It's really all about the women.

[SoCalDem]

Radical Islam, The Taliban, The Religious Right, The African "Troubles".

The (mis)treatmment of women by any society is the measure OF that society.

In days gone by, societies were closed off and people didn't know what was happening a village away. Modern life has brought the whole world into their living rooms. Cloistered women in locked-down societies can now see that other women are treated better than they are, and they don't like it.

Even in western society, women have only been "equal" for under 100 years. Some would say that even now, in America, women are not equal...and they would be right, BUT women have it much better here (as a group) than anywhere else.

This is what is scaring the militant males of the world. Whether they are Taliban, Islamic, African..whatever.. they fear the rise of women, because it means they will lose power.

For centuries, males have been able to use females, and discard them at will.

Western culture frowns on this, and in order for non-westerners to be accepted, they must stop mistreating women.. They are not willing to do this. They want nothing to do with modernity if it means their women will stop obeying them.Nothing we say or do to them will change their minds...and they ARE willing to kill to preserve THEIR way of life.

In the US, we may not have honor killings" and arranged marriages, but women are still kept under the thumbs of men...and if the religious right has their way here, women will retreat to the sanctity of the kitchen and the car pool.

Women are the majority, but we have yet to act like it...

[BrklynLiberal]

1. You have just said a whole lot of very important stuff....

The really scary part is when they are able to convince women to willingly go along with this agenda!!!

EDIT: Look at the precepts of Dominionism. They have no real use for women who want to have a say about their own lives. None of the Fundamentalist religions want women to be able to have any rights. They are terrified of women, and the only way they can deal with that fear is to subjugate and abuse them.
They are all patriarchal misogynistic organizations. That is not a brash generalization. It is merely a statement of fact.

[Paradise]

213. ditto! n/t

[TahitiNut]

2. There's a very strong correlation ...

... between oppressive political regimes and the oppression of women and minorities in that society. Women seem to become the 'symptom bearers' of the common working class citizens.

[Mythsaje]

3. You know...

...this is a very provocative statement. What if this IS the root of all their hatred of the West? Of modernization?

What if?

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I think it is called........

penis waving. Some sort of primal instinct that goes back to cave man times. Trying to attract the female...trying to procreate so as to pass on ones genetic material. Except now they do it with guns and bombs.
Osama vs Bush, etc etc

EDIT: Only very primative types are affected by it.

[niyad]

14. the answer to your question is, YES, it really is that simple. I highly

recommend a book called "Nothing Sacred:Women Respond to Religious Fundamentalism and Terror", edited by Betsy Reed and Katha Pollitt (of The Nation) which addresses this very issue. following is a brief review:

From Publishers Weekly
The "opposite of fundamentalism is feminism," concludes journalist Katha Pollitt in her introduction to this dense and provocative anthology of women's responses to the global rise of religious extremism. To understand what fundamentalism is about, why (or so the authors argue) it targets women and why, again according to the authors, enlightened people of all persuasions, religious or secular, must work to defeat it is the mission of the more than 30 entries (many reprinted from the Nation) in this volume. A variety of academic, activist and religious feminists, such as Barbara Ehrenreich, Eve Ensler, Karen Armstrong and Arundhati Roy, agree that fundamentalism is about social power and control, not about returning to religious "fundamentals." Thus, the rise of fundamentalism is traced to discontent with and disruptions caused by modernization and globalization. Several writers trace these dynamics in Afghanistan, Algeria, India, the Gaza Strip-even the rise of the Christian Right in modern America. Most religions-featured here are Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism-have extremist wings characterized by misogynistic theory and practices. Feminist responses have been varied, but follow two major paths: either rejection of the religion in favor of a more secular culture, or a reclaiming of the right to interpret the religion in more female-supportive ways. The book's final section explores the meaning of what the authors see as the real global struggle: not East vs. West or tradition vs. modernity, but secular, enlightened society vs. fundamentalist theocracy. A compendium of energizing political discourse, this anthology is a substantial contribution to an alternative view of the war on terror.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[bloom]

34. Thanks - I'll have to look for that....eom

[funflower]

42. That's fascinating. I'll definitely check it out. THANKS.

[Ikonoklast]

4. Progressives don't fear female leadership

But the societies that are sexually repressive at their core always seem to have a problem with independent thought and strong female role models. It always boils down to some weird psycho-sexual dominance thing that I just can't understand.

[omega minimo]

6. These might help

Discussion Forum Rules

3. CONTENT
Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears
When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.

While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.

 2. CIVILITY

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect
The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else.

...The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior.
Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.
....
Please note that sweeping statements about entire groups of fellow progressives are not categorically forbidden. However, they are often inflammatory and counterproductive and the moderators have broad discretion to remove such posts in the interests of keeping the peace on the message board.

[VelmaD]

12. Ok, I'm confused...

what exactly was your point?

[omega minimo]

21. Not sure where "Progressives don't fear female leadership"

was coming from.

But today DU has suffered some extremes of "some weird psycho-sexual dominance thing that I just can't understand" that we're all familiar with.

The post was for the general info of those dealing with it and those dispensing it.

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

23. Not any clearer.

[Ikonoklast]

170. Let me elaborate

A truly progressive society, which we are far from, would not treat its' female members as the current crop of backwards-looking religious right would have us do.

They have some issues with women in positions of any authority in their patriarchal hierarchy.

I'm not sure where exactly their problems lie. I would hope that we would rise above issues of gender when choosing those that would lead us.

[BrklynLiberal]

22. Thank you! I am so glad I was not alone in that. I felt the same way,

and just ignored the post. Could not for the life of me figure out the point.
:hi:

[omega minimo]

24. The point is that this is relevant to what we deal with consistently

Please see my answer to VelmaD

Sorry it was too obscure. Thought the "progressives ...." thread title tied it in.

[Finder]

145. HUH?

:shrug:

[fberknm]

108. Its all about the power

For a demonstration of the role of power seeking behavior in repressing another group, look at the history of mainly southern women in the US. After the African slaves were freed and the male former slaves given the right to vote, white women were absolutely offended that a person they may have owned a few weeks earlier now held a right that they lacked.

Indeed the initial strength of the KKK has been traced back to lower income white males and white females of all economic classes.

[Finder]

143. Agree

but here in the US, many are becoming repressed without realizing it.

[SoCalDem]

144. Fundamentalists are very adept at "brainwashing"

and then there's the Stockholm Syndrome.. These repressive types know that they must chisel away carefully, and they are in no hurry..they are content to nibble at the edges, until they have complete control, and a subdued and compliant supplicant.

[oneold1-4u]

225. Understand this-

"Only very primitive types are affected by it."
There are still millions of this type in this most progressive of nations. They will continue to deny the rights of birth control, abortion, and any type of gay rights. The bigots and male egoists will always claim that any form of "love" is WRONG if it isn't to procreate! In other words, "A woman has one place in the world and that is under a man!" Just ask your priest or male clergy, and millions of females who follow their rules.
Even in the bible, Mary M. went to her knees to wash the lords feet, but none of the men who solicited her services are mentioned anywhere!
Take a difficult guess what gender wrote this! HA

[Finder]

228. Actually, Jesus washed the disciples' feet as well...

according to the bible.

[G_j]

7. nominated!

I also find it notable that here in the US women (such as Medea Benjamin and Code Pink) have been on the front lines in opposing war.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Even in ancient Greece..wasn't it Lysistrata, where the women were

going to deny the men sex if they did not stop going to war?

[kestrel91316]

13. Interesting book on this theme ..........

The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri Tepper

An excellent, satisfying read! A must-have for every feminist's bookshelf.

[BrklynLiberal]

19. Thanks for the recommendation. I will check it out.

[wellstone dem]

63. A great book

I've read it several times.

[donsu]

77. agree - a most interesting book

nt

[CrispyQ]

165. Ohhh, a fave book that I've read many times.

Ursula Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" was a very interesting read too.

Another great book, although not gender specific, is Thom Hartmann's "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." He compares old cultures to young ones.

Old cultures are cooperative, live sustainably & their base philosophy is "we're all in this together." They value women as the bearers of life. They value the Earth as a provider of life. They value diversity. They realize they are part of the whole of Earth/nature & that everything they do has an impact that will come back to them. Many of the programs put into place by liberals recognize these facts.

New cultures are competitive, growth oriented & their base philosophy is "you're with us or against us." They are threatened by those that are different. Eventually they need to invade their neighbor's territory, stealing it's resources to support their own growing population. They believe they can extract themselves from the world around them & are blind to the negative impact their way of life has on the planet & other living beings.

As for my own thoughts, the first division of the species is woman/man. (Note how in our language female/woman has both elements of our species. Or, you can take the male out of the female but not the other way around.) After the men kill everyone of a different race & religion, the final battle will be between men & women. I wouldn't put it past the alpha-males in charge today to diminish the female population to the point that they will doom our species to extinction.

[demigoddess]

252. my son tells me that the y chromosome will be extint in some number

of generations. That the y chromosome is too weak to continue past a certain point so if women hold on long enough the male will be extinct. Perhaps males sense this (and it was published in a scientific mag) and are fighting a last ditch effort to survive.

[UCSBLiberalCat53]

64. Yeah

and if you read the whole play, all what most of the men are doing is drooling over the ladies with erect phalluses.

[oneold1-4u]

226. And Sappho

Who created a home and school, in seclusion on an island, for women, was destroyed! That destruction was a show of male domination, against not just female love, but all females who might ever live beyond the dominion of males. The worst of the destruction was removing all of the learning, writing and history, making it out to be ugly and placing all the women back into total unlearned submission or prison.

[SoCalDem]

237. Book burnings continue...here in the US of A

and anything that is deemed to be "dangerous" or does not agree with the ones in power..

It was not all that long ago that there were Dixie Chick CD Bonfires.. They were promoted on radio, and attended as if they were pep rallies.. They actually were pep-rallies..for the war..

[bloom]

9. RE:"BUT women have it much better here..." ( the US is 17th)

Top 10 Countries - with the least gender gap ( the US is 17th - according to a study by the World Economic Forum)


Sweden
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Finland
N. Zealand
Canada
U.K.
Germany
Australia


http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CWomen%27s+Empowerment%3A+Measuring+the+Global+Gender+Gap

The (World Economic) Forum has undertaken this study to facilitate the work of governments, aid agencies and NGOs by providing a benchmarking tool to assess the size of the gender gap, ranking countries according to the level of advancement of their female population.

The Gender Gap Report quantifies the size of the gender gap in 58 countries, including all 30 OECD countries and 28 other emerging markets. The study measures the extent to which women have achieved full equality with men in five critical areas:

economic participation
economic opportunity
political empowerment
educational attainment
health and well-being
The study uses a large number of hard data indicators from international organizations as well as qualitative information from the Forum’s own Executive Opinion Survey to create the rankings.

[snot]

16. Very interesting; I note the US is also behind Latvia, Lithuania, France..

...Netherlands, Estonia, and Ireland--the US being 17th.

[SoCalDem]

20. Women here have it better...according to our all-powerful media

That's what I should have said :)

[rucky]

50. Even Pakistan's had a female leader. n/t

[SoCalDem]

52. But even SHE came in on the coat-tails of her father...

I never really paid much attention to politics when Bhutto was president.. Why DID they depose her??

[MountainLaurel]

85. Kickback scandals

Among other reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

Although, considering the role that fundamentalism plays in that country today, I have to wonder if the matter goes beyond government corruption.

[seabeyond]

10. my 7 and 10 year old boys are already learning the battle

between male and female. it seems to be so profound now a days, like it has been revved up again. i didnt think about it at their age. but it is so front burner we talk about it often. i have a book, real boys, by pollack in the bathroom for oldest to pick up and read here and there. it validates the boy he is.

talking to the boys i tell them so many issues bottom line between the struggle of male and female. and that includes the male and female within self.

the old male is fighting and strugglin to keep hold of the power. some feel it is the last big dump, before the progressive male or male more in tuned and balanced with self emerges. where there wont be so much battle and struggle

[Pachamama]

39. Time to pull out "Free to Be - You & Me" from my childhood books...

Looks like our kids generation is going to need the same things our parents generation struggled so hard to fight for in the 60's...amazing... :hi:

[marions ghost]

65. Agreed, I really believe part of the key to all this

is to start raising boys and girls to be who they truly are. Some individuals will naturally be more "yin" than others--so don't stifle the yin qualities in boys, don't stifle the yang qualities in girls. Don't teach boys they must be aggressive to prove themselves, don't teach girls they must be submissive to be a good girl. Don't polarize the sexes. Parents can do a lot to overcome societal stereotypes. I'm so glad to see parents of boys giving their sons a new ideal of what it means to be male (beyond the obvious--e.g. that you must be capable of feeding yourself and washing your own clothes). Your sons will thank you someday. They will be liberated from a certain kind of bondage too. And their wives and female associates will reap benefits too numerous to list.

This could change the world.

[coffeenap]

222. Watch out if you succeed in this--you then have a boy who is

misunderstood by the mainstream world around him! I can vouch for that-- btdt--but I am glad it worked--the world might be just a little better because of people like my kid (pride admitted to). (He was Andy's friend, btw)

[Iris]

240. The trick is to help your child understand

that when they follow their own course, if it's different from the mainstream, there will be consequences and then help him/her deal with them.

[seabeyond]

274. yes exactly. and he wouldnt do it any other way n/t

[Iris]

276. good for him!

:toast:

[seabeyond]

273. oh you are so right. went thru big to do last two days

because of it. and the kids in school. brother talking what a man is. son so doesnt fit in with this definition of man. it is hard for him. glasses, smart, small frame. he was thinking about starting school in a month saying no no i dont want to . it is going to be a challenge for him, for a lot of years. this is what disgusts me on the battle so much. and then to take it a step further

girls.........girls are getting mean. and that gets approval from school. they are kicking hitting pinching pushing,......and they dont get in trouble

a mess

but i tell son, he wont be any other way. he could be. but he refuses. he is never the coward. he always stands up.

[oneold1-4u]

227. The "culture crime"

Culture announces gender in the beginning (it's a boy or girl) and then a name with gender predominant. From that day on it is "Dick & Jane, Mother and Father"! We only become people when we do it ourselves!

[Iris]

241. now it starts even before birth!

When my s-in-law was preg with her first, she had TWO different nursery plans. If the baby was a girl, she would use an ABC border around the middle of the room; if a boy, walls blue with white clouds painted on them.

I had to ask - why the difference? Either room would be appropriate for either sex.

[Iris]

239. Remember the book "Iron John"?

I've been thinking about that book a lot lately and your post made me remember it yet again.

[seabeyond]

275. dont recognize that book ????? n/t

[Iris]

277. by Robert Bly

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Bly redefines masculinity in a groundbreaking book that went to
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Bly, a major American poet who won a National Book Award in 1968, appears regularly at workshops for men. The book's title refers to a mentor-like figure in a Grimms fairy tale who serves as Wild Man, initiator, and source of divine energy for a young man. This marvelous folktale of resonant, many-layered meanings is an apt choice for demonstrating the need for men to learn from other men how to honor and reimagine the positive image of their masculinity. Bly has always responded to Blakean and Yeatsian intensities, preferring to travel the path lit by mythic road signs. His intent here is to restore a lost heritage of emotional connection and expose the paltriness of a provisional life. For many men capable of responding imaginatively to allegory and myth this will be an instructive and ultimately exculpating book. Others may regard it as an inscrutable attempt, intuitive at best, to find merit in male developmental anxieties. For all collections emphasizing family or gender studies.
- William Abrams, Portland State Univ. Lib., Ore.
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

[redqueen]

278. Thanks for mentioning...

Definitely putting that one on my list!

[Iris]

279. Wish it would make a come back.

But it was received sceptically even when it was first published about a dozen years ago.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Another point to ponder: Which countries have had women as leaders?

How ridiculous does it seem to so many the idea of a woman President of the United States?????

[SoCalDem]

18. Women leaders (queens) have ruled because there was no male heir

and bloodline trumps gender when it comes to power and wealth...

[BrklynLiberal]

25. But in the modern "civilized" world, it rarer than it was in the ancient

world.
Interestingly enough, the more industrialized countries were not in the forefront of women in leadership positions.

Women Prime Ministers
1945-2005

Sirimavo Bandaranaike (1916-2000)
Prime minister of Sri Lanka three times: from 21 Jul 1960 to 27 Mar 1965, from 29 May 1970 to 23 Jul 1977 and from 14 Nov 1994 to 10 Aug 2000. First woman prime minister in world history and probably the oldest female political leader in active by the time of her demise. Widow of Solomon Bandaranaike, prime minister in 1956 and assassinated in office in 1959. She received her third government mandate from her own daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, who was to be sworn in as president by then. This was the first time in history that a woman succeeded another woman by elections.

Indira Gandhi (1917-1984)
Prime minister of India twice, from 19 Jan 1966 to 24 Mar 1977 and from 14 Jan 1980 to her assassination on 31 Oct 1984. Second generation of the Nehru-Gandhi saga, her father Jawaharlal Nehru ruled India from the independence in 1947 to his death in 1964. Her younger son and political heir, Sanjay, had passed away in plane crash in 1980, so elder Rajiv assumed the leadership of the Congress Party and, automathically, the premiership. In 1991 Rajiv, two years after leaving the Government, suffered the same fate than his mother and was assassinated as well. Currently the widow of Rajiv and daughter-in-law of Indira, Sonia Gandhi, leads the party and the opposition to the nationalist Government.

Golda Meir (1898-1978)
Prime minister of Israel from 17 Mar 1969 to 3 Jun 1974 and third women in the world to reach that post behind Sri Lanka's Sirimavo Bandaranaike (1960) and India's Indira Gandhi (1966).

