I dunno if I'd go that far. There have always been enormously powerful women, throughout human history, but it hasn't exactly been the rule.

Now. Is that recognize as in "realize" or recognize as in "admit?"

Depends on what you mean by "powerful." If you mean politically and legally, I'd say not really. Socially, perhaps. Certainly culturally, given their influence on their children and husbands. But it's definitely an indirect form of power.

I agree. Heck, my dishes would pile up and my laundry would never get done if I didn't have a girlfriend.

Dean, I agree. (I should add that you were the one that originally changed my mind on this subject.) As an aside, I'd like to mention that women have much more power over me than men. Men can go to hell for all I care. But if a woman asks me for a cigarette, she gets one.

"But if a woman asks me for a cigarette, she gets one."

unless she's ugly.

I know they have enormous power over me.

There's a difference between power, influence, and self-determination. I think that in many historical contexts women have had power. I think that in all of human history women have been highly influential (that's an entire term paper right there). But self-determination? That's a form of power I'm afraid women have not always had, and in fact the realization of self-determination for women is probably less than 200 years old in Western Civilization, all told.

But then you have to go throw the entire "mysogyny" cup of lard into the fire an then act all innocently surprised when things get smoky and everyone starts running around and screaming. To acknowledge that women haven't always had the same options in terms of exercising their power and influence as men enjoyed is neither logically nor emotionally equivalent to saying, "I hate women."

What I think gets lost in these discussions (which seem designed very specifically to spark heated discussion while making only questionable progress toward understanding) is that historically, men haven't always enjoyed great power, influence or self-determination either. In the case of men it was often racial/class/religious issues that kept them from taking more control over the conditions of their own lives. For women it was similar, with the added issue of gender.

The point isn't that women are powerless or weak or victimized, it's that in very specific historical contexts, women had (and still have) a more difficult time taking control of their own lives because of nothing but their gender. Would you call the women who live under the (still quite existent) Taliban weak or incompetent or victimized? I would call them heroes for staying alive under such intolerable conditions. To help women who endure such mistreatment isn't to hate them or think poorly of them.

I think your brush is overbroad here.

Women are deemed inferior or lacking power only when measured in the way that power or superiority are measured for men. The problem with the women's movement of the Suffragettes, and the 60s Feminists, is they chose to measure women by male standards. They were the most mysognist of all in their refusal to accept that there were measurements that were different for women. The great myth (or the great lie) is that women always viewed the world this way, or conducted themselves the same way that men did.

Have there been powerful women? Of course. Are most women extremely powerful? Of course. Measuring influence alone, women have more power than men.

Nock told a story about an American woman (this was back in the 1930s) who, upon her husband's death, found a hastily penned will leaving all this assets to his mistress, instead of his wife of many decades. She went into a tirade, stating how horrible this was of him, how he could do that to her, the legal fight she would launch to overturn the will, etc. etc.

When the story was relayed to a French woman, her response was "Tear up the will."

That is the difference between women of old and American women of today. All the things the American woman listed were the way a man would settle a dispute or fight a battle. These are not the tools and methods available to women--until very, very recently. Women have always operated outside the law, the state, and the bastion of men--these were follies and hobbies of men, which had no bearing whatsoever on the lives of women. When you compare history to these things, you will find women inferior. If, however, you view history from an entirely different perspective, without the modern twist of women trying to behave and compete the same way, history reads differently.

Prepare a man's favorite meal. Wear a seductive gown. Laugh at a man's joke. Nestle in his arms for security. Then ask, who is the more powerful in those exchanges? What is a man willing to do to please his wife or simply make a pretty young woman smile.

I think your brush is overbroad here.

He said "broad" heheheh....

My wife says I agree with with Dean.

My wife also says I wholeheartedly agree with Mrs. du Toit.

Don't really know what to say on this. Sadly because I have known very few if any "powerful" women, because of this I am a little wary of loaded statements such as the one made by Dean here, especially the mysogyny thing. While I do have a great respect for certain women (My Mother, Mrs. Elenore Roosevelt, Mrs. Dole, Marie Curie, etc...) there are those on the other side of the spectrum that are viewed in this light that I have either no respect or no belief in their power even though I am told that I am anti-fem is I don't. (Billary, Lynch, etc..)
Maybe this is a good thing,I mean the whole not recognizing the power of women as an absolute. My ignorance towards the power of women (Which I have been stricken with since at least puberty) probably allows them to gain more from this feeble minded oversexed man. ;-)

I agree that women have always been powerful (broadly-defined). I disagree that anyone who fails to recognize this is guilty of misogyny.

The forms of power historically wielded by men are more overt and visible, after all.

Great subject. From the '70s I can recall pointing out the great powers wielded by many women in particular, and all in general, and being shouted down for the trouble. It was apparently a forbidden subject of discussion, while the 'activists' exercised a quest for ever more powers, particularly of the veto.

"Women have always operated outside the law, the state, and the bastion of men--these were follies and hobbies of men, which had no bearing whatsoever on the lives of women."

Ahem...I hope this was just the fingers getting ahead of the brain.

I was going join this discussion but my wife wont
let me!

Well, as many have stated here, the question is too narrowly stated to be definitive in its results. Seeing as Dean’s a tricky bastard, I’ll bet he knew that already.

The real question here is the definition of power and recognition of its varying forms and manifestations. Mrs. du Toit nails it succinctly in her assertion that women are only weak when measured in terms of masculine power structures. The issues that set the Suffragettes and mid-to-late 20th century feminists on fire were a result of the recognition that lacking such overt power rendered women uncomfortably vulnerable. I think they grasped the reality of their underlying power, but they felt it wasn’t enough in a modern society, and make no mistake: they were right.

Where the issue really becomes thorny is when the attempt to take their rightful share of political power is couched in terms of redressing past victimization. This is a cheap and easy exploitation of western male patriarchal memes- men did view women as weaker and more vulnerable, but that was because that was their place in the extant power matrix. Women exercised subtle, but broad power via family and socialization. Men exerted overt power through political and economic axes. This was not a plot against women, it was an evolved situation that was thrown in to severe unbalance by the advent of the modern world. Reality changed faster than the culture. The results of that kind of thing are never pleasant.

Casting the call for political power in terms of overthrowing a tyrannical patriarchal culture worked to a degree because men both recognized there was a problem, and were culturally programmed to mollify the women in their lives. If the wife is unhappy, fix it. It worked, but because it worked it’s been used over, and over, and over again and has grown in to a meme both mythic in stature and increasingly self-defeating in nature. Human cultural evolution is a series of leaps forwards followed by excruciating steps back as the excesses of the exuberant, “revolutionary” changes are corrected. It is a process that never really ends.

What modern feminists need to come to grips with is that they have pretty much won what they set out to win. The tools they used to get there are not the tools they need to refine those hard-won and well-deserved gains. Once that is addressed we might finally be able to put the “helpless victim” meme to rest.

"Women have always operated outside the law, the state, and the bastion of men--these were follies and hobbies of men, which had no bearing whatsoever on the lives of women."

My mother would love to hear that the follies and hobbies of men had no bearing on her when they were beating and raping her and noone would help her because they said she was a bad wife. If only she'd cooked a better meal and wore more seductive clothing, she wouldn't have to watch her first husband screw a prostitute in their livingroom. That's just choice, Connie. You're lucky to have the luxury of being that far into the stratosphere with your whole Woman Ascendant line of accessories.

In the words of South Park's main characters in the "Krazy Kripples" episode, "I'm not touching this one."

Yeah, I'm amused by you too, John. I can't believe that you don't realize that your mother's rape was an isolated phenomena, occurring outside of the context of gender-based power structures. Don't you know that avoiding rape is a matter of personal choice? How can you diminish your mother's power like that, and still look at yourself in the mirror?

Oh, very nice, Mark.

It must surely be that history is nothing but brutal penis-wielding men oppressing helpless, vagina-clad females, right?

Do you really have so little respect for the women in your life that you see them in such a way? How can you even have any respect for them as anything but victims, I have to wonder?

Sure. Men are never victims. Women always are. Because that's the endless dichotomy that is human history, right?

If you have a penis, you are dangerous unless you're gay. And if you have a vagina you're a victim.

Right?

Dean, have you ever once noticed that floating between black and white, we have shades of grey?

It must surely be that history is nothing but brutal men oppressing helpless, vagina-clad females brutally oppressed by penis-equipped men, right?

What John and I have written can't be distilled down to this, no matter your name calling.

Excuse me, Mark, but, what you and John have written has been nothing but black-and-white, steroetypical, childish stereotypes. All I've done is call you out on it.

If you want to have an adult discussion, you should stop talking in the childish, simplistic stereotypes you accuse me of dealing in.

And I did see your unedited post, in which you called me something like a "misogynistic fuck".

I don't know what the hell that means, but you certainly are a misogynist fuck if you play the "men are oppressors/women are victims" game that you seem to be so eager to embrace.

Here's how the thinking goes, people:

"Someone I know and love was victimized. If you or someone you love has not been similarly victimized, you have nothing of value to say, and your viewpoint means nothing."

Bah.

If you want to have an adult discussion, you should stop talking in the childish, simplistic stereotypes you accuse me of dealing in.

