Well, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, there are more white people in america than other colours.

Would we really care if a bollywood joan of arc or hamlet was played by an indian actor?

Whenever this sort of thing comes up, I'm always reminded of the vital question of Columbo's right eye. Does Columbo have a glass eye, or is Peter Falk's glass eye playing the role of a real eye?

>> ^bareboards2:

So here is how the femme channel is described:
From Joan of Arc to Shirley Manson to June Cleaver, a collective dedicated to the other 15% of the sift.
Seems like this vid is dedicated to the other half of the population, doncha think?
nochannel
anatomy timeshift sexuality
That covers it nicely, yeah?


Stop ruining all the boobs.... ehh fun!

So here is how the femme channel is described:

From Joan of Arc to Shirley Manson to June Cleaver, a collective dedicated to the other 15% of the sift.

Seems like this vid is dedicated to the other half of the population, doncha think?

*nochannel

*anatomy *timeshift *sexuality

That covers it nicely, yeah?

My after comment explained what type of respect I was talking about.

“Respect in America” meant that women have lost respect in American society. American culture, not self respect or such... And that meant both men and women, in America, have less respect for the penis-less sex (;)

Respect was given to women, and in other cultures is still alive and well. However, it should be noted that respect and equality are two different beasts. Joan of Arc is a hero highly regarded by men for her valor--but she was far from equal in most men's eyes when she lived. The Virgin Mary, another figure--but see if she could vote or own property. Queen Cleo--a better example of equality and respect, but still comes up short, etc. The good housewife, respected... if not controlled.

The problem, in my opinion, is that we equate freedom and equality with good. Neither are good, just perspectives. Freedom and equality bring much---but they are cold, hard tools.

It used to be that nations fought nations for the sole purpose of women and their virtue. Slight a noble’s wife and die... Nowadays, men just replace women, and run their nations anyways.

But to answer an unspoken question--I think both sexes lost respect in this commercialistic world. Consume, buy, consume, repeat until death. Big tits, no brains... = wealth... Funny part is, this has always been a male concept for the most part, but now women have a vivacious appetite for this greed too.. Sad...

>> ^peggedbea:
respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

The statistics are such that you even share at least a few atoms with almost any historical figure you can think of. Not Elvis, too recent. Not enough time to spread around. But you all probably share a few atoms with say, Joan of Arc, a T-Rex and even, dare I say... Mr. Christ?

It could be the Virgin Mary, she is worshiped. It could be Mother Teresa, she is revered.

Joan of Arc... Of course all of these women are put down and held back as sluts... After all, they were not the head of households, nor the top of the food chain... I mean, being a Patron Saint of France must have been so degrading--such a lowly place... (Of course, politics led to her later execution, but then doesn't it always?)

Also, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in eternal punishment. And they are Christian. They think that is beyond god's wrath. Of course they are a peaceful Christian and as such an exception to most religions... And their Dogma, as such and for countless other reasons of peaceful intent, is not very well liked.

So yeah, it has to be the gloom-and-doom that attracts people. But wait? Isn't that true for politics? I mean, that is what the Republican part is based on! Hold, isn't that true for the Entertainment? I mean, who actually paid attention to sex-ed class documentaries? But switch to Titanic and BOOBIES!

Just sayin...

In reply to this comment by enoch:
this was a pretty good movie.i like how it played on the theme of joan of arc's either divine providence or schizophrenia.it did not promote either/or it let the viewer interpret.
Real or imagined, it was her unshakable belief that led others to then believe in her at a time they needed to believe in something the most. Insane or divinely inspired, the result was the same. That's this viewers interpretation anyway...

this was a pretty good movie.i like how it played on the theme of joan of arc's either divine providence or schizophrenia.it did not promote either/or it let the viewer interpret.

so...the french have the best healthcare and the biggest average penis size. i guess joan of arc wasn't fucking around about leading them to victory. who knew?

I don't see how this is femme at all. "From Joan of Arc to Shirley Manson to June Cleaver, a collective dedicated to the other 15% of the sift." I wouldn't think cg implants qualify. Just because they might have been inspired by a female doesn't mean it's something "dedicated" to us.

I made that Jesus/cross observation a few years ago... even followed it up in similar fashion: "like inviting Joan of Arc to a bonfire."

Funny to see it echoed by a pro.

