Y'know, there's this concept that every movement could use allies...

In fact, everyone should be a feminist. *Everyone*. By not acknowledging the impact that gender norms have on your life, you only hurt yourself.

This is the idea of "radical" feminism. I (who, by my sexual organs am designated "male") am a feminist. Why? Because the patriarchal pyramid that works so hard to keep women disenfranchised is the same one that works to keep everyone disenfranchised...even the people who seem to be at the top. To get to that top of the pyramid, you go "backwards up a cheese grater, losing more and more of yourself along the way" to paraphrase Lani Guinier. Though I am (according to the statisticians) a middle-class, white, male in a heterosexual relationship certified by the state as marriage, I know that gender roles, heteronormativity, racism, classism and the whole host of problems stemming from the root (hence "radical" from Latin) of the same problem that feminism addresses.

In this context, we need to find ways to get more people to even consider the issue.

I'd personally be overjoyed if Angelina Jolie started recommending that everyone read bell hooks's _Feminism_Is_For_Everybody_. And that's exactly what movements need: people who start discussions by their presence/actions/whatever.

I agree.  Feminism is about choice: Angelina can choose to be anything and everything, and she can choose to support a movement and help it grow.

Good point miss seilhan and it bothers me too that so many famous folks want to adopt from other countries while we have kids here in america needing good families.

Thomas, I think the people who adopt from other countries don't believe the kids are any less deserving than the people living here.  Their love does not stop at the end of their neighborhood or city or state.  They know that you don't have to be living near some one for them to be considered their brother.  They love and care about the needy children around the world as much as the children here, not less than the kids of America.

Dana,

I didn't mean sexy (as you put it) as being sexually appealling to men.  That is your interpretation of what sexy means I guess.  As a woman, I find feeling sexy (for myself) to be empowering and liberating!  Sexy is a state of mind and a form of confidence, not just a physical thing as you put it.  Embracing your sexuality is part of being a strong woman. Why can't women be smart AND sexy?

Thank you Valerie. I am sexy, powerful and smart and I think it is such an important part of feminism to reclaim the words that for so long have been used  to minimize our value as women. Sexy is one of those words that need reclaiming and the full meaning restored. I am sexy. I am sexy. Wow that is an empowering thing to say and I have never really given myself the freedom to be in that place of confidence and knowing. My sexiness is not based on other people's opinions but what I believe inside! Thank you for facilitating that revelation and making that point.

What else can sexy mean other than looking good in the eyes of the opposite sex, for gratification purposes?  I would hate it if I looked sexy.  There is so much more to people than their bodies.

Being "sexy" is not a character flaw.  It's empowering to feel successful, respected, beautiful, confident.  Why does "sexy" have to be a negative trait?

I've claimed the word sexy for myself because it means more to me than just "someone people want to screw".   I act & dress the way I want to - and even though I'm not wearing skimpy clothes and winking at every man I see, I believe that I can be sexy because of who I am. 

It's empowering to take charge of the way people see you.  Maybe being labeled certain things by people you don't respect (or know) feels invasive & scary, but calling yourself that, choosing your own labels, taking control of how people perceive you?  Now, that's sexy.

You can be sexy for the same sex too, you know...

You can can be successful, respected, beautiful, and confident and not be sexy.  I think we both have different meanings on what sexy is.  Any way, it doesn't really matter what others think of you or your clothes.  What matters is doing right and good and knowing it and that's more important that anything else.

Jamie,

Feeling attractive and sexy is a healthy part of life.  You can't reject those notions, which are very engraved into our society anyway.  Of course it's not everything, but you cannot dismiss it as part of the human experience.  There should be nothing negative about being sexy and attractive.  It's only when people only see these things that it becomes negative.

It's just as bad to put all your self worth on your intelligence.  What would happen if you were the smartest person but had no empathy, no feelings, no kindness?

It should be seen as a part of the whole.

People need empathy, feelings and kindness.  They don't have to be attractive.  Are you saying that non-attractive people don't lead a healthy life?  Because they look different?

No, not at all.  All I'm saying is that FEELING pretty and sexy can be as important as all the other qualities, as long as they are not more important than anything else.  We cannot dismiss those or look down on people who we may consider attractive.

I never said "Non-attractive" people cannot lead a healthy lifestyle.  Anyway, attractiveness is relative, so you have all the power to feel attractive.  I'm sure we are all attractive to someone somehow, but more important than that is that we feel good about ourselves.

All in all, we cannot look down on people just because they're attractive and that makes others admire them.  It would be unfair to ask everyone to give up on looks.

Looks don't matter.  Not one bit.  People don't need to feel attractive, not if they know it really doesn't matter.  Than they can be ugly, know it and be happy.  Now that would be an amazing person!

Hmm... I can see a correlation between what you're saying and I'm saying.  When I say you can feel attractive and pretty, I guess the deeper meaning is having good self esteem and a positive image of oneself.  You are talking about kind of the same thing, to be happy knowing who you are.  I can understand that.

The one thing I'd still say is that looks, feeling pretty and the way you present yourself is still something important for many people.  And people who happen to be sexy and pretty should not be turned away or put down just because of that.

You can sit there and tell yourself it doesn't matter, can *know* 100% that it doesn't matter, but that isn't going to stop you from having low self-esteem if YOU don't feel attractive.  At least that's how 99% of the world operates. I say "feel" attractive instead of "be" attractive because there is often not much of a correlation between the two.  My point is what really matters is self esteem, and if feeling sexy contributes to that, it's a really good thing.

Juan, I think we both see it as different things, like you said.  People need to have self esteem, but they need to know that you can have a world of self esteem and not be sexy or feel sexy.  It's all a matter if you believe you are better than your body or if you are the sum of your body.  Everyone is better than their bodies.

Kristen, I think maybe you are right on the 99% of the world operates like that, well, at least 99% of America (though I'm happy to say my family does not).  People need to realize they don't need to look sexy in other people's eyes - or their own.  They need to know they have tons of qualities that make them wonderful people, they don't need to base their self esteem on looks.  They are so much better than that.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, feeling sexy and wanting to look good are part of the human experience.

We are capable of higher ways of thinking, of course, and not put all emphasis on looks, but we can't dismiss their significance in society.

Doing so would also feel like you're discriminating against good looking people.

usually not feeling sexy IS having low self-esteem... unless you have something against sex.

Too many people put emphasis on looks, and that needs to change.  Because of America's obsession with looking sexy (mostly do to TV in this case) woman in the Philistine's and other countries have suddenly lost their self esteem and many have committed suicide.  This is because when they got TVs and programs that we watch they were suddenly aware that people actually thought looks mattered (and that skinny was somehow better).  Before that they were content and happy with the way they were and what they looked like.  Because of the TV programs they got, they realized they weren't sexy and skinny and committed suicide.  This is horrible and wrong.  They were right in the first place - looks don't matter.

Being good looking is a way of showing off your healthy genes and your capability of producing healthy babies that will survive in this world.  Moreover, men and women alike want to look good to attract the best mate, just like any other species in the planet.

You can't deny a basic life instinct such as that one.

Also, discriminating against good looking people is as bad as discriminating against ugly people.

You're right about discriminating about good looking people as bad.  But the problem here is the definition of 'looking good'.  A person can be healthy and look good without being sexy (in my opinion, many people who look sexy don't actually look healthy).  Not to mention I think marriage is about more than finding a partner who looks good.

