feminism = women equal to men
not big hairy lesy chicks yelling about how men put them down like all my buddies seem to think
Printable View
feminism = women equal to men
not big hairy lesy chicks yelling about how men put them down like all my buddies seem to think
First off, I wouldn't stop calling yourself a feminist just because some dumbass happened to ruin the term for you (he doesnt sound like a feminist IMO lol He probably only said that to get in ur pants). But on the otherhand, 'feminist' is just a word, a label. If you don't call yourself a feminist, it doesn't change who you really are...so in essence it really doesn't matter. That pertains to the antifeminism bit too...who cares if an antifeminist calls themselves a feminist? Well I am sure a lot of real feminists would be pissed, but we shouldn't take things at face value in the first place...I could call myself the President if I want, but it wouldn't make it true. "feminism" as it's known, could be ruined if a whole bunch of nonfeminists started labeling themselves as feminists, but I really don't think it would have that big of an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaanenGoats
For the record, I am not an expert in the realm of feminism. I have been taking Women's Studies since september, but I have had a really awesome prof who has gotten me really interested in it. What I like the best about the class is how it broadens my perspective and teaches critical thinking. My teacher will bring up an issue that seems nonimportant, but then analyzes it so we really get a feel for what it's all about. She also brings up the interconnections between sex, race, and class and has many discussions about how they are all related.
I am pleased with how this thread is going too! I enjoy answering questions, but I would also like to hear more about everyones 'relationship' with feminism (stuff that i talked about in my first post)...also, I would really like to read more on stuff that Goats has gone thru, u know, personal stories. That kinda thing. :hippy:
Because one creepazoid tells you he's a feminist, now you question your own belief? Oh my, that won't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaanenGoats
Dear sweetie, please repeat after me :
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
EVERYTHING that creepy old guys say to get into my pants is FALSE!
This you must never forget:hippy:
I would love to have this discussion in person becasue i speak much better then I type but...
I graduated HS in 1978 so I know of radical feminisim. I lost a quarter to my radical cousin on the Billy Jean/Bobby Rigs tennis match. Billionfold opened an interesting point but didn't follow through....
Pre-Feminisim a man could support his family on one income but, along came feminisim and the liberal wife next door got a part time job and they could suddenly afford a nicer vacation/car/education for the kids ect.. Well, if she can I can...suddenly all the women are working and you're living in an upscale neighborhood and two incomes is the norm....then, suddenly....it is a necessity.
I hate to be the devils advocate (Ok - not really true) but I think America started it's great decline the day they gave women the vote. I am not a neaderthal, this is simply my informed opinion.
PS.
I heard a story about a woman yelling at a guy for holding the door for her:
"You don't have to hold the door for me because I'm a woman!" she said.
"I'm not. I'm holding the door for you because I'm a gentelman." He repied.
Things that make you go Hmmm.
- Slow -
How is that being a Devil's advocate? Do you even know what that term means? 'Informed opinion' gives the reader the sense that you have researched this, but it seems more like a blanket closeminded opinion to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
How can you say that giving women the right to vote started the decline in America? I'd like to know your reasoning behind it.
And as for the ending section of your post, those are isolated cases. If one woman says "I hate guys with blond hair," it doesn't represent all females. Just ones with different beliefs.
Dear PB, I'm afraid we can't expect reason from this simple fellow, his brain seems too calcified. I'm not going to say any more about how stupid his remark was, for I fear that is why some people say ignorant things, because they like to get a rise out of others. It is some kind of entertainment for the dullwitted. Suffice it to say, he probably can't comprehend any of your intelligent questions, much less answer them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Banana
You are just one of those smart women he must feel threatened by:D
Ok, here is the way I view it. People are people. We should all be treated equally. Women SHOULD have the right to vote, nothing at all wrong with it. They should have all the rights we have (except urinals, those are men only). But there really shouldn't be a competition. Women should protest for fair treatment, but should not be dicks about it(like the stereotype). It's just like all the other right's movement stereotypes. I think the reason females were givin fewer rights is because, since the begining of time(I assume) males have just dominated and done hunting etc, while the females took care of their young. And this just went on for millions of years, while evolving, until now when enough women have cared to change it. Ok that's all I have to say.
