (which you claim is inadvertent), and you turn around and do it again. I've got to say, it's getting harder believe that inadvertent proposition, what with you repeating it every post. Wait, here it is:

"Men did consciously decide to stop preventing women from enforcing those rights. Do men deserve thanks for that? You, Dean and Rosemary say yes. John Kusch and I say that the denial of those rights in the first place was unjust, and that not perpetuating an injustice is like returning stolen property. It's better than keeping it, but do you thank the repentant thief?"

See, we're thieves because we're men (or white). If you supported suffrage (or abolition), no matter. If you're a man (or white), you're guilty. In your world the men who helped enact suffrage are guilty of the sins of those men who fought to retain their priviledge. It's interesting what you have to believe to be a lefty. Especially given that an overwhelming majority of men had to vote to enact women's suffrage. Not only are you slandering men, you're doing it based on the actions of a clearly demonstrable minority.

At least we finally get to the one intelligent statement you manage, although I suspect you haven't thought it through.

"Yes, and blacks and women today do not owe thanks to whites and men today, because as you rightly point out, those groups did nothing whatsoever to deserve thanks. Right?"

Again, I have to take exception to the revisionist history whereby no whites were involved in the civil rights movement and no men in the women's rights movement. But I accept the idea that I'm not owed for anything I wasn't involved in. As I can make no claim to my father's assets, you may claim no obligation for my father's debts. Now that we have this settled, can we forget all the race hustling? I can count on your opposition to reparations?

Have you considered where all of your vitriol comes from? It seems your primary focus is to deny that whites and men have ever done anything positive. Your entire position consists of guilt by association. Perhaps you spent too much time at teach-ins (read: voluntary indoctrination sessions). I suggest you spend some time considering the ramifications of the ideas you espouse.

Actually, the inalienable rights are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. According to the Bill of Rights, life wouldn't be a right, so we can't limit the inalienable rights to only those things listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is also vague with respect to those other rights retained by the state or the people, so on that basis you also cannot devise an exclusive list of inalienable rights.

However, the Constitution did specifically define who could vote, so it was not one of those other rights retained by the state or the people. Whether or not we consider the Founding Fathers wrong in limiting it is a matter for debate. Simply because society did not previously recognize something as an inalienable right does not mean it is not later considered to be so. There was a time when the right to liberty was not considered inalienable; yet the Founding Fathers redefined it as such.

Regarding slavery, though, on the basis of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you can certainly say that whites did not give blacks their right to liberty. Whites simply decided to stop preventing blacks from exercising it. Appreciation should certainly be given for doing the right thing, especially when the right thing goes against the bulk of human history, but that is not necessarily the same as gratitude. In this construct, appreciation implies that someone did something they were supposed to. Gratitude implies they only did you a favor, not something you deserved in the first place.

"As society evolved, women were better able to compete with men and that is why they were given their rights. We had to prove that we deserved them.[...]

Blame those weak little cave bitches. They set the precedent and fucked it up for the rest of us."

It was the maternal vocation of those weak little cave bitches that made them vulnerable and dependent. You hold that they were thereby contemptible and "undeserving", apparently believing that they were getting something for nothing. I take it that you're one of those people who believes that the traditional vocations of women are not quite worthy of dignity and respect, and one has to do what is traditionally men's work to "deserve" equal citizen's status.

Remind me to steer clear of you if we should ever attend the same social function. I can only conclude from your comments that you're one of those fabled types who is rudely dismissive and patronizing to housewives at cocktail and dinner parties.

And please, no jags here on "radical feminists'" attitudes to such things. I am addressing, only and exactly, what you wrote.

Moira:

Remind me to steer clear of you if we should ever attend the same social function. I can only conclude from your comments that you're one of those fabled types who is rudely dismissive and patronizing to housewives at cocktail and dinner parties.

That is absolutely not true of me at all. I was a housewife/mother until financial circumstances forced me into the workforce. Now I am both and mostly exhausted to prove it. I hold nothing but the utmost respect and regard for housewives.

The remark you are so offended by was a tongue and cheek jab at all those "Men are Evil" folks.

Believe or not - beyond this I care not.

Patrick:

This is way, way off, Rosemary. Most evolutionary biology supports the opposite opinion here. In the large primates, the male has evolved larger, more muscular bodies precisely for the purpose of dominating the females (and lesser males) and gaining reproductive 'ownership' of the females. We have a genetic inheritance predisposed to violence. Live with it.