I agree.  The definition of sexy and looking good totally depends on the eyes of the beholder.  And you are right again that marriage is more than that.  Other traits let you choose a healthy partner: their intelligence, their ability to solve abstract problems, their hand-eye coordination, their humour, their faithfulness... I was just speaking in terms of evolutionary psychology how everything from being nice to being pretty is just natural.

That's true. It's always good, though, to remember we are more than the substance of some evolutionary cycle.

I have six children too, without nannies and household help. The number of kids one has is not to be applauded, however. Neither is whether they came into our families by natural conception, via fertility treatments or by adoption. What's important is HOW we raise them, and what example and values we project to our own kids.

Mr. portillo.

Why would it be neccessary to discriminate at all let alone against the good looking when all we have to do both individually and collectivly is to stop putting value on physical attractiveness and star valuing the personality traits of kindness, empathy and such ?

Personaly, I think the world would become a much better place as a result.

Y'all are just wanting to substitute one extreme with another.

Frankly, I think most people know they have to value empathy, kindness, etc.  But we cannot "fight" being attracted to good looking people.  We should NOT discriminate against good looking people either.

Our life cycles and our ideas of what is healthy, who can be a good partner, etc. have been influenced by the evolution of our minds, our brains and our bodies.  Being attracted to good looking people is just a way we take visual cues regarding healthy genes in a partner.  There is more to this, of course (such as intelligence, team work, etc), but physical health and attractiveness are both important pieces of the whole puzzle that make up who we are. 

JUST looking at what you personally consider good personality traits would not work for everyone.  Again, you're substituting what you think the media is imposing on you, with what you think should be imposed on everyone.

What about ambition?  Too much of that can be a disaster, but a healthy amount is great.  Kindness?  Too much of it lets people take advantage of you, or makes you a pushover.  I don't hate pushovers, but I try to associate myself with more balanced people.

A BALANCE of attractive physical traits (e.g. being in shape, healthy skin, etc.) with great personality traits (kindness, empathy, happiness) should make up a good person.  The lack of one thing or another does not take away the fact that we are all good people, either.  And what you may consider unatractive is considered beautiful for someone else.  So it all balances itself out.

Finally, and most importantly, you are looking at an issue from a very personal point of view.  What affects you personally, and the way you personally deal with it, doesn't necessarily apply to issues in a social context.  You cannot dismiss or hate on people who value physical attractiveness, it's very unfair.

You've GOT to be kidding. I know I'm in the minority on this, but Angelina Jolie is the type of person that the Feminist movement DOESN'T need. Personally, I don't find her attractive , and what specific charities has she helped lately? Do you know of any?  The real heroines of the feminist movement are the REAL women that go out there and work and have families, and the ones who actually make a difference in their communities, not the ones that  pretend to be interested in something, but offer no real support. There are some stars that actually try to make a difference- Betty White and her animal rights , Jamie Lee Curtis & Reese Witherspoon with breast cancer and Elizabeth Taylor with the AIDS foundation. But you hardly ever hear about them because Angelina is so "exotic."

Why don't you spend half a minute on google before you spout the "what specific charities has she helped lately" line? She's been working with the UN, primarily on refugee issues, since 2001.

You don't have to get defensive because I don';t engaged in the blind hero-worship that you do. I think Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton are better role models for feminism than some phony star that thinks she's far better than everyone else. I also think that there are more feminists that accurately represent what feminism actually is than Angelina, the brother-kissing, homewrecker. Feminism to me is more than LOOKS, it is about making the world a better place and asserting yourself.  I don't think Angelina has done either.

1) i'm pretty sure feminism needs everyone.
2) that's some grudge you got there...

i admired/lusted after her in high school because she was a badass. she has tattoos and collects knives! and is bisexual! and is an action hero as well as an accomplished actress! she learned how to fly! she is active instead of passive. bashing gender stereotypes = good. being conventionally attractive doesn't negate any of that.

as far as being a homewrecker goes (assuming the narrative we are working with here is true), i blame the one who was married, always, 100%.  if things happened while he was still married, HE was the one breaking vows. he wrecked the home; he just used her to do it. the only ill will i bear towards the chick my dad ditched us for was established before that happened - she's annoying and stupid. but i don't hate her any more because my dad left us for her; I blame HIM for that.

I don't HAVE a grudge, I'm just saying she shouldn't be the face of feminism because she really isn't. It's so easy to be considered "humanitarian" if you have a lot of time and money. It doesn't hurt to have the press at your disposal either. I think the REAL face of feminism are the women that are NOT stars, valued for their looks and money, but the ones that are actually out there fighting for the rights of women around the world. I consider my sister a great feminist- she has spent the past 10 years fighting for the rights of women around the world. Women like her will TRULY make or break feminism, not Angelina. 

What are you doing for feminism that gives you the right to judge whether or not someone else is or isn't one?  It would be so much easier for the world if judgemental people would get a bit more introspective and say" Is my negative attitude doing anyone any good?" It's certainly no way to affect change.

Well, what are YOU doing? I'm helping homeless women find jobs and shelters in Los Angeles, trying to change their lives. I am a tireless volunteer at a no kill shelter, and I actively lobby both state and local politicians on behalf of the homeless women, gay rights, and animal rights. When I can afford it, I send donations to animal rights, courage campaign and NOW. I think I do a LOT, but I'm not the only one. Sorry if I offended you by saying that your "Goddess" wasn't all she said she was. Didn't know you'd be so sensitive. Don't judge me. I didn't attack you, you attacked me first. 

WOW! Have you noticed that you've picked a bone with two other people on this blog?  To that point, I don't think I'm the one being sensitive and hostile here and I'm not going to play this game.

I was simply pointing out that your attitude and criticisms aren't generating any positive or valuable feedback on this blog.

lol, activists are always so passionate about things that it's easy to snap

By the way, anyone and everyone who works to advance the rights of women IS the face of feminism.

And since we all are the face of feminism, we can all either showcase the movement as full of positive people, or full of sensitive people.  Lets just be careful to show ourselves in a positive way as much as we can.

Juan, I have really enjoyed reading your responses and definitely agree that positivity is such a huge part of being happy.  As for feminism, we need more positive people to push the movement forward! Thank you so much for sharing :-)

thanks! :-)

what juan said. also, a large part of feminism is a culture war of sorts... i'm not going to complain if some big star is getting people to think that it's okay to be a working mom or for women to kick ass and take initiative.  I'm especially not going to complain if there is any sort of positive image of feminism in the media because too many women these days are afraid of the word. "I'm not a feminist, but [insert feminist belief here]." I'm sick of it.  As long as something anti-feminist isn't being touted as feminism (such as Double X, any number of "empowerful" celebrities, Naomi Wolf, etc.), I'm happy.  And regardless of weather you think Angelina Jolie is doing enough, she's not anti-feminist.

I love this thank you for those great points!

I would've said she looked happier, but hey, how are we to know?

   If you used to identify with her because you are a rebel, and she changed, so you don't anymore, well you could change, too if you wanted.  Besides, you don't need to be in a position like her to be able to help the world.  There a plenty of ways to make a difference in people's lives locally. This in turn could have an affect on the entire world.  It's happened to many small timers before, why not you?

