Why do people feel sad about certain minorities, yet not about others

[Ripley]

here at DU? Hey, you can feel sad and guilty about a lot of things, and that would be valid. And I applaud a white guy in the South for saying that.

Yet, I never see posts where people discuss the horrors inflicted upon the native people of America. And I have never seen a post here by a man about men having sadness and guilt about the way women were and still are treated in this country.

And before you get all twisted into a pretzel. Yeah, women were not lynched, they were only burned at the stake and drowned for awhile. And they currently are raped and murdered at an alarming rate, by their closest family no less.

But women of every race were denied basic rights in this country far longer than even black men.

Where is the sadness for that?

[The Straight Story]

1. As far as native americans

I have posted many threads on that very topic relating to current events and the indian nations. Not many replies of course, but maybe just not a current hot topic.

http://www.indiancountry.com/index.cfm

http://www.navajonationcouncil.org/

[Kraklen]

2. What is this, some kind of competition?

"But women of every race were denied basic rights in this country far longer than even black men."

:wtf:

[Ripley]

4. No, it is an observation of this board.

There is always a huge outpouring of soul-searching shame and sadness at the inequalities of minorities, except for women.

Whenever feminist threads show up here, they are beseiged by men (and women) who claim adamantly it's in our heads, or that there really is nothing to worry about, we've gained equality. That is no truer than saying racism doesn't exist in America.

I find that very odd for a Progressive board to not be able to see the problems women still face and are quite horrendous and belittle them.

[H2O Man]

3. Interesting post.

I had a discussion on DU:GD about violence aimed at Native Americans today. I posted information on the general topic on two threads, actually. And I've taken part in numerous discussions on these very topics on DU, and always have been pleased by the insight and concern expressed by a large number of DUers.

[Ripley]

6. Thanks for that.

But if you have read posts by DU Indians (some use that term) they say they are invisible here. You have to admit there are nowhere near the amount of threads about violence against women (and other issues) and the plight of native Americans on this board as there are posts about Gays and AA's. And I doubt that either one of those groups are in the majority here.

No, I do not want a pissing match.

Yes, it would be nice if people here didn't make so many women feel unwelcome.

Just one example: Would Duers laugh and use the term "squaw" or "nigger" or "faggot" or "spic"? But would they use the term "douchebag" or "bitch" or "bitchslap" or "cunt"?

I've seen a little change in this environment on those words, but not much, considering Pitt used "douchebag" in a response yesterday to a freeper email to him where he was calling the emailer a teenager living at home. :eyes: He was given a standing ovation here at DU.

[TimeChaser]

11. We're always calling people "dicks" or "pricks" on this site...

... so why should "cunt" or "douchebag" be different.

I'm very much a feminist, but that's just one thing I never got. :shrug:

[Ripley]

12. The difference I see is this:

Men call each other's "dick" and laugh about it....but women really don't call each other's "cunt" and laugh about it. If "nigger" is unacceptable on this board why should other words that another group feels is derogatory exist?

As far as "douchebag" goes....what is the male equivalent? There is none. And the fact that it refers to a device that cleans a woman's vagina is very obvious why it is offensive. Do you find women's vagina's icky? Do you find a douchebag something so horrid it is doing something like squirting cleansing solution into a woman's vagina so vile that you would refer to the Smirk as that? Or your boss?

Do you not see the inherent insult in that?

Of course, I could go on about the way all of the terms are used...but it would take too long. Who really refers to Tom Delay as a prick on camera? Yet who refers to Hillary as a bitch on camera?

Big dif.

[Heddi]

16. Good point about Douchebag

Why is the vagina so villified by people?

Ew! Cooties! Vagina! Yuk! Nasty.

I find it interesting that all of us came into this world because of action happening inside a vagina. Most of us came into this world through a vagina (obviously except for those C-Section deliveries).

Why the hatred towards the vag? If it's so fucking nasty and dirty and smelly, why are (straight) men always trying to get at it? Get in it? Do it? Nail it? Fuck it?

Strange connotation. The idea of a vagina as something SO utterly disgusting (douche) and so very sexy and erotic at the same time. Which is it--nasty, fish-smelling coochie, or hot love pocket for your manly meat? Make up your mind?

Also--why are vagina slang always deragotory towards women? Again--it's something every straight man wants--some pussy, right? But someone who is weak is a pussy. Why do you crave something that is weak?

A cunt is a horrible person. Yet a cunt is also a vagina. Why do you want to get it on inside something that personifies the worst person on the planet?

Strange, strange, strange.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

21. A tentative thought or two ...

I think the sexual part is the surface.
The deeper part is emotional. Men are taught
to hide their feelings--except with the woman
in their life. It is OK to show her, in private, what
is really going on inside him, in his emotional reality.
She is the one person he is allowed to show himself to.
Of course a person must show themself to somebody
in order to be huiman. Part of showing feelings is sexual,
yes, the vulnerability of need and the loss of control
in the orgasm. That is important obviously, the sex,
but the emotions of need, exposure, vulnerabiluty, loss
of control in an emotional sense, are the foundation of
both love & misogyny.

How does a man deal with his own feelings? How does
he deal with the fact that he shows himself--
his tenderness, his needs, his nakedness, his tears, his
fears, his childish, playful side, his longings & dreams
--to the woman in his life and probably nobody else?
This one other person knows him and sees him in
ways nobody else does. Imagine the power she has to hurt
him if things go wrong. Imagine the loss he feels if he
is in danger of losing that person, her love, her acceptance,
of losing her as the main and maybe only means of showing
himself as he is.

So, to me, when you write:
"Why do you want to get it on inside something that personifies the worst person on the planet?"
I hear the question in a way that is not only sexual
or even mainly sexual, but much more emotional.
It is this deep vulnerability of the man's relationship
with (love, trust, need) the woman in his life that gives
him his connection with being most human, yet puts him most
at danger in losing the image of himself that he presents
to the world.

To ask a man (who is not aware of these profound dynamics
in the heart & psyche) to understand & appreciate feminist issues,
to change himself & his perception & begin to let go of his
self-protective misogyny, might seem like a small thing to ask,
a change easily brought about, but in reality it requires a very
big awakening & revolution in his innermost being.

[Heddi]

24. But it also has to do with control as well, don't you agree?

When we refer to Bush as a 'girley man' for crying in public--what message does that send? Of COURSE I know his tears weren't sincere--that's not the point. Why Girly-Man? Why is to emulate a female SO threatning to a male? Why is it a PUTDOWN to be equated with a female

"stop acting like a girl! Start acting like a MAN!"
"heh. he throws like a girl!"
"What a girly-man. Stop crying. Men don't cry"

I understand what YOU'RE saying, and I think you make a valid point. But I don't think that every man who is a mysogonist is doing so because he's afraid of showing his true self. I think there is an absolute hatred towards women. Otherwise, why would we CONSTANTLY be demonized SO CONSANTLY all the time?

And not just...sly comments. Again, the two worst things a man can be accused of is being gay, or being like a woman. And usually being gay means being like a woman (in the eyes of bigots). Why are we so hated? What has my vagina ever done to any man? What has my uterus done that has caused such scorn and consternation for so many fucking men?

I just don't get it.

