Women's Issues

[bellamarie]

Her email spoke for itself, she flat out lied to the families of the loved ones that died in Benghanzi while standing in front of the caskets, and she lied to the American people.  The email to Chelsea clearly proves she lied.

Clinton and her daughter Chelsea Clinton exchanged emails after 8 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012, with Chelsea Clinton using the alias “Diane Reynolds.” Clinton invited her daughter to call, saying she is in the office late because of attacks on U.S. facilities in Egypt and Libya.

Apparently they did not speak, but Clinton delivered this news after 11 p.m.

“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow. Let's try again later.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/08/with-2-a-m-state-department-email-trove-82-percent-of-clinton-emails-now-released/

She was certain it was a "right wing conspiracy "against her husband with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.  And lo and behold the little black dress came to light.  He clearly lied under oath.

What does it take for Americans to wake up to what these two have done in the name of grabbing power, wealth and fame?  I expect a recommendation to come down for an indictment against her.  The evidence is mounting and it's her own emails that will take her down, not any right wing conspirator or as you put it MaryPage:

the foaming at the mouth pack of paranoid homo sapiens not only lack a desire for what the truth is, they want to slay the messengers who can lead them to and through the facts, rather than have that truth revealed.

I worked on her 2008 campaign so I am not relishing in the facts that are coming out that will destroy her political career.  She has to take accountability as does Bill for breaking laws and making deals to profit for the Clinton Foundation while she was SOS.

For the record, I am an Independent and do not care for either of these candidates nominated for the presidency. I can remain unbiased and open to the truths, unlike those who have loyalty to an attached party, or emotions who want a woman president at all costs.  While the politically correct are fighting for their personal agendas they are slowly destroying this nation, and trampling on the rights of those who do not share their ideology.  It's a very sad time in our country.  How do you choose between a possible criminal, and proven liars who has no scruples, or a celebrity character with no filter when he speaks?   We are a laughing stock around the world.   

[FlaJean]

I can understand why Hillery Clinton would use her husband's server in their New New York house.  (From what I read it was located in the area used by their Secret Service).  Everything she says or does seems to be a conspiracy with those who don't like her.  Someone tried to hack the server but according to FBI reported by journalists the hacker was not successful.  However, many of the government servers have been hacked.

Our little local paper just reported that a local former soldier had his checking account wiped out by hackers.  The paper says he was one of the many that had their personal information stolen from government personnel office.  The investigation is ongoing.  Maybe it was a wise decision on Clinton's part to have a personal server.  Hopefully, the FBI investigation will settle this problem.

She was quite popular when she was Secretary of State and also as a New York senator.  If she had decided not to run for President, her naysayers would be saying the Democrats should have talked her into running.  However, if she is elected, I think she will be an excellent President and will get some good things done for our country. 

[MaryPage]

I was sincerely attempting to make the point that conspiracy theories and personal slanders seem to me to have become the be all and end all of the American conversation these days, and was not addressing the Clinton candidacy specifically.  And I do mean the ongoing conversation loudly expressed on talk radio and television, repeated, of course, in print.  ATTACK! seems to be the mode, and it is ugly and, in combination, makes so much noise and clatter that no voice of sanity can be heard over the fray.  Maybe I am not making any sense, but this is the way my 87 year old brain is assimilating it all.

When I was younger, we used to marvel at the so called "yellow press" and "tabloid news," which was always full of lies such as half men/half goats having been discovered, and so on like that.  We knew it was really stupid stuff, and very few paid any attention, albeit I am sure there were the gullible, or no papers would have been sold.  Basically, I am trying to say that huge masses of our citizenry seem to eat up and propagate the salacious now, forget about the particular persons being maligned.  To me, it appears as a mass mental illness.  Our mothers used to tell us to believe nothing we hear and little we read until it has been verified.  And hey, back then there was not as much of this stuff! 

I fail to understand human beings who do not cringe at all the ugly words being slung so heedlessly like weapons meant to destroy.  It is not indicative of the civilization I would prefer we live our days in.  What I am referring to can also be heard in the way children and young people address their parents, teachers, and elders in general, and the manner and language employed in television shows of today.  Appalling to my sensibilities, perhaps it seems ordinary to most folks today, and I belong back in "the olden days," as my grandchildren and great grandchildren refer to them!

[bellamarie]

Journalists, reporters and media as a whole has become so biased they are not capable of reporting without injecting their own personal loyalty and opinions.  The owners of the newspapers, radio stations and television stations are running their own agendas.  And it has been going on for centuries, it's just in today's society there are no longer any boundaries.  The attack ads I am seeing on TV are absolutely disgusting.