First: You can't prove beyond a shadow of doubt that I'm totally wrong with my theory.
Are you telling me that you know for sure that it wasn't the men who hunted, protected his "family" and made the fire? Give me a break.

Second: Genetic predisposition to violence - yeah so what? Proves nothing.

Second problem "Fact: Most blacks were sold into slavery by their fellow blacks." Not true...the majority of slaves were BORN into slavery HERE, because our depended on their economic input, and it would have been very costly to free them.

Third: Take a Xanax and try again. Nobody said majority of all slaves. Dean clearly stated that blacks were sold into slavery by fellow blacks. If those blacks hadn't been sold IN THE FIRST PLACE by other blacks then they wouldn't have been born into it here. Don't put words into people mouths so you can be the hero with your corrections, okay?

Courtney-
"If you want to paint every person in history who did not feel the same way we do in the 21st century about civil liberties and liberty in general as evil 'owners of the jackboot' who conscienciously [sic] denied people their rights because they were stupid and evil, please go right ahead. Not only is that wrong, it's complete hyperbole."

I am saying that men are not the source of women's rights, but men as a group were responsible for denying basic rights to women. Similarly, whites as a group were responsible for holding black people in slavery in North America. You say that when men and whites as a group decided to stop oppressing women and blacks, they deserve thanks. I say that they don't. Do individual whites and men deserve thanks? I suppose. But that's not what started this conversation.

"Right now, you and I are on one side of an issue that we don't even know is wrong yet. ... In fifty years, we may look back and think, 'Wow. I can't believe I never even considered something that's SO important.' Do you think it's fair for subsequent generations to condemn us at this point?"

Yes.

Rosemary-
"Nothing in what I said in my 'theory of womens evolution' was at all bitter and nasty. A little profanity is not in my opinion bitter." Really? "Feminists, you want to blame someone? Blame those weak little cave bitches. They set the precedent and fucked it up for the rest of us." Sounds bitter and nasty to me. You're less easily offended, unless it's directed at you, it seems.

"Dean's defense of me was not paternalistic it was simply because he knew I was sleeping and thus unable to ream you properly myself." Whatever.

"I was not confusing power with rights." Good.

"I was pointing out that physical weakness of women put us in second place to men from the beginning of humanity. Societal advances allowed women to compete more equally and our 'rights' came naturally along." This contradicts your previous statement. Rights do not flow from physical or economic power.

"What rights that are 'inalienable' according to our forefathers did women not possess?" The right to own and inherit property, including the right to work for wages. The right to vote or hold office. The right to get an education on equal terms with men. These are all fundamental rights, whether they are in the Bill of Rights, or in the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges and Immunities clause, or the Republican Form of Government clause. All governmental power and legitimacy derives from the People. When half of the people were denied the franchise, even before the 19th Amendment, their fundamental rights were being violated.

Women were not denied any of those rights sometimes they were granted more leeway than that of men. Actually, the fact that women were not held legally responsible for some of their actions was one of the ways women were infantilized and something feminists worked to change from the beginning.

And I don't smoke a pipe.

mj - "Why, then do you believe that whites who engaged in the same struggle toward the same goal 'deserved no thanks'?" We were discussing whether women as a group should thank men as a group for giving women their rights. Again, women are born with their rights intact - men do not give, do not create women's rights. Individuals who work to convince others to secure those rights deserve thanks, but men as a group do not deserve thanks.

"See, we're thieves because we're men (or white). If you supported suffrage (or abolition), no matter. If you're a man (or white), you're guilty. In your world the men who helped enact suffrage are guilty of the sins of those men who fought to retain their priviledge." Again, we're talking about whether women or blacks as a group owe thanks to men or whites as a group. They don't. The necessary corollary is that whites or men as groups deserve no blame. So your point is nonsense.

"As I can make no claim to my father's assets, you may claim no obligation for my father's debts. Now that we have this settled, can we forget all the race hustling? I can count on your opposition to reparations?"

Actually, I oppose reparations because I think they won't work. While neither of us have a moral obligation for the wrongs of our ancestors, we are obligated to take into account the current effects of those wrongs. This is not a responsibility that is passed along to men and whites because of some group guilt, it is passed along to everyone because we are all responsible as citizens for seeing justice is done.