This post angered me so badly I am having problems typing...so sorry if I don't make sense, perhaps I will come back to this later with a clearer head.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
First off, I would like you to prove how America went downhill after we EARNED AND FOUGHT FOR the RIGHT to vote (you did not GIVE us the vote, we took it). In my opinion, America was doomed from the beginning...capitalism and Christianity's control over the country is causing this 'great decline'.
You ARE a neanderthal as far as I am concerned, because you seem to think that this world would be best if it were run solely by men.
I really hope you go around telling more people your "informed" opinion on this matter, because many other minorities would gladly tear you apart with their bare hands. When women got the right to vote, it spearheaded the equality movement for all minorities. Shortly after white women got the right to vote, women of color got to vote too. With the women's right to vote, minorities in North America were finally seen as 'people' in the eyes of the law- however, it is people like you who make many minorites still feel unhuman.
edit to say: I don't care if any of you make fun of me for getting "angry over something someone posted on the internet"... more people should care about issues, regardless of their location
I hate feminism! In all of its forms.
In the same respect that civil rights and prejudice is still an issue, even through minorities are now aquited all the legal rights of citizens, feminism still has some valid points to make.
But I'll also agree with some of the previous posters, and BG especially, that the end goal should of course be a humanism. Samwhore had this beautiful utopian vision of a world where such -isms are unnecessary because nobody holds prejudices. Sign me up!
But realistically, we usually never recognize our unconcious prejudices until we're slapped in the face with them. Which is precisely why feminism is such a useful critique.
I think feminism, for all its failings, does a remarkable job of pointing out masculine centered reasoning, in place we might never expect. Ethics for example. And when you realise certain reasonings have a gender to them, it might give you a reason to examine them more closely, for the purposes of a humanitarian viewpoint.
I'd like to add that as far as the voting, I began to notice as a small child that many women, including schoolteachers, even my own relatives, do not understand the nature and psyche of men and boys, and are often very bad judges of their character. The problem is worsened when they deny this. The politicians in of today, male or female, are a pretty bad bunch, so I don't know what to say - but I'd say that the blame lies with both men and women voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
Iâ??d be the first to admit that I do not understand women - and never will. I love 'em all, but they are very different in many ways. The men that most women admire are not people that I have much admiration for, I know that - but I don't know if the opposite is true, ie whether women that I admire are disliked by most women.
I don't really understand why you said this, as you seem to throw out a disclaimer at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
But with regards to voters being poor judges of politicians, some of it probably comes down to what you consider to be a priority. Although priorities might be different between men and women, surely you wouldn't ask society to deny representation to 51% of the population? That would be completely ridiculous...
And ridiculous might be (unfairly) another example of masculine bias in language... hmmmm. nah, probably not.
Ok...First off, I am one of the most liberated men you are likely to ever meet. I think Margret Thatcher was an excellent leader and so was the woman from India whose name I can't remember. I may even vote for Clinton.
Second...I was playing devils advocate and I was playing to the crowd a bit but I also can't stand any kind of radicalisim; weather it is feminisim, religious or bigotry.
Third... You women seem to be equating the vote with equal rights. I don't feel we should go back to the time when women were considered mens chattle. I do, however, feel we should go back to a place where women's place was in the home.. WAIT! Try to listen with an open mind.
If women went back to being the guardians of hearth and home how much better off would we all be? It may take a town to raise a child but it takes a full time mother and father to raise a secure child. When the childs first words are tinged with the accent of the nanny then there is something wrong.
Have any of you noticed the rise in heart problems in women that have a direct correlation to the numbers of women working full time?
The industialized nations of the world are pulling away from the home based society and plunging in to a cold cold future in my mind. I see the day where a couple goes to the clinic, orders there child and comes back the next week to pick up a 12 year old child ready for assimilation into the household.
I will probably vote for Hillary this election but I want to point out that she did her mommy thing. Her kid is grown and now it's her time and I applaud that (I know, not a great example but...).
To be honest I can't point to the right to vote and todays problems and make a clear connection to the two but I do see America's slide starting at the same time.
BTW This is my oppinion. If you don't care for it then fine, disagree and lets have an open discussion but, please, I am sensative and don't care to be called names or to have you wishing me harm.
Thank you.
- Slow -
im on the wrong computer....
