# Polygamy



## FitChick (Mar 19, 2006)

Did anyone see the new HBO series, BIG LOVE? When I first saw the ad for it, I thought it was about fat people or something (like Hanne Blank's book, Big, Big Love.)

Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to find it is a very interesting show that portrays plural marriages in a somewhat positive way.

Anyone see it? If so, what did you think?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 19, 2006)

Check out the documentary Inside Polygamy which is running on the Biography Channel this month for a more realistic examination of that lifestyle.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 19, 2006)

I've seen tons of shows and done lots of reading, and know people who are or who have been in Polygamous (or plural) relationships. It works for some and not for others. I believe it is a viable lifestyle choice. As for my personal beliefs, I won't go into too much detail as I've been raked over the coals here for them - however - I do *not* believe human beings by nature are monogamous. IF they were there wouldn't be so many divorces. I believe most people have bi-sexual tendancies, so a plural relationship also gives the couple the chance to explore possible bi-sexual tendancies.

My strongest belief is if it's OK with the adults involved it's nobody else's damn business.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 19, 2006)

So what's next? _Everyone Loves Solomon?_ The wacky hijinks of Israel's wisest king and his 1000 wives and concubines! It's nothing but laughter as Solomon manages running an ancient kingdom, keeping his homes in order, and all the while being a loving dad to his 3500 kids!

Great series idea, but WAAAAY too much potential for a "very special episode" to wreck it all. To help forestall that, how about having a different actress each week to portray a wife. See if we can get Bill Cosby to play Solomon... if not him, then Mel Brooks or Carl Reiner...


----------



## RedHead (Mar 19, 2006)

fatlane said:


> So what's next? _Everyone Loves Solomon?_ The wacky hijinks of Israel's wisest king and his 1000 wives and concubines! It's nothing but laughter as Solomon manages running an ancient kingdom, keeping his homes in order, and all the while being a loving dad to his 3500 kids!
> 
> Great series idea, but WAAAAY too much potential for a "very special episode" to wreck it all. To help forestall that, how about having a different actress each week to portray a wife. See if we can get Bill Cosby to play Solomon... if not him, then Mel Brooks or Carl Reiner...



You slay me 

I guess it's each to his own...but I don't believe children should be subjected to the confusion. It's confusing enough without the added dynamics that another partner creates.


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 19, 2006)

The series is too new to past judgement. To me, this is another flavor of _Desperate Housewives_. I think they could've placed the polygamous family in another area of the country for a better variety of story lines, instead of placing it in Salt Lake City. That alone makes me wonder if any of the Utah Mormon "Inside Jokes" will be seen by the general public.

Polygamy, being illegal in the U.S., has caused more harm and suffering than any benefits implied. All those involved must live in rural settings isolated from the rest of the world.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 20, 2006)

Fuzzy said:


> Polygamy, being illegal in the U.S., has caused more harm and suffering than any benefits implied. All those involved must live in rural settings isolated from the rest of the world.




You know, I am not a fan of polygamy, but I am a fan of people being able to make their own choices. I don't think that just because it is illegal in the U.S. that it has necessarily caused any harm and suffering. It is against the law for women to wear high heels on the sidewalk in Mobile, Alabama. Do you think that high heel wearing has caused a lot of harm and suffering? AFAIK, only formalizing the polygamous union with a marriage is illegal. Having a polygamous relationship is not in and of itself illegal. 

At any rate, I didn't see the show. If it comes out on DVD I may watch it. IRL I have not seen very many poly relationships work well, but I have seen a few work well.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 20, 2006)

Hm. I'm fine with people having sex with anyone but children or animals. Do whatever. I prefer monogamy, but I don't claim to know what's right for everyone.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

I believe polygamy should be legal providing everyone involved is a consenting adult. But I'm more of a "one-woman man" and I wouldn't get romantically involved with anyone other than a "one-man woman". I'm not interested in sharing my wife or girlfriend, and I wouldn't want a wife or girlfriend who was interested in sharing me.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 20, 2006)

Good point Ryan; I know I don't share well either! Especially not my man...Hissss, MEOW!


----------



## EvilBob (Mar 20, 2006)

Hmmmm.... never considered it.... illegal makes no rational sense... doesnt seem like any serious harm is going to come from it if everyone is on board.

I wonder if I could sell this to the girlfriend? You think?

 

EB


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Good point Ryan; I know I don't share well either! Especially not my man...Hissss, MEOW!



I think that "sharing" the person you're dating or married to would eventually lead to jealousy in most cases; which would severely strain or even ruin the relationship. If I wanted to sleep with a bunch of different women, I wouldn't get involved in a long-term relationship or marriage.


----------



## Zandoz (Mar 20, 2006)

I disappoint one woman at a time...I do it very well...then I keep doing it ad nauseaum.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 20, 2006)

Well..it's like this see..I can't get 1 husband..lol..let alone more than one.

In all seriousness, I agree, to each their own. But, I'm definitely a one-man woman.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 20, 2006)

If I could get about 50 wives or so, I could make it work. Have to be sure to marry up with a wide variety of professionals, so as to cut costs within the meta-family. I could buy up a small neighborhood and an office block to coordinate all the activities.

Sort of an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me contributing services as an artist, caregiver, and hunka hunka burnin' love.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 20, 2006)

fatlane said:


> If I could get about 50 wives or so, I could make it work. Have to be sure to marry up with a wide variety of professionals, so as to cut costs within the meta-family. I could buy up a small neighborhood and an office block to coordinate all the activities.
> 
> Sort of an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me contributing services as an artist, caregiver, and hunka hunka burnin' love.



Wouldn't it be great to have 50 wives yelling at you for leaving the toilet seat up?


----------



## missaf (Mar 20, 2006)

fatlane said:


> If I could get about 50 wives or so, I could make it work. Have to be sure to marry up with a wide variety of professionals, so as to cut costs within the meta-family. I could buy up a small neighborhood and an office block to coordinate all the activities.
> 
> Sort of an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me contributing services as an artist, caregiver, and hunka hunka burnin' love.



And in FL's utopia, it would be a fat-wife harem  :bow:


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 20, 2006)

fatlane said:


> If I could get about 50 wives or so, I could make it work. Have to be sure to marry up with a wide variety of professionals, so as to cut costs within the meta-family. I could buy up a small neighborhood and an office block to coordinate all the activities.
> 
> Sort of an anarcho-syndicalist collective with me contributing services as an artist, caregiver, and hunka hunka burnin' love.



You did take into account the 50 or so Mothers-in-Law, right?


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 21, 2006)

I think people are people and as long as the "people" lol involved are okay with it and no one is getting hurt then who cares. On the other hand although i believe in freedom i have noticed that these types of relationships specficially the ones that have religous connections usuallu are not equal when it comes to males and females. Its Usually the Male who has life 3 and up wives/girlfriends and i don't think thats one bit fair. If a woman doesn't want four husbands fine!...but if she is not allowed to have four huisbands in her congregation and a man is...well i scream FOUL!...


----------



## Robin Rocks (Mar 21, 2006)

I've been watching it and so far, think it's pretty good. It's well written and has some funny lines. The part I don't like is the portrayal of this old man being married to a girl that is supposed to be 14 years old (I think that's her age). Polygamy is not for me, but to each his own. I just want MY own


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 21, 2006)

This whole concept of marriage meaning ownership makes me very uncomfortable. That's why I waited a long time to get married and I married a man who knows he doesn't own me and I know I don't own him. It was the only way I would have ever gotten married. And IF you are truly in a committed relationship - there is no need for jealousy. Being Jealous to me means you are "not sure" of your partner - and if that's true why be married to that person?

But I digress.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 21, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> This whole concept of marriage meaning ownership makes me very uncomfortable.



From what I understand, the concept of marriage predates patriarchal societies and the idea that one partner owns or dominates the other. The expression taking someone's hand in marriage is a link to the old pagan handfasting ceremonies.

Back to Polygamy. People really need to check out the documentary I mention. I think it would really open some eyes on what really goes on in the Polygamist culture. It's not pretty.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 21, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> From what I understand, the concept of marriage predates patriarchal societies and the idea that one partner owns or dominates the other. The expression taking someone's hand in marriage is a link to the old pagan handfasting ceremonies.
> 
> Back to Polygamy. People really need to check out the documentary I mention. I think it would really open some eyes on what really goes on in the Polygamist culture. It's not pretty.



I have seen that documentary and it is very disturbing. The most disturbing being girls as young as 12 being married off to men older than their fathers.

I'm talking about adults participating in an adult relationship. No kids - that's just child abuse and pedophilia.


----------



## Friday (Mar 21, 2006)

> I have seen that documentary and it is very disturbing. The most disturbing being girls as young as 12 being married off to men older than their fathers.



Not just old enough to be their fathers but sometimes their grandfathers. Not to mention that the male is frequently a close relative, a parent's brother usually. What is worse is that often they are not willingly entering into these relationships but have no choice and no way out. Dress it up in church clothes and call it marriage all you want, that's kidnapping, child rape and unlawful imprisonment.

That's why the 14 year old 'bride' in this show isn't at all unrealistic (unless she's acting happy about it).

What I find almost equally disgusting is a man who takes several wives and then proceeds to breed like a rabbit while letting the state carry the burden of their support (the wives and the children). The article I saw, the ass ranted out of one side of his face about the government interfering in his right to marry as many women as he liked while he smirked out the other side about how that same government had to support the 27 and counting that he'd already spawned. I can think of a real quick fix for that itty bitty problem.

I honestly have no problem with what willing adults want to do with other willing adults. Just leave the kids out of it and as AugustCandy said, make it a two way game. Under those circumstances, have fun peeps and don't forget your raincoats!


----------



## fatlane (Mar 21, 2006)

In regards to my 50+ scenario, I have the following replies:

1. I leave the seat down, anyway. It is common courtesy and all young men should be taught that's where to leave the seat on a private toilet.

2. Yes, I would favor larger women. This much is known. 

3. Hopefully, I could marry a few sets of sisters, thereby whittling down on the in-law population.

Christmas and Thanksgiving would require renting out a banquet hall, I understand...


----------



## FitChick (Mar 21, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I've seen tons of shows and done lots of reading, and know people who are or who have been in Polygamous (or plural) relationships. It works for some and not for others. I believe it is a viable lifestyle choice. As for my personal beliefs, I won't go into too much detail as I've been raked over the coals here for them - however - I do *not* believe human beings by nature are monogamous. IF they were there wouldn't be so many divorces. I believe most people have bi-sexual tendancies, so a plural relationship also gives the couple the chance to explore possible bi-sexual tendancies.
> 
> My strongest belief is if it's OK with the adults involved it's nobody else's damn business.



I totally agree. BTW I watched that documentary; its really not about polygamy per se, but about ONE family's ABUSES who happen to be polygamous. To single them out for a documentary would be like singling out a monogamous family where the husband was an abuser, too.

I think if they legalized polygamy as an alternative lifestyle choice (just as NJ is about to legalize gay marriages), the abuses would be greatly reduced.

BTW for the record, although polygamy to me sounds appealing (extra help with the housework and childcare, yay!), I doubt it woould work in my case because, frankly, I don't really get along with other women well at all, and I'd have to to live with at least one other woman.

I don't mind the idea of sharing the same man (to me its kind of a kinky turn on, lol)...but having to live in the same household with another woman...we'd be at each other's throats all the time. Unless it was Madea!

Polyandry would work MUCH better for me.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I think if they legalized polygamy as an alternative lifestyle choice (just as NJ is about to legalize gay marriages), the abuses would be greatly reduced.



I think the problem there is that our entire society is set up for marriage between two people and tax laws, insurance laws, etc would need to be re-tooled, and I'm not sure that anyone is willing to do that. When you only get to marry one person, you're less likely to marry for insurance or tax purposes, but when you can marry 8 or 10, what's one more? The polygamous people I know aren't particularly interested in traditional marriage, either, and these relationships tend to be of such short duration that the divorce rate would be crazy. Of course, that would make divorce lawyers very very happy. Maybe I should get a new career...


----------



## FitChick (Mar 21, 2006)

moonvine said:


> I think the problem there is that our entire society is set up for marriage between two people and tax laws, insurance laws, etc would need to be re-tooled, and I'm not sure that anyone is willing to do that. When you only get to marry one person, you're less likely to marry for insurance or tax purposes, but when you can marry 8 or 10, what's one more? The polygamous people I know aren't particularly interested in traditional marriage, either, and these relationships tend to be of such short duration that the divorce rate would be crazy. Of course, that would make divorce lawyers very very happy. Maybe I should get a new career...



True...but they're leaglizing gay marriages, that that's going to create a lot of new regulations as well.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

FitChick said:


> True...but they're leaglizing gay marriages, that that's going to create a lot of new regulations as well.



Not so much, really. It is still one person/one person. Not sure why the sexes of the people involved make a difference. If you are a gay married couple you still only get to carry your spouse on your health insurance, the tax breaks are only for the two of you, etc.

The interesting thing about gay marriages is that they are only legal in a few states. It was added to the Texas Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and no common law arrangements are recognized. So I don't know what would happen if a married gay couple moved here. Apparently their marriage would not be recognized by the State of Texas. It is all quite confusing.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 21, 2006)

Okay. Okay. Did you just compare gay marriages to polygamous marriages, FC? No. I refuse to believe that. If we're doing that, wanna attack interracial marriages too? Or interfaith?


----------



## Jes (Mar 21, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> From what I understand, the concept of marriage predates patriarchal societies and the idea that one partner owns or dominates the other. The expression taking someone's hand in marriage is a link to the old pagan handfasting ceremonies.
> 
> Back to Polygamy. People really need to check out the documentary I mention. I think it would really open some eyes on what really goes on in the Polygamist culture. It's not pretty.




Some people here are talking about polyamory and others are talking about polygamy. 'Til you're all talking about the same thing, you're talking at cross purposes.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

Jes said:


> Some people here are talking about polyamory and others are talking about polygamy. 'Til you're all talking about the same thing, you're talking at cross purposes.



It seems that by definition we can't have polygamy here in the US since you can only marry one person at a time by law. So you could marry multiple people but the marriages wouldn't be legal, thus making you polyamorous anyway, yes? Or am I completely off base here?


----------



## Jes (Mar 21, 2006)

moonvine said:


> It seems that by definition we can't have polygamy here in the US since you can only marry one person at a time by law. So you could marry multiple people but the marriages wouldn't be legal, thus making you polyamorous anyway, yes? Or am I completely off base here?



Sure, certainly, but I mean more the lifestyle which is organization/church sanctioned (which gives a certain support which can feel legal).


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

Jes said:


> Sure, certainly, but I mean more the lifestyle which is organization/church sanctioned (which gives a certain support which can feel legal).



Which church?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 21, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Okay. Okay. Did you just compare gay marriages to polygamous marriages, FC? No. I refuse to believe that. If we're doing that, wanna attack interracial marriages too? Or interfaith?



Kindly show me where I "attacked" gay marriages, because somehow, I missed it.

I support ALL SORTS of nontraditional marriage arrangements, except those involving coercion and animals/children. THAT WAS MY POINT. If we can legalize gay marriages (and we should, IMO), why not OTHER nontraditional arrangements, as long as they do not inolve coercion or minors?


----------



## Tina (Mar 21, 2006)

Friday said:


> Not just old enough to be their fathers but sometimes their grandfathers. Not to mention that the male is frequently a close relative, a parent's brother usually. What is worse is that often they are not willingly entering into these relationships but have no choice and no way out. Dress it up in church clothes and call it marriage all you want, that's kidnapping, child rape and unlawful imprisonment.
> 
> That's why the 14 year old 'bride' in this show isn't at all unrealistic (unless she's acting happy about it).
> 
> ...



Agreed. And disgusting. Yeah, that itty bitty problem needs to be snipped in the bud, so to speak, pronto.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 21, 2006)

Jes said:


> Some people here are talking about polyamory and others are talking about polygamy. 'Til you're all talking about the same thing, you're talking at cross purposes.



That's a very good point. I don't think people understand the Polygamist culture as it is practiced. It's not the same thing as open marriages or adult consenting "swingers," for a lack of a better word.

The documentary I mentioned is a realistic look at Polygamy. That "family" is not an isolated example. Incest, child abuse (physical, sexual and emotional) are rampant in the Polygamy culture. As well as of course abuse of women.


----------



## Tina (Mar 21, 2006)

... and often tied in with fundamentalist religion.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 21, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Not so much, really. It is still one person/one person. Not sure why the sexes of the people involved make a difference. If you are a gay married couple you still only get to carry your spouse on your health insurance, the tax breaks are only for the two of you, etc.
> 
> The interesting thing about gay marriages is that they are only legal in a few states. It was added to the Texas Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and no common law arrangements are recognized. So I don't know what would happen if a married gay couple moved here. Apparently their marriage would not be recognized by the State of Texas. It is all quite confusing.



A state must recognize a marriage legally performed in another state. SC ruling on that and everything. Dates back to anti-miscgenation laws in the South making it a felony for a black and a white to get married in another state and return. SC overthrew that law and all others like it fell away. The Texas thing is like it, but b/c it's part of the constitution, could rate another challenge, and will likely get tossed out: US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, like it or not.


----------



## Jane (Mar 21, 2006)

No doubt this will be retested in court soon. Oklahoma has same idiotic law.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Mar 21, 2006)

I'm glad I live in Jersey.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 21, 2006)

bigsexy920 said:


> I'm glad I live in Jersey.



OMG I miss my home state!! Jersey Girls ROCK!


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

fatlane said:


> A state must recognize a marriage legally performed in another state. SC ruling on that and everything. Dates back to anti-miscgenation laws in the South making it a felony for a black and a white to get married in another state and return. SC overthrew that law and all others like it fell away. The Texas thing is like it, but b/c it's part of the constitution, could rate another challenge, and will likely get tossed out: US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, like it or not.




That is really interesting. Thanks for the info. Couldn't SCOTUS reverse its decision with the conservative lot they have in there now though? If a case were brought before it I mean. They are already trying to overturn Roe V. Wade. South Dakota has outlawed all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother being in danger.

We're living in scary times...


----------



## FitChick (Mar 21, 2006)

I've actually given the polygamy thing a lot of thought (not that it matters since its illegal anyway, and I don't do illegal things). My husband doesn't believe in it, but I do. My only real problem with doing it would be the fact that women and I generally don't get along well (all my closest friends are guys.) I'm just not into "girl" things, and I guess I'd have to be if my husband took another wife or wives. That's why polyandry would work better for me...more guys to share common interests with (not to mention more bodies as well....

But I wonder...seeing that documentary, and seeing how a lot of the women become like sisters and get along...maybe polygamy would cure me of my aversion to female friends? I guess I'll never know. I know one thing I like about polygamy: I wouldn't be the sole workhorse, doing ALL the childcare, and ALL the housework and ALL the everything else. I'd actually get a break! Maybe that's why NOW in Utah actually endorsed polygamy years ago, as being better for women?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 21, 2006)

I think we need to be careful to define our terms here. While polygamy, the legal marriage of more than two people is illegal, polyamoury, which constitutes plural relations of many different kinds, is legal and alive and well in our culture. It's not terribly common, and definitely comes with its problems, but it can also work. It's night and day from polygamy because without exception, the poly couples I know did/do it because both partners want it. One partner always gets "veto power" and they can switch back to a monogamous partnership at any time. Respect is a HUGE issue with having a relationship like this.

A good book about polyamoury is "The Ethical Slut". It discusses the pitfalls and benefits, and is something of a how to or rule book (total honesty is a given) for people interested in plural relationships. 

And that's all I'll say about that, because I'm already involved in way too many contentious threads for my own good.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 21, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> I think we need to be careful to define our terms here. While polygamy, the legal marriage of more than two people is illegal, polyamoury, which constitutes plural relations of many different kinds, is legal and alive and well in our culture. It's not terribly common, and definitely comes with its problems, but it can also work. It's night and day from polygamy because without exception, the poly couples I know did/do it because both partners want it. One partner always gets "veto power" and they can switch back to a monogamous partnership at any time. Respect is a HUGE issue with having a relationship like this.



I think that is why many of the polyamorous relationships between people I know do not work. Generally it is really only one person who wants it and is driving it - and that doesn't work well AT ALL. 

Monogamous here, and it seems everyone wants to be/is poly.


----------



## Pink (Mar 21, 2006)

I love the show Big Love. Great characters & keeps my interest. 
As for my views on the poly lifestyle, to each their own.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 21, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I know one thing I like about polygamy: I wouldn't be the sole workhorse, doing ALL the childcare, and ALL the housework and ALL the everything else.



If women want help with the house work they should get their lazy ass husbands to help instead of accepting another spouse.



> Maybe that's why NOW in Utah actually endorsed polygamy years ago, as being better for women?



Women's rights and benefiting women were not taken into consideration.

You've seen the documentary and still think it's better for women?

These women have no rights. They are not allowed to be educated, live in poverty, not allowed to leave their homes and suffer generations of rape, incest, abuse and child molestation. Not to mention the heath problems and deformaties caused by the rampant incest. I really can't comprehend how that lifestyle in anyway benefits women. 

The women might develop a sisterly bond. Because that's all they have in any way of emotional support or comfort in their hellish existance. 

Utah was also the only state that wanted to fight a recent proposed law on child molestation. Not exactly surprising considering Utah has the highest number of Polygamists.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 21, 2006)

Pink said:


> I love the show Big Love. Great characters & keeps my interest.
> As for my views on the poly lifestyle, to each their own.




I happened to catch an episode of Big Love last night on HBO. It was rather interesting, the dynamic between the different wives and the children and even the relationship with the children and their friends.

HBO is a free preview..cause I'm a cheap bitch ..SO I'm sure I won't get an opportunity to watch it again. But, it's worth a watch one time.

As far as the issue at hand. I really have no opinion I think. Some can argue that there are people in the Bible who practiced polygamy..and there are some that can argue that it's unGodly. So, I think the nation will always be divided. Hell, we're divided about everything it seems.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 21, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I've actually given the polygamy thing a lot of thought (not that it matters since its illegal anyway, and I don't do illegal things). My husband doesn't believe in it, but I do. My only real problem with doing it would be the fact that women and I generally don't get along well (all my closest friends are guys.) I'm just not into "girl" things, and I guess I'd have to be if my husband took another wife or wives. That's why polyandry would work better for me...more guys to share common interests with (not to mention more bodies as well....
> 
> But I wonder...seeing that documentary, and seeing how a lot of the women become like sisters and get along...maybe polygamy would cure me of my aversion to female friends? I guess I'll never know. I know one thing I like about polygamy: I wouldn't be the sole workhorse, doing ALL the childcare, and ALL the housework and ALL the everything else. I'd actually get a break! Maybe that's why NOW in Utah actually endorsed polygamy years ago, as being better for women?




