Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Gender Issues







Post#1 at 03-31-2004 06:11 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
03-31-2004, 06:11 PM #1
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Gender Issues

To all:

Since I've also written a book on gender issues for men, I need a
place to put stuff on gender issues relevant to this forum.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
http://www.fraternizing.org

P.S.: This is supposed to be fun!







Post#2 at 03-31-2004 06:15 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
03-31-2004, 06:15 PM #2
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Denise Dresser: Mexico's first lady is a lunatic

Mexico: The First Lady Is Crazy

Denise Dresser, Reforma (independent), Mexico City, Mexico, Feb.
16, 2004




>>> Photo caption: Mexican first lady Marta Sahag?n (Photo: Frederico
Guerrero/Notimex-AFP-Getty Images).

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1811.cfm

For weeks, Mexico has been abuzz with rumors that Marta Sahag?n,
Mexico's first lady, might run for president in 2006. Here political
scientist Denise Dresser, writing for Mexico City's Reforma, urges
her to refrain.

Unrestrained. Uncontrollable. Unstoppable. These are the words
currently being used to describe Marta Sahag?n, but they don't do her
justice. They stop short of capturing the real problem from which the
first lady suffers: Sahag?n has gone mad, plain and simple.

It's not surprising that a couple of screws have come loose; it's not
surprising that she's lost some of her marbles. Life in Los Pinos
[the seat of the Mexican presidency] can do that to you---and
actually encourages it. For three years [since her husband, Vicente
Fox, became Mexico's president] Sahag?n has been breathing in an
isolation tank, disconnected from reality. Between the presidential
residence and the real world, there is an abyss that not even the
helicopters of the presidential military guard can cross. The first
lady lives in a place where everyone treats her as the first lady. She
sees only the people she chooses to receive or invite there. She hears
only what her fans have decided she should hear. She looks only in
mirrors that make her look twice her size.

Perhaps it was inevitable. Ten years ago, Marta wasn't anybody and
now she's the best-known woman in Mexico. Ten years ago, Marta didn't
have any power; now she exercises power. She was a Cinderella and now
she's a princess. She was the wife of a veterinarian and now she's a
pre-candidate for the presidency.

Surrounded by an entourage of sycophants, Sahag?n doesn't know how to
measure the distance between who she is and who she believes she
could be. Sealed off in Los Pinos, Sahag?n doesn't know how to measure
the gap between legitimate ambition for power, and an illegitimate
attempt to multiply it through marriage.

From all appearances, the madness is contagious. That's the only way
to explain how today the dedazo [a Mexican expression for the
choosing of the next president by the outgoing president, as practiced
for decades by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI] has
been replaced by a kiss. That's the only way to explain why Vicente
Fox is encouraging his wife's presidential aspirations instead of
nipping them in the bud. She whispers in his ear that there's a
conspiracy against both of them, and he believes her. She tells him
she hasn't decided whether or not she wants to be president of Mexico,
and he believes her. She tells him that the Financial Times only
publishes libel, and he believes her. She tells him that she is only
demonized because she's successful, and he believes her. And in her
own words, Sahag?n has a life partner with whom she shares
everything---from the presidency [Sahag?n and Fox have been referred
to as the "presidential couple" and some say she is his closest
advisor] to the madness it engenders.

There are some pertinent questions for the president. Is he not
stopping his wife because he can't or doesn't want to? Did he decide
to give her free rein out of weakness or laziness? Is he a
manipulated man or a politician who doesn't want to be a politician
anymore? Is he abdicating only because he believes in her, or because
he doesn't believe in himself anymore? Does he know that the invisible
president is becoming the laughable president? Whatever the answers,
the results speak for themselves: Fox is willing to die so Sahag?n
will live; he's willing to play the role of Samson to his Delilah.

There's no point in emphasizing to Sahag?n the damage she is doing to
her husband. She must have already lost her patience with him. She
must have already decided that his presidency is a lost cause. And she
must see herself as the only thing worth saving from his term in
office.

Sahag?n understands a thing or two about power. She knows it is
amplified by the media; she knows that being on television every day
produces it; she knows that you can obtain it by giving things away
free. And that's why she has inaugurated her own brand of salinism
[referring to past Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari] and
has substituted the "solidarity" program of the PRI [which ruled
Mexico for 71 years before Fox was elected in 2000] with Fox's
"charity." If Salinas wanted to be Gandhi, Sahag?n wants to be Mother
Teresa: sitting under a tree talking to battered women, coming down
from helicopters to give speeches, stepping off the presidential
airplane to give away bicycles. That's why she wears blue jeans and
gives away blankets, toothbrushes, stuffed animals, and kitchen
utensils. In her case---just as all ambitious politicians before
her---she creates a link between charity and popularity. The opinion
polls reveal the obvious: Mexicans like their government to give them
things, and that's what she does.

