Yes, education is key. Please do a search for an Afghan woman named Dr. Sakena Yacoobi who is the Executive Director of the Afghan Institute of Learning (AIL), an Afghan women-led NGO she founded in 1995. She designs curriculum that requires excellence and has a woman’s network that will make certain any girl can get educated no matter where she must stay to be safe. The WHO has hired her graduates. I,tyetma,(a sign-in mess)saw her in Rhinebeck, NY at Omega during the Women and Power Conference. Also, Jensine Larsen, the founder of World Pulse was there. She is giving a voice to women all over the globe. Young women have a feministing blog by that name. That gives you a few searches, some fun reading and a place to be in a few months.

TO MS Goodman:

“My generation—WOMEN—thought the movement would advance on two legs. With one, we’d kick down the doors closed to us. With the other, we’d walk through, changing society for men and women.”

So much hope, promise, and so much youthful naïveté! Yes, we have only begun, but oh, what an amazing 40 years it has been!

Thank you MS Goodman for being there and for observing, recording, and informing us during one of the two major rights movements (women’s rights and civil rights) since women got the vote in 1920 with the 19th amendment.

tyetma Here, here!

Have you ever heard of a book called Three Cups Of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time? It is written by a man who wanted to thank a village for saving his life when he was climbing down from Mt. Everest and got lost. He decided to build them a school, instead of simply being a foreign benefactor from the West, he ended up learning about communication, friendship and humility. To quote: “... the book’s central theme, derived from a Baltistan proverb, rings loud and clear. “The first time you share tea with a Balti, you are a stranger,” a villager tells Greg Mortenson. “The second time, you are an honored guest. The third time you become family.” An inspirational story of one man’s efforts to address poverty, educate girls, and overcome cultural divides”

Check out the website at: http://www.threecupsoftea.com/

One of the main focuses of the “Central Asia Institute” that grew out of the author’s efforts, is the education of girls and women. I heard him say that he has found that educated women in the Muslim homes will fight to the death to keep their boys from joining terrorist groups, where as women who have not been educated tend not to. He claims that educating women is one of the best ways to fight terrorism in central Asia, like Afghanistan.

Through his work he says that he has found that: “...the real enemy I think is ignorance. It’s ignorance that breeds hatred.”

“In the holy Koran when a young man goes on a jihad he first has to get permission and blessing from his mother,” said Mortenson. “If a woman has an education she is much less likely to condone her son to get into violence or to terrorism.”

He believes that his work is succeeding because of 1) ” ‘The ink of a scholar is holier than the blood of a martyr,’ he said, quoting from Islam.” and 2) focusing on the education of girls and women culturally has such a large impact on terrorist recruitment. With our woeful knowledge and miss understandings of Islamic culture, this information, that women do have such strength within their lives, culture and religion, probably comes as a great shock to most westerners. It did to me.

Mekhong Kurt shining light on propaganda is never wasted. If we do not speak out against it, then our silence will be taken for agreement & acceptance of that propaganda. I do not expect to change G. Anderson’s mind in this forum, that would take a miracle & an epiphany on his part. No, I speak so that a voice of the truth is also heard. Ignoring a situation is the same as being in denial.

Besides, this thread is exactly what MS Goodman has been writing about for 40 years. It is appropriate! It shows that though we have made great strides, people like G. Anderson still exist, & are still blinded by their own fear & myopia. 

Another reason I am participating in this thread is because of the woeful lack of critical thinking skills most people in this country have, as well as no understanding of basic statistical comprehension. It is why people like Limbaugh, Beck, O’Rielly, Palin, Gingrich & so on, are as successful as they are. They count on the lack of these skills within the public to maintain their false credibility to garner their success & wealth. To not expose them is to aid & abed them in their actions & contribute to their successes.

Somebody has to speak out. Somebody has to point out the obvious, & reveal the truth that the Emperor has no cloths! Not only that, by why and how it came about!

I will most likely never penetrate the tightly shut mind of G. Anderson, but hopefully I will be able to steer someone else away from that false path before they too become so entrenched that the bold faced truth means nothing to them. Then again I just might be able to crack that armor of denial that G. Anderson has clothed himself in and shine some light into his nightmare world. I can always hope, that is the least I can do.

To G. Anderson: Contrary to what you may think, I do not hate you, I am only fighting against the misinformation you are bent on propagandizing (at any cost, and by any means) with the complete and intact truth. I have taken your own source and shown how, at best, you are mistaken in your understanding of what you are reading. At worst you know this and are deliberately lying. I can not read your mind and your agenda, I can only go by your actions and words, and they do not paint a very pretty picture.

I can comprehend how being in the line of work you are in can expose you to high rates of abuse by mothers and women, BUT what you are failing to understand within in your hot house world (not an insult, but an allegory) is that you are in the midst of a highly concentrated pool of people, which is not representative in any way, shape or form, of the whole. That is why I spelled it out in the simplest form I could, with my sample of % distribution within the whole. Of course you saw a lot of hell. If you reread your source you will find that it addresses the issue of poverty, absentee fathers, education, & so forth. It has been a known fact for decades that when a husband & wife split up, statistically her income will fall well over 50% (with or without sole custody), while statistically the husband’s income will increase substantially. This was the basis for all the court suites and actions taken on behalf of the children of absentee fathers and unpaid child support. The drop in ex-wive’s income is also due to the fact that there is no such thing as equal pay for equal work in this country yet. To give an example, I know of professional women who find it very hard to charge the same rates as their male counter parts because the public expects them to be cheaper simply BECAUSE they are women.