It sounds to me like you need to get your hubby more invovled than have him possible marry another woman. You shouldn't be doing evrything. A marriage should have some equlibrium to it. If you honestly need an extra hand something isn't balanced. Its 2006 anyway men are in the kitchen now too!..


----------



## mossystate (Mar 21, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I've actually given the polygamy thing a lot of thought (not that it matters since its illegal anyway, and I don't do illegal things). My husband doesn't believe in it, but I do. My only real problem with doing it would be the fact that women and I generally don't get along well (all my closest friends are guys.) I'm just not into "girl" things, and I guess I'd have to be if my husband took another wife or wives. That's why polyandry would work better for me...more guys to share common interests with (not to mention more bodies as well....
> 
> But I wonder...seeing that documentary, and seeing how a lot of the women become like sisters and get along...maybe polygamy would cure me of my aversion to female friends? I guess I'll never know. I know one thing I like about polygamy: I wouldn't be the sole workhorse, doing ALL the childcare, and ALL the housework and ALL the everything else. I'd actually get a break! Maybe that's why NOW in Utah actually endorsed polygamy years ago, as being better for women?



You don't need polygamy, you need a husband who does his EQUAL share of childrearing and household chores.I have seen similar documentaries, the women sometimes push the man from the actual heart of the family.They find this 'sisterhood' of sorts.The 'only' problem is, they have no real voice..they can't..their religious beliefs have shown them their place.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 21, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> If women want help with the house work they should get their lazy ass husbands to help instead of accepting another spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ooops..I did not see your post before I posted mine


----------



## StoneFemme (Mar 22, 2006)

fatlane said:


> SC overthrew that law and all others like it fell away.




Unfortunately DOMA ([SIZE="-1"]defense[/SIZE]/ denial of marriage act) gave a handy dandy exception to the haters.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> That's a very good point. I don't think people understand the Polygamist culture as it is practiced. It's not the same thing as open marriages or adult consenting "swingers," for a lack of a better word.
> 
> The documentary I mentioned is a realistic look at Polygamy. That "family" is not an isolated example. Incest, child abuse (physical, sexual and emotional) are rampant in the Polygamy culture. As well as of course abuse of women.



I know people who are involved in plural marriages, Jack, those cases ARE isolated examples within Mormonism, not even polygamists of other religions (contrary to popular belief, not all polygamists are Mormons, or even Christians.) Even my husband, who is against polygamy, said it was "a very biased, one-sided piece".

Orthodox Judaism TECHNICALLY permits polygamy; a ban against it was issued by Rabbenu Gershom in the 11th century, which has since expired (it was only for 500 years). Sephardic Jews (from Spain, Italy, Arab countries) practiced polygamy until the 1950s, when they were pressured to stop the practice after they were airlifted to the state of Israel.

Monogamy became entrenched in Western society, ironically, as a result of the Roman Catholic church's negative view on sex even within marriage. Prior to the church's ruling in the Middle Ages, Catholic men had more than one wife. The Catholic church banned polygamy, and Rabbenu Gershom also banned it for Jews...the feeling being that if Jews continued to be polygamous, it would arose hatred and resentment amongst the gentiles, and well, you know what usually followed in those days when Jews were resented. But the ban was only for 500 years. The Catholic church in those days was against too much sex, allowing it only for procreation. They felt that letting a man have more than one wife would mean a lot more sex, and they didn't want that, unless it was to make babies. ,So I find it interesting that the Western attitude on polygamy actually stems historically from the anti-sex view of one church.

So although MOST Orthodox Jews today do not practice polygamy, they CAN if they choose to AND if the laws of their country allow it.


As for that documentary again, it was VERY BIASED. I'm not a Mormon but I can tell you, they focused on tiny, offshoot cultic groups that were excommunicated by the official Mormon church, which banned polygamy in 1890 for their members. The dramatic music played in the background, all led to a sensationalistic anti-polygamy doc.

What if I did a documentary on religious cults that practice MONOGAMY, and practice child abuse, etc? POLYGAMY WAS NOT THE PROBLEM in those cults the documentary showed, it was CHILD ABUSE. They tried to portray POLYGAMY as the problem, when its NOT. MONOGAMOUS cults CAN and DO do the same.

The Hare Krsna's practice MONOGAMY yet they have been accused of abusive behavior...so have the Moonies, who are also MONOGAMOUS. MOST cults are MONOGAMOUS, in fact.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 22, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I know people who are involved in plural marriages, Jack, those cases ARE isolated examples within Mormonism, not even polygamists of other religions (contrary to popular belief, not all polygamists are Mormons, or even Christians.)



Polygamy is forbidden in the Mormon church, and has been since 1890. Even if you live in a country that permits it. The minute you take on more than one spouse you are excommunicated. (Of course they have to find out about it first, but technically as soon as you perform the act you are no longer a member of the Church). I have a former Mormon missionary sitting right beside me.

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23019,00.html


----------



## Jes (Mar 22, 2006)

Sure, Moonvine, but that decision also had an agenda. The entire church could've lost its standing (and right to exist) so it had to make concessions. Make an obvious sacrifice. The practices are still alive and well, if not legal.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 22, 2006)

Jes said:


> Sure, Moonvine, but that decision also had an agenda. The entire church could've lost its standing (and right to exist) so it had to make concessions. Make an obvious sacrifice. The practices are still alive and well, if not legal.



Sure they are alive and well - but not within the church. I just think that when a church stops a practice over 100 years ago (for whatever reason) and don't permit it that it should get the right to not be associated with that practice anymore. I'm sure not arguing about the initial agenda, I just don't think it exists anymore.


----------



## Jes (Mar 22, 2006)

Personally I think it was more like the church saying, sure, I promise to be home by midnight, Mom, knowing it wasn't going to, but wanting to be able to leave the house in the first place.  That's not to say all the LDS are doin' it, but...I think BIG LOVE, the tv show, is based in some pretty deep fact for the faction that IS living this way. If you've seen it, that will come through for you. The writers haven't crafted an imaginary world, they're going on fact about (perhaps small) factions. I find it fascinating, and usually do like HBO shows (fuckin' hated Arliss, liked everything else) for their depth.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Polygamy is forbidden in the Mormon church, and has been since 1890. Even if you live in a country that permits it. The minute you take on more than one spouse you are excommunicated. (Of course they have to find out about it first, but technically as soon as you perform the act you are no longer a member of the Church). I have a former Mormon missionary sitting right beside me.
> 
> http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-23019,00.html



That may be, but I'm not a Mormon or a polygamist (though I fully support a person's right to be polygamists).

I don't see how a govt could prosecute for polygamy anyway....if the law forbids plural marriage, then the 2nd, 3rd, etc spouses are not legal anyway right? If they prosecuted polygamists they'd have to also prosecute every couple that lives together without marriage, lol! because in the eyes of the law its the same thing.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 22, 2006)

Legally it is known as bigamy. And it isn't the same as living with someone without being married because you are entering into a contract, and I believe one of the questions you get asked when you are marrying someone is if you are already legally married to someone else.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Legally it is known as bigamy. And it isn't the same as living with someone without being married because you are entering into a contract, and I believe one of the questions you get asked when you are marrying someone is if you are already legally married to someone else.



The point I was making is: if the law says only one marriage is allowed, then ANY OTHER marriages are not REAL marriages in the eyes of the law. The only way it could be termed bigamy is if a man marries one woman LEGALLY before, say a judge, and then marries another woman, say, before a judge. People do that...they marry one spouse in one state legally, then go to another state and marry another. And if they're caught, its bigamy.

But my point is, if the state says any marriages after the first are not REAL, then that amounts to the guy legally married to wife one, but shacking up with the others. Right? Or am I missing something?

BTW my husband said we could never have a polygamous marriage anyway, even if he believed in it, because he'd lose his security clearance (really!) Besides, he said he can't stand the thought of more than one mother in law


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

I forgot to post this link...it gives some good historical background as to how monogamy became so entrenched in Western culture:

http://www.polygamy.com/Jewish/The-Orthodox-Jewish.htm


And I just found this...it might answer my/our question as to whether polygamy is the same as bigamy.

Polygamy's Legal Status
Polygamy is not illegal &#8211; bigamy is! Bigamy is the criminal offence of registering a second marriage with the State when a first marriage is still recognized. Polygamy can be practiced without breaking the law simply by registering no more than one of the marriages with the State. If you've decided to be a polygamist and put Plural Marriage into practice, then you're most likely not the sort of person to be concerned about registering your marriages with the State. You can have a perfectly pleasant and happy marriage without government intrusion into your private matters. And you can have a better marriage, because submitting to the Government's view of marriage means accepting their view of divorce. Polygamists don't have a need for divorce. If you want to start a new marriage, that's fine, but you shouldn't have to destroy an existing marriage and family to do it. Brides should understand they are entering into a polygamous relationship. But once they understand that, and if they don't break the law by registering multiple marriages, then they can participate in plural marriage with a clear conscience. 
It is not widely known that polygamous marriages are allowed in the majority of the worlds cultures. It is our belief that monogamy is a valid choice for some people at some times, but we also need other legitimate options for marriage and family life. Certainly the alarming divorce rate and skyrocketing number of single parent families are indicators of how badly we need old proven Biblical models for relating. Our goal is to support relationships based on love, commitment, growth, honesty, and accepting personal responsibility. 


from http://www.polygamy.com


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

I haven't read the article FitChick but I would assume monogamy was pushed on us by a church? Am I wrong?

BTW - I am finding all your posts on this matter very interesting. And I agree with you too!


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I haven't read the article FitChick but I would assume monogamy was pushed on us by a church? Am I wrong?
> 
> BTW - I am finding all your posts on this matter very interesting. And I agree with you too!



Basically, you're right. We Americans are descendants of Europeans, and in many ways we have adopted without realizing it, the mindsets of Europe. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic church ruled everything in Europe, and they (at the time believing sex was only for procreation) put a stop to the then prevalent practice of Catholic men having more than one wife. Judaism in Europe followed suit only to prevent antisemitism if Jews continued their own polygamy practices. Monogamy is in its origin an outgrowth of medieval Roman Catholic anti-sex attitudes. The link I posted to an Orthodox Jewish polygamy site explains the history better than I can. Here is one excerpt from that site:

Rav Yaakov Emden says that the reason for the ban was danger from the uncircumcised people (that is the Christians) among whom we live. Christianity worked hard over the period from about 600 c.e. to 900 c.e. to eliminate polygamy in Europe. By the year 858, Herard of Tours got so far as to limit people to two wives. Shortly thereafter, the ban among Christians in Europe became almost complete, and they were soon restricted to only one wife. 

Since the Christians were now banned from something that had been normal practice for many years, they resented the fact that the Jews could continue to have more than one wife. When goyim resent Jews, Jews get killed. Therefore to prevent massacres of the Jews, Rabbeinu Gershom banned polygamy. 

Rav Yaakov Emden writes that the takonah is a result of our living among goyim. It would be better to eliminate the ban. The ban is only until the year 5000. Let's not add on to the ban. The only things included in a new ban are those specified in it. It would have been forbidden to make such a ban because it imitates goyim. The only reason that Rabbeinu Gershom could make the ban is that it is fulfilled 
passively, and not having the ban might cause massacres of Jews by Christians. 

>>>>

Its amazing what you find on Google...here is another link:

http://www.pro-polygamy.com/


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 22, 2006)

In fairness, you're forgetting monogamy also occurs in nature with other animals like penguins, cardinals, elephants, etc. Of course, our closest relative is the slutty bonobo.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

> Monogamy is in its origin an outgrowth of medieval Roman Catholic anti-sex attitudes.



Ah yes the Catholic church - the killer of anything fun. LOL (sorry no insult meant to Catholics here)


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> In fairness, you're forgetting monogamy also occurs in nature with other animals like penguins, cardinals, elephants, etc. Of course, our closest relative is the slutty bonobo.


 
That's true - but I don't believe monogamy is natural to the human animal. You could say even the fact that we date before marriage is proof that we are NOT monogamous. If we were truly like the animals that mate for life, you would pick a man (or woman) and that would be who you would spend all your life with. No multiple sexual partners while dating - and no dating. 

Yes - some cultures still do that - but the women in those cultures are for the most part - chattel. And they are bought by the man. And more and more women are saying NO to being sold into marriage. 

But I digress.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 22, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> That's true - but I don't believe monogamy is natural to the human animal. You could say even the fact that we date before marriage is proof that we are NOT monogamous. If we were truly like the animals that mate for life, you would pick a man (or woman) and that would be who you would spend all your life with. No multiple sexual partners while dating - and no dating.



Not everyone has multiple sexual partners while dating. Not everyone has sex before marriage, FWIW. If I had it to do over again I probably wouldn't.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Not everyone has multiple sexual partners while dating. Not everyone has sex before marriage, FWIW. If I had it to do over again I probably wouldn't.


 
Of course not - but the majority of our society does. And IMO - it's just more proof that we are not monogamous beings.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 22, 2006)

I guess I view that as the beauty of the human animal: We're very sexually diverse. I'm openly bisexual, but a very monogamous type who has never had multiple partners. Maybe there's a genetic predisposition? All three of the kids in my family are monogamous, even though only one is heterosexual. My parents were both monogamous to the best of my knowledge.

Monogamy and polyamory are both really nothing more than behaviors. With advanced human reasoning, I think we're totally in control of what we do. As far as raising children, monogamy's a lot more convenient. I look at it in terms of my own life: Monogamy is just easier for me, and I think humans are smarter than being boiled down to always having one or two partners. 

Dat's just me, though.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 22, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Of course not - but the majority of our society does. And IMO - it's just more proof that we are not monogamous beings.



I don't know which we you are referring to, but I am a monogamous being. I also only date men who are monogamous. I don't care what other people do though.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

moonvine said:


> I don't know which we you are referring to, but I am a monogamous being. I also only date men who are monogamous. I don't care what other people do though.



I guess it depends on how you define monogamy.

Is it having only one sexual partner ever?

Or one sexual partner at a time?

I think having more than one sexual partner makes you NOT monogamous. JMO


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 22, 2006)

mo&#183;nog&#183;a&#183;my Audio pronunciation of "monogamy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-ng-m)
n.

* 1. The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.*
2.
1. The practice or condition of being married to only one person at a time.
2. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.
3. Zoology. The condition of having only one mate during a breeding season or during the breeding life of a pair.

Source: www.dictionary.com

I tend to use the first one.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

> 2. The practice of marrying only once in a lifetime.




And I think this one is monogamy. IMHO. 

Let me play devils' advocate. 

The church says stay a virgin until marriage. And be monogamous within that marriage. How did we bend the rules to be "One sexual partner at a time" is monogamy? If you have had more than one sexual partner are you not in plural sexual relationships?

Just asking questions not making accusations.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 22, 2006)

I'd look to the root of the word. Mono = one, gamy = relationship. One per. That being the difference from mating for life. Otherwise it's polyamory or polygamy, depending if they're sexual or romantic relationships. And no offense taken!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I'd look to the root of the word. Mono = one, gamy = relationship. One per. That being the difference from mating for life. Otherwise it's polyamory or polygamy, depending if they're sexual or romantic relationships. And no offense taken!



Thanks Sweetie. Like I said it how each individual defines it. Hey I'm all for adults doing what they want!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 22, 2006)

You're welcome. I'm always happy to be an argumentive little B****.


----------



## Jane (Mar 22, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I'd look to the root of the word. Mono = one, gamy = relationship. One per. That being the difference from mating for life. Otherwise it's polyamory or polygamy, depending if they're sexual or romantic relationships. And no offense taken!


Come to think of it, many relationships are a little gamy.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 22, 2006)

I made the distinction between polyamory, open marriages and polygamy. 

The abuses I mentioned and reported in that documentary are unfortunately not uncommon in the polygamist culture. It's the "dirty little secret" in that culture that they all know about but do not openly discuss.

The horrific abuse the women and children endure in that culture should not be dismissed or taken lightly. It is very real, more wide spread than anyone wants to admit and a very serious problem that our society has unfortunately for the most part turned a blind eye too.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 22, 2006)

I'm not a polygamist, and after thinking this issue through really well I realize I could never be one (because of the fact that I get along far better with men than women...any polygamous man I'd marry would be monogamous by force because I'd kick all the women out the first time they got into an argument with me, lol!)...but it just irks me that the govt and others won't just let these ppl do their thing....esp. since I believe (as Sandie does) that men, at least, are not by nature monogamous...this is why men crave variety in their sex life, its why the number one famous male fantasy is to be with TWO women, and its why they find it hard to "be faithful"...because IMO they were not MEANT to be confined to only one woman. I think polygamy is more in tune with nature.

Do something about the abuses, such as child abuse, etc. But those abuses ARE NOT intrinsic to polygamy itself. MOST pedophiles are monogamous, and most assaults against children that are done by family members take place in MONOGAMOUS households.

I don't really know why I feel so strongly about this; perhaps its because I REALLY HATE IT when the govt tries to tell ppl how to run their private sexual lives. Evidently both the ACLU and the Libertarian Party agrees, because they too favor the decriminalization of polygamy, as I do.


----------



## Tina (Mar 22, 2006)

Here are more red herrings and straw men in this thread than you could shake a stick at.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 22, 2006)

FitChick said:


> men, at least, are not by nature monogamous
> because IMO they were not MEANT to be confined to only one woman.



I can just hear the male chauvinists cheering that comment.

Men are not walking hard ons that are incapable of complex emotions other than the drive to have sex with every woman they see. 

You also forget that "nature" means a great many things. Like Sadeian mentioned, many species do mate for life.



> But those abuses ARE NOT intrinsic to polygamy itself.



I disagree and again, I make the distinction between polyamorous people and the polygamist culture.


----------



## wtchmel (Mar 22, 2006)

I watch the show, and really enjoy it. I love Sandie Zitkus!!! <----- I agree with everything you've said on this subject and i too believe that we were not meant to be monogamous. There was a book I read that really delved into the non monogamy theory, and I can't remember the name, damn.


----------



## ripley (Mar 22, 2006)

I don't pretend to know a lot about this subject. That said, I think the defense of polygamy by saying that it is sexual freedom misses the point. It is NOT sexual freedom for the overwhelming majority of "brides." Most of them are prohibited from even cutting their hair or wearing pants. Sexual freedom is only one of the freedoms that their society denies them.

Polygamy in theory may be defensible. Polygamy in practice....whole 'nother animal.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 22, 2006)

OKay people evryone is getting their panties in a twist so here is more of my two cents. Polygamy culture to me is just that a type of culture personally i am not for it because of the low statis women have in the culture. On the other hand I don't believe that abuse is what the culture is all about. It happens evrywhere in any culture at any time. However i have noticed that when equality is not addressed in cultures specifically between the sexes abuse does pop up in abundance. What am i saying? basiclly that though the culture prob doesn't try to create these possible abuse situations..the disparity in equality between males/females fosters a breeding ground for pedophiles (especially when these pedophiles use religion to back up their acts). 

Honestly i don't think that people are not ment to be monogoumous (can't spell). I don't think evryone one has to be with one person but i don't see how our bodies are made for lots of multiple persons. For example diseases, if the human body was MENT to be able to have lots and lots of partners we would fight sexually transmitted dieases better and have a MUCH better handle on our reproductive system. Think even before religion and laws our great, great ancestors were not running around boinking anything that moved. There was a saftey in unity sexually/physically/mentally. We last longer by creating family roles (like mother, father, sister ect. to steer away from having sex with eachother) and we last longer because we usually choose one partner at a time and because we live such short lives the number of partners are usually not that great. 

Yes i am aware this doesn't hold true for evryone, some like ALOT of partners and thats fine. But Physically the human body just doesn't seem equipped to run around and mate and mate and mate.

So if your for or against multiple partners do remember in this millenium diseases are running rampant so perhaps you should adopt monogomy and subrtract your chances of contracting the KOOTIES out there!LOL


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> OMG I miss my home state!! Jersey Girls ROCK!


Of course, there's much to be said for Jersey Boys as well.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 22, 2006)

H.P. Lovecraft once wrote:

_"In such houses have dwelt generations of strange people, whose like the world has never seen. Seized with a gloomy and fanatical belief which exiled them from their kind, their ancestors sought the wilderness for freedom. There the scions of a conquering race indeed flourished free from the restrictions of their fellows, but cowered in an appalling slavery to the dismal phantasms of their own minds. Divorced from the enlightenment of civilization, the strength of these Puritans turned into singular channels; and in their isolation, morbid self-repression, and struggle for life with relentless Nature, there came to them dark furtive traits from the prehistoric depths of their cold Northern heritage. By necessity practical and by philosophy stern, these folks were not beautiful in their sins. Erring as all mortals must, they were forced by their rigid code to seek concealment above all else; so that they came to use less and less taste in what they concealed. Only the silent, sleepy, staring houses in the backwoods can tell all that has lain hidden since the early days, and they are not communicative, being loath to shake off the drowsiness which helps them forget. Sometimes one feels that it would be merciful to tear down these houses, for they must often dream."_

Appropos, no?


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 22, 2006)

> For example diseases, if the human body was MENT to be able to have lots and lots of partners we would fight sexually transmitted dieases better



Well the fact is if people had not been having sex with animals a few of the very serious STD's would not be with us. And people who have anal sex (not just gay men) can bring all sorts of diseases to their partners if they are not CLEAN and safe about it. AND - AIDS had it's beginnings in monkey parts being used in Vaccines for POLIO! (I think it was the kidneys used to make a culture to grow the polio vaccine.) If you doubt this look up articles and the Documentary "The Real Cause of AIDS"


----------



## missaf (Mar 22, 2006)

I actually think this conversation is pretty tame and mellow and minimally focused on one issue of society, polygamy. However, Polyamory is a bigger and more widespread community that seems to be taking hold in a lot of younger than 30 peoples. While I think polyamory is a chincy way to get around committment and is a glorified "Friends with Benefits" ideal for everyone involved, I think it's opening the door to the spread of more STDs.