But if she didn't, she'd be just one more wife. If she didn't have a
pile of public resources within her reach, she'd only be a little,
private woman. If she didn't have the big television screen within her
reach, she'd be just a little politician from Celaya. If she didn't
have the president's ear within her reach, she wouldn't have the
complicity (or fear) of the business class on her side. Sahag?n
confuses where she is with who she is. She confuses---and this is a
family weakness---popularity with capability.

She thinks that after living in a school called Los Pinos for three
years, she can now govern a country like Mexico. She thinks she has
what she needs to be an effective president because she's been a
popular first lady. She thinks she can and should be a presidential
candidate because the people of Mexico have a real love for her. But
that's not enough and her husband's failure proves it.

Sahag?n doesn't know how to achieve peace in Chiapas in 15 minutes [as
Fox claimed in his presidential campaign], and she never will. Sahag?n
doesn't know how to get PRI approval for structural reforms, and she
never will. Sahag?n doesn't know how to obtain punishment for those
responsible for the crimes of the past, and she never will. Sahag?n
doesn't know how to increase Mexico's productivity to confront China's
competitiveness, and she never will. Sahag?n doesn't know how to
improve relations between the executive and legislative branches, and
she never will. Sahag?n doesn't know how to reduce the insecurity that
is devastating the country, and she never will. Sahag?n doesn't know
how to deal with the deaths of women in Ciudad Ju?rez, and she never
will. Electing Sahag?n is equivalent to re-electing incompetence.

For all these reasons, the rumors, jokes, and activities related to
her possible presidential candidacy should end. For all of these
reasons, the flattering interviews that produce ambiguous answers
should end. For all of these reasons, the first lady's irresponsible
and inadmissible ambition should not prosper. Paraphrasing Sigmund
Freud: It's not necessary to have patience with lunatics. What's
important is to put a stop to the damage they cause.







Post#3 at 04-01-2004 09:52 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
04-01-2004, 09:52 AM #3
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Sounds like the sort of hatchet job that the Junior Senator from the state of New York is all too familiar with (aka, here at least, the SWOTE).







Post#4 at 04-01-2004 01:06 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
04-01-2004, 01:06 PM #4
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Marta = Evita

Dear Titus,

Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
Sounds like the sort of hatchet job that the Junior Senator from the state of New York is all too familiar with (aka, here at least, the SWOTE).
I hadn't thought of it that way. What struck me is how similar
it sounds to Evita.

John







Post#5 at 04-23-2004 03:36 PM by Sbarro [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 274]
---
04-23-2004, 03:36 PM #5
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
274

Sexism- alive and well

REVIEW
It?s not "kicking ass." It?s not irony...
It?s called sexism!

By Elizabeth Lalasz | August 1, 2003 | Page 9

SEXISM IS alive and well--and getting worse in popular culture. There are any number of examples--from reality shows like The Bachelorette, to beer commercials depicting scantily clad women fighting each other, to the never-ending string of dating shows like Blind Date and Shipmates.

Or look at the Charlie?s Angels movie sequel Full Throttle that just opened in theaters. The three main characters--or "Angels," played by Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore--wear barely anything at all, but still "kick ass" in one gratuitous scene after another.

According to the Angels? twisted conception of female empowerment--Barrymore is the film?s co-producer--scantily clad Angels steal a security pass while giving a lap dance, with another Angel doing a pole dance as an added distraction. Demi Moore plays the villain and appears in a beach scene in a skimpy bikini. She reportedly had four plastic surgeries to get in shape for the role.

Then there's the recently premiered Stripperella cartoon, found on the TNN cable channel--otherwise known as "America?s First Network for Men." Former Baywatch regular Pamela Anderson makes her animation debut as a superhero who dances in a strip club. Despite Anderson?s insistence that "It?s harmless, it?s only a cartoon," nothing could be further from the truth.

Stripperella, created by Marvel Comics icon Stan Lee, who created the Incredible Hulk and Spider-Man, features a lot of cartoon cleavage and sexual innuendo.The show centers on buxom exotic dancer Erotica Jones, an Anderson-esque character who leads a double life as the masked superhero "Stripperella" (also known as "Secret Agent 69").

She?s a stripper by night, a crime fighter by later at night. Using sex appeal to cloud the minds of male crooks, she comes equipped with special gadgets, such as her lipstick laser and wall-climbing stiletto heels.