I agree with many above comments that a young woman can be sexy and feminist, but it scares me to hear that Jolie might be considered the "new face of feminism" as if yet another role in society can only be filled with a beautiful, young, wealthy, white woman. 

In People Magazine America, it is media celebrities that seem to "have it all" who are "archetypes" but of what?  To echo Lisa's observation: Where are the women who are scientists, artists, philosophers, politicians, etc., who achieve discoveries that advance human knowledge, who inspire the creative spirit or who challenge our minds?  In other words, are we to look up to only those women who inspire us to be our best sexual selves, when other women might inspire the development of our full selves? 

Lisa is correct that Angelina Jolie represents the epitome of the (white) patriarchal system -- a young white woman valued for her looks and her motherhood -- who leaves cultural assumptions about women virtually unchallenged.

I think you make some very fair points Matthew - in terms of Jolie's power & priviledge. I think that given her prestige she can use that as a means to inspire those who lack the same microphone. I think that Jolie is ONE example of a good feminist - but she certainly doesn't define the entire movement nor the total struggle that women and men face when it comes to gender equality and freedom from stereotypes.

EXACTLY. I don't think it's about looks, although many people here seem to think so. It's about empowering yourself and making a difference, not just how far you can push the envelope. I really don't see her as any kind of humanitarian- I can think of many other stars  that have done far more than she has, I think she is only a figurehead. Again, I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone, but there are a lot more women out here that are doing more for the advancement of women, they just don't get the recognition because they are not Angelina. 

Applauding celebrities helps the world by setting an example for all celebrities to follow in their footsteps.  They have money, power, and are far more approachable than bankers or politicians in this respect.  We applaude the cause and the effort, not the person herself.

Moreover, celebrities influence people.  If they are applauded for what they do, then many thousands of people will try to be like them.  In a way, they start to represent the idea that we all should help make the world a better place.  They're just in a position to be able to influence many others.

Now, if you're not a celebrity but expect to become one or be treated like one just for doing humanitarian work, then your'e doing it for the wrong reasons.  It seems like people here are jealous because maybe they're not being recognized?

Yes, Jolie has the looks, and yes, she's seduced her way into a position of power on many ocassions.  But this doesn't negate her ability to do the right thing in the world, and to influence people to do so as well.

I disagree with the blanket statement: "men never seem to have to justify or modify themselves."  The most recent and striking counterexample to your statement is the NYT article "Dude, You've Got Problems" by Judith Warner (link below).  The article discusses how teenage boys constantly surveil and modify each others' behavior in order to enforce norms of masculinity.  Some teenage boys have committed suicide due to the abusive and unrelenting pressure to conform.
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/

Yes I can see that but why don't men have a speaker for masculinism?

Probably because many of the issues of masculinism can be addressed in feminism.

Feminism strives for equality.  Women serving in the army, equal time in jail, equal enforcement of tha law, protection against violence from women... these are all issues that many men care about, and for some reason I think it's easier to solve them through the feminist movement.

In addition, personally, as a guy I find it easier to talk about this issue in terms of feminism, probably because I am afraid I would otherwise appear unchivalrous, barbaric, or appear to be whining and not be "man enough".

Any thoughts?

There are a considerable amount of masculinity studies professors, if that's what you're getting at.  Kimmel, Messner, Connell, Kivel--these are all important names in the field of masculinity studies.  One of the most comprehensive volumes on the subject is Men's Lives.http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Lives-MySearchLab-Michael-Kimmel/dp/020569294X/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I5C1T6TKD59EZ&colid=3XGKGYF4ER8H

If that's not what you're getting at, then I'm unclear what you're asking.  Do women have a speaker for feminism?  Many women created feminist theory in consciousness raising groups and similar settings.  That's one of feminism's strengths.  Catherine MacKinnon has argued that feminism is the first set of theories to be created by the people it's about.  See also Ashley Chapman's comment below:
"I don't think any one woman could ever be the face of feminism because the face of feminism is equality, humanity, compassion, strength, courage and love. We are all the face and we are all unique and different."

Correction: Kivel isn't a professor; he defines himself as an educator.

I still would like to hear from a guy about who would reperesent men.

But that's exactly the point: There cannot be one man who represents men, just as there cannot be one woman who represents women.  If there were to be representatives, it would imply that single man or woman exemplifies ideals that people should strive to achieve.  However, one of the basic tenets of gender studies is that people express their respective genders in different ways.  One perspective argues that people perform gender through dress, language, hobbies, etc.  When understood in this way, everyone potentially has his/her own way of expressing masculinity or femininity.  You might enjoy watching a few short performances from the Men's Story Project: http://www.youtube.com/user/MensStoryProject

    For thousands of years men were considered better than woman.  Woman didn't have the rights's of men.  This is what started the feminist movement in the first place.  This is also why there isn't a masculine movement or speaker.  Woman would start believing they're trying to exert their power over them again.  On the other hand I think the feminist movement has gotten a bit out of hand.  It seems they are trying to prove they are better than men, not equal. That is just not right.

A famous scholar once defined "feminism" as women promoting the interests of other women. Sure, you can have men promoting the interests of other men ... but that's the status quo, and it's typically been called "patriarchy."

I'm  afraid  to  post  all  of  my  posts  because  they  could  be  taken  as  off  topic, but  I  wanted  to  post  about  how  I  think  Angelina  is  one  of  the  ugliest  women  and  celebrities  I've  ever  seen.

She  has  abnormally  big  ugly  fish  shaped  lips, and  if  I  see  a  picture  of  her  on  the  internet  I  have  to  click  it off  right  away.

I  really  can't  understand  how  anyone  can  find  her  remotely  attractive  much  less  beautiful.  And I  have  found  many  people including  many  heterosexual  men   both  married  and  single  on  many  message  boards  saying  exactly  what  I'm  saying  too.

There  are  also  quite a  few  celebritiy  plastic  surgery  sites  that  show  her  before  and  after  surgeries,including  an  obvious  nose  job(s)  cheek  implants,  and eye  and  lip  altering.

And  that's  certainly  not  feminist,and  as  a poster Tim  said  after  seeing  her  before  and  after  pictures,really  ugly  woman  with  a  skeleton body  and  a  fish  face. Another  postr  on  the  same  site  said,she  obviously  had  a  lot  of  plastic  surgery  but  it didn't help  because she  still  looks  like  a  fish.

There are  many  old  and  newer  actresses  that  I  could  name  that  are  truly  beautiful  and  100  times  better  loking  than  her.

 Merle?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholther :)

Ashley, you are so right!  Instead of criticizing and judging, we need to come together and celebrate the many different women, celebrities and non-celebrities, who are trying to make a difference and improve the conditions in which women live, because that's the main focus of feminism and what we're striving for, right?

Like I said in a reply before, I think there is not 1 face of feminism, but many.  All of us who work towards the improvement of womens rights around the world represent femism.  All of us with our different backgrounds and ideas put together make up the face of feminism.  Many men included.

Many men!  Cheers!

Tina Fey can be the brain ^_^

I don't think anyone is trying to say Angelina is the best person in the world, or that everything she does is what we all should do.  She lives in a fantasy world, but we can applaud certain behaviours of hers because she has that surreal power and influence.  In other words, we are not applauding her as a person, but a few things she does, and a few attitudes she displays.