When women point this out, by the way, we're called MANHATERS!!! OUT TO GET'cha, men! Here I come with my magical vagina and mysterious uterus..boogaboogabooga.

But men can whip out insult after insult, claim "hey babe, I didn't mean to insult you, you stupid bitch", and they're not WOMEN HATERS...but time and time again, in life and on this board, when women bring up their issues regarding sexism and gender issues and mysogony, we're called MANHATERS! MAN BASHERS! BAAAAHHHHH!!

I see it as fear of losing control, fear of losing what has long been theirs for SO long. Losing power. Forced equality. How much fun would THAT be if we actually had to think about the words we used and how they affect others? To be polite and find other, more suitable words to describe things instead of always falling for the simplest, most elementary-school level insults of gender?

Can't adults move BEYOND the school yard taunts? Find some more creative way to insult others than to do it based on the derision of ONE particular gender, again and again and again?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

26. Yes, but ...

I think a man can NOT call women sexist names
& yet still be a full-fledged sexist as far as
how he sees women and how he relates to them. My
own learning was/is rooted in the kind of emotional
awakening I wrote about. To move from my experience of
my own pain to the experience of the pain I caused.

Absolutely men should stop calling women sexist names.
And we should stop calling men names the worst of which,
you are right, equates them with a sexist perception
of women--weak, weepy, emotional, out of control, etc.

But to me the biggest challenge for a man is to get
right with those emotional qualities or states--
vulnerability, honesty, childlikeness, creativity,
tenderness, and so on. In other words, the parts of
himself that he feels safe only showing or expressing
with that one woman in his life he is told he can trust
not to betray him and expose him for who he is.

So he identifies those "female" or "feminine" qualities
of himself with the woman he can show them to. He hates
those parts of himself--minus the vagina--that he seems
to hate and have contempt for in a woman, or in a man who
he compares to a woman.

It's really primal, or Jungian territory I guess. Nothing
new, but to actually experience an acceptance of that
side of yourself, for a man, is just a real fundamental
reality-changing event for a man who is a sexist, and that
is about most men in such a culture as ours.

Again, I hear you saying that it seems simple, the part
about the sexist names, and maybe it is, for some, but for
me, in my experience as a man who has overcome SOME of my
sexism and fear/hatred of women, there is something much
deeper and more difficult going on than the name-calling
part. Both (and all) parts of the educational or awakening
curve are important, of course.

And yes, you are right, the overt sexist name-calling IS a
way to reclaim control, however illusory it is. It's mainly
a way for a man to separate himself from those "weak" qualities
in himself which he is in denial about, which he equates with
being a woman, and which he doesnt see are the means whereby he
becomes fully human and himself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. But there's exactly where unconscious mysogyny comes in

Why are men ashamed of having tender emotions? Why do little boys have such emotions shamed out of them? Why are Typical American Guys so afraid of venturing outside their comfort zone or questioning conventional wisdom--especially in front of Other Guys?

It's a manifestation of sexism that in itself reinforces sexism. Being tough and macho and stoic and unable to express any emotion except anger or lust may have been adaptive for men when we were all in caves, but in the modern world, it's just feeding the wars and cruelties and social inequities.

I've known several men who are definitely masculine, yet sweet and gentle and thoughtful and willing to step outside their frames. But there are too few of them, and they're not running things.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

30. Right. Our culture teaches men to hate

the part of themselves that is *identified* with the female.
How can such a being ever be at peace in the world, in
relationship with another being (woman) he sees as embodying
the part of himself he loathes & fears? And how can he be
at peace with other beings (men) who are like him hiding so
much of their essence? A house divided against itself ...

All I know finally is my own experience. My own painful
awakening began with getting sober because of my own pain,
then deepened when I faced the pain I caused others,
especially women. The split between my false image of myself
and my true inner being had to be so grave & painful that I had to
change or really go mad. I fought it all the way, and still
do now & then as the road narrows & narrows again.

[Eloriel]

33. I think you're right, probably. One thing you're missing,

or perhaps just not emphasizing it as much as I might prefer: the abject FEAR. Just as homophobia really is all about fear, so is misogyny. Women simply terrify most men, apparently.

Of course, it's always wonderful to have a whole population of people to whom you've been born automatically and inherently superior, and I'm sure the specter of losing that's pretty traumatic too: Fear again.

Good post, tho.

Edit: And your subsequent posts just keep getting better and better. Simply outstanding. I think you're my new DU hero. :-)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

41. Oh my God.

I am so glad & thankful I came back here & saw your post.
I thought I was talking about things I don't see here
talked about much, which is how men, or a man, has moved
(or been moved) from the darkness to the light on feminist
issues. I thank you for your appreciative post.

And of course I agree
about fear, it is just paramount in men's abuse of/contempt
for women. The angle I was coming at it from is that the
fear has to do in part not just loss of control or power but having
to face the excruciating difference between the face he presents
to the world and the face he presents to the one person in the
world that he can be completely vulnerable with, even if
it's only in breakdown moments here and there.

Again, thank you, Eloriel.

[fortyfeetunder]

28. I like enema bag better

It's a unisex device....

[GiovanniC]

81. It's an Insult to My Asshole

Offense can be found anywhere if one is willing to look for it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

29. oops - responded to wrong post...

[TimeChaser]

20. I don't know..

"Men call each other's "dick" and laugh about it....but women really don't call each other's "cunt" and laugh about it."

I don't know who you're basing this off of. I've seen a lot that proves that wrong in both cases.

And if what we really want is equal rights, if we ban the use of female anatomy as an insult, should we ban the use of male anatomy as well?

[progressivebydesign]

37. Umm.. I'm a woman and we call each other bitch, etc.

I have been a feminist since I was 14. I find no offense in the words used that could depict a female dog, or a woman's body part.. just as my husband is not offended by the male counterpart words. I think the world has way too many problems right now to expend much more energy on that line of complaint...

[progressivebydesign]

38. Why are "dicks" icky? n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

43. Pardon me, but I disagree concerning "douchebag"

I think most users here have no idea why a douchebag reference would be upsetting to women since they've never seen one, never mind used one. The invective douchebag is used mostly by men to describe men and seems to imply a limitation in their sexual prowess (think about it.) Douchebag is sexist term for a man. It has nothing to do with vagina ickiness. There are slang equivalents for women but I'm not listing them. Still, for women who can graphically imagine a douche, it's a very coarse and offensive reduction of a private hygiene process.

I find it too graphic when someone refers to nitpicking but perhaps that's because I know what head lice and nits look like and just what the process of nit picking entailed.

[Doc Bottom]

75. titles

People who can be bothered to count such things (sociologists) say that there are ten or twelve times as many derogatory terms for women and their body-parts than there are for men.

Even more interesting, can you think of a title of respect for a woman? One that's used respectfully and hasn't been corrupted to be an insult?

Sir is Sir, but a madame is a brothel-keeper.

Sir is a title for a Knight. The equivalent term for a woman is 'Dame.' Who wants to be called 'Dame'?

A master is highly skilled at something. A mistress is a woman who has a sexual relationship with a man who's married to another woman.

