is an apt description of their problem.

Actually, the phrase originated as a description of Judy LaMarsh in the auld way-back time - but that's another story.

and what would happen to America if congress was gender balanced... Forget Madeline Albright, she is just one woman. Look at Sweden - because almost 50% of their parliamentarians are women the Swedish government was able to tackle prostitution the way it should be - prosecute the client and view the prostitute as an exploited victim. As a result, the demand for prostitutes has been reduced and attitudes toward the sex trade have been reshaped. Although it's only one example I believe a just society would be easier to achieve if congress was gender balanced. Need proof? Just look at the mess the U.S. is in right now.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Although it's only one example I believe a just society would be easier to achieve if Congress was gender balanced. Need proof? Just look at the mess the U.S. is in right now.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting we wouldn't have gotten into Iraq if at least half of Congress was female, or we wouldn't have allowed AIG et al to bend us over, or we wouldn't be arguing with Russia over NATO, or there would be a significant drop in homelessness, or etc., etc.?

I'm not saying that women would do a better job. What I'm suggesting is that what's lacking in the political landscape is the female point of view. Women's political participation and parliamentary representation should be encouraged. When there is gender balance in parliament, the femimine and masculine principle in each of us has a better chance of fusing and/or separating depending on what decisions need to be made. For example, diplomacy would not have worked with Hitler - he only understood force.

Gender equality is not about pigeonholing so-called women's issues. It's about taking those issues and placing them in the realm of "human" issues that effect both men and women.

To answer your questions, Bush and Cheney are to blame for the Iraq war fiasco, the financial meltdown definitely would not have occurred; Russia would have been our partner in peace (personally, I believe Bush is partly to blame for Putin's fast and deep descent into dictatorship), and every human being would have had shelter.

Let me conclude with a quote from former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme: "The emancipation of women is, equally, the emancipation of men, through tapping the enormous resources and potential of women.

Together we are smarter.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

during the Clinton administration, the stock market climbed over 18% each year. when John Edwards' wife visited Minnesota during his campaign, she noted that health care costs were mostly correlated to the stock market; tuition fees, I'm assuming, were too and that unleashed the student debt problem.

so I'd say that the "Clinton Economy" was the wrecking ball which hit our economy since it was unsustainable. Moreover, Clinton's policies, which included NAFTA, welfare reform and the removal of Saddam Hussein from office (more war), were an attack on the middle class and perhaps that's why Obama was obsessed with claiming that the government cared about the middle class.

Furthermore, it's important to remember that Bill Clinton campaigned: "when you hire me, you get her (his wife)." So presidential power-- during the Clinton administration, was apparently influenced by both sexes and, yet again, we still went backwards.

this is not about what this or that woman said ... (insinuating that Hillary Clinton may be indirectly responsible for the current financial meltdown is truly a deranged stretch of the imagination).

It's about implementing institutional change at all levels of government - local, state, and national - so that men and women can work in partnership in an environment that is gender balanced. How to do this? See here (pdf)

Women would have put the brakes on a financial system that was heading towards a derailment. See here and here

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

Not that I want to interrupt, but I chime in to express my surprise about the course discussions take here – from Austrian racism to whether Hillary Clinton is to blame for the financial meltdown and the role of women in modern societies, what a jump!
Not that I mind it, on the contrary, I enjoy it!
Although I tend to agree with adrena on most points, I’m wary of gender-equal societies per se being more peaceful. History doesn’t support that. The ancient Celts, the most famous example of a truly gender-equal society, were as bellicose as any other people of their times.
And now keep going!

I'm very pleased you enjoy the discussion. There doesn't seem to be much info on Celts on the Internet. I did read that there were female Celtic warriors. Would you happen to know why or what they fought for? We know why the female Kurdish rebels are fighting ... if I was a Kurdish woman I would be in the mountains with them.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

adrena, the Celts were a people who inhabited the vast lands between the Ural and the Atlantic in ancient times (before the Roman Empire). Their influence today, of course, is still felt the strongest in Wales, Ireland and Brittany.

The point is not what Celtic female warriors were fighting for but that in Celtic society women were absolutely equal to men. They were masons, blacksmiths, Druids, warriors, you name it, and, of course, queens. The most famous of them being Boudica who led an uprising against the Romans in 60AD. In Ireland, Celtic society was so strong that even in the Irish (Catholic) Church there existed female priests until patriarchal Rome, the Pope that is, finally quashed them in the 7th century (so for 500 years females were able to maintain their status in Irish society against all latinization efforts). Such a priestess in early Medieval Ireland is the heroine of Peter Berresford Ellis' Sister Fidelma mystery series. Ellis also wrote valuable non-fiction about the Celts, I recommend The Celts, if you're keen on learning more about them.