If I actually believed what you claim I believe, then you would be right to make this statement. Problem is, you're not arguing against what I believe -- or even against my statements per say -- but instead against your own over-simplified version of the viewpoint you assign to me.

I've heard that Women in the Days of the Cathedrals by Regine Pernoud is helpful in explaining the truth about the role of women, at least during a particular time in history.

Dean, what happened to your comment to John that I was responding to with my first post? Why has it been deleted? I'll dig your deleted comments out of my browser cache and e-mail them to everyone here, if that's the way we're going to play.

"If you have a penis, you are dangerous unless you're gay."

Watch yourself, buddy boy. I can be pretty dangerous. :) What I think is the most interesting issue here is something no one's focused on: a lot of men who don't recognize historical female power aren't misogynists; they just don't see how it operates. The interesting question is whether women who don't recognize it are just buying into unexamined institutional ideas of power or are consciously looking down on it.

"Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." - Bob Dylan

Far from making a black-and-white argument, Dean, I'm simply reminding your readers that black does, indeed, exist, no matter how white Mrs. du Toit wants to paint things. Do you think my mother *wanted* to be abused? Do you think she *courted* her mistreatment? Don't you think she *tried* to get help -- from her priest, from her family, from the police -- and is it so completely unbelievable to you that the help she was desperately seeking (not only for herself but for her six children) was denied her by people who considered domestic abuse a "private matter" or a "moral failing" or a "family embarassment"?

Connie's world-view -- of the powerful wife manipulating her husband sub rosa while allowing him to *think* everything was his idea -- only works if the husband is completely trustworthy, if the social support structure around the wife is iron-clad, and if the law decides to be on her side. But the flip-side of women operating "outside the law" is that those same women often lived without the *protection* of the law when their "womanly charms" failed them; and the social and religious structures around them often failed as well.

It is appalling to me that in 2004 we still have people who either 1) deny that the domestic abuse of women occurs, 2) consider it such an aberrration as to be statistically insignificant (while so conveniently, Dean, you "woe is me" over domestic abuse of men by women), or 3) assume that it's the woman's fault.

Oh, certainly, my mother could have escaped her abuser, even though her family would not help her, her church would not support her, the law would not protect her, and the economic realities of the time made it well-nigh impossible for a single mother of six to support her family. If she hadn't stayed with that monster, she would have lost her children and very likely her mind. It speaks to the strength and perseverence of all women that my mother was able to tolerate the intolerable situation she was trapped in, move on to ultimately raise seven children who are all self-sustaining, well-adjusted human beings, and ultimately earn her social and financial independence, despite having grown up in a time when it was simply presumed that a woman would marry and become completely dependent upon a man.

Are women strong? You be your ass they're strong. You can cling to your Cracker Jack notions of gentlemanly husbands bending over backwards to bring a smile to their doting wives' faces, but the true social and evolutionary strength of women is that they have borne the brunt of nurturing and ensuring the continuance of the human race, despite the best efforts of men to destroy it.

Are all women abused? Stop treating me like I'm retarded, Dean. Of course they're not. Just because I don't choose something on your menu of multiple choice doesn't mean I'm on the "wrong side of history". Much more of this pedagoguery and I'll suggest you stop trying to write books and limit yourself to writing pull quotes for the jacket.

John Kusch:
"You be your ass they're strong. You can cling to your Cracker Jack notions of gentlemanly husbands bending over backwards to bring a smile to their doting wives' faces, but the true social and evolutionary strength of women is that they have borne the brunt of nurturing and ensuring the continuance of the human race, despite the best efforts of men to destroy it."

My father is just as real as yours, and he and my mother have rarely had a fight over anything more serious than whether to listen to Bonnie Raitt or CCR in the car.

Also, men use their physical superiority to do way more of the backbreaking work that keeps society going than women do, in addition to giving women beatings-up and destroying society. The tradition of blaming all marital problems (from abuse to the husband's philandering to hostility from the in-laws) on the wife's unwomanliness was shameful, and we were right to drop it. But that doesn't mean that women in healthy relationships with men who don't clock them routinely are operating in some rarefied "stratosphere."

Damn. More than a few folks are getting hot under the collar here. :)

I think John Kusch has made a nicely balanced statement, although I don't agree with everything he's said here.

Um, Dean, when you said "Excuse me, Mark, but, what you and John have written has been nothing but black-and-white, steroetypical, childish stereotypes. All I've done is call you out on it." (emphasis added), do mean John Kusch, or that other John?

Casey: I do mean John Kusch, who I continue to accuse of dealing with stereotypes and playing into sexist notions of power.

John Kusch: You know what I'm getting sick of? Your assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, they just don't understand what abusive relationships look like. And frankly, you don't know what you're talking about motherfucker. You have no idea what my upbringing was, what I saw growing up. NONE. And just because I don't choose to share it with you does not give you any right to assume you know me, or what I've been through, or what I've seen, or what I've witnessed people in my life go through. So cut the self-righteous crap. I'll match you toe-to-toe any time if you want to talk about seeing the ugly side of human nature.

And I again accuse YOU of dealing in nasty stereotypes when you generalize about women's power and influence the way you do. Here's exactly what you're doing in all your generalizations: demeaning women.

Mostly Mark: Get over yourself. Here is the policy here on Dean's World. If I need to edit a comment because I'm not happy with something I've said and need to modify it, I will. Don't like it? Go play somewhere else.

Sean: Well-spoken as usual.

Any sane look at power dynamics throughout human history must, to be even close to fair, examine the reality of men's lives.

Men have always been the sex that does most of the brutal, backbreaking labor to provide. They have always been the ones expected to fight and die. Indeed, even today, in 2004 America, 90% (NINETY PERCENT) of all work-related injuries and deaths are borne by men. Even today, in 2004, men work most of the overtime hours, put more hours into career, and lose more time with families, than women. Indeed, we appear to have reached a point in our history where women are routinely paid the same as men even when they work fewer hours.

And men who are abused in relationships are still haughtily dismissed by the John Kusches of the world, who portray it as some sort of pathetic "woe is me" situation. "Hey my mom was abused, therefore, I have a right to viciously stereotype anyone who questions me!"

Yer goddammned right I'm getting hot under the collar. I'm very tired of seeing my sex demeaned, abused, and stereotyped. I have a son, and I don't particularly appreciate a world which treats him like dirt just because of who and what he is.

This blog oppresses wymyn. Even so...
What Dean wrote was what I've thought for a very long time. And what he wrote, he wrote out of love: love for his son who is called an exploiting pig, love for his wife who is called an oppressed victim of false consciousness. I've long thought that if I were a woman, I'd puke reading this crap that portray's women's main accomplishment in history as being beaten and raped by men.
Women have been worshipped as Goddesses in all the mythologies of history. They have sat on thrones as Queens. They have been warriors. They have written great books. They have bewitched men with their glamor, "beauty as power, power as beauty", as Camille Paglia put it so eloquently. Woman _is_ power.

And Hail to the Queen of All Evil!

He's superior to anybody who calls him a "faggot", that's for damn sure. And to somebody who uses a fake name and e-mail address, to boot. Calling somebody a "faggot" is exactly like calling somebody a "nigger".

Dean, I assume this (your original entry) is meant to be a thesis for a paper or something, correct? I would suggest taking out the misogyny part. It might be hard to prove that everyone who fails to recognize it are guilty of misogyny. People who choose not to, perhaps...

Feh. If I were writing a thesis on misogyny, my primary focus would be on how portraying women throughout history as pathetic, helpless victims of patriarchy is, all by itself, a misogynist view.

Deal with it.

And, by the way: How dare me?

Think for myself? Question authority? Someone really ought to shoot me for a dangerous dissident.

Casey writes:

"And I again accuse YOU of dealing in nasty stereotypes when you generalize about women's power and influence the way you do. Here's exactly what you're doing in all your generalizations: demeaning women."

Could you enumerate those stereotypes, please, because I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't write that all men are wife-beaters. I didn't write that all women are victims. I didn't write that all women are weak and powerless, or that all men are brutish or cruel.

What I *did* write is that the forms of power and influence Dean claims women have had over the centuries is an extremely contingent form of power, which can (and has been) taken away by men, through law, through propaganda, or through violence, and that while Connie du Toit seems satisfied to exercise her feminine power "outside the law", it is only with equal protection under the law that we can prevent the abuses of the past.

Did I write that you know nothing about abusive relationships? No. Did I write anything that said anything about your upbringing? No. I was talking about Connie, who seems to believe that a good meatloaf and some Fredericks of Hollywood fare can keep women safe from harm.

"Men have always been the sex that does most of the brutal, backbreaking labor to provide. They have always been the ones expected to fight and die. Indeed, even today, in 2004 America, 90% (NINETY PERCENT) of all work-related injuries and deaths are borne by men."

What's this? "I come home after a hard day's work and all I want is a hot meal"?

And what are women doing in the meantime, while men are breaking their backs, and what have women done in the meantime across the centuries? Raise children, cook, clean, maintain household finances -- and when the men are away at war, women do everything the men aren't there to do. I don't think men or women are entitled to special considerations for the amount of work they do. I think things even out very nicely.