If someone calls you "Mister" they call you "Mr. Bottom" (or whatever your name happens to be.) It is notably but not terribly rude to just say, "Hey Mister!" but women get called "Miss" all the time, and that's not noticed as rude at all. The whole Mister Miss Missus thing is pretty fucked up anyway, what with the way a man's marital status is not reflected in his title, but a woman's is. Mr. Jones is Mr. Jones, but Mrs. Jones is Mr. Jones's Missus.

The reason some people might say sexism is all in your head is that it's so prevailant that it's invisible. Normalcy does that.

[spooky3]

19. In addition to Heddi's explanation, here's mine:

In our culture, "cunt" is almost never used in a positive way. No one is complimented on her internal organs. No man ever feels inadequate for not having a vagina, and no school of psychoanalysis was ever built around this. "Cunt" is always used as the biggest insult you can direct toward a woman, and it is often hurled at a woman who is doing something that has nothing to do with sex, e.g., a woman who says something with which a man disagrees. However, many people speak admiringly (kiddingly and seriously) of men with large penises and many men think simply possessing one makes them good, better, or best. Certainly a highly related phenomenon is the sexist compliment "s/he's got balls" when what is meant is s/he is strong, courageous, etc. So when "dick" or "prick" is sometimes used as an insult, it is a far less powerful insult.

[Heddi]

23. Very true.

I've never heard women taunt each other about which one has the larger or smaller labia, which one has the largest clitoris when erect, whose vagina is deeper....

Sure, some women are compuslsive over breast size, but generally because society has taught them that if you don't look like Pam Anderson and fill yourself with silicone or saline, then you're a worthless hag who has no right to live on this planet.

I don't know...men seem fascinated with the penis. Who has the bigger penis? Wow, that guy has some REALLY BIG BALLS to say/do that! If that woman wants to get things done, she needs to GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS. Men obsess over the size of their penis, the girth of their penis. Is it big enough? Is it too small? Will I have the ability to impress other men in the locker room with my large penis? Won't women be just falling over themselves to get a peice of my really big penis?

I've never discussed the depth of my vaginal canal with my female friends. I don't worry if my labia are too big or too small. I don't obsess if my ovaries are big enough for me to be a TRUE woman. Is my vagina deep enough? Too deep? Too shallow? Will I be able to impress other women in the locker room with my large vagina? Won't men just be falling over themselves to get inside my large vagina?

Why must women 'grow some balls' to get things done? Why, if someone is ineffective at something, do they 'ain't got no balls?'

When will we demand that men GROW SOME FUCKING OVARIES if they're unsuccessful at their attempts? When will we say "Man, That gal has got golden fucking ovaries to try THAT in public?"

Instead, female genitalia is referred to as slang, as disgusting, as a weak point.

Male genitalia is the height of all that is strong and powerful (yet is the most vunerable part of the male anatomy...interesting).

Must go now and obsess over my vagina, and how I can use it as a weapon of fear and intimidation. Maybe I can buy some vagina-deepening pills I see advertised online all the time. Get some Clit Enlargers or something. I mean....I got to, right?

[Joj Bush]

35. Sheesh

Cmon people, Romans thought small penises were good because they meant you had more self-control. I can't believe you guys are serious about this subject. Sexism may exist, but not because of penis size issues, you guys are discrediting your cause.

And what has happened to women is NOTHING like what happened to Native Americans, that an insult to Native Americans. How often do you see a woman? How often do you see a Native American, IN AMERICA?

[ElectroPrincess]

52. I respectfully disagree, we don't get to use DICK enough here! LOL

Like you don't know DICK.
Don't be a DICK.
You're a DICK head.

Gee, the varied uses of this derogatory term are seemingly endless.

----
I dunno, the word cunt sounds so awful ... raw ... crass ... well, it just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as the word DICK. :blush:

[Booster]

5. I'm 62, and, personally, I think women have made great strides

and will continue. I now believe a woman will become President in my lifetime, and I say GOOD. If anybody would be truly compassionate it would be a woman in that position, in my opinion. They certainly couldn't do any worse than the Dimson and I'm ready for it. It did take us a while, but women are coming into their own and they will change for the better. Other countries have had women as leaders for years, but a woman as President of the United States would send a powerful message around the world; a good message.

[Ripley]

8. I highly doubt a woman will become President in your lifetime, unless

you live to be 100. Oh I hope you do!

Of course women have made strides. So have blacks. So have Latinos.

But I am observing the always sympathetic threads and they usually aren't for women's rights. In fact, the feminist threads are almost always peppered with derision and backlash. That's why we created a Feminist Group.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ripley]

10. Frankly I don't understand that situation.

A business seminar should include everyone regardless of gender or ethnicity. However if they chose to offer several specific workshops for people it would seem obvious to me that the planner of those would realize that some people will fall into multiple categories. And they should not have people missing certain ones.

So for a black female to have to "choose" is wrong.

Statistically, I believe females make up a majority of people in this country, so they are not technically a "minority." I personally don't give them that status. But if a workshop is geared towards helping women in a particular field, it should be okay.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Opposition to 'douchebag' makes one a Feminist?

I don't think so. I'm not seeing where it's a derogatory term aimed at women, not like one or two other terms I can think of. Personally I find some of the posts on both sides in some threads (some of which had zero to do with feminism but were twisted to try to make it so) way over the top in either direction, so I guess that counts me out as a feminist. The complete over-the-topedness is a good reason why I'm not tempted to venture into the Feminism group. No great loss for it or me if huge issues such as 'Should Skinner let Will Pitt call a freeper a douchebag' is what it's about...

Violet...

[katsy]

7. I can't imagine...

judging from the posts here on DU that these atrocities do not cause outrage in each and every DU'er.

From my vantage point, we can't take even ONE step forward to eliminate injustices to ANY minority having this criminal administration in office.

There is sadness my friend... and even more helplessness.

[cally]

13. I think the online culture

is male dominated even though DU does not have that many more males than females according to some posted polls. Males are still encouraged to belittle women. Listen to boys culture and it's astounding. It seems the worse insult given to a male is that they are like a female. Taunts I've heard, and remember I live in an extremely progressive community, are:

Don't be a pussy.

You hit like a girl.

That's so gay.

When crying because they are severely hurt--Only little girls cry.

It seems the worse insult given to a male is that they are like a female.

It's pathetic that more 'progressives' don't recognize the misogyny. Even worse, is that they seem to glory in their belittling of females.

[Ripley]

14. Why is a DU 'hero' using "douchebag" and getting high fives for it?

I found it highly ironic that someone lke that would respond to a freeper email where he implied the freeper was a teenager living at home and was in high school, then as a professional writer, chose to call him a "douchebag" as his insult. :crazy:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Misogyny is so deeply ingrained in American culture that it's

almost unconscious.

It starts when boys are told not to act like girls, as if being a girl is the worst thing in the world.

And yes, I know that post-pubescent males like to look at attractive women, but today I happened to see a magazine called FHM, and about 1/2 the ads featured young women in string bikinis, whether they were relevant to the product or not. In fact, practically the only females pictured were young women in string bikinis, again, whether being in a bikini was relevant to the article or not.

