Disqus - Latest Comments for unapologeticjane

Re: LOL

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:25:46 -0000

Sotomayor is just stating the obvious and the well-researched effects of the patriarchy. Scholars who study this type of thing have been talking about this bias for a long time. The thing that is so bad about this trend of men selecting men all the time, is that we are promoting mediocre, white men at the expense of brilliant women and minorities. When we only promote people from one gender pool, we exclude half of the population. Then, we tend to not pick out of non-white pools either, so we are left with a pathetic and mediocre little pool of white males, who all tell each other that they are the best of the best, and that they rest of the women, black, and brown folks just couldn't cut the mustard. What a lie and what a detrimental impediment to American progress.

By the way, the people at rumproast.com did a scathing post about one of my most recent posts about Margaret Carlson. In their comments, they seem to be thinking that you are me- or something like that. I guess they can't keep all of us feminist bitches straight.

Re: America Hates the Octuplets’ Mom

unapologeticfeminist — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:52:17 -0000

You bring up a very good point about the media glamorizing couples with tons of kids. In fact, the other night, I saw a reality t.v. show that is all about a family with a zillion kids. The parents looked miserable, but the underlying message seemed to be that having a bunch of kids was somehow a righteous choice.
Perhaps the media glamorization is just a conspiracy to trap women in the breeder role forever?

Re: America Hates the Octuplets’ Mom

unapologeticfeminist — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:58:48 -0000

Yes, I agree that population growth is a problem, although I am not too worried about running out of resources on the planet. I think there is still plenty of land, water, and air for many more humans to survive on the planet. There is also the constant evolution of science and technology, which can meet our species' growing needs.

I just think that having babies makes it more difficult for the parents to have a high quality of life. My quality of life shouldn't suffer because some idiot decided to have babies s/he couldn't afford. These people should suffer the consequences of their actions, not me.

I don't support legislation that would make it illegal for people to have babies. That is a violation of people's civil liberties.

So, if you don't make it illegal to have babies, you have to just create a society in which we don't reward people for having babies. Also, I support the use of taxpayer money to provide abortions, birth control, and sterilization to any person who wants them.

Re: Ayn Rand: A Reluctant Feminist

unapologeticfeminist — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:12:47 -0000

What is your argument here? Are you arguing that Ayn Rand is not a feminist because the Bible is inaccurate? Or are you just saying that you don't like capitalism? If Ayn Rand wrote the second most read book and it was a cookbook, I would also characterize her as a feminist because she broke a glass ceiling.

The reason I mention the popularity of Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with whether its principles are right or wrong. It is about taking notice of the extremely rare event of a female author receiving worldwide recognition. You need to separate gender equality from your own personal politics.

Re: Kim Gandy And NOW Have Lost Their Way

unapologeticfeminist — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:13:10 -0000

If there were no other female candidates running for president, then yes, I would endorse Phyllis Schlafly for president. Why? Because breaking the highest glass ceiling in this country is imperative for women's empowerment.
Now, I don't know who you are comparing Phyllis Schalfy to, but neither Sarah Palin nor Cynthia McKinney are decent comparisons. Although I strongly disagree with at least 50% of Palin's platform and McKinney's platform, I think they both had potential to help empower women. I don't see either one as the antagonist to women's legislation that Shlafly is.
The real question is: why haven't we had a female president from any political party? It has nothing to do with finding the right woman with the right political platform. It has everything to do with the raw discomfort that men (and women) have with seeing a woman in power- ANY woman- it doesn't matter what she thinks about the current tax system or social security. It is much more fundamental than that. So, my approach is to take a bold action of endorsing candidates first based on gender, and second on political platform.
I voted for Hillary in the primary even though I totally disagree with her on the economy, immigration, social security, welfare, and the role of government. I believe in laissez-faire capitalism, but I believe in the power of women more. And before we can start nitpicking on political platform issues, we've got to be seen as real players. In order to do that, we have to get women into the upper echelons of the power structure.

Re: Women Win One: The Lily Ledbetter Act

unapologeticfeminist — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:16:04 -0000

You know I was wrong- I thought Lindsey Graham was a woman. Oops. Well, you're right, 100% of female Republican senators voted for it. Thanks for catching my mistake. I have edited my article.

