Lizzie Borden Case

[Tom_Wescott]

You should be able to get a college education for the same amount as a woman or a minority. I don't believe in quotas, and I don't want handouts.

You're flip-flopping a lot. One minute you're a feminist, the next minute you're disagreeing with everything women's and other special interest groups fight for. I'm talking about feminists and you keep talking about yourself. If you're not part of that cause, lay down their flag. I think you might be a humanist as opposed to a feminist. A feminist is someone who puts the wants and needs of her sex above that of all others, just as a racist does his own race. Is that you, or are you in fact NOT a feminist, but a humanist?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I must say that your next to last post would have real feminists up in arms. As for me, it has me confused. Earlier you were angry at the corporate world for women allegedly being paid only 80% compared to men, but now you say it's the woman's fault this happens. I'm confused about birth control and Medicare. What person below menopause age is on Medicare? Anyway, birth control is cheap.

I completely agree that the Japanese people who were horribly caged out of paranoia should have been well compensated. But not their grandchildren, or great grandchildren, etc. As for Native Americans, perhaps you aren't aware of the atrocities they inflicted on white people. And likewise us them. They gave as good as they got. By they I mean the ones who died over 100 years ago. At present, I think the free ghetto housing and free medical care from from disreputed doctors administering trial medicines do far more harm to them than good. The enemy of great isn't bad, it's good. Make someone comfortable and they won't strive for more. Thus they're the only race on earth that's literally becoming extinct. Clearly, the government should have put an expiration date on the reparations. As for the truly disabled, of course there should be care for them, but that is one of the most abused programs in America. The majority of people getting that money are perfectly capable of working. If you have a soft spot for the disabled, you should feel enraged about how the funding for that program is raped by the lazy and stupid and not going where it's truly needed.

I think the worst thing we have done is convince people that lawyers are king and are the answer to 'discrimination'. Most discrimination lawsuits are pure bunk. On Howard's site there's a thread about a woman who was fired from her job because she started wearing a dildo in her pants. She claims the firing was discrimination. She should be jailed for fraud for wasting the tax payer's money, but instead will probably be coddled and encouraged by special interest groups and lawyers aching to make a name for themselves even though they're fighting a lost cause. I feel for the poor employers who will probably go in debt and have to lay real workers off because of some nutcase who refuses to do as the Romans do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

I honestly don't know what your definition of 'equality' is, but it reeks of 'special treatement'. When I can get a college education for the same price as a woman, someone from India, or someone with a hispanic surname, we'll talk equality. But as long as the notion that all white males are born with silver spoons in their persists, we'll continue to have to do what we've done for the last millenia or so, and that's work for what we get and hand 30% over to the groups demanding handouts. Somewhere along the way, your quota systems and funding based on race and sex got tagged as 'equality'. I'd like to start a small business, but I don't get the same treatment as a black woman when it comes to loans and grants. What's my recourse? There is none, because any special interest group that represents the rights of white American men is immediately dubbed the Klan. As a white, Christian, American man, I'm denied the right to claim 'discrimination'. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but I'll be damned if I'll use that as an excuse for failure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You should be able to get a college education for the same amount as a woman or a minority. I don't believe in quotas, and I don't want handouts. If you want a special interest group, by all means make one. Just because you could not historically claim discrimination doesn't mean you can't now. I mean, I'm still willing to bet that you don't get murdered for being a white Christian male, but just because no one is burning a cross on your lawn doesn't mean there isn't inequality. If you really believe that you are being discriminated against, do something about it! Fight it! You have the right. Or are you waiting for someone to do it for you? What could possibly be the value of stoicism when all it does is get you screwed? If you don't like it, change it. I do. When I say equality, I mean equality. If I meant special treatment, I would have said that. I think certain parties probably do deserve a little bit in the way of special treatment. Mostly because I think certain parties are so continually screwed over that a fiscal apology is not out of order. Native Americans I think earned theirs. Japanese Concentration camp inmates deserved theirs. I can't think of anyone else off the top of my head. I have a soft spot for disability issues, so I don't think I can be impartial there. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of guarantees. All I have ever asked is that people have equal rights. If they choose not to take them, that's up to them.