I can relate it to Starbucks in a Fair Trade point of view.  TransFair USA (the organization that certifies coffee and other products here) is always happy to applaud starbucks when they start carrying more Fair Trade coffee.  It's barely 12% of their total coffee purchases, but this is enough to make them the biggest purchaser of Fair Trade coffee in the world.  Should we not congratulate them because the rest of the coffee is not fairly traded?  Or because we disagree with many decisions made at a corporate level?  Or because they're not "local"?  No.  I think they still deserve to be congratulated because, as hard as it is for a giant to make that decision, they are at least trying and taking steps towards having better practices.  And they're influential, they help other coffee shops aspire to be even better than them by trying to be 100% Fair Trade.  They also educate people (kinda) to learn more about Fair Trade (check out the flyers they have).

The same happens with Angelina.  She does have many tendencies that contradict the feminist movement.  However, she does exemplify certain behaviours and attitudes that everyone (not just women) should aspire to have.  And she can influence people.

By the way, I do agree that it is an insult to adopt someone from the 3rd world.  I mean, I'm from the 3rd world and I've met people who have adopted kids from my country to "give them a better life".  As altruistic as that sounds, it's a slap in the face.

     I think I agree with most of what you two said.  However I strongly disagree about the adoption.  There are 143 million orphans in the world today.  Most of them never get a parent and have to make a life for themselves on their own after 18.  Most turn to corruption and end in jail or dead.  They are forced to work and take care of younger siblings before they turn ten.  Have you ever visited this third world orphanages?  These children are hurting and want to be loved so much.  They can't wait for a family - any family.  What matters is that they'll get people to love them and care for them - and that will make their lives better.
    Many of these countries are not willing to help their orphans.  Take China for example.  By their laws every family may only have one child.  When this law came into effect the other children in the families were torn from their mothers arms and put in orphanages all around China.  China doesn't want them.  How wrong can a country get?
    Besides there are many orginzations that help the orphanges and kids of those countries besides helping with the adoption process.
    The thing I most admire about Angelina Jolie is that she followed her heart and adopted these kids and loves them as her own.  It takes some amazing heart to do that and I applaud her for it.

I actually have volunteered at 3rd world orphanages, not far from my hometown (I've only lived in the US for a few years).  It is a bit overwhelming when you show up and 20 kids want to hug you and even kiss you all at once.  And yes, that shows how much they are in need.

I take part of what I said back.  I agree that it is very honourable for people from the developed world to adopt these children.  I just get really upset when I see someone that shows off with it.  In addition, one must be very careful when doing this to avoid human trafficquing scams (spl?).

It's one thing when some random family adopts and gives a child a life it could not have otherwise had because they would like to have a child to raise and love and they have the means to do it.  Sorry, but most of these people want newborn children who look like themselves, (white) For some reason they often find they can't "find" (read: afford) one and so turn to older or darker children... it's not a bad thing if they are spared a life that would be traumatic. 

It's really something to note when someone has the amount of money in their bank account that very likely comes close to a 3rd world nation's GDP...

yet all you do is parade around on tv and in the tabloids quoted as stating the obvious, while herding a rescued cackle of dark babies, fully aware of the recognition you will receive as a goddess/heroine of the 3rd world.
 
I'm not sure that I'm personally jealous...that's just shifty emotions... but that's what most fans of hers will purport of anyone like me who speaks out.  I have my own brand of self esteem that is a great deal different from many hollywood pre-packaged, or kindergarten-spoon-fed variety.  Ha!

I think she likely just doesn't realize that this "kindness" she bestows isn't so impressive  when viewed through a wider lens.  She's simply and completely out of touch with reality, yet here we're arguing whether she should set standards?

I'm not "star struck" and therefore easily convinced that she's ok because she looks good and points out obvious things that make her seem intelligent and nice.  She may just be a really good looking pig who's told what to say by a publicist for all I know.  If she wants to be regarded as having substance and intelligence, perhaps she should change her presentation.   Wouldn't a truly consciencious and generous person sitting on millions do something genuinely "humanitarian"?   Like build and fund a children's hospital and school?

And as a face for feminism? Any idea of feminism where we are plucking and padding and primping so we can be valued for being physically attractive...when we could spend doing something productive is way off the mark.  I thought we got out of the gross tons of make-up and labor intensive hair-doing trap a long time ago?  What happened? 

I suppose it's all in what you value, fine... but  it's not feminism, and let's not call it that.  You can not have it both ways, you cannot have it ALL... Many do give it the old college try, but most simply don't have the MONEY. 

Remember, we STILL earn less than men. 
And where's there a glamourous face to represent that boring factoid? hmm?

I'm off!  ...to burn my thickly padded, neoprene, underwire, push-up wonder-bra!  :)

I'm not star struck with Angelina Jolie, either.  In fact, I'm not even sure I've seen any of her movies.  The best thing I like about her is that she did adopt those kids, and loves them very much, and doesn't care that they look like her.

    She and Brad Pitt have done some not nice things in the past, but I see them as changing.  For the better.  I'm not sure about Angelina Jolie, but Pitt is involved in a lot of helping organizations.  He's done a lot of work for New Orleans and developing new, better houses there.  I'm pretty sure both help out with some African causes, too.

    This is what I applaud Angelina Jolie for.  Being a mother and helping others.  Not any this else people might like her for.  Not be sexy, not her acting, not anything like that.

Thank you William!

What I don't get here in your post is that you said she has sex appeal, is smart, and has presence and that those are good qualities to represent woman.  I agree with that being a wonderful person, having a big heart, and taking responsibility are good qualities to represent woman, but not those first three.  Sure being smart is a good thing and such.  But if a woman isn't smart, doesn't have sex appeal, and doesn't have presence doesn't make her any less of a good woman.  Maybe besides having Angelina Jolie as representing woman by herself (not that people are necessarily suggesting this) we need a woman the exact opposite of her to do it, too.  Like a woman who is not skinny, a woman who is shy and maybe a woman who is good and decent, but not necessarily the smartest.  Both kinds of people deserve to be recognized.

Thanks, Nita. We have become, for better or for worse, a cult of personality. For being the spokesperson for refugees, Angelina may have done a lot, but why does she always do it when she or Pitt have a movie coming out? 

I know a lot of people ( the Angeloonies-pardon the expression) will fault me for this, but the hero-worship of this woman is something I just don't get. If she were REALLY concerned about the refugees, wouldn't she be trying to get the UN to take up a measure to protect them? Maybe talk to Congress about such a measure in the United States? Maybe she's just too busy lying in the sun in France to worry about that.

I don't hate her, I just don't get it.

And here they come... All I said was that she should be an activist all the time, not just to promote a movie. I don't have any feelings of mistrust, I just stated that instead of getting in the public eye and devoting herself for a cause ( usually when she or Pitt have a movie coming out) she should do something more PROACTIVE- change the laws, etc. Not just take the credit for the $1 mill that was donated by the Pitt family. 

She's in this to look good, and she's got all of you fooled. If she really cared, she would be on the ground, helping in the countries that need it, but I guess she's got another appointment with her plastic surgeon or badmouthing her father.

There are a LOT of women that have done a LOT for feminism that deserve the press, but never get it because they aren't her. Angelina's not the saint you make her out to be. I don't know how she could even be seen as a feminist! I guess if you do enough nude scenes, though...