It was against the law for her to use her private server and it was kept in a bathroom closet.  It went down a few times giving reason to believe it was hacked.  She had NO legal right to delete any emails from that server.  Because she is under investigation for a federal crime she should not even be allowed to run for the presidency.  When did we decide to turn a blind eye to high crimes?  As far as if she would make a good president, if Benghazi is any example then I have to disagree.  She used her position as SOS for personal gain not only with Wall street and the big banks but the Clinton Foundation.  More and more is being uncovered and I think it's only a matter of time she will be indicted, and removed from the nomination.     

[MaryPage]

There was no "law" against using a private server.  At least, that is what I have read over and over again, and heard the "talking heads" repeat.  They have stated, at the State Department, that they would not have "approved."  It has been my impression, and mind, I know NOTHING about it, that they had not yet put anything in writing as to what the protocols were regarding emails, and the congress had passed no laws about them, either.  I also think I read that this is a brand new problem they have to deal with, as only the last 3 or 4 Secretaries of State have used email at all.  New times call for new regulations, and the "laws" have not kept up in this area until this came up with Colin Powell, and even then nothing was done.
I really am privy to no private information about this, only what is out there.  I read The Washington Post and Time magazine and a number of other sources.  But really, were there a "law" broken, I am sure Hillary Clinton would have been arrested.

[mogamom]

Hillary Clinton would never be arrested, do you think?  Many in this administration and the Clinton's 'skirt' the law and are well-Hillary Clinton would never be arrested, do you think?  Many in this administration, as well as the Clintons themselves, have  'skirted' the law and are well-cared for by the NYT, CNN, etc.
She was - at the least - supposed to get permission and did not.  So, now she has to decide whether she is electronically illiterate (which really doesn't work, since she had access to many professionals) or careless or arrogant or inept in her use of the private e-mail server.  None of those choices seem very positive for a presidential candidate, do they?

Asked on CBS earlier this month about an ongoing FBI investigation into her email arrangement, Clinton said, “I think last August I made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I have encouraged all of my assistants to be very forthcoming, and I hope that this is close to being wrapped up.”

Notwithstanding that comment, Clinton and her top aides declined to cooperate with a recently completed State Department inspector general probe into how the use of private email accounts by Clinton and previous secretaries affected record-keeping at State. That probe found her actions violated State Department policies, something she has steadfastly denied while acknowledging the arrangement was a “mistake.”

This is a sad election cycle indeed.  Although we will be hard-pressed to say we didn't find out much that is not right with the whole election process, so that's a good thing, I think.

[mabel1015j]

I agree about your conspiracies theory, MaryPage. I'm appalled that Trump would answer a question about Vince Foster. The ads from the Trump campaign are also appalling. The man has no boundaries. Do we want him in the White House? I'm very upset with the media.

Hillary, and any person, is not responsible for their spouse's behavior. I certainly would not want to be.

[FlaJean]

It has been stated many times that it was not against the law to use a personal server.  Gov. Jeb Bush also used a personal server for much of his email when he was Governor.  Not a good decision but certainly not criminal.

[MaryPage]

I think if you are a person in a high office, whatever that office may be and whatever your political party may be, you must have a very high sense of fear about having your privacy invaded, to the point of paranoia.  I remember Princess Diana being obsessed with this, and then a race to get away from it that one time brought about her death.

Perhaps this does not make sense, but I am allowing my instincts to follow an emotional path of being there, and trying to put myself in their shoes.  I am also thanking the Powers That Be that I have led a life of anonymity.  Good Grief, do you remember that ghastly tape that someone published for the whole world to hear back when Prince Charles was still married to Diana of him talking to Camilla?  That is the sort of thing that should not happen, but does.  Famous peoples intimate private lives are really none of our business, and we should not intrude.  Our security agencies do the dirty listening for us, but do not publish unless there is clearly law breaking that impacts the safety of us, the Public.  We can be absolutely certain that the NSA, FBI and CIA would have been following Mrs. Clinton's and everyone else's email conversations: every bit and piece of them!

[mabel1015j]

Who - no matter how well know, or not - would not want a personal email!?! And those people who might hit the tabloids - yes MaryPage, we used to consider that kind of story to be TRASH - certainly I understand Hillary having been lied about for decade after decade, would want a private email. Do we think that ANY politician or celebrity does not have a private email system? They all must have private conversations with family and friends and don't give them up to authority when they leave their jobs, and why should they. No wonder we get narcissists like Donald Trump who says whatever fits for the moment running for office, and we may get only that personality-type if we continue to insist that every single bit of people's lives belong to the public.

Being a history major, I know that we never asked that of any other politician in history.