Elisabeth Domitien (1926-2005)
Prime minister of the Central African Republic from 3 Jan 1975 to 7 Apr 1976, as first holder of the just created post of premier upon decision of dictator Jean-Bedel Bokassa. She came up to local politics in early 70s, by 1972 she was given the vicepresidency of the only legal party, the Movement for the Social Evolution of Black Africa (MESAN), and from 1975 ruled as vicepresident of the Republic. In Apr 1976, following some statements of Bokassa favouring the monarchy for the CAR, Domitien publicly spoke out against such a project, so Bokassa fired her on the spot. After Bokassa's ousting in 1979, Domitien was briefly imprisioned and in 1980 was put on trial. Impeded to remain active in politcs, she retained a high profile at home and abroad as an influential businesswoman. Next to nobody knows, but she was Africa's first woman prime minister and the first black woman ruler of an independent State. Nevertheless, it must be said that Empress Zauditu ruled on Ethiopia from 1917 to 1930 and 'Mantsebo Amelia 'Matsaba Sempe was Queen-Regent of Lesotho from 1941 to 1960, albeit under colonial rule. Another Queen-Regent of Lesotho, 'MaMohato Tabitha 'Masentle Lerotholi, served for first time briefly in 1970, four years after the independence.

Margaret Thatcher (1925-)
Prime minister of the United Kingdom from 4 May 1979 to 28 Nov 1990. First woman elected ruler in Europe.

Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (1930-2004)
Prime minister of Portugal from 1 Aug 1979 to 3 Jan 1980.

Mary Eugenia Charles (1919-)
Prime minister of Dominica from 21 Jul 1980 to 14 Jun 1995. Second black woman ruler in the world behind Central Africa's Elisabeth Domitien, first Caribbean (and American) female premier and third American female ruler.

Gro Harlem Brundtland (1939-)
Prime minister of Norway three times: from 4 Feb to 14 Oct 1981, from 9 May 1986 to 16 Oct 1989 and from 3 Nov 1990 to 25 Oct 1996. She currently serves as as chief of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Milka Planinc (1924-)
Federal prime minister of former Socialist Yugoslavia from 16 May 1982 to 15 May 1986. The only (and probably the last) woman premier of a communist country in history.

Benazir Bhutto (1953-)
Prime Minister of Pakistan from 2 Dec 1988 to 6 Aug 1990, and again from 19 Oct 1993 to 5 Nov 1996. Daughter of former ruler Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (president in 1971-1973 and prime minister in 1972-1977), who was overthrown in 1977 and executed by the military regime of general Zia ul-Haq in 1979, belongs to the selected group of Asian women leaders, along with Sri Lanka's Chandrika Kumaratunga, Bangladesh' Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed, Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, Indonesia's Megawati Sukarnoputri or Japan's Takako Doi. Additionally, she is credited with being the first woman prime minister of a muslim country.

Kazimiera Danutë Prunskienë (1943-)
Prime minister of Lithuania from 17 Mar 1990 to 10 Jan 1991.

Khaleda Zia (1945-)
Prime minister of Bangladesh from 20 Mar 1991 to 30 Mar 1996 and again from 10 Oct 2001 to currently. Widow of the late dictator Ziaur Rahman, assassinated in 1981. Close rival of Hasina Wajed, daughter of the father of de independence Mujibur Rahman.

Edith Cresson (1934-)
Prime minister of France from 15 May 1991 to 2 Apr 1992.

Hanna Suchocka (1946-)
Prime minister of Poland from 8 Jul 1992 to 26 Oct 1993.

Kim Campbell (1947-)
Prime minister of Canada from 25 Jun to 5 Nov 1993. First woman ruler in North America.

Tansu Çiller (1946-)
Prime minister of Turkey from 25 Jun 1993 to 7 Mar 1996. She belongs to the reduced but notable group of women rulers in muslim countries, along with Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto, Bangladesh' Hasina Wajed and Khaleda Zia, and Indonesia's Megawati Sukarnoputri.

Sylvie Kinigi (1952?-)
Prime minister of Burundi from 10 Jul 1993 to 11 Feb 1994. Kinigi's brief tenure lasted in a very critical period in Burundi's contemporary history. When the just democratically elected president Melchior Ndadaye, an ethnic hutu, and other senior cabinet members were killed on 21 Oct 1993 by tutsi military plotters, Kinigi, a moderate member of the tutsi-based National Party for Unity and Progress (UPRONA), could preserve her life by sheltering in the French embassy at Bujumbura. During six chaotic days her performance was decisive to terminate the crisis and restore the order: her Government assumed collectively the presidential functions, she successfully called for the international powers to support her and additionally gained the loyalty of most of the Army officers, which distanced itself from the rebel Junta. In fact, Kinigi continued acting as president until the takeover of president Cyprien Ntaryamira on 5 Feb 1994.

Agathe Uwilingiyimana (1953-1994)
Prime minister of Rwanda from 18 Jul 1993 to her death on 7 Apr 1994. After heading during almost a year a precarious but promising coalition cabinet -the presidential and hutu-based National Revolutionary Movement (MRN), the tutsi guerrilla rebels' Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) and her moderate and multiethnic Rwandan Democratic Movement (MDR)-, the hutu radicals began a massive killing of tutsi people and moderate hutus, taking as excuse the obscure assassination of president Juvenal Habyarimana, on 6 Apr Mrs. Uwilingiyimana was one of the first personalities eliminated by the armed militias. No other world woman ruler had lost her life during a rebellion at the moment, but India's Indira Gandhi also died in violent circumstances ten years before.

Chandrika Kumaratunga (1945-)
Prime minister of Sri Lanka from 19 Aug to Nov 1994. See more at the Presidents' page.

Reneta Indzhova (1953-)
Interim prime minister of Bulgaria from 16 Oct 1994 to 25 Jan 1995.

Claudette Werleigh (1944-)
Prime minister of Haiti from 7 Nov 1995 to 27 Feb 1996.

Sheikh Hasina Wajed (1947-)
Prime minister of Bangladesh from 23 Jun 1996 to 15 Jul 2001. Daughter of a former statesman (like India's Indira Gandhi, Sri Lanka's Chandrika Kumaratunga, Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto and Indonesia's Megawati Sukarnoputri), Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the independence in 1971 and first prime minister of Bangladesh, assassinated in 1975. Close rival of Khaleda Zia, for her part widow of the late president Ziaur Rahman, within the parliamentary democracy.

Janet Jagan (1920-)
Prime minister of Guyana from 17 Mar 1997 to December 19, 1997. See more at the Presidents' page.

Jenny Shipley (1952-)
Prime minister of New Zealand from 8 Dec 1997 to 10 Dec 1999. Shipley was not only the first woman ruler in New Zealand (aside from former governor-general Catherine Tizard, with token duties), but in an independent state of South Pacific/Oceania as well.

Irena Degutienë (1949-)
Acting prime minister of Lithuania twice, from 4 to 18 May 1999 and from 27 Oct to 3 Nov 1999. Second Lithuanian premier behind Kazimiera Prunskiene in early 90s.

Nyam-Osoriyn Tuyaa (1958-)
Acting prime minister of Mongolia from 22 to 30 Jul 1999,

Helen Elizabeth Clark (1950-)
On 10 Dec 1999 Helen Clark became the second consecutive woman prime minister of New Zealand, succeeding Jenny Shipley.

Mame Madior Boye (1940-)
Prime minister of Senegal from 3 Mar 2001 to 4 Nov 2002.

Chang Sang (1939-)
Acting and ephemeral prime minister of South Korea in 2002: from 11 Jul, by appointment of president Kim Dae Jung, to 31 Jul, when the Parliament rejected her.

Maria das Neves Ceita Baptista de Sousa
Prime minister of Sâo Tomé and Príncipe from 7 Oct 2002 to 16 Jul 2003, when was deposed, together with president Fradique de Menezes, in a military coup.

Anneli Tuulikki Jäätteenmäki (1955-)
Prime minister of Finland from 17 Apr to 18 Jun 2003, when resigned. The country's first -and ephemeral- woman premier.

Beatriz Merino Lucero (1948-)
Prime minister of Peru from 28 Jun to 15 Dec 2003.

Luísa Dias Diogo (1958-)
Prime minister of Mozambique from 17 Feb 2004.

Radmila Sekerinska (1972-)
Acting prime minister of Macedonia twice in 2004, from 12 May to 12 Jun and from 18 Nov to 17 Dec.

Yuliya Tymoshenko (1960-)
Prime minister of Ukraine since 24 Jan 2005.

Maria do Carmo Silveira
Prime minister of Sâo Tomé and Príncipe from 8 Jun 2005.

Women Presidents
1945-2005

Sühbaataryn Yanjmaa (1893-1962)
The widow of national hero Sühbaatar was First Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the People's Great Khural of Mongolia and acted as Chairman of the Presidium (i.e., head of the State) during a vacancy in that position from 23 Sep 1953 to 7 Jul 1954. If we consider such a post as having a real ruling status, she would have been (excepting queens) the absolute first woman political ruler in contemporary history.

Song Qingling (Sung Ch'ing-ling) (1893-1981)
The widow (got married in 1914) of doctor Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Chinese Republic, and the sister-in-law of marshall Chiang Kai-shek, his successor as president of the Republic of China (then Taiwan), constitutes a very special case. From 31 Oct 1968 to 24 Feb 1972 no head of state was mentioned in the People's Republic of China, as such a post remained vacant in the wake of Liu Shaoqi's fall into disgrace, during the Cultural Revolution, and up to 1972 no acting president was appointed in the person of Dong Biwu. He and Song Qingling were vicepresidents by then (she was elected to the post in 1954, after being deputy premier since 1949), so, de facto (and in theory), both leaders shared the presidential duties in 1968-1972. Furthermore, when in 1976 Zhu De, the head of state by then as chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (the presidency of the Republic was officially abolished the previous year), passed away, a vacancy period was inaugurated and not filled until 1978, with the appointment of Ye Jianying. In this months were the 21 vice-chairmen, among them four women: Song Qingling, Cai Chang, Li Suwen, and (from 2 Dec 1976) Deng Yingchao, the widow of just deceased premier Zhou Enlai. Song became a member of the Communist Party only on her deathbed, and in 1980, shortly before her death, was elected "Honorary President" of the People's Republic of China.

María Estela ('Isabel') Martínez de Perón (1931-)
Served as president of Argentina from 1 Jul 1974 to 24 Mar 1976. Was married since 1961 with Juan Domingo Perón, president in the terms 1946-1955 and 1973-1974, and replaced him automatically in his death as she held the vicepresidency of the Republic and the presidency of the Senate since the 1973 electoral victory of the 'Perón-Perón' formula. In fact. Perón's incapacitation forced her to act as president since Jun 29. She was the first woman who became president, both in America and in the world. And also was the first one ousted in a military coup.

Lydia Gueiler Tejada (1926-)
Caretaker president of Bolivia from 17 Nov 1979 to 18 Jul 1980. Deposed in a military coup.

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (1930-)
President of Iceland from 1 Aug 1980 to 1 Aug 1996, has got several "firsts": 1st woman president in Europe, 1st one elected directly by the people in the world and when quitting in 1996 was the female political ruler longest-time in office in the world, as well as the doyen among all European non-monarch rulers.

Maria Lea Pedini-Angelini (1953?-)
Co-Captain-regent (head of State and Government) of San Marin in 1981 (1 Apr to 1 Oct).

Agatha Barbara (1923-2002)
President of Malta from 15 Feb 1982 to 15 Feb 1987. Second woman president in Europe behind Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (see above).

Gloriana Ranocchini (1957-)
Co-Captain-regent (head of State and Government) of San Marino from 1 Apr to 1 Oct 1984 and from 1 Oct 1989 to 1 Apr 1990.

Carmen Pereira (1937-)
Acting president of Guinea Bissau from 14 May 1984 to 16 May 1984 in the capacity of chairman of the National People's Assembly.

Corazon (Cory) Aquino (1933-)
President of the Philippines from 25 Feb 1986 to 30 Jun 1992. Widow of Benigno Aquino, assassinated in 1983. Asia's first woman president.

Ertha Pascal Trouillot (1943-)
Dame Ertha Pascal-Trouillot served as interim president of Haiti from 13 Mar 1990 to 7 Feb 1991. America's third female president and second black female ruler in the continent after Dominica's premier Eugenia Charles.

Sabine Bergmann-Pohl (1946-)
Chairman of the Volkskammer of the late German Democratic Republic in 1990 was the last head of State (Staatspräsident), nominal and interim, before the unification. Her testimonial tenure lasted six months: from 5 Apr to 2 Oct 1990. In fact, the only female head of State in former communist East Europe.

Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (1929-)
President of Nicaragua from 25 Apr 1990 to 10 Jan 1997. Widow of Pedro Joaquín Chamorro, assassinated in 1978.

Mary Robinson (1944-)
President of Ireland from 3 Dec 1990 to 12 Sep 1997, when unexpectedly resigned, three months before the expiration of her mandate. After that, she served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to 12 Sep 2002.

Edda Ceccoli
Co-Captain-regent (head of State and Government) of San Marino from 1 Oct 1991 to 1 Apr 1992.

Patricia Busignani
Co-Captain-regent (head of State and Government) of San Marino in 1993 (1 Apr to 1 Oct).

Sylvie Kinigi (1952?-)
Acting President (de facto) of Burundi from 27 Oct 1993 to 5 Feb 1994. See profile at the Prime Ministers' page.

Chandrika Kumaratunga (1945-)
President of Sri Lanka since 14 Nov 1994, although also served as prime minister before, from 19 Aug to her presidential oath taking. Daughter of the late Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times prime minister of Sri Lanka, the last one at the moment of her demise in 2000, so Sri Lanka has been the first republic in the world whose two top executive offices were simultaneously held by women; in addition, both posts have been filled through democratic elections... and the daughter appointed the mother to hold the premiership in 1994. Chandrika's father and Sirimavo's husband, Solomon, was assassinated while being prime minister in 1959. The same fate suffered Chandrika's husband, Vijaya Kumaratunga, also assassinated in 1988.

Ruth Perry (1939?-)
Chairman of the Council of State (a six-member collective presidency) of Liberia from 3 Sep 1996 to 2 Aug 1997. Perry has been, excepting queens (and Burundian premier Sylvie Kinigi, who acted as president briefly de facto in early 90s), Africa's first female head of State

Rosalía Arteaga Serrano (1956-)
Ephemeral caretaker president of Ecuador in 9-11 Feb 1997.


Mary McAleese (1951-)
President of Ireland since 11 Nov 1997. First woman president having succeeded another one, Mary Robinson, in history.

Janet Jagan (1920-)
President of Guyana from 19 Dec 1997 to 11 Aug 1999, but also prime minister from 17 Mar to 22 Dec 1997. Succeeded her husband Cheddi Jagan in the Presidency some months after his passing. The sixth woman occupying the presidential office in America and the second one with an additional premiership experience in the world (the first one was Sri Lanka's Chandrika Kumaratunga).

Ruth Dreifuss (1940-)
The first female Swiss head of State as president of the Confederation following a very, very long list of one-year male rulers. Dreifuss was elected by the Federal Assembly to serve the term 1 Jan 1999-1 Jan 2000.

Rosa Zafferani (1960-)
Co-Captain-regent (head of State and Government) of San Marino from 1 Apr to 1 Oct 1999.

Vaira Vike-Freiberga (1937-)
The first woman to be president of a country in East/Central Europe or came out with the former Soviet Union, was electer by the Parliament of Latvia on 17 Jun 1999 for a four-year term starting on Jul 8.

Mireya Elisa Moscoso de Arias (1946-)
The first woman president of Panama served from 1 Sep 1999 to 1 Sep 2004. She is the widow (1988) of former president Arnulfo Arias Madrid.

Tarja Kaarina Halonen (1943-)
Finland's first woman president, since 1 Mar 2000. Her tenure expires in 2006.

Maria Domenica Michelotti (1952-)
Co-captain regent of San Marino for the period 1 Apr 2000-1 Oct 2000. The sixth woman to become co-captain regent since 1981.

Maria Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (1947-)
President of the Philippines since 20 Jan 2001. Daughter of late president Diosdado Macapagal and second woman president of this Asian State.

Megawati Sukarnoptri (1947-)
The daughter of the late president Sukarno is president of Indonesia from 23 Jul 2001 to 20 Oct 2004.

Valeria Ciavatta (1959-)
Co-captain regent of San Marino for the period 1 Oct 2003-1 Apr 2004. The seventh woman to become co-captain regent since 1981.

Nino Burdzhanadze (1964-)
Acting president of Georgia from 23 Nov 2003 to 25 Jan 2004.

Fausta Simona Morganti (1944-)
Co-captain regent of San Marino for the period 1 Apr 2005-1 Oct 2005.

[SoCalDem]

26. Definitely rarer

:)

[BrklynLiberal]

29. I added a list of women Prime Minsters and Presidents...

[mom cat]

103. Thank you for this impressive list! Wow!

[funflower]

44. Good point. Elizabeth I could never have been elected, I suppose.

[SoCalDem]

46. If she had had an older brother, she would have remained a princess

her whole life.. England would be very different

[bleedingheart]

59. And when the Queens of bygone eras got Uppity the rules changed

Queen Maud was forced to relinquish the throne of England.

Czar Paul of Russia ended the ability for women to inherit because he so detested the women that came before him...Catherine the Great for example...