Exactly, I think Oprah has done a great job with her experiment in education for girls in Africa ( even if she did have some bad apples) not to mention the many others who have tried to help underprivileged girls here in America. I think Jolie just sees a photo op and takes it to better her image. People like Pamela will say I'm completely wrong, but has Saint angelina ever done anything in which she DOESN'T get any press? I didn't think so. What about New Orleans? Why wasn't she there, helping Pitt build homes for the thousands that lost their homes? These people needed help, these people needed hope, and she thought it was beneath her to do so.

Think about it. If there weren't any cameras around, would she still be there? I think not. I also don't think she deserves the blind adulation that so many give her.

Nita, while there are many orphans in America, the numbers don't even compare to how many orphans there are in the world.  Should our kindness and compassion be limited to those of our nation, and leave the rest of the world out in the cold to suffer?  The thing about adopting oversea's is that there is a good chance you will save this child from death.  Or at the very least from an overcrowded orphanage where children get no attention from any adult, because the adults are to short handed to take care of all the children.  In America, each orphan is in a foster home with foster parents who care about them and act as parents and give them the attention they need.  At worse, an orphan in America will be in a group home.  Group homes in America are in better condition that any orphanage in other countries and there are American laws to keep them from overcrowding.  This is why people adopt oversea's.  Besides the logic in it, their hearts are not constricted to only love for there own kind, but love for every child, everywhere.  And as I see it, the best thing about adopting oversea's, is that you don't just give a child a loving home and family as you would do if you adopted in America (which is still a really great thing), but that you also give the child the chance to live in the best nation on Earth.

Jamie,

I agree with most of what you said, but I would choose my words carefully next time (particularly with your last sentence).  I am from the third world, and while I agree that it is a very gracious thing to do to adopt a kid into America, I find it very elitist and out of touch the way you frame your argument.  It feels like you're putting down the third world, when many of their problems have been created by developed nations. 

America promotes wars in other countries (including mine, when I was 5 years old I had to sleep under a mattress for a while), they promote exploitation through sweat shops, has unfair trade agreements with many nations (cheating them out of wealth), etc.  Saying that your country is graciously saving these third world citizens and bringing them to the "best" country in the world feels like a slap on the face to the third world.

You probably didn't mean it that way, so I apologize in advance.  It just feels like a lot of people are riding a high horse in this country, talking about global problems that have never been experienced or well studied here.

Sorry, Juan, I didn't mean to offend you.  But I am an American and proud of it (so I cannot refrain from saying so).

    I also do not mean it to be a 'slap on the face to the third world'.  America is by no means perfect and has many problems.  However, it is a nation of freedom, unlike many of those third world nations. If a child is adopted and brought to America (compared to being adopted from their own country - which the rates a very low on) chances are they will live a better life than were they were (in the orphanges).  To be adopted from America there is all sorts of qualifications an adoptive parent needs, so there is no chance they will be brought into poverty here.  Or a home full of crime.  They will have opportunities that they couldn't get from other countries.  This is not to say it isn't just as wonderful when they get adopted from someone inside thier own countries.  I'm just glad they get adopted anywhere.

Hiyas Jamie :)

I understand what you mean and I most say that I must have made a mistake when I wrote about Angelina because I really did not mean that I like her for her looks.. but the fact that despite her fame an glory she chose the right path to become a wonderful human being and not like the many stars out there that chose the path of self-service.

The way I see it Angelina is using all her charm,, fame, money and contacts to serve others and that is very plausible as per my standards.

Regarding the thrisd world countries I agree with Juan... I am a first hand witness of this that he alledges.

I have been witness of negotiations with those countries by the IMF and the World Bank who are mainly controlled by Corporate America. Those negotiations ahve always been oin favor of Corporate America carrying a toll against these poor nations beyond imagination.

Education, nutrition, health care, etc has been denied to this people.

There are laws in our nation that prohibit our people and people from the world to export technology to those countries.

So when I hear that our country is the pinnacle of freedom.. I say ... maybe for us, but not for anyone else ... I can assureyou. We have through history achieved our prosperity and freedom through the oppression of less favored countries who have the resources that we don't have.

Just check how many times we have provoqued armed conflicts on other countries to put a corrupted politician to lead that country so they favor our corporations.

And if you analyze what is going on with us in the USA as Americans you will realize that we are very close to becoming a third world country too very soon thanks to Corporate America... Greed is what reigns and money what rules :/

I guess that what goes around comes around :/

When we deny a child the possibility of receiving a treatment due to lack of money or insurance and we basically let them die then we are very far away from deserving to being called a great nation.

America has it's fair share of problems like everyone else.  I still wouldn't want to live in any other country on Earth.  One of the great things about America is it's capacity to change.  But I have to say, you mentioned America like it has done no good for anyone, especially not Third World countries.  We pour money into helping those countries than any other nation on Earth.  We have thousands of organizations set up to help with hunger, Malaria, genocide, war and refugee's.  America has in the past stood up to nations of bully's when no one else would stop them. We aren't perfect and we fall sometimes, but we sure try. 

I wish it was true you know?..  Maybe private citizens are trying to help but our government has not ever.

Just ask yourself this questions: If we really wanted to help anyone why didn't we start by helping the Cubans to stop the genocide of Castro over them?.. We never did help them in any way, and do you know why? Because Cuba was the best excuse to build and maintain nuclear armament ...

And How about Iraq?.. Why didn't help the Iraquis by taking Sadam out during the Gulf War? .. Cause we never cared about them.

This last time we needed their oil.. and that is the plain truth. 

See what is happening with Iran? ... Why aren't we helping them to be free?  Because they have nothing to offer us.

I could keep on citing here many instances and I wouldn't be able to finish citing them today.

Our government is not OUR government .. They are there to protect the corporations and to start wars or change leaders as they see it fits their businesses.

We need to wake up or we will never have peace on earth.

We are 100% responsible for what is happening in the 3rd world countries of the Americas, Asia and Africa ... As England is too.

We have presidents that have financed both sides in WWII, like Bush's family.

It is all about money and power sweetie... Everything else about us beong the nation of the free is just a huge lie.. the biggest illusion.

And we all need to change that. For Earth's and Humanity's sake

America is a good country, but it has as many flaws as many other countries.  Yes it helps 3rd world nations, but it also perpetuates conflicts and has promoted unfair trade practices.  We just need to recognize that there are good and bad things about the US that most of the time only outsiders see.

Pamela, America has tried to help Cuba in all ways we could.  Like you said, if Cuba decided to bomb us for helping them, well, more people would have been hurt in the end than those who were helped.

   We sure are doing a lot to help Iraqi now though.  The problem is everyone has a different opinion on how to best help them.  Some say leave them alone.  Other say intervene.  In the end, we end up with a mix of it and that is not going to make someone happy.

    I'm not sure on the case of Iran (I know like nothing on the subject), but I have a feeling has to do with the fact that we can't spare everyone right now.  Our resources are already spread thin.  When some of the conflicts we are helping reside, then we'll move on and help Iran (if we're not already doing something as it is).

One question . . . why are we responsible for all the problems in all the third world countries?  Don't the people and their governments in those countries have anything to do with what's happening to them?  Don't they have to be responsible?

What is this about Bush financed both sides of World War ll?