Well, enough said. You will believe what you are willing and capable of believing at this point in time. I hope that you take the time to really review your source, think about it, study it, and see not only it’s separate parts, but how they fit into the whole & how they shape that whole. Remember, the world of child care is not split 50/50 between men and women.

It’s too bad that a comment thread on such a fine columnist’s really good column has degenerated into nothing more than a childish argument. Everyone take your meds, go to bed, and DON’T COME BACK HERE!!! Happy New Year!

One swallow does not a summer make and things are not true just becaudee you say they are. The facts don’t support what you say. You cant see the forest for the trees. These women you so despise and even hate are themselves victims of a system that is cruel and violent from top to bottom: namely patriarchy. But you don’t blame the system, you blame them. This is the equivalent of blaming the drunks, prostitutes and laudanum addicts wandering the streets of Dickens’ London for their situation.  You have to look at the big picture but you just want someone to blame. This is not the way to change things for the better.

Clearly your comments to me have never gotten much further than a personel attack.

Once again women often do the very things they decry in others, and enjoy judging others from what they view as their own lofty moral position.

Please don’t lecture me on case work, I’ve presented hundreds cases in open court, and this is where I learned first hand what the women’s movement really represents. And gave up many liberal myths that I once held dear. One Swallow doesn’t make a summer.

As to handyman, physical threats really are your bottom line, violence as always is the pentultimate response of the narcissist.

TheHandyman I know exactly how you feel! My illusion about women was ripped apart when I lived in close quarters with 49 other women during my Air Force basic training back in 1975. I saw the same stratification and grouping that I saw out in the male run world, just done with a different style and MO, but still the same results in the end.

It showed me how our cultural upbringing has damaged everyone, women and men alike. It just proves that people, both women and men, are human. That Matriarchy is just the other side of the same coin as Patriarchy. Egalitarianism is by far the best way to go, in my book. It is not perfect, but like all good things, it is a constant work in progress.

I was a feminist long before most women took up the cause. Why shouldn’t women be able to do everything that I was able to do? All those things said, mostly by men made no sense to me.  thought that wome coming into their own in the work force and in politics would lead to a more enlightened approach to our problems. Instead, the women who are now in business and politics are just as devious, lie just as much, and pursue power with the same zeal as the men they were supposed to be better than! And rather than rushing into the battlefield I had hoped they would make it so no one ever had to die on one again. Women are enthralled by the shiny wepons of mass destruction every bit as much as men which is too bad.

But it is not as if Feminism achieved its goal, it is more like it got subverted by the Owner Class so they could enslave women as much as the men they have held in chains for centuries. Too bad, I thought they might be able to free all of us.

And I cannot without saying that G.Anderson is one of the sources of ignorance in this society. He sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear. And he substitutes his beliefs in the form of absolute truths as if those of us who know better wouldn’t catch him at it. He’s another Karl Rove or to make it gender equal, another Sarah Palin. People who live and judge life on the basis of critical thought should slap these morons until they shutup. Theirs’s not a relevent, well thought out opposing point of view! They are the purveyor of ignorance and lies!

G.Anderson, December 27 at 4:46 pm #

Once again, I wonder Ardee, how you would react if I started calling you names, as you have done toward me.

However, I will point out, that undoubtedly you would react by becoming outraged.

Actually, sir, I find you an object of pity rather than anger. Though you lie and distort there must be a reason, there must be some great pain in your past that leads you to so confuse this issue.

diamond, what a horrible and tragic story. My heart goes out to the mother and her children.

The story does prove my point, anyone can be abusive, it is just that statistically females have a higher rate of being victimized and abused, while males have a higher rate of being abusers. You can be both as well, hence what <b>diamond> said: 

<i>“The real problem is inter-generational poverty and lack of education and opportunity as well as lack of access to cheap and effective contraception for working class boys and girls, not feminism.”<i>

I would like to add do that:

1) Inter-generational abuse
2) Institutionalized abuse
3) Abuse cover ups (i.e. The Catholic Church ... as an example, but they do not have a monopoly on this issue)
4) Bullying: glorified in media, entertainment, and tolerated in schools (although predominated by males, females are also now being encouraged to bully as a way to prove their strength and so called leadership ability)
5) Discrimination of any kind. Some historians believe that slavery was the natural outcome of the subjugation of women. If you can subjugate half or more of the population based on sex alone, then it is no big leap to the subjugation and persecute any group of people for any meaningless reason.

