I found a definition in my dicdtionary. I don't know if this is what Carl
meant, but it is the meaning that I thought the word had. Womanize - to be
sexually promiscuous with women
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey ;
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:24 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin story
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-we
dn e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-we
dn 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