[MaryPage]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-alix-idrache-west-point-20160526-story.html

[mogamom]

I don't think I have heard anyone complaining that Hillary has a private server - just that she had no right to use it for public business.  The State Department is hardly her own personal business, is it?  Really?  And if she's as ignorant of computers as the administration suggests, what is she doing receiving/sending State Department e-mails from a private server?  She was responsible for classifying them.  So, it's really nonsense to think no one should have concerns, especially when so many of the same characters are involved in donations to the Clinton Foundation, and where several 'shared personnel' were involved.  She needed permission - she did not bother to get it.  Arrogance?  Incompetence? 

[MaryPage]

I watched The TED Talks on PBS twice tonight:  first on MPT (Maryland Public Television) and then on WETA, which claims Washington, D.C., but is actually headquartered in Northern Virginia.  It was extremely profound, the subject was War and Peace (not the book, but the actuality), and it was just one awful lot about women.  If you missed it, look for reruns in your area.  You will be glad you did.  It takes just under one (1) hour, and there are not only talks, but films and musical moments.

[mabel1015j]

Nice article on the West Point grad. It's nice to read the positive side of how our military helps others in their times of difficulty and how beneficial immigrants are to the country.

I did "see" the TED talks tonight, sort of. We have a big family cookout on Memorial Day weekend because our dgt's birthday is the 28th. So at 8:00, the tv was on, but I was very tired and was wrapping up conversations with people who were leaving. I will look for it ondemand and really pay attention this time. By the way, a Haitian friend of our dgt's who was here today has a master's degree from Seton Hall, is a NJ state trooper and worked on the inter-agency Anti-terrorist squad. A good young man.

Jean

[MaryPage]

This is D-Day.  Not many of us around now to recall this was once a day of immense import.

Have you been following the sad, sad news of the thousands drowning in the Mediterranean Sea on an almost daily basis?  Well, not thousands on a daily basis, but hundreds adding up to thousands.  Many, many of them children.  This is such a desperate world we inhabit.

And the ghastly tale of the 16 year old girl in Brazil who was drugged and raped by THIRTY men!  She was treated as though she had no worth except as a piece of meat for their fun night out.  It is so deeply ingrained in our civilization that women were created just to be the lackeys of men, and for their express pleasure.  I had hoped to see the end of it in my lifetime, but realize now that even our religions are infused with this picture of how it is meant to be, and it is the way those of my gender are fated to be viewed by those of the other sex.  Shame on our species!

[kidsal]

I am old enough to remember D-Day.  The pictures of the soldiers running across the beach -- two soldiers pulling another up onto the bank.  Often think of him and wonder if he survived.  Most of the film footage of that day were accidently lost.  Then following each day in the newspaper our progress across Europe.   

[MaryPage]

When I hear or read "D-Day," the very first thing I think of is those landing craft pulling up on the beaches and unloading hundreds upon hundreds of boys and young men with helmets on their heads and rifles in their hands.  So terribly many would be dead within the hour, fodder to the business of war.

The next thing I think of is how I learned it was D-Day.  Happens it was also graduation day at my boarding school, where I had just completed my Freshman year.  We were at breakfast, long tables of excited young girls.  Up at the faculty table, Miss Ward, our Headmistress, rang her little bell for attentive quiet.  She stood up, and told us that General Eisenhower had announced on the radio that morning that Allied Troops had invaded France in Normandy. 

We cheered, while tears ran down our cheeks.  We did not know, because we were not allowed to have radios.  Record players were permitted, but not radios.  That next fall, I would sneak a very smallish one in anyway, and Lucy Donaldson and I would listen to the election results.  We were about the only two girls at the school who were for FDR.

The next thing I remember about D-Day was in a later book, but it awed me no end.  I think it was "The Longest Day" by Cornelius Ryan;  but I am not positive.  The thing was, the author interviewed EVERYone, including some Germans who had been on duty in the bunkers and lived to tell the tale.  One remarked on it seeming a very ordinary day.  He was drinking his coffee and looking out to the waters of the English Channel.  Those vast waters were quiet.  No sign of life.  He looked away for a few moments, and when he looked back, he almost passed out from shock.  As far as he could see, north, east and west, you could not see the water, but only a vast unending armada of ships, ships, ships and boats.  That picture has always been in my head.

Finally, I think of the graves.  Row upon row upon row of graves where American men lie forever in the soil of France;  tended beautifully and endlessly by French volunteers.  When Americans spat on things French back when France refused to join us in invading Iraq, ridiculously changing "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries," I shuddered at our rude behavior towards our forever friends and allies.  Had it not been for the French fleet and Layfayette, we would still be pledging allegiance to the British!  But they don't teach those things anymore.

[mabel1015j]

Interesting recollection and post MaryPage.