[Finder]

152. That is used as the "explanation" sometimes...

now that we are getting a better view of "herstory." I for one don't believe it. Female pharaohs, commanders and warriors can be found throughout history.

[CrispyQ]

169. I had an excellent social studies teacher in fifth grade.

While we were learning who invented what over the past 200 years, she pointed out that there was a long period in history where women could not apply for patents. She said it was very likely that many inventions were made by women, but because they were not recognized as full persons, patents on their inventions had to be made by husbands, brothers, fathers. Laughing, she said, "Who was more likely to invent a washing machine? A woman or a man?"

Another interesting (but sad) thing is that corporations were granted full personhood rights before women. GASP!! And the ERA, first proposed in 1923 still has not been passed!

[Reverend_Smitty]

81. Hillary is the first real female challenger for President

and I can't think of another first lady/politician or otherwise who has been this vilified by the media. Talk to any typical RW male and they will have this visceral hatred for her. Part of it is because of her husband but I think the majority of it is because she is a strong female. She has a real possibility of becoming president and they know that which throws off their whole patriarchal world view. Read Lakoff's Don't think of an Elephant and it will give you a better idea of conservative mind set.

[fberknm]

104. A Female President

The concept of a female US President should not challenge the sensibilities of just about anyone except for the ultra-reactionary, militia types.

For those of us who bend toward the left, we hopefully have recognized the values of females in virtually every role in society.

For those who tend to the right side of the aisle, one only needs to look at Margaret Thatcher for an acceptable role model.

I think the Thatcher example is salient to demonstrate that in the end it is ideology that will trump gender. Even N.O.W., I suspect, would oppose a Condi Rice Presidency, in spite of her pro-abortion rights position. However, she would get much more support from republicans due to her other, traditional conservative ideals.

Hillary is a four letter word for many conservatives, but in current polls, she dominates the democratic side of the ticket. If she does run in 2008, then the republicans will need to put up a popular moderate, someone like McCain. Absent this, the republicans would be toast, at least right now, in a race against Hillary.

In either event, while we might see some bathroom type jokes circulating, it would likely be ideals overwhelming gender in a US Presidential election.

[wysi]

107. New Zealand...

... currently has women in all the top governmental posts. Prime Minister, Governor General, Supreme Court CJ, and Speaker of the House.

[bloom]

117. New Zealand

is my new favorite place.

:)

[Triana]

15. It's fear that women will get angry enough to...

...DO enough to upset the 'status quo' that keeps them submissive and men in power over them. That is their biggest fear. Women might get angry enough and wise enough to change things. And they (men) will do ANYTHING to prevent that.

Uh-ohhh.

That's the same fear that large corporations and the gov't/corprat plutocracy have against 'the masses' / the people. That they will lose control over us (what a shame that'd be) and that we'll rise up and change things so that 'the people' are in power and not the government/corporates/business. This is why propaganda via the media, etc. What would people do if they couldn't go to the grocery and get food? How many of us could provide for ourselves. We are SO utterly dependent on large multinational corprats for every little thing. This is the same type of dependence women often have on men who demand their submission - same type of relationship.

[snot]

17. Great post--this is a complex topic--recommended

of which most folks seem only dimly aware at best. Must be much better understood by many people if real headway is to be made.

[newswolf56]

27. This is all the more relevant if you believe, as I do, that...

...the clash between the Christofascism of BushCabal and the Islamofascism of bin Laden is symbolic of the terminal clash (and death-spasm) of Yehvehistic patriarchy: that the macrocosm of the thermonuclear doomsday machine and the microcosm of the suicide bomber are theological and psychological equivalents.

Many scholars of feminist spirituality argue that in these times -- whenever women are about to empower a cultural stride away from patriarchy -- the patriarchs always defend themselves by starting a war to confuse the issues and provide the rationale for further oppression. Recent history proves their analysis correct, not only in terms of explaining the Jihadist attack on Western Civilization as a reaction to the Western liberation of women and its resurrection of goddess-centered spirituality, but also in terms of explaining the Dominionist attack on American liberty from within as motivated by the same reactionary hatefulness. Hence the validity of the Grover Norquist scheme for combining both factions in a united front for the imposition of theocracy -- a scheme that, however implausible it might seem in light of current conflicts, is from the philosophical/psychological perspective thus horrifically likely.

Indeed I believe it will happen, but I also believe that what feminists would label the "forces of herstory" will bring about its failure. I believe what we are witnessing is an especially dark (and rapidly darkening) part of a historical/evolutionary process in which we are moving beyond patriarchy to an entirely new ethos -- not (as some feminists believe) merely the restoration of the ancient matriarchy that characterized the first 50-odd-thousand years of human history, but rather a new scientifically informed ethos based on a dynamic understanding of Gaea (and therefore of necessity female-centered whether one accepts the associated spirituality or not), but nevertheless politically egalitarian: economic democracy in the sense of a family raised by the very best of mothers, liberty in a form not imagined since (as Gary Snyder put it) "the destruction of Knossos."

(But then it is also true that beyond my absolutely black pessimism about the present, I remain optimistic about the long-term future of humanity in general, despite the suicidal idiocy repeatedly demonstrated during this patriarchal interregnum.)

[BrklynLiberal]

31. Gosh...I fervently hope that you are right...

I would hate to see all the puny penis wavers like Norquist and Rove win.
:grr: :grr:

[omega minimo]

35. The brutal results of one-note, short-sighted, spear-waving domineering

(as in "bring 'em on" and "you're either with us or you're against us") will yield to more dynamic understanding. The "dynamic understanding" point of view is inherent to women and foreign to those addicted to black/white thinking and hyper-aggressive communication.

"....and therefore of necessity female-centered whether one accepts the associated spirituality or not...."

.... and whether one accepts a more dynamic understanding of communication or not?

It's time.


".....we are moving beyond patriarchy to an entirely new ethos... a new scientifically informed ethos based on a dynamic understanding of Gaea (and therefore of necessity female-centered whether one accepts the associated spirituality or not), but nevertheless politically egalitarian: economic democracy in the sense of a family raised by the very best of mothers, liberty in a form not imagined since (as Gary Snyder put it) "the destruction of Knossos."

:kick:

[Pachamama]

40. Another thing to add - Anyone recall hearing last year about the discovery

that Scientists made as they have been studying human DNA? Apparantely, it looks like what makes a "male" is actually genetically "dieing". Can't remember the exact findings of this research and theory, but I remember when I heard about it thinking that "Pachamama" will get the last laugh afterall.... :rofl:

[newswolf56]

43. As I understand it, biologists discovered decades ago that...

...ALL life is originally female -- that the process by which a male develops is actually akin to mutation. This discovery of course is radically downplayed because it is so profoundly disturbing to the devotees of Yehvehistic (aka "Abrahamic") religions given their claim that "man" was created "in the image of Yehveh" -- no doubt one more reason such religions reject not only evolution but science in general. Then came the Gaea Hypothesis: the finding by Lovelock, Epton and Margolis that the planet is self-regulating and thus by implication a conscious, living organism -- and that by extension so therefore is the entire cosmos. Which is, stated in the terms of modern environmental science, precisely the core-wisdom of the ancient religion of the Great Goddess (after whom the hypothesis is so appropriately named).

No wonder the Fundamentalists -- whether Christian or Islamic -- so despise us all.

[SoCalDem]

45. A doctor told us that birth defects are more common in males

and that more stillbirths are males because the male fetus is more fragile, and has to undergo a metamorphosis to even BE male:)

[Pachamama]

47. Gaea (or Gaia) = Pachamama

Like I said, it looks like somehow, in the "end" Pachamama will get the last laugh....

Interesting stuff isn't it? We are being led by a bunch of Males who discount science left and right, in particular as it relates to the destruction of Mother Earth.....

Makes one wonder if they are doing it because they figure if they ultimately will "die out" then they better take everything with them...

The tribal shamans used to tell me that Pachamama was here long before humans and will be here long after humans....sadly I fear we are on that path and being led by nutcases that seem to take the Yehvehistic approach to life....No wonder is right....

[newswolf56]

48. Thank you; didn't know about Pachamama. My background...

...in myth is mostly European, focused on Celtic and pre-Celtic material with an additional smattering of North American Aboriginal lore acquired since my school days (especially after I discovered I could account for certain persistent awarenesses only by the fact I'm a 16th Indian -- probably Mohawk). My views were much shaped by a fortunate combination of having lived for a time in true country plus my own readings in folklore and myth that led finally to the convinction (long before I finished college) that the wellspring of the old Counterculture was not political but spiritual, that its "revolution in consciousness" was in fact the first wave of the resurrection of the Goddess: something that came to me quite suddenly during a Countercultural event in 1967. I've been watching subsequent developments (both internally and externally) ever since, very intently and with no small measures of joy and sadness. I believe the moon will yet again shine brightly, but as several people far wiser than I have noted, "Mother Nature always bats last."

[omega minimo]

70. Cheers

Here's to "persistent awarenesses."

:toast:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

123. I'm not a religious nut so for me this works the other way around

We're the evolution, baby! The Y chromosome is the newest technology - the one that makes SEX possible! :woohoo:

[BrklynLiberal]

159. All embryos start out female and evolve into males when the Y chromosome

kicks in and the testosterone signals the male sexual characteristics to develop in the germ cells.

That is why men have nipples!!!! :7

[SoCalDem]

161. SEX THREAD Alert.. you're gonna get us busted.. You said NIPPLES

[BrklynLiberal]

175. oops.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Yupster]

179. Well you've got Bush in his

come court me gown.

[CrispyQ]

173. It also explains that while God is supposedly genderless,

there is no genderless pronoun for God. You would think that a being as important as God would be deserving of a special pronoun to refer to God by.

One of my first rejections of Christianity was the whole God the father, God the son stuff. It could have easily been written God the parent or teacher, God the child or student.

[newswolf56]

197. Fortunately I was not Christianized as a child. Roaming...

...the woods (something children of my generation were allowed to do), I instinctively sensed the ultimate femaleness of nature -- my first conscious recollection of which dates from my fifth autumn. There would be other more compelling encounters later -- indeed the great conflict of my life is between my spiritual need for rural isolation and my professional need for urban involvement -- but even my earliest awareness of nature's reality was sufficiently powerful to act as an antidote for the Yehvehistic poisons to which I would later be exposed.

[SoCalDem]

201. Both Nature and women cycle.

Maybe that's why she's referred to a Mother Nature and Mother Earth...... :)and why sometimes she gets really pissed off..and smacks us..just like a Mother animal does to her cub/pup/kit:)

[mom cat]

105. I wholeheartedly agree with you on your analysis of the problem, but

I fear that the destructive forces are too out of control and that we are doomed as a species to perish from our own "Man-made" causes: climate change, war, pollution/poisoning of the planet, over-population, etc. And look at our quintessential "fearless leader", whose main ad jenda is to increase domination, wreck family planning, increase pollution and ecological devastation, and fight tooth and nail against attempts to ameliorate global warming. These people are death centered to the core and would rather die than evolve into an egalitarian society! The matriarchy was not death centered, but revered life and the givers of life. The Patriarchal invaders (see The Chalice and the Blade)conquered by brutality, and that brutality is the core of their identity.As you pointed out so well, when women get stronger, men start wars. It is not only the patriarchal men in the Muslim countries that are fighting to suppress women, it is our own home grown domination seeking patriarchs who use war as an excuse to install every repressive, regressive measure that they can, under the guise of security. Underneath all of the rhetoric, both sides are fundamentally similar. Both sides are increasing their brutality and their repression tactics. I do not see the end of this escalating bloodbath!

[newswolf56]

119. Read "The Chalice and the Blade" many years ago. I...

...wondered then (as I wonder now) how -- that is, by what perversion of logic -- could we as a species have turned from worshiping life (consciousness, experience, nature, the moon, the goddess as the deity whose physical body is literally all being and non-being, etc.) to worshiping death (limitation, oppression, eco-destruction, the macrocosm of thermonuclear weapons and the microcosm of the suicide bomber, etc.). While I agree with Eisler's hypothesis -- Marja Gimbutas' too (my original influences were Frazer, Graves and Neumann) -- I think the downfall of goddess-centered culture was caused by much more than simply armed conquest. Something else happened -- something that elevated the death-god over the life-goddess: my guess would be a global cataclysm and/or epidemic that thoroughly discredited the Old Religion and made way for the infinitely more murderous theology of the (then) New.

Now it's happening in reverse: the life-goddess -- or if one is an atheist, all that is embodied in the emergence of such a symbol -- is once more in ascent. Indeed that is why I have (long-term) hope. McLuhanoid to the bitter end, I fervently believe in the preparative function of human consciousness: McLuhan's pivotal notion (borrowed from Jung and now mostly overlooked) of the subconscious as prophet and thus the present as preparation for the future. In other words, I would worry about the ultimate fate of humanity only if there were no resurrection of the goddess. Don't misunderstand: I believe the near future will be more savage than anything humanity has ever seen, and most of us -- especially those of us who are elderly -- will not survive its horrors. The concentration of wealth in the hands of an ever-shrinking plutocracy (and the concurrent malicious denial of even basic sustenance to the rapidly expanding populations reduced to inescapable poverty) -- all this is merely the beginning. But the legacy of this dreadful and worsening time -- the unforgettable lesson humanity bears down the long path of its evolution -- will be how this era was the terminal expression of the unspeakable evil that lurks at the core of patriarchy: the mandate to tyranny, exploitation, enslavement and ultimately planetary suicide implicit in all patriarchy's symbiotic derivatives, especially theological and/or philosophical.

[SoCalDem]

121. I hope you are rtight..

It sure seems pretty bad right now.. Every time one of our "leaders" opens his/her mouth, I am astonished at the ignorance that comes out.. and yes I did offer "her" as a chioce, because when it comes to power, I still believe that power can(and often does) trmup gender and equity.:(

[mom cat]

141. I read that the beginning of the patriarchal destruction began at

the same point of time in history as one of the mini ice ages. It stands to reason that the invaders from the north were escaping brutal life threatening conditions and that they encountered the peaceful matriarchal groups while running scared to death. I believe that this primitive desperation in the driving force that destroyed whoever was in the way of food. Once that domination principle emerged, it became self reinforcing...a pandora's box that is self perpetuating and feed the growth of the dominator system. I too see the devastation to come, I just think that the destruction is going to take the biological system back down to the amoebas. I hope you are right, and I am afraid that I am.

[newswolf56]

146. I have long maintained -- and only half in jest -- that...

...the most intelligent life-form on the planet is the canine, especially the wolf: that maybe primates were taught tool-use by watching wolves (or dogs) play with sticks rather than vice-versa as is often supposed. Which is actually significant to this discussion -- for if the resurrection of the goddess means we again begin studying nature for clues as to proper behavior, the adaptivity and cooperation of canine packs is maybe the best example we have -- something many of our aboriginal forebears celebrated by the honors they paid dog and wolf: in more than a few tribes, exalted totems. Dogs have rescued the individual lives of many of us -- and according to Plains myths, wolves too have done likewise, not to mention all the lives saved by the great healer Medicine Wolf -- and maybe in the burgeoning popularity of dogs in America today there is testimony that we are at last re-learning how to Pay Attention. I hope: though I can picture a world without humans, I cannot picture one without canines.

[mom cat]

147. or cats.

but the dinasaurs are gone as are many species. Maybe the amoeba will survive, but with the growing "dead zones", who knows.

[newswolf56]

166. Sorry we have to differ on that one. As an infant I was...

...attacked and savagely clawed by a neighbor's housecat -- this without any provocation whatsoever -- and to this day I am profoundly uncomfortable around cats of any size or shape. Won't allow them in my own house and can't sleep in any house where they're present. They seem to sense my aversion too and in revenge delight in urinating on my clothing, books, shoulder-bag, on any other possessions accidentally left within pee-range and all over the inside of my car if I forgetfully leave a window down. Once during my years in Manhattan I was even raided by a stray tomcat who came in off the fire escape and so befouled my apartment I was eventually forced to move because even after replacing all my ruined furniture I could never get rid of the stench -- the whole place smelled like the original catbox from hell: not even total repainting cured the problem. I'm no doubt missing out by being unable to relate to cats, but resolving that karma will have to wait for some other lifetime.

Interesting the association of cats and witches (witch is NOT a pejorative in my lexicon) but the original familiars were dogs. Note in this context the dogs pictured on Celtic icons of the goddess, the dogs of the Wild Hunt, the Great Hound of Cuchulain, the Black Dog of Myrddin, etc.

[mom cat]

178. Sory that your experience with cats has been such a pisser! My ex was

also tormented by cats...especially my mom's cats who really knew how to ger to him. Well, I was bit by a dog earlier this year and had to fend off a dog attackat a German Shepherd lungrd at my daughter after jumping the fence.Oue relation to the animal world still has a few kinks!

[newswolf56]

195. Describing my cat experience as "a pisser" gave me...

...my best laugh of the day. How totally appropriate. Thank you!

[mom cat]

200. You are welcome. I myself have had a bitch of a time with dogs...

but I still love most of them.

[Patiod]

216. Totally OT: Cats used to torment me too

I HATED them. I'd be in a large group, and one would come over and smack me in the eye with its paw. But we somehow ended up with a cat, I fell in love with it, and now other cats ignore me. And the allergy receded. I've read that cats don't like direct eye contact, so they avoid people who look at them. But they don't like being ignored, either, so if they see that someone is ignoring them, they'll attempt to get that person's attention, which is what they seem to be doing to you. One thing I've learned from my cat is that felines are WAY more sociopathic then I ever thought they were when I hated them -- until you live with one, you have no idea the depths of their evil.

Although you seem to have a good sense of it.....