I think G Anderson should reflect on the case of Logan Marr. A case that became infamous in its time (the nineties). Logan Marr was first removed from her mother when she was only two years old. Why? Because her mother was eighteen and single. Two big black marks against her. On the other hand she loved her child very much and had never raised a hand against her. In spite of this Logan was removed and then repeatedly removed and returned to her mother in some bizarre game of musical childcare. Later when her sister Bailey was born they were both removed. In one instance as the case notes reveal, they were taken away because their mother ‘moved too often’ and rented apartments that ‘weren’t big enough’. Eventually , though the social workers found a solution and both girls went to live with a respectable married woman who was, as you say you are GA, a social worker. This woman physically abused both girls and eventually killed Logan by trussing her in yards of masking tape, tied to a chair in the basement of her house in an effort to ‘cure’ her of wanting to go back to her mother.

Christy Marr got her surviving daughter back and the file in the social workers’ filing cabinet was quietly destroyed. A tacit admission that Marr had never been a danger to either of her daughters. So here you have a woman who killed a child but she wasn’t a single mother: she was married and a social worker. I don’t know where this leaves your theory that all the mistreatment of children in the world comes from 1. single mothers and 2. feminists. 

The real problem is inter-generational poverty and lack of education and opportunity as well as lack of access to cheap and effective contraception for working class boys and girls, not feminism.

G. Anderson, like so many ideologues, you stick to your flawed accusations, even when confronted by the bold, simple, and unassailable truth. AND like most people who depend upon the warping of truth, and the use of fallacies, to promote propaganda and to divert people from the real truth, you simply ignore and do not answer those who are shining the light of truth upon your dishonest assertions and accusations.

G. Anderson, in other words you are a sham, a person without any credibility, who retreats to worn out and dis-proven rhetoric when faced with the truth and has been exposed for the liar and deliberate deceiver that you are!

Either that, or you are so invested in your denial that even the hard truth shall not set you free.

Give it up G. Anderson, you have been tripped up by your own lying and disingenuous behavior. By continuing to promote your lies after the fact, only makes you sound more and more like an ideological moron.

Take a good look in the Mirror at what women have become thanks to the Women’s movement, Tropicgirl said it best, its far far away from the goals of the founders.

Your living in a delusion, one in which you believe your fighting against the patriarchy for your freedom, this is foolish. While it’s true you don’t need validation from men, you do need their support, as you do need the support of the public to succeed, but that support is wearing thin because of the damage you’ve done to this society.

Your agenda, eventually will be rejected by the public because it’s anti human, and a growing number of men see it for what it is because they have experienced it, for themselves.

Incarceration without trial, disposession without trial, penury, persecution, loss of civil rights and death in debtors prison without legal recourse. This is a result of the women’s movement and why soon, the public will no longer support it. And that will be a true day of liberation from a sick and distorted ideology.

Hi, adrienrain. You wrote, “Now they say we’re a young company looking for energetic, recent graduates.” Have you ever wondered how such a company’s HR folks would react if some lady (or man, for that matter) who had graduated within, say, the last six months walked in—and was 56 years old?

The mental image makes me chuckle. . . .

Ellen, I’m still wearing black, Ma’am.

G. Anderson to make it simple, here is a sample of how per-capita works:

TOTAL ABUSE BY SEX OF PERPETRATOR:

100 cases of child abuse in a hypothetical population of 250 children:

65 perpetrated by women
35 perpetrated by man

Primary care takers by sex for total hypothetical population 250:

80% by women
20% by men

Per-capita

For women, only 65 perpetrated for the 80% of the whole 250 population they where caretakers for, which = 32.5% chance of abuse by a female caretaker

65/(250*80%), in other words, out of the 200 children taken care of by women, only 65 where abused.

For men, only 35 perpetrated for the 20% of the whole 250 population they where caretakers for, which = 70% chance of abuse by a male caretaker

35/(250*20%), in other words, out of the 50 children taken care of by men, 35 where abused.

Thus simply saying that out of all the cases of child abuse, the majority (65%) where committed by women, then concluding that women are more likely to abuse, is a fallacy of omission. When what we should be looking at is what the rate of occurrence is when a woman is the care taker and when the man is the caretaker, and from your own source, that is presented as being heavy in the male camp.

Saying that women statistically are responsible for all abuse makes it more likely that a woman will abuse does not take into account the percentage of children abused within the whole population of children and at what percentage of the whole population of children are cared for by women as opposed of by men. If few men care take (as we know they do), then of course their total cases of abuse would be small even if every single male caretaker abused, which the don’t.

G. Anderson: I could play the cherry picking game: “Among children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one & two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.” This contradicts your whole premise of: “The single most dangerous place for children in our society is the home of a single mother.” But I am not as dishonest as you are. I hate to say it, but in the end men come out far ahead of women on a per-capita basis: 

“Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). ...”

To conclude your argument about which sex is more abusive, this is what your source says:

”Perpetrator’s Sex. ... somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male [not per-capita]. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, ... by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).”

“Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than ... neglected children. ...[N]eglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable... In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). ...”