The movie "The Longest Day" may be the only war movie I have ever watched more than once. I was going to say "enjoyed" but that doesn't seem to be an appropriate word for the situation.

Jean

[BarbStAubrey]

Never did see the movie but like Kindsal the newspaper photos and newsreels in the movie theater are implanted in my head - I remember in black and white the newsreel showing how some never made it out of the beachcraft - I remember being all upset at how unfair that was and my mother did not know what to say that could make sense for me - I kept thinking they should have at least had a chance - and then I remember hearing how the hovercrafts unloaded further out so those sailing the vessel would not be shot which meant a boat that could not return for more and so the soldiers had to swim ashore, stay alive in the water and out of breath from their swim immediately start shooting.

[MaryPage]

Did you HEAR Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts give a speech to the American Constitution Society this evening?  She was stunning!  She was a Pit Bull.  She was a statesman and an orator of the old order.  I was so proud! 

I have been very low and depressed lately at the possibility of Donald Trump being president of these United States and Commander in Chief.  OMG! 

Well, Warren raised my spirits to the top of the pole.  I now have bubbly HOPE again!  We can do this!  Woo Hoo!

[bellamarie]

mogamom,  I share the exact sentiments in your above post.  I do not believe for one second Hillary is computer illiterate in this day and age.  Her first reason for using her personal server for her SOS emails was because she did not want to use multiple devices.  Yet, there are pictures of her holding a blackberry and other devices.  NOW, we are being told she doesn't know how to use a computer.  Come on women, we are smarter than this. 

[mogamom]

We saw this coming:

WASHINGTON — In the latest and perhaps decisive battle over the role of women in the military, Congress is embroiled in an increasingly intense debate over whether they should have to register for the draft when they turn 18.

On Tuesday, the Senate approved an expansive military policy bill that would for the first time require young women to register for the draft. The shift, while fiercely opposed by some conservative lawmakers and interest groups, had surprisingly broad support among Republican leaders and women in both parties.

The United States has not used the draft since 1973 during the Vietnam War. But the impact of such a shift, reflecting the evolving role of women in the armed services, would likely be profound.

Under the Senate bill passed on Tuesday, women turning 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, would be forced to register for Selective Service, as men must do now. Failure to register could result in the loss of various forms of federal aid, including Pell grants, a penalty that men already face. Because the policy would not apply to women who turned 18 before 2018, it would not affect current aid arrangements.

more here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/congress-women-military-draft.html?_r=0

They say women would not be 'forced' to serve in combat, but I don't see how they can stop that from happening - I don't think men get much of a choice, do they?  I weep for my granddaughter.  Just one more way men have enlisted women to take over their responsibility to 'provide and protect'.  And we call it 'progressive'.

[MaryPage]

Me, I am all for universal draft and service, such as they have in Israel.  I see no reason why only males of our species should be cannon fodder.  Why should my three sons be asked to die for their country, while my five daughters get off scot free?  It makes no sense to me now, and never has done.  I remember well the 4 years I lived at West Point while my dad, a graduate, taught Physics there.  We had lots of cadets in and out of our house, as I had no less than 4 cousins there during those years.  I was only 5 to 9 years of age, and yet indignant that girls could not go there.  Yes, the discrimination against those of my gender infuriated me even then!  I really celebrated when gals were finally admitted!  And you know what?  You would be surprised how many, many times we females have led the Brigade there, and here at the United States Naval Academy.

Both of my mothers:  my birth mother and my stepmother, were Army nurses.  They were never "in combat" as such, but both had classmates from the Walter Reed Army School of Nursing (Mother was Class of 1928, while Mama was 1932) who died in tents near the battlefields.  Women have always been valiant, but gun loving lawmakers refused to allow a gun in their hands for them to protect themselves with, on the grounds they were the "weaker" sex.  Doesn't seem to have occurred to them that they might need one sometime!  When immigrants from all over the world settled our wild and woolly West, fathers and husbands taught the women to handle a rifle or shotgun.  Many of these, too, out shot the men!  And the men laughed and thought them freaks.  The women?  Well, they downplayed their abilities in order to allow the men to maintain their traditional beliefs of superiority.

[mogamom]

That's interesting about West Point - did you ever apply?

Ohhhh...I'll have to do some checking, but I thought that Israel tried using women in combat and stopped - because it just didn't work?

Women have long worked alongside men to protect their families, especially as the country was being settled.  But men have often balked against having the burden of being the sole provider for their families (I understand that in ancient Israel women were even given the right to divorce their husbands if they refused to provide for them), so now I empathize with women who are forced into the work-force; who work long hours and, even if their husbands 'help out' at home, grieve for what they believe to be their primary fulfillment - caring for their families.

