View Full Version : a joke with good ideas for dealing with the war

Yvonne Belisle
October 27th, 2001, 03:48 PM
Take all American women who are +/-5 years of menopause.
Train us for a few weeks, outfit us with automatic weapons,
grenades, gas masks, prozac, hormones, SPAM, etc. Drop us
(parachuted, preferably) across the landscape of Afghanistan,
and let us do what comes naturally.

Think about it. Our anger quotient alone, even when doing
standard stuff like grocery shopping and paying bills, is formidable
enough to make any men tremble.

We have had our children, we would gladly die/suffer to protect
them and their future. We'd like to get away from our husbands, if
they haven't left already. And for those of us who are single, the
prospect of finding a good man with whom to share life is about
as likely as being struck by lightning and probably not as lethal;
therefore, we have nothing to lose.

Let us go and fight. The Taliban hates women. Imagine their terror
as we crawl like fire-ants with hot-flashes all through their god-
forsaken terrain.

When I first read this I thought about putting it in jokes then the more I thought about it the better I liked the idea. How do the people of this board feel about this as a possible solution? I realize it will never happen but if it could what do you think of it?

October 27th, 2001, 04:05 PM
Well, as a port-menopausal woman, i don't have much of an anger quotient to speak of... and i still think an all-out war in Afghanistan is not the best way to expunge terrorism.... and history has shown that a land war in Afghanistan is unwinnable.

i think it would be far more effective to elect an equal number of women to government office and yes, the office of President, and see if we can't and don't come up with a more effective, efficient and humanitarian way to make the world a safer place for life and love and the freedom of equal beings to chose to live in peace.

Frankly, my opinion is that if they put women in a position of having an equal say in solving the problems, we'ed take away the "toys" and use the money to eliminate poverty, hunger and disease. At least it would be difficult for women to do a worse job then is being done now. (And yes, this sounds chauvenist.. but in countries where they have legislated a voting system that elects equal numbers of men and women, spending on social issues has gone up and so has the standard of living, while money for weapons and wars has gone down. bb talamh

October 27th, 2001, 06:16 PM
I very much enjoyed the post. As a woman I am frankly sick of people implying that "fighting back" is a result of male rule or patriarchy. We are women, we are just as strong as men any time of our life, and we should take pride in our strength, not blame our problems on men.

Women vote, and we are 50% of the population (give or take), and if there's no woman in office who's fault is that? Is someone going to try to tell me there are no women-lead political parties? If so, start one.

"It's not that some people have willpower and some don't. It's that some people are ready to change and others are not."
James Gordon, M.D.

October 28th, 2001, 06:17 AM
If it's all a matter of voting, then why aren't there a proportionate number of Afro-Americans in government as well as a proportionate number of women?

In contemporary democracy there is the way it's supposed to be.. and the way it is. Even winning a nomination is a process stacked against anyone who isn't "one of th boys".. and yes, sometimes a woman can be "one of the boys" but that's my point exactly.

It is very seldom that the system will allow into power anyone who isn't dedicated to perpetuating the system. bb ta;amh

October 28th, 2001, 08:06 AM
I think the answer to that question is a little obvious.

Perhaps most voters are more concerned with the policies and beliefs of the politicians they vote in rather then their gender or colour.

Are we assuming now that someone's been fixing the vote for centuries?

Dellit Tandannon
October 29th, 2001, 02:18 AM
lets get a 500 gallon tank of pigs' blood and spray the taliban with fire hoses.

October 29th, 2001, 10:14 AM
Myst, are you saying that the reason the governments of most western-style democracies such as the US, Canada, Britain etc are predominantly white and male is because white males are simple better at governing?

Under the present system, votes can be "bought" by slick advertising. The raison d'etre of commercial tv is to make money by advertising, so people have allowed themselves to be programmed by the manipulation of the medium. Under the present system, most of the time a candidate can actually buy an election with massive advertising combined with getting the endorsement of the political establishment.

Personally i find it very discouraging that some people chose where to put their vote by the "image" a candidate presents... or something as goofy as the kind of tie a person wears or something equally as trivian... but that's democracy as we know it. Right now it is rigged in favour of perpetuating the system that exists....