The above takes into account every form of maltreatment from neglect to sexual abuse. Over all abuse %s are very close, with women at the higher end, which is mitigated by your source for the simple fact that the sex of care takers for children is disproportionally represented by women then by men. That would be like saying in a male dominated area, men are response for the greater % of such and such then women purely on a percentage basis of actual events and thus are more “likely to perpetrate”, with out taking into account that the population of men to women in that area of research is not 50/50. You have to look at things from a % per group, thus even though more incidences of abuse may be made by women, children are more likely to be abuse by a man by the simple fact that men, who have a disproportionately lower occurrence as primary caregivers of children, do have a higher rate of abuse per primary male care giver

The women’s movement has been a success and yet, is not finished.  I have appreciated some of Ellen Goodman’s work, but am disappointed by the article she did on Truthdig on (or near) May 7, 2009 about the desire for rationing health care to the old.  As she ages, she may join those of us who are older and disabled.  I was pleased at how the comments to that article she did on this site were really critical of her position.

The women’s movement’s success can be indicated in many ways.  One is that so many young women don’t think about equality.  History in the US is a failing.  The young women who can afford it, can have education and careers.  Yes, we have work to do and it doesn’t depend on the approval of men.

No, you are incorrect, most violence in the home is commited by women against children.

“the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents).”

This is a fact… It’s probably worse than that. As to Germain Greer, at one time I liked her writings, and as a liberal, which I am, I used to believe them until I found the reality of what the womens movment was really about.

As a social worker I witnessed hundreds of cases, of horrendous child abuse, and intentional maiming, commited by women against children, yes once and a while there were cases commited by fathers but they were rare.

Although I don’t believe that abortion should be illegal, as I’ve said before, the destruction of the family and marriage is one of the main reasons liberalism will cease to exist as a political force in the United States. The destruction of the family is a clear stated goal of feminism.

joell and G. Anderson I feel compelled to quote Germaine Greer: when a hapless young conservative man got up and started asking “What do women want?” in an open forum on feminism. Greer gave him a look that would have stripped paint off a wall and said in contemptuous tones ‘Don’t worry, they don’t want you.’ Further, I can only agree wholeheartedly with whoever it was who said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. I would only add that it would be free, especially for politicians. 80% of violent crime is committed by men and one sociologist even went so far as to suggest that if all males between the ages of 16 and 30 were locked up we could achieve almost a zero crime rate across the board. Of course it could never be done and should never be done but those are the facts.

The vast majority of children killed in the home are killed by their fathers or some other male living in the house. The vast majority of child sexual molestations occur in the home, again by the father or some other male resident in the home. Oprah Winfrey as a very young girl was raped and impregnated by her uncle. Makes the whole hysteria about “stranger danger” a bit suspect and even misguided. And you must know the joke about, “What is the definition of a virgin in the backwoods of Kentucky? A girl who can run faster than her brothers.”

I don’t think you can blame a woman for leaving a violent, abusive or unfaithful husband and you certainly can’t put the whole blame on her if a man doesn’t use contraception, leaves it all up to her and then takes to his heels if she gets pregnant. Perhaps the answer is to introduce the veil and stoning to death for adultery but it would only be women wearing the veil and only women would be stoned - or at least that’s how it works wherever it’s been tried. Or perhaps you should just get into the 21st century and make contraception free and freely available and then you wouldn’t have to rant and rave about abortions, would you? America has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world and builds more jails than schools. Women don’t get themselves pregnant either.

G. Anderson:

Speaking as a fellow man, your misogyny and intellectual dishonest are disgraceful. It’s men like you that give the rest of us a bad name.

You say that men are put off when women talk about “oppressive patriarchy”: how many men do you think are alienated when you say women are inherently more violent or irrational then men, or when you blatantly distort the statistics you cite? Know, fellow man, that you’ve alienated at least one.

G. Anderson: “What I said is true”

Prove it! The source you pointed to DISPROVED what you claimed. So how can anyone believe you are telling the truth when you have already been proven a liar by your own source?

You said: ”... in regard to violence directed at children 80% of which is perpetrated by women…”

But your source actually says: “Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child’s relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child.”

No where can you find your source saying that, overall, women present and perpetrate 80% of ALL abuse towards children. In fact what it does say is that over all MEN are the greatest perpetrators of abuse toward children, as can be seen in the quote above. These are just the facts, they do not in anyway say men are evil and women are nagles because of these facts. They are just facts. By accepting the facts, we can then be able to address the situation from a sound place of honesty and knowledge, by both women and men. Denying the facts because you do not like them, only perpetuates the problem. Women are not by nature angles and men are not by nature evil, BUT our culture and educational system does cause a great deal of the problems these FACTS reveal, and THAT is why it is important to drop the denial and just simply get to work on the problem, TOGETHER!

G. Anderson: Reread my earlier post that quotes directly from YOUR source and proves that you HAVE distorted and misrepresented the facts of your own source.

Why do you feel the need to distort and lie in order to give the illusion of credibility. By so obviously using such underhanded methods you have totally demolished any credibility you have been trying to gain. That kind of behavior IS part of the definition of delusional. Don’t you see, you are shooting yourself and your message in the foot by persisting, in the face of bold proof and facts, to deny that which you are so painfully and obviously doing!

G. Anderson: I am not trying to be sarcastic, but trying to understand how you can expect to be believed and treated as a person of sound mind, when you persist in repeating over and over again statements and claims that have already been proven false by your own source? I think, since you have made more outrageous claims, that you meed to sight your sources for the new claims since your credibility has been destroyed by your own behavior.