Her breasts are natural lie detectors, and her legs are powerful weapons she wraps around the heads of her foes--in a move she calls the "scissor-ella." "I?m very proud of Stripperella," Anderson says. "She?s my alter ego--strong, smart and sexy and, let?s face it, a bit of a slut." This quote encapsulates the new sexism perfectly--and the slippery slope it creates, opening the door for things to go even further in a blatantly violent direction.

Take "Hunting for Bambi." According this so-called game?s Web site, men can pay $10,000 to track down and shoot naked Las Vegas show dancers with paint ball guns in the Nevada wilderness. Shortly after the media reported on "Hunting for Bambi"--provoking outrage from several women?s organizations--it was reported that the game was all a hoax.

Despite this, the message is undeniable--it?s open season on women.

These examples reflect what has become a never-ending onslaught of sexist images. Women continue to be objectified. Yet without feminists or left-wing activists offering a framework to explain this and challenge it, all that?s left is confusion.

Women today face a contradictory position. They have definitely won some important advances--more women go to college, for example. This has led some to argue that sexism in our society is a thing of the past.

But this is wrong. Not only is it the case that women on average are still paid far less than men, but the corporate media and entertainment industry still make big bucks promoting the idea that women should be seen as sex objects. This is often dressed up as "irony" or "kitsch"--with the promoters of sexism responding to all criticism as if anyone who takes offense is just a humorless dolt.

Unfortunately, given the confused atmosphere, some people who oppose discrimination against women have tried to identify with some aspects of today's sexist imagery--as if sexy women "kicking ass" against men is a sign of women's power. But you can?t counter the problem of sexism by mirroring women?s objectification.

Sexism needs to be challenged head on, but in a different way--by rebuilding a new movement that takes up women?s rights. History shows that this is the only way sexism has been pushed back and women have become more equal in society.

That had a real impact on many issues facing women, including their depiction in popular culture. We need a movement that recaptures that sentiment--one that takes up the fight against the Bush administration?s attacks on women, from abortion to affirmative action. This is how women made the gains we take for granted now--and would begin to turn the tide against the new sexism.







Post#6 at 04-23-2004 03:36 PM by Sbarro [at joined Mar 2002 #posts 274]
---
04-23-2004, 03:36 PM #6
Join Date
Mar 2002
Posts
274

Sexism- alive and well

REVIEW
It?s not "kicking ass." It?s not irony...
It?s called sexism!

By Elizabeth Lalasz | August 1, 2003 | Page 9

SEXISM IS alive and well--and getting worse in popular culture. There are any number of examples--from reality shows like The Bachelorette, to beer commercials depicting scantily clad women fighting each other, to the never-ending string of dating shows like Blind Date and Shipmates.

Or look at the Charlie?s Angels movie sequel Full Throttle that just opened in theaters. The three main characters--or "Angels," played by Cameron Diaz, Lucy Liu and Drew Barrymore--wear barely anything at all, but still "kick ass" in one gratuitous scene after another.

According to the Angels? twisted conception of female empowerment--Barrymore is the film?s co-producer--scantily clad Angels steal a security pass while giving a lap dance, with another Angel doing a pole dance as an added distraction. Demi Moore plays the villain and appears in a beach scene in a skimpy bikini. She reportedly had four plastic surgeries to get in shape for the role.

Then there's the recently premiered Stripperella cartoon, found on the TNN cable channel--otherwise known as "America?s First Network for Men." Former Baywatch regular Pamela Anderson makes her animation debut as a superhero who dances in a strip club. Despite Anderson?s insistence that "It?s harmless, it?s only a cartoon," nothing could be further from the truth.

Stripperella, created by Marvel Comics icon Stan Lee, who created the Incredible Hulk and Spider-Man, features a lot of cartoon cleavage and sexual innuendo.The show centers on buxom exotic dancer Erotica Jones, an Anderson-esque character who leads a double life as the masked superhero "Stripperella" (also known as "Secret Agent 69").

She?s a stripper by night, a crime fighter by later at night. Using sex appeal to cloud the minds of male crooks, she comes equipped with special gadgets, such as her lipstick laser and wall-climbing stiletto heels.

Her breasts are natural lie detectors, and her legs are powerful weapons she wraps around the heads of her foes--in a move she calls the "scissor-ella." "I?m very proud of Stripperella," Anderson says. "She?s my alter ego--strong, smart and sexy and, let?s face it, a bit of a slut." This quote encapsulates the new sexism perfectly--and the slippery slope it creates, opening the door for things to go even further in a blatantly violent direction.