----------



## Fuzzy (Mar 22, 2006)

missaf said:


> I actually think this conversation is pretty tame and mellow and minimally focused on one issue of society, polygamy. However, Polyamory is a bigger and more widespread community that seems to be taking hold in a lot of younger than 30 peoples. While I think polyamory is a chincy way to get around committment and is a glorified "Friends with Benefits" ideal for everyone involved, I think it's opening the door to the spread of more STDs.



Actually, I think polyamory is generating more and sadder relationships and depression than we think it does.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 23, 2006)

Fuzzy said:


> Actually, I think polyamory is generating more and sadder relationships and depression than we think it does.



In order for Polyamory to work - all involved have to get over the *ownership* thing. And that is difficult for most people. It's just easier for most people to be in a one on one relationship - not necessarily more fulfilling - just easier.


----------



## CleverBomb (Mar 23, 2006)

Tina said:


> Here are more red herrings and straw men in this thread than you could shake a stick at.



How many red herrings should a straw man be able to marry at the same time?

Rusty


----------



## FitChick (Mar 23, 2006)

I think there is confusion between polyamory and polygamy/polygyny. They are NOT the same, yet many mix the two up.

MOST of those who practice polygamy are very strictly religious, moral ppl, be they Jewish, Christian, Mormon-Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever. Polyamory is "wife swapping", not at all the same thing.

I have seen MANY abuses within monogamous marriages/relationships, and I do not understand why some say polygamy IN AND OF ITSELF engenders abuse...any more than to say monogamy does.

I know of many religious cults that are monogamous, and oppress women and children TERRIBLY. The Hare Krsnas are one. The Moonies are another. Monogamists do not corner the market on morality, nor do polygamists corner the market on abuses.

As for groups that do not "let" women have a say, or cut their hair/wear slacks, this may come as a shock to some but there are many women, myself included, who have CHOSEN to live without wearing slacks, without having short hair, some even cover their hair all the time because we believe it is proper from a religious (Jewish) POV. Just because women are in a very strict religious group does not mean they are being forced to be.

I know MANY Jewish women, for example, who CHOSE to adopt Chasidic Judaism...they cover their hair all the time as married women (Jewish law requires this)...they do many things that "liberated" women would find abhorrent. Yet FOR US, these things liberate us in a way other women just could never understand.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 23, 2006)

There certainly wasn't confusion on my part what it meant. I don't think anyone requires education.

A woman can make a choice to join such a group, but can she just as easily leave? Is it really a choice if someone's coerced? Is it really a choice if she's raised in that religion and believes there's some kind of reward or punishment? It's something to think about before we start judging others.

Look: I don't buy that being told what you can and can't do is liberating. Mr. Webster agrees with me. Oddly enough, I don't really care what anyone does. I said as much, but trying to sway others' opinions on the matter is simply rude. This is how I feel: I feel like when someone doesn't agree with you, you tend to up the ante and try and force people into agreeing. That's something that genuinely bugs me. That's not an attack; that's personal criticism. JMHO.

Edited to say that I'm only saying this because I'm equally as bad about this sometimes, and I want people to tell me. I don't learn how to behave by existing in a vacuum.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 23, 2006)

Sadean,

What bugs me is when people assume that a woman MUST be unhappy/unliberated/miserable if she chooses to join a strict religious sect of some sort....or that she is automatically being held prisoner in said group if she stays.

Feminism does not automatically equal happiness, I was a feminist from the mid 1970s on and it only made me angry and UNhappy. A lot of women (like me) have since cast it off and find they're actually happier in a more traditional lifestyle (who knew?)


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 23, 2006)

Well, exactly. Whatever works for you, instead of doing what everyone expects you to.


----------



## Jane (Mar 23, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Sadean,
> 
> What bugs me is when people assume that a woman MUST be unhappy/unliberated/miserable if she chooses to join a strict religious sect of some sort....or that she is automatically being held prisoner in said group if she stays.
> 
> Feminism does not automatically equal happiness, I was a feminist from the mid 1970s on and it only made me angry and UNhappy. A lot of women (like me) have since cast it off and find they're actually happier in a more traditional lifestyle (who knew?)


I thought feminism was ABOUT making the choices that work for you.


----------



## safunguy06 (Mar 23, 2006)

You are so right and I couldnt agree with you more. I've been saying that for years and been knocked down for it so I'm happy someone has the same views about it as I do. Thanks!


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 23, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Sadean,
> 
> What bugs me is when people assume that a woman MUST be unhappy/unliberated/miserable if she chooses to join a strict religious sect of some sort....or that she is automatically being held prisoner in said group if she stays.
> 
> Feminism does not automatically equal happiness, I was a feminist from the mid 1970s on and it only made me angry and UNhappy. A lot of women (like me) have since cast it off and find they're actually happier in a more traditional lifestyle (who knew?)




How can you cast off Femenism? How can you cast of the belief of equality for women. The right to be equal in society?? I am appaulled that you as a women would sit there and say you were un happy fighting for equality. And that you found happyness in being considered less. Being unequal. 

It is traditional for men to beat their wives, it is traditional for women to be denied the right to choose to have babies or to abort. It is traditional to give women unequal pay. Just because its a tradition does not spell happiness.

It seems to me you find comfort in being submmissive, ultimately it would seem through your use of "traditional" in context to men. And you can go ahead if you prefer and be submmissive in society and accept less. But don't dare down talk Femenism when women have fought tooth and nail for simple pleasures we all enjoy.

*steps off soapbox*


----------



## RedHead (Mar 23, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> How can you cast off Femenism? How can you cast of the belief of equality for women. The right to be equal in society?? I am appaulled that you as a women would sit there and say you were un happy fighting for equality. And that you found happyness in being considered less. Being unequal.
> 
> It is traditional for men to beat their wives, it is traditional for women to be denied the right to choose to have babies or to abort. It is traditional to give women unequal pay. Just because its a tradition does not spell happiness.
> 
> ...



I don't think that's what FC meant...What I got out of her post was that she was suprised to find herself in a monogamous relationship and a stay at home mom and HAPPY. I didn't get out of that post that she didn't believe in equality for women or was being subserviant to a man!:shocked: 

I got that she was just suprised to find herself happy in a "traditional" relationship as opposed to the "non-traditional" that in the 60's & 70's were part of the feminist movement. Which frankly I think we've all moved beyond!

BTW...the last thing I would call FC is submissive; look up her posts!


----------



## Jes (Mar 23, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Well the fact is if people had not been having sex with animals a few of the very serious STD's would not be with us. And people who have anal sex (not just gay men) can bring all sorts of diseases to their partners if they are not CLEAN and safe about it. AND - AIDS had it's beginnings in monkey parts being used in Vaccines for POLIO! (I think it was the kidneys used to make a culture to grow the polio vaccine.) If you doubt this look up articles and the Documentary "The Real Cause of AIDS"



God, I really need to stop goin' to the zoo to look for dates. *sigh*


----------



## Jes (Mar 23, 2006)

Jane said:


> I thought feminism was ABOUT making the choices that work for you.


RIGHT ON, SISTER JANE. I am always disappointed when I hear women saying there's only 1 kind of feminism. There isn't! Problem solved.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 23, 2006)

Jane said:


> I thought feminism was ABOUT making the choices that work for you.



I don't need a movement to "allow" me to make my own choices. My father taught me how to do that, regardless of my gender. It was when I realized that I didnt need a movement of other women to hold my hand and "help" me do what I wanted to, that I truly felt liberated. I never needed them; I had it within me all along.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 23, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> How can you cast off Femenism? How can you cast of the belief of equality for women. The right to be equal in society?? I am appaulled that you as a women would sit there and say you were un happy fighting for equality. And that you found happyness in being considered less. Being unequal.
> 
> It is traditional for men to beat their wives, it is traditional for women to be denied the right to choose to have babies or to abort. It is traditional to give women unequal pay. Just because its a tradition does not spell happiness.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tina (Mar 23, 2006)

If this is what you think of feminism, you've got it wrong. Your words lead me to believe that whatever group you belonged to, they're nothing like the huge number of feminists I know.

Also, polygamy is almost without exception oppressive to women. You say they're moral; I say, how the heck do you know that? I learned long ago that too many 'religious' people are anything but "moral", and certianly not progressive when it comes to giving women any sort of parity.

And that's all I have time for right now.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 23, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Augustcandy said:
> 
> 
> > How can you cast off Femenism? How can you cast of the belief of equality for women. The right to be equal in society?? I am appaulled that you as a women would sit there and say you were un happy fighting for equality. And that you found happyness in being considered less. Being unequal.
> ...


----------



## BBWMoon (Mar 23, 2006)

Coming from an unsupportive family, and being molested at a young age by a priest (and his brother) I grew up emotionally disconnected.

So, I'm uncertain if I could ever get married. I treasure my alone time.

I do love, and have loved Men in the past, but for some reason, when I feel
restricted I covet my layers of protection.

When it comes to my thoughts on "Polyamory"... it bothers me on how Children could be raised in a such a way. (I would group it with family nudists. I don't think it's healthy for Children.)

But, I do believe the human heart has the capacity to love several people in one lifetime. (Even simutaniously...).


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 23, 2006)

1) You can be a feminist and be pro-life.

2) I'm a feminist who supports the Men's Movement. It's a movement that allows men to be more tender and loving in their personal lives instead of isolating them.

3) You may find something to be "the right way." That doesn't mean it's right for everyone. Not to sound like a broken record.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 23, 2006)

August Candy,

Let me put it this way, the abortion issue aside: fighting for the rights of other women just doesn't appeal to me. In the 1970s I spent my teen years involved somewhat with the feminist movement. My involvement did not stem from a feeling of having been wronged as a female..I was involved in various political causes back then, and the movements often happened to overlap, that's all. My HEART was never really into feminism. I never NEEDED feminism to do anything I wanted to do in my life. My father was my rock of support, he was not a feminist but he made sure his daughter got to do ANYTHING she wanted to, despite her gender. HE was my savior in that regard, not feminism.

My grandmother (born in 1898) was a tough lady. She worked three jobs to support a family. She was a "working woman" long before it became fashionable. She called suffargettes "bloomers", disparagingly. She never voted...she was too busy to vote. You can be a strong woman without feminism, the women in my family did it.

Many of the feminists I met were bitter, angry women who had a chip on their shoulder about men. 

I find I feel more comfort in traditional, patriarchal lifestyles....NOT abusive, just traditional. I have been on both sides, and this side is where I find personal fulfillment and contentment. I also happen to love most men. The only man in my life who ever wronged me was, ironically, one who also called himself a feminist. That was my uncle, who molested me when I was 10. You would have liked him...he supported the ERA, he supported the legalization of abortion, he felt women should do anything a man can do. Oh and he was a monogamist too, incidentally.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 23, 2006)

FitChick said:


> August Candy,
> 
> Let me put it this way, the abortion issue aside: fighting for the rights of other women just doesn't appeal to me. In the 1970s I spent my teen years involved somewhat with the feminist movement. My involvement did not stem from a feeling of having been wronged as a female..I was involved in various political causes back then, and the movements often happened to overlap, that's all. My HEART was never really into feminism. I never NEEDED feminism to do anything I wanted to do in my life. My father was my rock of support, he was not a feminist but he made sure his daughter got to do ANYTHING she wanted to, despite her gender. HE was my savior in that regard, not feminism.
> 
> ...



Thats rather sad that you don't care about your fellow sisters. And believe it or not i would consider your grandmother a femenist, not because she marched in rallies and wore pins but because in her life she sought equality through her work. Being a femenist doesn't mean you hate your fellow brother. I for one adore my many brothers on this earth yet i will not except less from them (men and women) just because some think thats all i sould get. 

I can clearly see after your statment why you shy away from femenism. However know that being a femenist means allot of differn't things. But intially it as i have repeatedly said is about equality. Although i cannot understand why you would wish your daughter and your daughters, daughters unequality in this world. I can somewhat understand the saftey you feel in a "Mans world". If you don't have to make alot of choices life can be easier, i understand that so i hope you continue enjoying life and i pray that the men who have such control in it treat you well; because many, many women and babies around the world do not have such luxury's


----------



## Ryan (Mar 24, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> That's true - but I don't believe monogamy is natural to the human animal. You could say even the fact that we date before marriage is proof that we are NOT monogamous. If we were truly like the animals that mate for life, you would pick a man (or woman) and that would be who you would spend all your life with. No multiple sexual partners while dating - and no dating.



I would say that it isn't natural for humans to practice the same sort of monogamy that animals practice. Not because monogamy itself is unnatural for humans, but because we are far more intelligent, and therefore complex, than any other form of life on earth. Penguins don't have to consider political or religious differences, how many children they want, whether they want to live in the city or country, etc. I think it's perfectly natural for humans to want to spend their lives with one person. It's just that finding that one person is a bit more involved for us.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 24, 2006)

Ryan said:


> Penguins don't have to consider political or religious differences, how many children they want, whether they want to live in the city or country, etc.



You, sir, know NOTHING about penguins!


----------



## missaf (Mar 24, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> You, sir, know NOTHING about penguins!




ROFL-- too funnay.


----------



## missaf (Mar 24, 2006)

Feminism is a crock to me. The more the modern feminist movement strikes out, the more damage they do to women of all ages and color. I am old fashioned and believe in monogamous marriage with the intent to serve each other. Leadership through service is an incredible thing, and when two people get together and serve each other, incredible things happen. If that same attitude can be perpetuated in polygamous relationships, more power to them, but that's just not my style.


----------



## Friday (Mar 24, 2006)

It's rather pathetic that in this day and age a person can be so ignorant of history and what they owe to whom. Any woman who doesn't realize that the choices available today are there in great part because of the women's movement just ain't to bright. No one ever said that women weren't strong until feminism came along, the race wouldn't have survived if they weren't. But if you have fingers and the sense to be able to count on them a simple peek at the statistics will tell you how times have changed. Do you think that women only just started waning to be doctors as well as nurses? Lawyers instead of secretaries? The boss instead of the receptionist?

If you don't like the need for abortion, then do something to stop unwanted pregnancies. If things are so damn equal, why is birth control still the woman's responsibility? Because the old boys don't want chemicals interfering with their precious and can't be bothered. But who pays when the man walks away? The mother and the child.

Don't kid yourself, you wouldn't own your home or have your job if women hadn't worked for change. And you still can't ride your bike alone at night in most of the areas a man can, can you?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 24, 2006)

missaf said:


> Feminism is a crock to me. The more the modern feminist movement strikes out, the more damage they do to women of all ages and color. I am old fashioned and believe in monogamous marriage with the intent to serve each other. Leadership through service is an incredible thing, and when two people get together and serve each other, incredible things happen. If that same attitude can be perpetuated in polygamous relationships, more power to them, but that's just not my style.




I agree with your comments about feminism, totally. And I recognize, fully, as Sadean said, that one can be a feminist and be pro-life. My MAJOR problem with feminism is their stand on abortion, but its not my ONLY opposition to them. I feel as you said, they have done major damage to women, but also to male-female relationships.

I have never identified with other women; since my teen years 99% of my close friends have been men. I just seem to hit it off better with them and always have. Being a tomboy helped I guess.  Because I have been close friends with guys, I tend to hear things from their side a lot....and I see the damage feminism has caused.

I also read a lot, and know that many women who at first thought feminism was a good thing, find in later years that it didn't give them the happiness they sought.

BTW to August Candy: I don't think you understand...my grandmother did not hold three jobs because she WANTED to...she HAD to work. My grandfather was disabled from WW One, and my grandmother was an immigrant Italian woman who did not have the luxury of choosing to work, or to fight for voting rights, etc. Immigrant women...usually very poor, HAD to work long before working outside the home became the pet cause of rich, white, WASP society women. Get it? My grandmother would have seen it as a luxury NOT to have to work...to stay home and take care of her children! Because of this, my father's generation came to see it as a sign of success when the man made enough money that his wife DID NOT HAVE TO WORK.

Immigrant women ALWAYS were 'working women', long before feminism latched onto it as a pet cause for the privileged rich WASP ladies.

Check out your history....*in 1911* the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory went up in flames due to shoddy work conditions and no fire escapes....hundreds of poor Italian and Jewish WOMEN AND GIRLS died. They were 'working outside the home' because they HAD TO.

FRIDAY: What job do you mean? I'm a homemaker and homeschooler. Are you saying I would not be able to be a homemaker without feminism? I doubt it.  As for riding my bike alone at night....no problem. I have a license to carry, and do so when I feel a need. They don't call it "the great equalizer" for no reason!


----------



## Egbert Souse (Mar 24, 2006)

......................


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Mar 24, 2006)

fatlane said:


> If I could get about 50 wives or so, I could make it work. Have to be sure to marry up with a wide variety of professionals, so as to cut costs within the meta-family.


Yeah! Like a matrimonial portfolio!

(Forgive me if someone's already made this joke. But life's too short to read six pages of Dim posts on polygamy. Or at least _Friday mornings_ are too short.)


----------



## Jane (Mar 24, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I don't need a movement to "allow" me to make my own choices. My father taught me how to do that, regardless of my gender. It was when I realized that I didnt need a movement of other women to hold my hand and "help" me do what I wanted to, that I truly felt liberated. I never needed them; I had it within me all along.


Many women needed help finding those choices, due to pressure. I, too, was blessed with parents who said I could be anything I wanted to be, and meant it.

I am a strong, determined woman, and I absolutely adore the 70 and 80 year old women I've met who stepped out of traditional roles to allow me the choices I have been fortunate enough to be able to make.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 24, 2006)

Look Ladies I don't feel we need to be jumping all over and/or condemning Fitchick simply because she doesn't agree with feminism. Ultimately Feminism was and is about giving women choices - one of those choices being to NOT agree with Feminism. 

Fitchick is allowed to feel how she feels.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 24, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Look Ladies I don't feel we need to be jumping all over and/or condemning Fitchick simply because she doesn't agree with feminism. Ultimately Feminism was and is about giving women choices - one of those choices being to NOT agree with Feminism.
> 
> Fitchick is allowed to feel how she feels.



Thank you for recognizing that!  One of my points was though, that I didn't need feminism to allow me to have those choices. I had a father who saw no difference between me and a son in terms of opportunities (that sometimes wasn't always good, but I am very happy with how he raised me.) My other point was that there were always strong women (Joan of Arc to use just one example)...they didnt have or need feminism to do what they wanted to do.


I wonder if we should start a separate topic about feminism, because this one has veered off from polygamy.

Getting back to polygamy, here is an interesting news item I saw that links women's rights with polygamy:

http://www.polygamy.com/Practical/Polygamy-Could-Help-Moms-Who-Work.htm

And here is a link to a website for feminist Mormon women who believe in polygamy:

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=503


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

Boteroesque Babe said:


> (Forgive me if someone's already made this joke. But life's too short to read six pages of Dim posts on polygamy. Or at least _Friday mornings_ are too short.)



Yeah, no kidding.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 24, 2006)

Ultimately it sounds like alot of people think differntly about femenism. (DUH lol) I don't see it as a movement i see it as a way of life. I don't think if your a homemaker, a lawyer, or even a hooker! and yes i said hooker you can't or arn't a femenist. I know women have had a bad rap when fighting against men because of some crazy people who called themselves femenist. Look at the movements in the 50's there were your calm leaders who tried to preach equality like King and then others who were compeletely against mixing and vowed that the black pupulation should fight back with pure anger an violence. I guess there will always be this disparity depending on where you are standing. 

Fitchik i was not tryint to "jump" on you. Your first statement did trully scare me. I will never know all the stigmata's you have attached to femenism. For me It is the belief in self worth. When you said how you looked down on it i heard "I look down on self worth and equality for women". And just like if i had heard a racial slur of any ethnicity i yelled NAY!.

I have never been to a femenist anything in my life but as a few of you have said my parents taught me self worth and when i went into the world outside of this teaching i saw that this self worth is not a message widely taught to women. So that is why i consider my self a femenist. and why i cannot wrap my mind around anyone ever wanting a particular race, religion and ethnicty to be oppressed.


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> I have never been to a femenist anything in my life but as a few of you have said my parents taught me self worth and when i went into the world outside of this teaching i saw that this self worth is not a message widely taught to women. So that is why i consider my self a femenist. and why i cannot wrap my mind around anyone ever wanting a particular race, religion and ethnicty to be oppressed.



I agree. It makes some feel secure to be oppressed in much the same way a baby likes to be swaddled. I consider that to be a personal problem and do not favor such people having a voice in womens' choices, frankly.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 24, 2006)

FitChick said:


> http://www.polygamy.com/Practical/Polygamy-Could-Help-Moms-Who-Work.htm



The Utah chapter. What a shock.

Families do have the ability to manage both responsibilities of home and work without extra spouses. Again, men are not helpless around the house. They do have the ability to vacuum and do household choses. 

"I have too much work to do. Instead of actually helping with the chores my husband told me he is going to marry a 12 year old and that will solve all our problems. He's not child molesting, he's getting me someone to help me around the house. How thoughtful."

Besides, women in the Polygamist culture are not allowed to work out of the house so it's a moot point.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 24, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> The Utah chapter. What a shock.
> 
> Families do have the ability to manage both responsibilities of home and work without extra spouses. Again, men are not helpless around the house. They do have the ability to vacuum and do household choses.
> 
> ...



Women in polygamy most certainly ARE "allowed" to work outside the home! Where did you ever get that idea? But you know, I know of many women in monogamist cultures (fundamentalist Baptists, etc) who are not allowed to work outside the home. Yet I'd never think to attribute that to their monogamy.

In fact, one of the earliest female polygamists was a physician and a legislator (long before feminism "gave" her that right, incidentally.)

read about Dr Martha Hughes Cannon here: http://www.autry-museum.org/explore/exhibits/suffrage/cannon_full.html Incidentally, she was also a suffragist and a very outspoken woman...yet she was a polygamist.


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

No one is attributing it to "monogamy" Anita.

And since you've posted that ridiculous link here, too, I'll bring my other post over here:

_Andrea Moore Emmett

A chilling indictment of contemporary fundamentalist polygamy, Andrea Moore Emmett's God's Brothel is the product of a decade of research and interviews. Revealing gruesome facts about bible-based polygamy through the voices of 18 women who escaped from 10 of the main religious groups and independent polygamous families, God's Brothel includes stories of rape, incest, and violencemaking this form of polygamy more akin to sexual slavery than to any quaint religious or lifestyle choice.