I hate to just wave my arm and dismiss the fact that women (by vitrue of being half the species) have been an integral part of the world from its very beginning, but while they can exercise considerable power and influence, they have not until recently wielded much *political* power (it's important to note here that Connie's husband believes women should not participate in public life, i.e. "The Pussification of the Western Male") and that this lack of political power has had real-life economic and social consequences.

Dean, if you want us to reject the notion of women as victimes, you're going to have to give up the notion of men as victims, too. Home-school your boy and go bang drums in the forest with your buddies.

Political power is only important if you wish to play within politics. This is a narrow and misguided view. 95+% of the populations of history operated outside of politics--outside of the state. Human beings working their land, tending to their immediate, basic needs had no time or desire to participate in the laws of state. When the King changed it did not change anything for them. When the Senator changed it did nothing.

People lived in clans or tribes for the majority of history. These clans and tribes conducted themselves in completely different ways--having nothing to do with the State or the law-of-the-land. They had their own rules, based on their own needs, beliefs, religions, and having much to do with geography, topography, and either an abudance of available food or shortages.

The state simply did not yield that much power. It didn't have any impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. Now it did have impact on those who operated in and around the royal court or senate, mosques, temples, and churches, but that was an incredibly small percentage of the affluent populations--those who could read.

One of the unintended outcomes of ceding political and government power to woman has been an increase in the power of the state--an increase in the power the state has over ordinary people. It is logical and obvious when you think about it--the more people who have influence, who draw power and control FROM the state, the more power the state has to cede. It is from that modern view that we look at the power that women had or didn't have.

The peasants/ordinary laborer, who represented most of our ancestors, may have looked jealously at the power or influence the royals and political elites may have had. But it is often our desire to elevate/revise our own acestoral histories to believe that they were part of the larger, siginificant classes, by being either victim or ruler. They were neither. They, simply, existed--with little or no involvement in the philosophies or history of men. Women even more so--it simply had no impact on their lives, on how they raised their children, in the meals they prepared, or the hovels and caves they tended. The weather had more impact on their lives.

To draw any conclusions about the lot of women (or men, for that matter) by the acts of criminals (wife beaters and rapists) or thieves is either incredibly stupid or demonstrative of an unresolved superiority/inferiority complex, where your individual history and personal story is viewed as representative and important. In other words, "you got issues."

Dean,

Yeah, I understand how it works now. You make rude, offensive personal attacks on me, and then after I respond, you delete or edit what you have written. Then, you even claim to not even know what I'm talking about.

My first post here was made to criticize your irrationally offensive response to John regarding his mother's rape and abuse. You said that John's mother's personal choices (What personal choice!? Getting raped!!?) shouldn't be considered emblematic of all women. Then you made the claim that John's remarks somehow degrade his mother's own power and dignity.

You write this stuff, then I respond, then you delete what you've written. Why?

I'll tell you why. You start discussions like this not to generate interesting dialog or fresh ideas, but instead with the intention of ensnaring, then tar and feathering, participants with different viewpoints. When it doesn't work out as planned, you edit yourself to regain the upper-hand. After all, why not? You already have all of the answers.

The saddest part is that there is actually room for significant, interesting discussion between our two viewpoints. Obviously the history of the world is not as simple as powerful men against weak, helpless women. At the same time, the physical and sexual violence too often committed by men on women is certainly related to wider systems of power. Discuss.

So go ahead, Dean. Oversimplify. Insult. Sling nasty names. Then edit yourself later and deny everything. You're the master of Dean's World, but luckily not of much else.

Mrs. du Toit,

If anything here is stupid, it's you trying to construct the political as an abstraction existing completely outside of the realm of everyday human experience. You don't think that the concerns of rural village life have anything to do with politics? Let's you and I travel to India together and meet with the rural agricultural folks I know there. It would be a real hoot, watching you trying to explain this to them.

Dean, I agree that "Men have always been the sex that does most of the brutal, backbreaking labor to provide. They have always been the ones expected to fight and die. Indeed, even today, in 2004 America, 90% (NINETY PERCENT) of all work-related injuries and deaths are borne by men."

And for this we are rewarded with a tremendous amount of respect and adulation (not to mention a greater amount of self-determination). For most women in America, there was no opportunity to be a part of that. What (most) women's libbers wanted was simply an opportunity to be a part of that world. And how could you blame them? While some may take Ms. Du Toit's view that women had 'different but equal' powers, how many monuments are there to the great American mothers/housekeepers/nursemaids? I walk through central park or the mall in DC, and I don't see many. If we hold up strength, resolve, and self-determination as heroic, patriotic values, how can you expect women not to want to have a place in that realm? And isn't it conceivable to equate the lack of women in public/political power with the suffering of women in general? Yes, added responsibility has come with added costs for women, and whether or not they are better off materially can be debated...but the point was (is)self-determination, and not material success.

But you contradict yourself, Mark. The fact that we know of Indian rural life, that we could travel there, that we could discuss it in the political realm is exactly the point: That did not exist 200 years ago--not even 100 years ago. We could not discuss it because chances are that we, representing the majority, would not have been able to read, to discuss it, because we would have been busy ploughing, planting, or tending the animals in our hovels. The history books represent a minute population, not the common man.

But you give yourself away with this quote above, Obviously the history of the world is not as simple as powerful men against weak, helpless women.

Helpless infers inferior. That is why Dean accused anyone of believing that women were victims as guilty of misogyny. To believe that women are victims implies helplessness. Only children and the weak are helpless--strong, confident, and able people are never helpless because they have free will, and the ability to rise above or change their cirumstances--that includes the majority of women of the world, and all throughout our history.

Indeed, strength, resolve, and self-determination are heroic, patriotic values, and I want women to have them. I'm against the "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" ("children, kitchen, church" -Nazi slogan) view of women's role, as preached by Pat Robertson, Phyllis Schlafly, et alia. But you don't build strenth, resolve, and self-determination in women by bombarding them with propaganda about how beaten and oppressed they are. That's my quarrel with contemporary feminism. I don't have to tolerate the likes of Pat Robertson to reject the view of women vis-a-vis men as portrayed in "Ms." magazine.

"Helpless infers inferior" is only true if you presume that the reason someone was victimized was their fault. I know plenty of people/groups who have been victimized without being considered inferior as human beings. Circumstance (and luck) frequently play a part.

As you say, "...strong, confident, and able people are never helpless because they have free will, and the ability to rise above or CHANGE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES." This implies that even strong, confident, and able people can get caught up in a system that they are unhappy with (otherwise they would not need to make a change). Is it hard to see that this may have been the case with the women's rights movement?

If it's permissible to jump in so late in the argument — I think Dean's "thesis" is mostly correct, but I don't think "misogyny" is quite the right word. One could make a case in a Womens' Studies sort of way that female power has been overlooked simply because women had it, but is that misogyny exactly? I suppose you could call it "institutional sexism," in analogy to "institutional racism." Most history, until rather recently, was written by men. But I wonder whether they downplayed private (=largely female) forms of power in favor of political (=mostly male) power because they just overlooked it, or because, on the contrary, the subject was a great deal too close to home, in more than one sense.

Dean's points about the real position of the sexes seem to irritate some people here, but I think they bear reiterating. Suppose an alien sociology team settled in for a long study of Earth's human population. They would notice very soon that the population was divided at birth into two equal-sized, demographically identical cohorts — call them A and B. A little further on, they'd notice that the A's were disproportionately represented in the most difficult and dangerous work; that they were vastly more likely to die of work-related accidents; that they were several times more likely to be murdered, several times more likely to commit suicide, several times more likely to be imprisoned; that only A's could be conscripted in time of war. They would also notice that B's had near-exclusive handling of the early education of the young; that while they made on average less money, they tended to live at the same standard of living as the A's, being partially supported by them; and that they tended to live, on average, several years longer. I wonder which the aliens would conclude was the dominant caste.

Now, that's a cherry-picked account of our condition, obviously. All the same, I think it's reasonable to try to remember female advantages — and male disadvantages.

Hmmm. Before anyone else calls me on it: I should have limited my hypothetical to the United States, or the Western industrialized world, not the entire planet. I suspect that most of what I said would still hold true for the total human population, but I'm not in a position to prove it. So just substitute "America" for "the Earth" above. Thanks.

Dear Mrs. du Toit:

It's really easy to write, "In the old days, in agrarian cultures, politics never infringed much on the lives of ordinary people, who were just going about their lives, tilling their land, tending to their livestock." You're engaging in a particularly transparent attempt to remove politics from, say, 15th century agrarian life in Europe, by strictly defining politics according to modern values. You're comparing apples to oranges to disprove the existence of oranges.

Politics *did* touch the lives of early Americans, of old Europeans, of even pre-historical hunter-gathered tribes. This took the form of tribal councils, of town halls, of local governors and the citizens deputized to carry out the will of the State, in whatever form. It took the form of knights, of barons and dukes of the court, of the clergy, and of the privileged monied classes. It is folly to argue that people in pre-democratic societies were not influenced in any way by politics: they were taxed, their sons were levied for wars, their faith was overseen by the religious authorities of the time, and their behavior was regulated by whatever law was handed down by whatever ruler was in power.