Take "Hunting for Bambi." According this so-called game?s Web site, men can pay $10,000 to track down and shoot naked Las Vegas show dancers with paint ball guns in the Nevada wilderness. Shortly after the media reported on "Hunting for Bambi"--provoking outrage from several women?s organizations--it was reported that the game was all a hoax.

Despite this, the message is undeniable--it?s open season on women.

These examples reflect what has become a never-ending onslaught of sexist images. Women continue to be objectified. Yet without feminists or left-wing activists offering a framework to explain this and challenge it, all that?s left is confusion.

Women today face a contradictory position. They have definitely won some important advances--more women go to college, for example. This has led some to argue that sexism in our society is a thing of the past.

But this is wrong. Not only is it the case that women on average are still paid far less than men, but the corporate media and entertainment industry still make big bucks promoting the idea that women should be seen as sex objects. This is often dressed up as "irony" or "kitsch"--with the promoters of sexism responding to all criticism as if anyone who takes offense is just a humorless dolt.

Unfortunately, given the confused atmosphere, some people who oppose discrimination against women have tried to identify with some aspects of today's sexist imagery--as if sexy women "kicking ass" against men is a sign of women's power. But you can?t counter the problem of sexism by mirroring women?s objectification.

Sexism needs to be challenged head on, but in a different way--by rebuilding a new movement that takes up women?s rights. History shows that this is the only way sexism has been pushed back and women have become more equal in society.

That had a real impact on many issues facing women, including their depiction in popular culture. We need a movement that recaptures that sentiment--one that takes up the fight against the Bush administration?s attacks on women, from abortion to affirmative action. This is how women made the gains we take for granted now--and would begin to turn the tide against the new sexism.







Post#7 at 04-23-2004 11:10 PM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
04-23-2004, 11:10 PM #7
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
Sounds like the sort of hatchet job that the Junior Senator from the state of New York is all too familiar with (aka, here at least, the SWOTE).
:shock:

Am I actually detecting a note of sympathy for HRC from you?
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#8 at 04-23-2004 11:10 PM by Vince Lamb '59 [at Irish Hills, Michigan joined Jun 2001 #posts 1,997]
---
04-23-2004, 11:10 PM #8
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
Irish Hills, Michigan
Posts
1,997

Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
Sounds like the sort of hatchet job that the Junior Senator from the state of New York is all too familiar with (aka, here at least, the SWOTE).
:shock:

Am I actually detecting a note of sympathy for HRC from you?
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."







Post#9 at 04-24-2004 02:30 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2004, 02:30 AM #9
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Hmm. Not sure what to make of the story about the Mexican First Lady. The article seems to think she's wacko, but presents no evidence for this apart from her desire to be president, which I guess does hint at insanity, but no more so in her than in her husband. Maybe there are things the author isn't telling us, though.

About the piece from Sbarro. The reason why women being objects of male lust is considered sexist is that, for a long, long time, women were the sexual property of men. As girls, their sexuality (or potential thereof) was owned by their fathers, and as women, by their husbands. Strip away this association of dominance, and every straight person, male as well as female, wants to be an object of desire to the opposite sex. In addition to being recognized and related to and respected as a person, we all want to be desired as a man or a woman. But nobody considers a heterosexual woman sexist when she finds a guy hot, do they? No, because men have never been been reduced to the sexual property of women. Empowerment of women means empowerment of the whole woman, not the woman minus her sexuality.

Mind you, I don't think I'd consider "Striperella" great art, from the description. There might be somewhat classier ways to convey the same message. 8)







Post#10 at 04-24-2004 02:30 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2004, 02:30 AM #10
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Hmm. Not sure what to make of the story about the Mexican First Lady. The article seems to think she's wacko, but presents no evidence for this apart from her desire to be president, which I guess does hint at insanity, but no more so in her than in her husband. Maybe there are things the author isn't telling us, though.

About the piece from Sbarro. The reason why women being objects of male lust is considered sexist is that, for a long, long time, women were the sexual property of men. As girls, their sexuality (or potential thereof) was owned by their fathers, and as women, by their husbands. Strip away this association of dominance, and every straight person, male as well as female, wants to be an object of desire to the opposite sex. In addition to being recognized and related to and respected as a person, we all want to be desired as a man or a woman. But nobody considers a heterosexual woman sexist when she finds a guy hot, do they? No, because men have never been been reduced to the sexual property of women. Empowerment of women means empowerment of the whole woman, not the woman minus her sexuality.

Mind you, I don't think I'd consider "Striperella" great art, from the description. There might be somewhat classier ways to convey the same message. 8)







Post#11 at 04-24-2004 10:16 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
04-24-2004, 10:16 AM #11
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

I tried to make a similar argument here a while back and was accused of being a feminist.

Rush is right to point out that objectification is what ppl are aiming for when they try to attract the opposite sex. There is a reason those same (F)eminists tend to be so, um what's the word? - oh yeah, unappealing.

It seems plausible to think that male sexual objectification is rising along with women's relative power in society. But that would not fit into the (F)eminist argument - women are victims and objectification is bad and men are the problem. However, I think they are stoned

Everybody likes sex, and if you can buy it, someone will sell it. Therefore increasing power in society for any group will increase the objectification of that group's preferred object. If we accept this, and assume that objectification just lies farther down the scale from unexploited attraction, then sexual objectification is here to stay. I can't imagine this theory would go over well with the short-butch-black-hair-black-frumpy-pants-suit crowd.







Post#12 at 04-24-2004 10:16 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
04-24-2004, 10:16 AM #12
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

I tried to make a similar argument here a while back and was accused of being a feminist.

Rush is right to point out that objectification is what ppl are aiming for when they try to attract the opposite sex. There is a reason those same (F)eminists tend to be so, um what's the word? - oh yeah, unappealing.

It seems plausible to think that male sexual objectification is rising along with women's relative power in society. But that would not fit into the (F)eminist argument - women are victims and objectification is bad and men are the problem. However, I think they are stoned

Everybody likes sex, and if you can buy it, someone will sell it. Therefore increasing power in society for any group will increase the objectification of that group's preferred object. If we accept this, and assume that objectification just lies farther down the scale from unexploited attraction, then sexual objectification is here to stay. I can't imagine this theory would go over well with the short-butch-black-hair-black-frumpy-pants-suit crowd.







Post#13 at 04-24-2004 10:34 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2004, 10:34 AM #13
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

I tried to make a similar argument here a while back and was accused of being a feminist.
Oh, perish the thought, Mr. Gibbons! :lol:







Post#14 at 04-24-2004 10:34 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
04-24-2004, 10:34 AM #14
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

I tried to make a similar argument here a while back and was accused of being a feminist.
Oh, perish the thought, Mr. Gibbons! :lol:







Post#15 at 04-26-2004 11:13 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
04-26-2004, 11:13 AM #15
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

:lol:







Post#16 at 04-26-2004 11:13 AM by antichrist [at I'm in the Big City now, boy! joined Sep 2003 #posts 1,655]
---
04-26-2004, 11:13 AM #16
Join Date
Sep 2003
Location
I'm in the Big City now, boy!
Posts
1,655

:lol:







Post#17 at 04-26-2004 01:32 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
04-26-2004, 01:32 PM #17
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Some comments

A couple of general remarks.

In my opinion, the article by Elizabeth Lalasz is just hormonal
man-bashing, pure and simple. I think it's outrageous that garbage
like this still gets published.

The article about Mexican first lady Marta Sahag?n was of interest to
me because it's pretty clear that she's trying to follow the path of
Eva Peron.

As a Broadway musical fan, I first became aware of Eva Per?n (Senora
Maria Eva Duarte de Peron) when I saw the pre-Broadway tryout for the
show Evita when it came to Boston in the mid-1970s. Since
then, there have been many productions of Evita, and it was
also made into a movie starring Madonna a few years ago.

Eva Duarte, born in 1919, began as an actress with political
ambitions. In 1945 she met and later married Colonel Juan Per?n, who
later became President of Argentina. Evita ("little Eva") became a
major political figure in her own right, forming the Peronista
Feminist Movement and the Peronista Women's Party, which is credited
with bringing women's suffrage to Argentina. Evita reached the height
of her powers in 1951-52 and would have become Vice President of
Argentina (with her husband as President), but she fell ill and died,
much to the shock and dismay of the nation.

For a more detailed biography, click on "Biography" on the web site
http://www.evitaperon.org/ , where you'll also be able to listen to
her voice and see photos.

If you compare the article about Marta Sahag?n to the story of Evita,
you can see the similarity. There's little doubt that she hopes to
succeed in much the same way that Evita did, but it remains to be
seen whether she has the personal skills to do that or whether, as
the article says, Marta is simply a lunatic.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#18 at 04-26-2004 01:32 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
04-26-2004, 01:32 PM #18
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Some comments

A couple of general remarks.

In my opinion, the article by Elizabeth Lalasz is just hormonal
man-bashing, pure and simple. I think it's outrageous that garbage
like this still gets published.

The article about Mexican first lady Marta Sahag?n was of interest to
me because it's pretty clear that she's trying to follow the path of
Eva Peron.

As a Broadway musical fan, I first became aware of Eva Per?n (Senora
Maria Eva Duarte de Peron) when I saw the pre-Broadway tryout for the
show Evita when it came to Boston in the mid-1970s. Since
then, there have been many productions of Evita, and it was
also made into a movie starring Madonna a few years ago.

Eva Duarte, born in 1919, began as an actress with political
ambitions. In 1945 she met and later married Colonel Juan Per?n, who
later became President of Argentina. Evita ("little Eva") became a
major political figure in her own right, forming the Peronista
Feminist Movement and the Peronista Women's Party, which is credited
with bringing women's suffrage to Argentina. Evita reached the height
of her powers in 1951-52 and would have become Vice President of
Argentina (with her husband as President), but she fell ill and died,
much to the shock and dismay of the nation.

For a more detailed biography, click on "Biography" on the web site
http://www.evitaperon.org/ , where you'll also be able to listen to
her voice and see photos.

If you compare the article about Marta Sahag?n to the story of Evita,
you can see the similarity. There's little doubt that she hopes to
succeed in much the same way that Evita did, but it remains to be
seen whether she has the personal skills to do that or whether, as
the article says, Marta is simply a lunatic.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com







Post#19 at 04-26-2004 11:13 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-26-2004, 11:13 PM #19
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Make of this what you will.

Female to Male Violence Ratio Increasing

The following is quoted without intention of profit or infringement for the purpose of discussion only.



Violence Among Girls Increasing in U.S.
Mon Apr 26, 1:42 PM ET


By WILEY HALL, Associated Press Writer


BALTIMORE - Twelve-year-old Nicole Townes is out of a coma but still struggling to recover after being pummeled and stomped at a birthday party in a beating that was shocking not just because of its savagery, but because it was meted out by other girls.



Authorities say it is symptomatic of a disturbing trend around the country: Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity.


"We're seeing girls doing things now that we used to put off on boys," former Baltimore school Police Chief Jansen Robinson said. "This is vicious, `I-want-to-hurt-you' fighting. It's a nationwide phenomenon and it's catching us all off guard."


Police and prosecutors said Nicole's beating Feb. 28 began when a boy at the party, acting on a dare, kissed the girl on the cheek. The other children exploded with "eeeewws" and laughter, according to the police report.


The 36-year-old mother of the birthday girl apparently was offended, because the boy was supposed to be her daughter's boyfriend. So the mother allegedly urged her daughter to "handle your business," an order police said meant the girl was supposed to defend the family's honor.

Nicole was scratched, pummeled, kicked and stomped by as many as six women and girls, police said. She was in a coma for nearly three weeks and is still hospitalized. Her family said she may have permanent brain damage.


Charged in the assault were the birthday girl, 13; her mother; her 19-year-old sister; and three other girls, ages 13, 14 and 15. Police also charged a 24-year-old woman who lived with Nicole with child abuse and neglect for leaving the girl at the party.


"We're just stunned and disgusted and we still can't understand how such a thing could have happened," said the family's pastor, the Rev. Durrell Williams of the Full Gospel Deliverance Church. Williams described Nicole as a timid girl, "not one of your fighters."


Around the country, school police and teachers are seeing a growing tendency for girls to settle disputes with their fists. They are finding themselves breaking up playground fights in which girls are going at each other toe-to-toe, like boys.


Nationally, violence among teenage boys ? as measured by arrest statistics and surveys ? outstrips violence among teenage girls 4 to 1, according to the Justice Department (news - web sites). But a generation ago, it was 10 to 1. Schools report a similar pattern in the number of girls suspended or expelled for fighting.


Experts say the trend simply reflects society ? girls are more violent because society in general is more violent and less civil. Some say that the same breakdowns in family, church, community and school that have long been blamed for violence among boys are finally catching up to girls.


And some believe the violence is also fueled by the emergence of movies and video games such as "Tomb Raider" in which women wreak violence with the gusto of male action heroes.


The assault on Nicole illustrates how some parents are almost as immature as their children, said Rosetta Stith, principal of a Baltimore public school for teen mothers.


"You keep hearing that phrase, `Handle your business,' `Handle your business,'" Stith said. "Now I ask you ? What business could a 13-year-old possibly have? But for a lot of girls, it's all about respect, defending your turf, fighting for your man."


Last May, girls were videotaped beating and kicking other girls during a hazing at well-to-do Glenbrook High School in suburban Chicago. And fighting among girl gangs in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago has educators and community workers scrambling for solutions.


"It's a high-priority topic that resonates with any school, any principal today," said Bill Bond, who heads a project on school safety for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "I've been to 17 association meetings this year and the topic has been addressed at every meeting."


Lauren Abramson, director of the Community Conferencing Center, a Baltimore agency that resolves disputes through mediation, said one difference between boys and girls is that gossip is more likely to be at the bottom of a dispute between girls.


"Gossip as a source of violence is understudied and little understood," Abramson said. "But time and again, when we bring the parties together, get them to talk and dig into what started it all, it invariably comes back to something somebody heard somebody else said."

Phil Leaf, director of the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said society should not have been caught by surprise by the surge in girl violence.

"In retrospect, we can see girls falling prey to the same influences as boys," Leaf said. "A decade or so ago, we were worried about the lack of male role models in the home. Today, there is a dearth of effective female role models as the mothers who used to be there are forced back into the job market or get rendered ineffective through abuse of drugs and alcohol."

Leaf said the situation in Baltimore and other cities reminds him of the William Golding novel "Lord of the Flies": "We're seeing the effects of children growing up in a world without adults."







Post#20 at 04-26-2004 11:13 PM by HopefulCynic68 [at joined Sep 2001 #posts 9,412]
---
04-26-2004, 11:13 PM #20
Join Date
Sep 2001
Posts
9,412

Make of this what you will.

Female to Male Violence Ratio Increasing

The following is quoted without intention of profit or infringement for the purpose of discussion only.



Violence Among Girls Increasing in U.S.
Mon Apr 26, 1:42 PM ET


By WILEY HALL, Associated Press Writer


BALTIMORE - Twelve-year-old Nicole Townes is out of a coma but still struggling to recover after being pummeled and stomped at a birthday party in a beating that was shocking not just because of its savagery, but because it was meted out by other girls.



Authorities say it is symptomatic of a disturbing trend around the country: Girls are turning to violence more often and with terrifying intensity.


"We're seeing girls doing things now that we used to put off on boys," former Baltimore school Police Chief Jansen Robinson said. "This is vicious, `I-want-to-hurt-you' fighting. It's a nationwide phenomenon and it's catching us all off guard."


Police and prosecutors said Nicole's beating Feb. 28 began when a boy at the party, acting on a dare, kissed the girl on the cheek. The other children exploded with "eeeewws" and laughter, according to the police report.


The 36-year-old mother of the birthday girl apparently was offended, because the boy was supposed to be her daughter's boyfriend. So the mother allegedly urged her daughter to "handle your business," an order police said meant the girl was supposed to defend the family's honor.

Nicole was scratched, pummeled, kicked and stomped by as many as six women and girls, police said. She was in a coma for nearly three weeks and is still hospitalized. Her family said she may have permanent brain damage.


Charged in the assault were the birthday girl, 13; her mother; her 19-year-old sister; and three other girls, ages 13, 14 and 15. Police also charged a 24-year-old woman who lived with Nicole with child abuse and neglect for leaving the girl at the party.


"We're just stunned and disgusted and we still can't understand how such a thing could have happened," said the family's pastor, the Rev. Durrell Williams of the Full Gospel Deliverance Church. Williams described Nicole as a timid girl, "not one of your fighters."


Around the country, school police and teachers are seeing a growing tendency for girls to settle disputes with their fists. They are finding themselves breaking up playground fights in which girls are going at each other toe-to-toe, like boys.


Nationally, violence among teenage boys ? as measured by arrest statistics and surveys ? outstrips violence among teenage girls 4 to 1, according to the Justice Department (news - web sites). But a generation ago, it was 10 to 1. Schools report a similar pattern in the number of girls suspended or expelled for fighting.


Experts say the trend simply reflects society ? girls are more violent because society in general is more violent and less civil. Some say that the same breakdowns in family, church, community and school that have long been blamed for violence among boys are finally catching up to girls.


And some believe the violence is also fueled by the emergence of movies and video games such as "Tomb Raider" in which women wreak violence with the gusto of male action heroes.


The assault on Nicole illustrates how some parents are almost as immature as their children, said Rosetta Stith, principal of a Baltimore public school for teen mothers.


"You keep hearing that phrase, `Handle your business,' `Handle your business,'" Stith said. "Now I ask you ? What business could a 13-year-old possibly have? But for a lot of girls, it's all about respect, defending your turf, fighting for your man."


Last May, girls were videotaped beating and kicking other girls during a hazing at well-to-do Glenbrook High School in suburban Chicago. And fighting among girl gangs in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago has educators and community workers scrambling for solutions.


"It's a high-priority topic that resonates with any school, any principal today," said Bill Bond, who heads a project on school safety for the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "I've been to 17 association meetings this year and the topic has been addressed at every meeting."


Lauren Abramson, director of the Community Conferencing Center, a Baltimore agency that resolves disputes through mediation, said one difference between boys and girls is that gossip is more likely to be at the bottom of a dispute between girls.


"Gossip as a source of violence is understudied and little understood," Abramson said. "But time and again, when we bring the parties together, get them to talk and dig into what started it all, it invariably comes back to something somebody heard somebody else said."

Phil Leaf, director of the Center for the Prevention of Youth Violence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said society should not have been caught by surprise by the surge in girl violence.

"In retrospect, we can see girls falling prey to the same influences as boys," Leaf said. "A decade or so ago, we were worried about the lack of male role models in the home. Today, there is a dearth of effective female role models as the mothers who used to be there are forced back into the job market or get rendered ineffective through abuse of drugs and alcohol."

Leaf said the situation in Baltimore and other cities reminds him of the William Golding novel "Lord of the Flies": "We're seeing the effects of children growing up in a world without adults."







Post#21 at 04-27-2004 10:19 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
04-27-2004, 10:19 AM #21
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

HC68, you beat me to the punch! :lol:

One could say that the above is yet another sign of the rampant moral decay prophesied for both the End Times, and the lead-up to the End Times. Ten to fifteen years ago, women were accounted morally superior to men, but it would appear that the margin, and the reason for it, are both disappearing rapidly.







Post#22 at 04-29-2004 10:21 PM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
04-29-2004, 10:21 PM #22
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Witchiepoo
Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
HC68, you beat me to the punch! :lol:

One could say that the above is yet another sign of the rampant moral decay prophesied for both the End Times, and the lead-up to the End Times. Ten to fifteen years ago, women were accounted morally superior to men, but it would appear that the margin, and the reason for it, are both disappearing rapidly.
I'm glad that you've finally realized that love and kindness are morally superior to violence and aggression. :wink:
Ten years ago women were accounted...as what? What planet was TSP living on in 1994???

I'd agree with Witcheepoo/Xer of Evil that love and kindness are morally superior to violence and aggression. The trouble I have with her obvious implication is that a plurality of the women I've met have been neither especially loving nor kind. While they may not be as physically violent or aggressive as us guys, they most certainly make up for it emotionally...in spades. The large number of women who manipulate and use people to get what they want...be it love, money, sex, power, or whatever tickles their fancy...and ridicule and demean those who dare not provide them with such...are morally equivalent to the cowardly men who beat their girlfriends and wives with apparent impunity.







Post#23 at 05-01-2004 04:39 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
05-01-2004, 04:39 AM #23
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Witchiepoo
Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59
The trouble I have with her obvious implication is that a plurality of the women I've met have been neither especially loving nor kind.
That was teaspoon's implication, not mine.
I knew that...no, what I thought you were implying was that Love and Kindness=gals, while Violence and Aggression = guys. I was agreeing with your basic statement, while disagreeing with what it seemed to imply-- that women are inherently less evil than men. I've met far too many people of both genders who really are Not Nice People, albeit their evil tends to be expressed in different ways. Simplistically put, evil females tend to be wily manipulators and users -- con artists, actually-- while their male counterparts call a spade a spade and just start whaling on folks. Which is worse? Beats me.







Post#24 at 05-01-2004 09:41 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-01-2004, 09:41 AM #24
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Kevin, my ex-wife is at least one exception to that observation. We divorced because she could not stop trying to beat me up.







Post#25 at 05-01-2004 11:21 PM by John J. Xenakis [at Cambridge, MA joined May 2003 #posts 4,010]
---
05-01-2004, 11:21 PM #25
Join Date
May 2003
Location
Cambridge, MA
Posts
4,010

Moral Decay

Dear Titus,

Quote Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus
> One could say that the above is yet another sign of the rampant
> moral decay prophesied for both the End Times, and the lead-up to
> the End Times. Ten to fifteen years ago, women were accounted
> morally superior to men, but it would appear that the margin, and
> the reason for it, are both disappearing rapidly.
It's been known for at least twenty years that women are as violent
as men in personal relationships, and are more violent with children
than men.

So it's hardly true that moral decay is increasing now.

In fact, the pendulum is swinging back.

The reason that Clinton worked to repeal the welfare entitlement in
1996 is because millions of single girls were getting pregnant just
to collect welfare. Ending that entitlement has undone that trend.

Gender issues do seem to follow a generational cycle. Sexual freedom
was high in the 20s, was suppressed in the 50s, and was high again in
the 90s. Today the pendulum is swinging back toward suppressing
sexual freedom (as shown by Janet Jackson and Howard Stern
situations).

At any rate, moral decay seems to be lessening today, rather than
increasing. So I guess we've missed out on the "End Times" for this
cycle. Maybe in 2080 the computers will exhibit moral decay, and
we'll have End Times then.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
-----------------------------------------