It's not as bad as it used to be back in the 1950s, when a woman contestant on What's My Line could stump the panel because she was (gasp!) a lawyer, but the removal of constraints on sexual expression have led to a cruder, more adolescent form of sexism, in which women are classified solely in terms of their conventional attractiveness.

[Ripley]

17. Well maybe the unconscious people should WAKE UP!!!!!

One would think they are just the unconscious people who voted for SMIRKINAWOL. But no, some so-called liberals are that way too.

[FizzFuzz]

18. Great thread here, Ripley!

And you are so right; someone else said it well too--the men who use these terms that belittle women, these men who purposely post thread after thread ridiculing women who speak out GLORY in their misogyny.

You have got to read this terrific book, "The Wimp Factor". Psycho social analysis of dependency reaction/ femiphobia in men and the hyper macho culture in America, especially encouraged and typefied by the fascistic, war worshiping Bush administration. It is a really good read.

I wish I could say more here, but its been a long long day.

[Eloriel]

34. Glorying in the misogyny --

Well, just imagine if you had a weak ego and could take comfort in the "fact" that you were born superior to a little more than 1/2 the human race. With that weak ego, you wouldn't want to give that up either.

One of the problems is that too damn much "male bonding" happens around oogling or disparaging women. On another thread someone spoke eloquently about some people in oppressed groups taking the words used against them and using it with affection and tolerance, etc, with one another (fag, N-word, bitch, etc.). My respons was that yes, that's all well and good, but it's still the language of OPPRESSION, specifically of the oppressed. Men are the ones who get to use the language of the OPPRESSOR, and it's pretty damn exciting. In fact, for many of them it's apparently sexually exciting -- they are sexually stimulated by our humiliation. The more humiliation, the more pleasure.

[Bouncy Ball]

22. I have enough sadness to go around, believe me.

[fujiyama]

25. Keep in mind

that women aren't a minority, though they have been treated similarly.

That said, mysoginy should not be accepted, but unfortunately is among too many in society.

[Warpy]

31. Why has no hate crimes law ever applied to women?

Think about it. I'm not talking about rape and domestic assault, we already have wimpy prosecution of those crimes. I'm talking about the yahoos who see a woman on a bicycle and try to run her off the road with their muscle cars, the men who think they have a right to put their hands on any woman within reach, the men who feel absolutely blessed when they shout sexual slurs against any woman who walks past their workplace.

These are all HATE CRIMES, fellas. What's up with leaving half the human race out of all the laws? Just what RIGHTS do you think you are protecting by leaving this behavior exempt?

We women know what this stuff is. If you're ever perplexed at the level of anger most of us have against men we don't know, perhaps you should consider what we face in terms of daily hate crimes.

[omega minimo]

32. Time for all "The Others" to get together & fight the Planet Killers

On DU, there is no argument about language/attitudes that are acceptable or not-- it's in the Rules, it's based on Respect, and Admod will monitor it if encouraged to. IT'S SIMPLE.

If I remember the thread you are referring to correctly, the person noticed a couple in a restaurant and empathized with that racial groups' experience. We all occasionally notice the couple in the restaurant who are uncomfortably NOT talking to each other-- does it make us reflect on the power balance b/w the man and the woman?

The invisiblity of women's lower status is embedded seamlessly in most cultures and many languages. This enables the willfully ignore-ant. The language of shame and degradation and control are embedded in words such as "pudenda"-- Latin for female organs, with the root "to feel shame."

We don't need to argue over foul words and disrespectful spirits philosophically. We need to argue for DU Rules to be applied consistently and DUers to honor them voluntarily. Out of respect.

Bigotry reveals ignorance. People who talk shite on DU self-select their audience and end up talking to each other or merely antagonizing everyone. Building better communication skills could be one of the values of DU-- in order to spread the word outward to the public and legislators, to get some ACTION.

There is immense power in the experience and skills of the various downtrodden groups, including Native Americans, African Americans, Female Americans, and ______. etc. Time is here to unify and stand up together against The Man that is raping the Planet, pillaging the Nation and disappearing the Future.

:nuke:

[smirkymonkey]

40. I think that's what they are so afraid of...

they are outnumbered and with the traditionally oppressed groups getting stronger and more empowered, "The Man" knows it's just a matter of time before his "glorious" reign is over.

Good post Ripley - I have often wondered the same thing, but I sometimes just get so disgusted I can't even bear to join in at times.

[progressivebydesign]

36. Actually, I have empathy for all people oppressed past and present.

Don't paint us all with a broad brush. I am descended from gypsies.. slovaks (who were used as slaves, and killed for simply being), also from the Irish, who were treated like shit, so I have learned there are many types of oppression and hate.

The poster mentioned an African American family, so we all responded to that. Frankly, I feel much the same when seeing a very elderly person out having dinner by themselves. One year we were having dinner in a coffee shop on Mother's Day and noticed an elderly women dining by herself on Mother's Day (!). Upon leaving we told the waitress we'd be happy to pay for her meal (but don't let her know who did it), but someone had already done it.

I think empathetic people are empathetic people... and it doesn't apply only to one group of people. It's a trait, and a damn good one. It's one that I WISH more republicans would exhibit.

[omega minimo]

39. Empathy is the opposite of Republican

:hi:

[ElectroPrincess]

56. There are "nice exceptions" albeit few within the Republican Party ...

Empathy is not extinct with some ... depends on their environment.

[insane_cratic_gal]

42. Over exposure breeds immunity

to the shocks of human behavior. This applies to first to native Americans.. woman, then africans and their treatment in this country. The outrage slowly settles until something happens to stir the pot.

If your exposed to a gun being fired over and over eventually you de-sensitize to the sound or images.
Observe a squirrel in a park vs a squirrel in a forest. One is obviously more de-sensitized to people then the other.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[efhmc]

45. Are you okay? The 40 acres and a mule were for African- Americans.

The prejudice against people who are not white males is long and deep in this country and so very, very wrong and evil. It harms the very core of freedom and libery in the U.S.

[omega minimo]

48. ...which they never got

The original Americans got genocide.


Let's get the spirit, soul, insight and power of the disenfranchised together to save the country and the planet.

[Hidden Stillness]

46. There is Bigotry at a Deeper Level

This is the great leap of elevation of ethical thinking, where you realize that the problems and sufferings you experience don't just apply to you, but to others, and you understand them not by pretending knowledge and sympathy, but by an extension of a principle you know. The world is a lot more complicated than just you thinking about your situation, isolated, and converting all cues about behavior picked up from the world to your own "telling of things," and ignoring the plights of others. Of course, a string will only stretch so far before it breaks, and you find your own sense of self violated, and so there is a limit as to how much inclusive concern for others you can have in your own mind before you just start to feel yourself and your concerns ignored.

I think this is the big challenge for Democrats--as we are the real population--and if we can solve this problem, we will not only win, but get the whole country back on track. I think we have to act like a labor union, and all together fight for the cause, "One for All, and All for One" type thing. This is the way a society is harmonious. When you really understand an issue, your thought is elevated and expands beyond yourself to include all other groups who suffer a similar oppression, and you realize not just the viceral anger of your group's unjust treatment, but an encompassing principle that makes you notice the larger world. It can help to induce a wider, beyond-particular perspective that focuses now on issues and principles, to solve the more general, contributing problems, and not just forever, groups narrowly fighting against groups. "...But what you can do for your country." If we realize the deeper, underlying conditions that contributed to the situations of many groups--both black people and white women living in poverty because both are underpaid and not promoted, for example, rather than the two groups fighting against each other as to who was "really" oppressed--then we might unite, like a union, and all address a problem, that, if solved, solved it for all.