As for the Kurds, you'll be pleased to learn that a female Kurdish peshmerga will be the heroine of one of my upcoming books.

I seem to be buying a lot of books lately - add "The Celts" to the list. I look forward to your new book.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

I know way too many women who enjoy living like queens so I hardly believe that gender or race will do much about changing the way politics works.

As you know, Hillary ran as a rational republican so I think that it's fair to finger her as supporting the current financial meltdown since she certainly won't be giving back the $110 million that her family "earned" over the past 8 years in an effort to bring about a kinder, gentler equality.

So I'd say that some folks believe in gender; others believe in race; and, yes, some people still believe in Santa Claus.

My point: were all human.

stereotypes on women. Let me recap them all - women like living like queens, like going to the mall, like to buy fancy homes, show 'fake love' to get lucky. Do you keep a collection of these somewhere to be used whenever an appropriate argument arises?

partial comment removed by ed.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

ummm, my "fake love" comment was pointed towards men since women hate men who are nice to them simply for sex so prostitution is a far more honest and efficient way to do business and, yes, there are male prostitutes for the same reason.

and feel free to watch a recent Centry 21 Commercial; as you know century 21 does a lot of market research and knows what women fantasize about.

certainly these stereotypes are no worse than the ones you were promoting such as "women are kinder and gentler than men."

Women like Condelezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright, etc..., who love war toys as much as their male counterparts, make me believe that powerful women are no different than powerful men.

For example, diplomacy would not have worked with Hitler - he only understood force.

Neither would Hitler after a sex change operations and doses of hormone therapy. The man was just freaking insane. Ovaries don't cure insanity.

Gender equality is not about pigeonholing so-called women's issues.

I should hope not.

To answer your questions, Bush and Cheney are to blame for the Iraq war fiasco, the financial meltdown definitely would not have occurred; Russia would have been our partner in peace (personally, I believe Bush is partly to blame for Putin's fast and deep descent into dictatorship), and every human being would have had shelter.

All true, but it doesn't prove a female Bush/Cheney administration would not have invaded Iraq and other catastrophes. It's my observable opinion that women in high profile office tend to act more hawkish to make up for the perceived "weakness" of their sex. This can be as troubling as electing male conservatives. It's similar to the foreign policy handicap Democrats have had to overcome for decades.

might as well go for full hijack ;)

Women take over New Hampshire

Ovaries don't cure insanity That's why ovaries would have joined testes to defeat Hitler by force.

It's my observable opinion that women in high profile office tend to act more hawkish to make up for the perceived "weakness" of their sex. That's why I believe that if women were treated as equals they would no longer be perceived as weak and therefore would be more inclined to be themselves. Powerful women that operate in a patriarchal society are bound to be influenced by their norms and ideas of what constitutes a good leader. For example, Margaret Thatcher, also known as 'The Iron Lady", started a war in the Falklands and threatened to 'nuke' Argentina. But then again, maybe her ovaries drove her in that direction. Who knows? There is so much we don't know yet about how women would act in a modern society that treats them as equals and values their input in the decision-making process at all levels. We need to shred to pieces the mask that has covered our faces and imprisoned our minds for so long so that we can discover who we really are and what we really want.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

the problem is that you'd have to show that women would be inclined to act differently than men. the post about Celtic women didn't support this notion since Celtic women became men when in the economic sphere.

i.e. if the Celtic women had created new branches of economics, your theory might have held more weight with me.

however, I expect the opposite of what you predict since, like men, women in power usually side with their own self-interests.

additionally, when women and men are in weaker positions, the smart ones cultivate their personality and empathy in order to offer something which power doesn't offer: Love and Understanding.

I see this all the time. This is a perfect example of an irrational and self-serving argument

however, I expect the opposite of what you predict since, like men, women in power usually side with their own self-interests.
Ain't that grand, all of a sudden men and women are equal.

and that's followed by this beauty

additionally, when women and men are in weaker positions, the smart ones cultivate their personality and empathy in order to offer something which power doesn't offer: Love and Understanding.

Oh man, this really takes the cake. When women and men are in weaker positions? As you well know, in this society, women are in weaker positions, not men.

and here comes the cure for women ... prescribed by a man.

We should offer our loooooove and understaaaanding. ROFLMAO

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

my ultimate opinion is that when a woman and man get married (or there is a GLBT marriage), the couple is stronger than the individuals alone.

I'd blame women since they're nest builders who like going to the mall and buying houses which are way too fancy; of course that's a stereo type.

Comment deleted

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

I guess that I'm left unimpressed since the sex trade is a poverty issue, a slavery issue and, in general, I believe that the Netherlands, which legalized prostitution and lets women reap the economic benefits of prostitution within a legal framework, crafted a better policy.