[MaryPage]

I believe it was 1976 before women were accepted into the Corps of Cadets at West Point, which is, by the way, one of the most beautiful spots on the planet.

I was already a grandmother of three in 1976!

You know, I have never in my long life felt that being a mother identified me.  My family means more to me than anything;  I love them each passionately and infinitely, and they know it.  But they are not who I AM!  I worked most of my married life, so that we could own a home and my children could have all of the necessities and each could go to college.  Never, ever did I grieve because I worked 40+ hours a week away from home.  Would I LIKE to have been rich and not have had to do this?  Oh no, I would have LOVED it!   But even were I rich, I probably would have felt a strong urge to do some kind of work, even without pay.  Volunteer work, for instance.  I would, most likely, have spent many long hours at this, and hired help to keep my home going and meals cooked.  I have never yearned to stay at home and was not born with domestic yearnings.  I think men believe women feel this way, but the vast majority of women I have personally known have felt the way I do!  There is not a thing in this world wrong with women who prefer staying at home;  not at all.  But we flesh and blood women are not Stepford Wives, either!  We are individuals with gifts and talents and a keen urge to make our mark in the world with something we ourselves do.  Motherhood is rife throughout the animal kingdom;  nothing to it.  Being a parent does not require 24/7 bondage, and children can have and feel total devotion from working parents, both mother and father.

[bellamarie]

MaryPage, 

Being a parent does not require 24/7 bondage, and children can have and feel total devotion from working parents, both mother and father.

I first of all would never consider being with my children 24/7 as "bondage" I would consider it a blessing.  I was a stay at home Mom until my last child went to full day Kindergarten. I never saw myself as a "Stepford Wife." I then took a job as a computer lab instructor for the school my children went to so I could have the summers, holidays and other days off with them.  When my first grandchild was born I opened my in-home daycare, I did all six of my grandchildren for free while building my business over sixteen years.  Over those years I saw in some instances children were in great need of their parents to spend more time with them, while others seemed to fare okay.  There were mothers who told me right upfront they are not the nurturing type who can stay at home with their children all day, they want and need a career.  Others wanted to be home but needed or wanted the income they could bring into their family.  Others felt guilt for not being able to spend more time with their children.  One thing I can conclude is this..... every woman should have the free will and right to decide what she sees fit and best for her, and her family without others passing judgement or calling them stereotypical names. 

Women have protested for "equal rights" and although it pains me to ever see an eighteen year old girl or boy have to go off to war, which could one day happen again, as it did years ago, we must understand it is what women have been fighting for. Equal rights mean equal rights.  Me personally I still live by the word and intent of God. I pray not one of my granddaughters will ever have to register for the draft or be called up to fight.  Call me whatever you choose, but this is how I feel.  Eighteen is too young for any sex. Eighteen year olds are not allowed to drink alcohol because they feel they are not responsible enough to make good choices, so why are they allowed to be seen responsible enough to go off to war and possibly die at eighteen?   

We have gotten ourselves into a real quandry.     

[MaryPage]

Clearly, you misread my comments.  I was NOT calling stay at home moms Stepford Wives.  I was pointing out that NONE of us, including stay at homes, were EVER Stepford Wives.  Those, of course, were referenced from a well known work of fiction that became a film.
Nor did I say motherhood was a bondage.  What I said was that it WAS NOT.  Nor is it, for anyone.
Obviously, I need to improve my ability to communicate.

[mogamom]

I've known many women who have bitter feelings toward the feminist movement because they feel as though they 'bought the lie'; the lie that they could have it all - a career and a successful home life.  Many are very bitter.  That doesn't mean that there aren't women who have been successful at both - but many do not feel successful or fulfilled in either because they are simply  overwhelmed.  Because they can't live up to some real or imagined image of 'modern woman' they are depressed and feel inadequate. 

And we do have 'the lost generation' as they're called.  In fact, I'm still seeing public service ads about 1/3 of children coming home to an empty house which is blamed for many social ills.

I think raising the next generation of responsible, thinking adults is the highest calling for a woman, and is the single most important way of leaving a lasting mark on the world.  The rest - for all its rewards - is chump change.

[MaryPage]

To be a feminist means to believe in the full equality of men and women.

To be against feminism means to believe women are second class in their personhood.

Thank heavens all three of my (deceased) husbands were feminists, as are all 8 of my children, all 13 of my granddaughters, and, so far, nearly 20 of my 26 great grandchildren.  In all fairness, the youngest are too little to speak up on this subject.

"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
synonyms:   the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights; informalwomen's lib"
"a longtime advocate of feminism"

[nlhome]

I never heard the "lie" that women could have it all, but I certainly appreciated the women's movement, the emphasis on feminism, based on what I saw and experienced in my younger years. I don't know of any women who thought they could have it all, but a lot of my friends sure tried to have more in their lives than just being dependent on a man.