As to your comments on dogs, Temple Grandin, a woman with autism who is an animal expert, postulates that dogs made primitive man more human.

[October]

245. Agreed

I've read where next to humans, cats have the most varied methods of "speech" or "communicating via sound."

[BrklynLiberal]

157. I have read a theory that man learned to hunt co-operatively by watching

the wolf packs hunt....

[newswolf56]

168. I believe there are many American Aboriginal myths...

...to that effect: that Wolf brought the knowledge of how to hunt meat. In the Pacific Northwest, where Raven is the light-bringer and fire-bringer, Bear taught the people to fish for Salmon and Wolf taught the people to hunt Elk, Deer, Moose and Caribou. Wolfen hunting tactics display intelligence, conceptual thought and prior planning on a level hitherto assumed to be exclusively human.

[newswolf56]

183. Correction: my above post should have read "hitherto...

...assumed to be exclusively human" -- albeit only by those unfortunates who have been rendered phenomenologically blind by patriarchal brainwashing. Our allegedly "primitive" forebears knew better: hence the stories about Wolf, Raven, Bear etc. But it takes many years of living in True Woods to even begin to overcome patriarchy-induced stupidity, and that is only the first step: we still have lifetimes of (re)learning to accomplish.

[SoCalDem]

187. Hee hee.. Only on DU would someone add a statement to clarify "hitherto"

:).. can anyone imagine that happening at FR???:):)

Most of the stuff in this thread would boggle their little pea-brains:)

and I am being "series":):)

[CrispyQ]

176. You may like the book I reference earlier in this thread

-- although added at a later time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4067158#4075194

Do you base your idea a global cataclysm that discredited Old Religion on anything? Just curious. I would love to read more about that. (Although there has been so much new material presented in this thread that will keep me busy for quite a time!)

I agree that it's going to get very, very ugly on planet Earth in the coming years. And yes, if we survive, the Dark Ages will pale in comparison.

[newswolf56]

191. Best fictional portrait of the old goddess-centered world...

...I ever read was Poul Anderson's The Dancer from Atlantis, "Atlantis" defined as the island of Thera in the Minoan Empire, the last great flourishing of the age of matriarchy. The book came out at the height of the rural Counterculture in 1971 -- the tragically doomed Back-to-the-Land Movement -- and among those who read it, every man I know fell in love with Erissa and every woman took her as a run-with-the-wolves archetype. It is a splendid book, long out of print, but if you can find it, it is well worth the reading. All the more so because I am not nominally a fan of science fiction -- though as a student of the resurrection of the goddess, I routinely read all such books I happen to find, in which context Anderson's is one of the very best.

An equally strong recommendation goes to Evangeline Walton's exquisite prose fiction reconstruction of the fabled Mabiongion: Prince of Annwn; The Children of Llyr; The Song of Rhiannon; The Island of the Mighty. These too came out at the height of the Back-to-the-Land Movement -- specifically that portion of the Counterculture that saw the goddess most clearly (or so I have always argued) -- but like so much else from that era, these books too are out of print, though well worth the hassle of search and joy of finding.

Ah it makes my heart ache to remember: such a promising and hopeful time...

[newswolf56]

194. Oh, yeah: sorry I got lost in my own thoughts. Thank you...

...for the recommended reading. You're the second or third person who has told me I should read LeGuinn, and now I'll make a genuine effort. Maybe next time I go to the library. Thanks again!

[JHB]

211. But also read "The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory"...

If the Eisler/Gimbutas/etc. hypothesis is going to be raised, critiques of it (especially feminist critiques) should also be read.

One good and generally available one is:
The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future
By CYNTHIA ELLER
Beacon Press
(First Chapter) http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html
(NYTimes review) http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/17/reviews/000917.17angiert.html?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I came to the same conclusion several years ago:

all fundamentalist religions, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist, are deeply mysogynistic and dedicated to maintaining patriarchal privileges.

[BrklynLiberal]

30. Nothing to argue with there.

[SoCalDem]

32. Once the men "lose control" over the women, they have to start

taking responsibility for things that they used to take for granted.

The way these exremist male-dominated societies operate, all good flows from the males...security...faith...wealth...

the flaws they see are in themselves, but they are too weak to admit the, so by default it simply MUST be the woman's fault if some stranger looks at her...or there must be an ulterior motive if she wants to learn to read and write...

Even here in the enlightened west, there are millions of women who are abused by their husbands/boyfriends, and yet somehow think that if they can only get through to them, or if they can change, things will get better.. Even though the male is the one with "issues", women still try to "fix things" or ascribe fault to themselves..

[BrklynLiberal]

33. Every word is true.

[Solomon]

62. My very religious parents recently left their church of more than 50 years

because the church (baptist) elected a woman pastor.

I have arguments with my father all the time about him being no different than a muslim fundamentalist.

He's convinced that the problem with the world is "they're taking religion out of everything". He goes nuts when I say the problem is too much religion.


The thread makes a big point.

[Karenina]

101. Na, Du!

Sehr lang nicht gesehen! :hi:

[libodem]

36. you are so right on

it is all about women and keeping us subjugated. The early goddess religions predate the Bibles version of creation and the female was revered as sacred for bringing forth life. The mother/child bond serves as the primary model for all relationships. Men went off together and hunted and fought. Women started civilization by grouping with other women to raise children and stay in a protected group. Men came for certain seasonal sacred rights and ceremonies when they were allowed to breed. Men did not know the link between sex and child birth for sometime. Women held the secrets to life and sacred meanings. At sometime after the foundations were laid for counting, writing, agriculture, herding, building, the men figured things out and took them over creating a male father God and wrote it down as the 'word' by using all the old myths... the Bible is just a bunch of Hebrew history and a few moral stories. To base our whole civilization on any of these so called Holy books is beyond me. Especially in the light of science and all of our advancement.

[AuntPatsy]

37. Very good post, there should be more like them, I agree completely.

[proud patriot]

38. It always has been , it's why they burned us at the stake

We are now here in America finally throwing off
generational oppression in the last 100 years .

I'm of a generation of Women who play professional sports
are Doctors , Construction workers or homemakers like me .

I listen to heavy metal music enjoy fishing and playing
ball with my son .

The fundamentalists want to take my free will away
and hand it over to the D.C. old white mans club
called The House and Senate .

We Woman must not forget our history that which
has survived from the burnings til now . They created
generations of oppression by destroying our history our
secrets handed down mother to daughter through history .

We have come too far and I for one will NOT GO BACK !

[Pachamama]

41. Not only will I be unwilling to go back, there is no way my daughters are

going back either! I sometimes feel like I'm living in a time warp in this country these days....I thought we were moving forward, not backwards?

[NMMNG]

49. Indeed

And that is also why they hate gays (who wants effeminate men?) lesbians (perish the thought of women who don't want men) and reproductive freedom (the easiest way to keep women down is to lock them into an endless, uncontrollable cycle of childbearing and motherhood).

It is all about the women.

[SoCalDem]

51. Deep down, I think that a lot of fundamentalist-type men have

inadequacy issues, and may actually FEAR that they might "become" gay, hence the fear...They need to dominate women in order to control them, and if there are men who they do not understand, it confuses (and may attract) them.. It's the fear of their own feelings that drives the hate-bus.

[rucky]

53. my crack to the homophobic brother-in-law...

"do you really feel that vulnerable?"


that stopped the knuckle-dragger dead in his tracks.

[dalaigh lllama]

57. What a great comeback

Living in Missouri, I was completely baffled by the homophobia that struck here and in other states last fall. I can only shake my head and wonder why it possibly makes any difference to anyone (except the pair involved) if homosexuals married. I'm going to remember your line "do you really feel that vulnerable?" for all the knucklescrapers I encounter.

[TexasLady]

54. This is one of the best threads Ive read in a while

we ALL know men (and women) who fall under this way of thinking, and we do need to continue teaching our sons and our daughters the absolute importance of fair and equal treatment for all

Sometimes the penis needs a good "bitch slap" and I for one have never minded putting a fundamentalist male with a superiority complex in his place, and actually never have to raise my hand to do it!

[Patiod]

55. Four words

"The 'Truth' About Hillary"

She's not my pick for '08, but the virulence of the bashing says volumes about the bashers. They don't have to be screaming Bible (or Koran) thumpers, either - they can be calm Episcopalian, golf-playing suburbanites, but their fear of women with power is obvious.

[Totally Committed]

56. I totally agree with your entire post...

word for word. I could have written it, and it would be my personal truth.

So true, so very true.

TC

[stanwyck]

149. The venom spewed against her

has always amazed me. And when you question the red-faced, eyes bulging man about WHY he despises her...specifically...he can't really say. He just hates her.
She's a bitch. She's too pushy. (?) This from a guy who listens to Rush. Hannity. And thinks Newt is an apostle.
It's really scary.

[SoCalDem]

150. propaganda works..

that's why..How any years of hate-spewing (with no counter-balance) have illions of people listened to? If you only hear one side..over and over..you will end up believing what you hear.

[blogslut]

58. Yoko Ono

said it best.

[mopinko]

60. monkeys

in chimp society, when females cease to follow the male leader, he is toast. they will quite visibly walk away from him. i believe this to be the root of this. if men cannot get their women to "follow" them, they can sometimes skate for a while if she doesn't walk away quite so visibly.
that monkey level fear works on a lot of very, very deep levels.

[sui generis]

61. I would add to that

the mistreatment of any class of humans by a society is the measure of that society.

[Bruce McAuley]

66. Women are queens, men are princes or frogs...

There are so many jokes in our culture about how men are just like boys that I for one have given up all ideas about how we are the equal of women. If any rational man examines the evidence, he will notice immediately that he cannot give birth. He cannot nurse the babies. He cannot do 5 things at once, much less chew gum and walk at the same time(most of us).
The sad truth is that men got the short end of the genetic stick. The "Y" chromosome is a stunted version of the "X" chromosome, of which women have two, and are able to express at LEAST 20% more genetic expression than the average "knuckledragger". Emotionally, men are severely crippled. Ask a man about his feelings and he says, "What?"
Women are the ones who can do it ALL, from childbirth to running the house and making the meals. They are the fundamental basis of civilization, the men are just along for the ride, and to see if they can bully the women into doing things THEIR way(which is usually a disaster).
If the women of this world just went on strike, the men would HAVE to acquiesce, they'd have no choice.
I would have supported invading a Muslim country to free the women from cultural bondage, THAT is a worthy goal, but for resources? Fuggedaboutit.
I stand with the women.

Bruce

[mom cat]

110. Thanks for your honesty...now go convince your brothers not to

rape us, degrade us, destroy our planet and then say that they have a "God given" right to rule. Also, i do not believe that the liberation of Muslim women was either the reason for or the result of either of our invasions of Muslim countries. It was an excuse that was floated briefly to catch anti-war types off guard.Sadly, it worked in some quarters.
This war has only served to oppress women, both in Muslim countries and here.I wholeheartedly agree the author of the original post..It is all about women. MEN: IT IS TIME TO GROW UP OR DIE! When you kill the last flower, what will YOU eat!

[CTLawGuy]

172. well I happen to think men are pretty damn good

not better than women, not worse either.

Let us not become what we hate.

[Apple Smoothie]

184. Yes... I wholeheartedly agree.

I think characterizing all men as unfeeling, domineering, etc... is just as crazy as characterizing all women as weak, unintelligent, etc.



I give up: males are pathetic, useless, boneheads... :sarcasm:

[CTLawGuy]

185. good for you!

true equality means that we hold both sexes in equal moral regard.

[SoCalDem]

188. uneducated does not equal unintelligent

:)

[Apple Smoothie]

196. Yep

You got that right.

[entanglement]

174. You claim you would support

an invasion of a Muslim country to 'free the women from cultural bondage'; Are you completely unaware of the fact that women and children suffer the most during wartime? Not to mention the fact that white men have perpetrated just about every possible atrocity on colonized / native women all over the world and have more often been oppressors than liberators? Your idea of 'rescue' sounds eerily like genocide to me (kill all the males of the 'inferiors' under the pretext of 'rescuing' the women)

[WhiteTara]

271. you left out going out of the house and

earning money too. As for the idea of women going on strike, I read a book by Barbara Walker title Crone. In that she also suggests a strike. Unfortunately we have many Phyllis Schaffleys running around the world and they would NOT go on strike with us.
::):

[zalinda]

67. There is a reason for this

it's called control. But, more importantly men (and we are talking only about those who subjugate woman) fear they will be discarded when women realize they need fewer of them for the race to survive. If you take a logical look at it, you only need maybe 25% men to 100% women for the race to survive. But, if you had 25% women to 100% men, your group would decline because women can only have so many babies. So, he who controls the baby making, controls the group.

I think it's a gut instinct, but one that can be retrained. I guess what men don't realize is that when they are acting "civilized" they can get us to do just about anything for them anyways.

zalinda

[cally]

68. Remember the study a few years back (I think it was UN)

that showed that countries where women can't work will continue to fall behind economically? (I'll look it up if this thread is still active this afternoon.) Essentially, all societies need to take advantage of their best and brightest. If your pool is only half of your potential population then the society has lost many of their best and suffers.

I agree with your post completely. Much of these battles between conservatives and liberals, between different cultures, is about the role of women. I think the homophobia is related to a fear of becoming like a woman. Some men think that being gay means they are more like women.

Great post!!

[Bruce McAuley]

69. Princes ARE more like women, frogs are not...

I guess there might be three basic types of men:
Those who do NOT relate well to women and their needs. These are frogs.
Those who DO relate well to women and their needs. These are of two types, the "sensitive" ones who are gay and the ones who are not, who are the princes.
Also to consider is the genetic predisposition to love men that's built in to all women who are not lesbian.
If we just killed off the frogs, or segregated them where they couldn't reproduce...

Bruce

[getmeouttahere]

71. This is one of the best posts....

I've ever seen on DU. I've been reading the replies all morning, and many of the replies are as thoughtful and thought-provoking as the original post. Thank you to everyone who has contributed their thoughts here. Here is one way that we can each make our small contribution to the rise of female empowerment...

www.34millionfriends.org

This folks at this site fight for the reproductive rights of women worldwide. Based on the posts I've read here, it seems to me that reproductive rights are at the root of the problem of subjugation.

[mom cat]

113. Thanks for the link!

[cally]

171. Link to the report

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gender_gap.pdf

[Darwins Finch]

72. Biologist's take

I agree wholeheartedly with the original post. Let me add that, from a biological perspective, oppression of women is deeply wired into men. This is because, without controlling "his" women, a man cannot be sure that the children he sires are his own. (Sure, we can do this with DNA tests now, but I'm talking about an instinct based at a primal level.) So much of patriarchal control is based on this in-built instinct, which tells men at a subconscious level that the only way to ensure their genes are passed on is to make certain that no other male has access to "their" women.

This instinct expands at a social level too. Biologist have shown that there is a further instinct that makes animals protect members of their own closely-related kin against outsiders, since it means a greater likelihood of their gene pool surviving. In the same way, we practice xenophobia and nationalism to ensure that those we perceive as genetically closer to us prevail over those more different.

So much of human behaviour becomes clearer when you understand the animal nature behind it. We may, as individuals, be enlightened and sentient creatures, but on a communal scale we are still packs and herds.

PS - The other posters are also correct in describing the male as essentially an incomplete female. And as a possessor of a "broken X" myself, I can admit no inherent bias in that statement. :)

EDIT - spellchecking

[OxQQme]

82. Myths as fact

Merlin Stone's "When God Was a Woman"

Barbara Walker's "The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secret"

Neale Walsh's " Conversations with God" 1, 2, & 3

Any book about Inanna/Ishtar.

Prior to Mose's meeting with Yahweh all regions of ancient civilizations revered a woman as the ultimate 'creator'. This was the 'Rove' moment when males re-wrote 'her'story into 'his'tory and began burning the female attributes.

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Why are they so eager to kill their daughters, then?

I think there is a simpler biological explanation: males are agressive and violent. That's why humans tend to castrate the majority of male domestic animals.

However, I do not buy any of that "women good, men bad" crap, even if it's on sale. We females are just sneakier, and there may be a biological basis for that as well.

[Darwins Finch]

89. Complex answer

Probably more complicated instinctual issues there, as well as plain old human and societal ones. I could argue that it's an extension of control, especially if the male perceives the daughter as being disobedient and therefore more likely to mate outsider her "pool" (and therefore killing her frees up resources for more "loyal" children, who will mate properly).

But as with all things human, you've got to consider issues beyond the animal as well. Patriarchal social pressures, as well as the valuing of sons above daughters (especially in poor communities, where the daughter is seen as a resource consumer and the son as a resource provider), lead to these complex issues. I just want to make sure people keep in mind the very real biological underpinnings for much of our behaviour. We are still, at heart, animals all.

And I concur that not all women are divine and all men debased. Rather, I think that there are biological and social issues that shape certain gender behaviours. And I think one of the most unfortunate and pernicious of these is what Alan Alda famously referred to as "testosterone poisoning". It is this biochemical (along with serotonin) that creates aggression and dominance in primates, and it pervades our specie and culture to this day.

Perhaps we will come up with the equivalent of saltpeter for testosterone one day, and remove some of the hardwired aggression that is increasingly out of place in civilized society. But I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. :)

[Lilith Velkor]

100. Ah well, if logic prevailed men would ride sidesaddle.

Humans are such irrational creatures. In this case it seems the very idea of property has been allowed to bleed over into one's own fellow members of the species. "Mine!" Most people attach power to things that are not real, such as money or invisible sky beings, so they do not have to feel responsible for anything bad that happens.