A prize-winning journalist and researcher for the two-hour documentary "Inside Polygamy," which aired on A&E and the BBC, Moore-Emmett is the recipient of five Utah Excellence in Journalism awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, including a 1st place Don Baker Investigative Reporting Award and a Leading Changes Award from the Utah Professional Chapter of Women in Communications. *Moore Emmett also serves as President of the Utah Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW)*. _


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 24, 2006)

Thank you for clearing that up Tina.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 24, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Women in polygamy most certainly ARE "allowed" to work outside the home! Where did you ever get that idea? But you know, I know of many women in monogamist cultures (fundamentalist Baptists, etc) who are not allowed to work outside the home. Yet I'd never think to attribute that to their monogamy.
> 
> In fact, one of the earliest female polygamists was a physician and a legislator (long before feminism "gave" her that right, incidentally.)
> 
> read about Dr Martha Hughes Cannon here: http://www.autry-museum.org/explore/exhibits/suffrage/cannon_full.html Incidentally, she was also a suffragist and a very outspoken woman...yet she was a polygamist.



Anita....who are these women that you know who are NOT ALLOWED to work outside the home? I know of several hundred couples (Baptist) that have made a CHOICE to have *one parent *or the other stay at home with the children. It's not always been the woman! The first time my spouse told me I wasn't ALLOWED to do something; would be the last time!

That is not based on religion; that's based on some bassackward people!


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

My pleasure, Jack.

And Red, I would think that Mr. Selleck would know better than to either order you, or graciously "allow" you to do something. He might find some vital parts missing...   

Personally, I think good, _healthy_ relationships are based upon mutual respect for not only each other's attributes, humanity and right to exist, but also for each other's agency. I find anything less to be dysfunctional.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 24, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Anita....who are these women that you know who are NOT ALLOWED to work outside the home? I know of several hundred couples (Baptist) that have made a CHOICE to have *one parent *or the other stay at home with the children. It's not always been the woman! The first time my spouse told me I wasn't ALLOWED to do something; would be the last time!
> 
> That is not based on religion; that's based on some bassackward people!


 
Well I can give you an example. My father's sisters my three Aunts. They are all devout Baptists and would not do ANYTHING without their husbands permission. None of them worked outside the home. They all NEVER cut their hair. They all ALWAYS wore dresses. And they all OBEYED their husbands wishes. 

They are all still alive - and all still this way. Believing this is the way a woman is supposed to be. This is voluntary behavior on their parts. It's more common than you know in Fundamentalist religions.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 24, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Well I can give you an example. My father's sisters my three Aunts. They are all devout Baptists and would not do ANYTHING without their husbands permission. None of them worked outside the home. They all NEVER cut their hair. They all ALWAYS wore dresses. And they all OBEYED their husbands wishes.
> 
> They are all still alive - and all still this way. Believing this is the way a woman is supposed to be. This is voluntary behavior on their parts. It's more common than you know in Fundamentalist religions.




Its true. There are MANY fundamentalist religions that are like that, and they're not all Christian, either.

BTW I never cut my hair, I wear long dresses, and I don't work outside the home (unless you count occasional freelance articles.) And I don't obey my husband's wishes unless its a) in the bedroom and b) something kinky.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 24, 2006)

Tina said:


> No one is attributing it to "monogamy" Anita.
> 
> And since you've posted that ridiculous link here, too, I'll bring my other post over here:
> 
> ...



Do you grasp the difference between polygamy AS MISUSED BY CULTS, and polygamy when practiced morally and properly?

Mixing the two is like saying that Hare Krsna and Moonie monogamous marriages are identical to "normal" Western marriages.


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

No, but most are. In the western world, polygamy is almost exclusively fundamentalist Christian or an offshot of Mormonism (the Mormon church officially denounces the practice as no longer necessary). And most are based upon the domination of women and elevation of the man who 'owns' multiple wives, particularly the Islamic form. It all revolves around issues of male control and dominance.


----------



## Tina (Mar 24, 2006)

There is no "moral" polygamy, IMO, if it involves control and dominance issues, and it usually does.

You have some women who are fine with being constrained in life. Great for them (*ptooey!*). But there are also women who stay in abusive relationships and claim to love their partner and will not leave or press charges. There are all kinds of mental illnesses and abberations, and this is one of them, IMO.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 24, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Its true. There are MANY fundamentalist religions that are like that, and they're not all Christian, either.
> 
> BTW I never cut my hair, I wear long dresses, and I don't work outside the home (unless you count occasional freelance articles.) And I don't obey my husband's wishes unless its a) in the bedroom and b) something kinky.




You stated in another thread that you worked as a police officer? Huh???


----------



## RedHead (Mar 24, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Well I can give you an example. My father's sisters my three Aunts. They are all devout Baptists and would not do ANYTHING without their husbands permission. None of them worked outside the home. They all NEVER cut their hair. They all ALWAYS wore dresses. And they all OBEYED their husbands wishes.
> 
> They are all still alive - and all still this way. Believing this is the way a woman is supposed to be. This is voluntary behavior on their parts. It's more common than you know in Fundamentalist religions.



But my point was that it's not the NORM; it's the exception! It is not part of the Church...it's some weirdo's interpretation of what the bible says. It's also abuse IMHO. The Soutuhern Baptists, and other "Baptists'" religion's that I'm familiar with would not support ANY oppression of a woman.

I do have to say...when it comes to important decisions I don't make them without my husband either. 

Working outside the home could be a choice because they wanted to raise their children that particular way or perhaps it was that they didn't need two incomes.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 24, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> You, sir, know NOTHING about penguins!



I know they can fly. I saw them do it on _The Simpsons_.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 24, 2006)

It's just good manners/ethics to ask/inform your S/O before you make a big decision, like making a major purchase or quitting your job.

However, show me polygamy where there aren't issues of power, moreso than in your typical monogamous relationship. I'm willing to look at anything.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 24, 2006)

Ryan said:


> I know they can fly. I saw them do it on _The Simpsons_.



I'm sorry. If you're getting your information from _The Simpsons_, you obviously know your stuff.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 24, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> It's just good manners/ethics to ask/inform your S/O before you make a big decision, like making a major purchase or quitting your job.
> 
> However, show me polygamy where there aren't issues of power, moreso than in your typical monogamous relationship. I'm willing to look at anything.



Tom would let us totally rule! He would let us pretty much do whatever we wanted to! But as before; he gets to film:shocked:


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 24, 2006)

RedHead said:


> But my point was that it's not the NORM; it's the exception! It is not part of the Church...it's some weirdo's interpretation of what the bible says. It's also abuse IMHO. The Soutuhern Baptists, and other "Baptists'" religion's that I'm familiar with would not support ANY oppression of a woman.
> 
> I do have to say...when it comes to important decisions I don't make them without my husband either.
> 
> Working outside the home could be a choice because they wanted to raise their children that particular way or perhaps it was that they didn't need two incomes.



Yep. Not long ago someone posted a marriage contract that was on the Smoking Gun. This guy wanted his wife to do all kinds of crazyass things, including wearing thongs only, shave her legs every other day, be available for sex during certain hours, etc. Now I believe this was a Christian guy, but do I think this reflects all Christians? Hardly. (And I oughta know. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian. Hard to believe, but true...) Just because some fruitcake (mis)interprets the Bible doesn't mean that they can speak for the larger majority of that group. 

As for making important decisions when you're part of a couple, I think it's extremely irresponsible and unbelievably rude for either partner to make an important decision without the other. That's not, to me anyway, a power or control issue. It's a courtesy, since the partner is also financially responsible for any transactions made during the marriage. 

OTOH, one of the reasons I left the church I belonged to is that I felt that I was being encouraged to be "less than" what I was. In my church, we were not allowed to date outside our faith and women were expected to give up control to their husbands. My problem with that is that I'm so much of a control freak -- and I have a big mouth, and I was dating outside my faith -- that it just didn't work for me anymore. It wasn't the sole reason for my defecting to eclectic paganism, but it was part of it.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 25, 2006)

RedHead said:


> But my point was that it's not the NORM; it's the exception! It is not part of the Church...it's some weirdo's interpretation of what the bible says. It's also abuse IMHO. The Soutuhern Baptists, and other "Baptists'" religion's that I'm familiar with would not support ANY oppression of a woman.
> 
> I do have to say...when it comes to important decisions I don't make them without my husband either.
> 
> Working outside the home could be a choice because they wanted to raise their children that particular way or perhaps it was that they didn't need two incomes.




Ok..time for my two cents. I live in the Bible belt..the Southern Baptist Bible Belt to be exact and they do believe that the wife is supposed to obey her husband. Now, I'm not saying they all practice it, but devout, die-hard Baptists do because it says to do so in the Bible.

Am I completely for it? Well no, cause I was raised by a single mother and she's made me fiercely independent.

As far as recognizing the practice as "oppression to women," it's simply not recognized as that. A woman's place is 2 steps behind her husband. He is to make all the decisions and be the leader of the household. I just heard a sermon to this fact last weekend when I happened to visit a The First Baptist Church here last weekend.

Ok, now for making sense..it's late, I'm tired..lol.

Just because you don't agree with a religion or how it's practiced doesn't automatically make it immoral. I don't necessarily agree with many faiths and how they practice, but it's not my place to judge. Because, when I get to the Pearly Gates, I'm going to be right in line with them.

Redhead, just wanted to point out this isn't directed at you..I'm very lazy tonight and quoted you for the first part and don't feel like quoting anyone else tonight


----------



## BBWMoon (Mar 25, 2006)

Tina said:


> No, but most are. In the western world, polygamy is almost exclusively fundamentalist Christian or an offshot of Mormonism (the Mormon church officially denounces the practice as no longer necessary). And most are based upon the domination of women and elevation of the man who 'owns' multiple wives, particularly the Islamic form. It all revolves around issues of male control and dominance.




Wow, Tina...

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. My Mom (lives in Ca.) found herself involved in a what she thought of as a "Really Wonderful" non denominational religious group. The more she spoke about it and became involved, the more I googled. 

Of course, she's an Adult... and obviously was making her own decisions, but the more she told me what was going on, the more I became concerned. I kept going back to the internet and finding the reasonable similarities of a "Christian Fundamentalist". I finally left her a message on her voice mail, telling her facts. (Not accusing, just pointing out a few concerns).

She responded, and said that she would keep her mind open to my concerns. A few months passed, when she finally told me that she expressed her concerns to a few people in the Church and was surprised and not happy with the results. So much so, that she's no longer involved with this group.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 25, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> Ok..time for my two cents. I live in the Bible belt..the Southern Baptist Bible Belt to be exact and they do believe that the wife is supposed to obey her husband. Now, I'm not saying they all practice it, but devout, die-hard Baptists do because it says to do so in the Bible.
> 
> Am I completely for it? Well no, cause I was raised by a single mother and she's made me fiercely independent.
> 
> ...



IMO - MisticalMisty, you don't have to disagree with abuse to know its wrong. Any place where women are not given equal rights is not a good place. We are human beings lol we are not perfect we do not always make good descisions that is why it is (duh) extremly important for males/females to control themselves and not others. I for one consider my self openmined but when i hear that a women's "place" is behind a man i know that whomever is preaching it is opening a breeding ground for abuse/neglect. If men were gods and gave perfect justice then we wouldn't be having this argument. But they, just like women arn't. Men in any religion shouldn't have devine intervention just because they stands up when they pee.

That said I love my fellow brothers and sisters of all races and religions and really truly hope we are on the right path to realizing we should be equal in life and religion.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 25, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> Ok..time for my two cents. I live in the Bible belt..the Southern Baptist Bible Belt to be exact and they do believe that the wife is supposed to obey her husband. Now, I'm not saying they all practice it, but devout, die-hard Baptists do because it says to do so in the Bible.
> 
> Am I completely for it? Well no, cause I was raised by a single mother and she's made me fiercely independent.
> 
> ...



Misty...you quoted me...how could I not be honored. 

I just think that a lot of the interpretation that is made is of course done by "man" and I don't think they are really making the point GOD wanted made! The Pastor's that I know (largest congregation in the State of Alaska 3000 people) would never, ever condone a husband telling his wife that! BTW...they are very Baptist...Jerry Falwell friends and such.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Mar 25, 2006)

fatlane said:


> In regards to my 50+ scenario, I have the following replies:
> 
> 1. I leave the seat down, anyway. It is common courtesy and all young men should be taught that's where to leave the seat on a private toilet.
> 
> ...



One question, FLO...

What does your current wife think about this idea??


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Mar 25, 2006)

I truely believe in equal rights for women, and I believe in alot of the Feminism ideas. 

However, I also see that alot of the religions are against feminism, and equal rights for women. I agree that it is wrong that women, have to choose between their religion and their right to be equal.

To some women, it's a decision between being equal and going to hell or being unequal and going to heaven! And, there is where we run into trouble.


----------



## missaf (Mar 25, 2006)

To me feminism and equal rights are two entirely different beasts. I am proud of our ancestors, and proud of the women in my family who paved the way for the greater successes of all us girls-- and in my Mexican family, there are lots of girls! There were many firsts with the women in my family, and many firsts in my family outright, and I respect and thank them for that.

However, the new wave of feminism is a different animal. In treading deeper into their territory, I find that movement is threatening to the relations between men and women on every level, and does not permit each sex to stand on its own merits, rather polluting and making mud of the waters that should remain pure. Men and women each have their unique biological traits in how we're wired, I feel I do myself a better service embracing those traits and the relationships I have are more grounded in the complimentary aspects of differences rather than one person having to assert themselves over another.

YMMV, but this is what works for me.


----------



## Tina (Mar 25, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> As far as recognizing the practice as "oppression to women," it's simply not recognized as that. A woman's place is 2 steps behind her husband. He is to make all the decisions and be the leader of the household. I just heard a sermon to this fact last weekend when I happened to visit a The First Baptist Church here last weekend.
> 
> Ok, now for making sense..it's late, I'm tired..lol.
> 
> Just because you don't agree with a religion or how it's practiced doesn't automatically make it immoral. I don't necessarily agree with many faiths and how they practice, but it's not my place to judge. Because, when I get to the Pearly Gates, I'm going to be right in line with them.



Of course they don't recognize it as that; to them it's how things should be.

And I can certainly judge what is right for me, and what I think is right for women overall. I don't get to make the decisions for other women, but I can certinaly decide what I will support, not support and put my time towards, just as anyone else can.

Allie, those fundie cults and churches that practice control are scary, really. I've known too many women IRO and particularly online who have been involved and it has scarred them for life. And it happens in every state. I'm sure glad your mother kept her eyes open.



EtobicokeFA said:


> However, I also see that alot of the religions are against feminism, and equal rights for women. I agree that it is wrong that women, have to choose between their religion and their right to be equal.
> 
> To some women, it's a decision between being equal and going to hell or being unequal and going to heaven! And, there is where we run into trouble.



And you know, for a lot of the women I've known online and IRL, it wasn't even consciously about being feminist or being equal, it was about not being tread on. It was about not being under the thumb of their husbands. I was about not being verbally and/or physically abused and then going to their pastor and being told to just stay there and obey their husband -- and I'm not talking fundie cults here but Christian churches, and many local.

Most religions do not want to recognize any sort of equality for women because then that would topple the male from being the head of the household and upset the status quo. This is why feminism threatens them, and why Jerry Falwell and his ilk are so afraid of feminism. Frankly, over the years, as I've said before, I have known hundreds of feminists, and posted with thousands, as well as running an online feminist magazine that published articles from around the globe, and any sort of man-hating was and is rare. Most of the women are in relationships -- and most with men (the image of feminists as lesbians is a naughty dream of too many people like Rush and Falwell). Most are not looking to rule their husbands, but are aware of inequities in society and in their relationships, and seek to find ways to even things out. This is what I support. I'm no man-hater, having grown up with guys as a teen -- having many more male friends than female, and still having male friends today. Also, my son always had friends at the house as it was the "hangout," and I helped to watch over a number of teen boys whose families were splintered and whose homes were dysfunctional. This certainly does not equal a hatred of males. 

I have no more love for females than males, but if given a choice whether going to a female or male in a male-dominated field I will always choose the woman as a way to even things out in that area. And until there is more parity -- until there is less of a movement for women to be the "helpmates" of man while he runs things up there on that controling pedestal, I will continue to believe as I do and work for change. And that's just this country. I'm not even talking about countries where a man and a woman have an affair and the man is slapped on the hand but the woman is stoned to death.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 25, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Misty...you quoted me...how could I not be honored.
> 
> I just think that a lot of the interpretation that is made is of course done by "man" and I don't think they are really making the point GOD wanted made! The Pastor's that I know (largest congregation in the State of Alaska 3000 people) would never, ever condone a husband telling his wife that! BTW...they are very Baptist...Jerry Falwell friends and such.




The whole Bible has been interpretated by Man. That is why, I don't always take everything said at face value. For example, homosexuality is considered immoral and it is a sin. Well, having a gay friend, he and I have had many conversations in regards to religion and his sexuality. He told me one day, and this really struck a chord with me, "Why, would I choose to be something that makes everyday of my life a living hell? Why, would I willingly submit myself to this lifestyle?"

He knows he was born a homosexual. He has had tendancies since 8 years old. I'm not saying all this to start a nature vs. nuture debate on sexuality. I'm just saying that the Bible states its a sin, but yet my friend was hardwired to be homosexual. It really hit me and just solidified my belief that God doesn't make mistakes. Man does and since man is the main source of what is written in the Bible, I believe most of it, but not all.

As far as the point God wanted made, that varies by religion. Some baptist believe it's a sin to dance or drink alcohol etc. Some baptists have no problems with their congregation engaging in such acts.

Some church of Christ believers feel that they should not wear make up, or do anything that draws attention to their selves. Again, like the baptists, some of them believe that it's a sin to listen to music or dance etc. I know several friends that are c o C and they don't even sing with music during their church services.

The whole premise behind religion is that every denomination or faith has a different interpretation of what the Bible states and how they feel they should serve God. That is why it's a person's own responsibility to find a religion they agree with and practice the faith they find fitting for them.

I'm by no means for polgamy..and I'm also not against feminism. I'm all for choices. As of right now, I choose to be spirtual and not religious because I have had too many runins with hypocritcal, self-proclaimed great Christian people at work and it has totally turned me off of organized religion.

We live in a society that is very judgemental. Look how much oppression fat people in general have faced because how we are judged by society. The first amendment gives every person in America the freedom to practice religion as they believe without interference. I think it's our duty, as humans, belivers or not, to let people practice their faith as they see fit. If you don't agree, distance yourself from the situation and hold on tight to your personal beliefs and practices and mind your own business.


----------



## Tina (Mar 25, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> I'm by no means for polgamy..and I'm also not against feminism. I'm all for choices. As of right now, I choose to be spirtual and not religious because I have had too many runins with hypocritcal, self-proclaimed great Christian people at work and it has totally turned me off of organized religion.



That has been my experience, too. And not just Christians. I was even Buddhist for a while, and while I will say it was an improvement over the many denominations I had belonged to and/or investigated, it still had the same power structure, and other problems that eventually lead me to decide to go it on my own.



MisticalMisty said:


> We live in a society that is very judgemental. Look how much oppression fat people in general have faced because how we are judged by society. The first amendment gives every person in America the freedom to practice religion as they believe without interference. I think it's our duty, as humans, belivers or not, to let people practice their faith as they see fit. If you don't agree, distance yourself from the situation and hold on tight to your personal beliefs and practices and mind your own business.



Yes, unless it goes beyond the individual's space and into my own. I have no desire to live under a theocracy or be personally affected by others' religious beliefs.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

RedHead said:


> You stated in another thread that you worked as a police officer? Huh???



Yes, I did...many years ago in my early 20s. What's that have to do with what I said?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> I truely believe in equal rights for women, and I believe in alot of the Feminism ideas.
> 
> However, I also see that alot of the religions are against feminism, and equal rights for women. I agree that it is wrong that women, have to choose between their religion and their right to be equal.
> 
> To some women, it's a decision between being equal and going to hell or being unequal and going to heaven! And, there is where we run into trouble.




In my religion, Judaism, it is recognized that men and women have differing ROLES. I accept these differing roles. To outsiders and those ignorant of Jewish teaching, it LOOKS like women are treated as unequal. But when you study the rationale for it, you see that it is quite the opposite. I'll give just one example:

In traditional Judaism, only men are counted in the minyan, which is the number of men needed for public prayer (10). Many who are ignorant of Jewish teaching see this as discriminating against women, but its quite the opposite.

The reason WHY only men are needed stems from ancient times, with the sending of ten spies into Canaan when G-d was giving the Land to the Jewish people. One male spy was chosen from each of the 12 tribes. Ten came back with bad reports of how the Land was, only 2 men came back with good reports. The WOMEN chose to believe the two who came back with GOOD reports; the MEN chose to believe the BAD reports of the other ten men.

To punish the MEN for not trusting in G-d and believing in His goodness to them in giving them the Land (despite the negativity of the ten male spies), it was decreed that from then forward, whenever Jewish MEN wanted to hold public prayer, they MUST gather TEN MEN (to atone for the sin of the ten male spies) before they can pray.

Jewish women, on the other hand, can pray anytime and anyplace we want. We don't need to get nine other women because we did not sin in not trusting in G-d. 

I was raised a religious (Orthodox) Jew...I got away from it in my late teens and rebelled....did all kinds of things "in the world"...but in my later years, esp. after I had children, I returned to it...and I have discovered that its where I truly belonged all along. Its given me an inner peace, religiously, that the world never gave me. And once I came to understand the WHYS of the differences between the genders, I had no problem with it, in fact, understanding the differences made me for the first time, proud to be a woman. Amazing that a so-called "male dominated religion" was what gave me the pride in my femaleness that feminism never could. All feminism did was make me feel angry, as if by being born female I was somehow 'cheated'.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Well, feminism didn't make you feel any way. You did that. Also, your religion is part of the world. You still don't seem really at peace, but I don't blame that on any ideology.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

It's too bad you felt cheated by being born a female, Anita. As Sadeian said, it wasn't feminism that made you feel that way -- you *chose* to feel that way. I love being a woman (well, except sometimes one or two days a month...  ) and don't feel cheated by it. That doesn't mean there aren't inequities, but I'd rather be a woman than a man, even through it all. So don't blame feminism for that one.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Yes, I did...many years ago in my early 20s. What's that have to do with what I said?