I must say that I think the draft should be equally applied or not exist at all. Unless we need to resort to drafting our young people again, it's nothing to worry about. If we do need the draft, then people will be assigned as appropriate, and frankly, we'll all be in such big trouble  that we will have more than drafting women to worry about.

[BarbStAubrey]

Talking to many a young person - Mom's have always been meeting themselves coming - years back we, and our grands could send the children out to play so Mom's could 'get things done' but today, that is an additional job since many Mom's must accompany their children when they go out to play. I also see, as in the past, Mom's who were cleaning ladies and doing whatever jobs were allowed to woman brought up their families while they worked -

Over the years I have worked with many, many Chinese and Indonesian families and the moms leave for years at a time to get some higher education in order to be a doctor or other type of professional job - we do not think that way. The difference, these families have several generations bringing up the children and so work and child-rearing is a family endeavor.

I also hear from many young Moms that say, they have as good an education as their husbands and can make as much money so they do not see ignoring all the investment that was made in that education as well as the years of growing their skill level and therefore, they see that those who are trained to care for children as no different than the wealthy and the royals of other nations having nannies -

As to miss-behavior - we have many influences today that we did not have as recently as 30 years ago - we cannot blame it all on Moms working - the media has desensitizes many children so that some of their emotions are buried at a young age - I remember seeing the witches in Snow White and having to hide my eyes in my mother's arms and the story on film of The Wizard Of Oz was one terrorizing scene after another and yet, today kids as young as 3 and 4 take these movies in stride - so that as we desensitize children by a constant exposure to horror and brutality they see real life behavior through a different lens.

30 years ago enrolling in 4 or 5 classes at a Community Collage cost max $1200 where as today it is more like $12,000, just for a Community Collage - not only does a family require two incomes for a decent middle class lifestyle but again, the women are equally educated with developed skills in the workplace that to ignore is a waste of that investment to even bury for 10 years till a child is in middle school. To us it may seem like having it all but in reality for many it is a basic necessity and for others it is honoring the investment made by parents in their daughters and the hard work the daughter put in to gain the education and skill level in the workplace that she brings that same integrity to do the best job she can with her children.

Over and over we can see differences between the lifestyles for children today compared to when we were young moms and I think we are being unfair to say that moms today should go back to being as they were 50 years ago.

Instead, we should be attempting to help them feel good about their contribution to society because of their skills, education and sincere desire to bring up healthy, adjusted children that enjoy the opportunities that are now 4 times the cost of just 30 years ago.

Few mothers slough off their caring - who does the everyday caring may have changed but they do care and want the best for the children while honoring those who invested so much in them from their parents to the company where they work. As a caring women I think we need to support Moms rather than offer critical judgment. 

[nlhome]

I agree, we need to support moms, whatever their choice (if they have a choice; many don't.)

[mogamom]

I'm just the messenger.  I can't begin to tell you the stories I've dealt with in my nearly 40 years of mental health.  It isn't popular to be anti-feminism to be sure.  I can say that I have never heard of feminism described as the full equality of men and women.  It has, in many instances, become an excuse for 'male-bashing'.

As far as the economy changing - well, that is part of it, isn't it?  Of women feeling forced to enter the work force just to help provide for the basics.   Women I'm speaking of do not find education as unnecessary for life; education used to be seen as important in the process of personhood, not just for getting a job, more money, more stuff.  Many women used their talents and giftedness in voluntary work.  That has changed as well - deeply affecting the economy - as so many important tasks now have to be hired out.

But this:   To be against feminism means to believe women are second class in their personhood.

I'm sorry, but this is just totally untrue!  Your personhood is not defined by a career, a job, skills, parenthood, or any '-ism'.  It is indeed inherent in the full dignity of every human being: it is not granted by some organization, cause, political group, law, individual.  This is part of the 'all we have to do is just change the definition' mentally espoused by some women groups.

Being second-class in your personhood comes from inside an individual; it's something they buy into and can change within themselves.  And this mentality is what has demoralized women; it makes it 'unsafe' to disagree with a feminist.  So I'm not surprised that out-spoken adamant feminists don't 'hear' other women being adversely affected by their rhetoric.

[BarbStAubrey]

If a woman's job is not honored as important and valuable then the next question becomes why would she need education - we know in the past 30 years high education is not for being a better all round person - the liberal arts graduates the least number of students - higher education is to increase your value in the market place - so if a women is not using her education and skill she is allowing that investment not to have a return on the dollars and time and energy spent so the next thing would be why educate a women equal to a man if she is not going to use the education in the market place to not only increase her family income but to increase the economic value to a company and therefore increase the economics of a nation - we see article after article how the Middle East is not producing the wealth in the 21st century except in oil because half their population are uneducated women.