Slow, I see where you are coming from, and I do not agree, but I do thank you for being a little more in depth and logical this time around....it's a lot easier to see where you stand on this issue.
If we could, I would like to move past this, because I was quite enjoying the friendly banter that was going on previously....
I really like what you brought up about the goals, or 'jobs' of feminism. That's the reason I like it so much- it slaps us in the face with our prejudices! I identify myself as a feminist, but my view of it comes pretty close to being the definition of humanist as well...I am not a 'feminist' just because I want male/female equality- I want it for everybody. The gender point is really valid too, I have learned a lot so far about how gender influences aspects of life that I would never have noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polymirize
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes teamwork from the father and the mother. It's not about 'duty' of raising a kid, it's about the equal bonding you feel between each other. I would have gone nuts if my mom stayed at home all day. And for what? To make her dear and devoted husband dinner every night? Rub his feet and fill his scotch back up? Listen to him complain about work, while she's expected to do all of the housework for free?
Those archaic ideals belong back in the 1950s. In order to support a family these days, it's almost necessary to have a dual income. Why not stay at home dads? What's so different? I have a stronger bond with my father, but I certainly wish he wouldn't waste his intelligence and effort to stay at home.
Now I can see why women in the 1960s were so pissed off.
Thanks for your further explanation, Slowlickity. That sounded much more reasonable than your first statement even though I have to disagree with parts of the further amplification, too. At least I understand you were being in large part a "contrarian" in your first post. I am convinced that in ideal situations, it takes two married parents to raise a child plus the supporting village. And don't underestimate the importance of fathers. I know without a doubt that fathers need to be very actively involved in the lives of both their sons and daughters, and I applaud families who're able to work out a way for one parent, male or female, to be in attendance during the child's growing-up years. That's certainly why I stayed in a part-time job that allowed me to work at home--so I could be the primary caregiver.
The sad truth, however, is that fewer and fewer families, especially those without enough education to get really good jobs, can truly do that, and I suspect more of the societal degradation you alluded to is a result of high divorce rates and single-parent situations than working moms. I've seen an awful lot of very traditional home-and-hearth guardian, stay-at-home mothers who've done a woeful injustice to their homes, marriage and kids alike, and so I'm not sure that's the central answer to societal stability.
We'd make more headway with society as a whole if we were somehow better able to qualify parents of both genders, frankly, and keep them together through the raising of their children. We could also make lots of of headway if we truly valued children and working families and were able to encourage more employers to provide alternate working arrangements for parents. When those options aren't available, we need to better certify and qualify non-parental care providers. I'm glad you're likely to vote in the Hillary or other Democratic-leaning direction because, despite all the lip service the right pays to family values, its real values are bottom line business, tax-relief for the wealthy, and, at least currently, misguided defense, not families at all.
The rise in heart disease in women is believed to be in equal parts due to the increasing obesity rate/increasing sedentary lifestyle, still appalling numbers of female cigarette smokers, and stress, which is seen in equal numbers in both work-at-home and work-at-outside-job women. No one should assume for even a tenth of a second that work-at-home moms don't experience alarming stress levels, too. They do. This is becoming increasingly evident in higher and higher rates of substance abuse among stay-at-home moms.
OK. I'm aware that some of you would like to drop this but I feel I need to respond but I will keep it short.
Purplebanana - Why is two incomes now necissary but one generation ago it wasn't?
Birdgirl - When my wife fell into a major post partum depression that included hitting my kids, I became a stay at home dad for my three young kids. I am proud of the job I did and it was a difficult but very rewarding time for me. I also worked full time nights to provide for them. It was something that needed to be done and I did it. Where did I learn these values? My parents. Mom was a stay at home mom untill the youngest went off to elementry school. I believe that the family unity and it's decline is at the root of most of societies problems now. i feel the crises in families today is due to economic issues that is a direct result of women entering the work force. I believe they entered the work force as a direct result of feminisim which began with the fight for voting rights.
I appologize to anyone I have offended and I am quite cognisant of the fact that the barn door will never be closed again. Thank you all for listening with open minds.
Peace.