Can you sight your sources for your claim about 20% of women want part time only; that women choose low paying jobs because that is what they want; and so forth. I would appreciate it.

No, Lilith I did not distort anything. What I said is true, calling me crazy doesn’t change the facts. 40 million abortions later, women still belive they are non violent, that’s what’s really crazy.

G. Anderson:

“Only 20% of women want full time work in the labor force, despite attempts by feminist groups to ostracise homemakers as parasites. “

hahahahahahahahahahaha .... I am sorry, but your statements are so funny, that, and well, tragic. Tragic because you seem to believe them; Funny because they are so crazy as to not be believed to be coming from a sincere person.

I am not trying to call you names, but to point out that what you seem to believe is so far from reality that it belongs in another universe! So either you are truly crazy, or this is some sort of elaborate joke on your part.

G. Anderson: I do have a couple of questions for you. If you so strongly believe in what you are saying, why do you feel you must resort to the distortion of the facts of your own source, to outright lie, and to deny the “FACTS” you point to? Or does yanking our chain with your dishonesty give you some sort of perverse pleasure? What is your motivation in obviously lying, misstating and rewriting the facts of your own source?

Once again, I wonder Ardee, how you would react if I started calling you names, as you have done toward me.

However, I will point out, that undoubtedly you would react by becoming outraged.

This is typically the resort of movements that aren’t based on rational thought. When you do something that’s irrational it’s ok based on your belief system, however you then decry someone else because you believe they are doing the very same thing.

This is why people have come to understand the motives of the women’s movement are not in their best interests.

G.Anderson, December 27 at 2:15 pm #

Once again, the women’s movement is finished, because it has become an assualt on men, and the family. Nothing more.

Once again, you generalize and distort the importance and even the necessity of this movement by making unsubstantiated charges against it. It seems to me that you judge an entire movement based upon either myth or the actions of a very, very few.

I do not know, nor even care,really, what has happened to turn you into a misogynistic and shriveled human being. I do care , however, that you fail to understand that you relate falsehoods and seek to diminish fifty percent of the human race with unsupported and unsupportable charges.

I would strongly urge two courses of action upon you; reread those who relate actual statistical evidence of your falsehoods, and two, for heaven sakes get help.

Re Ardee:“Were there any water whatever in the position held by that obvious hater of women he might not find it necessary to distort statistics to his own end.

Yes, the guy is an obvious hater of women.  I noted he also does not mention all those men who abandoned those children living in homes headed by single women.  I suspect if such men were prosecuted for child neglect - as they should be - it would make a dramatic difference in U.S. child abuse statistics.

Once again, the women’s movement is finished, because it has become an assualt on men, and the family. Nothing more.

The current political dishonesty, of the women’s movement, will in the end destroy it. Women earn less money them men because they work less hours, and because they voluntarily pursue careers that pay less. And because of this, yet again they come to men to try and take away something.

Just as recently, women’s groups succeeded in getting a greater slice of stimulus money from the Obama adminstration, even though most of the jobs lost in the great recession have been to laboring men.       

The women’s movement would not have succeeded at anthing without the public’s support, however it is losing that support, especially from many men who once supported it.

Instead of understanding why, there is a resort to paranoia, and vitriol against those who no longer can be intimidated into believing in the sacred myths, of gender bashing by the so called women’s movement.

Those, who are truly living the past are the true believers in the women’s movement, who are blind to what it has become, and the damage it has done to the lives of children, families, men and women everywhere in the West.

The so called women’s movement does not infact represent women or their interests, and millions of women resent the attempt to depict them as a part of it. Only 20% of women want full time work in the labor force, despite attempts by feminist groups to ostracise homemakers as parasites.

As long as womens groups believe they are victims of an oppressive patriarchy, they will never be successful.

ardee, December 27 at 7:27 am #
...I am eternally thankful that I have been blessed
with very strong women in my life.

================================================
Oh, you too? Ain’t it grand and it makes a genuine
relationship possible. A genuine relationship is only
possible between equals.  Cheers! And happy new year.

I cannot help but wonder at the attitudes of some here towards fifty percent of our nation. One might surmise that the missing Y chromosome signals, to some males, an inherent evil nature, or worse, an inferiority inherent in that double XX.

How silly that, here in the twenty first century ,we find males still living in the fifteenth. I pity those who fail to understand that both sexes are necessary for much more than reproduction. Further, when pondering their relationships, or lack thereof I might conjecture, I am eternally thankful that I have been blessed with very strong women in my life.

Were there any water whatever in the position held by that obvious hater of women he might not find it necessary to distort statistics to his own end.

Most men who feel vicitimzed arent real men at all, and are afraid of real women.

I thought I should re-post this, since it over two days to make it to the comments page and then was placed back when I originally posted, thus it is missed by most people:

G.Anderson:

I find it interesting that you state that the most dangerous place for a child is to be in the home of a single mother. According to YOUR source, this is what they really say about that: “Among children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.”

It seems that you cherry picked and rewrote the actual facts from your own source:

Birth parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 72 percent of the physically abused children and for 81 percent of the emotionally abused children.

Perpetrator’s Sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).

Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in care taking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child’s relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child.