[mogamom]

We all used to believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.  Then we started thinking that we needed to be paid what we are worth.  Anyone skilled in some area and having a good work ethic is worth more than anyone can pay.

I went to school for nursing.  But a good deal of that education, just as the first two years of a bachelor's degree today, is still liberal arts.  I used my degree in several ways - some of which I received money for, some I didn't - but it was all medical or mental health skills helping individuals and families.  It was all important.  It all had worth.  It honored God.  And it saved taxpayers a good deal of money.  All ways you can contribute to your family, community, country, world are not measured only in money.  That's why it's worth being educated; to learn all you can about all you can.  It's an investment in life.  And there are still many ways to do it without mortgaging your future.

I learned early in my career that no one could pay me what I was worth.  Nor did I expect them to. 

[bellamarie]

MaryPage,

To be against feminism means to believe women are second class in their personhood.

Mogomom,

I'm sorry, but this is just totally untrue!  Your personhood is not defined by a career, a job, skills, parenthood, or any '-ism'.  It is indeed inherent in the full dignity of every human being: it is not granted by some organization, cause, political group, law, individual.  This is part of the 'all we have to do is just change the definition' mentally espoused by some women groups.

Being second-class in your personhood comes from inside an individual; it's something they buy into and can change within themselves.  And this mentality is what has demoralized women; it makes it 'unsafe' to disagree with a feminist.  So I'm not surprised that out-spoken adamant feminists don't 'hear' other women being adversely affected by their rhetoric.

I 100% agree with you.  I have seen woman bashing and men bashing from feminists.  Gloria Steinem the famous feminist had the nerve to say in an interview with Bill Maher about the young females who support Bernie Sanders,  “Women are more for [Clinton] than men are. ...First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience. ...Not to over-generalize, but ... men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age."And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie...”

Maher then joked that he wouldn’t be allowed to say such a thing, lest Steinem slap him, because chalking young women’s politics up to their desire to meet boys actually is a profoundly sexist thing to do. (It’s also the case that people don’t appear to radicalize, or change much at all politically, strictly due to age.) It’s just too bad that insight had to come from Bill Maher instead of Gloria Steinem.
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129335/feminist-gloria-steinem-says-young-women-support-bernie-want-attention-boys

Now that I am retired I volunteer for an organization for pregnant women of all walks of life who need educated, helped financially and need support through their pregnancy and the first three years of their child's life.  Most do come from poverty, high crime, drug infested areas of the city, and are trying to do better for their child.  We encourage, educate and support them so they will never feel second class about themselves due to the lack of education or skills.  They don't have time to think about if they are feminist or not, they just know they want a better life for their child.

nlhome, 

I never heard the "lie" that women could have it all

It was and still is the unspoken myth.  Women feel guilty every day causing them stress, anxiety, and feeling they lack something because they know there is no way to "have it all."  As a daycare provider for sixteen years, I heard it from all my mother's who dropped off their child/children at 6:30 a.m. and picked up at 6:00 p.m.  They felt their child bonded more with me than them because in actuality, I spent more waking hours with them throughout their week than either parent did.  I saw their firsts.....steps, sounds, smiles, crawling, standing, sitting, and when they were sick I usually would see the first signs of that as well.  It would break my heart when a mother would cry because they were hoping to see these milestones first.  Sometimes I would not tell them so they would think once they did see it they could enjoy thinking it was their first time ever.  I would tell them, "It is their first with you!"

For me I want equal rights for everyone, but women and men are different in their makeup, we were created differently for a reason.  You won't see too many Dads cry because they missed "the first" because as much as they love their child, it's not in their makeup to think it's something to cry about.  We can pass all the bills and laws in the world, but ultimately no woman or man will ever be exactly the same.  It's all about DNA.  I am sixty three years old and I have not become more radical in age, I do not consider myself as a feminist, although I will stand up for my constitutional rights.  I will always acknowledge I am a woman, built differently, think differently, and created differently than the male.  I love that I am a woman.  Not second-class to anyone. 