In Western history, women have never had much input into those systems, while at the same time they lived under those systems. Women could not participate in the drafting of laws or religious dogma, but their behavior was most certainly proscribed by it.

And even in societies where there was no government per se, humans are hierarchical social creatues and we have a tendency to set up strata of influence and power and to self-regulate our societies through a system of leaders and deputized officers. Just because a group of pre-historical humans had no chater of rights or a parlimentary system of governance doesn't mean there was no government, no power structure, no means by which the will of those with power could regulate the behavior and allocate the resources of those without.

It may be true that the increased participation of women in government (at least in the specific instance of the United States) has resulted in "more" government or even more intrusive government; yet before women had the vote in this country, there were many laws regarding the behavior and disposition of women in relation to their husbands that women themselves had little power to change: laws about sexual behavior, about property rights, about religion, about childrearing, and about employment. The historical record speaks for itself.

And I would caution Connie here against entering into speculation about my "issues" when on her blog she openly advocates the dismantling of the Bill of Rights and the last fifty years or so of American culture in a so-called "rollback", and damn the consequences in terms of civil liberties. When some lady in some town with a computer starts talking about which liberties should be denied citizens of the United States of America in order to please her current (and dare I say whimsical) sensibilities, I think there's more than enough room to discuss "issues" right there.

Make no mistake: Connie (like her husband) is an advocate for repealing women's right to vote and for a sharp curtailing of the Bill of Rights and our cherished notions of liberty and privacy, all because she doesn't like what other people -- and women in particular -- have done with their lives. For a proponent of "small government", the sang froid with which she advocates draconian government-sponsored repression speaks volumes here. This is not a source from which I'm likely to take criticism seriously.

Before Dean convinced me otherwise, I had no idea that women were in fact enormously powerful throughout history. I certainly wasn't mysogynist because of this. I just had never heard otherwise from anyone. It's not exactly a popular viewpoint played on the History Channel, you know.

John Kusch, you are dangerously treading once again on libel. I have never advocated, supported, championed, or in anyway suggested that women's rights should be repealed. What you seem too daft (or intentionally vile) to understand is that observing, commenting, or otherwise noting the unintended or intentional consequences of an action, which may or may not need to be dealt with specifically, is not the same as wanting something repealed. It is not even in the same ballpark. It is trying to deal with the outcome--the reality of the situation.

If I were to suggest that an unintended consequence of supporting unwed mothers was an increase in out-of-wedlock births, by your twisted, bigoted logic, you would infer that I was advocating that unwed mothers be killed or forced to have abortions. The reality is that the action had consequences beyond those intended by the kinder, gentler action of supporting unwed mothers and their children. That consequence has to be dealt with. Perhaps it is kinder and gentler, in the longer term, not to support them so strongly, but that would never mean that I wish to return to the days when their children were tarnished for the "sins of their parents."

Simply put: Fuck off. Ditto from my husband.

"But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media -- and mostly, this has not been a good thing."

Your husband wrote that.

"If that means I want a roll back that will infringe on the rights of other people to behave like immoral beasts in their pursuit of happiness, at the expense of the decency and moral bankruptcy of the rest of the world, so be it. Tolerance for “lifestyles” has a limit. Mine has been passed. Those that lived this way and decided to make their lives and lifestyles everyone else’s business SCREWED IT UP. Back in the closet with everyone."

You wrote that.

If you and your husband don't want to take responsibility for your own ideas and the logical, *rational* conclusion of those ideas, that's your business. Don't try to silence me with claims of libel or slander when you're the one who so flippantly goes on about how little you care what people think of you. Don't claim to be numb to such slings and arrows and then go on about how unfair it is when you're taken to task.

I don't know what strong support of unwed mothers means, versus "weak" support, versus any support whatsoever. The reality is that when women have children out of wedlock it's often not their choice, and the law has proven (predictably) ineffective when it comes to *forcing* the fathers of such children to truly be fathers. What constitutes support? What are the alternatives? What would constitute an expression of a civil society? If my tax dollars go to make sure that people don't starve to death or suffer, it's tax money well-spent, regardless of the circumstances. You feel differently.

Fine. What next?

I'm selfish and intolerant. I have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone advocating the overthrow of the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution, and _my_ right to privacy in _my_ own home. I regard anyone who favors "sodomy" laws exactly as I do a Communist or a Nazi.

And I'm against this whole concept of looking at everything through the lens of Pity. My love for women has absolutely nothing whatsoever with the idea of their being oppressed victims of men. I love women because so many of them are beautiful, powerful, Goddesslike.
My admiration for homosexuals and homosexuality is not based on the idea of their being oppressed victims of society, much less weak, miserable failures who "can't help" being what they are. I'm sick of that argument from the "bleeding hearts".
Homosexuals are men who aroused by what they see in other men, women who are aroused by what they see in other women. And I say that's _good_, a _value_. They are an elite (and that's _good_, I am an elitist) who make the world a better place simply by their being in it.

dowingba:
"It's not exactly a popular viewpoint played on the History Channel, you know."

The television repository for celebrating female power is, unfortunately, Lifetime; there's no shame in not having seen it. And speaking of television analogies, Connie and John's going at it is like Crossfire with smarter, more interesting people.

But must these discussions always turn so frankly hostile? To a point, there's something nice about the way we all think of men and women as equally sovereign adults in charge of their own destinies--to the extent that we can't even imagine how people saw the world when childbirth was dangerous, a lot of children didn't survive their infant illnesses, the life of the mind was restricted to the rich, and most people needed a passel of offspring to take care of them in their debilitated old age.

We're so used to hearing women on buses chat about their hormone replacement therapy that it's hard to remember that up until a century ago, most people had only the most rudimentary understanding of how reproduction worked. That doesn't make it okay that women didn't have property rights, exactly. But it does mean that the impulse to shoo them away from risky stuff and strong-arm them into living child-centered lives--no matter what their inclinations--arose from more than just condescension. That men who are jerks have always taken advantage of power differences in any way they could is not news (BTW, the most reliable studies indicate that wife-beaters tend to be violent towards other men, too). Unfulfilled, selfish women have used their husbands and children as proxies for their ambitions throughout history, too. Just read...jeez, almost any work of great literature about family life.

John Kusch related his experiences. I was more fortunate. My father was a big, strong man, and he could easily have beat up my mother. But, you know what? He never did and the thought of ever doing so would never have crossed his mind for one second. Is that because he was afraid of the police? He wan't afraid of the Nazis when he fought them at Normandy! It's because he was a _man_, a man of honor, a man who loved the woman he married and the kind of man who wanted to be able to look at himself in the mirror and to look his sons in the face. We need more men like him. We need to remember what those old-fashioned concepts of honor and chivalry meant to men like him. The chivalry of men toward women and toward other men. The chivalry of women toward men and toward other women.

And far from suggesting that all men are rapists or abusers and must be constantly monitored by the state to ensure the safety of women, I believe rather that most men *are* good and honorable and caring and nurturing, and that the law (in cooperation with religious and social institutions) should protect women from men who *aren't* good and honorable and caring and nurturing, just as it should protect men from awful women -- and my life experience has taught me nothing if not that women can be as wholly awful as men: There's some true gender equality for you.

Yes, my husband did write that. And it is true in the context in which it was written. But you didn’t choose to include the context, did ya, John? Even so, no where in that statement did he infer or even suggest that a repeal of women's rights was the solution. It is the recognition that, for the nation as a whole, and freedom and rights as a whole, it has not been an entirely good thing. The rise of the Nanny-state and intrusive legislation into the private bastion, you are so often whining about, came about EXACTLY at the same time women entered the body politic. Unless, of course, you think that things like the State regulating day care centers and canceling licenses for centers that allow green army men in their toy bins is a good thing. Perhaps you think it is appropriate for the State to tell private individuals and parents what toys their children can play with?

Clinton’s reorganization of the funding structure for Child Protective Services, paying them per case rather than a fixed budget, has caused them to increase their caseloads. DUH! They get more money when they have more cases—let’s invent cases. OH! And when that case results in an adoption they get a bonus. That wouldn't result in CPS wanting more children to be removed from their parents and put up for adoption would it? Parent’s rights are being violated and innocent parents are losing everything in defending against false accusations. Many more, without the means to defend against these charges, are losing their children to unscrupulous case workers. What clueless idiot couldn’t see that one coming as a result of the funding reorganization action? If I had written against Clinton’s plan, would that led you to conclude that I was advocating for a repeal of children’s rights, or supported child abuse? That’s how twisted your logic is.