G. Anderson, as can be seen with the above and if you read your source fully, this is a complex issue that does not break down easily into a single line statement as you tried. Yes, women are capable of doing harm to others, even children. But it can not be said that women, as head of household, are the most dangerous places for children to be, in or out of their home. I hate to say it, but men still rank the highest, it seems by your source, to be the biggest perpetrators of child abuse both in and out of the home.

I thought I should re-post this, since it over two days to make it to the comments page and then was placed back when I originally posted, thus it is missed by most people:

G.Anderson:

Thank you for the link. But I find it interesting that you state that the most dangerous place for a child is to be in the home of a single mother. According to YOUR source, this is what they really say about that: “Among children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers.”

It seems that you cherry picked and rewrote the actual facts from your own source. In fact what your source does say is this:

Birth parents were the most closely related perpetrators for 72 percent of the physically abused children and for 81 percent of the emotionally abused children.

Perpetrator’s Sex. Children were somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male. Of children who were maltreated by their birth parents, the majority (75%) were maltreated by their mothers and a sizable minority (46%) were maltreated by their fathers (some children were maltreated by both parents). In contrast, children who were maltreated by other parents or parent-substitutes, or by other persons, were more likely to have been maltreated by a male than by a female (80 to 85% were maltreated by males; 14 to 41% by females).

Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in care taking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child’s relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child.

G. Anderson, as can be seen with the above and if you read your source fully, this is a complex issue that does not break down easily into a single line statement as you tried. Yes, women are capable of doing harm to others, even children. But it can not be said that women, as head of household, are the most dangerous places for children to be, in or out of their home. I hate to say it, but men still rank the highest, it seems by your source, to be the biggest perpetrators of child abuse both in and out of the home.

Re: G.Anderson

Your comment: “men are fighting against the Women’s movement now”

Well…. at least YOU ADMIT THEY ARE.  Women are every bit as much a human being as men are.  Get used to it, it isn’t a “war against you”.  Cry me a river…. there is no reason that men cannot be responsible, unless of course you have some proof of that.  Men are NOT being victimized, you think so because it is apparent from your rantings that you simply do not understand the concept, “fair is fair”.

To me, it appears you believe that for every dollar you earn, I should earn $.77 cents.  I disagree, I think I’m worth every dollar YOU’RE worth.  Poor, poor G.Anderson.  Why is this reality so difficult for you?

From KDelphi’s post:

“This, from you link, rather explaines it: men cant abuse if they leave:”...Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.”

Men perpetrate more crime AND the crimes are more violent.  That is factual and all your bloviating won’t change it one bit.

People like you are an embarassment to their gender and a stoker of discord between the genders in general.  To me, you’re simply the scumbag I thought you were from the “get go”.  The difference now is you’ve proven it.

Good riddance Ellen GoodMAN.

The ERA was defeated because it was the wrong approach. We put what
should be our rights as citizens up for a vote - and people who felt
threatened by the competition, voted it down. This is the one point in
which I ever agreed with Reagan. We should have assumed that we as
women were covered by the words person and citizen in the constitution
and in the laws. Then if we were slighted or denied, take it to the courts.
Let them declare us non-persons or non-citizens. They wouldn’t dare.

Wrong again, men are fighting against the Women’s movement now because, they realize that it’s a war declared on them and their families. Before many men supported equal rights, and the goals of women for equal rights and equal pay, but that has changed.

It’s a fact that the most dangerous place for a child is the home of a single mother. With a father in the home the rate of child abuse goes down, not up.

The women’s movement should have thought about who would take care of the family when they set out to destroy it.

Re: G.Anderson

Your comment: “No, Outraged, I didn’t skew any facts. You did, because you are predjudiced, and angry and full of hate. Stop wasting your time trying to appear reasonable, your words are just an attempt to bite anyone who disagrees with your malevolence.”

Yes G.Anderson you did, as I AND KDelphi have shown using your own link.

Ms. Goodman pens a nice article regarding her work covering the women’s movement over the years.  In it, she says:

“It turned out that it was easier to kick down the doors than to change society. It was easier to fit into traditional male life patterns than to change those patterns. We’ve had more luck winning the equal right to 70-hour weeks than we’ve had selling the equal value of caregiving. We have yet to solve the problem raised at the outset: Who will take care of the family?”

You respond to the article by claiming:

“Civil rights movements can only succeed if they are supported by society, instead what has happened is an alienation against the women’s movement by increasing numbers of men

That’d be about right, IT IS FOUGHT AGAINST BY INCREASING NUMBERS OF MEN.  But wait a minute, wasn’t it mostly men fighting against it in the first place….?

I gather that you feel that I should talk sweet to you(beg) regarding the rights of women, since according to you, if I don’t…. then supposedly I “give men good reason, not to support, the so called women’s movement, and without that support, it’s finished.”  I’d tell you what I think of that but I wouldn’t want to harm your virgin ears.

Since I’m a woman and… god forbid, was at one time a young woman, I assume you would put me in YOUR OTHER FICTICIOUS category of, ” increasing violence and sexual promiscuity of young women.”  One wonders….and wonders….and wonders, just who are these “promiscuious young women” having sex with?!!!!

Why is it so easy for you to threaten the non-support of men regarding basic, simple and equal rights for women as fellow human beings?  Could it be that from your perspective men really are “better” and more important than women?  Other than wishful thinking, what makes you believe women are so..ooo evil and should be denied equality from birth?  Have you ever sat down and thought-provokingly realized what YOU ARE ENDORSING, or do you just “know”.... as a “man”... how things “ought” to be?

One more thing.  It doesn’t surprise me that you’re a single dad.  Nope, not even one teeny-tiny, itty-bitty bit…...  Was that “sweet enough” for ya….?

“The Equal Rights Amendment was defeated because people were scared into believing that women could end up in combat.”

You dont really believe that, do you Ellen? Like everything else in Capitalism, it was an economic defeat.

Im afraid that feminism (as almost all other “isms”) has been co-opted by Capitalist Masters as a way to keep wages down—-people rarely consider that, when they speak of the medican family income today, they are talking about TWO people working, yet wages are lower all around…

G. Anderson—I can give you 100 more than would dispute your singular statistic, most importantly in the same article. (below) If ones includes sexual violence, subtracts from abuse, women who are left alone to care for children, subtract “neglect” when it is a matter of a lack of resoucrces, and, include the fact that single women being the lowest on the pay scales…tha stats look alot different.

This, from you link, rather explaines it: men cant abuse if they leave:”...Abused children presented a different pattern in connection with the sex of their perpetrators than did the neglected children. Children were more often neglected by female perpetrators (87% by females versus 43% by males). This finding is congruent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers and are the primary persons held accountable for any omissions and/or failings in caretaking. In contrast, children were more often abused by males (67% were abused by males versus 40% by females). The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female.

Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females). This general pattern held for emotional abuse, but was slightly different in the area of physical abuse. Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers). For sexual abuse, the child’s relationship to the perpetrator made very little difference, since males clearly predominated as perpetrators, whatever their relationship to the child. Moreover, the severity of the injury or impairment that the child experienced as a result of maltreatment did not appear to bear any relationship to the sex of the perpetrator.”

You just included the one stat that fit your prior assumptions…

No, Outraged, I didn’t skew any facts. You did, because you are predjudiced, and angry and full of hate. Stop wasting your time trying to appear reasonable, your words are just an attempt to bite anyone who disagrees with your malevolence.

Each time you attack someone, you give men good reason, not to support, the so called women’s movement, and without that support, it’s finished.

Quote: “As a young mother and reporter, it did not occur to me that my daughter would face the same conflicts of work and family. Or, on the other hand, that my son-in-law would fully share those conflicts. I did not expect that more than two-thirds of mothers would be in the workforce before we had enough child care or sick pay.”

Good summation.  This is wherein not only “we” find ourselves but also legitimate others.  We’ve traveled backwards instead of forward.  I do not feel that those “on the ground” ever meant to see this abomination.  On the other hand, it does appear that as a society (at large) this IS what has taken place.  We need to turn “this rig around” .....beep…beep…beep.

Re: G.Anderson

Again, you skew the facts.  From YOUR link: “Children of single parents were at higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect”

That NOT what you claimed though… you claimed, “
The single most dangerous place for children in our society is the home of a single mother.”

You are a full of it, like I said…. abusers always are…. aren’t they?  They like to skew facts, misrepresent information and by and large INVENT when the facts simply do not fit their worldview.

Another quote form YOUR link: “The child’s sex and age were related to the rate of maltreatment, but race was not.

Child’s Sex. Girls were sexually abused about three times more often than boys, under both the Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard. This finding reiterates the NIS-2 result, so females’ disproportionately greater risk of sexual abuse has been stable over time. This sex difference in incidence rates of sexual abuse leads to higher rates of abuse in general among girls. Also, because the definitional guidelines permit the inference that injury or harm occurred in connection with the more extreme forms of sexual abuse, girls’ greater risk of sexual abuse also accounts for their higher incidence rates for inferred injury.”

Of course, the dirty little secret is HUSBANDS engage in these dirty little deeds also, don’t they?

So my degenerate friend, who does the finger point to NOW.

joell, December 26 at 12:50 am

Do you honestly believe such a post as you offer contributes to this forum? All it says is that skipping your next effort may be a valid act.

Perhaps you might take a little time and flesh out your opinion, or reconsider making such a fool of yourself.

ellen goodman and her ilk represent the vile crotch of “mainstream journalism.”

good riddance!

Ms Goodman - I too have ambiguous feelings about women’s progress.
I had hoped to bring women’s culture into government - not just
women - and I wonder how long that will take, or if it can be done at
all. I also have been put off by a kind of orthodoxy among leading
feminists, who were willing to see women join in the general slaughter
just to prove we are equal, rather than bring our enhanced influence to
bear against the slaughter. Clinton’s ‘welfare reform’ actually took from
mothers their authority over their lives and children, and the feminist
leadership barely noticed, because the class angle was always there - I
just refused to believe it.

I remember when help wanted job ads would read ‘attractive, under
35.’ They wouldn’t dare say that now. Now they say we’re a young
company looking for energetic, recent graduates…............

And young women look at me like I am crazy when I tell them that in
my lifetime, most ‘women’s jobs’ weren’t even covered by minimum
wage.

Thank you Ellen!  I’m one of those who take the movement for granted, I suppose. Didn’t understand why my mother took me to get my first credit card at 18 to make sure I got one.  I didn’t know that a generation before I wouldn’t have been allowed to have one in my own name.

When men can feel good about themselves without needing to put women down —that is the day I look forward to as well.

Outraged, once again your personel attacks say more about who you are, and how you function than anything I can say.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm#perpetrator

It is delightful & encouraging to see women as Governors, Vice-Presidential candidates, best-selling authors, and social, political, & cultural icons and role models.

Ms. Goodman, where on earth did the years go??? You’ve long been one of my favorite columnists (even on the odd occasion my take on an issue conflicts with yours—you’re a good writer, Ma’am).

While for you to keep up your current schedule is too much to ask, I do hope you pen something now and then—but I also hope you enjoy retirement. Maybe you could start your own blog somewhere (and publicize it).

Thanks for decades’ worth of just about uniformly top-drawer columns.

Re: G. Anderson

Your comment: “And finally, appalling ignorance and apathy, in regard to violence directed at children 80% of which is perpetrated by women. The single most dangerous place for children in our society is the home of a single mother.”

I have never seen statistics which could qualify your bs.  If what you are claiming has legitimacy, “link” to credible sources for proof of your claim.

To be BLUNT, I say you are full of shit, qualify your “poor me” mantra, scumbag.

Huh, who would have guessed that misogynists read Truthdig? Well, it takes all kinds I suppose.

Merry Christmas Ellen Goodman! Merry Christmas Truthdig! Merry Christmas MRA shitheads! Merry Christmas everyone!

Ellen Goodman wrote: “Now, nearly a quarter-million women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, 120 have died, 650 have been wounded. But still no ERA.”
—————-

So you’re telling me that in two 8 years wars, 250’000 females have “partecipated”, and ONLY 120 got killed (actually, many of them have commited suicide and others have died in non-combat related incidents…) and only 650 have been wounded ?

Were they in a war, or were they just camping ? Because if out of 250’000 only less than 100 got killed and 650 wounded, it mean it wasnt really “war” they were doing… more like camping. And not even “that tough” of a camping.

Take a 10 years span, take 250’000 women working as carpenters, and i can assure you the death/wounded toll would be much higher.

Oh and btw, that “young woman on the tarmac directing your jet” was doing nothing “masculine” or “manly”... any 10 years old kid (male or female) could do that. Nothing to brag about (unless you want to be compared to a ... 10 years old kid…).

I believe the true step forward for females will be gigantic: it will be when they finally drop their huge Penis Envy, their huge inferiority complexes, and stop trying to awkwardly monkeying what Men do.

Ciao, from Italy
-Sakutu

ps. Gerard… cut the misandry, we Men too, sometimes, “love” ya’ll… despite your many shortcomings and deficiencies.

Just a thought:  What with an economy almost totally dependent upon war-making and raping the earth for resources, the stereotypical “masculine” urge toward violence continues to feed on conquest.  Women have, therefore, not only the responsibility/opportunity to work toward equal rights, but to help world societies “tone down” the by-now-traditional male “role” and make a mutually supportive, caring environment possible in homes,workplaces, churches, government, schools, offices.  In all these places, imbalance still prevails in the majority of situations—some places more, some less.  It’s a double-whammy for women, but only they have the brains and the heart for it, as yet.  One more generation, perhaps ..... and the majority of men can finally give their testosterone a rest in favor of compassion and peace on earth. Hello, you guys!  But love you anyway!  Well ... most of the time.

40 Years is a long time, but in many ways your view of the womens movement is still back then, sometimes this happens.

Often the problem with social movements is that they mean different things to different people, and a desire for equal rights, and equal pay can be co opted into something else far, far from it’s initial goals.

Unfortunately, this is what has happened to the women’s movement. And this is also why it’s stalled.

Instead of equality, some believed that other goals were justified, such as:  the destruction of the family, the wholesale confiscation of the property, and relationships of men adminstratively, incarceration for men without trial into debtors prison for child support, arrest for men without due process, the increasing poverty of children in single parent homes, penury for a whole generation of single fathers and increasing violence and sexual promiscuity of young women.

Civil rights movements can only succeed if they are supported by society, instead what has happened is an alienation against the women’s movement by increasing numbers of men, who have experienced it’s legal oppression directly, and the second wives, mothers, and sisters, who have been forced to scrimp and starve to keep their husbands, brothers, son’s out of jail.

And finally, appalling ignorance and apathy, in regard to violence directed at children 80% of which is perpetrated by women. The single most dangerous place for children in our society is the home of a single mother.

Ellen Goodman;
If the women’s movement were a course, I’d award it an
incomplete. But how lucky to have been a reporter on
this beat. We’ve had lives our mothers could only
imagine. It’s been a great time for WOMEN. Or should I
say, a great beginning?
=========================================
Yes; and isn’t that true of all of us humans? We’re all
part of that very steep learning curve. Women have it
harder; but us men have a very long way to go as well.
I liked this thread of yours very much.

I doubt the elegant and eloquent Ms. Goodman will fade from the scene as she still has much of importance to say.