Re: Real Feminists are NOT Stay-at-Home Moms

unapologeticfeminist — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:13:12 -0000

The real question is how do we change the way women are viewed in the society at large? The only answer I have come up with is that women must invade the power structure and get into positions of power. Those positions of power are in the workplace. If there are more women running the media, then the media can change its portrayal of women. If there are more women making the laws, then the laws can change to reflect what women need and want. If there are more women scientists, then the perception of women's intelligence will change. Feminism has to be an action. We learn from what we "see" in society. The more we see powerful women, the more the concept of powerful women is normalized.
It sounds like you are a highly talented and motivated woman who would do great in a position of power. I think you might be selling yourself, and all women, short by staying at home. Of course, you mentioned you do a lot of writing at home, so perhaps you could write a book? There is a dearth of best-selling female novelists.
Also, on this blog we use the term "child-free" not "childless."

Re: Real Feminists are NOT Stay-at-Home Moms

unapologeticfeminist — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:59:47 -0000

I think that you can re-enter the workforce if you want. There are government loans that can help you get through school. My mother went to law school as a single mom with two kids. It was very difficult, but we all got through it. Even if you aren't in the educated elite, you can make a difference as a woman in the workforce. There is discrimination against women at all levels of education and employment, so any contribution you can make would be helpful.
I consider both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton to be feminists because they both broke glass ceilings for women.
From my experience, the real fight of men vs. women is in the workforce. If you aren't in it, then you are just a spectator. You have to get dirty and get into the fight.

Re: Jose Luis Zapatero

unapologeticfeminist — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:15:30 -0000

Tresni,

Numbers of women in power is a very good metric of whether or not a country is achieving gender equality. As a Ph.D. scientist, I like working with numbers, statistics, objective measurements. What kind of measurements of feminism do you use?
My point about the troops was not to equate it with gender equality, but rather to emphasize what the US considers important. Gender equality obviously in not important to the US, but being friends with countries that help us invade sovereign nations is important.

Re: Real Feminists are NOT Stay-at-Home Moms

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:43:57 -0000

Why didn't your husband stay-at-home? Why were you automatically the one to make that sacrifice? If it wasn't a sacrifice, but instead a reward, then what about your husband's time with your kid? It could be a wonderful opportunity for your husband to be a house spouse and bond with your child as well. Men need to spend more time nurturing and women need to spend more time advancing themselves.

Re: Real Feminists are NOT Stay-at-Home Moms

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:34:48 -0000

Real feminists do NOT endorse every choice a woman makes, simply because she made it all by herself like a big girl! Certain choices are inherently feminist or not. Choosing to perpetuate gender stereotypes is NOT a feminist choice.

Re: Real Feminists are NOT Stay-at-Home Moms

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:26:48 -0000

Just because you are making your own choice, doesn't mean that it is indeed a choice that is advancing all women. Being a stay-at-home mom does not help women advance in society. I know that it is hard work and if you enjoy it- then it sounds like you made the right choice for yourself. However, the battle isn't in convincing people that women can be mothers without jobs. The battle is in convincing people that women can be presidents, CEOs, and military leaders.

There is a lie that is perpetuated in our society that works against women. The lie says that any choice a woman makes is automatically "feminist" because she made it. That's just not true.

Do I think women should be "forced" to enter the workforce? Absolutely not. I believe in full civil liberties for all. Do I think women who stay-at-home and raise babies are breaking glass ceilings for all women? No.

Re: Obama Chooses a Anti-Woman, Gay-Hating Pastor to Deliver Invocation at the Inauguration

unapologeticfeminist — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:27:00 -0000

You are absolutely right.

It's ridiculous trying to talk to Obamabots because they will excuse any bad behavior that Obama exhibits.

What I want to know is when did reaching out to all backwards, bigoted, hateful people become a good character trait? The Obamabots call it his attempt to unite people- I call it a lack of moral character. I thought good character involved standing up for individual rights, even when you might piss some people off. I didn't think it meant trying to win a popularity contest by appeasing everyone, including the bigots and the misogynists.

Re: Time's Person of the Year

unapologeticfeminist — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:04:51 -0000

How can you like a man who is nominating a male-dominated cabinet???!!! Men outnumber women 4:1 in the cabinet thus far. How is he helping women in America? George W. Bush had more gender equity in his administration than Obama does thus far.
Get your heads out of the sand ladies!!! He is not an ally.
http://tinyurl.com/5a8cq2

Re: Obama Cabinet Update

unapologeticfeminist — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:49:18 -0000

Gez,

You are part of the problem. You are perpetuating the sexist myth that there aren't enough qualified women. You are telling me that with an applicant pool that includes the entire United States, Obama cannot find 11 qualified women??? Are you seriously making that argument!

You are NOT a feminist. You are not welcome at this blog. Your ignorance is holding women back.

Don't come back.