You don't really understand a principle if you can state it for your own group, and then deny the same consideration to another group who suffered the same. Then you are not really "against injustice," but only for your own group, and that, of course is the preoblem, and the meaning of prejudice to begin with. This is all easier said than done, and when you really try to bring people together to an understanding of some of our common problems, you get how complicated and intractable it all is. You also realize that most claims of "fighting against injustice" are only really "fighting for my group"--not necessarily bad, but not a lofty principle if you apply it only to yourself. Then you have the usual situation where people are only impressed if it happens to certain groups and not others, and actually believe it is not that bad if the same thing happens to a "lesser" group: for example, the enraging claim that rape is "worse" if the victim is a male, (because presumably, we are supposed to be fucked against our will, and there is no sympathy for women as a rule); and that it is "worse" if rich people lose everything than if poor people do, because poor people are "used to it," etc. Distinguishing between groups on things like this, is a sin.

Of course, women and Christians (my groups) are attacked on this website (and all others) all the time, wihich is why I'm starting to not like reading it anymore. These things are not stopped, my posts are censored and those of my attackers are not, etc., and it is destroying everything to support people who are not even trying to help things. Even, however, the motives of supposed confessions of bigotry must be examined, as we know they are usually ploys to get cheers from the (women) crowd, a pretense that you don't do it anymore--so now you can again--and a total shift of the emphasis of the argument, so that now we aren't even concerned with the feelings and experiences of the woman victim, but are now weeping tears over the "suffering" of the hateful male, which from what I can gather, is no worse than what I go through on any ordinary day.

By the way, there was a really great thread on General a few nights ago, called "Think sexism doesn't hurt? Bitch is an okay word?" by Heddi, with a fabulous original post (Friday, July 1, 2AM+). I replied to it, mentioning another really thread, "Hey DU! Quit massaging the misogyny RE: Missing Persons...(etc.)" by omega minimo, there were other replies, I went to get a cup of coffee, and it was gone--deleted; the whole thread. Something ugly must have exploded (showing more bigotry on this site), but I don't know what. Does anybody know what happened to that thread?

At any rate, this pretense that you were against "bigotry," "injustice," or etc., but were really only for your chosen group and don't even care when the same thing happens to others, is one of the basic metaphysical hypocrisies of human beings, and it is just about my main concern about life: how to break through that ordinary narrow selfishness that will not face itself or admit its inconsistency or unfairness, and reach a higher, more encompassing sense of things. We live in a society, with people who exist but do not agree, and not in a fantasy world alone--that is, if you really want to solve problems.

[omega minimo]

47. Deeper level, Hidden Stillness?

You've touched on the altruistic kernel at the heart of both democracy and faith. The difficulty comes when believers decide that the Golden Rule only applies to their own "kind."

Since Reagan and the Greed Decade, Americans have allowed their leaders and image makers to unravel the notion of citizenship and nationhood. When TV commercials (for whatever) show aggressive soccer moms hurling urban assault vehicles at each other to win mall parking spots-- you know we got problems....

"If we realize the deeper, underlying conditions that contributed to the situations of many groups...then we might unite, like a union, and all address a problem, that, if solved, solved it for all."

This is the notion of union, of nationhood-- United States of America. This is the lost sense of interdependence that Barack Obama evoked at the DNC speech in 2000-- he blew everyone away with WHAT USED TO BE COMMON KNOWLEDGE. He reminded us that we were a nation of united states and the response was as dramatic as if the sky split and the Martians came down. Geez, forgive me, it was a great speech, but REALLY-- it shows how Americans have been brainwashed to believe the Me First, Out of My Way crap of the past 2 decades.

"This is the great leap of elevation of ethical thinking, where you realize that the problems and sufferings you experience don't just apply to you, but to others, and you understand them not by pretending knowledge and sympathy, but by an extension of a principle you know....."

It IS a leap of ethical thinking AND it is brought down to earth in practical terms through the practice of law and the principle of respect. The social progress of the late 50's though mid-80's (which the Extreme Right is determined to revert) was an expression of the "encompassing sense of things" socially. The word for the principle is "Respect."

"I think this is the big challenge for Democrats--as we are the real population--and if we can solve this problem, we will not only win, but get the whole country back on track."
........
" We live in a society, with people who exist but do not agree, and not in a fantasy world alone--that is, if you really want to solve problems."

So, you have identified the kernel of truth at the heart of the problems, and revealed the powerful healing within it. Undo the lie that we are disempowered and disconnected and the Union will be resurrected.

:evilgrin: Happy Fourth of July, Citizen/Consumers! Be ye of good cheer and good will as ye celebrate the state of the united states.

:kick:

"Massaging" thread you mentioned. Good discussion; variety of voices; learned some things; steering wheel-grabbers didn't wreck it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3945852


(I would like to see the mass of Christians who feel maligned by the broad-brushed comments directed at the fundamentalist-fanatic hypocrites (guilt by association?) TAKE BACK the faith and its reputation from the insane political bigots that have hijacked it. Focus the energy on those perpetrators, rather than at those lumping all "Christians" under the same tent. There are many flavors of the faith. The one that is causing problems is the one that demands unquestioning zombie-like behavior from members. IT'S A CULT. Most Christians have not drunk that particular Kool-Aid.... This would be a powerful and massive force for social and political progress. As long as the Independents, undecideds and Republicans with integrity think that the Wrong Wing is the "Christian" party, Dems will miss out on their support. Maybe Dean mispoke himself.)

[Hidden Stillness]

49. "Deeper Level"--Also, Happy Fourth of July!

I guess what I meant by "deeper level" of bigotry, was a continuation of the thought of the whole thread, of a hypocritical distinction that people make, that "bigotry is bad and the proof is this oppressed group," then when you tell them of another group with the same conditions, they don't care because they don't "like" that other group. There are other extensions of that thought, that you have to face and uncover.

Take for example the steps it takes, not just one, to try to get rid of a bigoted attitude of your own. Take a white person, for example, (I am white), who starts to notice their own attitudes, presumptions, etc., and works to reason them away. If then, they become so self-conscious, that they are uncomfortable about any discussions of race, because now they feel "exposed" and afraid to make a mistake, noticing some of their stereotypical opinions but not sure what to replace them with yet, that they now do not want to criticize any black person ever, because they are now overly-aware of race, having noticed it at all, yet not far enough along to have removed much of it. This then makes them feel "put upon," as if someone else were doing it, (the type of person who might use the "politically correct" routine), which then actually brings back some of the previous bigotry--as if, life were easier and I could think what I wanted before I had to be aware of "those people," etc. So then, another level--an advance from the first, totally ignorant level, but still present--now has to be passed. This kind of thing: where you don't just get rid of bigotry as one chunk and it was gone, but a road that has to be travelled down, correcting all the way, always catching new things and renewing your notice of it so old things won't creep back. Getting rid of bigotry is not just getting rid of negative attitudes, it is, further, a removal of the mind-set that I am of this group and you are of that one, and there is a conflict because of it. Ideally, anyone should be able to criticize anyone as an individual, comfortable as if it were your own group, with the other person also having no reason to fear that there was "anything else" behind it. Again, you always have to notice yourself, and everyone else was also guilty of it.