   Do you believe in the power of one individual?  I do.  No government can stop that.  Sure, at the moment there are some big problems with out government, but it's not something that can't be fixed.  And it will be fixed, because that's America.  It has the power to change.  Money and power don't rule everything.  And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

   You don't believe you are free?  What did you have for breakfast this morning?  Was it cereal or a pop tart or a muffin or McDonald's?  You made a choice on what you ate didn't you?  That's freedom.  So many people in so many countries do not get choices like that on the simple things like breakfast.  Sometimes they are lucky enough to eat something we would never put in our mouths.  Do you have a hobby?  Have you pursued it?  That's freedom.  Have you ever written the President or Congress or your Governor or Mayor?  That's freedom.  Talking to me about freedom on this computer is more than so many people get to do.  In certain countries people would die for talking like this over the Internet.  In America we are free.  To the last.

Who is free of sin can throw the first stone :)

We can't expect someone to be perfect.

I don't believe anyone could be my example to follow so I can become better.. But one must recognize when somone has been able to succeed and shine.

If our world was a bit less critical and less superficial we would pick other great women like Judge Sotomayor for she sure has been able to surpass people's expectations from a professional woman specially if they are from another race that is not white (In the USA I mean).

I think it is absolutely unfair that just because she made her career in Holliwood that already makes her evil or shallow.

None of you know the immense stress that these people are subject to ... not even the faintest idea.

I know because I have family that is involved in this type of work and they sure have to go through a lot.

like for example people expecting her to be like Mother Theresa with Albert Einstein and Venus all together lol

I, too, work in the "shallow pursuits" (aka entertainment/arts) industry, so I find it troubling that this career parth makes me ineligble for role model status to little girls regardless of whatever else I may be in my life. 

Is there a magical job for women that instantly makes us role models?  Clearly it's not senator nor actress, it's not musician or lawyer...  And women have fought for so long to be defined by other roles than just mother & wife, makes me wonder if we're ever going to be viewed as anything except those.

The best role model for girls will hopefully be there mother.  Why?  It won't be because of whatever job a child's mother does.  It will simply be because she is a mother, and hopefully a good one who knows there is no better job in the world than being a mother.

What if, like me, a woman doesn't have a daughter?  Or doesn't have children?  Then what?  I can't be a role model? 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.  The minute I step on stage I become a role model for everyone whose eyes are on me - it's a big responsibility, and not taken lightly.

I enjoy being a mother, and it's a huge part of who I am, but I was many other "jobs" before that and they all contribute to who I am - those aspects of me certainly didn't magically disappear the second I gave birth.  When I'm on stage, people see a musician, a performer, there isn't a giant "M" on my chest giving people permission to look up to me only because I'm a mother.

We live in a world that values people's contributions to society.  Being a mom is only one part of who many women are.  Saying that women are only valued role models because they are a mother can be upsetting for some people who have worked their whole lives to achieve success in their chosen field.

Sure you can be a role model.  But if a child has a good mom, she will always be the number one role model.  Unfortunately, there a lot of kids out there who don't have good moms.  This is when other people step in and provide good role models, and mentoring.  A chance to act as a mom for that child.

This world does make to many role models from fictional charcters or actreess or actors (not that sometimes this isn't a good thing).  But the real role models for a kid will always be the real people in there life. 

I'm not saying other people can't be role model's too.  They can.  But to a child it will always be their mom first.  And I should mention the people I personally consider role models are really good moms.  For me, when a woman accomplishes that (or a man), then they have really done something that matters and could be looked upon greatly.

No. Mother's are not always the number one role model, even great ones do not always last as number one role models. Yeah I like how you add in parenthesis or a man, but you know that this is not the case. Men are free to be recognized as something other than father. So only if I am a great mother have I accomplished something? There are many women out there doing things big things on a daily basis accomplishing great things. One is my professor, she is a mother but for me she is one of the greatest role models not because she is a great mother but because of her work as a professor and who she is in the classroom. I think it is short sighted to not recognize a woman beyond the role of mother. And this view is one of the things that has fed inequality for so long. 

Of course woman should be recognized for all that they do, not just as a Mom (same goes for Dads).  For me, the greatest guy's are the ones who are terrific Dads, especially those who are or wish they were stay at home Dads.

She's an ATHEIST, so you might want to note that.

I don't think religion should be an issue when being a feminist, unless that particular religion or church is condoning the advancement of women.

Btw, I think atheists can be some of the best people in the world, we all have morals and values regardless of religion.

Yes, there are many others out there , Jews, Atheists, etc. that do a lot of good things during their lives. Being a "good CHristian" does not make you better than others.

Well maybe I did not explain myself well... Let me re-elaborate.

I am Christian so I know nothing about being Jewish or Muslim or whatever else.

I relate her to my faith Christianity because is all I know and I follow.

And what I tried to say was that even though she MIGHT NOT be Christian, she sure behaves like a true Christian... and not like others that spend their lives criticizing others, or being mean to others, or being selfish, or judging others.

So sometimes those who act like atheists or are self declared atheists follow Jesus teachings better than those who practice my religion.

Regarding being Muslin or Jewish or Budhist etc, as I said before I wouldn't know .. so no pun intended there.

It is really sad that you all find offense in all that I write here. I just wonder why some of you take it all so personal.

Too bad :/

You don't like Angelina Jolie.. great that is your option but don't bash her in front of people like me that admire her and respect her...

I can assure you that if you had presented at least one role model for feminism or for us women I wouldn't have made any derogating comment towards her like you both have been doing here.

So I think that if you girls don't like the fact that I respect Angelina for what she is then just ignore me :))

And we can start respecting each other... how about that? :))

So, because you like her, I shouldn't  bash her? I was simply stating the facts as I have seen them. Why? This is a "discussion panel" and not everyone will agree. There will be other views, so you should get used to that. If you can't handle it, there are plenty of other places you can go on with your admiration. 

I think that promoting feminism is the promotion of women in general. I have listed so many examples before, but you want others? What about Sandra Day O'Connor? Susan B. Anthony? Golda Meir? Oprah? Hillary Clinton? None of these women had to exploit themselves to advance women. They used their INTELLIGENCE to get ahead and lead by example. In my opinion, Angelina doesn't. If you don't like that, then I'm sorry.

Well I particularly have my own opinions about some of the women you mention here. In special Hilary Clinton. But I reserve my negative thoughts to myslef for I intend no offense to anyone here.

When you take the "discussion" to a personal level of course I will not like it... As you don't like it either as you evidently demonstrate here.

For me feminism is not the same as the promotion of women in general.

feminism is as per wikipedia: Feminism is an intellectual, philosophical and political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women. It involves various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference; that advocate equality for women; and that campaign for women's rights and interests.

When we strugle to advance in a world where men rule then we will become feminists.

Just the fact that you use your best abilities to get where you want to be doesn't make you less than any other woman just because you went on a different path than them.

You all are cruxifying Angelina because she happened to have been born pretty and she was one of those VERY few that makes it through Holliwood.

Does that makes her less valuable or less important?

Hher career is related to the world of entertainment as Oprah's is.  Oprah had people who helped her succeed too.. Hilary Clinton sold her soul to the politics of the USA to be where she is now.  No woman that praises herself as a real woman allows the embarrassement and humilliation that Bill Clinton made her go through (As per my standards).

So there are many things that we just will never agree on but we can at least respect each other ... don't you think?

All comments are welcome as long as they come with respect and not mocking, sarcasm, insults or puns attached to them.