You said you never worked...that was my point. You said you never had "feminists" help you; who do you think paved the way for women to be ALLOWED to be officers? It wasn't your dad and it wasn't your charming personality that suddenly overwhelmed them at the interview!

It was the blood, sweat and tears of the women who campaigned and lobbied for you to have the right to be a police officer!

Tina & SL....exactly; we choose to FEEL the way we do. It's actually a sad testament to your upbringing Anita if you were made to feel angry and ashamed of being a woman.

I LOVE BEING A WOMEN!


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

How quickly they forget, eh?

Used to be that the only proper careers for women, if they could work at all, were as secretaries, librarians, and the like. And forget going to school. Only the priviledged could go, if they were lucky. Thank God things have changed; and they changed due to a strong group of women who made those changes because they wanted better for their daughters, granddaughters, and the women who came after them.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> How quickly they forget, eh?
> 
> Used to be that the only proper careers for women, if they could work at all, were as secretaries, librarians, and the like. And forget going to school. Only the priviledged could go, if they were lucky. Thank God things have changed; and they changed due to a strong group of women who made those changes because they wanted better for their daughters, granddaughters, and the women who came after them.



Preach on Sister; say it again AMEN!


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Heh. 

And even if Anita comes back and says she didn't like it, the fact is, she still had the opportunity to try it and find out whether she liked it or not.

I wonder how many women who have such opinions would fight *for* rights if they were consistently told they couldn't do this or that? It's so much easier to criticize once we have those rights than it is to really look back and try to see just how it was years ago and then appreciate what we have. And work for more.


----------



## Jane (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> How quickly they forget, eh?
> 
> Used to be that the only proper careers for women, if they could work at all, were as secretaries, librarians, and the like. And forget going to school. Only the priviledged could go, if they were lucky. Thank God things have changed; and they changed due to a strong group of women who made those changes because they wanted better for their daughters, granddaughters, and the women who came after them.


I'd rep you again if I could. Somebody do it for me.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Jane said:


> I'd rep you again if I could. Somebody do it for me.



Got it!


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> It's too bad you felt cheated by being born a female, Anita. As Sadeian said, it wasn't feminism that made you feel that way -- you *chose* to feel that way. I love being a woman (well, except sometimes one or two days a month...  ) and don't feel cheated by it. That doesn't mean there aren't inequities, but I'd rather be a woman than a man, even through it all. So don't blame feminism for that one.




My experiences with other women was what made me dislike being female, for the most part. Very few women have I hit it off with, friendship-wise. I find the women I did and do get along with are either lesbians or tomboys. The traditional females (irony of ironies) and I don't last as friends. I have male friends I have been very good buddies with for going on 30 years...but female friends barely last a few months. As soon as they start with all the cattiness and diet talk and makeup talk and male-bashing talk, is when they lose my interest. Which is WHY I could never be a polygamist because it would mean having to live with other women.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> My experiences with other women was what made me dislike being female, for the most part. Very few women have I hit it off with, friendship-wise. I find the women I did and do get along with are either lesbians or tomboys. The traditional females (irony of ironies) and I don't last as friends. I have male friends I have been very good buddies with for going on 30 years...but female friends barely last a few months. As soon as they start with all the cattiness and diet talk and makeup talk and male-bashing talk, is when they lose my interest. Which is WHY I could never be a polygamist because it would mean having to live with other women.



That's really unfortunate. You know, I work with women, on women, around women and I understand what you're saying. There can be a LOT of game playing and nastiness, which I hate. But there can also be a lot of warmth and support. For instance, I've never felt so loved and supported (at a great distance!) as I have by Tina. I feel so blessed to have her in my life. But she goes beyond being my "buddy". She's my soul sister (as weird as that sounds, it's true). And never once have Tina and I discussed make up, or bashed men, or discussed diets really. We've supported each other's desires to improve our health, but that's hardly diet talk. Recently, Redhead and I have become acquainted and we've spent HOURS over coffee and lunch, and... no surprise... no male bashing, no diet talk, just lots of loving support and getting to know each other. 

Sure, it's easy to be "buddies" with guys, but I think there is nothing like deep, female friendships to warm the heart. But it takes work to cultivate those friendships. It requires time, understanding, a willingness to work at it, and an open heart. It doesn't happen by itself. I've lost female friends because they weren't willing to put the work into the friendship, and while that makes me sad, it also makes me appreciate all the more the very special women in my life.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

I wouldn't know, since the few friendships I attempted with "regular" hetero females didn't last long.

One of them tried to take my husband away from me....another backstabbed me....for some reason, my male friends, as well as my lesbian friends, never did any of that to me. I have male friends that I've had for going on 30 years that never betrayed a secret, never turned against me...I can't say the same for females. In fact I was betrayed by the ORIGINAL female in my life: my mother. When I told her that her brother (my uncle) had tried to molest me, she refused to believe it. The task of protecting me fell to my father, who made sure I'd never have to be around that man again. What was my mother's response? "But who are we going to get to babysit for us NOW???" Some parent...some woman....some protector, eh?

I'm really happier this way, because if I'd stuck it out with females, I'd have been hurt much, much more. I also think if I'd stuck it out with traditional females, I may have adopted their body self hatred attitudes and the like. I attribute my confidence and good body image to my male friends and my father, both of whom told me that the only person whose opinion about me that I should care about is my OWN. I only wish I'd had male friends to tell me that when I was a skinny kid, getting picked on for being "too thin".


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Whatever. Your loss. Especially as a bisexual woman, you'd think you would enjoy relationships with women. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Whatever. Your loss. Especially as a bisexual woman, you'd think you would enjoy relationships with women. But maybe I'm misunderstanding something.



I'm physically attracted to some women, but that's as far as it ever went. I could never have a RELATIONSHIP with a woman, for the same reason I couldnt be a polygamist....both would entail living with a woman in close quarters.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I wouldn't know, since the few friendships I attempted with "regular" hetero females didn't last long.
> 
> One of them tried to take my husband away from me....another backstabbed me....for some reason, my male friends, as well as my lesbian friends, never did any of that to me. I have male friends that I've had for going on 30 years that never betrayed a secret, never turned against me...I can't say the same for females. In fact I was betrayed by the ORIGINAL female in my life: my mother. When I told her that her brother (my uncle) had tried to molest me, she refused to believe it. The task of protecting me fell to my father, who made sure I'd never have to be around that man again. What was my mother's response? "But who are we going to get to babysit for us NOW???" Some parent...some woman....some protector, eh?
> 
> I'm really happier this way, because if I'd stuck it out with females, I'd have been hurt much, much more. I also think if I'd stuck it out with traditional females, I may have adopted their body self hatred attitudes and the like. I attribute my confidence and good body image to my male friends and my father, both of whom told me that the only person whose opinion about me that I should care about is my OWN. I only wish I'd had male friends to tell me that when I was a skinny kid, getting picked on for being "too thin".



Anita...I am truly sad for you. On one hand you claim to be a conservative Jewish woman. Then on the next hand we hear how you have all these male & lesbian friends. As a Jewish MARRIED woman you are not allowed to have men as friends & I'm pretty sure they still don't look favorably on same sex relationships (Leviticus)

Also, life is full of pain...both of other peoples making and our own! How can you paint your whole life with the betrayal of ONE WOMAN. My heart goes out to you for this betrayal. But you are old enough now to know that what she did was wrong. Ultimately we are all very selfish creatures...I'm not saying what she did was right; but maybe she just couldn't handle hearing the truth....There are a lot of people who just can't handle hearing things like that; and withdraw into "Fairy Tale Land" until they can put into the deep dark recesses of their mind. Do you need to say it was OKAY what she did? ABSOLUTELY NOT....it was not okay. But do you need to forgive her and move on..yes.


I have been deeply wounded by women & men. I have literally been shunned by someone I considered closer than a sister when I didn't do something she thought I should.

But the prize is always worth the pain; women are wonderful, lovely creatures. We are the nurturers, the care givers...the women I have allowed into my life are a wonderful eclectic mix of personalities. Each one fulfills something in me; that I don't get from the other. When we are all together it's incredible.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I'm physically attracted to some women, but that's as far as it ever went. I could never have a RELATIONSHIP with a woman, for the same reason I couldnt be a polygamist....both would entail living with a woman in close quarters.



See now, this is where we differ. Part of my physical attraction to women is the emotional connection we have, as women. Which is why girl-girl porn leaves me cold. I could never be intimate with a woman I didn't like a whole lot; OTOH, I haven't had good luck with guys on that front, either.  And, given the whole dramatics of open marriages, that's one of the reason I haven't gone that route in many, many years. Not because I don't like women, but because the drama and angst (and I'm talking about MY drama and angst) just doesn't make it worth it.

But that doesn't mean I don't value my close friendships with women, because I do. But like I said, it takes an open heart and a commitment to the friendship. Without that, people are bound to get hurt.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I wouldn't know, since the few friendships I attempted with "regular" hetero females didn't last long.
> 
> One of them tried to take my husband away from me....another backstabbed me....for some reason, my male friends, as well as my lesbian friends, never did any of that to me. I have male friends that I've had for going on 30 years that never betrayed a secret, never turned against me...I can't say the same for females. In fact I was betrayed by the ORIGINAL female in my life: my mother. When I told her that her brother (my uncle) had tried to molest me, she refused to believe it. The task of protecting me fell to my father, who made sure I'd never have to be around that man again. What was my mother's response? "But who are we going to get to babysit for us NOW???" Some parent...some woman....some protector, eh?
> 
> I'm really happier this way, because if I'd stuck it out with females, I'd have been hurt much, much more. I also think if I'd stuck it out with traditional females, I may have adopted their body self hatred attitudes and the like. I attribute my confidence and good body image to my male friends and my father, both of whom told me that the only person whose opinion about me that I should care about is my OWN. I only wish I'd had male friends to tell me that when I was a skinny kid, getting picked on for being "too thin".



Well, okay. I have lots of female friends, and when I've been in a hetero relationship, they usually abstain from trying to "steal" my boyfriend. (And the ones I've had, I probably wouldn't have minded losing.  )

My dad was a rotten parent in many regards. He certainly wasn't responsible for my "good body image." When I was supposedly chubby at 10, he forced me to start long distance running. He called me absolutely horrible names. I was never good enough. I developed an eating disorder. At one point my hair was falling out and I required a feeding tube. And do you know what he said? That he hated me for what I was doing to my family. That I was doing this for attention. That I would have been better off dead. He attempted force-feeding me at several points. He was angry enough to beat me pretty badly at several points. (I realize a family member's mental illness causes crazy stress, but still...) My toenails fell off from excessive running while training from a marathon after my first "recovery." He yelled at me for quitting the marathon training. 

My dad's a very unhappy and sick person, and I don't hate him. I also don't hate all men. I didn't have anything to do with my parents for a year. I've just moved back in to save money, but they KNOW I'm here on trial basis. I clarified with Dad I won't put up with 20 seconds of shit. I'm here also to fix what I never had with my dad. And maybe this is as good as it gets. And that's okay. I don't hate him. I couldn't do that. He's now permanently disabled. He's still my dad and I hate that he's suffering. I've still driven him to doctors' appointments and cared for him. And that IS what feminism is about to me: The ability to be nurturing and loving no matter how badly hurt you are, the ability to maintain your womanhood.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

RedHead, There is NOTHING in Jewish law that says married women cannot be friends with men. I'm not shocked you were misinformed on that, since you were evidently misinformed about the true status of children of converts.

The only thing Jewish law says is that married women cannot be in the same room alone with other men, unless the door is open (this stems from laws of tzniut-modesty.) I know MANY religious Jewish married women who have male friends; they just don't spend time alone in a room with them!

BTW just to correct something else you said that some may misconstrue: I do not belong to either the "reform" or "conservative" movements within modern Judaism....I belong to an Orthodox synagogue and am active in Orthodox organizations. That is my only involvement. I have never even seen the inside of the non-Orthodox synagogues. When you referred to me as "conservative" I assume you really meant POLITICALLY?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Well, okay. I have lots of female friends, and when I've been in a hetero relationship, they usually abstain from trying to "steal" my boyfriend. (And the ones I've had, I probably wouldn't have minded losing.  )
> 
> My dad was a rotten parent in many regards. He certainly wasn't responsible for my "good body image." When I was supposedly chubby at 10, he forced me to start long distance running. He called me absolutely horrible names. I was never good enough. I developed an eating disorder. At one point my hair was falling out and I required a feeding tube. And do you know what he said? That he hated me for what I was doing to my family. That I was doing this for attention. That I would have been better off dead. He attempted force-feeding me at several points. He was angry enough to beat me pretty badly at several points. (I realize a family member's mental illness causes crazy stress, but still...) My toenails fell off from excessive running while training from a marathon after my first "recovery." He yelled at me for quitting the marathon training.
> 
> My dad's a very unhappy and sick person, and I don't hate him. I also don't hate all men. I didn't have anything to do with my parents for a year. I've just moved back in to save money, but they KNOW I'm here on trial basis. I clarified with Dad I won't put up with 20 seconds of shit. I'm here also to fix what I never had with my dad. And maybe this is as good as it gets. And that's okay. I don't hate him. I couldn't do that. He's now permanently disabled. He's still my dad and I hate that he's suffering. I've still driven him to doctors' appointments and cared for him. And that IS what feminism is about to me: The ability to be nurturing and loving no matter how badly hurt you are, the ability to maintain your womanhood.



I just want to say what a remarkable woman I think you are. You have more wisdom and grace at your still-tender age, than many women who are twice your age. I never cease to be amazed at what you've accomplished, and as I learn more about your background, I'm even more amazed.

Your parents should be mighty proud of you.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

I will second what Vickie said SL...you are an old soul!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Thanks, Vickie and Red. I feel the same about you.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Thanks, Vickie and Red. I feel the same about you.



Yeah, but Redhead and I are truly *old.*  But thanks. I just can't get over how life-smart you are. Where'd you get all that from anyway? And can you bottle it? I can think of about a half a dozen people who could use some of that. :doh:


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> My experiences with other women was what made me dislike being female, for the most part. Very few women have I hit it off with, friendship-wise. I find the women I did and do get along with are either lesbians or tomboys. The traditional females (irony of ironies) and I don't last as friends. I have male friends I have been very good buddies with for going on 30 years...but female friends barely last a few months. As soon as they start with all the cattiness and diet talk and makeup talk and male-bashing talk, is when they lose my interest. Which is WHY I could never be a polygamist because it would mean having to live with other women.



I grew up with guys, feeling much as you did as a teenager. But as I grew older, the closest friendships are almost exclusively with women. It totally has to do with who you choose as friends, and if your 'picker' is off, no one can change that but you. I think it's sad that you're missing out on the closeness and sisterhood that I have found with a wonderful group of women -- some who post here. It is incomparable and precious. I think we not only see what we want to see, but we also reap what we sow. I don't say this to be mean, but much of what you post about your problems with women and feminism seem to stem from your unfortunate past. These are things that you can work on, but if you have a pattern of picking women that will allow you to work out your relationships with your mother, you will continue to choose the wrong female friends. If you have unsatisfying relationships with women, the place to look is inwards and start choosing friends from a place different from the past, which is what it sounds like is happening, given the cause and effect connections you've been making in these threads.

And Sadeian, you are a remarkable, brilliant young woman. Rising above one's past to make something better out of it than it was is, in my opinion, the very best way to not only put those issues to rest, but also to make a silk purse from the proverbial sow's ear. You rock, my dear. :wubu:


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

And thanks y'all (and you know who you are) for the buttloads of rep (and Jane for the rep you tried to send my way) and wonderful comments. :kiss2:


----------



## Aliena (Mar 26, 2006)

SadienLinguist, I (once again) tried to give you some rep points, but this damn counter-thingy wouldn't let me. It said I needed to spread the love around first. 

I enjoy reading your posts and like, Redhead, Vickie, and Tina (and the other lovely ladies here, who thought the same things they wrote, but didn't write) I admire your strength, courage, and articulation. You are witty, smart and straight to the point kinda person; something I love reading. 

Ok seriously, it takes a special person to take their abuser and treat them with the respect and dignity they wish they'd have been given. You're right, it is a true feminist that can still be a woman, nurture and love in the midst of her pain. Bravo to you dahling--I'm in awe!:bow: 

What you've accomplished with your young mind, body, and spirit, has taken almost all of my life to just touch the tip of the iceberg of comprehension. I know I don't know you, but I am compelled to give you a hug!! 

::::HUG:::: :wubu:


----------



## Vince (Mar 26, 2006)

Fitchick is right. Women seldom make good friends. They eventually betray even close friends. I have given her rep points! She knows what she is talking about and she is forthright here in this thread.


----------



## Jes (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Used to be that the only proper careers for women, if they could work at all, were as secretaries, librarians, and the like. .


Hey lady!


I think, if I may, that what Fit is harkening back to is a culture of victimization that she feels surrounds feminism. It probably exists, though I haven't seen much of it, personally (I assume, from her comments, that she has). When I've taught gender theory, when I've studied gender theory, when I've been around gender theory, there's history that needs to be addressed--how shitty it can be to be a woman in a patriarchal society--but the real strength comes in exploring the culture not of victimization but of rebellion, of overcoming those barriers that most certainly are there. Now *that's* some good readin'!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Hey Jes? What's gender theory? (Maybe this would be better discussed in the feminism thread, but I'm curious as to what it is and how one studies it).


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is right. Women seldom make good friends. They eventually betray even close friends.



Yes, I have had that experience -- and from a man or two also... But you know, it's not exclusive to women. It's an unfortunate human thing, not a woman thing, Vince.


----------



## Jes (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Hey Jes? What's gender theory? (Maybe this would be better discussed in the feminism thread, but I'm curious as to what it is and how one studies it).


well, it's a question of naming, I suppose, miss vickster. We used to call certain things 'women's studies' which is just an 'othering' or ghettoization (I'm making up words today). But b/c what we're really looking at is the larger picture, and because there are men's studies as well, the whole thing has moved over to gender studies, in a lot of places. You gain a lot when you look at the bigger picture, which gender (vs. just the women's half) attempts to do. 

And now, I shall attempt to steal your husband.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Jes said:


> Hey lady!
> 
> 
> I think, if I may, that what Fit is harkening back to is a culture of victimization that she feels surrounds feminism. It probably exists, though I haven't seen much of it, personally (I assume, from her comments, that she has). When I've taught gender theory, when I've studied gender theory, when I've been around gender theory, there's history that needs to be addressed--how shitty it can be to be a woman in a patriarchal society--but the real strength comes in exploring the culture not of victimization but of rebellion, of overcoming those barriers that most certainly are there. Now *that's* some good readin'!



Here, here!!! History and the reality of the now for struggling women should be acknowledged, but those stories of overcoming are wonderful, and there are thankfully so many of them. I think that it would be easy to be an angry feminist when you see all of the stuff that goes on (and much of it not in the mainstream news), but focusing on that for anything more than inspriation to effect change in whatever way one deems fit is counterproductive. 

And hey, Jes, you kind woman, you. :kiss2:


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Thank you, Aliena, Tina, and everyone for the compliments.  What a wonderful bunch of people we have here.

Jes, I'd love to take your class! You're like a mean Spivak!

Vickie, if you're interested in looking into gender theory, there's a book called Queer Theory that states there are eight unique genders, and looks at the cultural influence. Interestin' stuff.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Jes said:


> well, it's a question of naming, I suppose, miss vickster. We used to call certain things 'women's studies' which is just an 'othering' or ghettoization (I'm making up words today). But b/c what we're really looking at is the larger picture, and because there are men's studies as well, the whole thing has moved over to gender studies, in a lot of places. You gain a lot when you look at the bigger picture, which gender (vs. just the women's half) attempts to do.



Ah, I think I see. You know, as much as I love feminism (and I do!) I also just love the study of women's roles (and men's roles) and how they've changed throughout history. So I guess I'm interested in gender studies, yes? I think the real tough balancing act with feminism is providing for equality while celebrating the things which make us female -- like the whole birthin', breastfeedin' thang I'm so into.



> And now, I shall attempt to steal your husband.




He's MINE!!! MINE I TELL YOU!!!!!!! Keep your grubby, ballooney paws offa him!

Typical hetero women. What can you do? (And actually, the only woman who ever tried to steal Burtimus was a bisexual woman. So go figure.)

BTW, here's a pic of the men in my life: Burtimus and Gareth.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

They're so cute, Vickie! I think you should keep 'em.


----------



## Vince (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina, the fact that some men betray you does not contradict Fitchick's assertion that most women betray others. My experience supports what Fitchick says. I agree 100% and I am sad to have to do that.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is right. Women seldom make good friends. They eventually betray even close friends. I have given her rep points! She knows what she is talking about and she is forthright here in this thread.



As usual, and this follows a pattern in my life, its the MAN who truly understands. (not sure whether to add a happy face here or a sad one...maybe both.)


I have found that the times I tried to break down and let "regular" women be my friend, they have done everything they are known for doing....they were manipulative, they lied, they were deceitful, they betrayed confidences....they fit the entire stereotype. It shocked me because I thought that maybe at least one or two would not, but they all did.

I think its because women and I don't understand each other...women tend to try to read things into what I say, when what I say is WYSIWYG, you know? So many other things, that show me that most women and I "speak" a different language.

I also do not for the life of me understand why women would call me up to "share"....this one woman used to call me when she had a problem with her husband, and complain about the situation. When I tried to give her ideas as to how to fix the problem, she lost it!! WHY?? I was trying to help, and she blew a gasket. See what I mean about not understanding women? WHY would someone call another person to ASK FOR HELP and then NOT want it when its given??


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Ah, I think I see. You know, as much as I love feminism (and I do!) I also just love the study of women's roles (and men's roles) and how they've changed throughout history. So I guess I'm interested in gender studies, yes? I think the real tough balancing act with feminism is providing for equality while celebrating the things which make us female -- like the whole birthin', breastfeedin' thang I'm so into.[/SIZE][/COLOR]
> 
> There's a feminist board I help moderate with a group of women almost as into it as you. Some, of course, have no interest in having children, just like with the rest of society, you get a mix, but there are threads on being mamma, on keeping track of the board kids, etc. I doubt any are as knowledgable as you, though. And some you might recognize from the old Ms. boards, though it's been a long time.
> 
> ...



Both very handsome, good men, Vick. :wubu:


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Tina, the fact that some men betray you does not contradict Fitchick's assertion that most women betray others. My experience supports what Fitchick says. I agree 100% and I am sad to have to do that.