- Slow -
Birdie didn't mention that the vast majority of women heart disease patients, at least for coronary artery disease, are women who are 50 and older. The numbers don't peak and become equal to men's risk until ladies are 65 or older. The studies and textbooks all say 1. obesity/diabetes/high lipids/low exercise, 2. stress, and 3. smoking play a three-way role like Bird said (she's still in the book phase of her education). But in my own patients it certainly appears that the #1 part of that equation far outweighs the job and/or home stresses. The female patient population that's reflecting higher and higher heart disease is largely through raising its children and finished with the hardest work years, too.
Birdgirl has gone out to run errands (which is why I'm sitting up at the computer). She's likely to argue that the decline in economic stability and the necessity of women entering the workforce is a result of what it actually is, a rise in the cost of living.
The claim that "economic issues that is a direct result of women entering the work force" is laughable. Check your economic trends and look at how much more houses, food, cars, health care, and child care cost now than they did a generation or more ago. Then look at how many more single-parent and working poor families there are now. You're going to see it's the economy itself and changes in family circumstances that are responsible for women being in the workforce, not women in the workforce who've caused the economic instability. You might also check your history for the rise of feminism. It doesn't herald back to the women's voting movement.
For me it seems the money is the root of many problems...
During my childhood, in the 80's, my country was in an economical crisis. My father worked by himself as boat designer, but that time nobody had money to make boats, so he had very few work. And of couse, very few money too. Some extreme days, we only ate because my neighbour gave us some food from her.
My mom could have decided to start working, instead staying home and raising me and my sister. But she prefered not. She thought it was more important to be raising us, personally, even through poverty times, than give us a 'better' life with more money, but without her at our side.
I greatly admire her for it. Now im a well raised man, thanks very much to her. We had difficult times, of course, but i see money is not everything. I think she did the right choice. Maybe the love of the money is what is making the society go downwards...
I'd like to see a dicussion about women and feminism with regards to the childfree.
Personally, I do not wish to be part of a "Village" and being responsible for taking care of kids.
I'd vote for Yillary when hell freezes over. :smokin:
Hmmmm... interesting turn. I thought this thread pretty well puttered out. I just had a hmmm moment as I read Slow's original thread and then Dutch's response. I couldn't help but think of her response to my post, and the fact that she said that just because one skeezy old guy calls himself a feminist doesn't mean I should let that ruin the label for me. Quite intuitive, thank you for the insight!
That popped into mind at her passionate reply to Slow's first post. Why should I, or she, care about one guy (who has certainly redeemed himself in following posts thought I, and others, I believe, still disagree with him) who might say some outrageous, insulting, outdated, or simply distasteful comments. Perhaps out best defense is not in claiming the title feminst, which is arguably too loaded of a term to be easily used anymore, but rather in assuming the confidence to move in this world. Trying to explain this.... the phrase from Shakespeare (I think) comes to mind "Methinks (s)he protests too much..." which seems to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Sometimes in constantly defending ourselves, in argueing for our equality, in insisting on its validity, we may be undermining it. Certainly, in far too many areas we still must insist, but perhaps if we simply assumed more and took life as granted that it is ours, perhaps we would be granted more. Could it be that we----ok, let me change that. I know that I hold myself back far more than any men ever do when I constantly convince myself why I should have the right to do this or say that or move in certain circles. Anyhow. I gotta run. Just thoughts.
Dutchlover...sorry to be hikacking your thread but I feel I have to respond. Guess I've spent too much time around BFA.
Dave Byrd.
I am sure you are a well educated man and I imagine at some point you must have taken micro and macro economics so I think you can see that you either dismised or ignored my central point that todays economy is a direct result of women CHOOSING to supliment thier husbands income in the 60's. When the few became the many it became the norm to have two incomes (Remember the euphemisim DINC? Dounble income, no children.) Well, the norm has become a necessity and in a strange twist of fate we are back to the old days when many couples stay together for economic reasons alone. I know you are white collar but if you doubt this go to your local chain store and ask some of the young women working there. I know of at least 3 women where I work who stay with there husbands only because they can't afford to go out on thier own. Sounds a lot like the old farm days when a man and a woman NEEDED eachother for survival.
My point, though I know you disagree, is that women choosing to go back to work has led to women having to go back to work and it was the feminist movement that started the ball rolling.
PS. I am aware that Susan B. Anthony was not the first suffereget, I was trying to keep things clear as we could debate the true beginings of feminism for days.