[Errata]

How many of those male surgeons have been on the job for 30 or 40 years versus the women? Of course the male side will figure higher. If a corporation wanted to lure someone in from another company, male or female, they'll offer them a lot of money. If the next person they hire isn't the proven commodity, they'll naturally be offered less. Pray tell me, from a company's stand point, how would it benefit THEM in this day and age to pay men more than women for the exact same position/work? Can you name specific companies or industries where this is the case? What was true 40 years ago is not necessarily true today, like your birth control pill examples. That's about as relevant today as the matchstick girls strike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't think you understand what the problem in pay equity is. It is very rarely a problem with institutionalized sexism anymore(Though Wal-Mart, Adobe, and various state governments have all had issues in that area). It is much more often the case that a company wants to pay people as little as it can. Which is right and proper. Women accept lowball offers far more often than men. Pay equity has gone about as far is it can on legislation alone. The problem we are trying to fix is in getting women to stand up for themselves and their skills. We want women to ask for what they are worth. We want them to pursue promotion aggressively, to monitor the market to see what their skills are selling for, and asking for adjustments accordingly. We don't want them to get rolled over, and then used as a precedent as to how to value an employee.

Civil rights didn't succeed because black activists suddenly managed to change white people's minds. It succeeded because it trained it's own people how to stand up for themselves, how to fight back and how to not take abuse. Feminism is no different. Domestic violence is a feminist issue. But no one thinks that the solution to that problem lies within legislation. I mean yes, I live in a state where you are still punished more harshly for beating your dog than your wife. But yes. Women should leave the first time they are struck. But they don't. And there are reasons they don't. The goal is to make women see that no reason is good enough to stay with a man who beats you. Legislation helps give us enough time with a woman to help her see that. But a majority of our efforts go towards educating young girls that is not acceptable. Ever. Society can fix nothing we ourselves are not willing to fix. Feminists work with women to improve their lot. And yes, that has a lobby that has brought about some damn fine laws, but none of it does a damn thing unless we change our own expectations.

As for your pill crack, there is an amendment even as we speak to take birth control pills off the list of medications covered by Medicare. So that seems pretty relevant today. Evidently they are under the impression babies are cheaper or something.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm a feminist because I want equality for everybody. Everyone deserves it, regardless of race, regardless of sex, regardless of economic status, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion... everyone.

I honestly don't know what your definition of 'equality' is, but it reeks of 'special treatement'. When I can get a college education for the same price as a woman, someone from India, or someone with a hispanic surname, we'll talk equality. But as long as the notion that all white males are born with silver spoons in their persists, we'll continue to have to do what we've done for the last millenia or so, and that's work for what we get and hand 30% over to the groups demanding handouts. Somewhere along the way, your quota systems and funding based on race and sex got tagged as 'equality'. I'd like to start a small business, but I don't get the same treatment as a black woman when it comes to loans and grants. What's my recourse? There is none, because any special interest group that represents the rights of white American men is immediately dubbed the Klan. As a white, Christian, American man, I'm denied the right to claim 'discrimination'. Is that fair? Absolutely not, but I'll be damned if I'll use that as an excuse for failure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

How many of those male surgeons have been on the job for 30 or 40 years versus the women? Of course the male side will figure higher. If a corporation wanted to lure someone in from another company, male or female, they'll offer them a lot of money. If the next person they hire isn't the proven commodity, they'll naturally be offered less. Pray tell me, from a company's stand point, how would it benefit THEM in this day and age to pay men more than women for the exact same position/work? Can you name specific companies or industries where this is the case? What was true 40 years ago is not necessarily true today, like your birth control pill examples. That's about as relevant today as the matchstick girls strike.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