Say what you like but it does not support my experience, so I vehemently disagree. And the point is not just my experience, but the close, supportive female friendships that I see around me, too. But hey, we're each entitled to our own opinions. Where I have a problem is when you, or Anita, say it's a common female trait, because it's not.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> As usual, and this follows a pattern in my life, its the MAN who truly understands.



Frankly, I suspect you'd befriend the devil himself if he'd say you're right.


----------



## Jes (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Jes, I'd love to take your class! You're like a mean Spivak!
> 
> .


 I'll get all subaltern on your hot, hot ass, TSL! (I saw Spivak speak about 2 years ago, I think. Hot)

(and I don't teach in the sense of a course, but I WILL school you all. schwing!) hahaha.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Say what you like but it does not support my experience, so I vehemently disagree. And the point is not just my experience, but the close, supportive female friendships that I see around me, too. But hey, we're each entitled to our own opinions. Where I have a problem is when you, or Anita, say it's a common female trait, because it's not.



Doesn't support mine either. I've been equally betrayed by men and women alike.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Jes said:


> I'll get all subaltern on your hot, hot ass, TSL! (I saw Spivak speak about 2 years ago, I think. Hot)
> 
> (and I don't teach in the sense of a course, but I WILL school you all. schwing!) hahaha.



That reminds me, Jes, I'm mad at you.  You don't want to get sub-altern on my "weenie ass." *Cries.*


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> As usual, and this follows a pattern in my life, its the MAN who truly understands.



Rash generalizations do not constitute understanding. They merely constitute lazy thinking and the relentless unwillingness to see people as individuals.

When I was a child, my brother tried to kill me. Literally. Repeatedly. With the full knowledge of my parents. (And no, this is not hyperbole. This happened). Does that mean that all teenage and pre-teen boys are killers? Or that all parents are apathetic? Hell no. It means that certain individuals are really screwed up, and other individuals don't have the stones to stand up to them. Given my experiences (later I was molested by an uncle, abused by a man, and date raped by more than one individual) it would be easy to say "men suck", but you know what? I love men. Some of my best friends are men.

But closing yourself off from any particular group (whether it be because of gender, sexual orientation, of whatever) is ridiculously small minded. Sure, you'll be "safe", but is life about being safe? I don't think so. To me it's about living life as fully as I can, loving as many people as I can, and ending up at the finish line having learned a lot, loved a lot, and hopefully made a few people happy. (So says the happy heretic).


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I have found that the times I tried to break down and let "regular" women be my friend, they have done everything they are known for doing....they were manipulative, they lied, they were deceitful, they betrayed confidences....they fit the entire stereotype. It shocked me because I thought that maybe at least one or two would not, but they all did.



So if women do this, does this mean you do it too? Or are you above all that?


----------



## Jes (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> That reminds me, Jes, I'm mad at you.  You don't want to get sub-altern on my "weenie ass." *Cries.*


I'm just suggesting that you and your co-weenie ass get a room, is all. The truth hurts.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Frankly, I suspect you'd befriend the devil himself if he'd say you're right.




I doubt I'd befriend her.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Both very handsome, good men, Vick. :wubu:



See? Now Tina's trying to steal my man. Happens every time. Why am I NOT surprised.  

EVIL FIEND!!!!!!

Ahem. :wubu: Back atcha...


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> So if women do this, does this mean you do it too? Or are you above all that?



No, I don't. But I'm a lot different than most women, and that might be why. My husband even says that. He says "you think too much like a guy to get along with women".


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

I think self-hatred is a sad thing. Truly.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> I think self-hatred is a sad thing. Truly.



I don't hate myself, that seems to be what you're implying. I kinda like what rocker Patti Smith once said: "I think being any gender is a drag". I hate being categorized into one gender or the other, it would be nice to have an option not to be.


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

I have to agree with FitChick. I find most women caddy, petty, superficial and incredibly kiniving, to the point of backstabbing each other, reading into things that aren't there, and being so emotionally charged they can't see the fire through the smoke. Most of present company DEFINITELY excluded.  For someone to participate in these discussions, you've got some qualities that overload this issue 

I've always made better friends with men and people less feminine in their attitudes. I know why, too. I was beat up by a girl in kindergarten, in second grade a girl who thought she was better than me because her clothes came off the rack and my mom made mine emotionally tortured me every day. In third grade I had a health issue from trying to be more girly (ears pierced), and ended up with scabs the size of Mount Rushmore and the sides of my head because I'm allergic to most metals. The girls ALL tortured me because of it, and it took three years for the nicknames to die.

Later on, when I went to a new school, all the girls formed a clique against the entrance of a new girl and it was a helluva lot easier to break into the male's crowd, because I could do things with them, and prove that I was a good person, I didn't have to bend to their will. This trend continued-- and I saw how petty and simple minded most girls were. 

I have two girlfriends now, who are wonderful beatiful people. They are both my friends because there is a mutual interest to avoid the girlish issues so many women still have on their shoulders and can't chip them off. Through real intimacy I've made and kept these friends for a long time (Twenty and ten years respectively), and because of their desire to avoid these issues, we do. If FitChick found another woman that matched her goals and ideas for relationships, I'm sure she'd have the same kind of friendship, and maybe that's why she has lesbian friends, because they avoid some of the same issues that she'd like to as well.

For this reason, I would definitely not be a good polygamist. I would have no patience for the caddy nature of most women and would love to have a lot more say than he'd probably like in who comes into our home.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> See? Now Tina's trying to steal my man. Happens every time. Why am I NOT surprised.
> 
> EVIL FIEND!!!!!!
> 
> Ahem. :wubu: Back atcha...



LOL   Hey, I just couldn't help myself, being a woman and all...


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> No, I don't. But I'm a lot different than most women, and that might be why. My husband even says that. He says "you think too much like a guy to get along with women".



Funny. I don't see you that way at all, but it may be that the persona you present here is different than in your off-line life. But in my experiences with you, you can be extremely insulting and hurtful, and never have I heard you apologize or take responsibility for the comments you've made and the people you've hurt. You do it with broad generalizations and an insensitivity that has upset a lot of people. You truly don't seem to give a rat's ass if you hurt or upset someone, and if that's how men are, then we know some very different men.

So I wouldn't be so sure that you're above it all, Anita. You still have a way of being very mean to people.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I don't hate myself, that seems to be what you're implying. I kinda like what rocker Patti Smith once said: "I think being any gender is a drag". I hate being categorized into one gender or the other, it would be nice to have an option not to be.



You might try to backpedal and say something about both genders, but obviously men are on a pedestal in your life and women are shit. You seem to dislike women so much, it's a shame that you're a woman -- that you'd have to even be the same gender as us, to the point that to you women are the devil. Sounds pretty self-hating to me.

And Anita, if you couldn't be categorized, how would you know what your 'role as a woman' is?


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

> No, I don't. But I'm a lot different than most women, and that might be why. My husband even says that. He says "you think too much like a guy to get along with women".



I get this alot, from alot of my guy friends. They treat me just like one of the guys, and it's been threatening on one occasion to the relationship between a married couple, and when I learned that, I bowed out gracefully from the situation. I get invited over for beer parties, wrestling matches on TV, LAN parties and video game marathons, beer and wings when the women folk aren't there-- and it's flattering to know our friendships are evolved that far, but also annoying from the perspective I'm not married to any of them 

What was a wonderful solution to that issue, and less threatening to everyone (women included), was that I hooked up with one of the guys eventually, and I was one of the guys with the guys, but behind closed doors I got to be more to the one I really liked ;-)


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

missaf said:


> I have to agree with FitChick. I find most women caddy, petty, superficial and incredibly kiniving, to the point of backstabbing each other, reading into things that aren't there, and being so emotionally charged they can't see the fire through the smoke. Most of present company DEFINITELY excluded.  For someone to participate in these discussions, you've got some qualities that overload this issue
> 
> I've always made better friends with men and people less feminine in their attitudes. I know why, too. I was beat up by a girl in kindergarten, in second grade a girl who thought she was better than me because her clothes came off the rack and my mom made mine emotionally tortured me every day. In third grade I had a health issue from trying to be more girly (ears pierced), and ended up with scabs the size of Mount Rushmore and the sides of my head because I'm allergic to most metals. The girls ALL tortured me because of it, and it took three years for the nicknames to die.
> 
> ...



Missaf, I'm sorry you had those school experiences. I went through that, too, to the point that it scarred me in some ways. There are others I went through, too that I won't bring up, but let me say to you that in spite of that I have found such supportive kinship and sisterhood with a truly remarkable group of women. I hope you are able to find that too, enough so you can heal the hurts you have.

There is one other thing I'd like to say. I don't believe most women are catty. Some are, certainly. Each men and women have their own way of being catty. And some men are cattier than any women I've known. You have your experiences and I won't try to invalidate them; they are yours. I'm glad that you've been able to move beyond them to find at least two good female friends.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> No, I don't. But I'm a lot different than most women, and that might be why. My husband even says that. He says "you think too much like a guy to get along with women".



No, sweetheart, you're NOT all that unique or special. Get over yourself, princess. You know what, I work with mostly men who treat me with a lot of respect because I work just as hard as they do. I can unload a truck and throw 75+ cases of freight per hour. If I get stuck unloading lawn and garden, I don't say that it's not a woman's role. 

I find women who often brag that they're "one of the guys" want to act like complete wusses when it comes to playing with the boys. "Treat me like a lady. Let me laze around and act self-important. Handle me with kid gloves, because I'm fragile. That's how we girls are, but I don't get along with women." The real issue is, (some) men will let girls be wusses because, well, they're taught to be protectors and accept that women are "fragile and emotional." Women who don't get along with other women are usually afraid of competition. I can deal with a woman being smart or stronger or prettier, because I know, I'm pretty damned good.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

I love being a woman. I'm all soft and curvey and I cry easily and I can hug anyone I want without being called a pussy. I can wear dresses OR pants. I can give birth. I can nourish babies from my body. I can wear make up. Or not. I can spend outrageous amounts of money on hair products and moisturize so that I feel soft and smell sweet. I can be, and feel, sexy without it being threatening to anyone.

What's not to love?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

You know what's REALLY IRONIC and FUNNY? I think I FINALLY found a woman I CAN get along with....MissAF!!!!!:smitten: 

You and me and Vince, we gotta HANG!


----------



## Jes (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Ahem. :wubu: Back atcha...


Don't you mean 'back stabba?'


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> You know what's REALLY IRONIC and FUNNY? I think I FINALLY found a woman I CAN get along with....MissAF!!!!!:smitten:
> 
> You and me and Vince, we gotta HANG!



That's because they agree with you. Anyone who agrees with you is marvelous. Anyone who disagrees? Appears to not be worth shite.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Frankly, I suspect you'd befriend the devil himself if he'd say you're right.



She just did!


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> No, sweetheart, you're NOT all that unique or special. Get over yourself, princess. You know what, I work with mostly men who treat me with a lot of respect because I work just as hard as they do. I can unload a truck and throw 75+ cases of freight per hour. If I get stuck unloading lawn and garden, I don't say that it's not a woman's role.



As a total hijack to this thread-- I was put in charge of a crew of 15 guys to set up for an event at a college. We had to set up over 1500 chairs, sound equipment, staging, moving $10k pianos without detuning them, dealing with logistics for over 20 different bands-- it was hell on earth.

The guys were working so slow I knew we were going to be late. I walked over to the trailer, picked up 15 chairs at once, hefted them off to a row, and started setting them up as orderly as I could. Well! The guys just couldn't have that, now could they! The next guy picked up 16 chairs, the next 17, and it became a contest to see who could carry the most chairs. After the third time I picked up 15 chairs, I sat down on the back of the trailer and got to delegate the rest of the night, and they took me seriously and did everything I asked -- fast, well, and it went off without a hitch


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

RedHead said:


> She just did!




ROFL --- Best Come back. Ever.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> That's because they agree with you. Anyone who agrees with you is marvelous. Anyone who disagrees? Appears to not be worth shite.



No, its not because she agrees with me, its because she is LIKE me. It means we'd get along. I don't get along with backstabbing, catty, petty, superficial, diet conscious people. I can't stand being around people who BRING ME DOWN emotionally, and since so many women have the above-listed traits, that BRINGS ME DOWN. It depresses me to be around people like that. I like people who lift me up, not bring me down. Don't we all?

I also find many men to be positive thinkers, as opposed to many women. The guys I know live by the Nike slogan, JUST DO IT. They don't sit around and whine about things, you know?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> No, its not because she agrees with me, its because she is LIKE me. It means we'd get along. I don't get along with backstabbing, catty, petty, superficial, diet conscious people. I can't stand being around people who BRING ME DOWN emotionally, and since so many women have the above-listed traits, that BRINGS ME DOWN. It depresses me to be around people like that. I like people who lift me up, not bring me down. Don't we all?
> 
> I also find many men to be positive thinkers, as opposed to many women. The guys I know live by the Nike slogan, JUST DO IT. They don't sit around and whine about things, you know?



And I can't stand being around closed minded, intellectually lazy people who reduce individuals to generalizations and who, when called on it, can't even see enough of their own behavior to take even the tiniest bit of responsibility. Everything is someone else's fault. I can't stand people who use their words as weapons, and then don't care who they hurt, who say "if you're hurt that's YOUR problem" as some lameass excuse, or who say the people they've hurt are "too sensitive". I don't expect you to see yourself in this, but let me tell you directly: you have said and one these things in several forums that we've posted together at. You have offended and hurt intelligent, educated, warm and caring people with your generalizations and hateful comments. And never ONCE have you apologized.

As for the just do it comment, who's the one sitting around complaining that they can't be friends with women? To quote you, JUST DO IT. But don't sit there and whine about it. Take some responsibility. Put up or shut up. Or any of the other things that men, those bastions of wisdom and understanding, are wont to say.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I also find many men to be positive thinkers, as opposed to many women. The guys I know live by the Nike slogan, JUST DO IT. They don't sit around and whine about things, you know?



See, this is why I think you just see what you want to see. My GOD but I've known some real, negative male whiners -- and conversely some very postiive, can-do women. Women like Sadeian who kicks ass at work, or like missa, who can get things done. Positivity is not strictly male domain -- even a little. You see what you choose to see Anita. Open your eyes and look out into the world and you just might be inspired. But if you want to continue to protect your opinion and keep it from changing, as you seem to have been, then continue to keep your eyes closed to what is *really* out there -- and that is a mix. Positive AND negative women and men. Can-do women AND men. Backstabbing women AND men. Inspirational, giving women AND men. Say-it-like-it-is women AND men.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 26, 2006)

I'd like to add, I believe which gender makes the better friends depends on the individuals and what their interests and personalities are. 

I'd also like to point out that men are just as capable of being superficial and back stabbing as their female counterparts. Talking behind each other's backs, betraying secrets, trying to take each other's girlfriends, screwing each other over for job advancement, etc. Men are a very competitive lot and also tend to be a bit of braggarts. Past sports accomplishments, cars, women the had sex with (both real and imagined), penis size, etc.


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

See, this kinda thread is where if we speak from the standpoint of personal experience, we'd have less arguing 

Fitchick has issues with catty women, and it's made her bitter. I've had instances with catty women, I choose to work around it. Miss Vickie may have had instances with women AND men, but she's learned to overcome it.

Comparing women (apples) to men (bananas), I could write gobs of personal situations with men that show me how they really are LOL


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

missaf said:


> See, this kinda thread is where if we speak from the standpoint of personal experience, we'd have less arguing
> 
> Fitchick has issues with catty women, and it's made her bitter. I've had instances with catty women, I choose to work around it. Miss Vickie may have had instances with women AND men, but she's learned to overcome it.
> 
> Comparing women (apples) to men (bananas), I could write gobs of personal situations with men that show me how they really are LOL



Uh oh. I just agreed with you.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie, you misunderstand. I am not COMPLAINING that I cannot be friends with most women. I am HAPPY about that because to me, it says a lot about me. If I COULD get along with most women, then I'd start to think something was wrong with me, based on how so many women in fact are.

Chris Rock, the comedian, said something in one his comedy routines that really hit home for me in terms of personal experience and how I have come to see things...

he says, "When a guy introduces his new girlfriend to his best friend, his friend says to himself, "Wow, she's nice. I have to get me a girl like that".

When a woman introduces her new man to her girlfriend, the girlfriend thinks, "Wow, he's nice. I have to have HIM. And I will slit that bitch's throat to get him too!"


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Uh oh. I just agreed with you.




Scary, huh? It happens once in a blue moon, but I'm glad it does 




FitChick said:


> Miss Vickie, you misunderstand. I am not COMPLAINING that I cannot be friends with most women. I am HAPPY about that because to me, it says a lot about me. If I COULD get along with most women, then I'd start to think something was wrong with me, based on how so many women in fact are.



See, now this is an answer that I can sink my teeth into. Based on your experiences with women, I'm sure that speaks volumes to you. Just keep in mind not all women are that way


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

missaf said:


> Comparing women (apples) to men (bananas), I could write gobs of personal situations with men that show me how they really are LOL



I think Freud might have something to say about your fruit and gender matching, too.  

And that is why Anita has, almost without exception, problems on every board I've ever seen her post on. She doesn't make qualified statements based upon her own experiences. She makes general statements as if they are true for, and of, every one, every where. I've often wondered if she doesn't do it just to stir the pot and start trouble.


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> I think Freud might have something to say about your fruit and gender matching, too.



That's why I said it that way!


----------



## Jane (Mar 26, 2006)

So, from what I can gather, FitChick wants to have multiple husbands, because she doesn't get along with women.

Non-traditional polygamy, but hell, girl, go for it.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> I think Freud might have something to say about your fruit and gender matching, too.
> 
> And that is why Anita has, almost without exception, problems on every board I've ever seen her post on. She doesn't make qualified statements based upon her own experiences. She makes general statements as if they are true for, and of, every one, every where. I've often wondered if she doesn't do it just to stir the pot and start trouble.



I have always been the type to say what I think. It tends to make me vicious enemies and also loyal friends. As one friend said to me once, "You say what you honestly think, and sometimes, it hurts...but at least I always know where I REALLY stand with you".

If you REALLY BELIEVE that something I say is not true or does not apply, why get worked up?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Jane said:


> So, from what I can gather, FitChick wants to have multiple husbands, because she doesn't get along with women.
> 
> Non-traditional polygamy, but hell, girl, go for it.



You got it, baby! I already have a partial list of the guys I'd like to be, uh, polyandrous with: Hamish from Braveheart, Richard Karn, Pierce Brosnan, Ralph Fiennes.....mmmm! (had to include two token skinny guys so they don't whine about me being prejudiced against skinny guys...)


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> You got it, baby! I already have a partial list of the guys I'd like to be, uh, polyandrous with: Hamish from Braveheart, Richard Karn, Pierce Brosnan, Ralph Fiennes.....mmmm!




Hmm, we might have issues, we'll have to negotiate over Hamish from Braveheart


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I have always been the type to say what I think. It tends to make me vicious enemies and also loyal friends. As one friend said to me once, "You say what you honestly think, and sometimes, it hurts...but at least I always know where I REALLY stand with you".
> 
> If you REALLY BELIEVE that something I say is not true or does not apply, why get worked up?



Actually, you don't say what you think. You pretend your feelings represent reality for all of us. That's a longshot from saying what you think. And until you're mature enough to listen and look at other people's perspectives, I can't see having any use in talking to you. Don't worry about this old bitch being catty to you anymore.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

missaf said:


> Hmm, we might have issues, we'll have to negotiate over Hamish from Braveheart



How about we share? :eat2: Oh, and I have to have John Rhys-Davies too. I have to come up with 7, so I can have one for each day of the week.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

What makes you say I'm worked up? Perhaps some transferrence of your own emotions? 

As I said earlier, I've gone back and forth with much worse than you, Anita. Your views are like little, buzzing gnats compared to some of these virulent woman-hating, feminist-hating men who post murderous threats to feminists online, etc. Matter of fact, to show you just how seriously I take you, and just how "emotional" I am (yes, us women are just so 'emotional' aren't we?), check out this kind of playful post I made to you Here. Guess you missed it first time around.

Oh, and Anita: I say what I think, too. As do many other women I know who also realize there is a difference between saying what one thinks, and saying things in a manner that shows disregard for the reality and opinions of those around them. I think the difference is a cute little word called "respect."


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> If I COULD get along with most women, then I'd start to think something was wrong with me, based on how so many women in fact are.



See, this is where we think differently. If I had a problem with a group of people... say, left handed folks, and my relationships with all of them were bad. Rather than look at THEM as the problem, I'd wonder what it is in ME that's the problem, and how I could fix it.

Case in point. Since my first years in the work force, I've had trouble with strong, intimidating women who were in positions of authority over me and who would be, often, cruel and critical of me. I'd get scared, emotional, and become unable to function when I was around them. Eventually I'd leave the position, because I was so emotionally distraught that I couldn't function and would become physically ill at work. 

Given that experience, it would be easy to think that women bosses are cruel, hateful people. But I took the experiences and thought about it. I wondered why I was attracting bosses like that. And I wondered how I could get past my issues and have a good relationship with future female bosses. I worked through a TON of shit about my mom and her treatment of me, and was able to see my part in all of that. And over time, I've changed the dynamic. There are still a couple of female providers that I work with who are problematic, one in in particular who pushes my "deer in the headlights" button but I've actually taken her aside, and we've talked about the problems we had with each other and now things are much better. And interestingly, one of the midwives I work with now was one of those horrible female bosses, and in fact she was the reason I started doing a lot of work to figure out what the hell was going on. We work together now, several times a month, and we have a completely different relationship now. She's not any different than she was; I, OTOH, am not at all like I was then. And I think that my doing the work to figure out my issues is what really changed things between us.

So do you see how we see things differently? I tend to look internally, you tend not to. I like my way of dealing with things, but hey, to each their own. Where you and I part company is the whole "men do this" "women do that" kind of thing. I despise, as you well know, generalizations because I think they're unfair and intellectually lazy. But that's MY issue and I don't expect you to share it.


----------



## Vince (Mar 26, 2006)

Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types. 

I wish Tina would stop trying to defend women all the time. That is rather pointless and the fact that she thinks she needs to defend women by pointing out that men do some of the same things shows how desperate she is. That feminist stuff is crap. Always has been. 