There are also levels of bigotry another way. Why are white women criticized for being racist, for example, but black males much less often for being sexist, (Muhammad Ali, etc., etc.), a preferential treatment even among people discriminated against. Why are heterosexual males criticized for hating women (where appropriate), but homosexual males are not (where appropriate)? There is an unacknowledged bigotry among groups allowed to attack other discriminated against groups. This is why I think it is so important to elevate ourselves and include others as we fight for the same things for ourselves, because the faults of people go on forever, and if you have to be "perfect" before you can enjoy freedom and justice for your group, then why are rich white males running everything? "Being perfect" is not the criterion for first-class citizenship; we should learn to work together as flawed humans, rather than attacking everything noticed. A peaceful society only exists when you can learn to ignore whatever you can, and fight only what was necessary.

Also, I have to say, omega, I don't really appreciate the suggestion that we "fix" fundamentalists; I don't even understand how this is considered "my" group when I have nothing to do with them. I'm still waiting for white males on this website to go around the world and get "their" group to stop being violent and oppressive to all of us--we'll wait. How's this: tell black males to get "their" group to get rid of "their" black male crime rate. Doesn't that strike you as a very offensive and bizarre remark? The attacks on Christians on this website don't have anything to do with "fundamentalists" anyway, but only pretend to. When they laugh and jeer at your "delusions" and "stupidity," and call you names that are not allowed when done against their group, then no "anti-conservative" rationale has anything to do with it. It is a vicious (bigoted, by the way) attack by people who feel superior and supported. The viciousness of the attack on any Christian who dares call these people (on this site, for example) hypocrites when they are, or who tries to correct a statement of any kind, cannot be pretended to be sane thinking of any kind. It is just privileged; and when atheist males on this website attack women who are Christians, and lecture them on what "oppression" really is, and how the women "don't know"--then that is privilege!

[omega minimo]

50. Bigotry is bigotry

No matter how many walls we break down, there will always be reasons to distance "The Other." Fear. Defensiveness.

Sounds like you are describing a lot of hard internal work folks have to do who were not raised in diverse communities. That makes it easier, when you acclimate as a kid to different kinds of people being "normal."

The Golden Rule is reiterated in every belief system on the planet. It supercedes the mistrust and self-centered (descriptive, not a slam) view of what you are describing. People are people.

If that doesn't work, that's what the law is for, to ENCOURAGE people to respect each other enough to have a functioning society.

I do not see the Christian-bashing on this board and did not presume to know about you or your "group." I did not suggest anyone "fix" fundamentalists (like THAT"S gonna happen!)

All I know is that many Christians are offended by comments that are directed at the RW fundamentalist fanatics, yet they feel tarred by the same brush and direct their displeasure at the folks making the comments, rather than at the fanatics who are making Christians look bad! May be the same kind of language issues that get examined on DU frequently.

I am thinking it could be a positive and powerful thing if those Christians organized on a large scale, quit being offended, recognized the reasons for outrage at conservative hypocrites and then reclaimed and redefined the image of Christians and Christianity-- raised the profile of the non-Fundamentalist Fanatics that are the majority in this country.

That might be difficult if it meant acknowledging that the worst of the hypocrites aren't Christians at all; are using the Faith for cynical personal gain...... all the more reason to refute them.

"I would like to see

the mass of Christians who feel maligned

by the broad-brushed comments directed at the fundamentalist-fanatic hypocrites (guilt by association?)

TAKE BACK the faith and its reputation from the insane political bigots that have hijacked it.

(See those Christians) focus the energy on those perpetrators,

rather than

at those (uninformed who are) lumping all "Christians" under the same tent (and offending them)

This would be a powerful and massive force for social and political progress.

As long as the Independents, undecideds and Republicans with integrity think that the Wrong Wing is the "Christian" party, Dems will miss out on their support."

Your post is reflecting the times we are in--- everybody's freaking out and kicking the dog.

So, to extend my suggestion, we could organize, quit freaking out, focus the energy on the perpetrators and TAKE BACK the nation and its reputation from the insane political bigots that have hijacked it.

:hi:

The imaginary organized church scenario would echo peace and social justice movements of recent history....

[Hidden Stillness]

57. "Bigotry is Bigotry," and We are All at Times Guilty

Yes, I like your comment about "acknowledging that the worst of the hypocrites aren't Christians at all; are using the Faith for cynical personal gain." I came from a very liberal, Democratic, labor-union, "Roosevelt New Deal" type Protestant family, and have never considered archcons or neocons to be real Christians, but merely capitalists with a false front. I am mystified when Bush is called a "Christian"--unbelievable. Bush is a draft-dodging, cocaine and alcohol addled, spoiled rich boy pseudo-capitalist front. What about these people would lead anyone to describe them as Christians?, and so this is what offends me, too. Imagine if I claimed that the two "representative white males" are Hitler and Manson, because after all, they are white males. Total outrage.

What also irks me is that I came back to Christianity on my own terms after having been an atheist for some years, and having cleared all the learned propaganda out of my head, as a feminist, an independant thinker, to be slammed on this website (of Democrats!)--and yes it does happen; you might have to be a Christian to notice--from people who don't even give enough of a damn to ask one single question of you, about your faith. I did not want to offend you with the "fix" the fundamentalists comment, and have never felt attacked by you. (I am still not clear as to why you consider insane, archconservative "fundamentalists" to be part of "my group," though.) As a matter of fact, though, I hope that there will be more feminist threads, as there have been a few really good ones on General lately, and that you will make more great contributions.

This whole topic here on this thread, about hypocritical distinctions between oppressed groups, not based on fact, but on a prejudiced decision of the thinker, is just profoundly important, though. If you could solve that problem, you would have peace and honesty.

[omega minimo]

60. "If you could solve that problem"

"you would have peace and honesty."

Or Buddhism. :evilgrin:

HS, I have no opinion on this "group" question and don't even know how we got mixed up about that.

At this point, with whatever insults or bigotry, I say, consider the source. The reason I spoke out about it so often was-- actually, the DU rules say it: "It cheapens the discussion for everyone." And makes people look ignorant. Maybe they're doing us a favor by wearing their bigotry on their forehead......NEXT! (My inclination is to wonder how they expect to be taken seriously talking shite, but what do I know?)

Hmmmmm, Protestant > athiest > Christian independent thinker.... I think bigotry sorts itself out when people think about a bigger picture (higher power?) learn to accept themselves and others. Although we focus on politics, our problems will be solved through-- what's the old line? Consciousness raising.

