Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Plus, he said the word "settle" which leads me to believe this is an equation of a woman he has added up to be about a 5.5/10 in terms of marriageability. I say bail. After all, in our society, mid 30s male is like late 20s female and you don't even have to worry about getting pregnant soon if you want a kid.
I guess I just wouldn't want to marry someone who said I bugged the shit out of him.
Happy aniversary! Here's to many more!
Sigh, but where does the time go?
Peace.
While being against publicly subsidized contraception isn't being anti-contraception, Santorum has publicly stated "Contraception is not OK.". And as I read his words, he means for wedded partners as well.
The arguments that are floated by "ant-big government" radicals usually conflate things like universal contraception availability and religious intolerance. No one can force a person to use contraception, and trying to force others to NOT have contraception is just as bad. Does a mandate ordering all healthcare providers to include contraception without additional cost to the basic fees really mean public funding?
I think both sides indulge in hyperbole, and finding the truth is likely somewhere in between.
Peace.
Here's the problem: she bugs you. Okay, she bugs you. But you're talking to Dan about it instead of talking to her.
Is there anything stopping you from saying, 'Hon, that's kind of grossing me out, could you chew with your mouth closed?' or 'Sweetie, I totally love you but I totally don't love ABBA, can we listen to something we both like?'
One of two things is going on. Either you know conversations like that don't end well, in which case there's a bigger problem with the relationship than the odd misplaced cuss word, or you didn't think to try, in which case you're really not ready for a serious relationship.
The biggest problem in the relationship is that you took your problems to Dan rather than to her. You need to take a look at that.
Have you gone mad? No useful purpose? Friends, coworkers, scientists, doctors, parents of kids' friends... just about every damn thing human beings are good for. Are you suggesting that women have no use for other people except as sources of cash?
If you aren't enjoying her company it is probably time to break up. I don't think that either you are shallow or that you should just stay.
Have these things always bothered you this much? It seems like either you are just incompatible or you are getting irritated because something emotional is wrong between you. If the irritation is a new thing you might want to look at what else is going on.
You know, I've heard the ramblings of people like Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, etc., and yet this sentence has to be one of the most savagely misogynistic utterings I have ever had the misfortune to come across.
Golden Mean? I prefer it as Diplomacy.
Peace.
There's not much to add to the many comments about 'little things' that others have mentioned, but I tend to agree with @53's grandmother - the little things get under your skin. They aren't "big" enough to prod compromise and serious treatment by both parties, so they tend to erode things away rather than blow them up.
I will say this: in my experience, my partner's annoying little bugs were invisible to me until things were otherwise seriously afoul between us. It wasn't that the bugs weren't there all along, or that they were any less objectionable; it was that I was blind to them and didn't let them annoy me. That changed when other things went sour. Check out the rubric from @73.
Oh, IMHO, there is absolutely nothing narcissistic about engaging people in conversations about your issues. That you even have the self-awareness to consider this your issue or problem to deal with suggests that you aren't a narcissist (that is waaay overused these days - kind of like Histrionic Personality Disorder used to be). You know what it sounds like to me? Like you don't tell your partner to cut out the shit that annoys you and you are stewing, since you are pulling a "Nice Girl Syndrome" and putting her feelings ahead of your own (you don't want to hurt hers by telling her how much she's getting on your nerves with crappy music and crappy table manners).
FWIW, my GF likes crappy pop/commercial radio. I am an NPR junkie, leavened with non-pop music from two independent non-commercial stations. Even when I was in the gaga lovey-dovey, googly-eyed phase and trying to 'land her', I told her up front I just couldn't take more than an hour or two of the commercial crap without getting a headache; she shared that "NPR voices" put her to sleep, even faster. We haven't figured it out yet, and we don't share a house yet either, but we are treating it as a BIG issue. You should elevate your concerns about music and table manners to the level of whether and how many children to have, and voice them. Dan's right: if there are a lot of other great elements, then you tackle those problems and try to resolve them.
A post-gay bookstore never was a gay bookstore. You might or might not recall, once upon a time, when the major chains, after major inner turmoil and upheaval, gave birth to an LG shelf. In the due course of time, the shelf became a series of shelves, eventually becoming an entire section. At its height, L and G fiction each had a section, and non-fiction works acquired an LGBT section all their own. But then, just as we'd established such a beachhead from which to conquer the entire store, came the turning of the tide. Gay bookstores closed. Andrew Sullivan's assimilationism conquered the world, Bert Archer declared gay over, and with a sigh of relief the major chains and their imitators were able to resume acting more in line with their conservative investors. By the time the major chains began folding, at many of them the nonfiction was back down to one shelf and the fiction had been dispersed and scattered back into oblivion in the heterosexual haystack.
In short, therefore, a post-gay bookstore is a bookstore that yielded (probably grudgingly) to the necessity to cater to a certain category of reader and was likely only too delighted to remove that category from the list of specialty niches.
Had bookstores survived, eventually the tide would have turned. An executive for one chain would have been dragged to a same-sex wedding, gotten it into his head to check the chain's sales in that segment, and gotten in the number crunchers to conclude that it would be profitable to resume the special section.
Going back to the original question, I wonder if there isn't some variant of confirmation bias in play. Feminists here react differently because different feminists are here (deliberately) to begin with because people gravitate in general to locations in harmony with their turn of mind. It's one of my difficulties as a universal contrarian; no such place exists for me, and therefore I don't instinctively get such points. If I were in the social sciences, I'd be tempted to try an experiment to see just with how much people could be led to agree - think Julius King meets Sarah Harding (now that is an interesting combination, and if I don't finish this post soon it will start one of those ideas that will take me over when i haven't time for it) - but I'm not in the social sciences, and shall therefore leave it alone.
I do maintain, though, that, had NOCLUE's question been about how best to manifest his proper respect for women, a feminist advisor would have given more of the sort of answer that would not have irked me. It would not have been necessary to take pot shots at women in order to give a properly behaved, decent man his due praise, and the praise would have better emphasized the respect as a consequence of female achievement rather than been given the credit for it. But then, I don't go to weddings, thus confirmation bias again.