That's not how they calculate pay equity. You take a group. Say surgeons. They add up the yearly salaries of male surgeons and female surgeons, convert it into an hourly rate, and then find the average of male surgeons hourly rate and the female surgeons hourly rate. And according to that equation, women still only make 80% what men in identical jobs make. Which is not illegal since there are very few laws pertaining to salary wages, and it has to be proven that that the pay inequity is a company policy, and not just "how things turned out", Which is why it took 20 years for Wal-Mart to be legally reprimanded for it's pay policies. I don't think any idiot would argue that a 20 hour a week associate should be making the same as the CEO. But if you work the same hours in the same job, you deserve the same pay.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Belinda,

This non-equity in pay is a fallacy, as any responsible economist will tell you. They take the number of working men, versus the number of working women, figure out how much each makes, and build statistics around it. What's not being taken into consideration are housewives, or the fact that women do not seek out many high paying fields by choice, and the main reason is that many, many women choose to leave work to raise children, or at least not attempt to advance their career. Therefore, men will naturally assume higher paying jobs, etc. But I can promise you this, if McDonald's were to try to pay Suzie less than it's paying Johnny, they'd be breaking a law and would have to answer for it. Paying a woman less for a job because she's a woman is illegal.

As for less equity medical wise, I can't remember the last time someone sported a blue ribbon for testicular cancer, but by God I've seen enough pink ribbons to last me a life time. And most scientists are men. If women want change, stop frickin' marrying out of high school and college and go be scientists and change it from the inside. if you want to end domestic violence, leave the first time he hits you. The reality is men and women aren't equal and no law can change that. But they DO have equal opportunity. As for the other groups you mentioned, all I can say is that we are all treated equal. If I as a man choose to go to a job interview in a dress, my prospective employer has every right to hire the guy who came in a suit after me. I'd say 95% of people couldn't argue that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

Hi Belinda. Feminism/feminist shouldn't be capitalized (i.e. Feminist/Feminism) any more than should sexist or racist. If you feel anything is wrong with the latter two, then you have the answer to your question as to 'what's wrong' with the former, as all three are cut from the same cloth. And I'm strictly speaking in the here and now. Modern feminism. Not the old school feminism from 1800's to the 1960's. The motivation and thinking behind feminism in the old days is night and day from today. In fact, I'd argue that the early feminists would be appalled if they saw what has become of their cause.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This makes me sad, because I can see why you think that's what feminism is, but it isn't. And I can see why a majority of people think that's what it is. The women you think of are not feminists. They are sexist. And it was born out of feminism the first time someone suggested that "real feminists" shouldn't be this, or should be that. "Real" feminists should hate men, they should reject marriage, they shouldn't care about their appearance, they shouldn't wear dresses, they shouldn't like sex, they should like sex but reject relationships...

Now I'm a feminist raised by two feminists. I like to look good for my fiance. I like men. In many ways I like them more than I like women. I want to get married. I like sex. I like the occasional dress and high heels. I'm a member of NOW and have been since I was 16. And I think if you look at their work, while you might not agree with it you would see it is not some man hating cabal of femi-nazis.

Louisa, we don't have equality yet. We don't have pay equity. We make 80% of what men make. We don't have medical equity. We do not get insurance coverage to treat certain condition that men do get insurance coverage to treat. We don't have equity in research, and we had to fight like hell to get the pill, then get it covered by insurance, and now we may lose that insurance coverage again. We don't have employment equity. In this down economy, women have fared far worse than men in job loss. We are nowhere near adequately represented in government. Family planning is a feminist issue. Social Security is a feminist issue. Domestic Violence is a feminist issue. Rape and sexual assault is a feminist issue. Paid family leave for men is a feminist issue.

Women trying to rewrite the english lanuage because they have a faulty grasp or greek and latin roots is not a feminist issue. We are not womyn. It is not hystory, or herstory instead of history. "Real feminists" are not anything other than whoever they damn well want to be. And any suggestion that we be anything other than that is as hurtful to equality as any other socially defined role. We don't have to be Suzy Homemaker. But we can be if we want.

I'm a feminist because I want equality for everybody. Everyone deserves it, regardless of race, regardless of sex, regardless of economic status, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion... everyone. As a feminist I work for the rights of women. And of men. And of the LGBT community, etc. I'm proud to be a feminist.