And getting back to letting warrior women loose in Afghanistan... any one who did would be volunteering to be cannon fodder. A romantic notion to stir the patriotic blood... but actually, in my view, completely impracticle. bb talamh

October 29th, 2001, 10:39 AM
Does it *say* "white males are better at governing"? No, it says most people are probably more concerned with the policies of the individuals rather then their gender or race; can you honestly say you'd vote for a woman even if you didn't agree with her work just because she's a woman? And if you did would that be any better then voting for someone because they are male? I'm appalled by this - I can't imagine anyone going "oh well no I won't vote for her, even though her policies are proper, she's a black woman".

Personally I vote for candidates according to their principles and policies, not their gender.

And frankly anyone who is in the war with Afghanistan could end up cannon fodder.

October 29th, 2001, 12:23 PM
Myst... if people really do vote simply on the merits of the candidtaes, can you explain why it is that our government members are predominently white and male and middle-aged? Nothing against white, middle-aged men... some of my best friends are white, middle-aged men. (!) But if the system is fair, why isn't it representative?

And no, i don't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman.. i could end up with Margaret Thatcher. Yikes! bb talamh

Yvonne Belisle
October 29th, 2001, 06:32 PM
I am not positive but I think I read somewhere that the majority of American voters are female. Can someone post the truth of the numbers here for us?

October 29th, 2001, 06:46 PM
well, statistically, 52 per cent of the human race is female.... i don't know how that translates into the slightly mysterious registered voter system of the US..... :) bb talamh

October 29th, 2001, 08:13 PM
Take a look at how many candidates are not white males; take a look at their policies and principles. How many women have run for presidency who you felt should be voted in? Now take into account who else was running at that time, how many voters there are, and how many years we've been doing it this way. Now take into consideration what kind of probability you have.

It's like my chosen field; there just happens to still be a majority of men in it. Perhaps not as many women are interested in the field as men. I can remember in my classes maybe one other woman who was there because she loved IT. That's not sexist, that's just the way it is.

Yvonne has made a good point (and I think that number is accurate or at least very close). Unless you're going to claim the system of democracy is totally bunk and has been for decades?

October 29th, 2001, 10:31 PM
Amazingly enough, a hilarious joke turned into an actual debate!! WOO HOO! :)

And Myst, I totally agree with you... just because there are no women presidents doesn't mean the men are keeping them down... it just means women don't run for president as often.

In order to be elected to any high political position, you need money.. lots of money. Americans, as a general rule, are pretty lazy.. they want things handed to them. They don't want to go out and research the candidates backgrounds and beliefs and policies... they want to watch the little advertisements on TV. Thats just the way it is. If you don't have the money to pay for the ads (on tv, radio, billboards, even those annoying "vote for so and so" signs in people yards) you're not going to be noticed.

And I also don't think that if we had women in power the worlds (hell, even just our countries) problems would go away. I don't think any huge changes would be made, mainly because not all women are nice, pacifistic, gentle people.. some of them are just as ruthless and violent as the men (most of them, IMO).


P.S. By the way, great joke... I think my mom could do some serious damage over there, if given the chance.. her hormones are *out of control*... but thats ok... cause she's my mom, and I love her anyways and as she says, giving birth to 3 girls and having to raise us (well, my dad helped... not the point) gives her the right to do anything she wants. My mom rocks. :)

October 30th, 2001, 09:32 AM
i think it all comes back to the reality that people in power won't allow access to the power unless and until a person deomnstrates and convinces those in authority that they are no danger to the existing power structure.

In other words.. hierarchies pepetuate themselves.

i think it is helpful to look at gender roles in our society. Why don't as many women general offer themselves as candidates? There has been a lot of research done on this and one of the major reasons given by women is that political life is too disruptive to family life... If it is the father who is the politician, then the mother usually slips into the role of "political wife" and keeps the home fires burning.

But if a woman who is also wife and mother is the elected one, the male partner is not expected to become the "political husband" and give up his job to keep the family going.

Interviews done with women politicians all say there needs to be a lot more support... day care, sick care back up, who takes the kids to dental appointments, drives them to music lessons?? Does the family live in their origional home base or in the seat of government where the elected parent must attend as an elected representative? Where do the kids go to school?

i don't think we will see any where near equal representation of genders in legislative bodies until there is more equity in care-giver roles in society as a whole. And while it is slowly improving... all the surveys i have seen still indicate that in a heterosexual relationship, the woman still spends about twice as much time doing housework and child care as the man... and this is a vast improvement over what it used to be. bb talamh

October 30th, 2001, 10:00 AM
Presumably by her own choice or she wouldn't be in the relationship.