>>

It makes her less of the kind of role model I want for my children.  Pretty is one thing. Marketing your boobs and body is entirely another. This is not a matter of jealousy...it's a matter of personal dignity.

Let's teach ourselves and our kids to aspire to greater things than being somebody that men, women (and sadly even children) drool over. Let's not excuse immoral behavior on the basis of "well, she's got a good heart," and let's stop allowing our children to view t.v. and films which promote values that are damaging to women, marriage and sense of self.

Of course, the beauty in all of this is that we do have choices. Angelina chose her path in life, we can choose our own.

That is perfectly fine and a valid argument as I see it.

All people promote something in order to succeed... Some people don't care about the means for the ends will justify them for them, like H. Clinton did or others.

As per my standards I guess what really matters to me is to see that someone despite the great fame and her huge amount of money that she possesses and the continuous adoration that she is subject to, this didn't go over her head and she chose the path of compassion rather than the path of self servicing.

She was able to overcome the corruptive effects of fame and glory.

That makes her for me a human being that is further ahead than many of us.

I have been exposed to all that at least once in my life and I can tell you with first hand knowledge that it is VERY hard to overcome all the temptations at once.

She did so I applaud her for that.

So the fact that she is using the talents that God gave her to succeed in her career makes her really be more attuned with God than many of us despite the fact that she thinks that God doesn't exist (if that is true)

There are many things about Angelina Jolie to not admire.  There are also many things to admire.  She use to be a 'bad girl' of Hollywood, but she's really turned her life around.  She still makes mistakes, but she is trying and that is a good thing.  One of the things that helped her get her life turned around was adopting her kids.  Once she realized how amazing that was, she started coming around and realizing the mistakes she made before and is working to do better in the future.

    I also agree with Pamela that some of the woman Melissa noted are not really people to look up too.  Like Clinton, and Oprah for example.  Of course, at one time neither was Angelina Jolie.  A few years ago I couldn't find anything about her to admire.  Now she's got quite a few qualities to like.

For me Jamie, what really motivates me to chose a role model is not the amount of money they have been able to accumulate or make per year, or the powerful position that they have attained in live.

For me a role model is a person who despite all temptations or all vicissitudes they chose to care and share.

I think that this is the world that we need to construct.. not the one we are in where every man looks after himself, but a world where unity and  service to others are the goal of the day.

I agree.  I have the best two role models in the world.  My parents.  They aren't famous, they've never done anything most people would consider extraordinary, but I would like nothing more than to be just like them.  In every way.  Now, that's saying something!

hehehehe Jamie ..  indeed! :))

Most of us do not try to exploit them.  Most of us do what we can to help.  People risk body and mind for the well being of people in those countries.  Some Americans have died for them?  Are you saying they died in vain and you can't recognize their efforts?  America has come a long way in the last 200 years.  It has helped more people than any other country on Earth.  Thousands of organizations have been set up to help these countries.  Millions of Americans have given their money and time to help these people.  I will not disrespect that.

I am sorry Jamie but you need a good dosis of reality. I really recommend you to start googling around about the wars that we have been involved in and what the motives to be there were... I know forst hand how things really are and trust me they are not even close to whatyou think.

America has never gone to a war to defend no one unless there is something that will favor one of the magnates of this country.

Just do your search and you will see.

If things were like you think then why haven't we liberated the Cubans in 60 years?... Why didn't we liberate the Iraqies when Bush senior first made war against Sadam?... And many other examples I can keep on posting here but would never finish.

Pamela, you are only seeing the bad in everything.  Everything anyone does will always have someone who can benefit from it.  Doesn't mean we should stop helping.  Sometimes we have gone in to fights for the wrong reasons - at least that's what the politics will show you.  Doesn't mean that it was actually worth it and there was good in it.  I think I stated in a different post about those examples you gave.  Everything is complex when you are dealing with foreign affairs.  Every action had a reaction, so you have to do your best to figure out what that reaction is or you risk hurting more people than you help.

Jamie dear, this isn't a matter of perception... This is a matter of facts.. that for cruel that they might appear and unreal that they might seem they are still facts.

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq "1,331,578"
www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America's War On Iraq 4,321
icasualties.org/oif/

And they continue dying.. I haven't included the ones that have died in Afghanistan and Pakistan... The numbers are alarming and we are doing NOTHING to stop it.

While there still is people like you that refuse to see the truth and to accept that we are not a nation of heroes anymore but a nation that had become a rogue nation then maybe we will be able to do something.

Look at what our support to Israel on the war with Palestine has caused to the Palestinian people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofxM4kR1m0 

This is the real reason why we will attack IRan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEpp9E6aJGw

I could spend here all night just posting the many crimes Bush and Cheney committed even to our own nation and our own people... But some people don't learn... some people keep on sending their children to wars that make no sense, that are illegal.. and after the fact and after having sent their kids to certain death for no honorable cause whatsoever then they start making excuses for the governmetn to justify their own actions.

Truly Jamie, you got to do more research... The ignorance of the law doesn't make one immune to it.

Pamela, I really don't know how you could say such things.  I am glad we invaded Iraq.  It was a good thing.  Do you know how many Iraqi's were being slaughtered before we did anything?  Did you want their horrible government to continue to harm it's own people?  They were bully's who were operating with no one to stand in there way. Something had to be done to stand up for those people.

    I wish our troops would stay over there a little bit longer, because it doesn't appear as if Iraq is ready to stand and support itself yet.  It sounds like you would be happy if we pulled them out early, but that would only make a big mess over there.  We need to finish what we started, not pull out because it's easier.  We have to stand strong in face of opposition.

   I wish Bush could have been president longer.  He did a terrific job (though he wasn't perfect).  After 9/11, did anyone ever think we would make it seven years without an attack?  No one would have believed you if you said that.  But guess what?  It happened.  Bush took part in a miracle that has kept us free from danger when no one thought it was possible.  That is something to applaud.

    We ARE a nation of hero's.  Do you not read the newspaper or watch the news?  I'm not even talking about the troops here (who are hero's who have risked their very lives to keep me and my family free from persecution, oppression, and tyranny), but I'm talking about the everyday people who have stepped up to help other's out.  The people who have risked there lives for others.  The people who have stayed strong through insurmountable opposition.  The people who fight for truth and justice.  And simply the people who have offered a helping hand to a neighbor in need.  That is something worth fighting for.

Angelina has made a good home for her children.  A much better one than where they were.  Can you not see that?

We send all kinds of medications over seas.  Yes, some of them have expired past their expiration date, but what most people don't know is that they are still good for long after that.  The thousands of doctors who have volunteered their time to help over seas kids and adults for free are smart people.  They know when a drug is safe or not.  They have experience which is much better than facts on a sheet.

    Also, we do not have more illnesses and disorders than any other country (not if you go by population anyway).  America is one of the healthiest countries.  You only have to visit most south American, African, and Asian countries to know that.  In America, most people don't have to fight just to survive everyday (most people).  That's not the case in many other countries and cities around the world.

Never have I seen before in any country, and I have lived in many, the many cases of Autism, Cancer, dementia, alshzimer, etc as I have seen here.

For every 5 people that I have met 1 has cancer.. That is OUTRAGEOUS!

In most countries there aren;t that many deaths caused by a flu like I have seen here.