The rise of legislation in the safety and security arena is the greatest challenge for everyone. It is an area where women are most gullible. Fascists and dictators often appeal to women on those issues, "we can make YOU safer if you allow us into your homes." That is an issue that is always on the top of the list for women as a voting group. Do you deny that? Do you dispute the evidence that women will surrender rights, hand over power, or enable the state to intrude and infringe on rights, when safety issues are concerned? That, too, is a lessoning of the power and rights of individual citizens. But women aren't any safer than they used to be. Rape hasn't been eliminated. But how could that be, when we surrendered many of our rights to make the world a safer place? Could it be that it was a scam, that the State cannot promise to keep us safe, and we have to be responsible for protecting and defending ourselves? NO! That could NOT be it. That would require that people accept responsibility for their own actions, relationships, and movements. Women responsible for their behavior and avoiding situations or people that is risky? Why, I must be suggesting that women are to BLAME for getting raped if I suggest that there might be things they could do to lesson their risk. Much better that we teach them that only by supporting and surrendering all security and safety to the state will they ever be able to walk the streets without being cautious--just give the State a little bit more power and all will be well--all rapes will end when Big Brother has complete control. PUHLEEZE. That's the kind of shit and distortions you're trying to pull.

There are balances to be struck. BALANCES.

Many of women's rights have come at the expense of men's rights. Are women exercising their voting power with restraint and fairness? If you look at the results of family court decisions, wildly favoring women, you wouldn't think so. But then you have idiotic women's rights groups whining about the fact that women are not getting a fair shake in court. What, they'll only be appeased when EVERY judicial decision is in favor of the woman?

Now, that has all happened. Women are in. Now what? Ignore the fact that there are problems? Ignore that fact that women have unique/different challenges in showing restraint in supporting intrusive legislation? Refuse to admit that women are more susceptible to sweet talking, and good looking, politicians who promise that they'll be safer and their children will be better educated if ONLY we give the State more money and more power? Refuse to discuss it for fear that some fuck head like yourself will lie about the intentions of bringing the issue to the table? We need to recognize what has happened and why. To solve a problem you must first be willing to acknowledge it. We need to address that issue by talking about it. Or, we could choose your approach, and not dare discuss the fact that there are unintended consequences of an action, or refuse to face reality that good things for one group of people often have unintended, bad consequences for another group of people. You wouldn't, perhaps, have any strong feelings on issues where you KNOW there would be negative consequences being addressed openly and honestly for fear that it might taint your otherwise pure and simple agenda, now would you? You only want more rights for everyone, you say? Bullshit. You want a special privilege card which establishes that your rights are more important than anyone else's rights.

Recognizing that there is a problem leads to discussing possible solutions. Bringing in the strong arm of the State is not my first choice. It shouldn't be anyone's first choice, unless they are ignorant of history and the dangers of that approach. When you give the government the power to sanction something, you have simultaneously given them the power to criminalize or outlaw it. You are way too quick to assume that people who are leery of giving power to the state on a specific issue are automatically to be assumed to in agreement with those in opposition to an idea. It is the remedy and approach they often disagree with, when the remedy includes empowering the State. I do not believe we are powerless unless we have a jack booted thug around to enforce our world view on everyone else. There are ways, other than courts and legislation, to bring about positive changes—changes that will not turn around and bite you in the ass later—because they came FROM the people themselves when they were ready and willing to accept a change, not forced on them by the Jack Booted Thugs. There are ways to solve problems, to bring about progress and positive social changes, WITHOUT government meddle. The public soapbox is a far more effective, and lasting, remedy to social ills than the courts and Congress.

Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. That does not imply that someone wants your right to swing your arm repealed, John, if too many people are getting punched in the nose. You seem to think that everyone should go around with a bloody nose so you can swing your fist. Rights end at the point of infringement on another’s rights. The issues Kim described in that piece you quoted, and the issue that has always been of prime importance to me is the issue of COMPETING RIGHTS: where does your right end and mine begin? You do not want to accept that. You deny that there are issues of competing rights and have chosen to view my opinions ONLY from the perspective of my refusal to believe that certain groups of people, for whatever reason, always have a higher place in the competing rights table. People have put up with that for a long time and cowered at the accusations brought by people like yourself, by accusing people of being fascists and bigoted for tackling hypocritical jerk’s like yourself. I’m not going to back down and cower at the likes of you. Other people are beginning to see through your endless victim-cycle charade, and are starting to see it as an endless cycle. People have been willing to set aside their rights to allow others to exercise more of their own, but there is a limit. But you seem unwilling to recognize it, or unwilling to recognize that sacrifices have been made at all. You were a victim so you have a special pass to go to the head of the line? Fuck that. Other people have their own claims to the victim limelight, but unlike you, they’ve dealt with it and don’t snivel about it, or use it as an excuse for demanding more than their fair share. You seem to operate from the delusion that your rights are sacrosanct and do not come with a parallel responsibility to exercise them responsibly, or not infringe on another's rights in the exercise thereof.

You are intentionally taking what was written out of context, but even those examples prove my point: that we have never advocated a repeal of rights--but recognize that the furthering of a "progressive agenda" often leads to the decay of existing rights, has consequences that may negatively impact other rights, and reverses the trend of limited government. BALANCE.

I did write, at the expense of the decency and moral bankruptcy of the rest of the world. Yes, and that proves my point. When my rights are under attack and are constantly being infringed, when millions of other people’s rights are being infringed, we will reach a point when we say, “ENOUGH!” I reached that point and my goal is to help other people realize that being falsely accused of being a bigot or a fascist by advocating for their own rights, and the greater good, is WORTH IT.

So keep it up, John. You encourage me to fight the good fight. You remind me that there are people out there, like yourself, that will say or do anything, including shooting the messenger, to keep people from recognizing and discussing the truth.

Who are you even talking to? What enumerated rights am I personally advocating should be taken away from you?

Your right to censor television? That isn't a right. You only have the right to turn the television off.

Your right to never have your tax dollars go to anything you personally disagree with? None of us has that right. We merely have the right to vote for candidates who mirror our convictions.

Your right to "protect" your marriage against mine? We both pay taxes, Connie. I don't want to hear your pseudo-intellectual moralizing.

If you really care about the rights of fathers (an issue where I agree with you), then start advocating for the rights of fathers instead of railing against the rights of mothers. If you really care about equality for gay and lesbian people (as you claim so often), then start advocating for gay rights instead of railing against gay marriage.

In short, if you're for something, then work for something and stop railing against everything.

It sounds like you just don't happen to like the world you're living in. Then change it. And do it without the government, if that's so important to you.

You're complaining about a lot of things, but none of them are me.

I don't propose anything, legally or philosophically, that would expand the role of the government in our personal lives. I want the government out of that. I don't want more laws and more government intrusion to protect women -- I want women to actually be protected when they're in danger (something that doesn't always happen so don't point with innocent eyes to the law book and say, "Why, rape *is* illegal, so what's the problem?"). I don't want special laws or special hand-outs for gay and lesbian people -- I want us to have the same access to government that straight people have. (And again, none of your wide-eyed oh-my-goshing about "The laws are already equal." That's disingenuous at best.) I don't want more laws. I want existing laws to be enforced.

Your ideas about morality and decency and what you would or would not like your children to watch on the television and your feelings about unwed mothers and your sense that women can't get political power unless it's at the expense of men all add up to the conclusion that *you* are the problem because at your core *you* advocate more governmental interference in our lives. You'd have all our noses bloodied to protect your own.

In fact, you seem like the very sort of politically-minded women that you work so hard to warn us against.

If women are indeed so gullible, you're first in line.

Your ideas about morality and decency and what you would or would not like your children to watch on the television and your feelings about unwed mothers and your sense that women can't get political power unless it's at the expense of men all add up to the conclusion that *you* are the problem because at your core *you* advocate more governmental interference in our lives. You'd have all our noses bloodied to protect your own.

Where have I endorsed government censorship? I want individual citizens to turn off the TV, the way that many have been doing. Turn it off, write to the networks, and inform them they will no longer watch their crap. Then, write the sponsors and tell them they will not buy their products, if they support TV programs they find objectionable. Boycotts and Buycotts are an exercise in Free Speech (as was demonstrated by the success of getting the slanderous "The Reagans" off the broadcast schedule). At no time have I suggested that the government have more power or that the government should censor—I want The People to show their power through the free market. Another lie, John.

I have no business deciding if a woman has a child out of wedlock. But if she wants me to support that decision, through taxation or otherwise, then it does become my business. Getting her out of my wallet for a decision she made is REDUCING government, not increasing it.

You want to give the government the authority to define what marriage means, I do not. I am more than willing, and have written about it many times, to have a formalized mechanism for recognizing same-sex unions, so that gay and lesbian couples could receive the same or similar legal protections, but that can be done without infringing on the rights of straight people, or diminishing the meaning and importance of marriage in society. I will not, however, support the redefinition of marriage, and give the government the authority to do that--another example of wanting the government out of the private realm. Another lie and distortion, John. You want the government to meddle with marriage--that IS more government involvement in personal affairs.

You've written quite a number of times that inner city dwellers, or poor people, shouldn't have access to guns. Much better that the people who reside in crime infested areas to be forced to either obtain a gun illegally, or face standing down a criminal (WHO WILL HAVE A GUN) without the right to arm themselves. Who is on the side of the rights of individuals in that case?

I want to encourage all women to be armed--to obtain concealed carry permits--something that has proven, time and time again, to be a deterrent to violent crime against women. The government cannot protect everyone--that is not the role of government. It is neither feasible nor reasonable. The only thing the police can do is arrive after a crime has occurred and file a police report. Then our courts can do their best to prosecute. But having a rapist convicted doesn't undo the rape, does it? So the only thing that can really deter rape, or reduce crime in the longer run, is to make it too risky and dangerous for criminals to commit crimes. I want women to exercise their Second Amendment rights--you want to overturn or limit the Second Amendment. Could the government have done anything to prevent your mother from being raped? NO! But your mother could have, if she'd been armed. Who wants government interference in that example, John?