You say I want to say that whites and men have never done anything good. Let me turn that around. You seem to be saying that if you can find instances of whites or men doing good, then you can disclaim any responsibility for the current effects of past wrongs.

Keep on spinning, folks.

Mithras,

"We were discussing whether women as a group should thank men as a group for giving women their rights."

Actually this is what you were discussing. My point is that you can't judge race or gender groups when members of the groups don't act uniformly (which is virtually always).

You state that men aren't deserving of praise for these actions. But you accept the idea of group guilt by saying whites deserve no credit for ending slavery, since they were thieves returning stolen property. Of course, this analysis is highly offensive since it groups abolitionists and slave owners together. White abolitionists, many of whom died tring to end slavery, are painted guilty not by their actions but because they were white. However, grouping allows you to overlook these contributions and claim whites were enslavers.

You attempt to justify your position on male supporters of women's suffrage by claiming women should always have had these rights. True, but so what? Is Frederick Douglass undeserving of credit because slavery was always wrong? Obviously not. Perhaps you recognized the weakness of your arguments and needed a throw in, but you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Also, please spare us your faux outrage (and this goes for Meryl as well). Regardless of the truism that women deserved these rights, that is a moral issue not a legal matter. Legally, someone had to act to correct this problem. We don't have any problem recognizing the female leaders of this movement as great Americans, and you point is just as applicable to them. Unless maleness is somehow a disqualifying characteristic. Refusing to admit that the men who took that step are worthy of gratitude is petty.

Your entire concept is based on group guilt. Here's what you said:

"Men did consciously decide to stop preventing women from enforcing those rights. Do men deserve thanks for that? You, Dean and Rosemary say yes. John Kusch and I say that the denial of those rights in the first place was unjust, and that not perpetuating an injustice is like returning stolen property. It's better than keeping it, but do you thank the repentant thief"

Let me correct your analogy. One person stole something from you. Someone ELSE caught him and returned your property because it was the right thing to do. Not only do you refuse to thank the good samaritan, you consider him guilty of theft as well.

mj - Look, you obviously want to maintain thinking of me as a "guilty liberal", despite everything.

The original post from Rosemary is as follows: "Why aren't women grateful? What is our fucking problem? ... If women started out EQUAL then they wouldn't have needed 'Equal Rights', they would have always had them. ... As society evolved, women were better able to compete with men and that is why they were given their rights. We had to prove that we deserved them."

Is there anything in there about individuals, rather than groups? No. Rosemary's argument seemed to be that women as a group owed thanks to men as a group for giving women their rights. So why do you go off on me when I talk about reponsibility, credit and blame as a group matter, since that's what she was talking about? I simply responded to her argument, using counterarguments that you haven't even bothered to respond to. Instead, you accuse me of practicing identity politics when those were the terms of the debate that I entered. It's interesting that you blame me for the way the discussion was framed, when you really should be taking it up with your hosts here.

I'm talking to you, not Rosemary. If you think my post misinterpreted your position you should have said so, but you didn't. Here's what I said.

"Your analysis can only be true if individual actors are lumped into groups. Typical leftist drivel. The truth is that anyone who put their life at risk to right an injustice is deserving of gratitute."

You denied this position. Now you want to restate your views, which I can only presume is because you didn't like what they entail. That's great, but let's not pretend you didn't go there on your own.

As for Rosemary's position, I don't agree with her comments as stated, but I do agree with her in a different sense.

It seems to me lefties like yourself are perfectly willing to assign group blame as long as it is never assigned to PC protected groups. Given your general acceptance of group analysis, shouldn't we at least include ALL of the things these groups did and assign blame/gratitude for all events for these purposes? I think the answer is obviously yes, but this isn't what happens in practice.

The actual methodology is to cherry-pick every evil event in the history of mankind and assign blame to whites and men, while at the same time pretending their contributions either didn't exist or for some reason don't count. Hence your belief that men's contributions to womens' suffrage are unworthy of merit because women deserved those rights all along.