[MaryPage]

I think we should just agree to disagree.  I, too, am glad I am a woman, as I would not like to be a man.  You have been extremely fortunate not to have felt discrimination in your lifetime.  I am 87, and can remember seeing and feeling the different treatment before I was five years of age.  It is still, in my eyes and to my sensibilities, rife throughout this society we live in and horrid throughout the world.  Just the other day it was in the news that a married mother of a ten month old was killed BY HER FAMILY because she had married without their approval.  KILLED!  An "honor" killing.  No, to me, women are vastly superior to men and in constant danger from them.  How lovely that you have not had your life tainted with these sad feelings.  I envy you, actually!  But the life experiences I have had tell a far different tale, and I have lived one life, while you have known another, and, when all is said and done, that is the way of it.  I have no issues, no goals, nothing to prove.  Every day I awaken surprised to still be alive.  Life, at my age, is a matter of existing in the given hour and basking in the love of a large, extended family.  I can, and do, recount my life experiences to the younger generations, and, in my case, my memories are different from the ones you pass on to your progeny.  So be it.

[bellamarie]

mogomom,

I learned early in my career that no one could pay me what I was worth.  Nor did I expect them to.

I love this and have always felt this way.  When you feel good about yourself, and know your own self worth, whether you have a career or a stay at home Mom, you KNOW you are worth more than any amount of $$ you could be paid for what you do.  I have not always had an easy life, I grew up in a poor home, there was no talk of college in our home because the income was to put food on the table.  I was only one of two who graduated high school out of the seven siblings.  Because I believed in myself and had a Franciscan nun as a mentor later in my years I was able to succeed in areas I would never have imagined.  I was never paid for the experience and knowledge I had in technology, but for me it was a trade off because my job also allowed me to be home with my three beautiful children when they were out of school.  I knew my worth, my sons when they got to high school and college told me they can't understand why I did not teach technology in the high schools and make so much more money than I did at the elementary Catholic school I chose to stay at.  I told them, I knew my worth and it was my choice and never regretted it.  I'm not angry, I don't feel the need to bash women or men, now that I am retired I just want to continue to help those in need and continue to know what I put into society is what I will get out of it. 

MaryPage, Yes, I agree, we can respectfully agree to disagree.  Because of our views, life experiences, and what we chose to take with us into our senior years or leave behind will surely show our differences on today's life stage.

[MaryPage]

TIME magazine tackles this very subject in a facinating article in the June 27, 2016 issue.  A couple of quotes: "Being privy to the conversations that men have among themselves really does give me an indication of how they think about women,"he says. "And sometimes it can be really scary."  "And it's really just an indication of how dangerous this world is for women."

[mabel1015j]

I've been the caretaker for the past week, so I've been among the missing. It was kind of fascinating to read thru your posts. I wonder what it is that makes us oppositional. I think when we sense that the "other" person has a bit of philosophy that differs from our own, we may become oppositional. (I love a good discussion of various sides of an issue)

As you know I have been a feminist from birth, even before the 60s "second wave" started. My definition is a believer in equality for women and men in all areas of life. Every feminist I have known in the last 45 yrs (100s) has had that same definition. To be perfectly honest, i really am a humanist, i believe in equal opportunity for everyone on earth. (I don't completely understand how "humanist" has become a philosophy to snear at. How can anyone, especially the millions of people who believe in a religion, not believe that every person deserves to be able to be as fully human as they can be? My humanism came from years of hearing Methodist ministers say "we are all children of God." I'm not now religious in an organized religion sense, but I still believe everyone deserves to be the best that they can accomplish.)

As I read all at once your posts of the last two weeks, I thought, I bet if we were in a room together we could find more things that we agree on than disagree on. BUT as bellemarie and MaryPage have said, we don't have to agree, or convince anyone else on the site that "I am right, and I have to convince you to agree with me." What a boring life I would have had if everyone I met agreed with me........there are times when I wish my husband and I agreed more, but that's another story.    Even there, one of the things I have loved about being with him is he has totally different interests in many areas than I. He is the bio-scientist, I am the social scientist. I love history - as the stories of people - he has very little interest in history. I am curious about almost everything and he can fill in my lack of knowledge about many things.

Yes, men and women are definitely different, and we talk about different things and I prefer many women's company over many men I know, but that doesn't mean as a feminist I dislike men. In my life experience I have had to battle men's thinking and competitive behaviors and there are some of those guys I really don't like, but just as with people in any category I would not dislike all of any of a category out of hand. (Isn't that an interesting phrase "out of hand." I will have to go find out where it came from). My feminist women and men friends would say the same.

I am an advocate for women in many categories, especially women's history. We (men and women) need to know that women have done everything men have done. I am an advocate because women have often had a raw deal from their society or time. And I have been privy to men's discussions about women. (I worked for the Dept of Army for 16 yrs.) Not a fun thing. Yes, women have said rotten things about men too, but in most situations men are in power. Much of the anti-Hillary sentiment is because she is a women, and it would be true of any strong, powerful woman who would run for president in either party.

O.k., I should stop. Hopefully, I can get back sooner rather then later to continue this interesting discussion.

Jean