Of course I agree that if a man or woman's behavior isn't freely chosen-- and due to economic coercion or economic status, then customers should be liable but the customers-- IMO, should only be liable when they patronize unlicensed practitioners.

I say this because it's often said that marriage is about "sex & money" and I don't think that people should be encouraged to get married simply for sex or money; thus prostitution-- in my mind, is a gray area since showing fake love to the opposite sex "to get lucky" is just as psychologically devastating.

The Swedes have got it right - The view of prostitution as a legacy of a societal order that subordinates women to men is universally accepted among major political parties in gender-conscious Sweden.

I will discuss the points you raised in a future article. (Yes, I've mentioned this before. The article is half written but has been lying dormant for a while. It would also require editing before I post it)

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

would Ayn Rand prefer to be "gender conscious" or err on the side of "free-will?" while I'm not a big fan of Rand, my libertarian side thinks that the state should only go as far as licensing prostitutes since a license would indicate "free-will" and, if a man or woman no longer wanted to be a prostitute, he/she would simply tear up his/her license to make himself/herself off limits.

moreover, for good taste-- and to ensure credibility, an age of consent seems necessary.

you present your argument by painting an idealized view of prostitution – a contract between a man and a woman made without coercion of any kind. However, all acts of prostitution involve subjugation of a woman to a man. The prostitute signs away her dignity and her humanity, he signs for the use of her body as he pleases. For the duration of the activity the man can degrade her to his heart's content as the prostitute is not considered to be fully human. The fact that there are women (very few) who agree to be abused in this way for money shows how deeply ingrained the inevitability of prostitution is in the minds of many women. How could it not be – for thousands of years men have repeated the same mantra over and over again: “Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world ... Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world ... Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world (The truth is that it is not but I'll discuss that in my article). Since economically, women remain in a disadvantaged position compared to men, it is understandable that for some, prostitution offers a way out of poverty or a way to a degree and a respectful profession. However, if society cared about women it would not tolerate that women dehumanize themselves to eke out a living or as a way to a better future.

Prostitution is not a question of "free-will", it's a question of human rights and the dignity of women.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

However, all acts of prostitution involve subjugation of a woman to a man.

I'm pretty sure the folks in these scenarios would disagree with you.

to view male and female prostitution as exactly the same to justify your wish that prostitution for men be seen as normal. However, this can never be. Male prostitutes can stop any act they wish. In addition, no men are abducted, beaten, raped, drugged, humiliated and shipped all over the world for the benefit of women.

Please note that the article talks about middle aged women seeking prostitutes. As you well know, most men treat older women like the plague and believe they're fair game for ridicule. It's sad that the only men available for older and sexually energized women are prostitutes.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

unless you're either God or me you're in no position to comment authoritatively on my desires.

Anyway - carry on by all means, I know better than to want to be involved any further in this :D

Believe me, I know this is a very "touchy" topic. Sometimes, I don't know where I find the strength to keep on going ... it must be the mountain of Enlightenment that keeps reaching out to me. But fear not, all I really ask for is respect, not just for myself but for all women ... and that can only come through equality.

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

and I think that you have to respect a women who, after a full consideration of her options, chooses prostitution as a career.

IMO, the women who are forced into the sex trade aren't prostitutes because they no longer have free will and are, therefore, being abused and essentially being raped.

Personally, I think that women who want to be prostitutes should have that opportunity and, moreover, high-end escorts are highly respected as far as I know; thus, all prostitution jobs aren't the same.

and, because of "political correctness," I often think of myself as a prostitute since I have to please society in exchange for money.

"High end" prostitutes are respected!

That's a good one.

But in order to guarantee that there is sufficient, as you put it, "free-will", society would have to guarantee a living wage to all women, something that it seems unlikely to do.

ascribes to almost every "ist" in the book ... elitist, racist, sexist ...

_{Tolerating prostitution is tolerating abuse and torture of women and children.}

This is on a par with Ahmadinejad being quoted as saying that he is for "wiping Israel off the map". In other words, someone is translating a word or phrase literally and not taking into account the cultural context in which the word or phrase is actually being used.
"Abbronzato", while it literally means "tanned", is a term of affection.
Albert

even Italians were pissed. Berlusconi explaining his remark at BBC video, an admittedly it was a lame excuse

to assume the concept carries the same cultural charge to an Italian than it does to an American.

This is oversimplifying the issue greatly, but - to Americans, an African-American stands out for what he represents as a part-African.

But in Europe, where there's ample racism towards real Africans, an African-American stands out for what he is as an American - an at-times exaggerated symbol of all that's good and relaxed and free and hip about American culture.

Europe is certainly not without its problems with racism, but feelings towards American blacks don't carry even an approximation of the same cultural charge that they do in America.