But we are flexible. Our fellow primates also have a wide variety of social structures.

However, at the current time in the United States, there is a tendency to boost the testosterone levels artificially, especially among the police and military, with atheletes for guinea pigs. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors are prescribed with shovels, and for those who don't want to bother with that scam, there's meth and ecstasy.

And the meek shall inherit (what's left of) the earth.

[FizzFuzz]

243. question re serotonin

as Lilith Vektor mentioned before me, serotonin reuptake inhibitors---are you saying low serotonin levels are linked with lowered aggression? Or is it only as it works with testosterone that it influences aggression and dominance?

I was thinking of SSRI's too, and thought about this. Aren't women more likely to be prescribed anti-depressants, such as Prozac and other SSRI's? (statistically, more women treated for depression than men.) I was just wondering about the correlation, and the aggression issue....

just thoughts, no answers

[Darwins Finch]

249. Serotonin relates to dominance in many primates

Among many primate species, the "alpha male" is also the one with the highest serotonin levels. Indeed, some laboratory experiments have shown that when the alpha is removed, the next primate to become alpha is the one who can elevate his serotonin levels fastest.

As a person with a serotonin imbalance and full-blown Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (now under control), I can tell you first hand that many of the behaviours and compulsions experienced by an OCD parallel those seen in alphas trying to exert dominance.

One could even extrapolate this out to group entities, such as those "pack alphas" that currently are trying to run the country by obsessively controlling everything, including reproductive decisions.

All of this is classic individual and communal primate sociology, and we shouldn't be surprised that it applies to ourselves as well. And the more we learn about it, and the underlying biochemistry, the better we get at freeing ourselves from the worst of it.

EDIT - I found a good article one the web here which includes some information related to this, including the vervet monkey serotonin study.

http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~mwahn/dominance.html">Link

Specifically, the material under "2) Serotonin, Mood and Rank" you may find enlightening.

[FizzFuzz]

250. rats, link is dead!

Fascinating info in your post about serotonin and dominance in male primates. Maybe you could tell me another way to see that link. The next male to replace an alpha is the one who can raise his serotonin levels fastest Now that's interesting--serotonin can be increased at will, by monkeys seeking dominance at any rate..... hmmmmmmmmmmm.

I am very curious, however, about females and serotonin, since women tend to be diagnosed and treated for depression more commonly than men--I have low serotonin levels, and take Prozac for clinical depression and a tendency towards obsessive thinking. Very helpful stuff.

Hmmm, could women's generally lower aggression be explained by a tendency towards lowered serotonin levels? Just wondering out loud. (By the way, I am just a lay person, not a biologist or chemist. Just interested in psychology and behavior, individually and socially)

[Darwins Finch]

251. Unfortunate

I just found it a few hours ago, too. Strange.

Anyway, it's still in the Google cache here:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:4D-mXjApNBIJ:io.uwinnipeg.ca/~mwahn/dominance.html+dominance+serotonin+vervet&hl=en

And a Google search on the terms "dominance serotonin vervet" will return some interesting citations.

Finally, let me know if I can answer any of your questions. This is an area of interest which is both professional and personal for me.

[FizzFuzz]

263. hoo boy I had a look at that link--its waaay too technical for me!

My last biology class was in high school! But I will have another look later, just to see if I can figure out any of it. (don't get your hopes up)
LOL!

:hi:

[Lilith Velkor]

254. When you put it that way

I guess SSRIs are good if they discourage domineering monkey behavior.
I have seen wayyy too many people on them that don't need to be, the dead giveaway on that is inability to be wrong about anything.

Of course, I'm not an Eli Lilly/Pfizer subsidized psychiatrist, so don't take me too seriously. :)
---------

This thread rocks!!

[FizzFuzz]

262. am I reading you wrong?

I feel as if you're trying to throw veiled insults at me.

"I have seen wayyy too many people on them that don't need to be, the dead giveaway on that is inability to be wrong about anything."--after all I just admitted I take an SSRI.

Sorry if I am totally off base and misreading you.


About SSRI's discouraging domineering behavior---my thinking was opposite to that. I was thinking of DarwinFinch's point that higher serotonin in males was linked with higher aggression. Then I wondered about SSRI's, which raise serotonin in the blood by preventing it from being taken out of the bloodstream too quickly. And, I made an assumption that women take them more frequently than men, since women are diagnosed and treated for depression more often than men. So I guess my bottomline wondering was whether SSRI's increase aggression in women? (actually I was wondering about high serotonin in women/females, which the monkey studies dont seem to address)

[Lilith Velkor]

266. No insult intended

I don't know you or your situation so I can't make any judgements. I do know that many people have benefited from SSRIs, and besides, blanket condemnations ain't my thing.

As for your other point, I have wondered if there is a connection between SSRIs and the increase during the 90s of other women yelling at me in public, but other factors (such as TV) are in play here, and anecdotal evidence doesn't account for squat in science.

>And, I made an assumption that women take them more frequently than men, since women are diagnosed and treated for depression more often than men.<
That assumption is correct, at least it was last time I researched this issue.

[FizzFuzz]

268. okay! no worries then

:)thanks for clearing me up on that.


"As for your other point, I have wondered if there is a connection between SSRIs and the increase during the 90s of other women yelling at me in public, but other factors (such as TV) are in play here, and anecdotal evidence doesn't account for squat in science."
--Now that is interesting! And I am fascinated (and disgusted, actually) by the media and pop culture, how gender roles are polarized, etc, etc. etc., so that idea about the effect of TV is really interesting!

about women yelling at you in the 90's---Were the 90's when Prozac hit a high point? Oh yes, a little quick research shows that's when the big Prozac wave was on. (Google is my friend) Well, its anecdotal, but its interesting. I mean, the best inspiration for research starts with anecdote. If I were a scientist, I'd check that out.

[FizzFuzz]

244. if women have to survive in the face of larger, stronger aggressive

and violent creatures who are willing to use those physical strengths to harm and control women; that women are also intimately connected to, and share living space with these men, it stands to reason that for survival purposes, women would become sneaky! (Or is that a negative way of saying, women would, for survival, have to develop smarter, faster brains?)

------
Great thread!!

[Lilith Velkor]

253. No, I meant sneaky

And all too often, they use that sneakiness against each other.

Men suspect this, and become even more brutal, and the women who survive that are even more devious...

Lather, rinse, repeat generation after generation and you get the insane shit you see today. I still think it's more cultural than biological, but genetic determinism seems to be "in" lately. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

257. Women and the "sneaky" side of their brains..

I have often noticed that some women campaign as mothers trying to right wrongs for their children...yet when elected, the line up with the "good ole boys" and often legislate just like them..

I have also worked for many women, and I prefer working for men. The women I worked for were almost overcompensating, so they would appear to be "as good as a man"...ie..awful to work for :)The men seemed to be more at ease in controlm and could waver between tough and compassionate..the women seemed unable to get in touch with their "feminine personna", lest they be labeled soft.

So.. were they raising their seratonin, or just controlling their natural impulses to climb the ladder of success? Probably more societal influence since a lot of these women were on their first real power trip, and I suspect that they liked it :)

Or perhaps a certain type of woman always craves power, but it past eras, she has had to stifle those urges, and only now is it acceptable..
:shrug:..

People are sertainly tossing out some interesting stuff in this thread.. I hope there ism't a pop quiz:)

[Lilith Velkor]

258. Certain women have always craved power

In the past, they didn't stifle it, they were just sneakier about it. They usually used their mates as puppets in their schemes.

Society frowns on such behavior more these days, and the "masculine" way of controlling others is perceived as the "correct" way. We got a long way to go, baby...

[FizzFuzz]

261. I think there's a mix, bio. and culture

cultural--I read recently about some cultures (not many of them) where men and women express "feminine" traits freely--loving tenderness, compassion towards children. I don't remember in detail now, but it did point to cultural determinants.

I dunno. I'm just speculating. Don't take me as an expert.

But as for sneaky, I still think survival in the face of male aggression is worth looking at--and that basic tendency could easily manifest in individuals as nagtive or positive, depending on--loads of other stuff. I'm just uncomfortable characterizing women as sneaky. (anecdotally, my boss is a woman, and she is far and away more honest, compassionate, a better leader, fair, etc. than the other managers, who are men.)

[SoCalDem]

265. aybe the "sneakiness" is a tactic for ANYONE who lacks real power

male or female.. If you are not the one making decisions, there are always ways to get your way...a single son in a family of sisters, may resort to sneaky tactics too. Everyone has a self-interest, and will try to satisfy the in any manner they can.. overt or covert:)

Maybe??

[FizzFuzz]

269. yes, I'll buy that.

Some would turn to sneakiness, some would find other ways to fight back, some would just roll over or hide, some would seek to be outstanding...many many ways to react.

This is a terrific thread, by the way, SCD. :hi: Boy did you hit paydirt!

[Lilith Velkor]

267. I know what you mean

One man's sneaky is another man's smart. Also, one woman's aggressive is another woman's forthright.

I think the problem lies in potraying one sex as good, the other bad. Such attitudes undermine true equality.

[FizzFuzz]

270. very true

about labeling one good the other bad. I know I can veer to the black and white on that. It comes from anger and defensiveness and feeling fed up with the constant sexist assaults of a patriarchal, aggressive society like this one. You bring up an important reminder, one that I certainly need from time to time.

[SoCalDem]

96. Yep.. no matter how 'evolved' we get, we still listen to the 'lizard'

part of our brain sometimes:eyes:..

[mom cat]

120. Prior to the patriarchal destruction of the matriarchy, the fierce male

domination was not in place.The hoarders of invaders into old Europe corresponds to the timing of a "mini ice age" and is a likely cause of the ferocity of the hungry, frightened, desperately brutal invaders.Domination and control and taking everything in site were seen as necessary for survival in a time of scarce resources. In the process they destroyed the peaceful, equalitarian cultures that they encountered, and developed justifications for their brutality in their religion, the root of the most violent, war-like cultures on earth.
If there is now what looks like a violent "instinct" in humanity, it is due to thousands of years of selective breeding for dominator traits in men and submissive traits in women. A prime example of this are the "witch burnings" where strong women (who owned property) were burned at the stake and gay men were thrown on the fires. This is the origin of the derogatory word Fagot. A "fagot" is a bundle of wood, and gay men were thrown on the fires like fagots of wood.
When threatened, patriarchal males react with destructive brutality, similar to the blind destruction of their survival driven desperate ancestors. I used to think that we humans had been able to live peacefully foe many eons and could do it again. My hope is all but gone now, I must admit. I think that the years of forces selective breeding and the concomitant religo-cultural-fundamentalist indoctrination have made it nearly impossible for humans to come through this to some more evolved state. That does not stop me from trying, but I must be a realist. My heart goes out to all of the other species that we are taking down with us.:cry:

[Ms. K]

206. Not to mention, IIRC,

that when men realized that women were completely in control of their birthing experiences, the male-dominated medical profession decided that midwives had to go.

There were quite a few midwives burned as "witches", because not only did the midwives contribute to a woman-centered birthing experience, but in many cases, they also knew folk remedies to keep a woman from conceiving, and what herbs to use as abortifacients.

You're all correct when you say that it really comes down to subjugating women in order to maintain control. Otherwise, why would abortion be such a hot-button topic? Abortion now is a hot-button topic because women have control over WHEN they will have babies. And it's not just abortion, it's birth control. Basic reproductive rights.

I refuse to go back to the time before the Pill, when Comstock Laws were in effect, before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. And I refuse to have my daughter live in fear of that, as well.

We both want our daughter to understand that whether or not to have a baby is totally HER choice. And we will be the first to take her to the clinic whether it's for birth control, or an abortion.

[mom cat]

217. Welcome to DU Ms. K. You sound like a very good Mama to me!

:hi:

[Kraklen]

73. "western cultures frown on this."

My ass. As with every other complaint about Islam, I'll say that until women in the U.S. feel safe to walk the streets at night and don't have to worry about being beaten to death by their husbands, we shouldn't be throwing stones in glass houses.

[SoCalDem]

98. Western cultures have an active PR-Machine, , but I do think that

as a society (at least for now) westerners have aceepted the fact that productive and educated women and men are BOTH necessary for a successful society. Do we practice what we preach?..Not always, and not everywhere..but on the whole, I think we are at least trying. I cannot say the same for other societies.

74. terrorism and women

Regarding the discussion of relationship between Islamic terrorism and repression of women, I just had that idea come to me last night out of nowhere, so maybe it is circulating in the atmosphere. I thought of why is this happening, and the answer came that it is males trying to hold onto the power. Centuries ago, women had a lot of power, and then there was been an era where men have dominated along with the aggression and wars. This is the male way of dealing with problems, violence and domination. Also I have felt Bin Laden has some problems with feeling emasculated, though I don't know why he didn't just go to war with Saudi Arabia. I think Bush and Rumsfeld are also part of the male hold on power, they are just another part of the equation. And then people who talk about peaceful ways of dealing with matters are called traitors. Also this would go along with how the UN is having a hard time, because it is not in all of this to dominate, but rather to help alleviate problems.

Oh well, if this comes down to power differential between men and women, then surely it will taken more centuries before things are resolved. Yikes.

[mom cat]

122. Try reading The Chalice and the Blade. It validates your reasoning.

[2Design]

75. look at role moles - * two women compared to kerry's wife

the women turn their power over to these dim wits and vote for them too

[Hidden Stillness]

76. This is the Center of Things

I also believe that sexism, not racism, is the deepest and most oppressive bigotry--it is the one they hang onto with the most viciousness, the phony supremacy they claim with the most obnoxiousness, and the bigotry that remains even after other prejudices are lessened. I believe this will be the big "life-and-death-struggle" between good and evil. I only hope people will not "wimp out" and turn this into an attack on abstract "religion"--I am a deeply religious Lutheran and a radical feminist, and there are examples of religious feminists going all the way back to the "Women's Bible" of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, up to the present and Jane Fonda. Sometimes you have to have the courage to turn and face the male who oppresses and jeers at us all, and speak the truth, with possibly no support. It is the male sex oppressing us, not merely one isolated group of them. Sometimes our worst enemy and threat is a phony "Christian" preacher, sometimes a neo-con capitalist, sometimes a rapist, and the outrageously long line of male lawyers lining up to defend it, but sometimes it is a violent, vulgar--and popular--black male rapper, and if you really want to stick to the principle that may free us all someday, then you can't lose it by refusing to criticize it when the group changes.

By the way, about biology, I remember hearing during the '70s, (when I thought the Great Enlightenment was starting), that they had discovered that all fetuses begin as girls, but then either stay girls throughout the whole pregnancy, or actually "deteriorate" and develop an inferior Y chromosome rather than the original two Xs, and become boys. There was a "National Geographic" special, I think it was, that demonstrated that if you took a microscopic camera and looked inside the penis, there is actually still the small remnant of the original vulva. We are the original, and the male is "Eve's Rib." Now of course, you have to correct all the language that pretends that we are their "offshoot"--hear them whining already?

As soon as we started making real progress during the '70s, you knew the backlash was getting ready, and we have had all the violent, abusive, government-destroying results since--with "returns to the '50s" such as increasing out-of-wedlock births and decreased availability of abortion and sex education, no progress on equal pay, and a totally anti-feminist corporate media "culture." Civilization only advances when women lead. (By the way, it was really nice to read a favorable comment on Yoko Ono by a poster on this thread.)

[mom cat]

124. Note how all the cutbacks are justified by the "need" for military

spending.

[Apple Smoothie]

192. It can work both ways...

Sexism is as you put it "the deepest and most oppressive bigotry." I couldn't have said it better.

I think that males have been characterized unfairly by many feminists. There are some downright sexist remarks in your post, even though it's supposed to be about how evil it is.



"Civilization only advances when women lead." This idea is a bit crazy. I'm not saying the opposite: 'Civilization only advances when men lead.'I think the gender of the leader is irrelevant to the progress of that society. What matters is basic human qualities that all people (W not included) possess to different degrees: compassion, inquisitiveness, respect, etc...

"It is the male sex oppressing us, not merely one isolated group of them." I take extreme offense to this. You seem to be implying that all men are phony 'Christian' preachers, neo-con capitalists, rapists, lawyers lining up to defend it, or violent, vulgar, or popular black rappers! I for one would not fit anywhere near those categories.

Yes, I suppose the world would be a whole lot better if women just killed of all of the men. :sarcasm:

[HamdenRice]

78. Interesting overall idea -- BUT you seem not to know much about Africa

I certainly wouldn't lumb sub-Saharan Africa into that category. Please read Ester Boserup (the mother of feminist anthropology) and Amartya Sen (nobel prize winner in economics who specializes in economics of development and gender).

Both have written extensively about how African societies generally treat women better economically than developing societies of roughly equal development levels in other regions.

In fact, Sen's famous claim about the millions of "missing women" in Asia used sub-Saharan Africa as a statistical baseline for how many women "should be" in Asia if women were treated more equally.

And Boserup poses Africa as almost the opposite of south Asia in terms of women's role in development, calling the sub-Saharan African system as a "female farming system."

Please try to educate yourself on these issues before making blanket false claims and comparisons.

[SoCalDem]

92. I could have been more specific, but the African "Problems"

I referred to were the women who seem to be doing most of the work.. all over Africa, yet get little control over their lives, due to a system that keeps them uneducated (for the most part). Once educated, they actually make real changes to many lives...and in a short amount of time. There was an article just recently about a group of women who had been raped, and were cast out of their village, so they started their own town, and it's prospering to the degree, that other women are gladly joining them..Things that needed to be done for ages, are now happening, because the women can work together well, and once out from under the societal pressure they grew up with, they are flourishing.

