Friday, May 09, 2008

Pretty Lady's Feminist Theory

Doom asks the sixty-thousand-dollar question:
is not what the "gentleman" in question suggested exactly what the advance of feminism has evinced? It is certainly how I have come to understand it and it's objectives. Aren't you, in truth, via socialism, a feminist?

'Via socialism'? Pretty Lady isn't sure she understands what you mean by that. However, she will answer the question, "Are you a feminist?"


Pretty Lady's definition of 'feminism': The theory that women are fully people. Each woman counts, in a spiritual, economic, and political context, as one entire person. Not one-half of a person, three-fifths of a person, or an appendage to another person.

Thus, women are equal to men, and to all other women and children, by virtue of the equation 1=1.

You note that Pretty Lady has said nothing at all about any characteristics of people being equal. For it is perfectly obvious that people are different. Any theory which requires that people be the same as one other is obviously not based on empirical reality.

This is why the 'gentleman,' as Doom so egregiously calls him, in the post below is utterly full of shit, from Pretty Lady's feminist perspective. He is conflating existential equality with sameness of biological, emotional and intellectual outlook. His attitude demonstrates the sort of wilful solipsism that feminism, as a social movement, undertook to challenge; the unexamined attitude of 'what is good for me must be good for you.'

Now, this sort of jingoistic asininity may appear risible, juvenile and basically harmless from the perspective of any person who has the ability to direct his own social and economic destiny. But under a socioeconomic system where a female person is, by social consensus, a chattel of such a male, either by biological kinship or marital contract, it ceases to be humorous. Such a woman has no choice but to bear the consequences of whatever asinine, selfish, moronic, destructive action this male chooses to undertake. If he bets the farm on a hand of poker and loses, she is homeless. If he impregnates her by main force, she bears a child. If he drinks to excess and hits her and the children, too bad for that.

Any anti-feminist who points to the legality, or lack thereof, of this hypothetical woman's capacity to abandon an abusive male and take control of her own destiny is missing the entire point of the term social consensus. When the collective attitude of the mileu in which this lady is immersed determines that her existential value is calculated solely upon the basis of her predetermined relationship to a male, and her adherence to a rigid code of conduct established by the whims, desires and ego needs of said male, there need be few other laws to bind her. Individual actions do not occur in a vacuum. They require a minimum amount of buttressing by the surrounding community, or they are practically doomed to failure.

Some of you may object to Pretty Lady's definition of feminism, on the grounds that it bears little resemblance to the draconian theories advanced by various self-styled Public Intellectuals on the subject. To be honest, these Public Feminists rather bore her. They seem to always be upset about something, usually the actions and attitudes of persons over whom they have no control. This strikes Pretty Lady as being an essentially pointless preoccupation, as well as an anti-feminist one; the whole point of her own feminist philosophy is that she is the author of her own destiny, and everyone else is the author of theirs. Preoccupation with controlling others is a dead giveaway that one doubts one's ability to control oneself.

Note, also, that Pretty Lady's feminist theory takes as its basis, a priori, the mere existence of female persons, not anything that they do. One does not need to 'prove' one's equality by performing any amazing feats of strength, intellect, creativity or earning capacity. One's validity as a human being is not revoked by any action taken by self or other. This is crucial; for one of the characteristics of human beings is that we learn by experience. In plain terms, people make mistakes. Reducing a person to the social status of a non-human by virtue of their all-too-human action, then, violates basic logic.

Conversely, a feminist individual need not rely on extortion, manipulation, or coercion to obtain a satisfactory position in society. It should be sufficient to communicate the truth about oneself, directly and honestly, and to expect the same of others.

Thus, Pretty Lady's feminist practice consists of the following:

1) She takes responsibility for determining, understanding, and communicating her own thoughts, emotions, needs, desires, and boundaries, without shame or a sense of personal inferiority.

2) She encourages everyone around her to do the same.

It seems to her that little more can rationally be expected of anyone.


Anonymous said...

Tell it, girlfriend.



k said...

Well. It's all so perfectly sensible, I almost wonder why it even needed to be said.

Pretty Lady said...

I don't understand why, either, except that so very very very many otherwise sensible people of my acquaintance continue to conflate 'equal' with 'same,' in their rhetoric, their actions, and their assumptions. It seems to me to be sheer wilful idiocy, or possibly genuine malignance.