I am so glad that you are part of this conversation; I learn so much from your perspective. I tend to be of the "the more inclusion, the better" frame of mind, and you consistently help me to see that there are times when separate does indeed mean equal.
But I have some concerns with the LGBT section:
It is helpful to have a place to assist those who have a particular interest know where to focus their searches, but it simultaneously marginalizes while promoting visibility, which I see as problematic.
It is similar to the whole "Women's Literature" or "Ethnic Literature" issue. It suggests that there is some elemental difference between either LGBT writers or what is perceived as LGBT topics. Now, in some ways, you might argue that this is indeed the case, but I think that the whole point of literature is the universality of the human condition. And ultimately, I am concerned that it keeps boundaries up: many people who don't share the orientation would think "that's not *my* interest," and great writers and their important work would not be read by as many people as could/should be reading them. And in some ways, it reduces people to their sexual orientation. Of course, it is possible and likely that an LGBT person would shop for books in lots of other parts of the store, but it kind of suggests the "you stay in your place" thing, and that there would be no other place you'd want to be. I see it as well-intentioned but problematic, and at best, as a stepping stone on the way to a better solution.
I see your point, and I see the need, but I wonder what the ideal bookstore configuration would look like, to you or to me, in a more enlightened world. In the ideal world, would you have gay and non-gay bookstores, large LGBT sections in mainstream bookstores (and women's section, Latino literature, African American literature, Indian literature, Asian literature, etc.) or would you have a more integrated bookstore? I guess the question is really about assimilation and individuality, visibility without ghettoization.
in 2010 Republicans were voted into office because the country was tired of the same miserable failed liberal ideas that are running this country to ruin. Unfortunately the conservatives didn't get control of the Senate, which means the libs run the Senate and the Executive branch. Impossible to get anything done under those circumstances. A far left radical President, and an equally retarded Senate are sending this country to bankruptcy along with Europe (notice that the economic and social policies align here).
In spite of that the left is focused on trampling the Constitution and forcing Religious entities to pay for something that directly conflicts with their teachings, and moral standards. If Planned Parenthood were so concerned with Women's Health and reproductive health, then they should stop performing abortions and focus on what they are preaching which is cancer screenings, and health issues. Choosing to abort a child is not reproductive health, its a choice, an elective procedure. Conservatives are simply standing up for the Constitution, their rights, and their beliefs.
'
Maybe I should knock on Dan's door to ask for the money when I want some Liposuction, or my wife wants breast implants. but I wont ask for the money, I will force him to give it to me because I think its the appropriate thing to do.
If there were evidence of public funds going to Planned Parenthood for abortion procedures, then it would've been published/ended up before Congress. Since a company can provide many different services, simultaneously, you should be able to understand how PP could also provide other health services as well. Why should publicly funded health care be terminated until PP stops providing privately funded abortions?
PP is funded through tax dollars. To make the statement that PP doesn't use public funds for abortions is B.S. They budget across the board like any business, and although they can say they don't directly use public funds for abortions, the fact is the money is simply shifted around its called a loop hole. All public funding should be stopped for any health care entity that provides elective surgeries\procedures. IF someone wants an elective procedure they should fund it from their own pocket, or make the appropriate choices beforehand as to not put themselves in the situation. I shouldn't be taxed or have money taken out in the form of higher health insurance costs to cover someone else's choice.
If you approached a woman, wouldn't you appreciate her well-mannered response?
As far as gay bookstores go, one can be such a rite-of-passage experience that I can't wish it gone. Besides, I think I incline more towards allowing every minority the majority experience. Even in a much physically smaller store, one will still see much better selection. In its time, I backed this up, making regular treks to Boston mainly to patronize the Glad Day, and I'd always find much more there than the chains were carrying. I never bought gay-themed books seriously at the chains until all the gay bookstores within reasonable distance of me folded.
Now most of the chains solved the problem of people shopping only in a specialized section by putting the niche sections in obscure areas. One had to hunt to find them.
The difficulty with integrated fiction is that it kills browsing by theme. Try to find fiction you might like by/about members of practically any minority one cares to mention. This sets a fairly high bar for whatever one might contrarily hope to gain by assimilating.
I remember on my one visit to Lambda Rising in Washington finding that they didn't segregate the L fiction from the G. It was interesting, but I thought probably irritating for women shoppers.
Perhaps the ideal is to have enough space to display any fiction in both the general section as well as in any niche(s) where it might fit.
Another possibility might be Specialty Shopper's Guides, but they'd have to be really well maintained. Apart from that, the idea could be appealing - have a little section near the entrance where one could pick up or glance through lists - this would trade the extra space requirement for the work of upkeep, while still avoiding removing books from general browsers who might avoid Section Z.
I suppose we could consider it progress if a bookstore or chain were to open catering only to majority interests/authors (straight, white, male, perhaps Christian as well) and nobody were to complain because minority interests were already perfectly served. This is different from a majority experience for minority readers, but I suppose there's a potential positive in knowing one can afford to tolerate majority intolerance.
It felt so good that I thought of telling my friends about the great party that could be had at any number of gay bars. Then I stopped myself when I did the math. One straight female in a room full of hundreds of gay men and a strobe light is so easily ignored as to be welcomed. Add more straight women and you quickly attract straight men who, whether they mean to or not, change the atmosphere for the gay men. I liked the guys too much to want to spoil their fun. Besides, for some reason the straight female friends I mentioned it to didn't think it sounded like that much fun.
I think this applies to NOCLUE. I imagine it's no big deal for a gay man to be turned down once or twice in a gay bar. But eventually you have to reach a tipping point where it's no longer a gay bar, and I wouldn't blame a gay man for saying one way or another "can't you leave us alone? We assimilate the rest of the time, and now we want to have fun in an entirely compatible atmosphere. Go find your own bar."
So then I think about that and realize that I'd be totally against a place of business discriminating in any overt way to keep one group out at the expense of another-- unless they're keeping out people who don't like to drink or dance in an establishment that specializes in both.
But I understand that your original description of how they might feel was meant as a mood -- you imagined feminists sometimes feeling like get rid of men the same way we sometimes wish we could get rid of politicians, or computer technicians, or a variety of other groups.
Assimilation vs. preservation of one's cultural distinctiveness is a big discussion in linguistics and cultural anthropology. I wonder how similar your concerns are, as a gay man navitaging a world slowly approaching equality, to those of peoples with different cultures, be they relatively large ones, like European 'smaller' peoples (Latvians, Estonians, Polabians, Ruthenians, etc.), or relatively small ones, like indigenous and aboriginal groups, as they slowly integrate into the mainstream world.
I assume you think it is legitimate for gays to do that -- as in university there are classes legitimately restricted to certain groups (Native Americans, for instance). What is the difference, then, between that and the kind of discrimination the civil rights movement fought against? I'm sure right-wing people (especially liberatarians) would love to point out the similarities.
Explain the difference.
So-called fiscal conservatives seem to be astonishingly blind to the fact that The Pill is really a pretty damned good bargain, all things considered.
OK typical liberal spin, but Ill bite. Driving, although a choice, is an almost certain need. Without roads and transportation, there would be no travel, and no employment. Else everyone would have to live within walking distance of their place of business. Don't think that would work well in any economy and would destroy our American way of life. Now I'm all for going back to the old days of fending for ones self, but I guarantee that the 48% of America that is dependent on the Government wont like that idea.
On the contrary choosing to have an abortion, or a tummy tuck doesn't provide anything to society. Taking it away does nothing more than force an individual to think before choosing his or her activity. Society as a whole cannot be held responsible for the poor choices of others, so if you choose to have sex and become pregnant, than handle that choice on your own, don't knock on my door for help.
Us Fiscal Conservatives do have one flaw, we actually expect people to take care of themselves, earn what they want and work to sustain their own existence. The alternative is the mantra of the left, spend the tax payers money to support everyone who doesn't and make them dependent on the government so they continue to vote for the liberals.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that (non-procreative) sex IS a necessity. Of course there is a choice involved, but it doesn't decrease the reality.
Should've been for #137.
I should also add to #141:
Women enjoy sex. Not only do they enjoy it, but they do so while remaining decent, responsible individuals that don't need men to direct their lives for them.
Recent studies suggest that use of "the Pill" can reduce the chance of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, and colorectal cancer. Last I looked it is cheaper for us all to prevent cancer than to pay for the cost of fighting it.
I always appreciate my husband's comment, health insurence is his field. According to him the raise in cost of our individual family policy to cover birth control for family planning is a big savings when you compare it to the cost of pre-natal care, L&D, well child check ups, childhood vaccination... It is cheaper for us all in the long run to cover birth control. That is just his $0.02 as someone who actually knows what things cost. I think it is immoral to deny a woman treatment for (polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea), mild or moderate acne, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, pelvic inflammatory disease) just because the same prescription makes it possible to have non-procreating sex. Feel free to toss my $0.02, and his, in the dustbin.
Holding out someone who is in all ways perfect is a sure recipe for dying alone.
I wasn't basing my argument on which was more cost effective. I said I shouldn't be responsible for someone else's choices and poor planning. I support my own children, I supported my own birth control, etc. I wasn't subsidized by the government and tax payer
dollars.
@141 and @142
Sex is an important part of life and relationships, however as with most things there is a complete personal responsibility tied to it. Just because something is important doesn't mean there should be hand outs tied to it. If I fail out of college, should you pay my bill with your taxes, I think not.
I have nothing against men or women enjoying sex, and never stated that such makes anyone indecent. Having recreational sex that leads to pregnancy itself is not irresponsible, however making that choice while full well knowing the possible consequences and then expecting others to carry the burden is irresonsible.
@143
I completely understand that the pill is used for medical conditions not related to birth control. no argument from me to provide health care for medical reasons, however the day after pill is an abortive option, a choice not a medical condition. Abortion is not a medical condition. The government sends tax payer money to PP, which in turn puts money in their coffers to allow them to provide these choices. And now wants to force religious organizations to provide these same options.
Also, I'm quite sick and tired of people saying that the pill for medical reasons is okay but the pill to have non-guilty sex with your spouse isn't. You can either help pay for peoples' contraception on an insurance plan the way I've been helping pay for men's ED meds, or you can pay for another mouth on this earth to feed via your tax dollars - and you choose the latter.
"I loved it. I could dance and drink to my heart's content, and everyone ignored me. Maybe a few guys would smile at me or even dance with me, but I felt utterly secure that no one wanted to hit on me or pay me too much attention, really."
Women confuse the shit out me.
And, there is a whole host of health issues that we humans can bring upon us by choice: high cholesterol, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, emphysema, lung cancer... And, I always seem to miss when people argue and submit bills that make it possible to electively not cover those medications. And, I never hear them arguing that Viagra or Cialis shouldn't be covered or submit bills for legislative vote. You don't hear about the religious fearing the wrath of God who makes it His will that a man be impotent, no-one seems to be willing to acknowledge that God is capable of blessing a man with an erection if He wants him having sex. Sadly this betrays the fiscal conservative and small government argument to really be about controlling women and imposing their "moral" values.
I'm not Conflating. Quite the contrary. Go back and re-read my previous posts as you obviously failed to comprehend the first time through. In fact I distinctly separated abortion, day after pills (choices) and use of a medication for health reasons. And I choose to pay for neither "the pill for non-guilty sex" or another mouth to feed. The individual should pay for their own damn contraception so they can screw whoever they choose, or they can pay for the mouth that the create. I shouldn't be on the hook for either scenario. If you cant afford your own children then keep your fucking pants on, or spend more time getting yourself off.
I will agree with you on one thing, ED meds shouldn't be paid for with tax payer money either....
I suppose you wonderful caring liberals will be content when there are more people depending on government assistance and subsidies then there are those wacky conservatives left to foot the bill.
What you fail to recognize is that the conservatives are not out to remove all assistance. We want and this Country needs a major overhaul to the welfare system. When I can look at a family of 5 driving an escalade, talking on cell phones, purchasing cigarettes and beer at the local grocery, turn around and pay for food with their food stamps you bet your ass I cry foul. We need to prop people up and get them back on their feet, we cant afford to support their entire existence.
Go ahead and spin the facts as you desire, its the liberal way. I would expect nothing less.
@151
I never said that contraception should be outlawed. I'm not suggesting anyone should control women, they certainly should the right to choose. The problem is, its your liberal government that is trying to control, and force their moral values upon others. Not the other way around. You and 153 should get together, you use the same tactics spin doctor.
Scenario: X-Ray tech working at a Catholic Hospital.
New regulation requires the health insurance provider to include full contraceptive coverage; a religiously affiliated organization does not have to directly provide contraception. X-Ray tech is not Catholic and obtains contraception from healthcare provider/through insurance. No public funds are used.
Do you actually just cut and paste talk radio directly into your brain?
You know those children that you had and support with no subsidy from taxpayers? Well then, you owe me over $100,000 for the school taxes I've paid in my lifetime. I never had any children, and by your logic, I don't see why I should have to pay for your children's educations.
Did you know that one of the most important determinants of land value, if not the largest, is the quality of the local schools? It is a fallacy to try to contend you receive no benefit from your local schools if you have no children. Where did many of the workers in your community, the ones whose services you use or better still you employ, get their useful skills?
Self reliance is important, but so is community. As a member of a congregational church, we promise to take care of the other members of our church and our community. In addition I have civic duties that stem from taking the role of citizen seriously. None of those commitments conflict with self reliance because strengthening my community strengthens my freedom, security, and quality of life. To reiterate, if my community is strong, don't I benefit from the shared burden?
Peace.
Yes, it's wonderful to feel sought-after and desired and be the object of lust and know you can have whomever you want; but it is equally wonderful to be able to escape all that for the night, and just DANCE. As a straight woman going to gay clubs with gay male friends, I was able to have a kind of relaxed fun that sexual tension and possibility doesn't allow for. Now if I want to have that kind of experience, I dance with my straight girlfriends, or my family at a wedding, but to be a 21-year-old straight girl in a gay dance club in the early 80s . . .
The reverse is true for Red states. The redder the state, the smaller the contribution and the bigger the handouts received. (They are also generally the poorest, the worst educated, have the highest divorce rates, and the highest porn usage. So much for family values.)
Your pitiful whining about you poor put-upon conservatives is duly noted. If you were true to your principles and you actually knew what you were talking about, you would be on your knees begging me to take my money back.
1) When i was 20 and in my first LTR, we argued about music choice (constantly). It wasn't until we broke up (age 22) that I realized that the issues was NOT the music, but the power struggle between us. Also, respect was lacking, which is why I ended the relationship. The mis-matched musical tastes was the fuel for our arguments, but the fire was argument itself.
2) When I was 30, I entered a 7-year LTR. I wanted to get married, and he sat on the fence. His fence-sitting went on for 3 1/2 years (!!), while I kept hanging on. It was very hard for me to let go, but in hindsight I realize that he would have been settling BIG TIME. He was not passionately in love with me, and if I had been really, deeply honest with myself at the time, I would have seen that I was settling too. I was afraid to be alone and single again. Settling is NOT good.
3) Age 40, I began a flingy thing that evolved into a relationship, although it shouldn't have. He was an incredibly picky man, very judgmental, was sure that I wasn't his ideal mate. He had a vision of his "ideal woman," which I personally believe he will never find. It was a low point for me, a time when I was grieving and having low self-worth. NEVER AGAIN.
Now it's 4 years later, and I'm turning 44. I've never felt more vibrant, happy, and successful than I do at this time. :) I have a deep, supportive, loving friends, a good home, and a satisfying and creative career. I anticipate embarking on a LTR again for sure! Here's what I have learned: 1) Respect is essential. The little things DO matter, not the things themselves but HOW they are handled. 2) I will NEVER, EVER sit around waiting for someone to commit. If the person isn't interested (or is endlessly "not sure"), well I'm not interested either. Time is precious and life is finite; I want to share my life with people (friends, family, lovers, community members) who are passionately interested sharing it with me! And, finally, 3) If someone brings up his/her "ideal wo/man" with me and compares me unfavorably to this dream image, well that is Red Flag #1. I'm not sticking around for that one either. Here's what I am interested in: mutually enjoyable, respectful, passionate, loving, conflict-facing-and-respectfully-resolving, transformation.
Thank you for providing this forum. This is the first time I've written here.
Good luck on resolving your situation. :)
Thanks
1) When i was 20 and in my first LTR, we argued about music choice (constantly). It wasn't until we broke up (age 22) that I realized that the issues was NOT the music, but the power struggle between us. Also, respect was lacking, which is why I ended the relationship. The mis-matched musical tastes was the fuel for our arguments, but the fire was argument itself.
2) When I was 30, I entered a 7-year LTR. I wanted to get married, and he sat on the fence. His fence-sitting went on for 3 1/2 years (!!), while I kept hanging on. It was very hard for me to let go, but in hindsight I realize that he would have been settling BIG TIME. He was not passionately in love with me, and if I had been really, deeply honest with myself at the time, I would have seen that I was settling too. I was afraid to be alone and single again. Settling is NOT good.
3) Age 40, I began a flingy thing that evolved into a relationship, although it shouldn't have. He was an incredibly picky man, very judgmental, was sure that I wasn't his ideal mate. He had a vision of his "ideal woman," which I personally believe he will never find. It was a low point for me, a time when I was grieving and had low self-worth. NEVER AGAIN.
Now it's 4 years later, and I'm turning 44. I've never felt more vibrant, happy, and successful than I do at this time. :) I have a deep, supportive, loving friends, a good home, and a satisfying and creative career. I anticipate embarking on a LTR again for sure! Here's what I have learned: 1) Respect is essential. The little things DO matter, not the things themselves but HOW they are handled. 2) I will NEVER, EVER sit around waiting for someone to commit. If the person isn't interested (or is endlessly "not sure,"), well I'm not interested either. Time is precious and life is finite; I want to share my life with people (friends, family, lovers, community members) who are passionately into sharing it with me! And, finally, 3) If someone brings up his/her "ideal wo/man" with me and compares me unfavorably to this dream image, well that is Red Flag #1. I'm not sticking around for that one either. Here's what I am interested in: mutually enjoyable, respectful, passionate, loving, conflict-facing-and-respectfully-resolving, transformation experiences!
Thank you for providing this forum. This is the first time I've written here.
To me, these are perfectly good reasons for restricting the courses. The restriction was also not made in an offensive way: there were no "No Whites Allowed" signs, the courses were simply not really publicized (and the reasons were explained to the very few non-Indians who applied anyway). Nobody suffered.
It is interesting for me to think about the difference between this and the kind of discrimination the civil rights movement fought against.
But maybe you are more consistent than most conservatives, and think that such 'diseases of choice' (lung canger, high cholesterol, emphysema, etc.) should not be covered, and neither should Viagra/Cialis prescriptions when they are all about recreative sex for men.
It seems the old opposition is simply that conservatives think people should do as much as they can by themselves, and their problems are mostly their own fault; while liberals think people are already trying to do as much as they can by themselves, and their problems are mostly the fault of society.
Everybody (at least, everybody who is reasonable) will agree to some extent that both are true, since there are problems that come from us and problems that come from society. (To give an example from your camp, to you conservatives, big government is obviously a problem that comes from society, and one that you oppose with as much gusto and emotionality as many an extreme liberal activist.)
And they will always disagree about what exactly should or shouldn't be attacked as a problem of society or ignored as a problem of the individual.
Me, I'm a pragmatist. I want things to work efficiently. So it doesn't matter to me whether something is philosophically a problem of the individual, as long as it costs less to society to solve the problem as a social one (and in the cost I do include the children left on the streets by the very individual decision of those who made the stupid choice of having children they couldn't possibly raise); and vice-versa, if a social problem is better solved at the individual level, then I'm for it.
Does healthcare-paid contraception solve this problem, at the lowest cost, when compared to the alternatives? Yes. Which is why I'm favor of it. The moment this stops being the case I'll be against it.
From the perspective of results, it doesn't matter that your ethic system (and mine, too, by the way) says people should think ahead, anticipate future problems, and accept the consequences of the decisions they make. If this leads to big problems for others -- higher crime, more deaths, more poverty -- then it has to be attacked in some way and at some level; it cannot be just ignored as 'the consequences which you should have known were coming.' If pollution, the end of hydrocarbon fuels, or global warming eventually destroys our civilization, I won't derive any pleasure from saying "I told you so, this is the consequence of choices you freely made." I'd rather prevent it from happening, no matter what my ethical/moral system says about people, self-reliance, and their responsibilities.
Men think this way about women, too, sometimes. It's a bit childish, but quite human.
They were discriminating on the basis of race, religion, creed, or national origin, and that is illegal. I'm surprised no one called them on it and raised a stink. It may be true that no one minded in the sense that no one "suffered," but that's not the standard we use when deciding these things. And I don't know what you mean when say that the restriction was not made in an "offensive" way. The restriction is offensive as well as illegal. There's no inoffensive way to do it.
You may think there are good reasons to restrict the course, but think about this. The landlord in 1965 who didn't want to rent to blacks thought he had good reasons too, and they all had to do with comfort levels.
Granted there are ways to attract a particular group. I, for instance, attend an exercise class that attracts only women. There's something about the dance moves, music, and atmosphere that keeps the men out. In all the years I've taken the class across 2 states and 6 venues, I've probably taken the class with thousands of women and never a single man. But if a man wanted to sign up, he could.
Or take the example of Bed & Breakfasts that advertise that they're "gay friendly." They'd never get away with saying that they don't want straight couples there, but they can choose to advertise in certain places or offer certain amenities that wouldn't attract straights.
Do nocutename and Crinoline agree with your interpretation of their feelings? It would be indeed interesting to check that further. I know a woman who claimed she felt very threatened in a similarly gay environment, but she may have been influenced by social stereotypes -- she is Eastern European. (Whether the difference you point out comes from social indoctrination or 'feminine nature' is maybe difficult to tell, but interesting to speculate about. The men who are gloating about having been hit on may also have some last shreds of homophobia left -- 'I've fooled the gays!'. I wonder if straight women would feel similarly if hit on by lesbians in a lesbian environment.)
But in neither case was I part of the organizing committee (I hate such functions), although I do know the major organizer of the InFIELD summer school, a personal friend of mine.
I expect that things were done in such a way that no law would be violated, along the lines of the suggestions you made -- maybe the courses were officially open to everybody, but described in such a way that would attract only Native Americans (say, by saying at least part of the course would be given in Navajo), and by explaining the situation individually to non-Native Americans who might want to enroll, in case there was any. Or maybe they were excluded from the curriculum and/or roosters, and were paid for with external money. Or maybe they were explicitly made not-for-credit. (If it helps, in the InFIELD case at Eugene, the courses specifically for Native American language teachers were actually part of another Summer Institute, organized by NILI -- Northweast Indian Languages Institute -- so as to coincide with InFIELD and allow cross-pollination between fieldworkers and language teachers.) The original web page for the whole event is still on at the U of O website, in case you want to have a look, at: logos.uoregon.edu/infield2010/home/index…
As for there being good reasons... I do think so. And I am not an easy person to convince to accept such distinctions: I am for instance against the attitude of "thorough ownership" of native languages that makes some Native American groups, especially in the US, feel offended even at non-NA people who are merely learning their language on the basis of publicly available materials: I think they're throwing away a chance of gaining friends who would be on their side if they weren't called -- as a Karuk Indian once put it to me -- "nerdy types" who go on thinking "they can steal even our dying language from us." So I am in principle against restricting courses -- especially on language and/or culture -- only to, say, registered members of tribes.
But I'm a pragmatist at heart, and I know all rules have exceptions. I could give you examples (and Dr. Mithun, who I mentioned above, could overwhelm you with them as she did me once, when I was defended the viewpoint you're defending here, and on similar grounds), ultimately boiling down to this: for a number of reasons, with respect to their culture, and especially in the United States, where their experience was not at all good (the Pacific Coast being a really bad case -- almost all existing languages of the West Coast are down to their last few elderly speakers, virtually extinct, and with no hope of ever really coming back to life), Native American people can be compared to abused/traumatized people, for whom special conditions have to be made so as to make it at least more likely that they actually will actively participate (rather than feel overwhelmed by non-NA people and fall silent) and derive some benefit from the course, which was the initial goal. When faced with the very practical possibility that a course may simply otherwise fail, one does tend to find creative ways of saving it.
I have heard that similar creative ways are sometimes used, in some places, to e.g. keep men out of certain Women's Studies courses, when the instructor is especially concerned about the influence that men might have on the women in such courses. I am very much against all such restrictions, since I don't think women are merely lambs who need protection at all levels, including intellectual discussions, from men. But in the case of the Native American people (especially those few who still speak their language) I met in the US, I can see some need for protection. I hope it will be temporary, but the need is there.
Ankylosaur, I guess I need to clarify my gay dance-club experiences. For one thing, I need to contextualize them. I'm 49 now, so this took place in the early '80s, when I was about 18-22. At that time, in my community, women didn't dance by themselves or only with other women (the only lesbian bar I was aware of wasn't a dance bar, but a rather run-down, sleazy bar--the kind that smells of stale beer and old cigarette smoke, so lesbian dance clubs aren't going to come into this picture).
Women still waited to be asked to dance by men and dancing in a big pack wasn't really being done yet (I realize that I'm making it sound like the 1940s rather than 1981, but that is the way it was, believe it or not!)
So if I went to a dance club with a girlfriend, we would flirt with guys or wait to be asked to dance by them, and that was fun, but inevitably a slow song would come on and you'd still be dancing with a guy or some guy would ask you to dance, and it could get a bit creepy. I learned to turn down requests for slow dances with guys I wasn't interested in being pressed up against, but sometimes you'd already be dancing with a man that you had no desire to get much closer to, and the song would change, and there you'd be. And if I said "no," to one guy asking, there were always a bunch more coming up. I didn't feel threatened or in danger, so much as irritated. (Of course, if I *wanted* to be pressed up against some cute guy and feel his erection, that was a different story, but most of the time I just was there to dance and flirt lightly.) And it wasn't even always irritation, but there is obviously a level of flirtation or sexual energy there, which is great sometimes, but which adds a layer of something to the pure experience of dancing.
When I started going to gay dance clubs, I did so because a had a substantial group of gay male friends who invited me to go dancing with them. There were a few lesbians at the clubs, and one or two straight women, and possibly a straight man or two (the group I always went with included 3 gay men, two of whom were a couple, one lesbian who was a sister of one of the gay men, one straight man, and me, a straight woman). I could dance (and this club also always played the newest music, too) without having to be hit on, and take a break during the slow songs, to which no one ever asked me to dance. It was just fun without the element of having to try and be sexy or attractive. I didn't have that feeling of trying to either make a conquest or fend off unwelcome advances, or all those other sexually-charged elements that were a part of my other club experiences. It's not that I didn't like the sexually-charged elements of those other experiences, but it was a somehow easier, less complicated, less fraught way to enjoy dancing.
Now, of course, I dance with anyone I want to wherever I go. I dance alone; I dance with a huge group of people. I dance with women, gay and straight and men, gay and straight. I get on the dance floor and have fun and dance up to strangers and start dancing with them. I look out around the perimeter and see women sitting with men, the women looking as though they'd like to dance, and the men with that "I don't dance" expression, and I extend my arm to the women and inveigle them out onto the dance floor to join me, and they are so grateful. We dance and laugh and it's a blast.
I haven't been to a gay club in ages, but I also rarely go to any sort of dance club these days. Much of my dancing takes place privately, at parties at people's homes. One of my groups of friends is an all-female one, and about a third of them are lesbian or bi. When we have a party, it inevitably becomes a dance party, and I find myself dirty dancing with my lesbian friends, and some of the straight ones, grinding and freaking. I don't know why this happens, but I attribute it to just the way this group of women happen to like to dance and I like to, too. And it feels fine. It feels both sexy and safe: We're good friends, so there's no element of the "pick up;" the lesbians obviously don't have a problem with pressing up against a woman, but they know I'm straight, so my dancing isn't misconstrued. I don't think I would ever dance this way with a man I wasn't sexually interested in, no matter how close a friend--it just wouldn't feel comfortable or somehow fair. I feel like I can flirt in a sort of sexual-but-not-sexual way with these women and relax and know it's just fun. I would never do this with women I didn't know well, however, be they straight or lesbian. That, to me, would be identical to dancing that way with a straight man: my meaning would be misconstrued. Interestingly, I have never danced this way with my gay male friends--with them the dancing is faster and we stand further apart. I assume that they just have no interest in dancing that close to my female body and grinding against it.
So here I am: a straight single woman who does all of her dirty dancing with other women, who dances with total strangers, or in a huge pod, or by herself, who got her start 30 years ago, dancing with bunch of gay men.
A friend of mine once put it this way:
There are three reasons one might go to a bar
1. to dance
2. to drink
3. to hook up
I'm not big on the whole dancing thing and I don't drink either. The only reason you'd see me dragging myself out to a club/bar is for the third option. So a gay bar is pretty much my worst nightmare. Like hey, let's strip a bar of it's one (slightly) redeeming quality.
Also: I can hold my own in telling guys to fuck off, so the whole 'getting hit on by people I'm not interested in' thing isn't a big old deal to me?
When I go out with friends I'd rather go have a super delicious meal somewhere quiet enough to have great conversation (you know, that thing you can do when you can actually HEAR the people you're talking to?)
Also: full disclosure - I work at a bar and have been slinging booze at weddings, retirements, restaurants, clubs, bars for most of my adolescence/young adulthood. So that might paint my willingness to go to bars on my own time.
I am not myself much into dancing -- I learned too late, and I'm a horrible dancer even now (have you seen the famous Where the Hell is Matt? video? It's only a little worse than my dancing style). I can say with near certainty that none of the girls I hooked up with / started a relationship with (the difference is only shades of gray) chose me because of my dancing. And, very much like mydriasis above, I tend to enjoy talking to people, so places where this is impossible because the music is too high don't really appeal to me. (I understand the point is to give people enough sensory overload so they'll do crazy things they usually don't; but I still prefer conversation. It's just my personality. And I tended to cause a more positive impression on women this way.)
I suspect men who actually enjoy dancing, and who dance well, will also often feel what you describe, nocutename: a desire to enjoy the pure act of dancing, without thinking of any of its concomittant factors and/or consequences, sexual or otherwise. They could probably enjoy their dancing in straight bars or dance clubs, since women usually don't hit on men (it's not part of the rules of the game in the US) so they could in principle ignore any sexual energy from said women. Or maybe they could actually feed on said energy, from the women who'd watch them dance, and actually redirect it to their dancing, making it more intense and thus more enjoyable (which to men are remarkably often similar concepts). I don't really know.
Like beauty, horrible dancing, is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt I'd think you terrible at it. Dancing can be social, but it also about freedom. There is also a pleasure in seeing what you can do, for me. Of course I'm less about "club dancing" and more about styles of dance. Lately, it is Latin, in years before it has been other forms: jazz, modern, belly dancing...
And, I think Matt is delightful to watch. I forgot how much that video made me smile. I've been known to dance in unusual locations, never with such enthusiastic partners. That would be heaps of fun.
Take care.
And if there is so much cost savings in providing free birth control pills, then the insurance companies will be stampeding to do so. A federal mandate is a huge overreach.
I'm amazed that people who don't think twice of paying $100/month for their smart phone data plan, or the same for a haircut can't seem to cover the $9.99/month for their chosen birth control method. Just the entitlement society at work again...
you are in principle right, of course. Dancing can be (I think probably is in its essence) more about what you feel while dancing, and how you relate to the physical expression of this feeling.
And yet I have seen people who dance really well (my sisters are some such people, my daughter may grow up to be if current tendencies continue). Even though they often are 'expressing themselves', they do it in such a way that the others around them would have to be blind in order not to react emotionally, not to be attracted, not to feel transported beyond simple reality into aesthetic transcendence. And I, well, am simply not among these people; far from that. (Luckily, so is my wife, so we can both console each other.)
Which is not to say that I, or my wife, don't derive pleasure from dancing. It's just that we know it's a solitary pleasure for us. :-)
There is something about Matt's videos that causes a strong positive influence on viewers (I have yet to meet someone who didn't have a strong emotional reaction, frequently tears), even though in principle 'nothing' happens -- just Matt doing his strange dance in all those places, plus a singer's beautiful voice singing Praan.
Besides, people with smartphones paying $100 a month, or a similar amount for a haircut, aren't exactly the ones people have in mind when they think about the benefits of birth control in insurance plans.
The Netherlands has included birth control in all insurance plans for decades. Nothing bad has happened to the economy; much the opposite. And even children of immigrants or asylum seekers who have little or no monetary resources can get them, thus reducing the cost that unwanted pregnancies would bring. Debating the issue is history here: even the conservative parties agree that this is and has always been a good idea.
I'm glad you and your wife enjoy dancing together.
I think the reason the Matt video touches me is because it is a nothing little video of this guy doing a little hip-hop ish dance in different places. I also see it as an everything video. I get the same bittersweet feeling from this :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A13_QGMtl… video. I think it is the potential that I see for humans to live cooperatively if we really wished it. Matt's video emphasizes the sameness within all our diversity. So it makes me smile, and invite my neighbor(s) to dance. :-)
The anti-choicers say "Just go to Planned Parenthood", ignoring the fact that federal tax dollars pay for that cheap or free BC, and the fact that you have to prove yourself to be destitute to qualify for it. Whereas in an insurance scenario, it's provided as part of a compensation package and the user pays their premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.
If I work for a Jehovah's Witness, do I disqualify for insurance covering a needed blood transfusion? Do Christian Scientists get to tell me that included in my compensation package is free prayer to cure everything? If there are NO other jobs available, why should my employer get between my doctor and me? I find the hullabuloo about this hysterical - the right wing smeared the ACA saying it was government trying to get between YOU and YOUR DOCTOR. Always trust the right wing to do what they accuse others of doing...
See, here's how it goes. Some gay guy brings his straight friend. He's cool, and there's no problem except for the wasted cruise time. Straight guy tells straight friend, "Hey, the (fill in bar name) isn't bad. Yeah, some of 'em are a little weird, but you find weird people everywhere, right?"
So another straight guy comes, and then another. Then straight girls find out that straight guys are going to that bar, just to hang out. So they start coming. Pretty soon, the straight guys and the straight girls are hooking up there. It's only natural. Why not?
And then, finally, one night, a gay guy in the gay bar is cruising a guy, and he hears, "What are you lookin' at, faggot?"
This is how gay bars turn into straight bars. So, "cool" straight people, do everyone a favor, and find a diplomatic way to turn down your deluded gay friend's invite to a gay bar. A whole lot of gay people will be glad you did.
You already have 99% of the bars. Isn't that enough?
In any discussion of melting pot vs. mosaic as a model for integration into a 'larger society', there always is a place for the argument that groups need places were they are 'by themselves', not because they hate others, but because they also sometimes need the feeling of being surrounded by others like them.