I never said I was expert in all things African..and did not mean to offend with false claims or comparisons... I was merely trying to point out the common thread:)

[HamdenRice]

248. The reason women do most of the work ...

is because they own their own farms. They are working for themselves and typically control their land, the crop -- and after harvest, the granaries. This is traditional, and does not apply only to educated women.

Women do most of the work in southeast Asia as well, but the men then own the crop and control the granaries.

The widespread ownership by women of their own fields and crops in West Africa gave rise to the phenomenon of women being the primary marketers of crops -- the famous "market women" of Ghana and Nigeria who constitute powerful economic, social and political forces in those countries, who have brought down governments simply by refusing to feed the cities.

In urban areas of those countries, market women have catipulted their control over the trade in crops to control over the trade in appliances, electronics, etc. In other words, "Crazy Eddies" in Nigeria is more likely to be "Crazy Edwina's." As urban areas have grown, they also predominate as landlords.

Obviously, these societies remain sexist, but how you could lump them together with societies in which women are confined to the home, veiled and not allowed in public, even without being an expert, is utterly beyond me.

[SoCalDem]

256. In the fundamentalist areas of Africa, and where people are constantly

on the run from rebels, women and children often bear the brunt. It's not the women who are hacking each other to death with machetes, and a look at the refugee camps in so many African countries are primarily women and children. There are success stories in Africa, and on a small scale things are changing, but ONE coup can often undo everything that's been gained.. AIDS has also decimated any families in Africa, and a whole new generation of kids are literally raising themselves in some areas. The jury is still out when it comes to how they will turn out, with little or no guidance or education.

There are "success" stories in all cultures, but other than being a moderating element, so far they are still not the norm.

[HamdenRice]

259. A profusion of confusion in your post

First of all, let's try to stick to the specific claim you made that I vehemently disagree with -- namely that the status of women "in Africa" is comparable to the status of women under the Taliban or under radical Islam. This is dead wrong. Women under radical Islam, including under the Taliban are secluded and prevented from engaging in economic or educational activity.

I assume that's what you meant when you wrote, "Cloistered women in locked-down societies can now see that other women are treated better than they are, and they don't like it."

Women in sub-Saharan Africa, that is non-Islamic Africa, are in almost exactly the opposite position. Obviously, women in Africa are oppressed and treated worse than men, but they are not in the same universe as the women of militant, Wahabi Islam.

What women in sub-Saharan Africa are "cloistered" and "locked down"? How can they be, if, in your own opinion, they are doing the majority of the agricultural work? This is why Ester Boserup and Amartya Sen use sub-Saharan Africa as a baseline for understanding the economic oppression of women in south Asia and east Asia. Women in sub-Saharan Africa own, to use Sen's phrase, their own "asset-entitlements," which makes them prime movers in the developmental economy. It also makes them more resiliant to the gender oppression and insults they face -- that is, it's easier to survive gender oppression when you own your own granary and save your own money from trading in yams or mealies.

You also wrote that "Western culture frowns on this , and in order for non-westerners to be accepted, they must stop mistreating women.. They are not willing to do this. They want nothing to do with modernity if it means their women will stop obeying them. Nothing we say or do to them will change their minds...and they ARE willing to kill to preserve THEIR way of life."

Which sub-Saharan African country is so vehemently opposed to women's participation in economics and politics? Which sub-Saharan African country is "willing to kill" to keep their women down? South Africa, with its state of the art constitution on gender? Ghana, with its market women? Botswana? Nigeria? Uganda, which is struggling to further reform its property laws to give wives equal property rights? Kenya? Last I checked these countries all had very powerful women's organizations, from the traditional female initiation societies, all the way up to urban women's organizations.

Your claims about African women have nothing to do with the fact that in many sub-Saharan African countries there is war and instability. War and instability affect all sectors and both genders. I'm not sure whether I would rather be a woman running from soldiers or a forcible recruited (boy) child soldier who is likely to die a miserable death. (Maybe the reason there are women and children in those refugee camps is because so many boys and young men get killed in war.) War is horrible and has nothing to do with the level of gender specific economic and social disability.

AIDS also is a terrible plague undoing decades of economic progress, but last I checked, it was making both men and women sicken and die. Again, raising this has nothing to do with the gender position of women in sub-Saharan Africa.

The real crux of my criticism is this: white people in the west do not deal with the reality of Africa; they deal in images they make up, circulate, pass down and embellish. These images are a melange of everything from Tarzan movies, to out-of-context war-and-refugee film footage, to missionary propoganda about the dark continent, to American female fear of the black rapist, to ... well you get the picture. It is perfectly acceptable to say the most bizarre, counter-factual, unsubstantiated, uninformed, self-contradictory, things about Africa, without the slightest hesitation or concern for reality and truth. You yourself admit you know almost nothing about Africa, but you felt justified to throw Africa in with the Taliban because of your mythology, not because of any factual knowledge. And you expect to get over doing this by obfuscating the whole issue with images (right out of 19th century colonialist imagery) of African's hacking the limbs from "their women."

[3lefts]

79. The OP and the replies to the OP seem to contrast...

What I gathered from the replies is "Men bad. Women good." Simplistic? Yes.

What I gathered from the OP was that militant males will kill to maintain their way of life. The militant males being radical islamists and members of the Taliban. That is, they will kill to ensure that honor killings and arranged marriages remain the status quo, yet that type of behavior is frowned on in Western culture. Which it rightfully should be.

I also cannot understand the leap (or bridge) to what radical islam condones and how Christianity is compared to it. That is, I don't recall any honor killings taking place among Christian men. I also don't know any Christian women who cannot vote, drive or go to school. I agree that some women are slighted as far as equal pay goes, but to compare "western world oppression" to the oppression that is practiced by radical Islam and the Taliban is utterly ridiculous.

[seabeyond]

86. not being in the battle of male/female

it isnt about finding a winner and loser. which is exactly the point. the males now are fighting hard in creating winner loser

there is not a chance in hell i would teach my two sons,.....male bad, women good. oh the silliness of that. it is recognizing the battle of male/female within.........extending it out to the real world

i am aggressive and physical, the mother, with one son the same

my husband is intellectually based, as are the whole family, my oldest son

my oldest is called pussy, wuss, fag, gay..........becasue his maleness doesnt fit the physical aggressive definition of male.

i tell my boys, want to know what a man is, look at your father. your definition of a man.

but it is not the picture painted by john waynes, one of his quotes, mever apologize, never explain....that is a showing weakness.

that is not the definition of male.

it is my sons to recognize, embrace their male in love and honor

it is the same for the female.

we have the choice. this is not a battle. enough with the damn battles, it is the honoring,...........ergo creating a win win

my husband has no desire for my power. he doesnt want to do me. he trusts i will do me better than he can. besides, he wants to do himself. the same is given to husband.

it is not a power over another

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Actually, honor killings have been treated very leniently in Latin

countries.

Forty years ago, when divorce was illegal in Italy, there was even a movie on this subject called Divorce Italian Style. The plot concerns an unhappily married man who finds that he can't get a divorce no matter what but that if he kills his wife for adultery, he'll just get a couple of years in prison. So he tries to find a lover for his wife to be "caught" with.

Oh, and Switzerland didn't let women vote until just recently, of all the curious facts.

You're right. We do have it better than women in other cultures, but within recent history, things were much worse. There was no higher education for women anywhere in the world until the 1830s, two hundred years after Harvard was founded.

[SoCalDem]

99. Radical christianity DOES dominate women..but they do it in

subtle ways. The Taliban and their ilk do not do subtle, but westerners do.

We do it by degrees and often through coersion, so lots of women actually buy into it.. Look up Eagle Forum on Google and read what they believe. These organizations are an integral part of how the fundaentalists in charge now would like to see women of the future.
PromiseKeepers is another high profile group that gathers thousands of en together to help them "cope" with being good fathers and husbands. Every time I see them, I think..."Why not just go to your WIFE and promise HER to be a better person?"..The fact that they feel driven to profess so publicly what should just be an everyday, ho-hum issue, bothers me.. It seems like just another competition to show other men how good "they" are..:)

[mom cat]

131. The inquisition was not that subtle!

[SoCalDem]

134. Well.. there's "modern" and then there's "modern"

:evilgrin:

[mom cat]

128. Not that long ago, "witches" were burned near where I live. I have spent

most of my adult life working with victims of violence.The violent streak in this country should never be minimized...even by comparing it to worse situations.

[Tsiyu]

80. Great Post to Ponder

It's so difficult to put the entire problem into words.

On the one hand, we have a history on this planet of violent, weapons-bearing cultures anhilating non-violent, non-patriarchal cultures.
The non-violent DNA - ala Natural Selection - took a procreative nose dive. No doubt most of us bear the DNA of the more violent tribes, as they lived to produce more offspring and, well, here we are.

What this means is that we have more of the more violent cultural and physical data to study. This study brings us no closer to a scientific or truthful study of human behavior, because the sample has been skewed with the introduction of tools with which to practice genocide. It may very well be that, biologically speaking, humans would function best under either matriarchal systems or more egalitarian systems than those currently in greatest practice on our planet.

We will only know this when more of these cultural systems begin operating and the members who choose these non-patriarchal systems pass on their DNA.

Not likely any time soon, I realize, but I reject religious or scientific justification for the tendency of modern man to be misogynistic. Religious texts - like history - are written by the victors, and they aren't always the most noble, peace-loving souls.

Science studies only the victors, failing to ask this important question:

If a human cultural action or actions cause a decline in human mortality ( the measure of a society's "success or failure" as a biological entity ) how can this be considered "normal" in biology?

For example, saying that "it is a biological urge for a man to breed with dozens of women" ignores the biological fallout of that decision. Many of the infants and their mothers in this scenario will die of poverty and starvation, children will compete with each other for resources and attention, causing an increase in crime and violence, sexually transmitted diseases will increase - possibly rendering the entire female group sterile, mothers will compete for resources, male offspring will be cast out at a young age to form "bachelor bands" of hungry criminals, the male will be pulling his hair out and end up mumbling alone in a cave somewhere.

This is just one example of following a "theory" to its logical conclusion. If it isn't productive or benign behavior to the group at large over the long haul, it makes no biological sense and cannot be deemed "normal" behavior.

No one gets my point, I'm sure, but I damn well try anyway.

:eyes:

[Darwins Finch]

90. Understood

I understand your post, and I hope this doesn't sound flippant, but some of what you are saying comes down to definitions of terms.

For example, when you say this:

What this means is that we have more of the more violent cultural and physical data to study. This study brings us no closer to a scientific or truthful study of human behavior, because the sample has been skewed with the introduction of tools with which to practice genocide. It may very well be that, biologically speaking, humans would function best under either matriarchal systems or more egalitarian systems than those currently in greatest practice on our planet.

There are a couple tacit assumptions there which need to be addressed.

First, science deals with the current available data, and the means by which this data becomes available. It doesn't involve itself with the moral propriety of the data. So the fact that violent cultures are generally more successful is in itself scientifically useful information. It doesn't slant the resultant data, but actually forms a part of that dataset.

As for the other part, the determination of how "humans would function best" requires a definition of the optimal circumstance, which is largely outside the concerns of science. You could apply some quantitative measures, such as "under what conditions do you get maximum population with minimum illness and genetic damage", but quality-of-life measures, such as individual happiness or societal level of freedom, are outside of empirical measure.

To reiterate, I understand what you are saying, and agree that these would be useful things to know. But much of it falls outside of science and into sociology and anthropology. Which I why I try to temper my scientific arguments with the understanding that they only form a part of the picture. :)

[mom cat]

137. Are dominator cultures "more successful" or are they just in power until

there is nothing left to destroy. I do not think that a culture that is poisoning it's planet out of existence is any kind of biological success. The "scientific fact is that the dominator system is destroying life at an ever increasing rate.

[Darwins Finch]

154. Very true

"Success" can be measured many ways as well. The current ubiquity of humankind throughout nearly all environs could be viewed as a success, biologically. But as you point out, it could just as easily turn into a colossal failure over the slightly longer haul.

I'm sure you've heard that the dinosaurs prospered far longer than we have, and were just as much masters of their world as we are of ours. Biologically speaking, they were a greater success than us to date. But they're still extinct. :)

[mom cat]

164. By the way, welcome to DU! You are a good addition around here!

:hi:
I hope we don't join the dinos in the annals of the has beens, but we seem to be charging headlong off the cliff and giving it the gas for good measure

[Darwins Finch]

210. Thanks!

And I agree that we're speeding towards something, alright. But I have faith that if we don't address the issues ourselves, nature will once again step in and make our choices for us.

We may have our foot all the way down on the pedal, but real world concerns like peak oil will take away the gas. :)

[bloom]

91. I think I got it

I've been thinking quite a bit about sustainability and societal collapse after reading Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse".

One thing I liked about it was getting a history of quite a few societies based on what they ate based on what was available and what resources were destroyed or saved - based on archaeological records. Instead of looking at history being a matter of who conquered the most - thinking of it as what societies survived and why. And it wasn't all about killing their neighbors - often it was about trading with them and maintaining good relationships.

I think our world needs a broader perspective.

[mom cat]

135. You are right. The current systen is doomed to fail .

[SoCalDem]

203. I got your point..

and when we consider how the more educated one is, the fewer offspring, it gets scary.. If only the uneducated downtrodden reproduce in great numbers, it does not bode well for us:scared:

83. women and men

I don't think it is women good, men bad. It is about how societies operate and do things. Anyway when I made the association in my mind of the terrorist acts in London and the broader issue of female repression, it was just an intuitive leap and not analytical. I know a lot of women must love the warrior idea of Bush and Bin Laden, what a thrill or something like that. It surely isn't sweet love that is driving those two.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Greylyn58]

88. Very thought provoking post

I think everything you said is right on the mark.

One of the many things I despise about the current mess we are in, is *Bush and his crowd trying to sell that we are in this to free the women of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think we need to free the women of the US before trying to do that in another country. Right now--in the US--this administration is:

1)Trying to take away a woman's right to chose, to decide what we can and can't do with our own body.

2)Refusing to take action when individual Pharmacists around this country(under the heading of religious morals)refuse to fill prescriptions for birth-control pills. Yet have no problem filling Viagra prescriptions and other similar medicines.

3)Women are still not paid equal pay for doing the very same job that a man does.

4)We are abused, raped, murdered, and while there are laws on the books to protect us, most of them aren't strong enough to help us. We are still treated like property by some men.

That's just a small bit of the things that are going on in the US right now. And if the pResident and his fundie base have their way, women won't be seen outside the home except to buy food, clothing, and pick up the kids.

Let's face it, if men had to endure what a women endures on a monthly basis--the cramps, the blood, the mood swings and then after carrying a child for 9 months, the pain of child-birth. There would be all kinds of great medicines to rid us of the pain, take care of the blood and the right to a safe abortion would be an unbreakable law.

They fear us. They fear our strength, our power.

Plain and simple.

[bloom]

94. I wonder if they see

women choosing not to procreate as a threat to their empire. Like how can they have the biggest, baddest empire if the women stopped having children. Then some other country would win the empire war - one with more children to take over next.

[BrklynLiberal]

167. If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Der Blaue Engel]

93. Excellent thread

Bookmarked it.

I'm really pleased to see so many thought-provoking, intelligent responses here. I was half afraid to open the thread, thinking a huge argument would ensue. (Must have forgotten where I was...was I expecting freeperville??)

Reading all of these responses has reminded me why I left fundamentalist xianity and became an athiestic pagan.

I've been falling into a trap lately of forgetting what's really going on in the world and getting stuck in fatalistic thinking. Thanks for reminding me! :)

[SoCalDem]

102. I was a bit afraid to open it this am too.. I was hoping that people

would approach it in an analytical way, and my fellow DUers did exactly that.. This is NOT a woman vs man issue.. It's about control of the majority ...how it's done, and possibly why..

[ClintonTyree]

95. Hey, don't forget our own "very christian men"...............

that don't give a rat's ass how women are treated either. Women are the "lesser vessel" according to the bible, and these strict fundamentalists don't want women to have equal rights either.
Pregnant and barefoot, in the kitchen baking bread. THAT'S a woman's place, by god!
Before people start climbing up my back, I'm aware that ALL Christians do not think this way. Real Christians, I don't have any problem with. Just the bush supporting, Talibornagains who take every word of the bible literally.. We needn't look to Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Africa etc. to find these women haters, they live among us.
There's still a lot of work to be done in our own country, but yes, we have to make those other countries aware that equality is the ONLY way to have a free society.

[fberknm]

109. Killing someone IS different from paying her a lower wage

Although some in the posts on this thread want to pretend that there is little, if any, difference in the treatment of women by fundamental and conservative Christians and Muslims, this is a grossly inaccurate implication.

If we look at the history of female treatment and roles in more traditional Christian based societies, we would need to go back 1000 years before we get to the treatment that we see of females today in traditional Muslim societies. Think back 350 years and the time that the female was given the scarlet A for adultery. Today women are murdered in traditional Muslim societies for such behavior.

The problem with claiming a close link is that it implicates the writer and when more prominent progressives who have a larger voice offer such statements, conservatives are given ammunition in their fight to dismiss all progressive voices.

The more accurate statement is that the treatment of the oppressed runs on a scale and for most societies, the oppressed have moved forward over the past 1000 years. This is the case with women. However, in traditional Muslim societies, women are still in virtual slavery to the males in their families, be it a father, older brother, or husband.