Desert Cat said...

So feminism can mean whatever one wants it to mean then.

By your definition of feminism I would be a feminist. In particular it jives well with the Christian concept of equality before God, which was in turn embodied (in principle at least) into the founding documents of this country.

But by many of the more widely accepted meanings of the word I'm rather anti-feminist and quite "The Enemy"--to those who hold to, as you put them, "draconian theories" which are nevertheless all too prevalent, often poisoning the thoughts of even otherwise sweet, decent and seemingly reasonable women. The fact that men as a group are beginning to wake up to the threats to their emotional, mental, physical and financial well-being and are taking defensive measures against these abusive theories, seems perfectly reasonable and valid to me. That some see opportunity to play the part of the sweet-talking cad seems much more the minority view.

But Doom is right on one point--the original goals of the "Sexual Revolution" and "Womens Liberation Movement" of the sixties and seventies was exactly all that. Second thoughts have certainly crept in over the course of the subsequent forty years, and retrenchment, redefinition and refinement of just What it is that Women Want does seem in order.

But I'm sure you're aware that your practice of feminism is the exception rather than the rule. The rule is that it is all *very much* about controlling the actions and attitudes of persons over whom the have no (actual) control, (but are convinced they *ought* to have). It smacks *very much* of trying to make men into the kind of slaves that women (rightly) objected to being themselves. And in my view, men are completely justified in saying "fuck this shit" and walking away from (committed, permanent) relationships with any woman who even *hints* of having such abusive designs simmering in the back of their cauldron.

Pretty Lady said...

So feminism can mean whatever one wants it to mean then.

I beg your pardon? Do you see any female persons contesting my definition? By all means, go and find some. I am not interested in consorting with them, but whatever floats your boat.

Second thoughts have certainly crept in over the course of the subsequent forty years, and retrenchment, redefinition and refinement

See above: people make mistakes. Refining one's theories is, indeed, the essence of the scientific process. Are you suggesting that a theory which stems from that of women's existential equality is not eligible for such refinement, but must be irrationally clung to in the face of all conflicting evidence, or else the female must be consigned once again to the status of part-human?

I'm sure you're aware that your practice of feminism is the exception rather than the rule.

No. The vast majority of the women I am personally acquainted with subscribe to it. They usually do not write 'feminist' blogs, however, or read excessive theory by Public Feminists; they are too busy leading their busy, productive, womanly lives. Occasionally they do read 'Broadsheet' at Salon, but they don't necessarily agree with all the opinions espoused.

In fact, they demonstrate my original premise that 'people are different.' But equally valid.

Doom said...

Pretty Lady,

Ah, very good. That is what I was hoping to hear (read). Not in specificity, precisely, as I will have to ponder the notions. Though, as to my level of initial contact and perception, I believe I should be able to simply concur for the most part.

Now, our disagreements stem not from the definition provided, but most probably from the enactment of said freedoms, how they are to be administered, at times by whom, and such. A simple example would be that though a two year old child certainly is as equal in life as his parents, he certainly should not have to same say about what he may or may not do, eat, where he may go, and so on. There are limits, laws, realities, and basics of civil, social, moral, ethical, and other conditions required for both personal and social welfare which, at times, must be compelled. To some degree we have lost this, and I think this balance must be, again, reordered. I would suspect you agree on this particular point, but how far beyond that you and I go in agreement might be at odds, sporadically and occasionally.

Oddly, modern feminism (not that which you are defining, as I now understand) is attacking the one nation (America) and the one religion (Christianity) which are the only two such organizations in the world which believe women are people and have souls. It is happy to see you are not in that lot. Yet oddly, you seem quite set against America often. Then again, I have my doubts if not nearly so... strongly voiced or believed? Hard for me to know, exactly.

One note, however, I used quotation marks around gentleman ("gentleman"), as an indication that the term was incorrect, generously misapplied, or such. As well, I did indicate that such thoughts as the "gentleman" expressed, when I received these from woman, it allowed me to consider avoiding women if that is how life had become. I still haven't seen proof otherwise, but I have some hope of meeting a woman who isn't just trying to hook up (hooking up, which is defined as anything that includes sex before marriage).