October 30th, 2001, 05:04 PM
Are you saying a woman should have to chose between her private life and her public life but a man should be able to have both? bb talamh

October 30th, 2001, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Myst
Presumably by her own choice or she wouldn't be in the relationship.

Does it say "a woman should have to choose between her private life and her public life and a man shouldn't"?

"all the surveys i have seen still indicate that in a heterosexual relationship, the woman still spends about twice as much time doing housework and child care as the man... and this is a vast improvement over what it used to be."

Personally at my home my fiance does the dishes and makes supper just as much as I do, cleans up after the dog, and does the laundry all the time (including ironing clothes), whereas I do the dishes and make supper the rest of the time and clean the apartment. It all equals out for us. No I'm not debating whether your statistic is true or not, because I'm sure it is, I'm saying that a woman has a choice of whether she spends "twice as much time doing housework and childcare" as the man or not - if he refuses to help she can leave him.

October 30th, 2001, 06:55 PM
And what about the kids.. and what if he is basically a good person who really is trying but has a very demanding job? Does one partner have the right to suddenly change the rules on the other partner?

The dynamic *is* changing. But in the meantime, how do you suggest we go about getting more women involved in politics? bb talamh

October 30th, 2001, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
and what if he is basically a good person who really is trying but has a very demanding job?

how do you suggest we go about getting more women involved in politics? bb talamh

Well, thats where compromise comes in. If my husband has a demanding job, than I feel I should take care of more of the household stuff... simply because it's a good compromise. BUT.. if my job is more demanding, then he should take care of it.

"WE" can't do anything about getting more women into politics. If they're not interested, we can't force them. The only thing you can do is find a female candidate that you like (don't just choose her because she's a girl) and campaign for her... try to get corporate funding, etc etc etc.

I don't think it matters one way or another who takes care of the household stuff, as long as everyone is happy. I had a wonderful childhood.. my mom stayed at home with us (by her own choice) until we were old enough to watch ourselves, then she got a job, and my dad worked full time. My parents were both happy with their lives and it showed. They never fought about the dishes, the laundry, who was making dinner... come to think of it, I never saw my parents fighting about anything, ever... but thats not the point. The point is, my parents were happy doing their own respective jobs. And why is it "degrading" for women to stay at home with the children?? Being a stay-at-home mom is a fulltime job.. with only 1 benefit.. watching your child grow. I've asked my mom before if she regrets not putting us in daycare, so she could have a career, and she said no, because she got irreplaceable joy of watching our first steps, hearing our first words, watching us grow and mature into wonderful young women. Jobs come and go... you can always start a career at 50... you can't turn back time and get those precious moments back with your children.

October 30th, 2001, 10:01 PM
No one that i know of would ever call staying home with babies degrading. It is a luxury that few can afford. i was a single mother. i had no choice but to work .. and believe me.. i had so much trouble with finding good daycare for my son. Many's the time i was tempted to quit and go on welfare so i could see the first step and hear the first word.. but i knew i wanted to be able to provide him with security and the luxury of choice. i know i made the right decision.

My experience that comes from knowing and observing politics and politicians is that fewer women run for elected office because it demands one's undivided attention... with little time left for home and family. It's part of an unhealthy lifestyle that is demanded of anyone who wants to earn any kind of a decent living.

Personally, i think society would be a lot more healthy if everyone could lead a more balanced life and not have to work 14 - 16 hours a day. But working 16 hours a day *and* trying to raise a kid on one's own is really tough. My son is grown and gone now... and a graduated medical doctor... but i will always remember that it was the baby sitter who saw him take his first steps. bb talamh

October 30th, 2001, 10:23 PM
I completely respect your choice. Being a single mom has got to be one of the toughest things in the world. You didn't have a choice to stay at home, you had to provide for your child, and that is totally understandable. And congrats on your wonderful son... you must be so proud of him! :)

And I have heard MANY MANY people say that being a stay at home mom is degrading... it sets back the womens movement, etc etc etc... I was just bringing up that issue because it bothers me to hear people say that.. I wasn't commenting on anything you said, or implied or anything.

I agree, though, about the working 14-16 hours a day... how can you possibly live your life and enjoy it while working that hard, all the time? I'll never understand the people who do that, because they want to. Doing it because you have to is a whole different story. I don't understand people who kill themselves every day for 60 years, just so they can retire wealthy. To me, if I'm too old to enjoy it, it ain't worth it.