[beam me up scottie]

70. How long are you going

to perpetuate the DU evil christian hater meme because ONE person "attacked" you months ago? (and he wasn't even an atheist:eyes:)

[Hidden Stillness]

71. Of COURSE, You Attack!

"One"--what the hell are you talking about? I was attacked on a thread for not towing the line on the Nicene Creed which then changed to an attack about the Resurrection, which had not come up to that point; I was attacked by a whole group on a thread on why atheists can't get along with Christians, and you were one of them--I was censored, yet your spitting hate, complete with name-calling and false accusations, went on and on and on, uncensored. Recently, I was attacked by an atheist on a thread, where I had just complained about stupid archcon Christians who claimed to be discriminated against in this society! An atheist on this website--yet again--coudn't leave well enough alone, and posted a snide remark about having handled the stupid Christians--who were liberal DUers, by the way--on this unrelated thread. I posted a message that the hypocrite had now changed the topic and was attacking people on this site who have valid complaints, and was instantly blasted with one of the most incoherent statements of hate I have gotten, all name-calling. Then both posts were deleted, but the original sniping post by the atheist is still there. I am also referring to the attacks stupidly blasted against any Christian who disagrees with anything from your group, and the tone on this website that if Christians post "pretty little" things about their faith, or if they grovel for forgiveness from the judgemental atheists here, they are "acceptable," but if they answer your snide treatment of us, you attack as a group, and are not censored, where we are.

Also, using words like "meme" doesn't make you sound intelligent, with all due respect; it makes it sound like you never get out of the house or the classroom or wherever you are. Why would you even join a thoughtful thread like this one, about harmful distictions between attitudes toward groups, just to attempt to ridicule me, when you and I have no contact at all?

[beam me up scottie]

74. "when you and I have had no contact at all" ???

No contact ? Didn't you just say I called you names ?

"I was attacked by a whole group on a thread on why atheists can't get along with Christians, and you were one of them--I was censored, yet your spitting hate, complete with name-calling and false accusations, went on and on and on, uncensored."

I believe the original post about the Nicene Creed is this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1686570&mesg_id=1688409

This "attack" as you call it was not made by an atheist, so your accusation is false and misleading.

And since you still cannot provide proof to back up ANY of your claims of hatred, name calling and attacks, I suggest you stop posting your slanderous accusations about "my group".

And "meme" is an entirely accurate description, but for some reason, it appears my use of that word caused you to personally attack me.

Persecution ?

Bashing ?

Hardly.

But thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully.

I'm glad we can see just who is guilty of attacking other members.

Accusing the mods of giving atheists preferential treatment was a nice touch, too.

[ElectroPrincess]

51. But don't you know? 18 y.o. wealthy missing blonds are such a rare

commody that we must swarm that foreign island.

No stone will be left unturned to determine the fate a rich blond adult. They sent in the Holland Air Force. What comes next, fly in interrogators from Git-Mo. Yeah, that will make that hold-out talk! We in Am-eriKa got our ways. And no it's not TORTURE because the rules (and definitions) changed completely on 911. :puke:

[omega minimo]

53. Change the channel

:rant:

[ElectroPrincess]

55. Tell me what main stream news channel that this is not on?

You are right though, I've turned off the idiot box and finishing the last 100 pages of "Imperial Hubris."

But yes, it's beyond time I give up hope on the mainstream news save of Oberman and Dobbs.

[omega minimo]

58. Jim Lehrer News Hour is still worth watching on PBS

I love McLaughlin Group-- he says some rad stuff occasionally, Eleanor is awesome, and Lawrence O'Connell out-outed Rove Friday night.

And its funny. Saw Dana Carvey "do" McLaughlin before ever watching McLaughlin Group...

[Sapphire Blue]

54. What's really sad is that Columbus Day is a national holiday : [

Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress

excerpted from a

People's History of the United States

by Howard Zinn


Because of Columbus's exaggerated report and promises, his second expedition was given seventeen ships and more than twelve hundred men. The aim was clear: slaves and gold. They went from island to island in the Caribbean, taking Indians as captives. But as word spread of the Europeans' intent they found more and more empty villages. On Haiti, they found that the sailors left behind at Fort Navidad had been killed in a battle with the Indians, after they had roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor.

Now, from his base on Haiti, Columbus sent expedition after expedition into the interior. They found no gold fields, but had to fill up the ships returning to Spain with some kind of dividend. In the year 1495, they went on a great slave raid, rounded up fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children, put them in pens guarded by Spaniards and dogs, then picked the five hundred best specimens to load onto ships. Of those five hundred, two hundred died en route. The rest arrived alive in Spain and were put up for sale by the archdeacon of the town, who reported that, although the slaves were "naked as the day they were born," they showed "no more embarrassment than animals." Columbus later wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold."

But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus, desperate to pay back dividends to those who had invested, had to make good his promise to fill the ships with gold. In the province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men imagined huge gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death.

The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust garnered from the streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and were killed.

<snip>

Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations (were there 3 million Indians to begin with, as he says, or less than a million, as some historians have calculated, or 8 million as others now believe?) is conquest, slavery, death. When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure-there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Columbus_PeoplesHx.html

[Redstone]

59. Oh, boy. What a whine-a-thon this post started.

Go ahead and flame me, you all, but come ON...Just pull your socks up and get on with life instead of carrying on so, would you?

Every group has its gripe. EVERY segment of American society has taken a beating at some point in our history.

Big fucking deal. I'm half Indian, and have never spent a second bemoaning "the horrors inflicted upon the native people of America." That was a bit before my time, after all.

Enough. Just enough.

Yes, there are Indians in this country who still don't have it so great, and it's still not all that wonderful to be black in this country. How about actually DOING something about the problems that we have NOW, instead of indulging in utterly worthless "sadness" about the past?

Redstone

[omega minimo]

61. Na na na na- Na na na na- Hey He-ey

Good bye

:hi:

[Redstone]

63. And that means what, specifically?

Redstone

[Sapphire Blue]

62. In the words of Elie Wiesel...

"I decided to devote my life to telling the story because I felt that having survived I owe something to the dead. and anyone who does not remember betrays them again." - Elie Wiesel

We need to remember and we need to act.

[Redstone]

65. Well, yes, that's what I was saying.

Instead of "sadness" for women having been burned as witches four hundred years ago, work for women's rights (especially reproductive rights) now. The only way I can do that is by voting, so I do.

Instead of "sadness" for the way blacks have been treated for so long in the past, do something to help young black kids in this country now. Get involved in educational, job-training, or job-creation initiatives for inner-city black kids now. I do that by volunteering my time, and making other contributions, to several such programs in my state.

Instead of "sadness" for the way Indians have suffered in this country, do something for the Indians who are living here now. I buy a woodstove and a food package for the elderly and poor Dineh every year.

That's my point. The people who took the beatings in the past are gone. Help the people who need it now.

Redstone

[Sapphire Blue]

66. The people who took the beatings in the past may be gone, but let us not

forget them. We honor them by remembering them, grieving for them, telling their stories, and acting on their behalf.

I fully agree with you in helping those who need it now... it is our moral obligation.


A wonderful note from Sam Levenson to his granddaughter, from his book 'In One Era & Out The Other'...

Georgia baby,

We leave you a tradition with a future. The tender loving care of human beings will never become obsolete. People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed, and redeemed, and redeemed... Never throw out anybody.

Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm. As you grow older you will discover that you have two hands. One for helping yourself, the other for helping others. While I was growing up I took as many hands as I gave. I still do.