We all have to come down that cloud we live on and accept for once and for all that we have been lied to and stop this madness.

I would guess because those things are undiagnosed in many countries.  You have to remember that only in the last ten years have we really started to diagnosis those cases in America.

    America has it medical problems, but it's much better and safer to live here than in most African countries.  The outbreaks of Malaria there are really bad.  The hospital's are so overcrowded.  People line the streets, waiting to get into them to find healing for the hurt one's with them.  It's not something I would wish on anyone, yet millions of people in other countries are forced to live like that.  I can only be thankful that in America we do not have that hospital problem.

I insist Jamie you need to do some research hun

It helps though not to believe everything you read.  Especially propaganda.  So often we need to read between the lines of what is really written to get to the truth.  Finding papers from both sides of the issue is always a help, too.

Also unplugging from FOX News every once in a while.

WE ARE FREE.  I could never live in another country, because I would not have as many freedom's as I have here.  There is always hope in America.  We have freedom of speech, freedom of press (even if we don't like the way they operate, they are still free to say what they wish), and freedom of religion.  In more than 50 countries, Christian's can be persecuted and put to death for their belief's.  And that's just Christians, let along other faiths.

Do you honestly believe the entire government is conspiring against you?  Everyone (well, most) in the government has their own personal agenda's and that's the problem there.  However, they are FREE to have their own personal agenda's.

Being able to talk like this is freedom, Pamela.  If you were doing this in a large handful of other countries you could be thrown in jail.  Here, you have absolutely no risk of that.  You don't have to look over your shoulder every time you type something.  Now, that IS freedom.

    I'm not saying our court system is perfect, but at least we have a court system.  In too many other countries people do not even get a trial, let along a fair one.  The prisons in other countries (not so much in most European ones) are so bad that living in one is a form of torture.

Freedom is letting the Media choose what they want to write about.  Freedom is letting them say something bad about the president without mysterious murders happening.  Freedom is letting people choose what they want.  Allowing feedback, and having the ability to change without asking the governments permission.

WE ARE FREE.

This is true.  It helps to get your information from many sources.  The media is one that is really bad.  They played a big part in making Bush look like a fool (when he was anything but) and they helped Obama win his presidency, too.  It helps to remember that in everything you read, you have to search for the facts and truth.  A lot of the time it's hidden among the words.

I wonder what freedom of speech really means in America.

Is it lie all you want because you can? distort all the truth because you have freedom of speech? Dis inform people all you want because you have FREEDOM of speech?

That is what we get from the media Jamie. Lies, disinformation, distorted edited news.  One sided and without any objectivity news.

There is no law that protect us from that.  The media owners.. big corporations.. can do with us and against us whatever they want and there is nothing we can do about it.

We as individuals have no rights... If so, why the Big wigs of Wall Street aren't in jail yet? However, God forbids they find you shoplifting! You'll be in jail all night for sure!

Why is it that the law only apply to us the little people?.. Why is it that there are no law preventing the corporations from owning us?

Why is it that there are 45 million people in the USA without health insurance?.. Why is it that there are 300,000 deaths due to flu in the USA per year?.. Why is it that there are still children and people dying for lack of treatment of a life threatening illness just because they can't afford it?

Is there freedom when we are of value enough to safe our lives as long as we have the money to pay for it?  Is that equality?

Why the media supported Bush in all his crimes and actually helped him by lying to all of us?

So what freedom are you talking about hun?

There are so many things that you guys refuse to see or recognize...

You know what Jamie?... It is your choice and if you love living like that, thinking that your country is great and that your government cares for you ... great.. be happy :))

In any case we are way off the subject so we better stop it here and go back to what this post was all about in the first place :)))

We do get a lot of nothing from the news.  That is why I don't watch it, and hardly ever read newspapers.  They say so much without actually saying anything.  Often, they can be one sided, too.  But I'm glad we have newspapers, though.  It's a sign of our freedom.  People do report the news.  It's not always the best, but most of the people who work on it do their best.  I'm not gonna ask them for more.  I will simply get my information somewhere else.

   I don't get what you said about the media being able to report what they want, even if we don't like it.  Isn't that point of newspapers?  To report what it thinks is news, even if it's bad for someone (though I do agree they do take that too far sometimes).  But you see, they have the freedom to say what they want.  It's the people who read it and believe it that needs to change.  Smart people won't take as facts everything they see in a newspaper or on TV.

    I, as an individual, have so many rights I don't even think I can count them all.  Sure, sometimes bad things happen and I feel like i have been cheated.  There are always ways to get that fixed.  If not for my particular circumstance, then for the next person who has to deal with the same problem I did.  If we want it hard enough, we can achieve it.  The good can win.

    I don't know what you are saying about 300,000 people dying, either.  That's life.  People live, people die.  It's horrible, but we can't stop it.  Though, we sure do try.  And that fact is one of the greatest things about America and people everywhere.  Every single life is important and we will stop at nothing to save every last one we can.

   It sounds like you have some big problems with our health system.  So do I.  England has a better example, I think.  Anyway, we are free to try things and try to make it better.  The particular clauses of every health statement does not make us have less freedom.  It's freedom to be able to have a health statement in the first place.  We have the power to choose.  It's something I'm thankful for all the time.

     In case you haven't noticed recently, the media hates Bush.  They lie and put him down whenever they can.  He is much better than the media will ever give him credit for.

     I guess we are a bit off subject here.  But I want to let you know that I am happy.  I'm happy that I get to live free everyday.  I'm thankful beyond imagining for our troops.  I'm hopeful that America and the world can change to be a better place.  I amazed by the opportunities I have and the ability to go anywhere and do anything.  I feel blessed to be able to help everyone in need.  If it's a stranger down the street, an orphan in a third world country, or a refugee from a war.  I can do all of this because I am free.  I am an American and I am proud of it.

I think it's hard to have an opinion of the world without taking into account what newspapers or the news say.

On the other hand, you're right, you're probably one of the most free people in the world, and it's great that you want to help.  Still, you're looking at many issues from a very individual, personal point of view based mainly on your life experiences, which is still a great point of view, but we must also be able to recognize many issues as SOCIAL issues.  Not just from the individual standpoint.

Hey Juan, could you explain a bit more on what you mean by Social issues, over individual standpoint?  I'm a bit curious.

Pamela, I have spent most of my life traveling.  There isn't one place I've lived in long enough to call home.  

   I understand what you're saying about wanting me to see the truth.  I feel the same way about you.  I have, by the way, searched the Internet many times (though please do not use this as your only source of information), I know of many, many problems that exist in this world.

    I don't think I ever said everything is alright, Pamela.  There are many problems in America and abroad that need to be fixed.  A lot of people devote their time to helping them, but more need to step up to the plate.  

    Having said that, I do believe in the grand scheme of things that everything will turn out all right.  I also think in the end that my life will turn out right and be great, no matter what horrible obstacle's I go through until I get there.

I agree.  This notion can frustrate many people who ask themselves: "why can't I have everything?" and who aim to have everything but can't achieve it.

I guess it's also part of the "American Dream", which tells you that you can do whatever you want, but this is not true for most of the population.

I just thought I would add this tidbit in here for anyone who reads this who believes in the word of the Bible.

    Solomon had what many people would describe as 'having it all'.  He was King, he had wisdom, he was handsome, he was rich.  Yet, even through it all, he said none of it mattered without God.