When my sister worked at a preschool here in town, so many times the mothers would bring in their children, barely even dressed, not bathed, not fed... but they looked absolutely stunning because they had to go to work...a few of the mothers would even forget to come pick their child up.. a few of them did that 2 or 3 times a week, every week!!! Of course, there were a few fathers who did that, too. That bothers me, too. If you're too busy with your career to care for your children, maybe ya shouldn't have had children, thats my philosophy.

If my father would have stayed at home with us instead of my mom, I think I would have turned out to be a pretty screwed up individual. Don't get me wrong..my dad is the most wonderful man in the world, and I love him more than anything else .. but he's pretty scatterbrained. :) I just turned 21 in June.. my dad thought I was 19. LOL If he was watching a football game (go broncos!), we could get anything we wanted out of him. We'd just whisper, "Dad, can we have some money?" He'd reach in his wallet, completely oblivious, and hand it over. Sometimes we'd get a dollar, sometimes a 20! Or we'd ask if we could stay at a friends house, and he'd say yes, and my mom would be hella pissed cause he had no idea where we were! LOL We had alot of babysitters too, when I was growing up.. if my mom had an appointment or whatever. I remember my mom got really upset one day cause she found out my sister was confiding in the babysitter (whom we'd only known for a couple days) and wouldn't tell my mother anything. I can see how that would hurt someones feelings.

Gods, we are sooo off-topic here on this thread.. but it's a pretty good discussion. :)

Yvonne Belisle
October 30th, 2001, 11:27 PM
My mother is a permanent student she is still in the college she started at 32 years ago she just takes more classes and teaches there now. My father had a 9 to 5 and was the homebody. I am now a housewife looking for the right home buisness for me because I don't want to be out of the home. I like being a housewife and making a special meal for my family or bringing my hubbie his slippers after a long day and giving him a backrub. I like to help people it makes me feel useful and fulfilled but that is me. I think most women would go crazy living my life but it's the right one for me. I would never want to be a polititian there is too much strife. I don't think women in power would change the world at all. We are capable of being just as petty, vindictive, jelous, manipulative and downright evil as our male counterparts. The reality in my eyes and opinion is that the women who have the stregth to rule a government effectively are not going to be all sweetness and light they will be pretty ruthless because that is what it will take to make it to the top of the political structure. These women are required to set rigid goals for themselves and look at every action they take to see how it will look to others just like most of the more successful men do.

October 31st, 2001, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by talamh anEiac
The dynamic *is* changing. But in the meantime, how do you suggest we go about getting more women involved in politics? bb talamh

I don't. Women who want to be in politics will find a way to get into it. No one is chaining them to their fridge anymore.

And there are "no rules" about a relationship and who keeps the kids. We have daycare, we have babysitters, we have people who don't have kids until they want to slow their job down. People make their own choices, it's not our place to argue about them or force people into doing what we think they should.

October 31st, 2001, 07:25 AM
Yikes, Myst - Are you saying nothing's ever going to change? Because unless good people try, government will continue to exist for the power elite and those who have enough money to buy the election with advertising.

In Canada the government wanted to do something about the low per centage of women in executive-level jobs. The private sector said - "Don't legislate us. Let us make the committment and do it on our own."

So the government brought in regulations for federally-regulated workplaces and let private industry do it's own thing.

Ten years later the federally regulated organizations, including federal government offices, had only improved by a couple of per centage points... and in private industry, the numbers had actually gotten worse.

So much for leaving it up to the free market. If it's left up to the private industry, women will always have second-class status and the second-class wages that go with it.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in? bb talamh

October 31st, 2001, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Myst

I don't. Women who want to be in politics will find a way to get into it. No one is chaining them to their fridge anymore.

And there are "no rules" about a relationship and who keeps the kids. We have daycare, we have babysitters, we have people who don't have kids until they want to slow their job down. People make their own choices, it's not our place to argue about them or force people into doing what we think they should.

Does that say "nothing is ever going to change"? Really, I'm beginning to wonder if there are hidden messages in my posts I'm unaware of.

I don't know about you, but I'm a woman and I have *no* problem making my own choices, nor does any woman I know. Carly Fiorina and Jill Barad come to mind. Things *are* changing.

November 1st, 2001, 11:20 AM
Myst, i truly hope that you are right and i am wrong and that your life experience will be that there is no longer sexiam and gender-bias in the workplace and that women have finally been accepted as equals in their own right. bb talamh

November 1st, 2001, 11:22 AM
It has been so far (almost 22 years) :)