Re: Jose Luis Zapatero

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:57:19 -0000

If Hillary had been elected I would be so happy that we finally got a female president that I probably would give her all the latitude in the freaking world. But, then again, I am sure after the high wore off, I would criticize her if she appointed Larry Summers. Incidentally, I don't agree with about 75% of Hillary's ideology, but I am part of a new wave of feminism that puts women first and ideology second. Because of that I voted for Hillary Clinton enthusiastically.

I will be extremely harsh on Obama since he effectively pushed two women (Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin) out of way to get ahead himself. Women are the underrepresented majority in this country and I am sick of it.

Re: Potential Obama Cabinet Pick is a Misogynist

unapologeticfeminist — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:50:36 -0000

That is correct. You are not a real feminist. Read "feminist defined" above for further clarification on what being a feminist means.

Re: Jose Luis Zapatero

unapologeticfeminist — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:00:48 -0000

I suggest that you read "Feminist Defined" above because you obviously don't understand what a feminist is.

I think that the only way you would agree that Obama is NOT a feminist is if he beat women for fun in public in his spare time. Even then, you would probably argue that we should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and wait to see what the long-term results of the beating will be.

Re: Many Men Leave Their Sick Wives

unapologeticfeminist — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:37:58 -0000

Jean, that is really sad. I am sorry that you have to live in a world where so little is expected of men. It is unfortunate that stories like yours and my mother's are the norm, and not the deviation from the norm.

Re: Many Men Leave Their Sick Wives

unapologeticfeminist — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:57:27 -0000

Thanks for the support!

Re: Let’s Unite the Sisterhood

unapologeticfeminist — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:12:15 -0000

Their waists are freakishly tiny. Perhaps they are really just holding each other up because they haven't eaten in weeks.

Re: Ann E. Dunwoody Breaks the Brass Ceiling

unapologeticfeminist — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:15:45 -0000

You bring up a good point. I think it is really strange for such a "progressive" country like the U.S. to be doing worse, in terms of female leadership, than countries like Pakistan. And then when you compare us to Holland, Finland, or Spain (now that they have a feminist prime minister) the U.S. looks positively 19th century with regard to female leadership.

Re: Camille Paglia Rocks My World

unapologeticfeminist — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:35:56 -0000

May,

I thought feminists had been working for years to ensure that women of all political parties and idealogies could access power in our society. I thought feminists supported women breaking glass ceilings.

Unfortunately, what I have gathered lately, is that feminists only want women who think like them to have power.

While I may disagree with Palin on many issues, I think that as a woman trying to break a glass ceiling- she deserves my support. That doesn't mean that I don't disagree with her. Hell, I was an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and I disagree with about 70% of her politics. However, from my experience in a male-dominated field, I have learned that the most important thing right now is to get women into power. Some women you may like and some you may not. But, I guarantee you that the men in the boy's club see all of us (Palin, you, me, Hillary, Camille, etc) as women first and not by our idealogies. And, from my experience, being seen as a woman first means that I am not as smart, capable, or talented as men.

We don't have the luxury to exclude half (or more?) of the women in this country because they don't agree with our particular dogma. We need to work with these women, not against them.

Re: Camille Paglia Rocks My World

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:17:50 -0000

I love this discussion! You bring up many excellent points.

Feminism, the way it has been practiced over the last decade or so, is a blueprint for failure. We are winning the battle and losing the war. It is too exclusive. And we know it is failing by looking at the statistics. We need to be flexible and say, okay, this isn't working so let's try something else, something more inclusive.

I actually read a comment by a "feminist" today that said it is more important to promote "feminist" men than it is to promote women who don't fit into the "feminist" category.

I came to feminism out of necessity, rather than the luxury of insulated, intellectual pontification. I work in a field that is hostile to women. I work in a field where men think that women, as a group, are less intellectually capable than men. Male colleagues have cited "research" to me which supports their views about women. My field needs more women. period. I am at the point where I don't care if these women torture bunny rabbits in their spare time for fun, I just need more of them to be present to help me overthrow this gender discrimination. When women invade a male-dominated institution the dynamic changes, to the benefit of all women.

Feminists are nit-picking at ideological differences as if we have already achieved gender equity. I can speak from experience that we are not there yet.

Which of Camille's books do you think best summarizes her philosophy? I just became aware of her but it sounds like she and I have reached very similar conclusions. I need to read more of her work!

Re: Camille Paglia Rocks My World

unapologeticfeminist — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:29:08 -0000

I couldn't have stated it better! You are absolutely right. I think of feminism as an action, not a philosophy to discuss over coffee.