I wanted The People of Texas to overturn sodomy laws. I did not want the Federal Government to have the power to make laws in a particular state—that would increase the power of influence of government. I want less—I want to encourage, through conviction and education, The People of Texas to recognize the sodomy laws as wrong. You want a bigger Federal government. I want the people to reduce laws in Texas. Who wants more government in that example?

You state, "none of them are me." Do you deny that you advocate for the government to have the authority to define what marriage means, that States should not have the authority to make their own laws, that the Second Amendment should be limited? If that isn't you, if there is another John Kusch who has advocated for those increases in the heavy hand of government, I'm ready to be corrected.

Mrs. du Toit:

I totally agree with you that every woman should have and carry a gun to defend herself against rapists and other thugs. I oppose all gun control, not only because the Second Amendment says so but because your right and my right to defend your/myself, your/my home, your/my property, your/my loved ones is inalienable and absolute, even if there were no Second Amendment.

I may or may not give you the benefit of the doubt on sodomy laws. If you were opposing the Texas sodomy law and trying to get it repealed BEFORE John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested and prosecuted -- then, good!, I honor you for that. If, on the other other hand, you only started talking or writing about it AFTER the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then only to protest the Supreme Court's striking down that law -- then, not good, no good at all.

I hold the majority of the voting population in Texas responsible for that law and for the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Garner. They voted for legislators who voted for that law. They voted for governors (including Governor, now President, George W. Bush) who signed that law and supported it. They acquiesced in that law. They supported a Texas Republican Party that had in its official platform a statement that the sodomy law should not be repealed. Recently, and even after the Supreme Court's decision, a woman in Texas was arrested for selling a vibrator to a married couple (or, rather, to government agents who purported to be such a couple). The majority of the voters in Texas voted for the legislators who passed that despicable law. They turned away from the victims of those laws, so I will now turn away from them.

The majority of voters in a democracy (and, yes, our American government was _not_ founded as a democracy, but it has been turned into one) are responsible and guilty for the governments they elect. I hold the majority of the German population responsible and guilty for supporting Hitler and knowingly choosing to acquiesce, if not actively participate, in the Holocaust.

And I hate every person who actively supports sodomy laws. I hate everyone who has chosen to be a member of any of the following organizations: the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Alliance for Marriage, the Coalition for Traditional Values, Concerned Women for America, the Free Market Foundation, the Family Foundation of Virginia, the Texas Republican Party, the Iowa Republican Party. Every one of these organizations is on record as having supported sodomy laws. Every member of these organizations voluntarily, knowingly chose to join them and to support their agenda. They are my enemies, and I am theirs.

I hate Senator Rick Santorum, and I hate everybody who voted for him. I hate Robert Bork. I hate Lino Graglia. I hate Ronald Coase. I hate Aaron Director. I hate (IN)Justice Scalia. I hate Pat Robertson. I hate Jerry Falwell. I hate Gary Bauer. I hate James Dobson. I hate Lou Sheldon. I hate Cal Thomas. I hate Rush Limbaugh and his brother David Limbaugh. I hate Jesse Helms. I hate Ann Coulter. I hate "The Wall Street Journal". I hate Orson Scott Card. Every one of these people is on record as supporting sodomy laws, denying my right to privacy in my own home, denying my right to free speech. They are my enemies, and I am theirs.

I regard every one of these persons and organizations exactly as I do Nazis and Communists.

Yes, I am selfish and dogmatic and intolerant. Yes, I am a man of hate. I love only the good, and I hate the bad, i.e., all that which destroys the good.

I would like to remind everyone here that we are all people of good will and that a difference of opinion may be a mistake but it is not a lie. This discussion has been so productive I hope no one takes their ball and goes home.

Of course that could be because I find these discussions so stimulating.

Yours,
Wince

I forgot to mention that I also hate Robert Knight, who is a major propagadist against homosexuals and homosexuality and for "sodomy" laws. I hate California State Senator Pete Knight, who pushed through an amendment banning homosexual marriage in California, while reassuring voters that it would not deprive homosexual couples of any benefits, only the word "marriage". Now, he's complaining because the legislature voted to grant homosexual couples certain benefits. Lying hypocrite. They all are, every damned one of them. And I also hate Dr. Paul Cameron, who advocates the extermination of homosexuals. Much of the Family Research Council's "research" is based on his writings.

Scalia is one of my heroes, Steven.

Steven,

I regard homosexual behavior to be a sin (less than perfect) like adultery and fornication. I am not free from sin, myself. I don't support anti-sodomy laws. I don't believe they are unconstitutional, otherwise we wouldn't have taken two hundred years to figure that out. (I also think the Partial-Birth Abortion law would be a wonderful thing, if only it weren't unconstitutional.) Keep the government out of the bedroom.

I have generally found Dr. James Dobson to take a love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin theological approach to homosexuality and a psychological treatment practical approach. He has former homosexuals on staff. I would characterize his anti-homosexual stance as gentle and compassionate. I would characterize his homosexual opponents as not listening. Do you also hate Dr. Laura? Do you hate me as well?

Also, is this hijacking the thread?

Yours,
Wince

Mrs. DuToit, you say that if John's mother had been armed, it would have prevented her being raped. I don't buy it.

I'm willing to bet that if she had wanted to leave her husband, she could have slipped away with her kids while he was out somewhere else. But then she would have faced the task of raising those kids by herself, with no income and no support structure, governmental or otherwise (to hear John tell it). For the sake of her kids, she stayed in this abusive relationship.

How would access to a gun have changed that situation?

If nobody else was willing to support her and the children, and if she was incapable of supporting them while also raising the kids (either because of the difficulty of raising them or because no one in the larger community would employ her, or both), then her survival, and the survival of the kids, would be absolutely dependent on her husband.

They needed him. He didn't, apparently, need them. A gun isn't going to overcome that kind of leverage. Most folks did all right in this arrangement because the man *wanted* to support his family, and *wanted* to treat them decently. No one had to force him to do either. But in cases where that desire broke down...

This just gets back to the general argument. The indirect power exerted by women historically was only done on/through men who were willing to be influenced by it. Other men were not, and some of them exercised direct, temporal power over some women while the (male) powers-that-were did nothing. Those women *were* victims.

Small wonder that, once women got the vote, the majority of them sought explicit temporal and financial security, for themselves and their kids, from the State -- security that they might not get from their husbands or from the world at large. Unfortunately, as you say, in at least some areas the desire for security has given the State more power and reach than it ought to have, while not making anyone safer, and the law in these cases ought to be changed. But that doesn't mean we should abolish all state financial and legal support of women, either...even though it requires that some people pay for other people's survival.

Speaking of abuse and why legal responses don't work, I know a man whose (now-ex) wife took a shot at him. The bullet ended up in the wall because he was slapping her hands to the side when she fired. He hid the bullet hole because he did not want her to go to jail, since she was a good mother to his children. When the cop showed up she said, "He hit me!" So the cop cuffed him, then tripped him at the top of the stairs, then he spent a couple of days in a cell.

I seriously doubt our current legal system could have come up with anything better for their kids than what my friend did by keeping his mouth shut and subverting our laws. This is because we have too many laws and not enough judgment. Criminal law is invariably ham-fisted.

We would have a lot less spousal abuse if two things were common. The first is that when a man beats his wife his father, brothers, uncles and cousins and her father, brothers, uncles and cousins get together and lay a good whoopin' on him. The second is that when a woman beats her husband her mother, sisters, aunts and cousins and his mother, sisters, aunts and cousins get together and lay a good whoopin' on her.

We should consider more physical punishments. I can take a (reasonable) whipping and then go to work or take care of my children, but a jail cell makes it impossible to fulfill my responsibilities. Pain is also a great teacher.

Okay, you may commence to tell me how bad these ideas are.

Yours,
Wince

"You state, 'none of them are me.' Do you deny that you advocate for the government to have the authority to define what marriage means, that States should not have the authority to make their own laws, that the Second Amendment should be limited? If that isn't you, if there is another John Kusch who has advocated for those increases in the heavy hand of government, I'm ready to be corrected."

Okay, let's address your concerns in order:

1) The government currently has the power to define the *legal* definition of marriage. It does so by making policy decisions as to who will and will not be granted marriage licenses. If the government had no power to legally define marriage, then gay marriage would have to become legal, as the government would have no power to deny a marriage license to anyone.

It's important here to remember that there is an empirical difference between the government's legal definition of marriage, the religious definition of marriage as enforced by various religions, and the social definition of marriage as developed over time through tradition. It's worth noting that all three definitions of marriage -- legal, spiritual, social -- have *in fact* changed over time. Intermarriage between races and religions, which was once unthinkable (and was in fact described as "not, in fact, marriage" by the so-called defenders of marriage in those times), is now permitted. Conversely, marriages between adult men and girls as young as ten or eleven years old -- once considered perfectly appropriate in many Western cultures -- are now considered perverse, repugnant, and are legally prohibited.