When I said that judging feminism by the shrill minority was like judging Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church, I wasn't kidding. I was neither born nor raised a Christian, and I have very little dealings in that community. The only Christians I ever hear are the Pope and Fred Phelps. And I imagine most Christians I know would be appalled if I thought that those two people represented modern Christianity. Despite popular view, the inmates have not in fact taken over the asylum. Feminism is not fundamentally different than it was is 1966 when NOW was founded. It is quieter and more political. All I ask is that you don't judge feminism by the crazies. Judge it by the movement.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Belinda. Feminism/feminist shouldn't be capitalized (i.e. Feminist/Feminism) any more than should sexist or racist. If you feel anything is wrong with the latter two, then you have the answer to your question as to 'what's wrong' with the former, as all three are cut from the same cloth. And I'm strictly speaking in the here and now. Modern feminism. Not the old school feminism from 1800's to the 1960's. The motivation and thinking behind feminism in the old days is night and day from today. In fact, I'd argue that the early feminists would be appalled if they saw what has become of their cause.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

However many rights they have and however much equality they have, you still won't get them to walk in straight lines when out shopping.

[louisa]

Because being a 'feminist' sounds so radical. It conjures up images (in my mind anyway) of hard faced man haters.

I believe in equality for everyone. I fully understand that an oppressed group of people have to shout extra loud to achieve even a tiny bit of change in the system, but this has been done already.

Now this has been done and women can now level off and enjoy all the benefits that equality with men brings. There's no need to shout anymore!

Yes there are still some dinosaurs out there but they're a dying breed.

As stated previously, I'm all in favour of equality in the workplace and I would certainly take a dim view of being patronized (for simply being a woman) by any man, however, I still like good old fashioned manners.

There are still some resentful and ignorant men around who think that now women have fought for equal rights, they can let a door swing in her face, that kind of thing. Well personally I wouldn't let a door swing in anyone's face, male or female.

[belinda]

That, to me, is a very interesting statement, Louisa. I assume that you must be young. When I was young, I don't think I knew any women who didn't call themselves feminists. My wife still does.

I agree Maurice. I grew up around women who were Feminists.Deriding Feminism seems to be popular with those under twenty five who take what they have now for granted and don't realise how different life was for women a mere forty years ago.

What exactly is so wrong with being a Feminist?

[ChainzCooper]

I was sort of shooting from the hip with my post about Lizzie Borden. Which is why I started it with a Jules Winfield quote
Jordan

[Errata]

Hi Louisa,

Thanks for the support, but I would be surprised if you would view feminism with the same disdain I do. As a man, I'm conscious of the fact that feminists are anti-Tom, and anything anti-Tom sucks hardcore.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm sorry that just made me laugh really hard. Anything anti-Tom does suck hardcore. I mean, unless they know you personally. Then their anti-Tomness may be horribly misguided, but still valid. Old school feminism is still alive and well, even if people do not think of themselves as such. Just as there are still Civil Rights leaders even though integration is 50 years old. I mean, we still don't have pay equity, which is mind boggling. And it is "just fair", but if women in the US still only make 80% of what a man in a identical job makes, then the fight is still there to be fought.

As for Lizzie, I agree with the statement "who else could it be?" You look outside the household and no one there makes sense, you look inside the household and that leaves Lizzie or Bridget, and Lizzie has a far better motive. But Lizzie killing her father is nigh impossible. Even if Bridget helped. Which she didn't because she didn't have any blood on her either. So now neither one of them could have done it, which is impossible because the man did not axe murder himself. I think what we are left with is Lizzie being the best suspect, but not a good one.

I don't think she is innocent. I think she arranged it. I don't think it would be too hard for her to find someone who rabidly hated her father and say "I can make certain you get away with it as long as you do it." Geez for all we know he cleaned himself up and waited in the cellar for the house to fill with people and then came upstairs to join the crowd as though he came in the back door. I mean, as with all the great mysteries we will never know. Involving a third party is in fact an insane risk, but it would explain some things. And the house just lends itself to someone hiding out. It's really nutty. You should see it.