Joke or not a joke, I am still curious about a word you are using to
describe yourself, Carl. I asked this before and I suppose you either
missed my question or I missed your answer. I am wondering if I am on
the same page with you in understanding the meaning of the word
womanizer. In my understanding of that word a womanizer is a man who
tricks a woman, by lying or by some other scam, into consenting to sex
with him and then he drops her and goes on to trick the next woman and
he does this serially. As your personality comes across in email this
does not sound like you either now or in the past. So, is this what you
mean when you call yourself a former womanizer or do you mean something
else?
On 12/14/2017 2:21 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
While I agree with much of what you wrote, Miriam, I would protest the
use of the word "Joke" when referring to my personal exposee. What I
write in a light vein is not to joke about my past, but to attempt to
explain how different our Male Attitudes were some 50 years ago. Yes,
I agree that ours is still a White, Male Sexist, selfish culture. But
it is not the same White, Male, Sexist selfish culture that we lived
in back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Just as an example, when my first
wife and I married, she would have been mortified to have even thought
of keeping her own family name. She could not buy anything on credit
without my consent. We could not include her income when we bought
our first house, "Because your wife might get pregnant and have to
quit working". In most churches, Catholic and Protestant alike, women
wore head coverings while men entered bare headed. There were so many
open ways of keeping women in their place. And the same was true with
Black and Brown citizens. At least by making some changes in our
laws, those who can afford to, have the ability to force
discrimination that once were accepted. But your post goes hand in
hand with my point. Until we are able to put in place a society with
People as its bottom line, we will simply go on doing the cosmetic
stuff and hoping we can hold onto our few gains.
Finally, back on the word, "joke". What I write on this and other
lists may appear to be frivolous, but inside my own private world I am
one Hell of an angry White, Blind Man.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Conditions aren't different now than they were then. We are a sexist, racist
society. We worship wealth and scoff at intellectdualism. We are a nation
that favors white, Christian, wealthy men. But over the years, we've
managed to camouflage the reality with cosmetic changes. The powerful have
kept the majority silent by giving them a President whose father was born in
Africa and by providing a great deal of distraction with reality TV,
pretend luxury like overcrowded cruises with inferior food and
entertainment, and smart phones, and constant terrorist or pretend terrorist
incidents so they would have a scapegoat.
The beauty pageants were a tool with which to socialize women so that they
would accept male domination. Beauty pageants and all of those movies with
glamourous women. All of us born female, grew up believing that we were
unworthy unless we could meet , or at least approximate, the standards of
beauty that those pageants represented. Nothing has changed. Hillary Clinton
had to have beautifully dyed and coiffed hair, perfecdt makeup, beautiful
clothes, in order to run for the Presidency. None of that was necessary in
order for Bernie Sanders to run. All of us born female who are physically
disabled, not particularly attractive, or aging, know that no matter how
capable or intelligent we are, our value is diminished in this society. But
if we are young and physically attractive, then we are automatically prey to
the men who surround us. Even those men who do not have money and political
power, are physically stronger than we are, and they have social power,
power that we don't have.
We have all been socialized to accept these sexual dynamics. Those of us who
rebel, are seen as bitter, angry, poor sports. Carl can easily joke about
his past sexual exploits on this list. That is a male prerogative. It is not
something that a woman would do, even if she had a similar history in
relation to men. Back in the late 60's, we called it sexual politics. It is
so pervasive, so ingrained, that men are unaware that it exists, and women,
find various ways of dealing with it. The women who voted for Trump and
Moore, have been completely overwhelmed and corrupted by it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:08 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
Even "back then" in my days as a Womanizer, actually as a Floundering Member
of Womanizer's Anonymous, back in 1962, I came to believe that such pageants
as Miss America and Miss Universe, were contributing to our sexist attitudes
by approval of such parades. That year, 1962, the year my eldest daughter
was born, I watched for the last time the exhibition of shapely young women
attempting to become America's "most perfect" woman.
Back then, if my faltering memory is correct, about half the women watched
the Pageant and half were disgusted. Men, in the company of other men,
mostly enjoyed gawking at the shapely young women. They looked in a way
that would have had them swinging and screaming at any young man looking
that way at their own daughters or wives.But in the company of the woman
folk in their families, they mostly said that beauty contests were a foolish
waste of time.