[bloom]

126. From what I have heard

the fairly secular Iraq before Gulf 1 and other Middle East countries were societies where it was common for women to be doctors and scholars and other professionals.

So it doesn't seem like the society as much as the fundamental movements that are the problem - like the OP suggested.

[SoCalDem]

133. You got it.. It's the radical elements of the religious "leaders"

We see it right here in the USA..We see it with almost any cultHow many cults have been exposed, and one of the tenets of their "faith" is that the leader(s) get to have sex with any of the girls and women?..and if the women DO leave, they ust leavde their children behind??

Perverted faith that seeks to dominate women, and keep them from becoming "whole" people is a common thread in most of the radical fiundamentalist 'faiths'..regardless of the place (or time)

[cally]

177. Rent a movie called the Killing Times

It was on PBS a few years ago. It talks about the burning of the 'witches' in Europe by 'Christians'. I saw it a few years ago but I think this occured in about 1300. One quarter of all women were murdered. It was to get rid of the old religions.

[fberknm]

106. It is "A" measure of society

Would it not be great if we could boil down the value of a society based solely on its treatment of women? History and politics would be so much easier to contemplate! It is of course not "the" measure of society.

It is "A" measure of society and likely tracks many other elements of the society. This is a more a-theoretical statement than one based on a fundamental theory of reasoning and behavior.

A more accurate and more general statement is one made by John Rawls in "Justice" when he built a model in which the value of a society was to be evaluated not by the relationship between the haves and have nots. The difference between those at the top of the economic ladder and those at the bottom was irrelevant. The real metric to be used was simply an absolute evaluation of the living standards of those at the bottom. The relevance to this discussion is that an analysis of womens' roles and the treatment they receive is an extension of the model that states that a society is measured by its treatment of its lowest ranked members. In terms of gender roles, females are still ranked lower today than are men, gender still matters to alot of people.

[spooky3]

111. The most amazing thing about this thread is that there are no

deleted posts. Can it be that the community of DU is evolving to the point where different observations and points of view re: gender, feminism, and related topics can be discussed without some sexist insisting on ruining things?

I hope so.

[SoCalDem]

114. See.. It IS possible to discuss, without trashing other people

THAT ability is what is lacking at 1600 Pennsylvania and all over the world right now..
Everyone who had ever had a Mom or has BEEN a Mom knows that in every culture, Mothers try to get their children to share, and to be nice to others..

That philosophy would solve so any of our problems right now..

The poor old world seems to be in ..'You want it, TAKE it..mode":(

[noiretextatique]

112. anti-abortion movement

is an example of this mindset in america. the goal of the movement: to control women.

[Ysolde]

115. Great post!

And, what wonderful and thoughtful responses. I really do enjoy DU! So glad that people can discuss this issue thoughtfully and from a multitude of viewpoints.

This is exactly what my husband and I have been saying for a long time! It's also why I've stopped tolerating the Fundies in my family. My daughter will not be turned into a second class citizen by anybody! But, it is what I fear the most -- from the insidious repression of my youth to more obvious means that seem in vogue. And, what I still don't understand, and probably never will, is how any mother could agree to/want/promote this repression for their daughters (or others' daughters)? How did so many of us become masochistic/sadistic (even if only in a passive-aggressive way)?

[manic expression]

116. A few things...

You should be less exclusive with fair treatment of women, it is not a western phenomenon. Native Americans (Iroquois) gave women leadership by DEFAULT. India and (ancient) Egypt treated women much better than any other civilization. India still treats women *pretty* well compared to their economic counterparts (Middle East, China, Africa).

I do object that the reason the world hates us is because we treat women well. I went to El Salvador a few weeks ago, and even though the girls with our group were not nearly as conservative as they're used to, we got the warmest reception and friendly treatment I've experienced (the Latino guys were pretty interested in our girls, too!). When American soldiers go into an Iraqi house and *push* a woman, it is considered very disrespectful, and this kind of thing fuels anti-US sentiments in that region, so in this case, it is the opposite of what you say. Actually conditions for women have deteriorated TREMENDOUSLY since our invasion. Iraq, for the most part, treated women very well until the Iraq-Iran war, when religious extremism was evoked to get support. Our invasion has undone all this and brought women to a state of fear, oppression and injustice.

You need to consider MANY more things before making such a statement. However, I do agree with the jist of it.

[SoCalDem]

118. Mea culpa.. It was late..my brain missed some stuff..

I did not intend to convey the message that I think things are great here "because" we treat women so well..just that the control of women seems to be a common thread with militant societies who are willing to kill anyone who dares to "go another way".. I don't think WE (westerners) are actually even trying all that hard to make lives better for women around the world.. (we give it lipservice)but the PERCEPTION that there are societies all over that fear epowerment for their women SO much..they will destroy theselves (and others) to prevent it.

They bolster their "arguments" with protestations of their "faith", yet in so many of their societies, women are not even allowed to worship WITH them, but must be shunted aside, lest the contaminate the en or is it because they ight be hearing different messages??

I don't know..

[manic expression]

129. Yeah, that might be true

but remember that the worst nations with respect to women's rights -- Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others are supported by the US.

It scares me that girls growing up today are so willing to lessen their rights (in regards with abortion). Girls in my high school really think that they should give up control of the bodies, when they should become infuriated if a person even dares to suggest that they do so.

I can't say what contributes to the treatment of women, as every culture has its ups and downs in this regard. It must be the relative time and events which molds the mindsets of the people.

What do you think the reasons for women's conditions for a certain society are? I really can't say, except for the fact that societies can change their respect of women quite quickly.

Also, do you know who Phoolan Devi is? I think you'd find her pretty interesting.

[SoCalDem]

136. I will google Devi.. thanks.. I do think that women are sometimes

too ready to give things up too.. I have seen many young women bail on their friends, the minute they get a boyfriend..and stay with a guy who is obviously bad for them.. Advertising has done a number on us, I fear.. Common wisdom would have us believe, that unless we are "desired and part of a couple" we are nothing.. and that we must do whatever it takes to maintain that "couple-dom"..Are men's magazines full of articles about how to "Hold onto their woman"?? :evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

125. False Statement. Men Fear Women Because They THINK Zero Sum Gain

"...they fear the rise of women, because it means they will lose power."

This statement is false.

The reality is that men fear women because they think of terms of dualism and zero sum gain.

They BELIEVE that women's gaining power somehow lessens their own.

But they are mistaken.

There is an infinite amount of "power" in the Universe.

Enough for all.

Otherwise, I agree with what you've pointed out. :)

[SoCalDem]

127. Try convincing the oppressors

They think that any power gained by another is an automatic lessening of their own:(

[KittyWampus]

132. Exactly, Thus Betraying Their Own Spiritual Traditions. Since ALL Faiths

recognize an "All Power" open to whomever is receptive.

Dualism.

Symbolized by Male/Female.

Not like two sides to a coin.

One side forced into never landing "heads".

[elshiva]

202. AMEN!

130. treatment of women

and while on the subject of repression of women, just a browse through the other thread on "Scotty's bad brief", the phrase whore is used several times. Of course there is no word for a male whore.

wouldn't it be nice if everything were clear and no shades of gray, probably not. We have to muddle through.

[SoCalDem]

138. The coarsening of society permits many things now that never would

have gone unnoticed before.. Have you ever read letters from long ago? Occasionally I stuble onto sites where historical stuff is hosted.. Reading letters written long ago, point out in glaring detail, how coarse we have all become..

I have no solution..just comment:)

Remember wehn "Louie Louie" was the worst thing ever?? Not all that long ago

[bloom]

140. One thing that is good, though

in music (like so many areas), is how many women are out there recording.

I was thinking about this yesterday when I was driving in the middle of nowhere and listening to an oldies - 60s-70s station.

The songs were all written from the man's POV and I was thinking how it wasn't mine.

[SoCalDem]

142. and even the ones that were by women were about the boyfriend

My Boyfriend's Back
Soldier Boy
The Leader of the Pack
Marry e Bill

etc..

But then I guess most music is about the opposite sex :)

[spooky3]

139. Maybe we should start saying "s/he's a media Garvin"

after "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute", a character portrayed by Dan Aykroyd on the old SNLs.

[mistertrickster]

148. Well, yes and no . . . of course Islamic fundamentalists like fundies

everywhere want to keep women "in their place," but that's not why they flew planes into buildings.

They did that for the very simple reason of the US stationing troops on Saudi soil in Gulf War I and not removing them like they said they would.

[SoCalDem]

151. BUT.. the underlying reason they did not want our bases there

was because of a fundamental hatred for our society and our culture. They feared the US having too close of a relationship in a country that THEY were (and are) actively trying to convert back to their radical thinking. SA is infamous in their ill-treatment of women, but the fundamentalists want even MORE distance between modern/western and their brand of Islam..

[mistertrickster]

155. Sorry, no. See this is why I never felt comfortable with mainstream

feminism in this country, even though I basically agree with it--it reduces everything to gender issues. It becomes dogma, and when people start thinking in dogmatic terms (as Saul Alinsky pointed out), something human in them dies.

Osama bin Laden and the Islamic militants said that their biggest grievance against the House of Al-Saud was that it allowed occupation by the "Crusader forces in the land of the two holy places." This is the worst kind of anathema to Islamic fundamentalists, non-Muslims controlling the center of Islam and all its holy shrines.

When it attacked the US on 9-11, Al Qaeda was really attacking the only people that matter to them, the rulers of Arabia (the House of Al-Saud). Yes, they hate us for supporting Israel, for modern science with its implications for atheism, for "western culture" including women's equality.

But that's not what initially motivated them to commit terrorist acts against us, for in the long run, we non-Muslims (those of us who are non-Muslims anyway) aren't even a concern to people like Osama bin Laden, anymore than a Hottentot is to an Amishman.

What motivated them was the presence of non-Islamic troops in Arabia.

If they really hated "women's equality" so much, they would have attacked New Zealand.

Likewise, they didn't fight against the Soviets until the Soviets invaded the Islamic country of Afghanistan. I suspect that the Soviets were about as supportive of women's rights before they invaded Afghanistan as after, yet Al Qaeda didn't rise against them until the invasion.

[bloom]

199. Well I think that feminism does not cause anything to die in me

nor is everything reduced to gender issues. Although feminism may be a bit more significant to me than to you.

I see the Middle East conflict as quite complex with multiple factors. Not the least of which has been the Palestinian situation, oil, and the PNAC desire to assert their dominance while they can. Of course there could be something gender related in that motivation.

There is also the fundamentalists against fundamentalists phenomenon.

And then there is the role of the corporations/multinationals and their values or lack thereof.

And there is an absence of consideration of human value - esp. of people who are "different". There is a lack of a sense that the world is connected - even with globalization. There is no consideration of cooperation or conservation of resources.

I think religion has two sides - esp. Christianity and I'm guessing Islam does as well. The loving/cooperative side and the militant/aggressive side. So aggression is encouraged and cooperation is held up as the ideal. Quite the yin/yang kind of thing. People identify with the "good" side while they blow their enemy up. Both Christians and Muslims are doing this. I don't see one as better than the other. And I don't either side considering what is best for the planet and civilization as a whole.

[zippy890]

153. Wonderful thread - we're on to something here

and although the ideas and thoughts expressed above may not be new ones, to many women and men who have not lived through the women's movement of the 60's they are newly discovered.

I've learned some new things about women and history myself - and always welcome are scientific as well as philosophical ideas.


I would point out this issue of women as property, it has not been that long ago in this country that the legal status of women was defined by their marital status, and as chattel could not enter into contracts independent of their husband.

Good points about the backwards influence of some religions and religious institutions, to keep women from controlling their own lives.

One of the best inventions of the 20th century was the birth cintrol pill and the availability of reproductive rights - it changed our lives profoundly.

We will not go backwards to ignorance, and I would like to see our sisters on other countries free, but it is not the right way to aggressively force things on another society. The women of the radical Muslim societies have a long hard battle ahead of them.

to all of you,

thanks for your thoughts here, how about we all run for office, hey?
:)

[SoCalDem]

158. As recently as the early 20th century,

children were routinely awarded to the fathers if a woman was bold enough to divorce her husband..and if the husband died, his property often went to his male kin...not to the widow.. It was presumed to be "family" property, and his wife was not technically "family".. The thought was that she migth remarry, and the property would leave the family, through her new husband.

[BrklynLiberal]

162. Isn't amazng that women could not vote in the US until this century, and

when "the pill" was first developed, it could not be prescribed for single women??!!!

[SoCalDem]

163. I had to sign a paper stating that I was married to get them

and when I applied for a job in 1970, personnel asked what kind of birth control we used, and if I planned on having children..and when..:eyes:

I was so dumbfounded, I answered:)

[BrklynLiberal]

156. Wow! SoCalDem... Front Page!! Congrats!!!

I am proud of whatever small part I may have played in helping get this thread to the front page. It sure deserves the discussion and attention.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

160. and no deletes.. People are actually discussing and not "dissing"

:) Thanks

[BrklynLiberal]

180. An interestng resource. Lots of info for those who care to check it out.

Women's rights around the world is an important indicator of understanding global well-being. Many may think that women's rights is only an issue in countries where religion is law, such as many Muslim countries. Or even worse, some people may not think this is no longer an issue at all. But reading this report about the United Nation's Women's Treaty and how an increasing number of countries are lodging reservations, will show otherwise.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/WomensRights.asp

[noiretextatique]

181. women good, men bad

:eyes: is how some have reduced your argument.
and i would like to ask: how is this possible? how is it that there can be no discussion about a reality (the status of women around the world) without defensive, absurd reductions? same with race. same with class.
i am heartened by the fact that there is a good discussion going on here, but this tendency is beyond annoying.
an italian professor once told me that the divisions between northrn and southern italians is called racism in italy. he went on to say that the word (racism) had become such a catalyst for defensive stances, that he preferred to use the term "dominate white male cultural paradigm" instead, or "dominant male cultural paradigm."
i like to use these terms to avoid the inevitiable defensiveness that crops up in threads like this one. it gives people some else to identify with...other than male, or white, or whatever.

[SoCalDem]

186. Most people have not, but I guess it's bound to happen

In oppressed societies where men totally dominate women, is IS a man vs woman issue, but the CAUSE of that line of thinking is what I am ore interested in considering....and it's only an issue because men have ALL the power in those societies.

Every one of those dominators was raised by a woman, fed by a woman, and loved first, by a woman. What makes them end up the way their religion tells them is the problem here..


Even in Iraq, where women did have some freedoms during Saddam's regime, they certainly lost it in a hurry. Were their freedoms before just an oversight, or out of necessity because there were not enough men to do those jobs, or was it not-so-benign neglect on Saddam's behalf? Did those women learn to keep just low enough of a profile so that they could hold jobs and live lives outside their own homes?

Were they embraced, or just tolerated because the men in their lives feared repercussions from Saddam if they focused attention on themselves..?

Saddam fancied himself "a man of the world", and his secular nation, and the women's "rights" he allowed may have been his way to try and convince himself that he was a beloved and fair leader. The Islamic fervor and Sharia Law was festering just under the scab, but Saddam held it in check. The invasion "picked that scab", and it's not surprising that women have gone back "underground".. Look at any street scene.. where are they??

[noiretextatique]

190. as someone told me recently

when someone posted a thread about the need for feminism in america...
"modern" men are different than those awful men of the past, or the ones who aren't "modern" in other countries. if the beast is to be defeated, it has to be seen for what it is right here. and the female collaborators are the best argument to counter the women, good...men, bad meme. it's not always about gender, not even in other places, but it is always about culture...and power.
i think hussein was a modern and practical man, who knew very well what forces could come to power in iraq. as to how it all happened...recall "the handmaiden's tale?" if your assets are frozen, you aren't allowed to work (or drive), and your very being is threatened by doing the things you once considered normal, it's not that surprising that you don't see women in those photos.

[SoCalDem]

193. A friend of mine went to school in Beirut during the 60's

That was when it was referred to a "The Riviera of the Middle east"..and even then, she felt ostracized and once was actually shot in the leg by a man who openly shot her in the leg with an air pistol, as his friends looked on and laughed.. her crime? She was a 15 yr old American girl in a short skirt.. and this was BEFORE the clampdown and Hezbollah and all that followed.. She was petrified, and soon afetr, her parents sent her to the Sorbonne..(Her Dad was a getty Oil exec in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and those societies were getting too scary for her to wander around in..) They sent her to Beirut with a "nanny" and set them up in an apartment..They only lasted a few months there as "unattended" women..

[cassandra99]

205. Beirut in the 60's

I was there in the 60's, too.

Your friend was most likely harassed more because of her nationality than because of her gender. I have never experienced harassment from men in Lebanon. Never. The presence of US multi-national corporations was overwhelming in Beirut before the Israelis began the 1967 war. The Sixth Fleet sat their fat asses in the Beirut harbor from 1956 on. American military roamed the streets in their usual ignorant, racist manner.

She was being told rather emphatically that American domination was not welcome. For one thing, the Americans were keeping the status quo in place--a political status quo that gave 10% of the population most of the power and disenfranchised at least 80% of the population. Daily Palestinian refugees streamed over the border, escaping the terrorism of the Israeli government, which we supported and armed and protected.

In similar circumstances, how many American men would leave a spoiled rich girl from the invader and rapist's country alone?