Either Fitchick is right about that matter of fact or she is mistaken. I would bet that research would support her. This tread is proof of the very thing she is complaining about. My anecdotal experience endorses her position.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince, she just says that stuff because she's secretly after your ass!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types.



Vince, let me be blunt. You are one of the cattiest PEOPLE (not men, not women, just PEOPLE) I know. And given some of the people I've known in my 40+ years on this planet, that's saying something. 

And no, Vince, it's not cattiness. It's giving back to her the same kind of direct disagreement that she so adores in men. That whole what's good for the goose thing...


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types.
> 
> I wish Tina would stop trying to defend women all the time. That is rather pointless and the fact that she thinks she needs to defend women by pointing out that men do some of the same things shows how desperate she is. That feminist stuff is crap. Always has been.
> 
> Either Fitchick is right about that matter of fact or she is mistaken. I would bet that research would support her. This tread is proof of the very thing she is complaining about. My anecdotal experience endorses her position.



Yup. Know what I find curious, Vince? This Dimensions forum is only one that I post to. I'm also on a strength training forum (I'm the only woman on that one), I'm on a rightwing Jewish forum (I'm one of two women on that), and I'm on a cycling forum (about 4 women there.) I'm also on two other boards that have no women other than me.

And you know what's weird? I talk the same way there on those boards as I do here, and NONE of the men ever complained, or argued with me. We all get along fine. I even get along with the few women there, but its probably because they're very male-oriented (into guy things, like me.)

What do you think that illustrates, since Tina said I have "problems" on every board she has SEEN me on? I find the ONLY forums where I have "problems" are the ones that are predominantly women. Hmm...


----------



## Vince (Mar 26, 2006)

Well, Tiger, what do you think of these catty women? Yeah, you are right, I will get clawed and abused by most of them. Better go play elsewhere. 

View attachment Tiger 800X600.JPG


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Yup. Know what I find curious, Vince? This Dimensions forum is only one that I post to. I'm also on a strength training forum (I'm the only woman on that one), I'm on a rightwing Jewish forum (I'm one of two women on that), and I'm on a cycling forum (about 4 women there.) I'm also on two other boards that have no women other than me.
> 
> And you know what's weird? I talk the same way there on those boards as I do here, and NONE of the men ever complained, or argued with me. We all get along fine. I even get along with the few women there, but its probably because they're very male-oriented (into guy things, like me.)
> 
> What do you think that illustrates, since Tina said I have "problems" on every board she has SEEN me on? I find the ONLY forums where I have "problems" are the ones that are predominantly women. Hmm...



OTOH you've complained bitterly about other forums you were on (including an Akins forum), and had big time problems with many people over at Abundance. Remember?? The whole thing you posted about how educators basically suck? (Oh that won't offend anyone, will it?) How people educated in the public school system are all stupid and uneducated?

Nah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the way in which you communicate. As my mom used to say, "You're right. The WORLD's wrong." I personally think the men just don't give enough shit to respond to you one way or another. But when you're insulting women, you're damn RIGHT we're going to get pissed and call you on it.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince, maybe they need to be declawed?


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types.
> 
> I wish Tina would stop trying to defend women all the time. That is rather pointless and the fact that she thinks she needs to defend women by pointing out that men do some of the same things shows how desperate she is. That feminist stuff is crap. Always has been.
> 
> Either Fitchick is right about that matter of fact or she is mistaken. I would bet that research would support her. This tread is proof of the very thing she is complaining about. My anecdotal experience endorses her position.



Heh. You know full well what my point is, as I know you're not stupid. Keep trying, Vince.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> OTOH you've complained bitterly about other forums you were on (including an Akins forum), and had big time problems with many people over at Abundance. Remember?? The whole thing you posted about how educators basically suck? (Oh that won't offend anyone, will it?) How people educated in the public school system are all stupid and uneducated?
> 
> Nah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the way in which you communicate. As my mom used to say, "You're right. The WORLD's wrong." I personally think the men just don't give enough shit to respond to you one way or another. But when you're insulting women, you're damn RIGHT we're going to get pissed and call you on it.



And you know what? BOTH of those forums were ALL FEMALE, or almost all female! Just my point!

Men don't let their feelings get hurt that easily. Women do, and that is where the problem is, IMO.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> No, its not because she agrees with me, its because she is LIKE me. It means we'd get along. I don't get along with backstabbing, catty, petty, superficial, diet conscious people. I can't stand being around people who BRING ME DOWN emotionally, and since so many women have the above-listed traits, that BRINGS ME DOWN. It depresses me to be around people like that. I like people who lift me up, not bring me down. Don't we all?
> 
> I also find many men to be positive thinkers, as opposed to many women. The guys I know live by the Nike slogan, JUST DO IT. They don't sit around and whine about things, you know?



Okay...I know men and women both who are jerks. I know men who are catty and I know women who are as well. These are not traits distinctive to only one sex.

I have counseled both men and women for depression; I know lot's of men who are lazy and have no ambition in life. I know women exactly the same.

As for backstabbing...well; that happens all the time; whether you are a woman or a man.

I do work with all men; after 18 years in the industry I still have to prove myself almost daily regarding my abilities. I don't ask for favors, I don't want them....I can and do my job regardless of my gender. Any woman or man for that matter who doesn't, just isn't a good worker.

As for MissAF being like you!!!! I OBJECT wholeheartedly....she may have agreed with something you said; but she certainly hasn't agreed with everything you've said.

Also if you judge her based on that ONE AND ONLY POST...it's no wonder you find women who are shallow....levels always find their own!


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Ever think that maybe the guys just don't take you seriously enough to care, Anita.

And really, do you honestly think *anyone's* feelings here are _hurt_?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> And you know what? BOTH of those forums were ALL FEMALE, or almost all female! Just my point!
> 
> Men don't let their feelings get hurt that easily. Women do, and that is where the problem is, IMO.



I think that the men who post at Abundance -- including my husband -- would disagree with you wholeheartedly about them being female. There are lots of men who post there, including the owner of the site. Vince posts there as well, you may recall.

And the problems you had were not because you were posting to women. You were calling into question what is a very valued, respected profession: teaching.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Ever think that maybe the guys just don't take you seriously enough to care, Anita.
> 
> And really, do you honestly think *anyone's* feelings here are _hurt_?



Yes. I really do. Its evident by how riled up some get over me saying simply what I think. Guys don't get worked up like that...not straight ones, anyway. I've known gay guys who got worked up, acted catty, etc. But not straight guys.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

So disagreement is "getting riled up"? Hmmm... I guess that must mean you are riled up.

See, I don't see anyone getting their feelings hurt -- you don't have that power. What I see is people disagreeing and giving counter points to your generalizations.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

What I remember trying to say about teaching was that I have done it for over 10 years. I didn't see what was so hard about it, when here I have done it, and done it well, without a degree in it.

If you want to pursue this further, we can open a "teaching: pros and cons"
thread. 

HONESTLY.....I think a lot of men let their wives carry their balls in their handbags (if you know what I mean), thanks to feminism...and because they are fearful of having to sleep on the sofa. And THAT is an honest belief of mine!


----------



## Vince (Mar 26, 2006)

QED, from this rubbish.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

People get pissed off and sick of someone constantly screeching and running around like a hyperactive child. Gee, who wants a big slice of irony?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Yes. I really do. Its evident by how riled up some get over me saying simply what I think. Guys don't get worked up like that...not straight ones, anyway. I've known gay guys who got worked up, acted catty, etc. But not straight guys.



No. We are angry (not "riled up" which is sexist language, used to belittle one's feelings) because you are making unfair generalizations about women. Period. You are wrong. Plain and simple. And we are having to correct your continued, unrelenting assertions about a gender that you (seem to) know nothing about.

Start a thread calling men rapists and killers and see how many men you piss off. But no, you had to go on attack against your gender. Well guess what, buttercup? If you make unfair, untrue statements, I WILL call you on them.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> QED, from this rubbish.



They're just proving my point, Vince, just proving my point (as I think you alluded to yourself.)


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> What I remember trying to say about teaching was that I have done it for over 10 years. I didn't see what was so hard about it, when here I have done it, and done it well, without a degree in it.



That's not what you said, and I'm sorry but teaching your own children at home is not at ALL the same thing -- not even in the same ballpark -- as dealing with administrations, parents, budget cuts and trying to educate children who come from problem families.



> If you want to pursue this further, we can open a "teaching: pros and cons"
> thread.



This isn't about education. This is how you relate -- or don't -- to people. You blame everyone else, and refuse to consider that you have a role in how things go for you when you communicate with people. I think that's fucked up because ALL of us bears some responsibility for how we communicate with others and how relationships go. It's NEVER just about the other guy. And yet I've never -- ever -- seen you accept any responsibility for how poorly it goes for you when you try to talk to women.



> HONESTLY.....I think a lot of men let their wives carry their balls in their handbags (if you know what I mean), thanks to feminism...and because they are fearful of having to sleep on the sofa. And THAT is an honest belief of mine!



That is a disgusting, hate-filled, bigoted sentence. It may be your belief, but it's not something to be proud of. It's insulting not only to women, but to men as well. It makes me wonder what your relationship with your husband is like. I can assure you that I value my husband -- as a man, an individual, and the father of my children. 

Your comment truly disgusts me.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> They're just proving my point, Vince, just proving my point (as I think you alluded to yourself.)



And you're proving my point, which is that you can't HANDLE direct communication and disagreement.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

LOL! Hey, Anita, high-five yourself!! You are da bomb!! You are wonderful!! You are SO right!! AND you have Vince on your side!!!

This is too hilarious. I have work to do now. Have fun.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> LOL! Hey, Anita, high-five yourself!! You are da bomb!! You are wonderful!! You are SO right!! AND you have Vince on your side!!!
> 
> This is too hilarious. I have work to do now. Have fun.



I think I'll go blow things up in Everquest, like any self respecting, catty woman would do.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> LOL! Hey, Anita, high-five yourself!! You are da bomb!! You are wonderful!! You are SO right!! AND you have Vince on your side!!!
> 
> This is too hilarious. I have work to do now. Have fun.



Would someone rep Tina for me? That's so awesome, but I can't rep her again!

Edited to warn Tina and Vickie to watch out. Anita is a VERY important, influencial writer, as she pointed out in her Starbuck's thread. She'll take you two troublemakers down just like she did Starbuck's!


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> I think I'll go blow things up in Everquest, like any self respecting, catty woman would do.



Actually, I'm heading into UBRS as we "speak"


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Yes. I really do. Its evident by how riled up some get over me saying simply what I think. Guys don't get worked up like that...not straight ones, anyway. I've known gay guys who got worked up, acted catty, etc. But not straight guys.



I am so gonna post this onto a GAY site; do you know how that sounds. I know straight men who are assholes, I know gay men who are assholes. What does sexual preference have to do with all of this?

Oh and if we were riled up over "simply" what you think...this would be a sad world indeed.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

If straight men can't be catty, I wouldn't exist.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 26, 2006)

I'm a little sad that this thread has been allowed to continue as long as it has.

I've went back and reread every post and I'm not agreeing with anyone. I just want to make the statement that it seems that no one is being respectful of anyone.

It's ok to have varying opinons, Lord knows I have many and about 95% of the time people don't agree with me, as I'm sure many of you won't after reading this post. 

It just really makes me sad to see women going at each other's throats. Before anyone get's huffy, from the outside looking in, it does seem that there have been nothing but attacks for the last 6 pages or so.

What is that telling the new, young members of the site who come here for acceptance? You're accepted only by the people that have the same opinions on issues you do? That, if you choose not to agree with someone you are going to be ostrasized by that person as well as others that "have that person's back?" 

I think everyone needs to take a step back and take a deep breath. Remember, we are all generally here for the same reason: to be in a community that accepts us when society doesn't. 

I realize that things have been said by both sides of the issue that have been disrespectful, mean and many other adjectives I don't want to mention. One of you needs to decide to take the high road and let the thread die. You aren't going to change anyone's opinion about the matter or how they live their life. 

I just hate that things can be taken so out of context online. Please, let's remain civil and accept each other, even with a difference of opinion.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Would someone rep Tina for me? That's so awesome, but I can't rep her again!
> 
> Edited to warn Tina and Vickie to watch out. Anita is a VERY important, influencial writer, as she pointed out in her Starbuck's thread. She'll take you two troublemakers down just like she did Starbuck's!



*Sippin' my latte while my EQ2 character regenerates power* 

I'm soooo scared.


----------



## missaf (Mar 26, 2006)

C'mon now ladies, sarcasm only feeds beasts we all don't like around, let's just let it die, shall we?


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 26, 2006)

I just realized that was my 400th post. Good gravy....


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

Congrats....and mmmmm gravy.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 26, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Congrats....and mmmmm gravy.




Thanks Chica!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 26, 2006)

MisticalMisty said:


> I just realized that was my 400th post. Good gravy....



I'll second that. I looove gravy. And Everquest 2. And leveling my very cute and feisty wizard character.

Oh, and Starbucks. I love that, perhaps, most of all. (And that's no jivin').


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

'Grats, Misty! And, Vickie... What will we do with you?


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Misty, if all you have seen is nastiness, then I think you're seeing what you want to see. There has been a lot of discussion and debate here, but you seem to have ignored that in favor of seeing nastiness. Do you read this post as nasty, too?


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Misty, if all you have seen is nastiness, then I think you're seeing what you want to see. There has been a lot of discussion and debate here, but you seem to have ignored that in favor of seeing nastiness. Do you read this post as nasty, too?




I don't want to see nastiness anywhere. I've seen a lot of sarcasm and hostility. I'm just stating that as an outsider looking in, it could be construde as nastiness.

I don't read your post as nasty, a bit rude maybe, but not nasty.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Rude? Really. I find it interesting how people can sometimes read emotion into a simple difference of opinion stated matter of factly. Is it because I said you seemed to ignore simple disagreement in favor of pointing out only arguing? 

I know that some cannot stand any kind of disagreement at all and get upset at any kind of dischord and simple disagreement can look like nastiness. Which isn't to say this has been the nicest thread, either.

And congrats on your 400.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina, what she's trying to say is, be more like me.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> I find it interesting how people can sometimes read emotion into a simple difference of opinion stated matter of factly.
> 
> 
> And congrats on your 400.



That was really my point to begin with...this thread could have been taken either way...and thanks!


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

Misty;

Please don't be offended by all of this. This isn't about being nasty or mean; it's more of we just cannot agree.

Anita has repeatedly made blanket statements about women, men, gays, Jews ...I think there's more; but there's a lot of thread.

I don't like being lumped into a big pile of blanket statements that infer that I'm catty (only because I'm a woman). I'm sure you don't either.

Quote Anita (FitChick)
*RedHead, There is NOTHING in Jewish law that says married women cannot be friends with men. I'm not shocked you were misinformed on that, since you were evidently misinformed about the true status of children of converts*.
*The only thing Jewish law says is that married women cannot be in the same room alone with other men, unless the door is open (this stems from laws of tzniut-modesty.) I know MANY religious Jewish married women who have male friends; they just don't spend time alone in a room with them!*

BTW just to correct something else you said that some may misconstrue: I do not belong to either the "reform" or "conservative" movements within modern Judaism....*I belong to an Orthodox synagogue and am active in Orthodox organizations. *That is my only involvement. I have never even seen the inside of the non-Orthodox synagogues. When you referred to me as "conservative" I assume you really meant POLITICALLY?

I underlined the text I thought was relavent for this post...So because I wanted to make sure I posted correct information I went to "Ask a Rabbi"...he was very helpful; it was a live online discussion. Here's his text in full!

*Rabbi Schochet
(Click To View Bio) 


RedHeadAK : undefined
14:10 : Rabbi Schochet
RedHeadAK : Hello
Rabbi Schochet : HI
RedHeadAK : My question is; what does Jewish law say about a married woman having male friends who are either single or married themselves?
Rabbi Schochet : It shuns the very essence of such an idea.
RedHeadAK : May I ask why?
Rabbi Schochet : Because it goes against the basic laws of modesty where women keep to their kind and the man they are open with is their husband.
Rabbi Schochet : It's a recipe for a "disastor"....
RedHeadAK : I would agree; but I was told that I was wrong by a orthodox Jewish woman...and I found it very hard to believe.
Rabbi Schochet : Did she have any source for that?
Rabbi Schochet : The mishna in avot says "al tarbe sicha im haisha", which means don't engage in long talk with a woman.
Rabbi Schochet : So that's a clear indication.....
RedHeadAK : No; just her own statement that she ONLY has male friends. When I questioned her; she said I was ignorant of Jewish Law.
RedHeadAK : Thank you for your time and knowledge!
Rabbi Schochet : Well I think she might be ignorant.
Rabbi Schochet : 
Rabbi Schochet : You can suggest her to look in pirkei avot
Rabbi Schochet : and in chumash parshat naso
Rabbi Schochet : About the sota story
RedHeadAK : I will thank you again!*

So what is her next response? Admission.... Noooo

*Gee you really are obsessed! I wish you'd have also expressed to him your belief that Jews are a RACE, and that a child born of a convert to Judaism is also a convert. Then you'd look like the ignorant one, eh?

OK, so if I'm not allowed to have male friends, then I just won't have ANY friends, since I do not get along well with women at all. Actually, I kinda like that idea better...I always got along better with my books than anyone!

But to be serious, you asked ONE rabbi...and if you know anything about Orthodox Judaism, you know that beyond certain hard and fast rules, nothing is set in stone. For every rabbi who would say what your friend did, I could show you others who would say the opposite. I have a lot of friends who are Orthodox rabbis...are you saying I'm not allowed to be friends with them? I guess I'd better let them know! (lol)*


He stated Jewish law...she didn't like it, so he must be wrong. Then she says well if you ask more Rabbi's you will get a different answer in regards to Orthodox Judaism....well isn't that what we were doing before; (see Jews as a race...their own website says there is confusion over the issue...but the US Government declared them a race)

It's the fact that she wants to be on the debate team but all she can say is "Oh Yah...well you're a jerk; so there!" She produces no facts to back up her points, doesn't answer questions directed at her, makes assumptions about WHOLE genders based on her limited lifes experiences.

If you're gonna play with the big dogs; you'd better learn how to bark! Frankly I don't even think she's paper trained yet


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Rude? Really. I find it interesting how people can sometimes read emotion into a simple difference of opinion stated matter of factly. Is it because I said you seemed to ignore simple disagreement in favor of pointing out only arguing?
> 
> I know that some cannot stand any kind of disagreement at all and get upset at any kind of dischord and simple disagreement can look like nastiness. Which isn't to say this has been the nicest thread, either.
> 
> And congrats on your 400.



Great points Tina!!!


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 26, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types.
> 
> I wish Tina would stop trying to defend women all the time. That is rather pointless and the fact that she thinks she needs to defend women by pointing out that men do some of the same things shows how desperate she is. That feminist stuff is crap. Always has been.
> 
> Either Fitchick is right about that matter of fact or she is mistaken. I would bet that research would support her. This tread is proof of the very thing she is complaining about. My anecdotal experience endorses her position.



Ooooh I can be childish too, "VINCE on behalf of the future hardworking women of america. BITE ME!"..
have a nice day can't wait to post with you in the future.


----------



## djewell (Mar 26, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Misty;
> 
> Please don't be offended by all of this. This isn't about being nasty or mean; it's more of we just cannot agree.
> 
> ...



Did you get that conversation with reb schochet from askmoses.com? that's the only live rabbi chat I can think of. anyway, yeah, he's right. tznius (modesty) is mamish important to traditional judaism.

Fitchick: askmoses is chabad, so you hold by their shito anyway, if i'm not mistaken. 

I know that in my kehillo (community) men don't even look at women; everyone's eyes are pointed downwards anyway lol.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

djewell said:


> Did you get that conversation with reb schochet from askmoses.com? that's the only live rabbi chat I can think of. anyway, yeah, he's right. tznius (modesty) is mamish important to traditional judaism.
> 
> Fitchick: askmoses is chabad, so you hold by their shito anyway, if i'm not mistaken.
> 
> I know that in my kehillo (community) men don't even look at women; everyone's eyes are pointed downwards anyway lol.



Yep..askmoses.com...they were very helpful.


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Mar 26, 2006)

I don't mean to interupt a perfectly good debate here...but I was wondering if anyone had seen "Big Love" yet and if it was any good? I haven't watched it because I thought the whole idea was kinda kookie. I don't agree with polygamy but if the show is good I might watch.


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Mar 26, 2006)

PS...How the heck did I become a senior member!?!?


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

NancyGirl74 said:


> PS...How the heck did I become a senior member!?!?



Is that what we were talking about??? No I'm watching Charmed Tom Selleck is hating life because of it as well. That's okay...I watched NASCAR with him; then the military channel. I paid my dues.


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Nancy, once you're past 100 posts you're a senior member.


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Nancy, once you're past 100 posts you're a senior member.



What happens when you pass 200?


----------



## Tina (Mar 26, 2006)

Spontaneous human combustion.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 26, 2006)

Tina said:


> Spontaneous human combustion.



LOL...you slay me Tina...


----------



## Tina (Mar 27, 2006)

Back at'cha, honey.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 27, 2006)

NancyGirl74 said:


> PS...How the heck did I become a senior member!?!?



Congratulations, Nancy! And no, I haven't seen it. It sounds interesting (in that whole voyeuristic reality TV kinda way) but as it is, I'm way behind in my Tivo watching. (I Tivo nearly every archeological show I can find. Right now I have six hours of "Digging for the Truth", on top of the Jon Stewart, Colbert Report, and all the medical shows I watch).

So, let me know if you watch it.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> 'Grats, Misty! And, Vickie... What will we do with you?



Feed me biscotti and lovely, foamy, yummy lattes from Starbucks? And give me pedicures while I play Everquest? And brush my hair while I'm verbally eviscerating innocent people on web boards? And...

Oh wait. Was that a rhetorical question?


----------



## Tina (Mar 27, 2006)

I miss mocha caramel decaf frappucinos. :eat2:


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

missaf said:


> C'mon now ladies, sarcasm only feeds beasts we all don't like around, let's just let it die, shall we?




As I said, I regularly post to boards that are almost exclusively male, and this kind of thing never happens. Really. Its sad when my point gets proven, post after post (I don't mean your posts, I mean many of the others.)


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Feed me biscotti and lovely, foamy, yummy lattes from Starbucks? And give me pedicures while I play Everquest? And brush my hair while I'm verbally eviscerating innocent people on web boards? And...
> 
> Oh wait. Was that a rhetorical question?



Well, at least you know what you want.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> As I said, I regularly post to boards that are almost exclusively male, and this kind of thing never happens. Really. Its sad when my point gets proven, post after post (I don't mean your posts, I mean many of the others.)



Anita, if someone has problems exclusively with people with black hair, does that mean all people with black hair are jerks, or does that problem lie with the individual?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Anita, if someone has problems exclusively with people with black hair, does that mean all people with black hair are jerks, or does that problem lie with the individual?



It doesn't mean ALL people with black hair are a problem, but it could mean SOME of them are. As much as I don't like a lot of stereotypes, they do seem to have a basis in some truth. Otherwise, how did they get started? And if generalizations are wrong, why do we have the science of sociology?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

NancyGirl74 said:


> I don't mean to interupt a perfectly good debate here...but I was wondering if anyone had seen "Big Love" yet and if it was any good? I haven't watched it because I thought the whole idea was kinda kookie. I don't agree with polygamy but if the show is good I might watch.



Yeah, THAT show! I seem to recall starting this thread to discuss that show!
So...let's discuss it!

I've seen three episodes so far (we have "on demand" downstairs and I can watch it anytime)....from talking to Mormons I know, it seems the show is basically true to form, apart from the unrealistic concept of one man supporting three houses on his income and some from one wife.

It seems Mormons fall into three basic groups: 1) establishment Mormons (LDS members, no polygamy, toes the official church line)

2) centrist Mormons who may or may not do the polygamy thing, but are not affiliated with the establishment church (which I guess Hendrickson and his wives fall into)

3) the wacko lunatic fringe survivalist "compound" types (the ones who get into child abuse, child brides, etc). This would be the category that Royal falls into, as well as where Hendrickson and one of his wives was raised but broke away from.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> It doesn't mean ALL people with black hair are a problem, but it could mean SOME of them are. As much as I don't like a lot of stereotypes, they do seem to have a basis in some truth. Otherwise, how did they get started? And if generalizations are wrong, why do we have the science of sociology?



So Hitler was somewhat correct when he said that Jews were responsible for the ills of the world?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> So Hitler was somewhat correct when he said that Jews were responsible for the ills of the world?



I think that a number of (secular) Jews are responsible for problems we see in the world...Orthodox Jews would tell you that, too. I'm not saying Hitler was right, but you know, these things do not happen in a vacuum. When Jews get away from keeping Torah, they fall into often really immoral things. As a Chasidic friend explained it to me, Jews were created with great potential for morality and good, to keep Torah. But when they fall away from it, that same great potential for good can often be routed into a great potential for doing immorality and evil.

There are a lot of Gentiles who are also very immoral but for some reason, it only gets noticed when Jews are involved.


So...since generalizations are so dreaded and feared here, does that mean no one here supports the science of sociology, which in and of itself is a study of similarities of various groups of people?


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I think that a number of (secular) Jews are responsible for problems we see in the world...Orthodox Jews would tell you that, too. I'm not saying Hitler was right, but you know, these things do not happen in a vacuum. When Jews get away from keeping Torah, they fall into often really immoral things. As a Chasidic friend explained it to me, Jews were created with great potential for morality and good, to keep Torah. But when they fall away from it, that same great potential for good can often be routed into a great potential for doing immorality and evil.
> 
> There are a lot of Gentiles who are also very immoral but for some reason, it only gets noticed when Jews are involved.



So if I follow your logic: Most of the minorities in Rowanda brought genocide upon themselves. Most women bring domestic abuse upon themselves. Most children deserve the sexual abuse they get. It's not the faults of the murderers/abusers entirely. 

As for Gentiles not being noticed for being immoral, I can only rattle off Gentiles when it comes to really immoral people. Doesn't mean bad Jews don't exist, but that's just not true on it not being noticed unless Jews are involved.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> So if I follow your logic: Most of the minorities in Rowanda brought genocide upon themselves. Most women bring domestic abuse upon themselves. Most children deserve the sexual abuse they get. It's not the faults of the murderers/abusers entirely.




I didn't say that, you assumed that. But in all honesty, I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!

Some women do bring it out of a guy like that. But not ALL do.

BTW its Rwanda, not Rowanda. Rowanda is a girl's name.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

Wait. You just said a few posts above that these things "don't happen in a vaccuum," that groups bring it on themselves. And you just said that some women bring it on themselves. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Wait. You just said a few posts above that these things "don't happen in a vaccuum," that groups bring it on themselves. And you just said that some women bring it on themselves. You can't have it both ways.



It depends on which group we're talking about. Would you care to start a new thread dealing with this? Because this thread was supposed to be about polygamy and the BIG LOVE TV show.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

Well, you certainly didn't mind derailing it talking about Judaism. I don't see why we can't derail it talking about this.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Well, you certainly didn't mind derailing it talking about Judaism. I don't see why we can't derail it talking about this.



A few people asked to discuss the original topic, I don't see why we cannot oblige them by going to a new thread.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

I see one person. Why so anxious to end it here? Afraid of not getting the last word?


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I see one person. Why so anxious to end it here? Afraid of not getting the last word?



I just would really like to also get back to discussing the topic, since I recently saw the 3rd episode. I'd also be willing to discuss Judaism, sociology, generalizations, whatever. But in the right topic.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

You were really willing to talk about your religion in off-topic threads when you were pushing your beliefs on everyone else and no one was confronting you.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

here you go:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=87027#post87027

PS: The religion diversion was related to the topics of polygamy and feminism...I was explaining that christians are not the only ones who can engage in polygamy, and I was explaining how traditional Judaism did for me what feminism did not.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

No, you know what, you really need to answer the question on why it's okay for you to go off topic in a thread, but not everyone else, right here in the thread where YOU started it.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

I don't think it was right for ANYONE to do it, but truthfully, I mentioned my religion to show how it did for me what feminism did not. And then someone else took that and ran with it, going so far as to ask if I was born Jewish or a convert (I still don't see what that would have to do with anything, but..) It went downhill from that point.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

All your mentions of Judaism in this thread where you weren't asked and didn't start a new topic:

"Orthodox Judaism TECHNICALLY permits polygamy; a ban against it was issued by Rabbenu Gershom in the 11th century, which has since expired (it was only for 500 years). Sephardic Jews (from Spain, Italy, Arab countries) practiced polygamy until the 1950s, when they were pressured to stop the practice after they were airlifted to the state of Israel." p 3

"Rav Yaakov Emden says that the reason for the ban was danger from the uncircumcised people (that is the Christians) among whom we live. Christianity worked hard over the period from about 600 c.e. to 900 c.e. to eliminate polygamy in Europe. By the year 858, Herard of Tours got so far as to limit people to two wives. Shortly thereafter, the ban among Christians in Europe became almost complete, and they were soon restricted to only one wife..." (You can read the rest if you want.) p 4

"As for groups that do not "let" women have a say, or cut their hair/wear slacks, this may come as a shock to some but there are many women, myself included, who have CHOSEN to live without wearing slacks, without having short hair, some even cover their hair all the time because we believe it is proper from a religious (Jewish) POV. Just because women are in a very strict religious group does not mean they are being forced to be.

I know MANY Jewish women, for example, who CHOSE to adopt Chasidic Judaism...they cover their hair all the time as married women (Jewish law requires this)...they do many things that "liberated" women would find abhorrent. Yet FOR US, these things liberate us in a way other women just could never understand." p 5

"In my religion, Judaism, it is recognized that men and women have differing ROLES. I accept these differing roles. To outsiders and those ignorant of Jewish teaching, it LOOKS like women are treated as unequal. But when you study the rationale for it, you see that it is quite the opposite. I'll give just one example:

In traditional Judaism, only men are counted in the minyan, which is the number of men needed for public prayer (10). Many who are ignorant of Jewish teaching see this as discriminating against women, but its quite the opposite.

The reason WHY only men are needed stems from ancient times, with the sending of ten spies into Canaan when G-d was giving the Land to the Jewish people. One male spy was chosen from each of the 12 tribes. Ten came back with bad reports of how the Land was, only 2 men came back with good reports. The WOMEN chose to believe the two who came back with GOOD reports; the MEN chose to believe the BAD reports of the other ten men." p 8

I'm going to stop there, but that's a hell of a lot of mentions of your religion that are unsolicited. If you're going to tell me what to do, you better at least do the same.


----------



## Jes (Mar 27, 2006)

Jane said:


> So, from what I can gather, FitChick wants to have multiple husbands, because she doesn't get along with women.
> 
> Non-traditional polygamy, but hell, girl, go for it.


That's what I've been thinking from the beginning! Polygamy may traditionally work the other way around, but this will clearly suit her needs better. She can get all the man-talk she wants, and then ride the bologne pony late into the night!


----------



## Jes (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Would someone rep Tina for me? That's so awesome, but I can't rep her again!
> 
> Edited to warn Tina and Vickie to watch out. Anita is a VERY important, influencial writer, as she pointed out in her Starbuck's thread. She'll take you two troublemakers down just like she did Starbuck's!


Oh, wait, was Anita the one from the Starbucks rant?


----------



## Jes (Mar 27, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Congratulations, Nancy! And no, I haven't seen it. It sounds interesting (in that whole voyeuristic reality TV kinda way) but as it is, I'm way behind in my Tivo watching. (I Tivo nearly every archeological show I can find. Right now I have six hours of "Digging for the Truth", on top of the Jon Stewart, Colbert Report, and all the medical shows I watch).
> 
> So, let me know if you watch it.


\


I've been watchying from the first ep and enjoying it. When HBO does something, they know how to do it right, and since I like to be home on Sunday nights, I knew I wanted to watch this show right from the gate.

It's an interesting set up b/c you have Mormons whyo are...between worlds. They're clearly not the lawful Mormons with the nuclear family set up that we've known from the 1890s onward, but nor are they the more typical polygamous Mormons living in community that can police itself and protect itself. They've moved out of that for a variety of reasons. And this moving out has angered the head of the ...community, 'the Prophet' (Harry Dean Stanton). 

And thank god Chloe Sevigny went back to some normal acting rolls and grew her hair out b/c I was getting tired of seeing her taping her nipples and appearing on Go Fug Yourself!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

Si, senorita!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 27, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> I cry easily and I can hug anyone I want without being called a pussy. What's not to love?



Pussy.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 27, 2006)

Vince said:


> Fitchick is getting the cattiness right here in this thread! She sure isn't going to change any of you hardened types.
> 
> I wish Tina would stop trying to defend women all the time. That is rather pointless and the fact that she thinks she needs to defend women by pointing out that men do some of the same things shows how desperate she is. That feminist stuff is crap. Always has been.
> 
> Either Fitchick is right about that matter of fact or she is mistaken. I would bet that research would support her. This tread is proof of the very thing she is complaining about. My anecdotal experience endorses her position.



Anita hates women. Check.
Vince hates women. Double check.
Hmm. Anyone else feeling all tingly? :smitten:


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> Anita hates women. Check.
> Vince hates women. Double check.
> Hmm. Anyone else feeling all tingly? :smitten:



If by tingly, you mean nauseous, yes.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> If by tingly, you mean nauseous, yes.




Actually, I feel sad for both of them. And yep, I'm fully aware that they are going to think I'm being snarky or back-stabby or arrogant. I'm certainly offering an opinion when one hasn't been solicited, which is this: What I read in their words is evidence of two people who have been hurt badly, and they haven't been able to recover from whatever it is that hurt them.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

I understand pain can make someone very upset, but I see how responsibly people like you and Vickie and Tina and Aliena and Redhead and countless others have handled it, and I have a hard time accepting their attitudes. It's okay to be angry (and even hateful) sometimes. It's not okay to do it all the time.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I didn't say that, you assumed that. But in all honesty, I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!
> 
> Some women do bring it out of a guy like that. But not ALL do.



There is never an excuse for abuse. It doesn't matter if you harass, nag and lash out at a guy until the cows come home. It isn't an excuse for him to batter you. It just isn't.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

TraciJo67 said:


> Anita hates women. Check.
> Vince hates women. Double check.
> Hmm. Anyone else feeling all tingly? :smitten:



The thing is, Vince (I assume) is heterosexual. Which means even if he does dislike women, he still has to depend on them for sex. I don't.  So I can say what I truly feel without fear that I'll be sleeping on the sofa if I do.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

Jes said:


> \
> 
> 
> I've been watchying from the first ep and enjoying it. When HBO does something, they know how to do it right, and since I like to be home on Sunday nights, I knew I wanted to watch this show right from the gate.
> ...




I think you summed it up just right. Hendrickson is kinda like a centrist type Mormon--not establishment yet not one of the kooks either (though he was raised with the kooks, as was one wife.)

Isn't that Harry Dean Stanton creepy? I've sene him in other roles where he always seems to play this cowboy/criminal/trailer park kind of guy.


----------



## Robin Rocks (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> Yeah, THAT show! I seem to recall starting this thread to discuss that show!
> So...let's discuss it!
> 
> I've seen three episodes so far (we have "on demand" downstairs and I can watch it anytime)....from talking to Mormons I know, it seems the show is basically true to form, apart from the unrealistic concept of one man supporting three houses on his income and some from one wife.
> ...



And by the way, it's Roman and Henrickson.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

Robin Rocks said:


> And by the way, it's Roman and Henrickson.



Sorry, I had "Royal" on my mind because of something else I was watching too, you're right.


----------



## FitChick (Mar 27, 2006)

I was emailed this by a friend in England...interesting info relative to the history of polygamy:

>>>>

the women of Utah were among the first in the world to be granted the vote. Washington DC granted them the vote in 1870, in the hope that they would vote for the anti-polygamy candidate. Unfortunately, the polygamous Utah wives were happy with their lot, for they voted for the Mormon candidate. Just 17 years later, in 1887, Washington evidently came to the conclusion that the women of Utah could not be trusted to vote for the "correct" candidate, and so they were disenfranchised. This happened as part of the infamous Edmunds-Tucker Act. >>


----------



## RedHead (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I didn't say that, you assumed that. But in all honesty, I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!
> 
> Some women do bring it out of a guy like that. But not ALL do.
> 
> BTW its Rwanda, not Rowanda. Rowanda is a girl's name.




Good God Anita! You are way, way, way out of line here. There is behaviour that is deemed agressive; but what stops the man from walking/running away. HE HAS A CHOICE...she doesn't make him hit her; no taunt, no language...nothing verbal can make you do something if it is morally wrong!

Often a women who has been in repeated abusive relationships actually falls into the scary pattern of looking for men with the same characteristics that she has known her whole life. Hence the pattern of abuse.

BTW...you understood what she was talking about when she said Rowanda....if you want us all to start doing spell checks and grammer checks on one another; you may want to break out your dictionary!


----------



## Jane (Mar 27, 2006)

Harry Dean Stanton is one of the best character actors I've ever seen.


----------



## Jes (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I was emailed this by a friend in England...interesting info relative to the history of polygamy:
> 
> >>>>
> 
> the women of Utah were among the first in the world to be granted the vote. Washington DC granted them the vote in 1870, in the hope that they would vote for the anti-polygamy candidate. Unfortunately, the polygamous Utah wives were happy with their lot, for they voted for the Mormon candidate. Just 17 years later, in 1887, Washington evidently came to the conclusion that the women of Utah could not be trusted to vote for the "correct" candidate, and so they were disenfranchised. This happened as part of the infamous Edmunds-Tucker Act. >>


Don't forget about the issue of agency. It's sort of like that recent study that found that only 1% of the population surveyed were gay. 
The corollary to that (and the joke that Craigers made on the Daily Show) was that actually, only 1% of the pop. surveyed wanted to admit they were gay TO GERMANS (it was a german study). I laughed for days. 
I mean, you see how tough it would be for the avg. Mormon woman to vote against polygamy, yes? I don't know that we can infer that they were happy b/c they didn't vote for a plank in a specific platform.

jes,
social historian.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> The thing is, Vince (I assume) is heterosexual. Which means even if he does dislike women, he still has to depend on them for sex. I don't.  So I can say what I truly feel without fear that I'll be sleeping on the sofa if I do.




Anita...in a healthy loving relationship you wouldn't be sleeping on the sofa EVER.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 27, 2006)

> Originally Posted by FitChick
> I didn't say that, you assumed that. But in all honesty, I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!
> 
> Some women do bring it out of a guy like that. But not ALL do.



This gave me chills. Jesus.

Anita, there is never any just cause for a man to hit a woman. Never. Ever. There is absolutely no way that your sister (or any other woman) could "bring out" such a characteristic - it's either there all along, or it's not. To claim that we are ever responsible for the behavior of another human being is to negate that individual responsibility. How sad that you think so little of your sister. She doesn't deserve to be hit, no matter what. I don't care if she's a cheating, nagging shrew who sleeps with current husband's best friends. There is just no reason ever ... EVER ... for her to be physically abused. A healthy, mature man would leave the situation. A sick, unhealthy bastard lashes out with his fists. 

If your sister continues the pattern of choosing men who beat her, there is obviously a reason behind that. If she were someone that I cared about, I'd want to know why, and what (if anything) I could do to help her.


----------



## Tina (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I think that a number of (secular) Jews are responsible for problems we see in the world...Orthodox Jews would tell you that, too. I'm not saying Hitler was right, but you know, these things do not happen in a vacuum. When Jews get away from keeping Torah, they fall into often really immoral things. As a Chasidic friend explained it to me, Jews were created with great potential for morality and good, to keep Torah. But when they fall away from it, that same great potential for good can often be routed into a great potential for doing immorality and evil.



You know, I hate the whole Hitler thing being brought up, but this cracks me up. Perhaps, you see, the problem was that the orthodox jews didn't say to those naughty SS guys, "but I'm orthodox. It's the secular ones you want," and they would have been spared, eh?

Sadeian's questions are leading you to tie yourself up into celtic knots with your own, peculiar brand of faulty, circular logc. Must be frustrating being shown up by a mere catty girl, eh?

And let's just hope no one near you has decided that you "bring out" the violence in them. Lucky sister you have there -- all the way around.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Mar 27, 2006)

Actually, google it. It can be spelled either way. Sorry. Rwanda or Rowanda.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 27, 2006)

Anita...you are utterly beyond help. It's no wonder you have no female friends. You are the catty back stabber. Look what you just said about your own sister.....*POSTED BY YOU - TODAY - I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!* I shudder to think what you would say about someone who isn't blood related.

You also back stab your own faith.....*POSTED BY YOU - TODAY -I think that a number of (secular) Jews are responsible for problems we see in the world...Orthodox Jews would tell you that, too. I'm not saying Hitler was right, but you know, these things do not happen in a vacuum. When Jews get away from keeping Torah, they fall into often really immoral things. As a Chasidic friend explained it to me, Jews were created with great potential for morality and good, to keep Torah. But when they fall away from it, that same great potential for good can often be routed into a great potential for doing immorality and evil.*

I think that the reason you see all women as catty and back stabbing is because you yourself are like that; but you want to hide behind the veil of ignorance.


----------



## Robin Rocks (Mar 27, 2006)

I honestly cannot believe you think so little of your sister. No man, woman or child deserves to be abused, EVER, whether it's physical, mental or verbal. 

I agree with the majority of women posting in this thread. It really is no wonder you don't get along with other women.


----------



## ChickletsBBW (Mar 27, 2006)

the only thing i don't like about a lot of our (mine and my bf) 'poly' friends here in Austin is that he knew one of the females BEFORE he met me and had an intimate encounter w/ her. When he met me, he knew I would never do anything like that and will never change my mind and she took it upon herself to alienate me anytime we went out with this group of friends and ragged on my bf because he was no longer 'available to play with' which bugged me for a long time. It doesn't really bother me anymore because it's been 4 1/2 yrs and she's still screwing around, and recently got pregnant and.. well.. i'm glad they're saying it's her hubby's baby.. but ya never know.. lol

obviously.. i'm not 'pro-poly'  
but that's certainly *my* opinion


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 27, 2006)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Well, at least you know what you want.



Oh, baby, that's just the tip of the iceberg. But I don't want to scare the children.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 27, 2006)

FitChick said:


> I didn't say that, you assumed that. But in all honesty, I will say that SOME women CAN bring abuse on themselves. I think of my older sister as one such case. EVERY husband she has had has hit her, but knowing her as I do, I KNOW how she is...she will harass and nag and lash out at a guy till you hear the cops coming, if you know what I mean. Hell, there were times *I* wanted to whack her to shut her the hell up!
> 
> Some women do bring it out of a guy like that. But not ALL do.



I think I'm going to be ill now. And no, it ain't the WLS, it's the disgusting, antiquated, woman hating attitude that I see expressed here. Damn. You really DON'T like women, do you? What you said isn't saying anything much different than saying that kids ask for abuse by being little brats (did you want to slap that kid at Starbucks, too?), or that old people deserve abuse in nursing homes because they smell funny and are mean.

As others have said, there is NO excuse for abuse. None whatsoever. And I can't believe anyone would try to justify harming another living thing -- unless they were an abuser, something abusers are all too good at doing. (I speak from personal experience, as someone who has been abused, numerous times, by several people). I'm not saying you're an abuser, but the only people I've known to say such things have been abusers. It would be very easy to make a generalization that lumped you in with that crowd, but it wouldn't be fair. But I gotta say, it's tempting.

Never any excuse for abuse. No one asks for it. Never. That's a generalization I can live with.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 27, 2006)

I'm seeing a distinct double standard here. 

When Fitchick is back stabbing and catty she is telling it like it is. When other women do it, the are being bitchy women. My opinion is that some men and women try to justify any cruel or vicious things they say with the excuse they are "telling it like it is." There is a big difference in being honest and being mean to people. 

Domestic violence

There is no excuse for domestic violence. I don't care how naggy your partner is. Yes, men nag too. It's also emotionally crippling for any children a couple might have to witness such abuse.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 27, 2006)

[size=+2]Popcorn! Peanuts! Ice cold soda![/size]​

You all must be parched by now.



FitChick said:


> I was emailed this by a friend in England...interesting info relative to the history of polygamy


Only comment I have is it would be really, really funny if this friend were a female.


----------



## missaf (Mar 27, 2006)

This thread needs to die, already.

There's no excuse for domestic violence, especially repeated offenses. Your sister needs some help, because she's continuously placing herself in situations that put her in danger, that's self-destructive behavior. Shame on you for condemning her rather than trying to get her the help she needs.


----------