There is a good side, and a bad side, to this feeling. The good side leads to pride in one's heritage as a part of one's self. The bad side, to discrimination, the feeling that other groups are 'less good' and 'less deserving'. Both have roots in the same feeling, though; roots with good and evil branches, as it were.
I shall now enter a time machine, go back to Tuesday and insert the word "radical".
I don't think it needs to be a bleak as you (and I) paint it. Allow me to rewrite your scenario.
Straight men start to frequent the gay bar, but before they do so in any large numbers, and before women start showing up, the management does some redecorating. They put up large posters of shirtless muscular men in provocative poses, some gay soft porn. The graffiti in the men's room is more gay porn. The door men/bouncers are licking their lips even as the customers enter, and the bartenders are similarly suggestive. Everything about the place would make a straight man uncomfortable from the start, but nothing about it would make a gay man uncomfortable.
By the time the gay man smiles at the new guy, he doesn't get "what are you lookin' at faggot." If the new guy is straight, he's comfortable enough in that atmosphere that he's not too upset at the pass. More likely, the man wanders in thinking that he's straight, feels that he's at home there, does some soul searching and comes out. Length of time this takes and difficulty coming to the revelation is variable.
So I don't hold the deluded gay man is all that deluded, nor do I have that much contempt for the cool straight friend. The guys like to drink, and that's what bars are for. The only part I don't understand is why this gay-straight pair don't drink in straight bars some of the time. There are none in their neighborhood? If it got to the point where the straight men were frequenting the gay bar because there were no alternatives, the laws of supply and demand should take over.
On the one hand, I think we have been inculcated with this fairy-tale idea of romantic love (the shift from the age-old marriage of practicality to the romantic ideal ala Hollywood is a well documented event, says this film major) and as a result have incredibly unrealistic expectations of what our romantic/sexual (let's not even get into the whole porn influence!) relationships should be like and DTMFA at the first indication of deviation from that fantasy of eternal rainbows, unicorns, sunshine, and mind-blowing sex sans cellulite or farting.
Relationships have highs and lows (says this woman who was in a 23 yr., common-law, monogamous relationship which ended with my widowhood) and you have to ride out the lows to get back to the highs...so many, it seems, just end it when a low comes along instead of waiting it out/working on it.
On the OTHER hand, life is too fucking short to spend it with someone who annoys the hell out of you, and if you were really "in love" (this guy calls her a "girlfriend" and gives the impression that they haven't been together all that long, not several years or a decade or anything) WOULD the object of your supposed affection annoy you? Even IF everyone else thought them the biggest asshole on God's green earth? Not in my experience; love is indeed blind and for the first decade or so, you either ignore your beloved's faults or find them charming. This guy doesn't strike me as being "in love" with this woman. He likes the regular sex and the shared long-term goals (how very practical of him) but he can't fucking stand HER! SHE should DTMFA, knowing that it ain't likely to get any better as the years roll by.
She should find someone who finds her music, her table manners, her profanities as CHARMING as her GGG sexuality and long-term life plan.
Should he settle? Should SHE? (who is presumably unaware that her intended can't stand her). Are his expectations too high (probably) or is his chronic annoyance with her a huge red flag (absolutely).
We all have faults. We all suck in some areas and shine in others. This ideal of the "perfect" person we can love unconditionally because they don't bug us in any way DOES NOT EXIST in real life. Forget about it. Love is always a compromise. But if it feels like a complete abdication, it's not "love" nor is it worth it, imo.
You're kidding right?
1. Even in liberal cities (and I live in one of the most liberal/gay-friendly cities on the planet) I doubt you'd have hordes of straight guys going to gay bars just because they're 'super cool' (even hipsters).
2. Since when do straight women follow straight men to bars? The entire economy of how the service industry works is based on the exact opposite happening.
Trust me (as a young person, as a person with many queer friends, as soomeone who lives where I do, as someone who works in the industry): the "cool" bars/clubs tend to be unisex (as in people of all orientations go. Or, if you prefer, "pomo".
"The men who are gloating about having been hit on may also have some last shreds of homophobia left-- 'I've fooled the gays!'. I wonder if straight women would feel similarly if hit on by lesbians in a lesbian environment."
Interesting question. In general, I like it if someone shows an interest in me when I'm inclined to show an interest back. I don't care for it when someone I don't like hits on me. That goes for lesbian women and straight men I don't particularly like. I do not consider it a compliment. I don't know why. Perhaps I should. I don't consider it an insult either, though I've known women who do. Again, it doesn't make sense when you think about it. If the unwanted interest comes in a form of not taking a simple no for an answer, I'm annoyed, maybe even downright bothered, at having to become more forceful in my refusal. I still don't feel insulted.
I've never hung out in lesbian environments. I'm not sure I know what one is. It's easy enough for me to identify a gay bar. It's harder for me to figure out where lesbians hang out.
I can think of one uncomfortable situation where a lesbian hit on me again and again. Her flirtation took the form of a grade school boy's. She went back and forth between trying to do every little thing for me, to refusing to speak to me, to getting my attention in little ways, to accusing me of doing everything for her benefit, to trying to engage me in heart-to-hearts where apparently I was supposed to spill my feelings for her.
Since I'm in an ordinary and monogamous straight relationship and she was in an ordinary lesbian one, I didn't recognize the hitting-on aspect until very late in the game. It was a work environment that I quit when the harassment became too much for me. I can assure you I wasn't gloating about fooling the lesbian, though I did wonder what it was about middle aged self that could have such appeal. In the end, I chalked it up to her being a basketcase and my being lucky enough not to need the job.
"It's easy enough for me to identify a gay bar. It's harder for me to figure out where lesbians hang out."
Really? You've never seen/been to a lesbian bar? So confused.
Also, yeah I think Ank is way off. Most straight guys wouldn't be gloating about passing for gay.
But I admit I haven't met any man who ever claimed doing/enjoying that. Just throwin' a dart to see where it lands.