The only thing to fear in Iran during the 60's was the CIA, SAVAK and Mossad. And she would not have been alone in that. In fact, she would have been protected from harm, whereas your typical Iranian 15-year-old girl was not.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[noiretextatique]

219. an italian, male facist has a shot of being president

and a female fascist has a better shot at being president than any other woman...margaret thatcher is a good example. stereotypes of italian people are just as damaging, and stupid as stereotypes of others.
btw, your experience with dating jewish women has nothing to do with the treatment of women in afghanistan, of the status of women as second-class citizens in many cultures.
individuals are shitty to each other, for a variety of stupid reasons. my discussion was more about how to stop identifying with cultural mindsets that treat whole classes of people shitty. to that extent, stereotypes about italians is a part of that problem. however, i know you aren't equating the experience of not being able to date someone with the experience of getting stoned to death for going out on the street without a man...are you?
while it is true that "we" are all victimized by the dominant cultural paradigm, it is also true that some are more victimized than others.

[BrklynLiberal]

182. The Payoff From Women's Rights:Gender equality is sound economics.

Summary: Backing women's rights in developing countries isn't just good ethics; it's also sound economics. Growth and living standards get a dramatic boost when women are given just a bit more education, political clout, and economic opportunity. So the United States should aggressively promote women's rights abroad. And by couching its case in economic terms, it might even overcome the resistance of conservative Muslim countries that have long balked at gender equality.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83308/isobel-coleman/the-payoff-from-women-s-rights.html

[SoCalDem]

189. Eaxctly what scares the crap out of the Taliban/Radical Islamic etc

men.. and I single out men, because they have the power..not because they are men..

Chaotic economies make wars easier to sell..The ones in charge do not lack for money, even in the worst of times..

If the ones in control of governments hold those strident views, no matter how much aid is sent, it will NOT reach the women and girls..

There has to be a better way to go around the traditional methods.. and it must be sooner rather than later.

[bettyellen]

198. wow, kick.

[cassandra99]

204. It's about political hegemony and oil--not women

It ain't about women and to try to make it about women is to engage in racism. I am a Western woman born and bred in the Middle East. I never feared for my life, as a woman, until I came to the U.S. and learned what can happen to women here in their own homes or even jogging in the park at noon. You will have a very hard time convincing me that women have it "better" here. Twenty-five percent of us can't get out of poverty, for pity sake. One out of four of us will be raped some time before we die. Half of all mothers in the U.S. spend some time raising their children alone--usually on their own dime, which is roughly six cents. Only one in ten absent fathers pay child support. You think this is "better"??? On what planet?

Women's rights in American are not women's right in other countries. Women in Islamic countries had the right to divorce their husbands LONG before women in the West did. They had the right to own property LONG before women in the West. In several Middle Eastern countries, women comprise a far larger percentage of elected officials than they do in the USofA today. Pre-invasion Iraq was one of those countries. Kindly try to see your own ethnocentrism. That is the middle class term for racism.

I am very tired of hearing Westerners pontificate about how women are better off here than anywhere else in the world. How on earth would you know? This is akin to Americans WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN OUTSIDE THIS COUNTRY stating, with great authority, that this is the greatest country on earth. How on earth would they know?

There are pros and cons to being a woman in any society. American women do not know the degree to which they are not free. Women in the Middle East may wear the veil or dress more conservatively than in the West. But women in the West wear a psychological veil. They wear it from the moment they are born. It is so much a part of their psyche that most of them cannot even imagine life without it. Most American women cannot even see the psychological shackles they wear. Give me a piece of gauze any day. In many ways, a woman in a chador has much greater freedom than any American woman. If you haven't lived it, you just do not know.

First of all, all this "terrorism" is not what it appears. Much of it is funded, conceived, and manipulated by Western intelligence services. You can include in that 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali, Mombasa, Kenya. You can also include many of the kidnappings and assassinations in Iraq, including the highly celebrated beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Thank you CIA, Wolf Brigade, Mossad, and the National Security Council's secret Special Operations unit. Oh, yes. We in the West are SO much more advanced than those in the Middle East! THEY are barbaric, and WE are so civilized!

Women are being raped regularly in Iraq. By Americans. That's how advanced this society is. American liberation in action.

The effects of our many underhanded, cold-blooded secret operations in the Middle East certainly do not endear us to many. But before you can figure out exactly what is true terrorism and what is psyops, the whole lid on these secret psyops assassinations, tortures, abductions, etc. must be opened.

And who in the Democratic party is civilized enough to do that? Who in the United States is civilized (or free) enough to tell the truth about what is REALLY going on? None of us. We are all shackled by a neo-con/Zionist lobby that has us running with our tails between our legs. So what if those legs are bare? I could care less what clothing women wear on their bodies. At least women in the Middle East are free to speak their minds. American women most definitely are not.

Please stop falling for the official line. How many times will you be manipulated? How many times can you remain a "virgin"? Honestly. This is not junior high.

[noiretextatique]

220. american women do wear veils

but i think it's equally absurd to claim everything is just peachy with all women in the middle east, and elsewhere. i agree with you that americans have this belief in the superiority of their culture, and the inferiority of other cultures, but i absolutely believe women need to connect with each other globally. the rights of women is often something that americans as will to "trade" for oil, dominance, power and control.

[SoCalDem]

232. All mothers everywhere want the same things for their kids

No mother ever gave birth to a son, and looked into his eyes and said.. "Iwant you to grow up to be a suicide bomber"..

Every mother gazes into her newborn's eyes, and 'plans his/her future'..

It's always about :

a safe place to live
enough food
education
happiness
a healthy life

THAT's universal...no matter the culture, the eon, the race

Fathers of newborns want the same for their offsrping.. They want and expect a better life for them...Perhaps as the child grows, and suffers, it changes the psyches of these people who see no hope for their own young, as the young in other cultures, thrive. :shrug:..

aybe the mothers are too busy with a succession of children (in hopes that some may survive) to be very militant about it..and probably lack any societal status to actually do anything anyway.. But the fathers can..and maybe that's what's driving their hatred.. Perhaps they feel deep down that they should be able to protect their family, and since they cannot, their anger and frustration erupts into dangerous rage... :shrug:..

Smarter people than I will have to figure this one out.. but they better get their shit together soon..:)

[noiretextatique]

233. the disconnect between the people and their governments

make those simple parental desires impossible sometimes. i can't imagine a parent who wants her child to die in iraq...not an american parent, and not an iraqi parent. but bush, inc wants american and iraqi sons and daughters to die. in america some, in their ignorant selfishness, believe iraqi lives don't matter as long as they can continue to drive SUVs filled with cheap gas. in iraq, i am sure some would love to crush america (probably a whole lot more now).
to whom much is given, much is expected...as we know, bush, inc is not interested in that moderating notion, just the acquisition of more power by the use of force.

[SoCalDem]

234. That's precisely why I think TV

and the PR machine has brought these issues to a boil.. In past times, oppressed people suffered in silence (out of sight-out of mind)..but if you look closely at the hovels of poor people worldwide.. You will see satellite dishes and antennae..They can now SEE the excesses of the western world for themselves..

Can you even imagine what they must be making of Paris Hilton, Brittney whatever-her-name-is-now...and JLo...and of the HUGE houses that tv-land says we all live in ..and the massive cars we drive....

AlJazeera in the middle east has also added cultural context to our excesses... Are they that different from Fox?? Fox is a ready platform for and religious rightwing zealot who wants to pontificate..

hoo boy..

[noiretextatique]

235. paris hilton = corruption

i would imagine...that might be the only point of reference for some people. i'm not sure aljazeera is the equivalent of faux, but i think your point is valid. the excesses of the western world is what people are seeing, not parents simply trying to do the best for their children. not someone like andy, who was hounded and harrassed as he lay fighting for his life. and they see faux...with its blowhard extremists doing the ugly american thing to the hilt.
hoo boy is right :hi:

[newswolf56]

207. But I am troubled by one thing. Having at last had time to read...

...this whole astonishing thread -- I was obligated to do some "real" work today even as I was posting and responding -- I note there are a few posters who reject as absurd the notion that radical Islam and Dominionist Christianity are equally oppressive, and others who seem to think this entire marvelous discussion can be reduced to a recitation of "man bad/woman good" feminist dogmatism.

With all due respect, I would gently urge such critics to please read more thoughtfully and carefully.

Those who doubt the incipient violence of Dominionist Christianity -- which explicitly calls for the resumption (in modern America) of the Old Testament practices of witch-burning and the stoning-to-death of adulteresses and "abominations" (i.e., gays, lesbians and pagans) -- may go to any one of several links to discover the dread truth of these terrifying assertions. The most informative links are available by Googling "dominionist christianity"; diligent reading will reveal that it is no exaggeration whatsoever to compare our own homegrown Christofascists with the Taliban: the only difference is that we at present have a legal system in place that presumably protects us from such horrors. Once that system is overthrown -- and that is precisely the Dominionists' intent -- we would be no different from Talabanic Afghanistan or theocratic Iran, with women, sexual minorities and "heretics" savaged accordingly.

Moreover it is clear to me that the "bad" singled out on this wonderful thread is not maleness per se but patriarchy, maleness run amok -- a male supremacist ideology that, in its drive to escape what its religions describe as "sin" and its secular scientists call "human limitations" -- has ironically evolved into a doomsday machine. Semiotically speaking, patriarchy's ultimate symbols are thermonuclear weapons (the macrocosm) and the suicide bomber (the microcosm). The focus of this thread was not simply the depredations of the "bad" male but rather (1) how such depredations were elevated to cultural supremacy (chiefly via the triumphs of Yehevistic religion and its atheistic/mechanistic offspring) and (2) how the now-inherent tendency toward these depredations might best be counteracted -- the ultimate goal being the preservation of not merely the human species but the planetary ecosystem -- Mother Gaea. By analogy, this thread was thus akin to a discussion of German history (by Germans themselves) in which the lead questions were (1) how did Nazism succeed in what was then the most civilized (best educated, healthiest, most technologically advanced etc.) nation on the planet and (2) what might be done to prevent Nazism from ever happening again. Surely not a recitation of sloganisms -- "Germans bad/allies good" or "man bad/woman good" -- but instead precisely the sort of open-minded, open-hearted, receptive-spirit dialogue that may yet enable us to save ourselves. In my short time here, not only the very best of DU but a strong suggestion of precisely the infinite promise this site seems to offer: indeed I feel truly blessed to have been one of the participants. Thank you all so very much.

[bloom]

218. "patriarchy, maleness run amok -- a male supremacist "

You make some good points. While some men - who are not as entrenched can see this "male supremacist" attitude in our culture, many cannot.

It's been interesting on certain threads and in different forums to see men basically defend their "right" to run amok. And some who think that they are not allowed to run as much amok as they would like. I've seen men complain about restrictions by women - trying to make civilization civilized and all - apparently cuts into their freedom or natural instincts or something. Somehow they see these all as the women's fault - even though the laws were probably written by men to control women.

I sure don't give American men a pass - with 25% of the women in the US being raped or assaulted. Some seem to think the focus of the OP was too much on Middle East men. And there are these things over there like the tribal council who imposed gang rape on a woman as a retribution for something someones brother did (Pakistan). And the societies (Kyrgyzstan) where women are kidnapped and end up going along with a marriage because they have been raped. Grad students even going along with this "tradition". That seems pretty crazy to me to have societies that go along with that.

But the US has it's crazy things also - like polygamy - unofficial marriages where men are "married" to very young women. So you can always find the extreme cases. And there are the gang rapes by sports teams or whatever. It may not be gang rape as a retribution - but what is the rational? Someone described being at a party and a gang rape was in progress. The girls friend rescued the victim and left and the party went on. What the hell kind of civilization is that?

[SoCalDem]

236. You are very welcome here.. and yes You GOT it..

it's not about men vs women..but the imbalance of power and the corruption of thought and deed that it brings.

The treatment of women is a barometer.. it happens here too, in a less barbaric function, but it's pervasive..

[newswolf56]

208. A word of caution before I go back to work: it suddenly appears...

...this thread has drawn some interesting attention: to attempt to halt a discussion of this breadth and magnitude by hurling a claim of "racism" (and thus inflaming all our characteristically healthy Left/liberal self-doubts) is a sophisticated ploy of consensus-smashing I have not encountered in a long while. I am reminded of the old days of the Counterculture, when it seemed our best intellectual endeavors were always mysteriously thwarted. This was especially true if we attempted to specifically identify "patriarchy" as the ultimate source of our oppression -- even more so if we tried to explore the notion our "revolution in consciousness" might be the resurrection of the goddess. For whatever reason (and by whatever means), all such efforts were countered and/or obstructed with such frequency the comforting notions of "accident" or "coincidence" became synonymous with "absurdity." The more paranoid (or politically astute) among us blamed infiltrators -- police agents and intelligence operatives sophisticated enough to recognize the hugely subversive radicalism incipient in the goddess-symbol, whether taken literally (spiritually) or merely as a psychological archetype. Others among us blamed the normal human reactive power of patriarchy, supposing that it, like any other life-form, instinctively responded to any perceived threat. Whichever, it was clear we were treading on what someone considered dangerous ground -- and I have no doubt that is why our efforts were so thoroughly co-opted, disrupted and/or suppressed. I have no doubt too that, if we were to again mobilize our energies in such a direction, we would be similarly confronted. Perhaps it has already begun.

[Crowdance]

214. Brilliant, Newswolf. I'm delighted to read your posts

Beautifully reasoned; beautifully written. Please post often. (And a kick, because I completely missed this yesterday.)

[BrklynLiberal]

215. Fantastic post!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[mom cat]

223. The closer we get to victory the harder they will fight. Or as a friend

of mine once noted, if you're twisting them by the short hairs you better hold on tight! A friend of mine who is new to DU just heard me post this and said: you better hold on tight because they are going to be passed as hell.
Thank you for your excellent, insightful post. I think it articulates well the struggle that all of us well-meaning liberal/feminist in counter all of the time. We want to be fair, and that gets used against us as a ploy. We need to be real centered in our values and beliefs and be ready for the barrage that will certainly come no matter how articulate we all are. This thread has been a wonderful opportunity to explore our values and core beliefs, and I hope we find a way to continue this discussion. It is one of the most worthwhile discussions I have seen on DU, and many others have said the same thing! Thanks again, mom cat.

[zippy890]

242. 'one of the most worthwhile discussions...

..I have seen on DU"..

I agree with you on all points, I keep coming back to this thread, there is so much here, so many perpectives, its wonderful
:)

[SoCalDem]

246. I am astonished too.. It's so nice to see real discussion

and many points of view without the sniping and attacking.. We may not "solve" the problem, but we are at least discussing it and learning some stuff too.. I have a few new book recommendations too :) Thanks to all who participated :)

[Porschevaus]

212. Close: "It's really all about women"

I do think this (re: your post) might be a bit extreme, but something to keep in mind for sure. I do know that coming from a military town and an old town that over the years it has appeared that other causes or issues are irked (feel overshadowed) by the women's needs or issues when we take it to this specific level and gain attention. Either we are totally off in this thinking or we are totally hitting the nail on the head.

[mom cat]

221. Welcome to DU Porschevas... glad to have you on board!

:hi:

[oneold1-4u]

224. Note the US doesn't help

The US did a job on the taliban in Afghanistan and turned back all the women had ever gained! Of the thousands that were trained and educated, they allowed a few to leave, but most were removed from important positions as teachers, doctors, technicians, etc. and sent back to their families to wear houdas, or go to the streets to beg or become whores. This stupid country of ours is being run by the most horrible bunch of democracy screaming, lying, power extremists the US has ever seen!

[Finder]

229. You mean Iraq.

Women in Afghanistan had no rights at all under the Taliban. Iraq was different. Women did have rights under the secular gov of SH and now don't thanks to the occupation.

[SoCalDem]

231. That's because our wars are entered into for all the wrong reasons

The 'new' Afghanistan war was about vengeance and blood-lust (for what happened to US).. If we had truly cared about Afghanistan we would have not abandoned the when "our bullies" (the Mujahadeen) tossed out 'Their bullies' (the Russians)...

Even the new war was a half-assed adventure since we hot-potatoed it ASAP to the 'coalition' forces..and since it's not a visually stunning place these days, and is mightily unfriendly to outsiders, we don't even get much real news from there anymore.

The women there were little more than a prop.. Stick a yellow pencil in a little girl's hand, and airdrop some skittles..call the photographers.. All is well in Afganistan... now off to Iraq...

What military we still have there actually prevents any real reporting from going on, so we will not kno0w for years what really happened there...if ever.. The Taliban are back, you know?

But hey... they found the girl with the cool-looking eyes (she's not so pretty now, though..due to the horrific life she has led, since the US abandoned Afghanistan all those years ago.) And we did get that pipeline we wanted, so the fact that the 'bad guy ' we went after, got away.. Our own president says it doesn't matter..

Would "Daddy" lie to us?

[AX10]

230. kick

[newswolf56]

238. Am delighted (and astonished) to see this thread remains...

...so alive, and will drop in again as soon as I finish the day's work -- probably about 10 tonight (PDT). Until then I have to stay focused on a deadline that is vital to my economic survival but far less enthralling than what's happening here. Meanwhile thanks to all for the much appreciated feedback.

[redqueen]

272. .

:hi:

[JCMach1]

247. While I agree patriarchy is very real, I don't go for the premise

that this 'threat' is what is bothering the militants of the world...

Islamic history and reality, for example, is much more complicted. Women for centuries had MORE rights than many women in the West.

Also, treatment of women varies from culure to culture and country to country even in the muslim world.

No, today's radicalism is not about men and women... it's about economic hegemony and neo-imperialism. Although, I admit, sometimes these will converge...

[redqueen]

255. This has to be one of the best posts ever on this board.

Hands down.

[Bruce McAuley]

260. I'll agree, and give it a kick N/T

.

Bruce

[redqueen]

264. Good idea!

:kick: