Phyllis Schlafly to be honored

[Bikewer]

As most of you know, I work for Washington University here in St. Louis. As all universities do, each year at Commencement a number of honorary degrees are awarded to different people, all of whom get to make a little speech.

This year, for some unknown reason, the university has decided to so honor dear Phyllis.

This is the woman who is responsible for one of my favorite all-time quotes, "America is God's favored nation because he gave us the Bomb first."

Schlafly is well known for her...Conservative (some might say lunatic) views, which include the impossibility of rape occurring in marriage.

Why the university, which has historically been rather liberal (a hotbed of Communism, according to many right-wingers) would seek to honor this woman is beyond me.
Beyond a number of students as well, who are organizing a protest of the degree.

Is "Wash U." trying to court the more conservative types? We do have prominent law and business schools now; perhaps a little more generosity in the way of donations and endowments from the right?

[Cleon]

I don't know which surprises me more. The fact that she's still alive, or that someone is still willing to give her the time of day (much less academic honors).

[negativ]

A looonnngg time ago, Jello Biafra made the claim that the Schlaflys, as part of their self-appointed roles as school textbook police, once objected to a certain form of mathematics being taught, because it teaches kids that "there are no absolutes" and thus civil society begins to crumble. It sounds crazy enough to be a true Schlafly-ism, but I've never been able to find a source for the comment. Does anyone know more about this?

[madurobob]

I wonder how much money she "anonymously" donated recently? Perhaps a change in her estate to benefit a certain University?

[Bikewer]

If I find a brass plaque with her name on it I'll let you know....

[President Bush]

Done to the melody of "Will the Circle Be Unbroken"

Tanya lived for
Revolution
Wanted to overthrow
The state
She had fifteen
Commie babies
Phylis Schlafly
Ain't that great?

Jello Biafra (http://www.lyricsdownload.com/jello-biafra-will-the-fetus-be-aborted-lyrics.html)

[Cicero]

As most of you know, I work for Washington University here in St. Louis. As all universities do, each year at Commencement a number of honorary degrees are awarded to different people, all of whom get to make a little speech.

This year, for some unknown reason, the university has decided to so honor dear Phyllis.

This is the woman who is responsible for one of my favorite all-time quotes, "America is God's favored nation because he gave us the Bomb first."

Schlafly is well known for her...Conservative (some might say lunatic) views, which include the impossibility of rape occurring in marriage.

Why the university, which has historically been rather liberal (a hotbed of Communism, according to many right-wingers) would seek to honor this woman is beyond me.
Beyond a number of students as well, who are organizing a protest of the degree.

Is "Wash U." trying to court the more conservative types? We do have prominent law and business schools now; perhaps a little more generosity in the way of donations and endowments from the right?

Of course it is typical behavior of libs to demonize minorities and women when they do not share their benighted political ideology.

Schlafly worked her way through college and graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19, and then won a scholarship to Harvard grad school. Before Schlafly became the bane of liberals for her defeat of the ERA amendment, her liberal professors described her as "brilliant."

Would you prefer if Germany or Japan produced an atomic device first?

Many states have marital rape exemptions.

One would think Washington U would boycott her for her stinging rebuke of the American education system:

"The most frequent complaint I hear from college students is that professors inject their leftist political comments into their courses even when they have nothing to do with the subject."

"Our public school system is our country's biggest and most inefficient monopoly, yet it keeps demanding more and more money."

"Many professors are Marxists or other varieties of radicals who hate America."

"After Big Media, U.S. colleges and universities are the biggest enemies of the values of red-state Americans"

[hgc]

A looonnngg time ago, Jello Biafra made the claim that the Schlaflys, as part of their self-appointed roles as school textbook police, once objected to a certain form of mathematics being taught, because it teaches kids that "there are no absolutes" and thus civil society begins to crumble. It sounds crazy enough to be a true Schlafly-ism, but I've never been able to find a source for the comment. Does anyone know more about this?


Here's an article on her own site about what she claims is "fuzzy math."

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2000/mar00/00-03-29.html

I have to admit, this is not what I thought of as fuzzy math, but then perhaps it's an application of the term that I was unaware of. More likely, it's the mad ravings of the whacktacularest honorary doctor ever recognized by Washington U.

[Complexity]

I hate her, 'honorary degrees', and now Washington University in St. Louis.

[Cleon]

Of course it is typical behavior of libs to demonize minorities and women when they do not share their benighted political ideology.

You've got to be kidding me.

[Bikewer]

Used to be that like most major cities in the US, we had two large daily newspapers, the Post-Dispatch and the Globe-Democrat.
The Post was always considered the "left" paper, while the Globe was the "right". One could read both papers and sort-of get a notion of what might be going on.....

The Post gradually took over more of the market, and started running at least token conservative editorials and op-ed pieces. The Globe, shrinking, turned rather strongly to the right, and started running editorials by both Cal Thomas and Phyllis Schlafly.
I would be hard pressed to pick between the two on the lunatic level.

The Globe folded within a couple of years of this turn towards a strong conservative stance, perhaps because St. Louis has always been a staunchly Democratic city.

[fuelair]

I don't know which surprises me more. The fact that she's still alive, or that someone is still willing to give her the time of day (much less academic honors).
Perhaps they will decide on my plan - put her up on a pole so fundie republickers can worship at her feet. A tall pole.:D

[Darat]

...snip...

Many states have marital rape exemptions.

...snip...

That doesn't stop it being a stupid concept.

[DavidJames]

You've got to be kidding me.He's not, then again....

I'm beginning to wonder if Cicero isn't a sock created to mock conservatives.

[linusrichard]

Of course it is typical behavior of libs to demonize minorities and women when they do not share their benighted political ideology.
And although it's typical behavior of conservatives to complain about the playing of the "race card" or "gender card," that sure doesn't stop them from playing that card themselves when they think it benefits them.
Schlafly worked her way through college and graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19, and then won a scholarship to Harvard grad school. Before Schlafly became the bane of liberals for her defeat of the ERA amendment, her liberal professors described her as "brilliant."
All of which would be really relevant rebuttal if anyone had called her stupid.
Would you prefer if Germany or Japan produced an atomic device first?
Of course not. What does that have to do with the claim that we developed the bomb first because we're God's favorite nation?
Many states have marital rape exemptions.
How many states have laws reflecting Schlafly's view that it is impossible for rape to occur within marriage? And even if the answer is more than "zero," which I doubt, how does that make her view any less disgusting?

[Cicero]

And although it's typical behavior of conservatives to complain about the playing of the "race card" or "gender card," that sure doesn't stop them from playing that card themselves when they think it benefits them.

All of which would be really relevant rebuttal if anyone had called her stupid.

Of course not. What does that have to do with the claim that we developed the bomb first because we're God's favorite nation?

How many states have laws reflecting Schlafly's view that it is impossible for rape to occur within marriage? And even if the answer is more than "zero," which I doubt, how does that make her view any less disgusting?

1) Currently, the Clinton's are the paradigm of political race baiting.

2) Bikewer referred to her views as "lunatic." On your scale of intelligence, is lunacy above or below stupidity?

3) Arizona for one. While you may consider this view "disgusting," how many successful marital rape prosecutions have there been where the spouses are living together?

[Darat]

...snip...

3) Arizona for one. While you may consider this view "disgusting," how many successful marital rape prosecutions have there been where the spouses are living together?

Your argument would seem to be because something is difficult to prosecute why have a law against it. In the UK only around 5% of all reported rapes end in a conviction (around 800 in a year) so should we do away with the law against rape all together?

The conceit that because a couple is married rape cannot occur is something I just cannot understand.

[Cicero]

I don't know which surprises me more. The fact that she's still alive, or that someone is still willing to give her the time of day (much less academic honors).

Give her "academic honors?" Please. The women already earned an undergrad degree, achieved Phi Beta Kappa, Pi Sigma Alpha at Washington University and a law degree from Washington University Law School.

[Darat]

Why the "please"? That is exactly what is mentioned in the opening post i.e. she is being given an honorary degree. That has nothing to do with any other degrees she may or may not have.

[Cleon]

Give her "academic honors?" Please.

Yes, that would be what the OP's about, Sparky.

[Cicero]

Your argument would seem to be because something is difficult to prosecute why have a law against it. In the UK only around 5% of all reported rapes end in a conviction (around 800 in a year) so should we do away with the law against rape all together?

The conceit that because a couple is married rape cannot occur is something I just cannot understand.

Well, let's see the exchange between a Washington U "reporter" and Schlafly on this very subject:

Sam Guzik - Editor in Chief: INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY SAM GUZIK


"Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?"

Schlafly:

"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it."

SG:

"Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?"

Schlafly:

"Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them".

SG:

"So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate?"

Schlafly:

"Yes, I certainly do."

http://media.www.studlife.com/media/storage/paper337/news/2008/05/05/press/Questions.For.Phyllis.Schlafly-3366544.shtml

http://feministing.com/archives/009177.html

[linusrichard]

1) Currently, the Clinton's are the paradigm of political race baiting.
Congratulations, you seem to have mastered the subtle art of the non sequitur.
2) Bikewer referred to her views as "lunatic." On your scale of intelligence, is lunacy above or below stupidity?
It's not on the scale at all. On your scale of political views, is dog-lover to the left or right of libertarian? On your musical scale, is green a higher or lower note than middle C? Someone who can answer these questions can also answer yours.
3) Arizona for one.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-1407(D) states in relevant part: It is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1406 that the defendant was the spouse of the victim at the time of commission of the act.
Section 13-1406 states in relevant part:
A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person without consent of such person.
As the kids are so fond of saying these days, "fail." Did you want to try again with another state?

ETA: As far as I can find, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Oklahoma come the closest to the barbaric "marital exemption," but even in those states, it is possible for a man to be guilty of raping his wife, under certain circumstances. /EDIT
While you may consider this view "disgusting," how many successful marital rape prosecutions have there been where the spouses are living together?
I don't know, 8? 12,000? 46? 50 trillion? π? Why don't you tell us how many, and then tell us what that has to do with the disgusting belief that it's okay for a man to force his wife to have sex with him? I mean, is your argument seriously that if a law is hard to enforce, that means that the conduct it seeks to prevent is actually okay? Or, what is your argument?

[Cleon]

"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex." Well, no. When you get married, you get married. When you consent to sex, you consent to sex. Doing one is not the other.

Y'know, I've been to a fair number of weddings. Not a huge number, but certainly my share. I've been to Jewish weddings (mainly), Christian weddings, Muslim weddings, and secular weddings.

You often hear similar-sounding words at these weddings, "to have and to hold," "love and cherish," etc etc.

At no time did any imam, rabbi, or minister ask, "do you promise to be Bob's sex kitten, putting out for him whenever he so desires?"

[Cicero]

"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex." Well, no. When you get married, you get married. When you consent to sex, you consent to sex. Doing one is not the other.

Y'know, I've been to a fair number of weddings. Not a huge number, but certainly my share. I've been to Jewish weddings (mainly), Christian weddings, Muslim weddings, and secular weddings.

You often hear similar-sounding words at these weddings, "to have and to hold," "love and cherish," etc etc.

At no time did any imam, rabbi, or minister ask, "do you promise to be Bob's sex kitten, putting out for him whenever he so desires?"

When Schlafly was married, the traditional wedding vows were: to love, honor, and obey.

This was still in vogue through the 1970's when Women's Lib was in full flower.

[Cleon]

When Schlafly was married, the traditional wedding vows were: to love, honor, and obey.

This was still in vogue through the 1970's when Women's Lib was in full flower.

Bully for Schlafly, but the rest of us have moved beyond the women-as-property concept of marriage.

[pgwenthold]

My wife and I have always been good about the Love and Honour part. Now that she's pregnant, I am fulfilling the Obey part, too.

[madurobob]

When Schlafly was married, the traditional wedding vows were: to love, honor, and obey.

This was still in vogue through the 1970's when Women's Lib was in full flower.

Wow - that "obey" thing rears its ugly head again. Its funny how in those same traditional wedding vows the groom swears to love, honor, comfort and keep his bride. Yet some claim that having a wife "obey" demands for unwanted sex somehow trumps the whole "love, honor and comfort" bit. Why are the bride's vows more important than the grooms?

[Cicero]

Bully for Schlafly, but the rest of us have moved beyond the women-as-property concept of marriage.

The "property" concept of marriage has come to mean 50% for women in a divorce (California) and in automatic chief possession of the children.

[Cleon]

The "property" concept of marriage has come to mean 50% for women in a divorce (California) and in automatic chief possession of the children.

...Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I'm sure you feel very clever for posting it.

[Finnegan]

Schlafly worked her way through college and graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19, and then won a scholarship to Harvard grad school. Before Schlafly became the bane of liberals for her defeat of the ERA amendment, her liberal professors described her as "brilliant"

Well, she should've bloody well stayed at home where she belonged.

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex.

The world is moving on and away from such dinosaurs:

India abolishes husbands' 'right' to rape wife. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-abolishes-husbands-right-to-rape-wife-421829.html)

Here's a useful (http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Articles/maritalrape.htm)site on the subject.

[Bikewer]

As I write, we are having a small (maybe 25 people) protest in front of the chancellor's residence here.
Film crews from two of the major St. Louis news outlets are busy shooting footage, so maybe I can link to a news story later.
Everyone appears to be behaving themselves....

[Cleon]

As I write, we are having a small (maybe 25 people) protest in front of the chancellor's residence here.

Glad to hear it.

[Darat]

...snip...

[B]"I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about,

...snip...

Thanks for posting the quote. I had no idea who this person was prior to this thread however thanks to the quote you have provided you have made me understand why some people consider her views akin to lunacy.

Her opinions of marriage are barbaric.

[Cicero]

Her opinions of marriage are barbaric.

Meredith Vieira admitted that her husband has had carnal knowledge of her while she sleeps. Her husband must be operating on the Schlafly marriage "barbarism" credo since he did not wait for verbal permission to proceed with the operation.

[madurobob]

Meredith Vieira admitted that her husband has had carnal knowledge of her while she sleeps.

At least one of them is doing it wrong.

But, FWIW, no-one here has mentioned verbal consent, though its worth debating. I remember hearing a few months ago of a high profile marital dispute with anal-rape-while-she-was-asleep as part of the mix. I'll find a link in a few mins.

ETA: it appers to be illegal in Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/doctor-jailed-for-raping-unconscious-wife/2007/01/25/1169594424888.html)

ETA Again: I remember now, it was Bush II appointee Dr David Hager. His ex claimed:"I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off.... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'"
link (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0512-21.htm).

What a wonderful. loving husband. He sure "love, honor and comforted" the hell outta her.

[fuelair]

Thanks for posting the quote. I had no idea who this person was prior to this thread however thanks to the quote you have provided you have made me understand why some people consider her views akin to lunacy.

Her opinions of marriage are barbaric.This is a good quick intro to her from the pathetic ignoramuses at the eagle-forum (anti-reason typical primitive american fundie group she is part of). Mentions the book that got her started and filled used bookstore shelves for years after. Aaaagh!! :D:D:D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Be sure to share this with anyone who will listen. It is the comments of Judge Jones who gave us the Kitzmiller Dover trial decision on not teaching ID as science in Kansas public schools.

Speech by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to the Anti-Defamation League National Executive Committee Meeting; Palm Beach, FL, February 10, 2006 (http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp)Accordingly, and in that vein, I found it notable that among those who disagreed with my decision was one Phyllis Schlafly. I'm sure that you know who Ms. Schlafly is and I’ll not try to characterize her beyond saying she is a conservative columnist and pundit. I don't know Ms. Schlafly and I assume based on her résumé that she's a fine person. However, under the banner "Judge's unintelligent rant against design," Ms. Schlafly authored a January 2006 column and within her column she noted that, and I'm quoting here, that I "owed my position as a Federal Judge entirely to the evangelical Christians who pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2002" and that I, I'm still quoting here, "stuck the knife in those who brought me to the dance in Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District." Other than that, she really liked my decision. (Not really.)

Kidding aside, Ms. Schlafly obviously enjoys the same First Amendment right of free speech that we all do as citizens of the United States, and she's entirely free to disagree, as she most pointedly did, in my conclusions. Hers is a point of view as it involves the establishment clause and establishment clause cases that many people share.

But the way that she conducted her analysis is instructive, and points out a problem which is pervasive and therefore threatens to, I think, tear at the fabric of our system of justice in the United States. Ms. Schlafly's column makes it clear that she views me as an activist judge of the very worst kind. Yet in her column and within other criticisms directed at my opinion, time and again writers would omit to note the role legal precedents play as they relates how judges decide cases that come before them. That is, as a trial judge, I must follow the law as previously established by the higher courts and in particular by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The premise of Ms. Schlafly and some others seems to be that judges can and should act in a partisan matter rather than strictly adhering to the rule of law. Now, to those who believe that judges must cast aside precedents and rule as according to an agenda, let me say that I believe that the public's dependence upon the impartiality and the integrity of judges is absolutely essential to its confidence in our system of justice. It is especially important for our citizens to understand that judges must be impartial and that the independence of the judiciary is premised on a judge's pledge of freedom from partisan influences.

[Cicero]

At least one of them is doing it wrong.

But, FWIW, no-one here has mentioned verbal consent, though its worth debating.

Schlafly condemned any type of violence or threats by a husband to his spouse in her quote about marital rape. So one might conclude that unless a husband does get verbal or written approval before hand, he is guilty of non consensual relations wife his spouse.

Perhaps the outraged Washington U protesters might elaborate on this aspect of their denouncement of all things Schlafly.

[Cicero]

This is a good quick intro to her from the pathetic ignoramuses at the eagle-forum (anti-reason typical primitive american fundie group she is part of). Mentions the book that got her started and filled used bookstore shelves for years after. Aaaagh!! :D:D:D

Since Schlafly "A Choice Not An Echo" sold 3 million copies in 1964, what is the significance of used copies turning up in second hand bookstore shelves for the last 45 years?

If you really like "anti-reason" groups, check out Democratic Socialists of America. Gloria Steinem is a charter member.

[Cleon]

So one might conclude that unless a husband does get verbal or written approval before hand, he is guilty of non consensual relations wife his spouse.

Not if one was using his whole brain, one wouldn't.

[Cicero]

Not if one was using his whole brain, one wouldn't.

That is not the organ used in this situation. But perhaps you could elaborate on the proper procedure for marital relations that ensures one spouse does not accuse the other of rape?

[Texas]

That is not the organ used in this situation. But perhaps you could elaborate on the proper procedure for marital relations that ensures one spouse does not accuse the other of rape?

There's always the Duke Lacrosse standard.

[linusrichard]

That is not the organ used in this situation. But perhaps you could elaborate on the proper procedure for marital relations that ensures one spouse does not accuse the other of rape?

What is this about? There's no way to "ensure" that somebody doesn't accuse somebody of rape. You could accuse me of rape right now, if you wanted. I predict that you won't, for various reasons. But you could. But somehow, in spite of this, plenty of marriages last a long time without any rape accusations. I have no idea how other people manage to accomplish this, but I will share with you a secret from my own marriage, if you promise not to tell anyone: (1) I don't rape my wife, (2) My wife doesn't have any reason to falsely accuse me of rape. I know it's complex, but we make it work.

But all of this is just a distraction from the real issue. Let's have a direct answer to a direct question, please: If a man wants to have sex with his wife, and she doesn't want to, and he forces her to anyway, should that be a crime or not?

[Cicero]

What is this about? There's no way to "ensure" that somebody doesn't accuse somebody of rape. You could accuse me of rape right now, if you wanted. I predict that you won't, for various reasons. But you could. But somehow, in spite of this, plenty of marriages last a long time without any rape accusations. I have no idea how other people manage to accomplish this, but I will share with you a secret from my own marriage, if you promise not to tell anyone: (1) I don't rape my wife, (2) My wife doesn't have any reason to falsely accuse me of rape. I know it's complex, but we make it work.

But all of this is just a distraction from the real issue. Let's have a direct answer to a direct question, please: If a man wants to have sex with his wife, and she doesn't want to, and he forces her to anyway, should that be a crime or not?

This is about the uproar by Washington U employee(s), and presumably some students, about Schlafly receiving an honorary degree from her alma matter. Apparently, much of the outrage towards this women stems from her comment that a wife cannot be raped by her husband. But since Schlafly has explicitly condemned any physical coercion, threats, or beating by the husband, how did this marital rape manifest itself?

So please explain what you mean by "force?"

[Cicero]

There's always the Duke Lacrosse standard.

Good point.

[Darat]

That is not the organ used in this situation.

...snip...

Which is exactly the problem.

[UnrepentantSinner]

What was her honorary degree in? 19th Century Womens Studies?

[linusrichard]

This is about the uproar by Washington U employee(s), and presumably some students, about Schlafly receiving an honorary degree from her alma matter. Apparently, much of the outrage towards this women stems from her comment that a wife cannot be raped by her husband. But since Schlafly has explicitly condemned any physical coercion, threats, or beating by the husband, how did this marital rape manifest itself?

So please explain what you mean by "force?"

Okay, I see that my question was too hard for you. Let me try this:

If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape . . . .

In other words, let's say a husband wants sex, and a wife doesn't. So the wife holds down the woman and uses physical force to have sex with her against her will. To Schlafly, the act of physical force is a problem, and might be grounds for prosecution or divorce, but the forced sex isn't rape, and presumably isn't a crime or a problem at all, since "when you get married you have consented to sex."

I think you're between a rock and a hard place on this one. You can be honest and recognize the disgusting nature of Schlafly's position, or you can be consistent, and adopt Schlafly's position, but taking a stand means risking credibility, so you dance nimbly between them, raising non sequiturs and dodging questions.

But if you can't get off the fence on whether or not forced sex is rape, maybe you have something to say about whether or not a federal judge should consider the political preferences of those who "brought him to the dance" when making a judgment. Is an independent judiciary an important part of the rule of law? Do we even need the rule of law?

[Cleon]

That is not the organ used in this situation. But perhaps you could elaborate on the proper procedure for marital relations that ensures one spouse does not accuse the other of rape?

Cicero, if you really can't figure out how to have sex with a woman without raping her, there's nothing I can do for you.

[fuelair]

Cicero, if you really can't figure out how to have sex with a woman without raping her, there's nothing I can do for you.In all fairness, given my strong evidence backing a lack of intellectual capacity in Cicero's general thinking ability, C's point is not that having sex with a woman/wife is not possible without rape, but that even if not rape, it is possible for the woman to later claim it was rape for purposes of attack/revenge/situational improvement, etc. (Specifically, leverage or revenge in a divorce or discovery of an affair (etc.)).

[Cleon]

In all fairness, given my strong evidence backing a lack of intellectual capacity in Cicero's general thinking ability, C's point is not that having sex with a woman/wife is not possible without rape, but that even if not rape, it is possible for the woman to later claim it was rape for purposes of attack/revenge/situational improvement, etc. (Specifically, leverage or revenge in a divorce or discovery of an affair (etc.)).

Which is a completely irrelevant point, as that has nothing to do with whether marital rape is impossible, as Schlafly claims.

[Bikewer]

Among the protesting individuals are representatives (both students and faculty) of the Women's Studies department, which is perhaps to be expected, Schlafly being an outspoken anti-"Feminist".
However, we also had members of the gay association, and a variety of other students and faculty who just find the woman undeserving of any such honor.
( I wonder just what it is she has accomplished, other than to be an extreme-right gadfly?)
At any rate, the protest has been rather small and extremely polite; yesterday we watched as they chanted in front of the chancellor's residence, then they marched down to Brookings (the main administration building and the location of the chancellor's office) for a bit more chanting and sign waving.
At about 1:30, the organizer came over and thanked us for watching out for them, and said they'd be back the next day, same time, same place.

This did get local TV news coverage, but I'm unable to find video footage up on any of the local outlet's sites as yet.

Regarding the "rape in marriage" thing... This does appear to mirror a particularly sexist notion of the crime that was common when I started in police work.
As we know, the paradigm at present is that "no" means "no", even if things start out in a consensual manner. In fact, we are presently prosecuting a young man who failed to heed this, and continued his activities. The initial contact was consensual.

Back in the old days, there was a sort of cultural belief that it wasn't rape unless there was violence, and unless the woman fought back.
The idea that a woman would not fight to preserve her purity was tatamount to acceptance. This was reflected in the well-known attitudes of police and prosecutors at the time, who both frequently made reporting rape even more of an ordeal than the rape itself.
I am sure all are familiar with horror stories about the abuse suffered by victims of sex crimes then, the sort of thing that we now condemn in third-world countries around the globe.
Schlafly's position on this particular topic seems to mirror, at least to some degree, these old attitudes.
For more interesting tidbits, I suggest a visit to the Eagle Forum website, which will be difficult reading for anyone of an even slightly liberal leaning.

[Cleon]

Back in the old days, there was a sort of cultural belief that it wasn't rape unless there was violence, and unless the woman fought back.


According to Schlafly, if they're married, it's still not rape, whether there was violence or not.


For more interesting tidbits, I suggest a visit to the Eagle Forum website, which will be difficult reading for anyone of an even slightly liberal leaning.


I'm sure Cicero will feel quite at home there.

[madurobob]

Schlafly condemned any type of violence or threats by a husband to his spouse in her quote about marital rape. So one might conclude that unless a husband does get verbal or written approval before hand, he is guilty of non consensual relations wife his spouse.

I noted that. Its curious that society places a harsher penalty on "rape" than physical assault/abuse, but she refuses to acknowledge its existence in marriage. Rape is an added step to the abuse. If you beat your child you are an abusive parent who will receive counseling. If you beat and rape your child you are a sick bastard who will likely be shanked in prison. Why should it be different if you rape your wife instead?

So, I wonder why she is so against "rape" as a charge in marriage? Being charged with assault is far different than being charged with rape. If you rape anyone, be it a stranger, a child or your wife, you should face rape charges. To limit the charge in marriage to just assault is an insult to married women everywhere.

ETA: Schlafly's statement appears to be a complaint against frivolous use of the rape charge. But why should this frivolous use only be a problem in a marriage? is she saying a frivolous charge of rape is OK outside of marriage?

[Cicero]

So the wife holds down the woman and uses physical force to have sex with her against her will. To Schlafly, the act of physical force is a problem, and might be grounds for prosecution or divorce, but the forced sex isn't rape, and presumably isn't a crime or a problem at all, since "when you get married you have consented to sex."


The only state that recognizes gay marriage is Massachusetts. Do you know of any prosecution of a lesbian spouse for rape in this state?

[Cleon]

The only state that recognizes gay marriage is Massachusetts. Do you know of any prosecution of a lesbian spouse for rape in this state?

You're not even trying to have a relevant point anymore, are you?

[Lurker]

Imagine a scenario where a married couple separates (not legally) before a divorce. Say the wife is living with her mother temporarily.

In a fit of rage the husband goes over and violently rapes his wife despite her saying no and having moved out.

According to Cicero and Schlafly the wife would file charges of assault but not rape against her husband. I am surprised Cicero does not see a problem with that scenario.

Lurker

[Cicero]

Imagine a scenario where a married couple separates (not legally) before a divorce. Say the wife is living with her mother temporarily.

In a fit of rage the husband goes over and violently rapes his wife despite her saying no and having moved out.

According to Cicero and Schlafly the wife would file charges of assault but not rape against her husband. I am surprised Cicero does not see a problem with that scenario.

Lurker

Come on. "Violently rapes?" That means assault, battery and breaking and entering. The husband would be in jail facing numerous charges including rape since this was not in the dwelling of cohabitation. The college "reporter" did not pose such a scenario to Schlafly so you really have no idea about Schlafly's response.

Are you aware that there was no law against marital rape in any state until 1976?

[Cicero]

You're not even trying to have a relevant point anymore, are you?

"So the wife holds down the woman and uses physical force to have sex with her against her will" linusrichard

Perhaps you should direct your comment to linusrichard. It is his point.

[Cleon]

"So the wife holds down the woman and uses physical force to have sex with her against her will" linusrichard

Perhaps you should direct your comment to linusrichard. It is his point.

No, not really.

[pgwenthold]

So, I wonder why she is so against "rape" as a charge in marriage?

She has already said it, because wives have to OBEY.

She does not believe that a wife has the right to say no to sex. No abuse is allowed, but sex is required.

It's that simple.

[Darat]

Have to say her concept of marriage is as alien to me as the concept that I could own someone.

[madurobob]

She has already said it, because wives have to OBEY.

She does not believe that a wife has the right to say no to sex. No abuse is allowed, but sex is required.

It's that simple.

Yep, I got that much. But, are children not also directed to obey their parents?

[Cicero]

Yep, I got that much. But, are children not also directed to obey their parents?

Once upon a time they were. Today's parents just want to be their child's best friend. While these parents abdicate any responsibility to discipline their little darlings, they do not cotton to the public schools taking any disciplinary measures either.

[madurobob]

Once upon a time they were. Today's parents just want to be their child's best friend. While these parents abdicate any responsibility to discipline their little darlings, they do not cotton to the public schools taking any disciplinary measures either.
So, raping our wifes AND children is OK, as long as we don't assault them?

[Cicero]

So, raping our wifes AND children is OK, as long as we don't assault them?

Where in your post #63 did you mention "rape?" You said "obey." Come on. Perhaps you need to compose a rational response instead of another invalid and absurd analogy.

[madurobob]

Where in your post #63 did you mention "rape?" You said "obey." Come on. Perhaps you need to compose a rational response instead of another invalid and absurd analogy.

Try to keep up. I asked in post #54 why she was against a rape charge in a marriage. The response:
She has already said it, because wives have to OBEY.

She does not believe that a wife has the right to say no to sex. No abuse is allowed, but sex is required.

So, I pointed out in my post #63 that children are also told to "obey". Your response to that same post was that "once upon a time they were". Your implication being that "obeying" is something preferred in children as well as wives. I simply took the next logical step. That is, if one cannot "rape" one's wife because she is to "obey" then the same must apply to your kids who also must "obey".

Is it safe to assume you disagree with this? Why?

[Cicero]

Try to keep up. I asked in post #54 why she was against a rape charge in a marriage. The response:


So, I pointed out in my post #63 that children are also told to "obey". Your response to that same post was that "once upon a time they were". Your implication being that "obeying" is something preferred in children as well as wives. I simply took the next logical step. That is, if one cannot "rape" one's wife because she is to "obey" then the same must apply to your kids who also must "obey".

Is it safe to assume you disagree with this? Why?

Even if your kids gave you permission to have sex with them, it would still be incest and pedophilia, not to mention morally abhorrent. The "obey" aspect of the old school marriage vow does not include forcing your spouse to commit an illegal act.

[madurobob]

Even if your kids gave you permission to have sex with them, it would still be incest and pedophilia, not to mention morally abhorrent. The "obey" aspect of the old school marriage vow does not include forcing your spouse to commit an illegal act.
But the point of the marriage exemption is that its NOT an illegal act when its your spouse. Don't you get that? The marriage license apparently magically transforms rape into sex.

Rape is an illegal act. Period. To say it shouldn't be simply because there is a marriage license is asinine. Just as asinine as suggesting its OK to rape your kids since they also should "obey" (there should be a parenthood exemption?).

[Finnegan]

Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, if you force sexual intercourse upon any other person(s) it's rape.

[Lurker]

So Cicero would have us go back to the idea that it is only rape if the woman fights back physically. The husband could not be prosecuted for anything unless there is evidence of physical abuse.

[Darat]

With this weird logic if a woman used violence against her husband whilst he was raping her she could be charged with assault.

[linusrichard]

So Cicero would have us go back to the idea that it is only rape if the woman fights back physically. The husband could not be prosecuted for anything unless there is evidence of physical abuse.

No. Cicero would have us go back further than that. Within a marriage, it wouldn't be rape even if the woman fights back physically. It might be assault or battery or "breaking and entering" (his words), but not rape, so long as they're married. He hasn't had the courage Schlafly did to say so in so many words, but it's the only conclusion that can be drawn from his posts. Unsettling.

[Cicero]

No. Cicero would have us go back further than that. Within a marriage, it wouldn't be rape even if the woman fights back physically. It might be assault or battery or "breaking and entering" (his words), but not rape, so long as they're married. He hasn't had the courage Schlafly did to say so in so many words, but it's the only conclusion that can be drawn from his posts. Unsettling.

1) It isn't up to me, you or Schlafly to determine if a spouse was raped, it is up to a judge and, or, jury.

2) But martial rape was not even a crime until 1976. So if you want to accuse me of turning back the clock, it would be only 32 years.

3) I wonder where all of you ERA supporters went when Juanita Broderick accused William Jefferson of rape. Or is it only when Schlafly is given an "honorary degree" from her Alma matter that the libs start crying foul?

[Cleon]

1) It isn't up to me, you or Schlafly to determine if a spouse was raped, it is up to a judge and, or, jury.

Yet Schlafly has claimed that there's no such thing as marital rape.

Hers is a disgusting POV, and one that I cannot find acceptable.


2) But martial rape was not even a crime until 1976. So if you want to accuse me of turning back the clock, it would be only 32 years.

Irrelevant, even if true. Which I doubt.


3) I wonder where all of you ERA supporters went when Juanita Broderick accused William Jefferson of rape. Or is it only when Schlafly is given an "honorary degree" from her Alma matter that the libs start crying foul?

Is it really too much to ask that you try to stay focused on the actual topic?

[Cicero]

Yet Schlafly has claimed that there's no such thing as marital rape.

Hers is a disgusting POV, and one that I cannot find acceptable.



Irrelevant, even if true. Which I doubt.



Is it really too much to ask that you try to stay focused on the actual topic?

Schlafly says no martial rape where there is no physical force. In other words, a wife can't have buyer's remorse when the horse is already out of the barn.

It is fascinating how ERA supporters only operate in the theoretical world. When there is an actual case of a claimed rape, the case is dismissed as irrelevant.

[Cleon]

Schlafly says no martial rape where there is no physical force. In other words, a wife can't have buyer's remorse when the horse is already out of the barn.

Oh, come off it.

The woman thinks that by getting married, a woman automatically consents to sex, and therefore marital rape doesn't occur.

This is what she said.

You can't word-parse your way out of it.

The woman believes that a married woman doesn't have the right to say no to her husband.

That's despicable.


It is fascinating how ERA supporters only operate in the theoretical world. When there is an actual case of a claimed rape, the case is dismissed as irrelevant.


Why you insist on bringing the ERA into this, I have no idea.

Again, please try to stay on-topic. I know it's tough to defend views as repugnant as Schlafly's, but if you can't do it without derailing into other issues, perhaps you should participate in a different thread.

[GreyICE]

Schlafly condemned any type of violence or threats by a husband to his spouse in her quote about marital rape. So one might conclude that unless a husband does get verbal or written approval before hand, he is guilty of non consensual relations wife his spouse.

Perhaps the outraged Washington U protesters might elaborate on this aspect of their denouncement of all things Schlafly.
If I were to attempt to define a strawman argument, I could do worse than to start with the above as a paradigm.

[President Bush]

But perhaps you could elaborate on the proper procedure for marital relations that ensures one spouse does not accuse the other of rape?


You mean like a restraining order?

[LostAngeles]

Huh, here am I again reminded that since I have a ****, I'm apparently a piece of property.

I guess this will be our new reasoning for why we're not married: I want to keep my right to say, "No," to sex.

Thanks, Cicero. This whole, "equality," thing was just too hard.

[madurobob]

Irrelevant, even if true. Which I doubt.
Not true, but close. The definition of rape in every state in the USA was originally something very close to "forceful, non-consensual sex with a female who is not your wife". Wives could not be "raped" just as men could not. In the late 60's-early 70's most states recognized how repugnant this definition was and revised it to simply be forceful, non-consensual sex.

The hard date of 1976 that Cicero keeps trotting out is probably the year that California changed its law.

[Lurker]

3) I wonder where all of you ERA supporters went when Juanita Broderick accused William Jefferson of rape. Or is it only when Schlafly is given an "honorary degree" from her Alma matter that the libs start crying foul?

Unfortunately, there was not enough evidence for Juanita's charge so it is kind of in limbo.

I personally don't care that Schlafly was given an honorary degree. I may not agree with a lot of her craziness but I respect she put herself through college and law school. Good on her.

[Bikewer]

Just an update: The local news reports that chancellor Wrighton has "apologized for the controversy" generated by this honorary degree.
However, they're going to award it anyway.

[Upchurch]

I'm late to the thread (which is odd since it is happening in my back yard, so to speak).

My understanding is that she's getting the award more as "local kid made good" and an alum rather than for any specific thing she's said or done. That, and the Schlaflys are a rather prominent St. Louis family.

[madurobob]

My understanding is that she's getting the award more as "local kid made good" and an alum rather than for any specific thing she's said or done. That, and the Schlaflys are a rather prominent St. Louis family.
Exactly why my first post here was suggesting that this was part of a larger deal that includes some kind of behind-the-scenes donation by the Schlafly's.

The controversy is no surprise and those involved had to know it would happen. Its a way of allowing Phyllis to be the center of attention and feel relevant once more.

[Cicero]

Just an update: The local news reports that chancellor Wrighton has "apologized for the controversy" generated by this honorary degree.
However, they're going to award it anyway.

Wow! The local chapter of the political correctness malcontents didn't demand the Chancellor's resignation? How did he manage to escape the same fate as Harvard's ex-president Lawrence Summers?

[Cicero]

Why you insist on bringing the ERA into this, I have no idea.

Again, please try to stay on-topic. I know it's tough to defend views as repugnant as Schlafly's, but if you can't do it without derailing into other issues, perhaps you should participate in a different thread.

Schlafly's claim to fame is that she single-handily defeated the ERA. I know some of the JREFer posters never heard of her before this "honorary degree" tempest in a teapot, but the old entrenched liberal academia were laying in wait for her because they never recovered from this defeat.

[Cicero]

Its a way of allowing Phyllis to be the center of attention and feel relevant once more.

As long as the ERA remains derailed, Schlafly will always remain relevant.

[Cleon]

Schlafly's claim to fame is that she single-handily defeated the ERA.

And therefore, in Cicero-land, everyone critical of her disgusting, abominable views is an "ERA supporter."

It's still off-topic.

Try to focus.

[madurobob]

As long as the ERA remains derailed, Schlafly will always remain relevant.
:)
Yes, resting on your "accomplishments" of 30 years in the past is exactly the definition of "relevant" I expect you to use WRT Ms Schlafly.

By no means would I expect you to equate "relevant" to a general recognition of having opinions and ideas that have demonstrable bearing on ongoing national debate. That would be too logical.

I wonder when was the last time she was even mentioned on a major news outlet, much less asked for her opinion, prior to this brouhaha?

[christie malry]

ERA? What manner of beast is this? Sounds like the acronym for some bloodthirsty Tom Clancy-type military-unit-type thing.

[Cleon]

ERA? What manner of beast is this? Sounds like the acronym for some bloodthirsty Tom Clancy-type military-unit-type thing.

The Equal Rights Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment). This horrible, horrible thing would have outlawed discrimination based on sex.

I'm sure I need hardly explain that this would have undermined American society, and allowed the Soviets to win the Cold War.

[madurobob]

ERA? What manner of beast is this? Sounds like the acronym for some bloodthirsty Tom Clancy-type military-unit-type thing.
nah, I'm pretty sure its a baseball thing, one of the myriad of stats people keep in order to avoid falling asleep at the games.

[Cicero]

:)
Yes, resting on your "accomplishments" of 30 years in the past is exactly the definition of "relevant" I expect you to use WRT Ms Schlafly.

By no means would I expect you to equate "relevant" to a general recognition of having opinions and ideas that have demonstrable bearing on ongoing national debate. That would be too logical.

I wonder when was the last time she was even mentioned on a major news outlet, much less asked for her opinion, prior to this brouhaha?

The women is 84 and she still provokes liberals into paroxysms of political correctness. Obviously, her opinions are still having a "demonstrable bearing" on pop culture.

Ironic that her detractors are the ones who have unintentionally made her relevant and topical in the millennium with their feckless protests.

You confuse fading from the spotlight with being relevant. Of course the media is loathe to mention or credit Schlafly with effecting the social issues of the country, yet she has been prominent in social and political issues in the 60's, 70's, 80', 90's and now again. Contrast her to the media darling harpy Gloria Steinem, whose accomplishments pale in comparison to Schlafly's.

Perhaps you could offer up another conservative octogenarian whose opinions are routinely sought after by liberal media types?

[joobie]

ERA? What manner of beast is this? Sounds like the acronym for some bloodthirsty Tom Clancy-type military-unit-type thing.

Earned Runs Average, or how many runs a pitcher would be expected to give up per 9 innings.

it also has something to do with some thing from the early 70s or something. probably gay pornography, which is why we should be glad it never happened.

[Cleon]

Cicero,

You seem to be one of those fellows who thinks that scorn and contempt are an adequate substitute for substance.

I find this amusing. Please carry on.

[Cicero]

Cicero,

You seem to be one of those fellows who thinks that scorn and contempt are an adequate substitute for substance.


You have me confused with the Washington U protesters.

[madurobob]

The women is 84 and she still provokes liberals into paroxysms of political correctness. Obviously, her opinions are still having a "demonstrable bearing" on pop culture.
Abhorring rape is political correctness in your world. nice.

Ironic that her detractors are the ones who have unintentionally made her relevant and topical in the millennium with their feckless protests.
As I said, she no doubt orchestrated this in a sad attempt to feel relevant. This protest will be forgotten tomorrow; so will she.

You confuse fading from the spotlight with being relevant. Of course the media is loathe to mention or credit Schlafly with effecting the social issues of the country, yet she has been prominent in social and political issues in the 60's, 70's, 80', 90's and now again. Contrast her to the media darling harpy Gloria Steinem, whose accomplishments pale in comparison to Schlafly's.

Perhaps you could offer up another conservative octogenarian whose opinions are routinely sought after by liberal media types?
Yes, poor conservatives are persecuted by the evil liberal media machine! Where oh where can we find an old conservative pundit in this great sea of liberals? :rolleyes:

Haha! Are you kidding? I'll take old conservative pundits for $100, Alex:
Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennet, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick.

Let me know if you want me to go on.

I love your claim of "liberal media" too. That tired old saw has long been debunked and conservatives freely admit to a conservative bias in the media. years ago Adam Myerson, editor of the Heritage Foundation's (Now the Hoover Institution) Policy Review said:
[Pundit] journalism today is very different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. Today, op-ed pages are dominated by conservatives… We have a tremendous amount of conservative opinion, but this creates a problem for those who are interested in a career in journalism after college… If Bill Buckley were to come out of Yale today, nobody would pay much attention to him. He would not be that unusual… because there are probably hundreds of people with those ideas [and] they have already got syndicated columns.

Why do conservatives whine so much about a liberal media? Why do they have this persecution complex?

[Cicero]

Haha! Are you kidding? I'll take old conservative pundits for $100, Alex:
Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennet, John McLaughlin, David Gergen, Robert Novak, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, William Safire, Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, Jonathon Alter, Joe Klein, Robert J. Samuelson, James Kilpatrick.


In order to refute my challenge, you need to pay attention to the description in the post. By omitting the "octogenarian" component, aside form Kilpatrick, your list of conservative pundits is not applicable. But when was the last time James Kilpatrick was asked his views on any subject.

Schlafly worked in a WWII defense plant, raised 6 children, wrote a dozen books, the first selling over 3 million copies, worked her way through college, earned a masters, earned a law degree, achieved academic excellence, defeated the ERA, played a central part in Republican politics, and she is getting headlines at the age of 84. She doesn't need your approval or acknowledgment since her achievements are already recorded history.

Perhaps you could offer up your resume to the class so we can see how much you have accomplished and contributed so far in your brief life?

BTW: Jonathan Alter has never been a conservative. Joe Klein? "Primary Colors" does not make him a conservative.

[christie malry]

The Equal Rights Amendment. This horrible, horrible thing would have outlawed discrimination based on sex.

I'm sure I need hardly explain that this would have undermined American society, and allowed the Soviets to win the Cold War.

Wow, my opinion of this Schlafly lass grows all the time. She is truly an inspiration to us all. You're very lucky to have her. [/sarcasm]

Thanks for filling me in though!

Anyway, I'll go back to lurking on this one now. Carry on!

[Cicero]

The Equal Rights Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment). This horrible, horrible thing would have outlawed discrimination based on sex.

I'm sure I need hardly explain that this would have undermined American society, and allowed the Soviets to win the Cold War.

I wonder how women got to be cops, firemen, construction workers, Navy aviators, and any number of occupations traditionally reserved for men without the ERA?

[madurobob]

Perhaps you could offer up your resume to the class so we can see how much you have accomplished and contributed so far in your brief life?
Gee, that'll be easy. I worked my way through college, earned a BS/BA, earned an MBA, CPA and CMA, raised two kids and never once raped anyone nor suggested it was OK for others to do so.

I win.

[Cicero]

Gee, that'll be easy. I worked my way through college, earned a BS/BA, earned an MBA, CPA and CMA, raised two kids and never once raped anyone nor suggested it was OK for others to do so.

I win.

A fairly de rigueur resume in this day and age. I can't imagine why the media doesn't seek you out for quotes about accounting? Would your significant other take exception to your sole credit for bringing up two children?

Now all you have to do is become a best selling author, take on and defeat feminists (or course in your case, you can substitute that group for just one conservative), contribute to the defense of your country in some occupation, and accomplish all this at a time when the nation was strictly a man's world.

Where does Schlafly promote rape, and whom has she raped?

Are you going to revise your faulty list of conservatives to meet the octogenarian standard?

[madurobob]

A fairly de rigueur resume in this day and age. I can't imagine why the media doesn't seek you out for quotes about accounting? Would your significant other take exception to your sole credit for bringing up two children?
I'd have to consult Sylvia Browne on that one. SO passed after birth of son #2 (don't apologize - you didn't know and I have now just unfairly sprung it on you).

Now all you have to do is become a best selling author, take on and defeat feminists (or course in your case, you can substitute that group for just one conservative), contribute to the defense of your country in some occupation, and accomplish all this at a time when the nation was strictly a man's world.
No, I don't. I've made no claim to relevance on the national stage. Past relevance is of no import here; we were talking about relevancy today. Ms Schlafly has none.

Where does Schlafly promote rape, and whom has she raped?
You really haven't been paying attention in this thread, have you?

Are you going to revise your faulty list of conservatives to meet the octogenarian standard?
And the point of that would be? What magical thing happens at 80 that has you so enamored? I gave you a long list of "old" conservative pundits. What matters their precise age?

[LostAngeles]

...
Now all you have to do is become a best selling author, take on and defeat feminists (or course in your case, you can substitute that group for just one conservative), contribute to the defense of your country in some occupation, and accomplish all this at a time when the nation was strictly a man's world.
...

Can I ask what is wrong with feminism? Because maybe it's my being a liberated, birth-control-using female math student, but I can't see anything wrong with it.

My late grandmother got a degree in electrical engineering in the lat 40s/early 50s and was denied work because she would, "then get married and have babies." Women today don't have to worry about that as much anymore.

Because of feminism I had the opportunity to grow and go into politics/the business world/the sciences/medicine/law/become a housewife/pose for Penthouse/whatever I chose to do.

Feminism has allowed women the opportunity to decide what they want to be. We can be homemakers, mothers, scientists, politicians, porn stars, whatever. And we can get the respect that our characters and accomplishments deserve. We're allowed to have our own opinions and make our own decisions without being told by a man what those are supposed to be. We're no longer the property of our fathers and/or husbands. We'd like to get equal pay for equal work.

How is this at all bad?

Find something in what I've said that's bad and explain to me why it is so. I don't understand.

[Darat]

Can I ask what is wrong with feminism? Because maybe it's my being a liberated, birth-control-using female math student, but I can't see anything wrong with it.

My late grandmother got a degree in electrical engineering in the lat 40s/early 50s and was denied work because she would, "then get married and have babies." Women today don't have to worry about that as much anymore.

Because of feminism I had the opportunity to grow and go into politics/the business world/the sciences/medicine/law/become a housewife/pose for Penthouse/whatever I chose to do.

Feminism has allowed women the opportunity to decide what they want to be. We can be homemakers, mothers, scientists, politicians, porn stars, whatever. And we can get the respect that our characters and accomplishments deserve. We're allowed to have our own opinions and make our own decisions without being told by a man what those are supposed to be. We're no longer the property of our fathers and/or husbands. We'd like to get equal pay for equal work.

How is this at all bad?

Find something in what I've said that's bad and explain to me why it is so. I don't understand.


Well it's hardly surprising you don't understand what's bad about it since it's a rather complex subject and you are a woman.

[LostAngeles]

Well it's hardly surprising you don't understand what's bad about it since it's a rather complex subject and you are a woman.

Frying pan or rolling pin?

[Darat]

I'm sorry dear but I can't help; kitchen utensils are something a woman should have learnt about from her mother, unfortunately feminism means you have been denied your rightful inheritance.

[69dodge]

Apparently, much of the outrage towards this women stems from her comment that a wife cannot be raped by her husband. But since Schlafly has explicitly condemned any physical coercion, threats, or beating by the husband, how did this marital rape manifest itself?

I'm having some difficulty understanding your position.

Could you describe a specific interaction between a man and a woman that you would consider to be rape if they weren't married but not to be rape if they were?

That would help to clarify things, I think.

[madurobob]

My late grandmother got a degree in electrical engineering in the lat 40s/early 50s and was denied work because she would, "then get married and have babies." Women today don't have to worry about that as much anymore.
Similarly, my late grandmother earned a Ph.D. in history in 1922 and wrote what many still consider to be the definitive work on the antebellum South. She was far more accomplished than most of her colleagues and quickly became head of the department. But, the fine, liberal university refused to ever let her teach a class... which was what she really wanted to do.

Because of feminism my mother, aunt and sister have all had much more fulfilling careers. And, in my mother's and aunt's cases, world renown for their work. Baby sister is well on her way.

Damn feminism. What do I have to do to get a decent cup of coffee around here?

[Cicero]

Can I ask what is wrong with feminism? Because maybe it's my being a liberated, birth-control-using female math student, but I can't see anything wrong with it.

My late grandmother got a degree in electrical engineering in the lat 40s/early 50s and was denied work because she would, "then get married and have babies." Women today don't have to worry about that as much anymore.

Because of feminism I had the opportunity to grow and go into politics/the business world/the sciences/medicine/law/become a housewife/pose for Penthouse/whatever I chose to do.

Feminism has allowed women the opportunity to decide what they want to be. We can be homemakers, mothers, scientists, politicians, porn stars, whatever. And we can get the respect that our characters and accomplishments deserve. We're allowed to have our own opinions and make our own decisions without being told by a man what those are supposed to be. We're no longer the property of our fathers and/or husbands. We'd like to get equal pay for equal work.

How is this at all bad?

Find something in what I've said that's bad and explain to me why it is so. I don't understand.

You credit the feminists, specifically the ERA, for women choices in the work place? Long before the feminists were on the scene in the mid 1960's, women worked in jobs traditionally held by men back in the 1940's due to the war effort. Did they have to surrender their jobs to the returning men? Sure. But it proved that they could do the same work for the same pay.

Women have not held the type of subservient role in society you describe since the turn of the 20th century.

Who do you think single handily defeated the ERA, a man? No. It was a women. A women who not only was a wife and mother of six, but in her fifties, had a radio show, and a syndicated column while simultaneously attending law school. How did she accomplish this without being a feminist?

Even Betty Friedan, creator of the women's rights movement, criticized Gloria Steinem and her 1970's radical brand of feminism as " bra-burning, anti-man, politics of orgasm school of feminism."

There is nothing wrong with women achieving the same goals as men. But women didn't need an extra set of rights to get where they are today. The only problem with some aspects of social engineering is where the standards for a positon are lowered to accommodate a women, i.e., size, strength, etc..

[Cleon]

You credit the feminists, specifically the ERA,

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit.

LostAngeles didn't even mention the ERA, much less "credit" it for anything.

[linusrichard]

You credit the feminists, specifically the ERA, for women choices in the work place?
Reading Comp Fail
Long before the feminists were on the scene in the mid 1960's
History Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia_Mott)
, women worked in jobs traditionally held by men back in the 1940's due to the war effort. Did they have to surrender their jobs to the returning men? Sure. But it proved that they could do the same work for the same pay.
Reasoning Fail
Women have not held the type of subservient role in society you describe since the turn of the 20th century.
Yes, thanks to feminism. Debate Fail
Who do you think single handily defeated the ERA, a man? No. It was a women. A women
English Fail
who not only was a wife and mother of six, but in her fifties, had a radio show, and a syndicated column while simultaneously attending law school. How did she accomplish this without being a feminist?
Without feminists, Schlafly would not have been able to accomplish any of those things (except the wife and mother thing, of course). I guess standing on the shoulders of giants gives you a great vantage point from which to spit on those giants.

Even Betty Friedan, creator of the women's rights movement, criticized Gloria Steinem and her 1970's radical brand of feminism as " bra-burning, anti-man, politics of orgasm school of feminism."
Relevance Fail

There is nothing wrong with women achieving the same goals as men.
Congratulations, you're practically a feminist.
But women didn't need an extra set of rights to get where they are today. The only problem with some aspects of social engineering is where the standards for a positon are lowered to accommodate a women, i.e., size, strength, etc..

This would be a great time to take a time machine back to 1923 (not the "mid 1960's") and read the entire text of the ERA. Have you read this? Settle in, it sounds like it's going to be long. A whole "extra set of rights" along with lowering standards and other elements of social engineering... do we really have space for the whole text? Let's take a look:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Oh. That's it? That's what Phyllis Schlafly was so scared of, and was so determined to make the rest of us so scared of? That doesn't look like radicalism to me, it looks like civilization.

You oppose the ERA? What right or rights would you like the United States or any state to be able to deny or abridge to some of its citizens on account of sex? Be specific.

[Cleon]

Thank you, linus, for showing us the true meaning of Pwnmas!

[linusrichard]

Thank you, linus, for showing us the true meaning of Pwnmas!

Hp, Hp, Hp!

[LostAngeles]

Cleon is correct and linusrichard even more so.

You've basically just said that there is nothing wrong with feminism, Cicerco, so why are you still railing against it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I give linusrichard 4 1/2 Erica Jong's out of 5 for his post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once upon a time they were. Today's parents just want to be their child's best friend. While these parents abdicate any responsibility to discipline their little darlings, they do not cotton to the public schools taking any disciplinary measures either.[necessary sidetrack]One can raise a child and instill values and elicit the behaviors you want the child to have without violence. I did it, and I did it as a single Mom raising a boy. My parents did it. Lots of people do it and their children learn values through seeing a parent who does not resort to violence to get things accomplished. Parents just need to learn the skills. That is the problem, not what you suggest, "Today's parents just want to be their child's best friend".

If you elicit cooperation from your children because you are bigger and stronger, one day you will no longer be bigger and stronger. You want them to behave because they value good behavior, not because they fear misbehavior.

Positive ways to discipline your child (http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content/positive.discipline.html) is a good place to start.[/end side track]

[Bikewer]

More updates. Folks are arriving for the commencement as I type. We have laid on extra security measures, with undercover escorts for Schlafly. There is some concern about a "pie" attack...

At present, we understand that the students intend to stand and turn their backs during the presentation of her honorary, and there may be a "walk-off" of the faculty members onstage for the event.
National news has decided to cover the event.

We shall see....

[madurobob]

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification
Oh. That's it? That's what Phyllis Schlafly was so scared of, and was so determined to make the rest of us so scared of? That doesn't look like radicalism to me, it looks like civilization.
Actually, as teen in the 70's when Cronkite talked about this what seemed like every night, I did have a problem with this. I found it far too narrow. I would have preferred:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law for all residents shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

It didn't make sense to me, given the climate of the 70's, to limit the amendment to just male/female issues. I'm pretty sure this was NOT Schlafly's stance.

[Cicero]

Reading Comp Fail

History Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia_Mott)

Reasoning Fail

Yes, thanks to feminism. Debate Fail

English Fail

Without feminists, Schlafly would not have been able to accomplish any of those things (except the wife and mother thing, of course). I guess standing on the shoulders of giants gives you a great vantage point from which to spit on those giants.


Relevance Fail


Congratulations, you're practically a feminist.


This would be a great time to take a time machine back to 1923 (not the "mid 1960's") and read the entire text of the ERA. Have you read this? Settle in, it sounds like it's going to be long. A whole "extra set of rights" along with lowering standards and other elements of social engineering... do we really have space for the whole text? Let's take a look:

Oh. That's it? That's what Phyllis Schlafly was so scared of, and was so determined to make the rest of us so scared of? That doesn't look like radicalism to me, it looks like civilization.

You oppose the ERA? What right or rights would you like the United States or any state to be able to deny or abridge to some of its citizens on account of sex? Be specific.

Sure. The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 was the birth of women rights advocacy. Of the 68 women at the Convention, several of them, Lucretia Mott, Charlotte Woodward, and Liz Stanton, would gain recognition for their efforts. But this had to do specifically with voting rights. The 19th Amendment was still 72 years away. At no pint in this discussion were voting rights mentioned since this had nothing to do with the 1960's Feminism.

We could also look at Dorothea Dix, the Civil War nurse and social reformer who established the first American mental hospitals. Yet she opposed abolitionists and women's suffrage. Her efforts to build a state mental hospital in 1843 pre date the Seneca Falls Convention. So if you want to take a journey back in time, you will find that women pioneers did not walk in lock step with Feminism. In fact, Feminism had nothing to do with her success.

The point was not to provide a historical chronology of women rights leaders, but rather to concentrate on the period of time, the mid 1960's, when Women's Liberation was a fixture on the American scene. This is the same period where Friedan and Schlafly came to prominence.

Schlafly did not owe her success to the Feminist Movement, any more than Dorothea Dix did in her day. You may wish to credit Feminism for your current situation, but that is your choice in a free society.

[Cicero]

More updates. Folks are arriving for the commencement as I type. We have laid on extra security measures, with undercover escorts for Schlafly. There is some concern about a "pie" attack...

At present, we understand that the students intend to stand and turn their backs during the presentation of her honorary, and there may be a "walk-off" of the faculty members onstage for the event.
National news has decided to cover the event.

We shall see....

Why do college libs think the appropriate response to someone with contrary opinions is to throw objects at them? At what age do liberals grow out of juvenile behavior?

If there was any doubt about the liberal ideology on college campuses, the planned walk-off by faculty members illustrates the lock step mentality and the intolerance to those who dare not follow the constraints of political correctness. So what else is new?

[Cicero]

[necessary sidetrack]One can raise a child and instill values and elicit the behaviors you want the child to have without violence. I did it, and I did it as a single Mom raising a boy. My parents did it. Lots of people do it and their children learn values through seeing a parent who does not resort to violence to get things accomplished. Parents just need to learn the skills. That is the problem, not what you suggest, "Today's parents just want to be their child's best friend".

If you elicit cooperation from your children because you are bigger and stronger, one day you will no longer be bigger and stronger. You want them to behave because they value good behavior, not because they fear misbehavior.
]

And lots of parents spanked their children when they refused to behave and those children did not grow up to be serial killers, but are as well adjusted as you claim you and your son to be. You want to restrict parents from choosing the method of correction that they see fit because you consider any physical act as "violence." Not only is this view invalid, it is condescending and self-righteous.

You have a turned a blind eye to the state of parenting today if you deny many parents only want to be their child's best friend and take no actions to jeopardize that relationship.

[Upchurch]

on going... (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=146350)

Prior to the graduation, students handed out fliers and white armbands in a silent protest.

They said her philosophies don't follow that of the university's.

In response to week-long protests by students and some staff, the University said they are simply honoring an alumna of the school whose life has had a broad impact on America.

Schafly plans to speak to the media after graduation.

[Cleon]

Fliers and white armbands?

They're behaving like animals! Animals, I say!

[LostAngeles]

Sure. The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 was the birth of women rights advocacy. Of the 68 women at the Convention, several of them, Lucretia Mott, Charlotte Woodward, and Liz Stanton, would gain recognition for their efforts. But this had to do specifically with voting rights. The 19th Amendment was still 72 years away. At no pint in this discussion were voting rights mentioned since this had nothing to do with the 1960's Feminism.

We could also look at Dorothea Dix, the Civil War nurse and social reformer who established the first American mental hospitals. Yet she opposed abolitionists and women's suffrage. Her efforts to build a state mental hospital in 1843 pre date the Seneca Falls Convention. So if you want to take a journey back in time, you will find that women pioneers did not walk in lock step with Feminism. In fact, Feminism had nothing to do with her success.

The point was not to provide a historical chronology of women rights leaders, but rather to concentrate on the period of time, the mid 1960's, when Women's Liberation was a fixture on the American scene. This is the same period where Friedan and Schlafly came to prominence.

Schlafly did not owe her success to the Feminist Movement, any more than Dorothea Dix did in her day. You may wish to credit Feminism for your current situation, but that is your choice in a free society.

About a hundred years after the starting point, my grandmother, while able to go to school, was not able to use her degree. Women were still expected to get married, serve their husband, and have children.

What happened in the 1960s and 1970s was nothing less than a revolution. Afterwards, women were no longer expected to be domestic and to go to college simply to get their MRS. degree. Now we really had choices. We could be full and active members of society.

Again, how is this bad?

[Cicero]

Fliers and white armbands?

They're behaving like animals! Animals, I say!

After reading Bikewer's post #119, your sarcasm rings hollow.

[Upchurch]

on going... (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=146350)

more... (http://www.ksdk.com/news/gallery/photogallery.aspx?gid=146356)

Students and staff at Washington University wore white ribbons and turned their backs to protest Phyllis Schafly receiving an honorary degree on Friday morning.

[Upchurch]

More updates. Folks are arriving for the commencement as I type. We have laid on extra security measures, with undercover escorts for Schlafly. There is some concern about a "pie" attack...

At present, we understand that the students intend to stand and turn their backs during the presentation of her honorary, and there may be a "walk-off" of the faculty members onstage for the event.
National news has decided to cover the event.

We shall see....

After reading Bikewer's post #119, your sarcasm rings hollow.
why?

Of the things that have happened (so far), it appears they are being quite restrained.

[Cicero]

About a hundred years after the starting point, my grandmother, while able to go to school, was not able to use her degree. Women were still expected to get married, serve their husband, and have children.

What happened in the 1960s and 1970s was nothing less than a revolution. Afterwards, women were no longer expected to be domestic and to go to college simply to get their MRS. degree. Now we really had choices. We could be full and active members of society.

Again, how is this bad?

Come on. While extremely rare, there were even women doctors, never mind women undergrads and grads, back in the late 19th century. What women were "expected" to do and what they actually did have never meshed.

As the name states, it was not a "revolution," it was a Women's Movement. Friedan's comments about Steinem illustrate what was "bad" about this period. While social engineering forced employers to hire women for jobs, some qualified, some not, in traditional male positions, women had been in politics (Jeannette Rankin, Frances Perkins, etc) for 50 years and medicine (Elizabeth Blackwell) for 100 years.

As long as the candidate in question (male or female) is qualified, there is no problem. Of course, there have been instances where the hiring of a particular female just for the sake of being stylish, has proved dangerous (Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen).

I'm sure you, and all American Feminists, will celebrate the day when the National Organization for Women manages to change the males-only draft registration law. But I'm not so sure what the non believers will think.

[Cicero]

why?

Of the things that have happened (so far), it appears they are being quite restrained.

Did you condemn those college punks who threw pies at Coulter? Did any libs?

Bikewer started this thread and works at Washington U. If he is picking up the scuttlebutt about impending pie attacks, planned faculty walks outs, and the entire audience turning their backs to Schlafly, restraint was not on the menu. Since I didn't see any post by Cleon objecting to this type of behavior, her unctuous comment about armbands is non-committal.

[Cleon]

Did you condemn those college punks who threw pies at Coulter? Did any libs?

Bikewer started this thread and works at Washington U. If he is picking up the scuttlebutt about impending pie attacks, planned faculty walks outs, and the entire audience turning their backs to Schlafly, restraint was not on the menu. Since I didn't see any post by Cleon objecting to this type of behavior, her unctuous comment about armbands is non-committal.

1. I am not a "her."
2. You're taking a vague statement ("there is some concern about a pie attack...") and making a huge production out of it.
3. Clearly, you have made up your mind that the people protesting Schlafly are unruly hooligans bent on madness, and what they actually do has no bearing on what you've decided to believe.

Of course, the facts don't seem to have much bearing on your opinions, anyway.

[fuelair]

Just curious, anybody think the "honor" the school gives her will be remotely balanced by the dishonor doing it brings them? (I don't, I think the dishonor is much greater. but curious).

[Upchurch]

Did you condemn those college punks who threw pies at Coulter? Did any libs?
A little bit, but only a little bit.

What does that have to do with the response made by the folks at Wash U?


Bikewer started this thread and works at Washington U. If he is picking up the scuttlebutt about impending pie attacks, planned faculty walks outs, and the entire audience turning their backs to Schlafly, restraint was not on the menu.
He said there was some concern about a pie attack, but not who was concerned about it or why. If someone had picked up on actual plans to pie Schafly, you might have a point. If it is just security being cautious, you don't, especially in light of the fact that no one seems to have actually had any plans to pie her.

[GreyICE]

Did you condemn those college punks who threw pies at Coulter? Did any libs? Does anyone really think someone getting a pie thrown at them constitutes the sort of assault that deserves great outrage? I remember conservatives being much more restrained over gay men being beaten to death. Maybe all this wailing and gnashing of teeth is a mite hypocritical, no?

Bikewer started this thread and works at Washington U. If he is picking up the scuttlebutt about impending pie attacks, planned faculty walks outs, and the entire audience turning their backs to Schlafly, restraint was not on the menu. Since I didn't see any post by Cleon objecting to this type of behavior, her unctuous comment about armbands is non-committal.Security takes measures to prevent the president from being assassinated every time he appears in public. This, by your otherworldly logic, means every time he appears in public there's an assassination plot.

[pgwenthold]

Does anyone really think someone getting a pie thrown at them constitutes the sort of assault that deserves great outrage?

It was interesting last night on Sex Revolution on VH1, they were talking about Anita Bryant (from OJ commercials and raging homophobe) and they showed a clip where she got pied. This was back in the mid-70s even, I think.

I didn't realize the tradition went back that far.

[GreyICE]

It was interesting last night on Sex Revolution on VH1, they were talking about Anita Bryant (from OJ commercials and raging homophobe) and they showed a clip where she got pied. This was back in the mid-70s even, I think.

I didn't realize the tradition went back that far.

Pies in the face is something clowns have done since Barnum and Bailey I think. It's juvenile, but, well... college.

[LostAngeles]

Come on. While extremely rare, there were even women doctors, never mind women undergrads and grads, back in the late 19th century. What women were "expected" to do and what they actually did have never meshed.

You mean women in college to simply become a schoolteacher, yes? Because that's what happened.

As the name states, it was not a "revolution," it was a Women's Movement. Friedan's comments about Steinem illustrate what was "bad" about this period. While social engineering forced employers to hire women for jobs, some qualified, some not, in traditional male positions, women had been in politics (Jeannette Rankin, Frances Perkins, etc) for 50 years and medicine (Elizabeth Blackwell) for 100 years.

As long as the candidate in question (male or female) is qualified, there is no problem. Of course, there have been instances where the hiring of a particular female just for the sake of being stylish, has proved dangerous (Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen).

It was a revolution. Consider the role of women in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1950s, and the 1980s. The largest change (and you might want to look up the world, "revolution") occurs between the 1950s and the 1980s. Whereas only a few women had moved into such positions, after the 1960s and 70s, substantially more women were in such positions. It was not a matter of social engineering, it was acknowledging that these women were just as qualified as their male peers.

Also, I'd like to know what exactly Friedan said about Steinam.

I'm sure you, and all American Feminists, will celebrate the day when the National Organization for Women manages to change the males-only draft registration law. But I'm not so sure what the non believers will think.

Actually, yes. Yes I will celebrate that day. The males-only draft is wrong.

You still haven't told me what is wrong with feminism.

[Upchurch]

news report (http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?aid=76604&bw=)

[Skeptic Ginger]

The women is 84 and she still provokes liberals into paroxysms of political correctness. Obviously, her opinions are still having a "demonstrable bearing" on pop culture.

Ironic that her detractors are the ones who have unintentionally made her relevant and topical in the millennium with their feckless protests.

You confuse fading from the spotlight with being relevant. Of course the media is loathe to mention or credit Schlafly with effecting the social issues of the country, yet she has been prominent in social and political issues in the 60's, 70's, 80', 90's and now again. Contrast her to the media darling harpy Gloria Steinem, whose accomplishments pale in comparison to Schlafly's.

Perhaps you could offer up another conservative octogenarian whose opinions are routinely sought after by liberal media types?Her detractors, like Judge Jones, that Bush appointed turncoat who ruled on the legal issues instead of legislating from the bench as Schafly wanted him to?

What are you anyway, one of those creeps that thinks women should be obedient to men because you believe some magic man in the sky told you so?

[Finnegan]

If there was any doubt about the liberal ideology on college campuses, the planned walk-off by faculty members illustrates the lock step mentality and the intolerance to those who dare not follow the constraints of political correctness. So what else is new?

Maybe it's because she - with a capacity for intolerance than they could hope to match - would dearly like to constrain their freedoms.

[GreyICE]

After seeing that the liberals somehow once again managed to control themselves and not act like raving, frothing-at-the-mouth animals, Cicero has probably departed this thread. We might get another mocking comment or two, but this is done for now.

Of course Cicero will happily be waiting around for liberals to prove themselves the monsters they truly are at the next time a conservative speaks. And the one after that. And the one after that. And eventually something will happen, and he'll seize on it as proof of his prejudices. Because that's how selection bias works - you hang out and wait for evidence that supports your point and dismiss everyting else as an aberration.

[LostAngeles]

After seeing that the liberals somehow once again managed to control themselves and not act like raving, frothing-at-the-mouth animals, Cicero has probably departed this thread. We might get another mocking comment or two, but this is done for now.

Of course Cicero will happily be waiting around for liberals to prove themselves the monsters they truly are at the next time a conservative speaks. And the one after that. And the one after that. And eventually something will happen, and he'll seize on it as proof of his prejudices. Because that's how selection bias works - you hang out and wait for evidence that supports your point and dismiss everyting else as an aberration.

Awww.

I'm sorry, my ****. Now you'll never know why you're supposed to make me in bondage to someone with a wiener.

...

Aside from that...

[Cicero]

After seeing that the liberals somehow once again managed to control themselves and not act like raving, frothing-at-the-mouth animals, Cicero has probably departed this thread. We might get another mocking comment or two, but this is done for now.

Of course Cicero will happily be waiting around for liberals to prove themselves the monsters they truly are at the next time a conservative speaks. And the one after that. And the one after that. And eventually something will happen, and he'll seize on it as proof of his prejudices. Because that's how selection bias works - you hang out and wait for evidence that supports your point and dismiss everything else as an aberration.

What do you mean "eventually" something will happen? Libs routinely heckle David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and even Christopher Hitchens, when they appear on college campuses. The aberration would be if the minority conservative college students ever mimicked the tactics of the liberal petulant students/professors against the ubiquitous liberal college speakers.

Thread starter Bikewer is the one who brought up the impending tactics to be employed by libs at Washington U, not me. If these things didn't materialize, aside from the lock step armbands and back turning stunt, don't blame me.

It seems notorious misogynist MSNBC's Chirs Matthews also received an honorary degree from Washington U. I wonder what sort of protest the campus libs drummed up for him? Oh, wait. He is a liberal misogynist. Never mind.

[GreyICE]

What do you mean "eventually" something will happen? Libs routinely heckle David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, and even Christopher Hitchens, when they appear on college campuses. The aberration would be if the minority conservative college students mimicked the tactics of the liberal petulant students/professors against the ubiquitous liberal college speakers. So this time was the aberration. Like the aberation before that. And the aberration before that. The sampling bias, it is immensely obvious here, to everyone besides you.

Thread starter Bikewer is the one who brought up the impending tactics to be employed by libs at Washington U, not me. If these things didn't materialize, aside from the lock step armbands and back turning stunt, don't blame me. Huh? Impending tactics? Wow. Once again, we have the 'every time security secures the president against an assassination, someone tried to assassinate the president' logic. Security prepares for the worst case. Yes, every time. That's what they do.

It seems notorious misogynist MSNBC's Chirs Matthews also received an honorary degree from Washington U. I wonder what sort of protest the campus libs drummed up for him? Oh, wait. He is a liberal misogynist. Never mind. The only reference I can find to this is that he hates Hillary Clinton. By this standard, there's a whole lot of misogynists. But sure, lets follow this particular Tu Quoque to the end.

[Cicero]

So this time was the aberration. Like the aberation before that. And the aberration before that. The sampling bias, it is immensely obvious here, to everyone besides you.
Huh? Impending tactics? Wow. Once again, we have the 'every time security secures the president against an assassination, someone tried to assassinate the president' logic. Security prepares for the worst case. Yes, every time. That's what they do.
The only reference I can find to this is that he hates Hillary Clinton. By this standard, there's a whole lot of misogynists. But sure, lets follow this particular Tu Quoque to the end.

If you could suspend your Tommy impersonation for just a moment, you might acknowledge that I was not the one who suggested anything was going to happen untoward at the ceremony, it was Bikewer. My comments were based on his pre ceremony reporting. What he described was not far fetched since it had happened on college campuses previously. So what is all your hand wringing about?

BTW: You might want to purchase a CD from the Video Professor since your internet surfing skills are the equivalent of a Luddite. Matthews demonstrated his misogyny on occasions where Hillary was nowhere to be seen. But what the Hell, it's not as if Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Erin Burnett are running for President, they just have supporting roles.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12530.html

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1050&Itemid=2

[Cicero]

What are you anyway, one of those creeps that thinks women should be obedient to men because you believe some magic man in the sky told you so?

Ah, no. The ACLU defends this type of behavior. And their "magic" flows from people like you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977

[Morrigan]

Can you explain what's wrong with feminism, Cicero?

[Upchurch]

What are you anyway, one of those creeps that thinks women should be obedient to men because you believe some magic man in the sky told you so?
Ah, no. The ACLU defends this type of behavior. And their "magic" flows from people like you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977
Your article is talking about the ACLU defending polygamy, not defending that women should be obedient to men. Was that the article you meant to link to?

[Cicero]

Your article is talking about the ACLU defending polygamy, not defending that women should be obedient to men. Was that the article you meant to link to?

I wasn't aware that American polygamist cults are bastions of women's rights. Perhaps you should read up on the Warren Jeffs trial, and polygamists in general, before swinging in on a knotted rope to defend the ACLU. You must subscribe to the Chris Matthews form of feminism.

[MarkCorrigan]

Your article is talking about the ACLU defending polygamy, not defending that women should be obedient to men. Was that the article you meant to link to?

I think you should be saying "Your article links to WorldNetDaily. Was that the article you meant to link to?"

[Upchurch]

I wasn't aware that American polygamist cults are bastions of women's rights.
I wasn't aware that the ACLU was defending American polygamist cults' ability to infringe on women's rights. From your own article:

The ACLU chief said her organization defends "the freedom of choice for mature, consenting individuals,"
(my emphasis)

What they are defending is the act of polygamy, not forcing underage girls into wedlock, which is the problem with polygamist cults like the one recently raided in Texas.


Perhaps you should read up on the Warren Jeffs trial,
Okay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs).


Jeffs gained international notoriety in May 2006 when he was placed on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution on Utah state charges related to his alleged arrangement of extralegal marriages between his adult male followers and underage girls.

This is not what the ACLU is defending (see above).

(more (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695229917,00.html?pg=2))

Jeffs, 51, was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of five-years-to-life in prison for rape as an accomplice, a first-degree felony. The polygamist leader performed a marriage between a 14-year-old follower and her 19-year-old cousin.



What was it about the Warren Jeffs trial that you thought helped your case that the ACLU is that women should be obedient to men? Did they defend his "right" to arrange the rape of underage girls?

[Upchurch]

I think you should be saying "Your article links to WorldNetDaily. Was that the article you meant to link to?"
As questionable as the source of the article is, the basic topic of the article is true. The ACLU is, indeed, defending the practice of polygamy (http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html). It does not, however, support Cicero's claim that the ACLU is defending that women should be obedient to men.

I suspect that Cicero is conflating the issues of polygamy and the unethical acts of polygamist cults even though the ACLU is specifically defending one and not the other.

[Upchurch]

For what it's worth, I happen to know a group of polyamorous people. They're nice enough people. A little weird, but its no skin off my nose. They are all over the age of 18 and do not appear to be slavishly oppressing one another in any way.

If they want to get collectively married, I guess I would defend their right to do so. Why not?

eta: The funny thing is, if you were to dig back into forum history, you could find threads where I argued against polygamy. It's funny how a little exposure to those who are different can provide the opportunity to question one's own assumptions.

[Cicero]

As questionable as the source of the article is, the basic topic of the article is true. The ACLU is, indeed, defending the practice of polygamy (http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html). It does not, however, support Cicero's claim that the ACLU is defending that women should be obedient to men.

I suspect that Cicero is conflating the issues of polygamy and the unethical acts of polygamist cults even though the ACLU is specifically defending one and not the other.

And how do you spin the ACLU support of NAMBLA?

[Cleon]

And how do you spin the ACLU support of NAMBLA?

Uh...Freedom of Speech is "spin" now? Huh.

You have the right to have opinions. Even disgusting ones, like NAMBLA's or Schlafly's.

[GreyICE]

If you could suspend your Tommy impersonation for just a moment, you might acknowledge that I was not the one who suggested anything was going to happen untoward at the ceremony, it was Bikewer. My comments were based on his pre ceremony reporting. What he described was not far fetched since it had happened on college campuses previously. So what is all your hand wringing about? Ignoring your insults, which are probably designed to make me angry and thus respond in an insulting manner so you can reinforce your stereotypes and lower the overall tone of the discussion, a reasonably deceptive tactic but not an unusual one, my objection was to your use of the word planned. Bikewar described what security was developing contingency plans for. You described it as if it was what the protesters were planning. Clearly deceptive.

BTW: You might want to purchase a CD from the Video Professor since your internet surfing skills are the equivalent of a Luddite. And you make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. Your point?

Matthews demonstrated his misogyny on occasions where Hillary was nowhere to be seen. But what the Hell, it's not as if Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Erin Burnett are running for President, they just have supporting roles.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12530.html

http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1050&Itemid=2
[/QUOTE]So he made a few jokes in poor taste and dislikes Hillary. We're not talking about defending rape here. It's apples and oranges. I'm not saying I think he was behaving admirably, but it's just apples and oranges.
Ah, no. The ACLU defends this type of behavior. And their "magic" flows from people like you.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977
Please link to more similar news sites. Like The Onion and The Encyclopedia Dramatica. We need more news of that quality.

[Upchurch]

And how do you spin the ACLU support of NAMBLA?
What issue do you think the ACLU represented NAMBLA on?

hint: It is not defending NAMBLA's advocacy of sexual relations between adults and children.



Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. For more information, please read the ACLU's press release.
(source (http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_4))

The above mentioned press release (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html):
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.


No spin needed, just the facts.

Now, do you have any reason to think that the ACLU is defending that women should be obedient to men, aside from your own prejudices?

[Cicero]

What issue do you think the ACLU represented NAMBLA on?

hint: It is not defending NAMBLA's advocacy of sexual relations between adults and children.




(source (http://www.aclu.org/info/18852res20040107.html#3_4))

The above mentioned press release (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html):





No spin needed, just the facts.

Now, do you have any reason to think that the ACLU is defending that women should be obedient to men, aside from your own prejudices?

Now it is your contention that in the polygamy cults women are not inferior to men and are treated equally? Since people grow up in such cults from birth, they know no other lifestyle. So how exactly are they consenting since they are operating from an uniformed position? I'm sure the abuse of women in polygamist cults as reported by the few escapees are just rumors.

The ACLU defense of NAMBLA's so called "freedom of speech" and simultaneous protest they do not defend the group's actions is the usual self-serving disclaimer to justify the ACLU's existence. The ACLU's entire foundation rests on the premise of the slippery slope argument. If they didn't defend 1st Amendment rights of noisome groups then our entire Bill of Rights would be in jeopardy. Of course this is pure baloney, but it does appeal to the loons out there whose favorite refrain to any ACLU detractor is that they are in favor of "shredding the Constitution."

In retrospect, I wonder where the Bill of Rights actually needed the services of the ACLU to ensure its protection in exchange for the ACLU's propping up of these organizations? It sure seems that America got short changed in the bargain.

[Cicero]

Ignoring your insults, which are probably designed to make me angry and thus respond in an insulting manner so you can reinforce your stereotypes and lower the overall tone of the discussion, a reasonably deceptive tactic but not an unusual one, my objection was to your use of the word planned. Bikewar described what security was developing contingency plans for. You described it as if it was what the protesters were planning. Clearly deceptive.
And you make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein. Your point? So he made a few jokes in poor taste and dislikes Hillary. We're not talking about defending rape here. It's apples and oranges. I'm not saying I think he was behaving admirably, but it's just apples and oranges.

Please link to more similar news sites. Like The Onion and The Encyclopedia Dramatica. We need more news of that quality
QUOTE]


William Kennedy Smith's attorney defends rape, I was merely supporting Schlafly's right to appear at her Alma Matter to accept her honorary degree regardless of her comments about whether a wife living in cohabitation with her husband cannot accuse him of rape where there is NO physical or mental abuse.

What difference does it make about who reported the ACLU's defense of polygamists? The fact is that is what they have done and still do. Instead of moaning about the source, challenge the substance.

[Cleon]

Now it is your contention that in the polygamy cults women are not inferior to men and are treated equally?

He said no such thing. Could you at least make an attempt at an honest argument?

These strawmen and assumptions you throw out (with complete certainty of yourself, of course) are really getting old.


The ACLU defense of NAMBLA's so called "freedom of speech"

"Freedom of speech" is now "so-called."

Lovely.

[Morrigan]

Hey, if condemnation of marital rape is "political correctness", I don't see why freedom of speech couldn't be "so-called"!

[LostAngeles]

I'm still waiting to hear what's wrong with feminism. And now with mature, consenting individuals choosing to have polyamorous relationships. Sure, the polygamy cults may be oppressive to women, but if we go after them just for the polyamory, that denies that choice of mature, consenting individuals. We should go after them for being cockwads, not for having multiple wives.

Morrigan, you wanna go play a few rounds of mini-golf or take a few go-kart laps while we wait?

[GreyICE]

William Kennedy Smith's attorney defends rape, I was merely supporting Schlafly's right to appear at her Alma Matter to accept her honorary degree regardless of her comments about whether a wife living in cohabitation with her husband cannot accuse him of rape where there is NO physical or mental abuse. I have been diagnosed with ADD. That should tell you exactly how amazing it is when I comment that you are unable to stay on topic. Tu Quoque isn't a debate style, it's a way of life for you.

What difference does it make about who reported the ACLU's defense of polygamists? The fact is that is what they have done and still do. Instead of moaning about the source, challenge the substance.
Okay. How about the substance is Polygamists, like Nazis, Neoconservatives, and the Christian Right all deserve to have free speech.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Cicero is showing us that that the Gish Gallop isn't just for Bible-humping, evolution deniers.

[Cicero]

He said no such thing. Could you at least make an attempt at an honest argument?

These strawmen and assumptions you throw out (with complete certainty of yourself, of course) are really getting old.



"Freedom of speech" is now "so-called."

Lovely.

The ACLU cannot defend polygamist cults and not simultaneously be defending the organization's culture where women are treated as second class citizens. Every time the ACLU is called on the carpet for their choice of defendant's, they desperately try to convince their detractors that it is never about what these organizations do, it is about freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

These rights are already guaranteed. The ACLU's grandiloquent claim is that if they didn't exist, these rights would be in jeopardy of extinction. Yet there is no evidence to support this contention.

The ACLU may want to cast themselves in the light of 1st Amendment avenging angle, but they have a problem with even extending the 1st Amendment to their own people.

"a board member may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU Board or staff."

I do not have to interpret the unctuousness of the ACLU regarding NAMBLA's freedom of speech by referring to it as "so-called" since the ACLU censors any negative speech aimed at ACLU individuals. The ACLU is all about the theoretical and the abstract until the time when the reality of freedom of speech hits too close to their home.


I

[Cleon]

And, confronted when the facts do not jive with his earlier pronouncements, Cicero changes the subject and makes more pronouncements.

[MarkCorrigan]

The ACLU cannot defend polygamist cults and not simultaneously be defending the organization's culture where women are treated as second class citizens.I

That is simply a lie.

Can I defend a nazis right to spread his filth without agreeing with it? Of course I can. Can I defend it without accepting his "freedom" to kill people? Yes.

You're not that stupid that you do not understand this, so it must be concluded that you are lying.

[LostAngeles]

*continues to wait.*

Maybe we need to have a man ask Cicero what's wrong with feminism? It could just be he doesn't listen to the questions of *****.

[Cicero]

And, confronted when the facts do not jive with his earlier pronouncements, Cicero changes the subject and makes more pronouncements.

Same subject, just quoting ACLU's own "pronouncements."

[Cleon]

Same subject,

Not so much, actually.

Any chance you'll explain to Lost what's wrong with feminism, Sparky? I'm dying with curiousity.

[Cicero]

That is simply a lie.

Can I defend a nazis right to spread his filth without agreeing with it? Of course I can. Can I defend it without accepting his "freedom" to kill people? Yes.

You're not that stupid that you do not understand this, so it must be concluded that you are lying.

Come on. The American Neo Nazi Party, the one that the ACLU defended their right to march in Skokie, is for all intent and purposes dead. These bug wits were not operating concentration camps in the U.S. So the ACLU might possibly get away with claiming they were only trying to protect their right to assemble. Still nonsense. But the polygamists are in real time engaged in actions that result in, ironically, the denial of civil liberties of Americans. The polygamist cults are thriving in the U.S. and since it is not their speech the ACLU defends, the only left to defend is their actions.

[Upchurch]

Now it is your contention that in the polygamy cults women are not inferior to men and are treated equally?
He said no such thing.
What Cleon said.

I'm not contending that in the polygamy cults women are not inferior to men and are treated equally. I never said anything of the kind.


Since people grow up in such cults from birth, they know no other lifestyle. So how exactly are they consenting since they are operating from an uniformed position? I'm sure the abuse of women in polygamist cults as reported by the few escapees are just rumors.
You misunderstand.

The ACLU is defending the practice of polygamy among mature, consenting individuals. They are not defending abuse of anyone. Do you understand the difference?


The ACLU defense of NAMBLA's so called "freedom of speech" and simultaneous protest they do not defend the group's actions is the usual self-serving disclaimer to justify the ACLU's existence.
Let me ask you a question, Cicero.

Do you believe freedom of speech applies to everyone or only those people who say things you like?

[MarkCorrigan]

Come on. The American Neo Nazi Party, the one that the ACLU defended their right to march in Skokie, is for all intent and purposes dead. These bug wits were not operating concentration camps in the U.S. So the ACLU might possibly get away with claiming they were only trying to protect their right to assemble. Still nonsense. But the polygamists are in real time engaged in actions that result in, ironically, the denial of civil liberties of Americans. The polygamist cults are thriving in the U.S. and since it is not their speech the ACLU defends, the only left to defend is their actions.

Ok, let's change it around a bit. A hypothetical, if you will.

Imagine it was a UK based group. Now, we don't have any group even remotely like NAMBLA, nor do we have any polyugamous cults that I know of.

What we DO have are a small, but still absolutely still there, neo-nazi political party. What if the ACLU equivalent (which we also do not have, since this rarely becomes an issue) decided to defend them?

What if the ACLU defended the BNP? Would they be supporting the BNP by doing this?

[Cicero]

*continues to wait.*

Maybe we need to have a man ask Cicero what's wrong with feminism? It could just be he doesn't listen to the questions of *****.

Now that's funny!

But I have already stated this position in post #111.

Therefore, you are laboring under a misapprehension if you think I do not support equal pay for the same work, equal opportunities and equal treatment to women as extended to men. I am opposed to extra rights singling out females and any attempts to lower the standards for a position to accommodate a female applicant.

I do share Betty Friedan's assessment of the Gloria Steinem radical Women's Lib contingent of the 1970's as " bra-burning, anti-man, politics of orgasm school of feminism."

[LostAngeles]

Now that's funny!

But I have already stated this position in post #111.

Therefore, you are laboring under a misapprehension if you think I do not support equal pay for the same work, equal opportunities and equal treatment to women as extended to men. I am opposed to extra rights singling out females and any attempts to lower the standards for a position to accommodate a female applicant.

I do share Betty Friedan's assessment of the Gloria Steinem radical Women's Lib contingent of the 1970's as " bra-burning, anti-man, politics of orgasm school of feminism."

Then what you're describing as feminism is not feminism. Also, pay a bit more attention to the subtleties of Friedan's statement.

There's nothing wrong with bra-burnings and orgasms. Have you ever had a bra or an orgasm?

Not only that, you also completely ignored my response to you earlier.

[Cicero]

What Cleon said.

I'm not contending that in the polygamy cults women are not inferior to men and are treated equally. I never said anything of the kind.



You misunderstand.

The ACLU is defending the practice of polygamy among mature, consenting individuals. They are not defending abuse of anyone. Do you understand the difference?



Let me ask you a question, Cicero.

Do you believe freedom of speech applies to everyone or only those people who say things you like?


How exactly does the ACLU separate out these "consenting" adults from those who have known no other life? This is ridiculous. If the ACLU is in for a penny, they are in for a pound.

Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood and misconstrued right in the Bill of Rights. It does not guarantee the right to speak out on TV, radio, get your letter printed in a newspaper. The individuals freedom of speech is about the freedom to make statements critical of the government and to speak or write your opinions without fear of reprisal or arrest.

Why would I be posting on a predominately liberal board if I didn't appreciate and defend freedom of speech?

There are controls on American speech such as slander, assault, and the proverbial shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Cicero]

Then what you're describing as feminism is not feminism. Also, pay a bit more attention to the subtleties of Friedan's statement.

There's nothing wrong with bra-burnings and orgasms. Have you ever had a bra or an orgasm?

Not only that, you also completely ignored my response to you earlier.

No, but would I be going out on a limb to suggest that Betty met this criteria? What subtleties? That women did not mince words. Unlike Steinem, she, and Schlafly, actually raised a family, managed to get ahead without the support of the male species that Steinem loathes. Of course Steinem did make an exception for Mort Zuckerman who bankrolled her Ms. Magazine.

So Gloria Steinem's idea of feminism is not feminism? Since when?

[Upchurch]

How exactly does the ACLU separate out these "consenting" adults from those who have known no other life?
That's for the law to do, not the ACLU.

If you actually had read anything about the Warren Jeffs trial yourself, you'd notice that he was convicted as an accessory to rape, not polygamy. Did the ACLU defend his case in that sutation?


Freedom of speech is the most misunderstood and misconstrued right in the Bill of Rights. It does not guarantee the right to speak out on TV, radio, get your letter printed in a newspaper. The individuals freedom of speech is about the freedom to make statements critical of the government and to speak or write your opinions without fear of reprisal or arrest.
Indeed. But that was not my question.

Does freedom of speech apply to everyone or just those you agree with?

Does NAMBLA have the right to express their views? Not practice, express. Should that right be defended?


There are controls on American speech such as slander, assault, and the proverbial shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Indeed. Has NAMBLA broken any of those controls by expressing their view point?

[Cicero]

That's for the law to do, not the ACLU.

If you actually had read anything about the Warren Jeffs trial yourself, you'd notice that he was convicted as an accessory to rape, not polygamy. Did the ACLU defend his case in that sutation?



Indeed. But that was not my question.

Does freedom of speech apply to everyone or just those you agree with?

Does NAMBLA have the right to express their views? Not practice, express. Should that right be defended?



Indeed. Has NAMBLA broken any of those controls by expressing their view point?

No. Only my views and those who share my views should be protected under the 1st Amendment. Is it time for recess yet?

Where NAMBLA is attempting to share their views is no doubt where the problem arises. But as you are fond of saying, "that is for the law to decide." Of course if the law rendered a ruling unfavorable to them, the ACLU will continue to cry foul. Why? It is in their nature.

[Upchurch]

No. Only my views and those who share my views should be protected under the 1st Amendment.
What a fantastic candidate for Poe's Law.


Where NAMBLA is attempting to share their views is no doubt where the problem arises.
Sharing ideas is a problem?

[LostAngeles]

No, but would I be going out on a limb to suggest that Betty met this criteria? What subtleties? That women did not mince words. Unlike Steinem, she, and Schlafly, actually raised a family, managed to get ahead without the support of the male species that Steinem loathes. Of course Steinem did make an exception for Mort Zuckerman who bankrolled her Ms. Magazine.

So Gloria Steinem's idea of feminism is not feminism? Since when?

"School of feminism." Friedman as well was a feminist.

FYI, a woman's worth is not necessarily connected to what pops out of her womb. Whether she and Schlafly raised a family and Steinem didn't is not relevant to their value or this conversation.

The core of feminism is equal rights. This includes equal pay which was part of the ERA which you so hate. While some like to tack on LGBT issues, their own issues with the Y chromosone, and other things, at the very core is equal rights. Tied in with right to control over our own body.

Schlafly thinks that marriage means you give up control of your twat to someone. This is not true. This is not feminism. This is not equal rights. This is nothing more than dominating someone simply because of an accident of birth.

Feminism has allowed most women in the industrialized world the opportunity to do more than push out babies, clean the house, maybe teach schoolkids. My **** is not owned by anyone but me. I decide to have babies, to not have babies, to ****, to not ****, to go to school, to not go to school, to work, to not work, to do housework, to not do housework, etc...

So Schlafly and other women manage to claw their way up and we didn't need feminism? Likewise because of Booker T. Washington and others, we didn't need the Civil Rights Movement?

Are you for real?

Really real?

Explain to me, in simple words since my labia do not allow me to understand complicated words, why it is a bad thing that I, a woman, have choices and rights.

Explain to me, in simple ideas since my clit blocks abstract thinking, why it marital rape is not at all rape.

Explain to me, as gently as possible so as not to upset either of my X chromosomes lest they get hysterical, what was so wrong with the Equal Rights Amendment.

[GreyICE]

The ACLU cannot defend polygamist cults and not simultaneously be defending the organization's culture where women are treated as second class citizens. Every time the ACLU is called on the carpet for their choice of defendant's, they desperately try to convince their detractors that it is never about what these organizations do, it is about freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

These rights are already guaranteed. The ACLU's grandiloquent claim is that if they didn't exist, these rights would be in jeopardy of extinction. Yet there is no evidence to support this contention.

The ACLU may want to cast themselves in the light of 1st Amendment avenging angle, but they have a problem with even extending the 1st Amendment to their own people.

"a board member may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU Board or staff."

I do not have to interpret the unctuousness of the ACLU regarding NAMBLA's freedom of speech by referring to it as "so-called" since the ACLU censors any negative speech aimed at ACLU individuals. The ACLU is all about the theoretical and the abstract until the time when the reality of freedom of speech hits too close to their home.
Wow. I am speechless. I mean, you don't know what the 1st amendment says. You do not know what the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, the foundation of our legal system, the most fundamental document to all of our laws, that defines all of the governments power actually says. All this time discussing it and you don't actually know what it says.

This is literally incomprehensible. Apparently my luddite skills extended to reading the history book in grade school. I think I'm going to take a page out of Linus' book in my attempt to describe this:

Epic Fail.

[LostAngeles]

Just to help out GreyICE, with some bolding.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

This is why you're not allowed to say, "****," on the James Randi Educational Foundation's forums and it is not violating your First Amendment rights.

James Randi Educational Foundation is not equal to Congress.

ACLU is not equal to Congress. There is exactly nothing for the ACLU to, "extend," to its own members. It is, in a way, the rule here of, "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

[Skeptic Ginger]

And lots of parents spanked their children when they refused to behave and those children did not grow up to be serial killers, but are as well adjusted as you claim you and your son to be. You want to restrict parents from choosing the method of correction that they see fit because you consider any physical act as "violence." Not only is this view invalid, it is condescending and self-righteous.

You have a turned a blind eye to the state of parenting today if you deny many parents only want to be their child's best friend and take no actions to jeopardize that relationship.Research provides evidence that the best ways to discipline kids do not include violence. The fact that some kids survive unscathed by the mild physical deterrent inflicted by a parent does not provide evidence it is necessary, better, nor always so harmless.

So you have something that is unnecessary and can cause harm. You suggest we continue to use it because that's the way your Daddy did it and you believe you turned out OK?

I suggest we use the evidence based approach and educate kids in high school how to parent instead of holding on to the ridiculous idea that teaching a school subject such as, 'how to discipline a child effectively without violence' somehow interferes with individual rights.

My point about your post, however, was referring to your false assumption that not using violence to discipline a child meant one was being ineffective as you implied and continue to imply with your "best friend" sarcasm.

"The state of parenting today" :rolleyes: Are you one of those people who thinks everything was better in the 'old days'? You do know what a common fallacy that is, I hope? The past always looks better because we selectively remember the good and suppress thoughts of the bad.

[Cicero]

Research provides evidence that the best ways to discipline kids do not include violence. The fact that some kids survive unscathed by the mild physical deterrent inflicted by a parent does not provide evidence it is necessary, better, nor always so harmless.

So you have something that is unnecessary and can cause harm. You suggest we continue to use it because that's the way your Daddy did it and you believe you turned out OK?

I suggest we use the evidence based approach and educate kids in high school how to parent instead of holding on to the ridiculous idea that teaching a school subject such as, 'how to discipline a child effectively without violence' somehow interferes with individual rights.

My point about your post, however, was referring to your false assumption that not using violence to discipline a child meant one was being ineffective as you implied and continue to imply with your "best friend" sarcasm.

"The state of parenting today" :rolleyes: Are you one of those people who thinks everything was better in the 'old days'? You do know what a common fallacy that is, I hope? The past always looks better because we selectively remember the good and suppress thoughts of the bad.

The present will inevitably also be the past, so when the pendulum swings back to treating children like children, not miniature adults, will you then still cling to your notion that what is current is what is best?

What is your position on children and competition? Is it OK for trophies to be of different sizes? Is it OK for kids to play dodge ball in school? You and your philosophical brethren treat children as if they were hot house plants. Not because there are any valid tangible reasons for this, but because it is the liberal pedagogical position on child rearing. Your militant positon is not only do you know the best way to raise your children, but everybody's children. If you want to apply these child discipline techniques based on "studies," that is your prerogative, but don't impose your preferences on the rest of us.

[Cicero]

Just to help out GreyICE, with some bolding.



This is why you're not allowed to say, "****," on the James Randi Educational Foundation's forums and it is not violating your First Amendment rights.

James Randi Educational Foundation is not equal to Congress.

ACLU is not equal to Congress. There is exactly nothing for the ACLU to, "extend," to its own members. It is, in a way, the rule here of, "Attack the argument, not the arguer."

What are you going on about? You refuse to admit the incongruity of the ACLU, an organization supposedly pledged to protecting the most noisome groups in America 1st Amendment rights, and yet they impose restrictions on what their own members can say? Why was the ACLU embarrassed about this when it leaked out if it is just in house rules? What does this have to do with the rules against posting vulgarity on JREF board? What the Hell does this have to do with the Congress?

[GreyICE]

What are you going on about? You refuse to admit the incongruity of the ACLU, an organization supposedly pledged to protecting the most noisome groups in America 1st Amendment rights, and yet they impose restrictions on what their own members can say? Why was the ACLU embarrassed about this when it leaked out if it is just in house rules? What does this have to do with the rules against posting vulgarity on JREF board? What the Hell does this have to do with the Congress?

Lost, you can't help him. He doesn't know what it says. He did it again.

Lets face it - he has no idea what the text of the amendment is. He has no idea why it was created. He has no idea what it does. Apparently the Rush Limbaugh Show never covered that. They just said the ACLU was hypocritical, pedophiles, and supported polygamy, and moved on.

[Upchurch]

What are you going on about? You refuse to admit the incongruity of the ACLU, an organization supposedly pledged to protecting the most noisome groups in America 1st Amendment rights, and yet they impose restrictions on what their own members can say? Why was the ACLU embarrassed about this when it leaked out if it is just in house rules? What does this have to do with the rules against posting vulgarity on JREF board? What the Hell does this have to do with the Congress?
(my emphasis)

What do First Amendment Rights have to do with Congress? Seriously? Who do you think the First Amendment was designed to protect American's from?

Pay attention:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, it's time for a test. One question, multiple choice:

1. Who is prevented from abridging the freedom of speech?

James Randi
Congress
The ACLU
All of the above



eta:
Extra Credit: Who is allowed to abridge the freedom of speech within their own organizations?

James Randi
Congress
The ACLU
All but B

[Cicero]

... the ACLU was hypocritical, pedophiles, and supported polygamy, and moved on.

You finally got something right. Well, even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn.

Everyone in this thread should remember to attack the argument and not the arguer. Please be civil.

[Cicero]

(my emphasis)

What do First Amendment Rights have to do with Congress? Seriously? Who do you think the First Amendment was designed to protect American's from?

Pay attention:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, it's time for a test. One question, multiple choice:

1. Who is prevented from abridging the freedom of speech?

James Randi
Congress
The ACLU
All of the above



eta:
Extra Credit: Who is allowed to abridge the freedom of speech within their own organizations?

James Randi
Congress
The ACLU
All but B


This is some tortured defense of your lovable ACLU. What exactly would the ACLU have to fear from its own memebrs speaking critically of other members?

Do you think you might be able to explain this without conjugating the three branches of government?

[GreyICE]

This is some tortured defense of your lovable ACLU. What exactly would the ACLU have to fear from its own memebrs speaking critically of other members?

Do you think you might be able to explain this without conjugating the three branches of government?

I dunno, lets try the screamingly obvious. From ACLU.ORG:
The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

From the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Upchurch]

This is some tortured defense of your lovable ACLU.
No, it's some of the contents of a basic high school level civics class.


Do you think you might be able to explain this without conjugating the three branches of government?
I thought I had, but I'll put it even more plainly, if possible.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prevents Congress from making laws that restrict freedom of speech. It does not prevent private individuals or organizations from making rules within their own groups that restrict freedom of speech.

[LostAngeles]

What are you going on about? You refuse to admit the incongruity of the ACLU, an organization supposedly pledged to protecting the most noisome groups in America 1st Amendment rights, and yet they impose restrictions on what their own members can say? Why was the ACLU embarrassed about this when it leaked out if it is just in house rules? What does this have to do with the rules against posting vulgarity on JREF board? What the Hell does this have to do with the Congress?

You should have read what I quoted.

But it's clear you lack reading comprehension or at least the chutzpah to respond to my earlier questions a few posts above. Way to fail.

Can you get your ACLU hate-on down to at least a chubby please and let's go back to feminism and how husbands are allowed to rape their wives?

[Cicero]

No, it's some of the contents of a basic high school level civics class.



I thought I had, but I'll put it even more plainly, if possible.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution prevents Congress from making laws that restrict freedom of speech. It does not prevent private individuals or organizations from making rules within their own groups that restrict freedom of speech.

1) This would actually be relevant if Strossen and Romero were NOT violating the ACLU's own bylaws. The JREF libs in this thread have staunchly defended the underhanded tactics of the dictatorial Romero and Strossen and thrown the ACLU rank and file membership, including former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser, under the Greyhound, just to refuse to admit that the ACLU is indeed capable of the same censorship (whether it be internal of government mandated) they accuse others of.

When Meyers began to publicly excoriate the ACLU leadership, those leaders moved quickly to confront him. Meyers says he got a call in July 2004 from Nadine Strossen, who told him, "We are asking people not to talk to the media." Meyers replied, "Well, you know, Nadine, you can't remind me of that because you know the policy is specific." (ACLU bylaws guarantee the right of board members to express their personal views.) Strossen: "I thought you'd say that." Meyers: "So why are you calling me?"

2) Romero and Strossen never invoked your argument and the outraged ACLU members would not be impressed with your fig leaf answer of convenience.

NEW Rules Regarding Employee Confidentiality & Technology Use:

"You agree that you will...not disclose ACLU Confidential Information to anyone outside the ACLU unless you have been explicitly authorized to do so by your Senior Staff Member or your Departmental Head." The new rules drew an anonymous (and outraged) letter from staff members, who complained that the agreement would "redefine 'confidentiality' in an overbroad and vague way, vesting in management the authority to define a wide variety of information as confidential." The letter also expressed the fear that employee e-mail would be monitored by management. "If we worked somewhere else we would be complaining to the ACLU," the letter declared."

3) Strossen and Romero's proposed gag rule ran afoul of the local authorities as well. "The New York State Attorney General's office informally warned the ACLU that the proposed rights and responsibilities language was unacceptable." And board memebrs themselves said Romero "betrayed fundamental ACLU values."

I wonder why these proposed new rule changes were shelved by the ACLU top brass if they were operating in the best interest of the organization, its members, and its reputation as 1st Amendment defender?

[LostAngeles]

So are they violating the First Amendment rights or are they violating their own bylaws? Is it ok for a husband to rape his wife? What's wrong with feminism? Will Optimus Prime be able to foil Megatron's evil plan?

All this and the Final Cylon reveal...

[GreyICE]

1) This would actually be relevant if Strossen and Romero were NOT violating the ACLU's own bylaws. The JREF libs in this thread have staunchly defended the underhanded tactics of the dictatorial Romero and Strossen and thrown the ACLU rank and file membership, including former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser, under the Greyhound, just to refuse to admit that the ACLU is indeed capable of the same censorship (whether it be internal of government mandated) they accuse others of.

When Meyers began to publicly excoriate the ACLU leadership, those leaders moved quickly to confront him. Meyers says he got a call in July 2004 from Nadine Strossen, who told him, "We are asking people not to talk to the media." Meyers replied, "Well, you know, Nadine, you can't remind me of that because you know the policy is specific." (ACLU bylaws guarantee the right of board members to express their personal views.) Strossen: "I thought you'd say that." Meyers: "So why are you calling me?"
Ignoring your conspiracy-theorist overtones, lets break this conversation down:

One person dissents with some others.

"Please don't talk to the media."
"You know I have the right to talk to the media."
"Yes, you do, I was hoping to work this out internally."

Yes, obviously the ACLU is some evil organization. They request someone doesn't talk to the media, and when they say he does, they say that their policy lets him. Wow. I can feel the evil.

And this is before we even question, y'know, the validity of word of mouth on a telephone conversation. You should have heard some of the things my ex-girlfriend said to me. Why, this one time...

2) Romero and Strossen never invoked your argument and the outraged ACLU members would not be impressed with your fig leaf answer of convenience.

NEW Rules Regarding Employee Confidentiality & Technology Use:

"You agree that you will...not disclose ACLU Confidential Information to anyone outside the ACLU unless you have been explicitly authorized to do so by your Senior Staff Member or your Departmental Head." The new rules drew an anonymous (and outraged) letter from staff members, who complained that the agreement would "redefine 'confidentiality' in an overbroad and vague way, vesting in management the authority to define a wide variety of information as confidential." The letter also expressed the fear that employee e-mail would be monitored by management. "If we worked somewhere else we would be complaining to the ACLU," the letter declared."
Source? Where is this from?
3) Strossen and Romero's proposed gag rule ran afoul of the local authorities as well. "The New York State Attorney General's office informally warned the ACLU that the proposed rights and responsibilities language was unacceptable." And board memebrs themselves said Romero "betrayed fundamental ACLU values." Source?

I wonder why these proposed new rule changes were shelved by the ACLU top brass if they were operating in the best interest of the organization, its members, and its reputation as 1st Amendment defender?
I wonder why you don't feel the need to source these obvious copy-pastes.

[Cicero]

Ignoring your conspiracy-theorist overtones, lets break this conversation down:

One person dissents with some others.

"Please don't talk to the media."
"You know I have the right to talk to the media."
"Yes, you do, I was hoping to work this out internally."

Yes, obviously the ACLU is some evil organization. They request someone doesn't talk to the media, and when they say he does, they say that their policy lets him. Wow. I can feel the evil.

And this is before we even question, y'know, the validity of word of mouth on a telephone conversation. You should have heard some of the things my ex-girlfriend said to me. Why, this one time...
Source? Where is this from? Source?

I wonder why you don't feel the need to source these obvious copy-pastes.


OK. The source is from an ultra right wing publication, The Nation. I thought I posted the source in post #166, but it was in another thread about the ACLU. I am certainly no fan of the ACLU, but the people writing the article, and the people quoted in the article, are true believers. They would love to see this thread were the JREF libs are mocking their sincere concerns.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/sherman

[UnrepentantSinner]

You refuse to admit the incongruity of the ACLU, an organization supposedly pledged to protecting the most noisome groups in America 1st Amendment rights, and yet they impose restrictions on what their own members can say? Why was the ACLU embarrassed about this when it leaked out if it is just in house rules? What does this have to do with the rules against posting vulgarity on JREF board? What the Hell does this have to do with the Congress?

This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. One of the most important areas of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment is the political free speech and yet, the ultimate manifest protector of our rights - the military - has restrictions on political speech by its members. Your non-point was an intellectual abortion before you even brought it up.

[Cicero]

This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. One of the most important areas of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment is the political free speech and yet, the ultimate manifest protector of our rights - the military - has restrictions on political speech by its members. Your non-point was an intellectual abortion before you even brought it up.

Let's examine your still born canard about the lack of !st Amendment rights of those in the all volunteer U.S. military.

Article 88 of the USMJ:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

"The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial."

Perhaps you could cite a case where an officer was ever Court Marshaled for this offense? Your problem with Article 88 does not seem to be shared by those who it actually effects.

Members of the armed forces are eligible to vote, gripe about military life, and communicate freely with their families. How would any military organization function if those in uniform were constantly being insubordinate and disrespectful to their superiors? If this is such an important aspect of one's life, then I suggest you do not enlist, and certainly, never accept a commission.

It was the framers of the Constitution who subordinated the armed forces to civilian rule. If you have a problem with restrictions placed upon military personnel, then your beef is with them.

