On 12/14/17, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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-wedne
sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-wedne
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