And, thank you. I sometimes dig holes which enanger others to such a degree that they may not answer me. Honestly, it is innocently written or spoken, by my part. People have become extremely sensitive, and I am one who goes to the hearts of matters without fear, hate, or mistrust. I suppose even being burned I cannot change my manner, not this one. I trust too much that I may say what I think, if I say it as genuinely as I do. So, thanks again.

Desert Cat said...

It is not that many would disagree with your definition, but that for many it does not come close to stopping at such a basic and seemingly self-evident statement. There is much, much more in addition to that.

Are you suggesting that a theory which stems from that of women's existential equality is not eligible for such refinement,

I'm not sure where you pulled that from. I am suggesting no such thing. Did I not say that such seems to be in order? Hmph.

No. The vast majority of the women I am personally acquainted with subscribe to it.

Then those of your personal acquaintance must not number any of those who see marriage not as an end in itself but as a stepping stone to securing a measure of financial support without any attendant burdens associated with the presence of a male in one's life--or at least not the male from whom one is drawing their sustenance. Perhaps all of the fish in your circle do indeed ride bicycles, and they have read "The Care and Feeding of Husbands" and thus recognize that they have a substantial and reciprocal (but often very different) set of obligations toward their mate, and that Oprah notwithstanding, it is not all about them and their needs and desires and wants and demands.

Well. That is an exceptional group of women in your circle of acquaintance then.

Because #2 is the real kicker, and is the measure of true maturity to be able to receive that communication fully and take it dead seriously, swimming against the hard current of popular culture that gives women permission to disparage, denigrate and deny any thoughts, emotions, needs, desires and boundaries expressed by the men in their lives.

Unfortunately my experience has been that the majority of women spend a great deal of time on #1 and almost completely neglect to embrace #2. Because Modern Feminism teaches that #2 is irrelevant when it comes to men.

Pretty Lady said...

you seem quite set against America often.

I beg your pardon. Explain yourself.

Pretty Lady said...

That is an exceptional group of women in your circle of acquaintance then.

Duh. I pick my friends well.

DC, you are not talking about Modern Feminism, you are talking about modern immaturity. Women have a perfect right to be immature, to be foolish, and to suffer the consequences of that foolish immaturity and become a bit wiser. For thousands of years, men have thumped around being as foolish and immature as they please, and women have suffered the consequences of that, right along with them, without usually having the social wherewithal to go boldly forth and fuck up themselves. They are now catching up on that.

The 'much more in addition' to my definition, however, is simply a backlash caused by centuries of having 'normal' perspective defined almost exclusively by the 'male' perspective. Women are, as ought to be clear, different. When challenging the social consensus generated by this long-term lopsided perspective, there is bound to be a bit of confusion, struggle, and Going Too Far. This is entirely to be expected, and is not an indication that women as a whole are irrational, coercive, totalitarian or fascistic. At least, not any more so than men.

Moreover, a great deal of the most extreme 'feminist' rhetoric comes from the set which has suffered fairly severe physical, mental and emotional abuse. As such, this rhetoric should be taken as the hyperbole of a damaged psyche in search of healing, not as the central thrust of a movement.

Anonymous said...

"But Doom is right on one point--the original goals of the "Sexual Revolution" and "Womens Liberation Movement" of the sixties and seventies was exactly all that ... The rule is that it is all *very much* about controlling the actions and attitudes of persons ..."

Desert Cat, you are mistaken. Why you think you are capable of explaining, even on a superficial level, the original goals of the womens liberation movement is a mystery to me. It sounds like you've been unfortunate in the women you've known. You might consider following PL's example and start choosing your friends more wisely. It's a big world and there are plenty of points of view. Of course you shouldn't hang around with anyone, male or female who wants to enslave you. We're all on a learning curve, we've all made mistakes and we all have the chance, even though it sometimes feels like it's too late, to refine our goals, to reprioritize our values and to stop associating with people who are bad for us. I encourage you to stop associating with those women who want to use you and not meet any of your needs. I've met plenty of men and women who are users and abusers. They often have some justification (more often, just denial) but when you recognize that someone is handing you bullshit, like the "gentleman" in the anecdote above, it behooves you to call them on their bullshit and/or to not stick around for any more of it. But when you start telling us what the original goals of the movement were, you're on shaky ground.


Doom said...

I will try to find the indications of which I speak, Pretty Lady.

However, if memory serves, there is a great love of socialism here (not currently the American system of governance, therefore requiring a revolt and an overthrow of the powers that be, the system that supports it, and the will of the people, all of which are generally against socialism). As well, indicating that a standing president (I believe it was mentioned here) should be impeached, and imprisoned (along with his cohorts), is rather radical, as well as legally (and I believe morally and ethically) unsubstantiated. Both acts, given any head of their own and acted upon by citizens as things stand, would be grounds for charges of treason.

I guess, for my part, I have to consider that anti-American. Did you not mean those things that way, or am I mistaken. I will try to find things along those lines here, but there is so much here. I have had little luck with search engines for blogs, so, no promises.

And, of course, there is always the possibility that I just misunderstood. No reason to get too shook up, either way. Though if I am wrong, a simple clarification always works. Protests of a ranting nature just entrench my suspicions, however.

See, I never can tell how deep that hole is, but I keep digging. I am curious, if wrong I like to be properly informed, and if correct, solid feedback is good. This is not an attack, just straight (if incorrect?) talk.

Desert Cat said...

Doom, do I understand you correctly that you believe that the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment against a sitting president is an act of treason?

I think you must not, because in very recent years the House did just that on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. If they were to do so again, they would be well within their Constitutional perogative to do so. They will not, likely because they simply could not make an effective case.

Secondly, are you suggesting that socialism must by necessity be imposed by force? I would point you toward a number of democratic European nations that are socialist for all practical purposes. Furthermore your confidence in the will of the people of this country against socialism is not one that I can share, much as I would like to. As far as I can tell, the appetite of the people of this country for socalism continues to increase unabated. The recent Republican primary slammed the door in the faces of conservatives and left us without a candidate in the general election. And of the two Democrat candidates, the socialist is doing marginally better than the socialist-lite. I have no confidence that the Democrat (Mccain) will beat the Socialist (Obama) in the general election.

And then what? If Obama is elected, does that mean the American people have become anti-American?

There are many many people who love their country, but are not happy with what the leaders of this country are doing. I don't believe they are anti-American for saying so. I also don't believe there is any special virtue in blind loyalty to the current leadership of one's country and what they happen to be doing in the name of America.

One may agree or one may disagree, but it is simplistic to presume or insist that those who disagree are anti-*American*, and I'm frankly fed up to my gills with the attitude that conflates love of one's country with support for what the current leadership of one's country happens to be up to at the moment.

Pretty Lady said...

Thank you, O, and thank you, DC. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I will only add, Doom, that if there is a whole boatload of readily available evidence that our current President has trashed the Constitution, illegally spied on Americans, lied to citizens and members of Congress, sacrificed American lives on the basis of those lies, wilfully and knowingly violated the Geneva conventions, committed perjury, torture, and treason, actively suppressed factcual information that conflicts with his preferred viewpoint, ignored the counsel of advisors at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives, fomented anti-American sentiment around the globe, alienated allies, and sunk our economy--is it not, then, the most PATRIOTIC ACTION POSSIBLE to call for that man's impeachment?

I love my country enough not to want it to be poor, despised, hated and reviled by the majority of people on the planet. I want an America which actively values honor, integrity, mercy, wisdom, compassion, and strength, not manipulation, torture, paranoia and jingoism.

Doom said...

I will simply say that if there were boatloads of proof of what you say, Pretty Lady, et. al., the President would be in prison. Clinton was the only one powerful enough to steal the background security check files of every political enemy to keep from being throne out of office. This president neither has the power or wherewithall to do such a thing. Nor is there any indications that has been done. As far as civil liberties, those have suspended during any time of threat or war in the US. This is not new, nor Republican in nature. As well, every other war we have been involved in (and the subsequent and more draconian suspension of civil liberties to include Japanese holdings) has been a Democratic action, a socialist thing. Which, oddly, means President Bush is a socialist. Just one of many proofs toward that notion.