- Slow -
I am a shakespeare fan myself :)
no problem Slow, you should have a chance to respond...
Dutch.Lover wrote....
Here are some questions to get this thread off the ground, boys- feel free to answer them too (men can be feminists too!):
Do any of you identify yourselves as being a feminist? If so, do you feel comfortable telling other people this?
What stereotypes do you feel feminists have? Do you feel these are negative or positive?
What does feminism mean to you?
What issues do you think are most important for feminists?
Dutch, I would like to bring this back home If i may. You might have noticed this is a subject I feel pretty strongly about. I have a question....
How do you women who consider yourselves feminists feel about those women who choose to be stay at home moms? Does anyone remember how upsetting the notion was to the militant feminist that some women might preffer to be moms instead of working women?
- Slow -
I personally think women should do whatever they want to do with respect to working, or staying at home. You're totally right that a 'militant'/radical feminist wouldn't be too happy about women choosing to stay at home...in my opinion radical feminists are the ones who give the rest of us a bad name, but at the same time I think it's (or at least at the onset of feminism) them who get the most done. For example, in Vancouver we're preparing for the 2010 Olympics and there have been many protests against them, because our dumbass politicians and olympic chairsmen have completely neglected their promises when it comes to things like homelessness and the environment. The people who get in the news the most on this issue, are the most radical. The ones squatting in buildings about to be torn down, or the ones who have stolen the flag. I wouldn't really want to associate myself with them, but at the same time I admire their balls. lol.
I don't think Dave ignored your point. I think he pretty effectively dismissed it. And I fully agree with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
DINC families maybe have the opportunity attain a higher standard of living, but how do you consider them to be responsible for the rise in the basic cost of living across the board?
You're bringing up two correlated trends and telling us one caused the other without providing any proof of such.
Poly,
This is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did women go into the work force from economic need as Dave appears to claim or did women going into the workforce bring about inflation as I claim? I support my theorey with an example at least. Dave uses big words to sound like he's quoting fact but in truth he simply stating his opinion.
To everyone: I am done with this line. You know where I stand and this is boring and a bit annoying.
Peace.
- Slow -
Edit
Dutch,
I agree with you; it has always been the radicals that get things done. From Ghandi to King to (trying not to choke - jk) Betty Fernand (sp). I think the thing that we need to question is the value of the action. They are demonstrating the olympics for homeless rights. You sound like you approve? What if they did the same thing at the special olympics? Then the question becomes whose values do we use as the judgment for appropriate behavior even by radicals? As 420 fans i would hope it would lay somewhere in the realm of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else".
- Slow -
Wow is all I can say. You certainly can attributed deindustrialization and administrative costs to rising living costs. To say it's solely because of more women entering the workforce is absurd. You can't point out a sole factor because the economy is too complex for such closed-minded analysis. It's just like saying civil rights is the cause for rising living costs. It's amounts to put it bluntly, slander.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
Please don't presume that Dave is speaking so far above my level of understanding that I didn't grasp all of his big words and simply think he sounds good instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlickitysplit
This is not the chicken and the egg. Because with the chicken and the egg, at least you're pretty safe in assuming that they're related.
Your example didn't really support anything. And I think Dave made a good point which I'll agree with, your understanding of history is backwards.
If you want to be a man about this, you'd just concede that you have nothing to back up your point. I'm more than willing to discuss this if its still considered a valid point.
You seem to be getting worried that your annoying people. Maybe its less what you say, and more how mindlessly you cling to it.
I believe you're mostly annoyed, Slowlickity, because people have used very simple logic—and fine words—to point out unassailable facts. You can call them opinions if you like, but even the most traditional economist or historian will confirm what we're saying about women entering the workforce out of fiscal necessity. The female employment era had an early start during World War II, long before anyone termed the trend feministic, but it was borne out of economic necessity then, too. Those wartime-working ladies returned to home and hearth to begin bearing those of us who're the spawn of the Baby Boom. And they emerged again in the workforce in large numbers in the 1960-to-1974 span when the Vietnam conflict, inflation, and various other economic forces were at work. Sure, plenty of other things factored in. We had reliable birth control after 1960, which allowed women to have fewer children and more freedom. And we increasingly got more education, which had the same effect.