Your good old days are still ahead of you. May you have many of them.

At our age we doubt that we will make it to your wedding, but if you remember us on that day, we shall surely be there. Mazel tov... mazel tov... mazel tov...

Words to live by!

[Redstone]

67. I've read that book! It's one of those "hidden classics"

that lurk on the shelves of the humor section in the library.

Redstone

[Sapphire Blue]

68. I bought it when it first came out & still have it... I love it!

Sam Levenson was one of my mom's favorites, and became one of mine.

[Kipepeo]

69. For some people

talking about and starting open discussions about our racist sexist and homophobic past and present environment IS DOING something. It is also a step that often encourages others to Do Something as well.

Not that it is what everyone will choose to do - there are many ways to Do Something, but I don't consider this action to be moaning or whining in the least - it is the act of education, the kind most don't get in elementary school history books.

[hiphopnation]

72. It makes me sad

in new ways every day. I just try to stay happy, keep my head above the fray and of course, most importantly, affect positive change in any and every meaningful way that I can learn how, starting with the way I treat the women in my life.

There's so much to be sad about in this life that it's often overwhelming. This is why I am naturally liberal because they are always the bunch that look to the future and say "something better is possible." Never easy, always worth it.

To quote Homer Simpson (sorry for the lack of tact amidst a serious topic) "I'm a white male age 18 to 35, EVERYONE listens to me!" The Simpsons so often gets it right, especially when the truth is ugly. My point is that, if I can be one white male who affects positive change then perhaps, by example, it will be contagious and rub off on some of my brethren. One can hope. I'm certainly not saying I'm perfect, either. It's a process and a struggle.

I'm often crippled with sadness and guilt at the way women and minorities are treated in this country, and abroad. But being crippled doesn't help anyone so all I can do is soldier-on and do my best to open my heart and mind to the experiences of women and minorities and let that change my behaviour.

I'm also reminded of the idealistic, young white student who once approached Malcolm X asking "I want to help your cause, what can I do?", to which he responded "Nothing". It begs the question, how do I even begin to make up for centuries of contempt for non-white males? I don't know. I guess I can start by learning to love them because they're fellow human beings. The issue you've touched upon is so multi-faceted that it's hard to know where to begin.

I was going to write a short response...anyway, thanks for the post. I dig what yer sayin'.

[Hidden Stillness]

73. Even One Step, is Progress

I appreciate any attempts made by anyone to notice and change bigotry and arrogance, knowing how complex the attitudes are, and how hard it is to change a lifelong pattern. Even if all you can do is notice how prejudiced you are, you have already broken the grip that it had on you as an assumed fact. You have now taken a step forward, and realize it was an ingrained attitude, and not a fact that was "really out there." This is still progress. I believe that the next great step forward for society will be when people can tolerate each other, co-exist, and care for animals. It seems like a "minimal" thing, but if it ever happened, you would think you were in Heaven.

[pmbryant]

76. Anger and resolve, not sadness

Sadness represents defeat, and there is no reason to feel defeated. Women are still not on an equal footing in our society, but the situation is far better than it has been in the past.

I've posted on numerous occasions over the last couple years about the injustice of how working women are treated relative to working men. Yes, there was no "sadness and guilt" in my posts. But that is a good thing, in my opinion.

--Peter

[manic expression]

77. It's a whole different thing

sexism is very different from racism.

I would also like to remind you that women could vote since the early 20th century, while blacks were denied the right to vote all the way up to the 60's. That is a RACE, while gender is a very different type of discrimination.

The rape of women is an alarming number of individual crimes, not a movement and sentiment against a group of people. That's like saying that since whites are murdered, whites are oppressed in this country. Or that since larger men rape smaller men in prison, smaller men are an oppressed group of people.

Also, women are not a minority, they are the MAJORITY of people in this country.

Your comparisons are completely incorrect.

[Hidden Stillness]

78. Let Me Guess: You are a Male

Black males were granted the right to vote with the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870; white women and all women could not vote until 1920, with the Ninteenth Amendment. Males also pay women less than what they pay males who do the same type of job--I suppose that is all "individual," too. Rape is a method of oppression, it is a war crime; the world seems to be passing you by on the recognition of women's perspectives on what their own oppression is, thank God. This bigotry-disguised-as-truth-telling can be used any number of ways. I remember hearing a black woman say that gays were not really oppressed because "They don't have a culture," as black people do, and therefore it was not oppression against a group. That didn't make any sense either.

Also, to pmbryant, reply #76: This is the opinion I have been coming to more and more, that accusing people, and guilt are less helpful, (unless you discover it yourself, for example) than studying the situation as objectively as possible and even "removing yourself" from consideration, to try to analyze what was actually happening here, and know how to judge, un-self-consciously. Don't relate it to yourself so much as trying to know what it was.

[manic expression]

79. Here we go

If you think everything was groovy with black male voting rights after 1870, what was MLK and the Freedom Riders complaining about? Blacks didn't get the right to actually vote until the 60's.

I am quite mindful of the inequities in pay for women, but these problems are not the same as destroying an entire culture of people (Native Americans), and they are different from giving one person preference for a job over another because of their skin color. They are different problems, but we need to meet them the same. Sexism occurs across color lines, and so we need to address it that way. That is why I object to you saying that sexism is exactly the same as racism. Also, you cannot find separation between man and woman. If you travel into the inner cities, you will see the skin color darken as you see the living conditions drop. The problem with sexism is that there is 1 major CEO who is a woman, and furthermore, you see incomes drop when compared to a woman. What I am saying is that although women are clearly discriminated against, there is no need to try to write off the pains that minorities have encountered to highlight the very different pains that women have.

Rape is a violent crime, and it is the taking advantage of a weaker person. Although you may look at this as a crime against women, the act itself is not one of suppression of women's rights. It is an act against a woman, and therefore, against women, but to say that it is an act against women's rights and standing in the world, that is a stretch and an unrealistic one at that. Women are not raped because they are successful, they are raped because a man wants to exploit them.

[Hidden Stillness]

83. Clarification

I guess I didn't explain myself clearly. I was not claiming that there was no discrimination against blacks as regards voting rights and ability in the South; that would have been absurd. I was correcting what I believed was an incorrect statement of the poster, as regards dates of things. I am still offended, as you are about your group, at the minimization of my group's oppression, by your fake comparisons. It could go on forever: Native Americans were slaughtered by genocide, and black slaves were not, "therefore" Native Americans were more oppressed. Huh? The comparisons don't necessarily prove anything when whole situations were different. My response was only to the dates of legislation, not to the ongoing suffering of each and every group. I hope for a more inclusive tolerance, and apologize if it didn't come across.

[manic expression]

84. OK, thanks

I completely agree with what you're saying. I apologize if I didn't get what you were expressing in the first place.

[CWebster]

80. WASP male hierarchy.

good ol' boys club rules.

[dsc]

82. I think that blacks would take major issue with your last sentence

Yes, women have been mistreated throughout history and still are to some extent today. But women got the right to vote in the 1920's while blacks in the South didn't until the 1960's. Blacks couldn't serve on juries until the 1960's. Long after women got most basic rights blacks in the South had no such thing.