The historical record makes it very plain that a) the government does actively define marriage in a legal sense, b) that the legal definition operates in concert with but separate from the religious and social definitions of marriage, and c) that the legal definition of marriage has changed in the past, and can change in the future.

As a supporter of same-sex marriage, I do advocate that state and federal governments expand their legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. This would not force any religious denomination or any individual to recognize such marriages (similar to the current day where interracial marriages are legally permitted but are not recognized as valid by certain racial purists [on all sides of the racial spectrum]).

In response to your assertion that the legal recognition of my marriage would come at the expense of your marriage: we both pay taxes. We both have equal citizenship. We are both entitled to equal protection under the law. I could just as easily argue that your marriage takes place at my expense, as the benefits of marriage are paid for by the unmarried. In fact, that's exactly what I argue: your legal marriage, with its tax breaks and other financial benefits, is subsidized by the labor and tax dollars of those of us who are not married. Perhaps a correction is in order.

But to argue that changing the legal -- say it with me, LEGAL -- definition of marriage somehow creates more government is fallacious. The government already meddles in marriage. Let it do so equitably.

2) In response to your assertion that I do not believe in the power of States to draft their own laws, I ask: Are you seriously arguing that any law a State enacts is a good law, merely by virtue of having been passed by a majority? Is there no such thing as an unjust law? One of the tenets of our Constitutionally-chartered democracy is that certain rights and liberties may not be infringed upon by *any* governmental body or by *any* legislative action. While the federal government has certain legislative powers and states have certain legislative powers not reserved by the federal government, there are certain laws which, by vitrue of their impingement on basic human liberties, may not be enacted by any legislature of the United States. In these situations (segregation, gun control, sodomy, journalistic freedom), the rights of the individual are protected Constitutionally against the repressive legislative actions of a passionate majority. In the specific case of sodomy laws, the Supreme Court ruled that not only could the states not enact laws impinging upon consensual adult sexual behavior (at least in private), but that no legislative body could do so whatsoever. Private sexual relations between adults are outside the sphere of governmental influence; and while it may make persons like yourself feel better to have such issues debated in a public forum, this does not change the fact that sex is a private and individual matter that cannot be justly interfered with by any outside party -- presuming that the participants are adults who can legally consent to such behavior.

You characterized the Lawrence v. Texas decision as somehow expanding the role of the Federal government, while in reality it dramatically shrank the role of government in the daily lives of individuals: in one stroke, all sodomy laws were struck down. Fewer laws. Less police intrusion into private lives. Less government.

You may not like how it came about (since it's quite easy for a person like yourself whose sexual behavior is socially-sanctioned and thus under little threat of police intervention), but the end result is that Lawrence v. Texas took a gigantic chunk out of the private sphere in which government can meddle. There are some matters that cannot be legislated upon, some liberties that cannot be justly voted away by any majority. While you wrinkle your nose at the so-called sexual depravity of modern culture, I'd rather have depravity by choice than piety at the piont of a gun, all in the name of "community standards".

3) I do not advocate limiting the 2nd Amendment. I harbor a strong distrust of government and even moreso of other people. There will always be people out there who want to exert power over you and take your liberties away, and we'll always need to protect ourselves.

That said, I think that laws like "concealed carry" are flat-out stupid and are intellectually dishonest and morally questionable. Your interesting take on my comments regarding guns in the inner city obscures my actual point -- I'm against concealed carry laws because in the inner city, there have been plenty of concealed firearms carried around for many years (never mind whether they're licensed or not), and they don't seem to have decreased the amount of bloodshed in urban areas. The fear of being shot doesn't seem to have prevented homicidal situations. Additionally, I think we have an interesting flip between us in "threat assessment": You're flip about the threat of domestic violence and rape, while I'm flip about the threat of other crimes. You're a strong advocate of individuals defending themselves against criminals, while I don't think the crime threat is so high as you pretend. I'm a strong advocate of our government protecting people who for whatever reason cannot protect themselves, while you either think it's the victims' fault or such instances of victimization are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.

I think people should be able to own and use firearms to protect themselves, to hunt, and for sport. Prohibiting guns is as silly as prohibiting drugs: people who want them will find them. But I think that the current pro-gun mantra of "more guns = safer streets" is not only an outright lie but something even more dangerous: a floating abstraction. It *sounds* like a good idea, but it isn't. If people are irresponsible and dangerous, guns will only give them one more way to express that. We don't need more or better guns. We need better people. *That* should be our focus.

In closing, I'd like to address this:

"Where have I endorsed government censorship? I want individual citizens to turn off the TV, the way that many have been doing. Turn it off, write to the networks, and inform them they will no longer watch their crap. Then, write the sponsors and tell them they will not buy their products, if they support TV programs they find objectionable. Boycotts and Buycotts are an exercise in Free Speech (as was demonstrated by the success of getting the slanderous "The Reagans" off the broadcast schedule). At no time have I suggested that the government have more power or that the government should censor—I want The People to show their power through the free market. Another lie, John."

The fact is, people *have* been making their feelings and preferences known to the networks. Television executives do nothing better than figure out what people want and then give it to them. There are corners of the television market where people go to avoid the kind of licentious programming you describe, but that doesn't make the objectionable programming go away -- it merely creates another market. You can't make sexualized content go away with the power of public opinion, because despite the best intentions of many, public opinion is firmly in favor of sex, violence and sensationalism. We're getting what we ask for.

That's why I have to pause at statements like, "If that means I want a roll back that will infringe on the rights of other people to behave like immoral beasts in their pursuit of happiness, at the expense of the decency and moral bankruptcy of the rest of the world, so be it."

What I'm hearing is that if you don't get what you want -- more "decent" programming that won't embarass you in front of your kids -- that infringing on the rights of people who *do* enjoy such programming is just fine by you. If you don't want to be taken for a draconian censor, you should choose your words more carefully.

John Kusch,

Mrs. du Toit and I believe the Supreme Court was incorrect. We don't want those judges to rewrite the Constitution even if it benefits us. I think anti-sodomy laws are stupid, but they had anti-sodomy laws two-hundred years ago when the Constitution was created, and they had anti-sodomy laws one-hundred and forty years ago when the Fourteenth amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states.

Do you mean to tell me that judges have been wrong about this for one-hundred forty years at least? Isn't the more likely explanation that the Supreme Court just changed the meaning of the Constitution without letting us go through the proper amendment process? Hello, oligarchical judicial tyranny.

Remember, this same Supreme Court may be dominated by conservatives in the future. Would you be happy if they reinterpret the Constitution to disallow taxation for Social Security, Medicare, welfare and other wealth redistribution schemes because it violates some obscure property rights which they extract from between the lines?

Remember, goverments may be useful, but they are the most dangerous thing man has ever invented.

Yours,
Wince

Wince:

I certainly do NOT hate you since you explicitly said "Keep the government out of the bedroom." We will have to agree to disagree on the value homosexuality itself, which I see as a good (theologically, I see it as part of the Divine order of the Gods and the Goddesses, and as a conservative I oppose the idea of _changing_ homosexuals into heterosexuals or vice versa), but since you oppose the government violating the rights of homosexuals, I do _not_ regard you as an enemy. Ayn Rand took a similar position to yours.

All of the people and organizations I named are on record as supporting "sodomy" laws, attacking the right to privacy, and in many cases, they filed amicus curiae briefs in support of "sodomy" laws during the Lawrence decision.
Dr. James Dobson co-authored a book (with Gary Bauer) in which repeal of "sodomy" laws was denounced as part of an evil "homosexual agenda," and his organization Focus on the Family is one of those that filed a brief in support of "sodomy" laws. His "compassionate" veneer makes him far more insidious than Rev. Fred ("God hates fags") Phelps, who is at least honest in his hatred for the good.

As for Dr. Laura, she is on record as saying that homosexuals have no right to their "lifestyle" and equating them with thieves, which means that she, too, advocates the use of government force to prohibit their relationships. She has also recently stated that she no longer considers herself to be Jewish, so I don't either.

I also absolutely oppose the amendment these groups are advocating to _change_ the United States Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriages. The only thing to do is leave that question to the states. The question of government recognition and protection of homosexual relationships is different from that of government prohibition of those relationships, as Justice Kennedy noted. As a conservative, I am, of course, _for_ homosexual marriage, but political realities must be taken into account. All we can do now is hold the line and keep the radicals from whipping up the mob to overthrow the Supreme Court and _change_ the Constitution.

As to why I am so violently intolerant toward all advocates of "sodomy" laws (and also of censorship or of gun control), and why I do not regard this as a legitimate difference of opinion, Ayn Rand put it best in John Galt's speech in "Atlas Shrugged":

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. _That_ is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to those who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. Wnen a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him -- by force."

If the radicals get their way and overthrow the Constitution, it will be time for another Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It's getting to be time for Atlas to shrug.

Wince:

I think it would be great if the Supreme Court was dominated by conservatives who upheld some "obscure" property rights. Richard Epstein's book "Takings" shows how governments have been un-Constitutionally violating property rights. The very purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect the rights of individuals _against_ majority tyranny. Our Founding Fathers founded this country as an oligarchy in which the rights of elites were to be protected against the mob.