I encourage you to converse with a historian or economist of your choosing at your earliest convenience so you can transfer your misplaced annoyance onto historical reality. You can transfer your annoyance at vocabulary to me because it was I, not my husband Dave, who trotted out the “big words” on you. I think you were mostly annoyed with him because he shot down your women’s employment-heart disease theory at point-blank range.
On a final note, I’m all for women who stay at home and raise their families if they can. I was raised by a stay-at-home mom and an equally involved dad. Probably that’s why I turned out to be so sweet and deferential. As I said earlier, I was able to engineer my life so that I could stay at home with my own child, too. But that was because I had an accommodating, forward-thinking employer who valued families as well as women’s professional contributions and because I had enough education myself—and a husband with the same—that we could swing that financially. I applaud families who make the financial sacrifices to allow one parent to be the primary caregiver, and I know it’s not easy. It’s rearing children and keeping a home that is the hardest job on earth, not being a professional woman. Parenting pays off, though. I can’t think of any contribution I made professionally—or will in the future—that’ll be as important to society as a well-raised child who becomes a happy, positively contributing citizen.
Just name the time, Breuk . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Oh, Breuk, here you're almost too tiresome to merit a response, but let me simply say that you can lie to yourself and tell others you proudly dismiss any connection to children, but at heart I hope youâ??re not clueless enough to really believe that. I'm certainly not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Iâ??m well aware of your sentiments about children and people who bear them. I think your disdain is actually a result of your own out-of-balance upbringing, which I know involved abuse and pain and has left you with lingering bitterness. You wonâ??t get any argument from me that youâ??ve likely done a great service to society by not having children of your own. In your heart and mind, however, I hope youâ??re not so myopic or isolationistic that you canâ??t see that other peopleâ??s children are going to touch your life in very direct ways, even if you have no concern for them now. Theyâ??re going to be the ones who assess and collect your taxes. Write the legislation that governs you. Mold the global policy that shapes your world. Theyâ??re going to be the ones find new cures and treatments for cancer, heart disease and even celiac disease. Who will nurture and nurse you, spoon-feed you, help you get up out of your chair, and change your diapers when you require that assistance, see to your funeral arrangements, and probate your will. Theyâ??re already the ones whoâ??re out there defending you from enemies both foreign and domestic.
So I hope youâ??ll re-evaluate your stance as not being connected to the metaphoric village and not having any investment in children, no matter what you think of Senator Clinton. Because you are connected even if youâ??re not yet perceptive enough to comprehend that.
I'm "perceptive enough to comprehend" when I'm getting ripped-off by a person with a constituency of incompetent parents that needs my money to care for and entertain more expensive, obnoxious little reproductions of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
P.S. most of the Childfree organizations are run, and frequented by, women. Whether they are "feminists" or not, they are out there - and their number is increasong, along with childfree males, in the world.
Hey come on pussy cat, smile a little bit..huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch.lover
Children grow up to be adults, Breuk. That was my most basic point, and you let it whiz right by you.
I never said it was your family that caused you the abusive pain; you've said that was religiously connected, but that certainly still counts as pain. The out-of-balance was, as you've mentioned several times, in the way you were parented, especially the largely female influence. I'm not saying you've whined about this. You haven't. It's simply information you've volunteered, perhaps more than you realized. (Same reason I added celiac sprue there to the cures that the instant, never-children adults will cure.)
I was more angered than "pained" by religion. I kept a low-profile in the instituions I attended, but saw a lot of less-fortunate kids get abused.Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
As far as my upbringing, you have either misunderstood me, or have me confused with someone else. I had both parents, but my mother died at age 39, when I was in my early teens. Fortunately, my father was around until I moved out to live on my own.
I am already "cured" of Celiac, an autoimmune disease, because I stopped eating gluten. My recovery was great, and I only talk about it because the vast majority of doctors in the United States are ignorent of it, as many as three million people in the U.S. have this condition - and are being misdiagnosed and/or ignored. There will never be a "cure" for it, really - the best I hope for is a pill that will minimize effects from cross-contamination when eating out. For now, I only eat-out in restaurants that know how to prepare dedicated gluten-free items. It's great to be well - and getting better all the time. I hope that more of the millions of people with it are able to fix themselves, as I did.