I come from an upper-middle-class liberal suburban place pronounced Missour-EE within a red state called Missour-UH in the United States of Jesus. My high school had a very high percentage of children of professors at Washington University, and if you added up all the jews, blacks, asians, and mixed people, that was probably over 50%. My mother hails from UCC, which is probably the second most welcoming and nondogmatic of sect of Christianity behind Unitarian Universalism (Barack Obama is in UCC). My father was a woowoo evangelical. Some of my recollections on the subject of religion during childhood are:

1. In third grade, some kid started going around asking everybody, with a dichotomous intonation, "Are you Catholic, or Christian"? I suspect he was an evangelical. I don't recall giving any reply, but even at the time I had doubts due to the lack of any fulfillment of prayer. I had grown to distrust all adults and authority figures as a reasonable extension of my discovery, as a five or six year old, of Santa Claus, the first thanksgiving, Pocahontas, and many other lies. I had also grown to suspect something was terribly rotten in our society due to the cruelty of many homophobic bullies who called me names that weren't even true and the teachers who didn't care. Because of my alienation, I was not inclined to presuppose that the majority opinion was more likely to be correct.

2. Around this time, my (divorced remarried noncustodial) father also took me to see a faith-healer. I don't recall what he was trying to cure me of. He attended some crackpot semirural megachurch, and his business was "no money down" real-estate, another religion.

3. Within two years afterward my father was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for schizophrenia because he believed he could communicate directly with the spirits of Joan of Arc, Jesus, and other saints, and they told him to fight demons by committing arson. He later said the charges were trumped-up and unsuccessfully tried to get out with a religious freedom argument.

4. Teachers from sixth through twelfth grade stressed the importance of critical thinking and incorporated it into the curriculum.

5. In seventh grade, I recall being asked of my religious affiliation, and replying that I was sitting on the fence between agnosticism and atheism. There was no retribution or suprise or stigma. I was already an outcast and had nothing socially to lose, anyway. About a year prior I first acquired persistent unsupervised access to the internet, which I have had ever since. In the following two years I did quite a lot of research online and debating in online bulletin boards. This drew me closer to atheism by gaining a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. In other words, a greater understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. However, I would still call myself a teapot-agnostic.

6. In high school, I found a clique of atheists and agnostics. Shortly after 9/11, when the Missouri legislature enacted a bill that compelled schools to recite the pledge of allegiance at least once a week, some of my classmates and I openly expressed our disapproval on the grounds of separation of church and state. No gasps were heard. This was long before the Newdow case. When the Bible As/In Literature was taught in English class, several of my classmates and I expressed our disapproval again on the same grounds. In classroom discussions on that book, I recall many viewpoints being expressed with no great gasps of shock. I, the nerd, said openly that I thought the bible was a collection of fairy tales, poems, and forgeries, while the big football jock next to me expressed a predilection for biblical literalism in not so many words. I recall a very hot semi-orthodox Jewish girl who told me she would only date Jews.

I agreed with, or even said openly online, much of what is contained in the God Delusion, before the book was published. I suspect some others have had similar experiences. Not every consensus is a flock.


The ID movement, and the fact that every single suicide hijacker/bomber is faith-based, and the loosening of taboos by (e.g.) the Daily Show, have probably been three of the most important factors that led to the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. In Dawkins' case, the ID movement alone may have been the most important factor because of his biological profession. Hitchens tends to write books extremely quickly (averaging a book a year for the past 24 years), and it's very plausible that he began writing his after, and because of, the success of The God Delusion.

Most nonatheist people's comments on the Sift about Dawkins accuse him of being too shrill. Accusing one's opponent of too much enthusiasm (stridency, shrillness) is irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. I personally find nothing unpleasant about Dawkins' manner of speech except his affinity for hooptedoodle. His grotesque description of the god of the old testament is spot-on. A book only appears strident in relation to one's perception of orthodoxy, and neither the orthodoxy nor one's perception of orthodoxy are necessarily correct. Rather, debate the substance of the issue. Neither Dawkins nor any of his followers is advocating curtailing the religious freedom of believers, so his opponents have nothing to fear but the holes in their theories.

Translation: Joan of Arc.

Wish ida made this....my sentiments exactly.....
"What the fuck was that?" Mayor of Hiroshima

"Thats not a real fucking gun." John Lennon

"Who's gonna fucking find out?" Richard Nixon

"Heads are going to fucking roll." Anne Boleyn

"What fucking map?" Mark Thatcher

"Any fucking idiot could understand that."Albert Einstein

"It does so fucking look like her!" Picasso

"How the fuck did you work that out?" Pythagoras

"You want what on the fucking ceiling?" Michaelangelo

"Fuck a duck." Walt Disney

"Why?- Because its fucking there!" Edmund Hilary

"I don't suppose its gonna fucking rain?" Joan of Arc

"Scattered fucking showers my ass." Noah

"Let the fucking woman drive."
Commander of Space Shuttle "Challenger"

"Where did all these fucking Indians come from?"
General Custer

"Where the fuck is all this water coming from?"
Captain of the Titanic

"I need this parade like I need a fucking hole in my head."
John F. Kennedy

Just what are you suggesting, choggie? Next thing we know you'll be claiming Joan of Arc didn't dye her hair pink...