This is absolutely...Ahhh...I was posting the day Dean wrote this. I was listing a few of my favoite women & they were from the West, Texas! Then I said, Nah...he means western civization.

Oh my goodnesss, I had my Granndmother down on there, w/ her famous lemon meringue pie & how this old hobo would come all the way from San Francisco to eat it, & how my Father would find out later Hobo Joe had been there. Yipes! Grandma would get into trouble. Oh it was so funny! Didn't bother her none! Hobo Joe kept coming around, heh heh!

I was having a blast writing about my grandmother and her strenght and wisdom and how she also suffered so. Then I said, ahh...I think I best get back to my other chore dag nab it!

TWO DAYS later you all are on WHAT??? I think I should have finished that story. Well ole Grandma Grace, God bless her soul. She loved us all so much. Man that pie was so delicious, I can taste it & smell it today. It is still my comfort food. Yep...giggle, giggle... HOBO JOE was a Mighty fine soul, a mighty fine soul was he. He climbed upon the railroad track to see what he could see! He travelled from San Francisco, to Colorado, to El PASO... for a piece of GRANDMA'S LEMON MERINGUE PIE!

Well, I think your original post was really swell, it'sme the ole gal.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, she didn't just suffer, no no nada! Excuse me! She did so much to love and inspire! She was born somewhere in the early 1900's, no trace was found. An old indian woman found her! I have an adorable picture of her on tin.

That being said, I don't need to remind everyone that almost every single person serving in positions of power (business or politics) was raised and nurtured primarily by his or her MOTHER. A mother's real influence (POWER) lies in this fact. Although I admired my father, and he earned the money, it was my mother that was the bedrock of the family. Every major decision went through her, and she took her role seriously but without the pomp and circumstance that a man would usually expect or even demand.

It is in this respect that I must agree that women have held incredible power throughout history. A man can't give birth, a man can't nurse a baby, a man will injury himself on the job, get murdered, commit suicide, commit murder, rape, steal, AND ultimately die at a much early age (at least in America). Since my childhood, the rule has always been - last man standing wins. In this case, the last man standing is a woman.

Yes, I agree with Dean's original thesis so strongly that I'm going to quote it again right here:

"Women have always been enormously powerful, throughout human history and especially in Western history. Those who fail to recognize this are guilty of misogyny."

I must mention that Nietzsche's Ubermensch, usually translated "Superman" or "Overman", means Woman as well as Man, the Higher Man, the Higher Woman. This has nothing to do with the comic book figure, still less with the Nazi bastardization.

Speaking of Nazis, and Communists, we must stop the CommuNazis, the radical, subversive, totalitarian element from overthrowing our Supreme Court and _changing_ the Constitution. They will start by banning homosexual marriages in every state, then they will construe their amendment to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. They will seize upon every pretext they can invent to invalidate wills and legal agreements by homosexual couples. Then, they will use their amendment to overthrow the Supreme Court decision (Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas, June 26, 2003) upholding our right to privacy in our homes. They will set up "re-education camps" for "reparative therapy" in order to _change_ homosexuals. Their Josef Goebbels, Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Council, explicitly advocates the extermination of homosexuals. Then, they will ban all "deviant" sex by heterosexual couples. All sex will be prohibited except to breed more slaves for the state. They want total control of our property, our bodies, our souls.

They must be stopped. They must be opposed and exposed. They cannot be trusted. They will lie, murder, rape.

Wince and Nod writes:

"Do you mean to tell me that judges have been wrong about this for one-hundred forty years at least?"

Yes, I do mean to tell you that. They were wrong, the legislators who wrote the laws were wrong, the legislators who voted for the laws were wrong, the people who supported those laws were wrong, and the people who want those laws *back* today are wrong. Dead wrong. So wrong that if they're not wrong there is no right.

Maybe we *do* need a revamp of the Constitution to more explicitly define and protect the privacy of adult citizens of the United States. Maybe that definition should include sexual relations, maybe not.

But those laws were wrong, and anyone who supported them was wrong. I can agree to disagree, but I'm as sure of this as I am of anything.

My humble apologies to Pat Buchanan. How could I ever have left him out of my list of CommuNazis? He's first in line to be our next Fuhrer.

As for Scalia, his dissent in Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas could esily have been written by Buchanan, word for word. "Culture wars", "homosexual agenda", all the Buchananite tropes. And he read it aloud, playing to the peanut gallery like an old pro. He peaches "judicial restraint" (but never "executive restraint" or "legislative restraint" or just plain "government restraint") -- and yet he's about the least restrained judge I've ever heard of. Far more a demagogue than a judge. If he'd acted more like a judge, he wouldn't be having to recuse himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case. He addressed another crowd, reading aloud the noble decision, whipping up the mob to envy and hatred against the courts, against the Constitution, against homosexuals, against all elites (a dirty word to the levellers). His judicial philosophy, like that of Bork, Buchanan, and Santorum, in a nutshell: Throw everything to a vote, let the mob have its way, don't let some old piece of paper written by a handful of wealthy aristocrats stand in the way.

"Also, is this hijacking the thread?"

No one will ever get away with hijacking a thread after what the American people learned on 9-11, Wince and Nod. And while you weren't talking about the exact topic Dean raised, you are talking about an issue that applies to social views of women, too. Whether this is a victory for civilization, I don't know, but we've, um, advanced to a point at which not only the traditional targets for opprobrium are told they suck ("You're a career woman because you can't get a good man to take care of you." "You homos don't procreate, so your sexuality is slimy and narcissistic." "It's nice that blacks are so earthy, but they sure aren't intellectual.") but everyone else is, too ("You're a homemaker because you don't have the imagination to pursue a fascinating career." "If only you straight married people weren't so uptight about sex." "White people's culture has no soulfulness.").

Traditionalists make up more of the population and its informal social institutions, but the lefty women's/minorities'/LGBTXYZPDQs' advocates are more government-savvy. That means that everyone can claim oppression if they crop what they're looking at cannily. It also means that it's tempting to stop listening when you think you're hearing the same old argument, even if it turns out you actually aren't. Perhaps this sounds pat, but I think things just take time. In the process of making room in society for the open participation of lots of different kinds of people, the '60's and '70's devalued motherhood, blamed every hangnail on white landowning men, and preached that fully-developed sexuality meant acting on every instinct. Not surprisingly, figuring out how to keep what was valuable from that era while recovering the wisdom that was lost isn't an easy project...which is why I thought from the get-go, as did others, that those who don't recognize women's historical power aren't necessarily misogynists. We've spent several decades not really paying attention to it.

That was a powerful message full honest insight to post in behalf of women Tim. That is where Dean was going when he first posted. That is what I was doing when I was writing about my Grandmother Grace. She was an outstanding grandmother that made a profound difference in peoples lives. She was a hoot...to boot!

Tim, can you imagine this? A little girl, a precious little girl. Oh, I am just going to guess she was around 2 or 3 yrs. of age.

If you saw, "Dances with Wolves", then think of the scene, in the movie where the pretty white woman raised by the indians is trying to talk in english to Kevin Costner while remembering in her head painfully, indians slaying her family.

Well Tim my grandmother Grace was left by her mother out in the West. O.K. giggle,giggle, all you Marty Robbins fans join in and sing... Out in the West Texas, town of El Paso, I fell in Love With a la la la la...

When I first saw that movie Tim, I cried like a baby. I wondered what ever happened to my Grandmother's Mother. There was a reason for letting my Grandmother go and she hoped in faith, I am sure, it was for a better life. I always knew it took that Mother that gave my Grandmother life a courage, no badges of valor are given out for.

Sean Kinsell:

"I don't know, but we've, um, advanced to a point at which not only the traditional targets for opprobrium are told they suck ("You're a career woman because you can't get a good man to take care of you." "You homos don't procreate, so your sexuality is slimy and narcissistic." "It's nice that blacks are so earthy, but they sure aren't intellectual.") but everyone else is, too ("You're a homemaker because you don't have the imagination to pursue a fascinating career." "If only you straight married people weren't so uptight about sex." "White people's culture has no soulfulness.")."

That's it in a nutshell. All of those are lies, of course. What I say is: Let women choose, career or home. And let men choose, too. Let homosexuals be homosexuals and heterosexuals be heterosexuals. Let blacks be black and whites be white. Stop stereotyping and recognize that the smallest minority of all is the Individual. Stop trying to force everybody into a mold.

John Kusch,

I was trying to make a very specific point about the Constitution. To wit, that while I want to keep the government out of the bedroom, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it, which is why all those judges never judged in that way. Similarly, I want Partial-Birth Abortions to be banned, but I don't think it is constitutional for Congress to do so. It must be left up to the state legislatures in both cases.

Steven Malcolm Anderson,

My point about property rights was directed at John, since he clearly supports a safety net, which my hypothetical court would overthrow. I am in favor of property rights as well, but it is clear to me that from the earliest days of this Republic and both state and federal governments are allowed to spend taxes (even foolishly) on the common good. For you the court would have to do something similar to what you described. As for Dr. Dobson and Dr. Laura, for me they are examples of people unfairly demonized by