But to compare how men behaved back then with how we claim to behave
today...with those notable accused Sexual Predators being called out, is
like debating whether Notre Dame's "Four Horsemen" of bygone years could be
better than their counterparts today. Or whether Joe Lewis could have
beaten Jack Dempsey. Conditions are different and it will always be like
comparing apples to oranges.
While I applaud those women who, in the face of all the crap thrown in their
faces, come forward to reinforce the fact that we have always been, along
with being racist, we have always been a sexist society.
Our culture, which is built upon a bottom line of profit, creates the
atmosphere for Power Tripping. That bottom line of Profit has some rewards
other than simple wealth. Wealth buys privileges. One of those privileges
is dominance over those beneath you in the pecking order created by our
worship of Capitalism. Despite the brave(foolish)talk, there are no Level
Playing Fields in a Capitalistic society. Socialism is a sign of weakness.
Women's bent toward mothering, which they extend to their community is
tolerated by the macho men. Rugged individualism still rules men's minds.
Even though the powerful men in the Ruling Class band together, they sneer
at efforts by working class members to organize unions, or to provide
comfort to those less fortunate than themselves.
So yes, we should thank those women who stand up for respect and decency,
but we should understand that this is just one part of the struggle on the
road to an all inclusive society. And the only way to have that society
which respects all its members is to change the form of the society we now
live in. Otherwise, no matter how often we push new benefits through
congress, those Powerful Bottom Liners will find ways of destroying them,
even as they profit from them.
Talk all we want about "reforming" the Democratic Party, and certainly we
must do what we can to take power away from our Corporate Masters, but that
will only be a short term fix. Down the road, like it or not, a major
social change must take place.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Back then, and remember, I was alive back then, women were not heads
of corporations either. A woman's purpose was to support her man, to
do the housework, to raise the children, and to do volunteer work if
she were wealthy enough to half household staff. Back then, a woman
was supposed to be flattered if a man made sexual advances, whether or
not she liked the man. And back then, women entered beauty pageants so
that she could be judged according to her appearance and sexiness, and
what followed from that was expected. 30 of 40 years later, if one
joins a beauty pageant in order to have one's physical appearance
judged, even if it's dressed up by adding on other capabilities like
piano playing, one has willingly entered the horse show, just like way
back then.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank
Ventura
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
Miriam, back then women were too smart to want to be president; only
me were that foolish.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
Harry never mentioned any women, did he?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
The way Jaws reads her name, Gellibrand sounds a little like some
brand of grape spread. But I'm not going to stick my nose out on this
next election.
Not after reading all the signs wrong in the last presidential fiasco.
I think I'll stop right here. I'm in a funky mood and not feeling
very productive.
The System is broke and is crying for fixing. But all the "fixers"
are gone fishing.
Old Harry Truman once told reporters that he figured there were more
than a million American Men who could be president. The big puffed up
political cream puffs postured and pouted and snorted. How dare that
Haberdasher devalue our mighty presidency by such blasphemy as telling
the world that this great office could be handled by over a million men.
So enter Donald Trump. Old Harry is chortling in his grave.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/13/17, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-wedn
e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-wedn
e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
=
The gist of the above article is that Trump is hand picking
Gellibrand as his opponent for the 2020 presidential race. He may be
a sleazy fascist but evidentially not stupid. She is running from a
very weak position. Other than Obama and JFK senators don’t fare well
in presidential elections their voting record is always tough to
explain off and congressional approval ratings are at an all-time
low. She is also a woman and women don’t fare well in presidential
races. She is from a Northeast blue state and they also don’t fare
well with the heartland and the southland. The fourth major problem
with her candidacy is that she has chosen Trump’s predatory behavior
as her flagship issue. As we just experienced in the Alabama election
white women have basically said they don’t care as long as the
predator is a republican. Another mystery card in the deck is what
would happen if Trump decides not to run for reelection? Could she
even make a ripple with a republican candidate that isn’t a predator
or maybe even a female republican candidate, Sarah Palin, Candalisa
Rice, etc.? If I was a far right republican and I wanted to pick an
opponent she may be a good choice.
Frank