[LostAngeles]

*continues to wait*

*has a cup of tea*

[Cicero]

So Schlafly and other women manage to claw their way up and we didn't need feminism? Likewise because of Booker T. Washington and others, we didn't need the Civil Rights Movement?


Explain to me, in simple ideas since my clit blocks abstract thinking, why it marital rape is not at all rape.

Explain to me, as gently as possible so as not to upset either of my X chromosomes lest they get hysterical, what was so wrong with the Equal Rights Amendment.


Now you are beginning to catch on. There were many females that managed to achieve their professional dreams long before feminism. How do you equate the Civil Rights Act, that abolished the separate but equal policy for an entire race, to feminism, which was not responsible for any significant advancement in female equality in American society? The Women's Movement raison d'etre was the ERA and that went down in flames. Do we need to review who was responsible for this defeat?

What was wrong with the ERA was that it could never justify why the misnomer "weaker sex" needed additional rights not already guaranteed in the constitution.

You are the one who continues to focus on the differences in your biological equipment for the obligatory need to have an extra set of redresses for perceived discrimination in the workplace.

How many times have I already dissected Schlafy's opinions on marital rape in this thread? She is entitled to her opinions. The honorary degree ceremony is over. Now you can go back to your secure world where all Americans can accuse another of rape, no matter the situation or circumstances, and the legal system will take it's course.

Is it OK if the majority of women in the U.S. do not consider themselves feminists, or subscribe to the feminist philosophy?

[LostAngeles]

Now you are beginning to catch on. There were many females that managed to achieve their professional dreams long before feminism. How do you equate the Civil Rights Act, that abolished the separate but equal policy for an entire race, to feminism, which was not responsible for any significant advancement in female equality in American society? The Women's Movement raison d'etre was the ERA and that went down in flames. Do we need to review who was responsible for this defeat?

And there were many blacks who achieved their professional dreams before the 14th Amendment was finally enforced. Did we need the Civil Rights Movement?

What was wrong with the ERA was that it could never justify why the misnomer "weaker sex" needed additional rights not already guaranteed in the constitution.

The ERA would not grant additional rights, it would place that those rights can not be denied on the basis of sex into the Constitution. By your reasoning, we don't need the 14th amendment either.

You are the one who continues to focus on the differences in your biological equipment for the obligatory need to have an extra set of redresses for perceived discrimination in the workplace.

Where have I done that? Show me exactly where I have said that, please.

Also, are you familiar with the recent Lily Ledbetter case?

How many times have I already dissected Schlafy's opinions on marital rape in this thread? She is entitled to her opinions. The honorary degree ceremony is over. Now you can go back to your secure world where all Americans can accuse another of rape, no matter the situation or circumstances, and the legal system will take it's course.

I don't believe that you have at all. Could you show me where you've done so?

Is it OK if the majority of women in the U.S. do not consider themselves feminists, or subscribe to the feminist philosophy?

Is that relevant? If so, can you show me data where the majority of women in the U.S. said that they do not agree with equal rights, pay, right of control over one's own body and not just, "I don't subscribe to the feminist philosophy," or something similar?

For all the time you spent on completely misunderstanding what the First Amendment is instead of addressing this, what a waste.

[linusrichard]

What was wrong with the ERA was that it could never justify why the misnomer "weaker sex" needed additional rights not already guaranteed in the constitution.
Why would the ERA have needed to justify additional rights for women? Have you read the ERA? Where are you getting "additional rights"?
How many times have I already dissected Schlafy's opinions on marital rape in this thread? She is entitled to her opinions.
Has anyone suggested she's not entitled to her opinions? We're entitled to be disgusted by disgusting opinions, and express our disgust.
The honorary degree ceremony is over. Now you can go back to your secure world where all Americans can accuse another of rape, no matter the situation or circumstances, and the legal system will take it's course.
I'd rather have a world where people are able to make false accusations than one where people are unable to make true accusations. If you had to choose one, which would you pick?
Is it OK if the majority of women in the U.S. do not consider themselves feminists, or subscribe to the feminist philosophy?
Is it OK? What does this question mean? One reason most Americans don't consider themselves feminists is because people like Schlafly have poisoned the word. I am pretty sure that most American women (and I think it's actually more likely than not that most Americans) are feminists, and they don't know it because they don't know what the word means, and part of the reason they don't know what it means is nobody's fault in particular, because admittedly self-identified feminists themselves can't agree on a definition. But part of the reason is because of despicable fearmongers like Schlafly.

[GreyICE]

OK. The source is from an ultra right wing publication, The Nation. I thought I posted the source in post #166, but it was in another thread about the ACLU. I am certainly no fan of the ACLU, but the people writing the article, and the people quoted in the article, are true believers. They would love to see this thread were the JREF libs are mocking their sincere concerns.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/sherman So both sides support the current incarnation of the ACLU at the ground/legislative level, and both sides think its doing an excellent job in prosecuting cases and protecting liberties, but they have a philosophical disagreement within the leadership.

I mean look at the ground level issues. They did not withdraw from the CFC fast enough (it took them 5 months) because there was a breakdown in communication about the natures of the rules change.

Another one of your huge issues?
Romero says the proposed rules were "a response to the fact that we had a consultant who walked away with an entire donor list and thought it was appropriate to send it to a newspaper reporter"--Strom of the Times. (Strom declined to discuss her reporting.) Romero explains that his staff had to understand that "what was on their computers and databases was not theirs but the ACLU's. There were certain lines that needed to be drawn." Would the proposed rules have entailed the monitoring of staff e-mails? "The idea that we would monitor our employees' e-mails is farfetched," Romero says. What's clear is that the proposed rules--which were ultimately shelved--provided ammunition to Romero's critics, who saw them as an attempt to crush internal dissent at the national office. So someone walked away with a donor list (information that isn't something that necessarily should be made public in its entirety) and they decided to create rules that gave them a legal avenue to prevent this because they had absolutely zero rules in place regulating information. There was a debate, and the rules got shelved.

For this, by the way, you've jumped up and down claiming the ACLU is muzzling its employees. Note that none of the proposed rules you are talking about, by the way, actually passed the ACLU's rather active decision making process on internal rules.


This is, by the way, why I ask for sources. You get such a fuller picture when you're actually reading something that isn't cherry picked for bias.

P.S. ACLU Still isn't the government of the United States.

[Elizabeth I]

What was wrong with the ERA was that it could never justify why the misnomer "weaker sex" needed additional rights not already guaranteed in the constitution.

It has been said already, but I get the idea that many, many repetitions may be necessary for you to understand the concept: the ERA would not have created "additional" rights for women; it would have constitutionally ensured that they were included in those rights already enumerated in the Constitution.

Is it OK if the majority of women in the U.S. do not consider themselves feminists, or subscribe to the feminist philosophy?

Actually, when asked questions such as "Do you believe in equal pay for equal work?" "Do you believe a woman should be hired instead of a man if she is the best person for the job?" "Do you believe women should have control over their own reproductive systems and health decisions?" most women do subscribe to the "feminist philosophy."

How many times have I already dissected Schlafy's opinions on marital rape in this thread? She is entitled to her opinions. The honorary degree ceremony is over. Now you can go back to your secure world where all Americans can accuse another of rape, no matter the situation or circumstances, and the legal system will take it's course.

Is it just my imagination, or does Cicero seem to have some kind of...personal...investment in this emphasis on accusations of rape thing? Some unpleasant experience in his past? (And the possessive of it is its; it's is a contraction for it is.)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Let's examine your still born canard about the lack of !st Amendment rights of those in the all volunteer U.S. military.

{snip response missing the point entirely}.

If you'd spent any time in the military, or as much time educating your self as you do blustering and blathering, you'd know that I'm referring to DOD directive 1344.10. Here's one of the most concise webpages I found with the list of restrictions.
http://www.laughlin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123078250
Military Members MAY NOT:
· use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, to affect its course or outcome, to solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or to require or solicit political contributions from others.
· be a candidate for, or hold civil office, except as authorized in AFI 51-902, paragraphs 5 and 6.
· participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions, or make public speeches in the course of such activity.
· allow, or cause to be published, partisan political articles signed or authorized by the member for soliciting votes for or against a partisan political party or candidate.
· serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.
· speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind for promoting a partisan political party or candidate.
· participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate of a partisan political party or candidate.
· conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political group, or distribute partisan political literature.
· perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during a campaign or on election day.
· solicit or otherwise engage in fund-raising activities in federal offices or facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.
· march or ride in a partisan political parade.
· participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to the polls, if the effort is organized by or associated with a partisan political party or candidate.
· attend, as an official representative of the Armed Forces, partisan political events, even without actively participating.
· engage in the public or organized recruitment of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election to a civil office.
· make campaign contributions to a partisan political candidate.
· make campaign contributions to another member of the Armed Forces or an officer or employee of the federal government for promoting a political objective or cause.
· solicit or receive a campaign contribution from another member of the Armed Forces or from a civilian officer or employee of the United States for promoting a political objective or cause.
· use contemptuous words against the office holders described in Title 10, United States Code, Section 888.
· display a large political sign, banner, or poster on the top or side of a member's private vehicle (as distinguished from a political sticker).
· sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and other such fund-raising events.

The military, which exists to protect our freedoms - especially that all important political speech, places tight restrictions on the political activities and speech of its members. Your "point" about the ACLU re. internal speech is rhetorically vapid and weightless in light of this fact.

[Cicero]

It has been said already, but I get the idea that many, many repetitions may be necessary for you to understand the concept: the ERA would not have created "additional" rights for women; it would have constitutionally ensured that they were included in those rights already enumerated in the Constitution.



Actually, when asked questions such as "Do you believe in equal pay for equal work?" "Do you believe a woman should be hired instead of a man if she is the best person for the job?" "Do you believe women should have control over their own reproductive systems and health decisions?" most women do subscribe to the "feminist philosophy."



Is it just my imagination, or does Cicero seem to have some kind of...personal...investment in this emphasis on accusations of rape thing? Some unpleasant experience in his past? (And the possessive of it is its; it's is a contraction for it is.)

At the risk of appearing sexist, I defer to you regarding contractions.

Perhaps you have me confused with the Duke Lacrosse team? Or are you the type of feminist who still believes the stripper's accusations?

Who is trying to monopolize your health decisions? And if you and your partner knowingly conceived a child, does he have any say about allowing it to be born? Or is that a violation of the female monopoly over reproductive decisions?

[Cicero]

If you'd spent any time in the military, or as much time educating your self as you do blustering and blathering, you'd know that I'm referring to DOD directive 1344.10. Here's one of the most concise webpages I found with the list of restrictions.
http://www.laughlin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123078250


The military, which exists to protect our freedoms - especially that all important political speech, places tight restrictions on the political activities and speech of its members. Your "point" about the ACLU re. internal speech is rhetorically vapid and weightless in light of this fact.

How you manage to equate DOD placed restrictions on military personnel with the hypocritical ACLU's free speech restrictions on its members is laughable.

Of course 1344.10 is under Article 88. Even if you had merely specified in your hysterical post what you were referring to, my response would still apply. Please name any American military personnel that was court-martialed for an infraction of 1344.10 which has been around since August, 2004?

What time have you spent in the military? Why would you enlist in such an organization that denies you from allowing your political ideology to flower in full bloom?

[LostAngeles]

I defer to you regarding contractions.

Perhaps you have me confused with the Duke Lacrosse team? Or are you the type of feminist who still believes the stripper's accusations?

The Duke Lacrosse team has nothing to do with this. Stop evading and answer Elizabeth and I.

Who is trying to monopolize your health decisions?

The people who want to take away hormonal-based contraception, who want to block the availability of abortion even in cases where it threatens the life of the mother or a child who cannot survive outside the womb, who refuse to allow girls and young women to be vaccinated against a virus that can cause cancer because it is often sexually-transmitted.

And if you and your partner knowingly conceived a child, does he have any say about allowing it to be born? Or is that a violation of the female monopoly over reproductive decisions?

Considering that I would be the one carrying it, yes, I have the final say. I would talk with the father, presuming the act that conceived it was consensual.

If he wants it, and I don't. Then the burden is on him to find a willing womb. He does not get to use me as an incubator without my consent.

Mind you, to prevent all of that, I use hormonal birth control.

Which people want to get rid of.

Now that your questions have been answered, go back and respond about the ERA.

Tell me why we needed Sections 1 and 2 of the 14th Amendment, since that gives more rights? And the 19th?

If some blacks were able to claw their way into the professions they wanted, why did we need the Civil Rights Movement?

Have you read the ERA? Here's what it says, again:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Where do I get special treatment for having a **** in that? Where do I get extra rights?

And still, you haven't responded about marital rape and how it's acceptable, but you can talk about proper contractions. Let's make it clear. It's not about false rape accusations, it's about whether or not, you, as a husband, are allowed to force your wife to have sex, regardless of whether she wants it or not. Do husbands have control of their wives' bodies? Yes or no. If yes, why? If no, how can you defend Schlafly's comments?

[Morrigan]

Morrigan, you wanna go play a few rounds of mini-golf or take a few go-kart laps while we wait?

Nah, mini-golf is fun and all but doing it for eternity? A bit too much.

*continues to wait*

*has a cup of tea*
*has a hot chocolate*

Let's just be glad we aren't holding our breath. :D

So, if I get Cicero's argument correctly: feminism is wrong because... before feminism, a tiny handful of women managed to rise above the circumstances of their times.
I fail to see how that even begins to make sense. But hey, "don't ask me, I'm just a girl! Tee-hee!"

[Elizabeth I]

*has a hot chocolate*

Let's just be glad we aren't holding our breath. :D

I'm having a prosecco.

And not holding my breath.

[UnrepentantSinner]

{snip bluster} Please name any American military personnel that was court-martialed for an infraction of 1344.10 which has been around since August, 2004?

Why? The rules are there (and 1344.10 long predates 2004 genius, why place restrictions on time frame) and personnel don't have to face court martial. They could be disciplined by methods as varied as being reminded of the directive and asked to remove the poster from their POV to a written reprimand.

Maybe you should read this article and educate yourself about the realities of military discipline.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/07autumn/kiel.htm
Much like any other criminal matter, commanders have a host of options when it comes to disposing of these types of cases. Options range from doing nothing to recommending a general courts-martial. The proper response likely lies somewhere in between. Commanders can always resort to letters of reprimand and poor evaluation reports to get the desired response without the crippling stigma of jail time or a federal conviction. Of course, administrative measures like these may also be used in conjunction with a courts-martial or an Article 15. Article 15s would be appropriate where the accused’s comments were flagrant enough to warrant loss of pay, rank, or other privileges, including confinement up to 30 days. Officers may also receive Article 15s, usually, from a general officer whereby they may be fined or placed under house arrest.

What time have you spent in the military? Why would you enlist in such an organization that denies you from allowing your political ideology to flower in full bloom?

I was commissioned through ROTC into the Army Reserves. My father was career Air Force. I tried to follow in his footsteps.

Oh, and tell me mind reader... what is my political ideology and why would it be stiffled by the restrictions of 1344.10?

[Richard Masters]

Of course it is typical behavior of libs to demonize minorities and women when they do not share their benighted political ideology.

Schlafly worked her way through college and graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19, and then won a scholarship to Harvard grad school. Before Schlafly became the bane of liberals for her defeat of the ERA amendment, her liberal professors described her as "brilliant."

Would you prefer if Germany or Japan produced an atomic device first?

That's an obvious non-sequitur.


One would think Washington U would boycott her for her stinging rebuke of the American education system:

"The most frequent complaint I hear from college students is that professors inject their leftist political comments into their courses even when they have nothing to do with the subject."

"Our public school system is our country's biggest and most inefficient monopoly, yet it keeps demanding more and more money."

"Many professors are Marxists or other varieties of radicals who hate America."

"After Big Media, U.S. colleges and universities are the biggest enemies of the values of red-state Americans"

Anybody can make comments like that. Not genius by any stretch of the imagination.