As far as Obomba becoming president, don't hold your breath. Any one flying Che Guevere flags in his main offices is in serious trouble. And yes, he is indicating anything goes, he will only complain if that sentiment is being used against him. Hopefully this is enough of a Republic, that if the people are that foolish, they will be tended (which, oddly, if sadly, is precisely what he (Obomba) is proposing anyway, so go figure). As I have said before, however, we have socialists on the right, communists on the left, and no real hope of escaping that net. Conservatives are no longer served, our time is over. Now, you have a choice between Hitler and Stalin, which is to say, no choice.

Never worry, I am not a fan of end time theories which might relate to this. I merely note it is time for democracy to be put up, again, and for a while. A new dark age is upon us. Probably. At least this time, it isn't starting with a war. The truth of my words will become apparent if the government controls health care, and begins "cutting costs". Europe is waiting for us to come on-line in this form of socialism so that they may, at the same time, begin cutting costs. They desperately need our leadership and collusion in this, among other things. That IS socialism. The price is always in blood, human blood, no life, human life. Communism just demands more lives, more quickly, before roughly turning into a socialism.

There is a truth is socialism, but that truth is, like the truth of science, math, and reality, beyond the fleshly realm. We, all together or any one of us singularly, are wholly incapable of providing a human, holy, true, and good socialism. That is for the realm of God, which cannot be seen here. The Tower of Babel is what that is called, whether a structure, civil organization, or social network.

Again, not an attack, that is just how I see it. And, I now understand how you see things, mostly. No problems, I hope, but that does clarify things. Can we still even like each other? I think I can. I probably shouldn't, but... *publish your comment*

Doom said...

Oh, one thing. That "probably shouldn't but", is related to the indication of "publish", not as it might oddly if honestly be mistaken as an indication that I shouldn't like you (all).

I may say things in such a way that someone might find offense, but understand, that is not my intention. Or, don't. In truth, to some degree, what we think and feel is of little merit, at least of little power, if special and self defining. Which, in the end, is all we (even the president) ever truly has(?).

Anonymous said...


"Again, not an attack, that is just how I see it."

"I may say things in such a way that someone might find offense, but understand, that is not my intention."

I think referring to Obama as "Obomba" negates the above comments.


Pretty Lady said...

I will simply say that if there were boatloads of proof of what you say, Pretty Lady, et. al., the President would be in prison.

Doom, you're the strangest naive idealist I've ever come across.

Partial list of evidence:

Yoo memos.
Abu Ghraib photos.
Lack of WMBs in Iraq.
Documentation of illegal wiretapping.
Testimony of generals, soldiers, former prisoners, and guards.
Digraceful situation of Iraq today.
Osama Bin Laden not found.
Decimated military.

The President is not in prison because the political system is so corrupt, and the citizens are so spineless, that nobody has had the courage and the will to do it. The illegal, anti-Constitutional and flagrantly incompetent actions of this administration are not in doubt in the minds of most people who read the news. Bush's disapproval rating is at 81%. Your calling me anti-American because I say this is really quite incomprehensible.

And if you do not know how to spell ObAma's last name, how do you know that he's flying Che Guevara flags in his main office? I've been following the campaign quite closely and I've never seen that mentioned anywhere.

Doom, I need to be straight with you. You have obviously been through some major physical trauma, and probably psychological and emotional trauma, in your lifetime. One of the things a traumatized mind does while healing is to produce very realistic apocalyptic visions, dreams, and convictions. It's a result of past damage, not a prediction of future disaster.

Please understand that I don't mean to attack you. But the things you have written here are not only out of touch with reality, but they are the sorts of things that if you dwell on them, assume they are true, and continue trying to convince other people that they're true, are not going to do you or anybody else any good. As flawed as our current Presidential candidates may be, they're not Hitler and Stalin. That's very destructive hyperbole.

You have a fear of socialism. I, personally, find it a national disgrace that millions of American citizens, a huge number of them children, do not have access to basic healthcare because they can't afford it. I find it a disgrace that people are regularly bankrupted because of a medical crisis, whether they have health insurance or not. The current system is exploitive, unbalanced, and it damages our ENTIRE country, not just an unfortunate or irresponsible few.

Citizens of other countries have access to universal, non-bankrupting medical care, their countries are pleasant places to live in, and they think we Americans are crazy barbarians for not having this. I am personal friends with these people, and my sister has lived in Denmark; we have seen the results of universal healthcare, and we like it.

I realize that there are problems with the economics of paying for it, but these problems aren't any bigger than figuring out how to pay for a crusading and horrendously mismanaged war based on lies. I believe that government is an extension of the priorities of a society, and the priorities of civilized societies are increasingly tending toward caring for EVERYONE, not just those at the top of the economic pyramid. I think that's a GOOD thing.

Pretty Lady said...

P.S. It is, I repeat, a NATIONAL DISGRACE that good, kind, hard-working people have to go through this. If you know k like I do, you know that her $300K business was destroyed by Bush's post-911 actions, after her livelihood was destroyed before that by a chronic health crisis. A civilized country takes care of its citizens. It doesn't force them to keep driving with a broken sternum, take away the home they've worked to earn, and deny adequate treatment when they've paid into a health insurance account for decades.

Doom said...

And, Pretty Lady, what precisely possesses you to believe that what you speak of is not, exactly, what socialism does? From what I have seen, social services have been on the front end of taking possession of peoples houses. They offer medical treatment but take houses, cars, antiques, other properties, anything they can get their hands on. That is not the banks, or hospitals, that is the government, which makes it a socialist system! Why would I ever believe adding more government to health care would improve this, when I have the following information to allow suspicion?

As well, how long would someone with an auto-immune issue survive in the unsanitary hospitals of Britain (or any socialized medical system, including hospitals like the U of Iowa), the star of government health industries? She would do precisely what she is doing if she was wise, only no one else would have a choice regarding where to go to be treated either. It sounds like equality, except for pigs who always seem to become more equal.

As for what is going on, from what I can tell, he is being treated. Which country do you want to compare medical treatment, availability (regardless of income, or even citizenship), time to see a doctor, receive treatment, including necessary (and not) surgery? Pick any nation or region with a large enough population to be comparable to even a sector of the US (say, the EU, regionally, Russia, China, India, South America, Africa, you choose). Crack the numbers (most of those are socialist, the few remaining others are communist, sharia, or weak republics). Those people have nowhere near what our poorest obtain in food, health care, heck sanitation such as good drinking water from a tap, indoor toilets, electricity, transportation (even K and I have a friggan vehicle, computer, and internet!). So, if these other nations are so good and cheap and fair, why seek treatment here?

I cannot believe you guys. You really should know better. Look, if you really want to steal, do it yourself, rob a bank or take Bill Gates hostage. I hear with the terror threats elevated, the Feds aren't messing with those crimes so much (though my guess is socialist Bill has a small army, so choose someone like him, minus the army). But, don't ask for an all powerful government which will steal from those who earn to hand, indiscriminately often, to those who do not. Or one which guarantees anything (because a government cannot guarantee). This is insane, though I believe I understand why you believe as you do.

As well, when did it become a "right" to receive medical care? Proper medical care, assuredly, is a very new thing, less than 6 decades old in this nation, truth be told. It is not a right, not all of it, not any of it. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not a guarantee against catastrophic disease, major accidents, or any other thing whatsoever. And, socialism only destroys medical systems. Ask the Brits what they think of it.

If you believe in Christ, or even the ideal of Christ, you understand that he could not heal us all. He, even when he walked with us, had limits. Not even God guaranteed medical treatment, in spite of it having no cost and He charging no fee. How can a government top that?

Pretty Lady said...

Pick any nation or region with a large enough population

Canada. If you are a Canadian citizen, you get healthcare, and at this point their dollar is stronger than ours. They even have electricity, and running water! And don't whine at me about neonatal care being so superior in the U.S. that they're airlifting high-risk mothers here. There's no reason there can't be a tiered system to cater to people so rich that they can afford helicopters. That's REALLY EASY TO PROVIDE, in fact. It already exists. It's the mothers who get no prenatal or natal care at all that we need to be concerned about.

There are FAR more choices and possible systems for providing universal healthcare than between Teh Evil Socialism and allowing people to die of treatable medical disorders in the county emergency room, or in the streets, because people who DO have access to medical care get on their high horse about 'access to medical care is not a Right.' I put my intellect to bear on thinking about those possibilities, and in working on behalf of candidates who are open to hearing about those possibilities, not those whose attitude is basically 'fuck those poor people--oh! Wait! We can manipulate their desperation to recruit for our WAR...'

And quit with the 'taxes are stealing from people who work' business. Are we going to put five-year-olds to work in factories before we provide healthcare to children? What about the people who work two minimum-wage jobs but still can't afford health insurance premiums? And are people who live off of inheritance or investments inherently so much more worthy than people who are self-employed and barely keeping it together, that the former get care and the latter do not?

Christ, I will remind you for the thousandth time, told us to love our neighbors. Not to judge them for their illnesses, and withhold our help when we have the capacity to offer it.

Doom said...

But, Christ, again, did not heal all. Even he could not do that. And, if Canada is your thing, the border is open. Though, I think you are a bit white to be allowed to emigrate. Still, you might be able to grandfather in if you live there long enough. Though, at least if we do not intervene, you move there and in twenty years, you will be wearing a burqua (sp?).

As for neonatal, you can thank people like Edwards for that difficulty. A form of judicial wealth redistribution through the courts. Judicial socialism has made that particular brand of medicine (along with the feminist movement), impractical in the US.

Of course, the live birth rate in the US is horrid, in part due to the socialism which has afflicted medical schools, suggesting the population needs to be less, to the point of indifference to near negligence regarding both the births themselves, and the fertility (something greatly hampered by c-sections, increased threefold by Edwards "class action lawsuit"). The social scientists, at it again. Socialism and social sciences are a team meaning to make death an equal proposal to life, throughout their spheres of influence.

I just do not think Christ said that I have to give, only that I should give (which I do, but when I have the choice, never to the government). There is a difference between charity and theft. Christ knew that. Why don't you?

But honestly, there is no reason to continue. We believe wholly different things, see them from very different angles, and have totally different understandings of what we see. Neither of us will change. Is that enough?

Wollf Howlsatmoon said...

My goodness this one spiraled out of control in a hurry.

I'm just a fellow who decided to "think" about the original Post before I commented, I s'pose I waited a bit long.....

I agree with the Lady regarding her Feminist stance, the only critique that I might give is that ol'Wollf wouldn't classify the two points as "Feminism"

I'd go with "Common Decency".

I'm going to still open doors, walk on the street side of the sidewalk, offer to pick up the infinitum.....

But what do I know....

Pretty Lady said...

Doom, you are being Extremely Rude. I will not accept any more of your comments until such time as you choose to apologize.

In case you are still at sea regarding exactly what it is you have to apologize for:

1) You called me an anti-American.

2) You have implied that I am a thief.

3) You have essentially told me, 'If you don't like America, you can leave.'

4) You have compared Senator Obama to Hitler and Stalin, and offensively misspelled his name.

5) You have so ridiculously misrepresented the subject matter in your last post that it is impossible even to address the points you make. They are not coming from any basis in reality at all. 'Socialism has afflicted our medical schools?' What are you smoking? Indifference, negligence to fertility? When the in-vitro fertility industry is so enormous, and when our live birth rate takes into account all the premature and low-birth-rate infants that never would have had a chance of survival in the past?

In short, you have derailed an honest discussion into insane, inflammatory hyperbole while denying that is what you intend to do. I will not tolerate this on my blog.

Anonymous said...

I have not had the opportunity to post on this, and realize the thread is probably nearly at an end... but my thoughts are this... Regardless of how reasonable one person's positions may be, when they are framed in the terminology of a more vocal element then they become identified by that element. Both Christians, feminists, liberals, conservatives etc need to accept this fact. We as people are defined by the perceptions of others... before you jump to the conclusion that this is not so, please review PLs original thoughts regarding how women were defined by male culture. She spoke of the individual lady being defined by the views of the full culture. So, trying to be reasonable while espousing the same tag of the unreasonable will result in a grouping you may not like.

Anonymous said...

I will hold off on further comments until I know if this thread is still active.

Desert Cat said...

More here from Dr. Helen. If it is "immaturity", then there is a whole boatload of immature 30-50 something women out there who lap that kind of thinking up--dare I say, the *majority*?

Any wonder men despair at finding a truly equitable committed relationship?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, okay, women are equal to men. They have equal personhood and all that. But girls still have cooties, and boys don't. I know that because I am soooo mature. Bleah!