This blatant double standard is my point, and I think it was both Dean's and Rosemary's point as well, although not always explicitly. At the end of Dean's first post he references that the debt is owed to his grandfathers, who presumably voted to enact women's suffrage. This tells me that he isn't speaking of group debts, but rather is simply pointing out that these men who are constantly attacked don't deserve it. Not all the posts make this point clear, but I think it's cumbersome to restate the distinction constantly. Obviously you didn't read this or interpret it the same way I did, but if that were your only objection you shouldn't have had a problem with my comment. Yet you did.

The best option is to cease group analysis. But if you insist on engaging in it you have to include both positives and negatives.

My points are based solely on your comments. If you feel they are representative of liberal ideology, I won't dispute your point.

mj - You still haven't responded to my arguments at all. Instead, you just mischaracterize them to fit your agenda.

My arguments boil down to the following:

1. Women and blacks have the same rights as men and whites because all people innately possess those rights. Therefore, men did not "give" women their rights and whites did not "give" blacks their rights. They already had them, they just couldn't enforce them.
2. Whites as a group were responsible for the enslavement of blacks in North America because whites were the only group with the political power to impose slavery on them. Similarly, men as a group were responsible for the denial of certain rights to women since men held all overt political power. "Were responsible for" in this sense simply means "caused." Neither of these statements is meant to imply that individual whites or men did not hold views opposite to the majority's.
3. Individuals - black and white - worked to overturn slavery. Individuals - male and female - worked to ensure women could assert their basic rights. These individuals deserve praise and thanks.
4. White people as a group do not deserve praise and thanks for overturning slavery because, among other reasons, whites as a group should never have enslaved blacks. Men as a group do not deserve praise and thanks for allowing women to assert their rights, because women should not have been deprived of those rights in the first place.
5. In general, whole groups of people do not deserve condemnation or praise.
6. No one is responsible for what their ancestors did or did not do.

I think these are all pretty self-evident points. But from this, you craft a whole ideology in which I am supposedly condemning men and whites as a group. That's foolish.

The bottom line is that I was talking about Rosemary's blaming women as a group for not feeling gratitude to men as a group. I have been talking about that all along, and you are evidently talking about something else.

Mithras,

Your arguments are intended to make your points, not mine. But I'll play your game.

1. So they didn't "give" them. They helped enable the enforcement of their rights. This is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether those that took action deserve gratitude. But a clear example of the kind of meaningless distinctions you must make to believe your position.

2. If you must debase your arguments by engaging in group analysis, whites were responsible both for enslaving blacks and for freeing them. Men were responsible both for denying rights to women and for changing the system to enforce their rights.

3. Thanks for adopting my point. I'm not sure why you felt the need to deny it.

4. Ah, we're back to blanket-slandering. Whites as a group are guilty of the actions of some whites. But the positive actions of whites do not accrue to the group. Note how you must parse the circumstances to arrive at your conclusion. The issue is limited to North America, and other relevant factors are ignored. You're in a position that requires you to assign guilt even to those whites who gave their lives to end slavery.

The logical mistake you make is this: Even when you assign blame to a group, they are based on the actions of individuals. If you denied group gratitude because the individuals who ended slavery were the same as those who previously enacted it, I could understand your point. But this isn't true. Different whites disagreed with slavery and fought it throughout its existence in North America. Your belief that whites as a group bear responsibility for the actions of some whites, while at the same time whites are not due gratitute for positive actions of other whites is racist.

5. Again, thanks for adopting my point, but you must have opmitted something. After all, you believe whites are guilty of slavery and men of oppressing women (see your point 2). Since you won't include a definition that allows for the statements you have repeatedly made, I can only presume that there is an exception for whites and men. If not, please state how you believe groups don't deserve condemnation or gratitude, yet whites and men deserve condemnation.

It's fairly obvious that you make this statement only to deflect criticism. You cannot believe this statement and your point two at the same time. They are entirtely contradictory.

6. Ok, at least this time you didn't explicity contradict yourself.

Society evolved as it did for complex reasons. Boiling it all down to whites enslaved blacks and men oppressed women ignores the facts of history and misrepresents the truth.

I didn't necessarily see Rosemary's comments in the same light you did, as I previously stated. I see them as being made not in a vacuum but in an environment where men of previous generations are constantly attacked as oppressors of women. So I didn't interpret her comments as "women owe men", but rather that "women who bash men are off target because they consider only their negative actions". Not only do I believe this point is true, I believe you among others have proven the point by attempting to justify such a treatment.