"virtue is a feminine trait"

I'd like to question that assertion. Certainly within the western mythic-religion practitioners there is the absolutized feminine virginal ideal to which see refers. And certainly this mindset, while once functional if not beneficial in tribal and mythic-membership societies, is now regressive and arguably parasitic.

But is there no corresponding masculine "virtue"?

Of course there is! and translated through the mythic world view level it is EQUALLY AS HARMFUL TO MEN! Think of the masculine ideal of "the hero". What travesties men have subjected unto themselves and others in the pursuit of this cultural ideal. The healthy side of this ideal is the push to bear burdens and sacrifice in the service of community, but this easily becomes pathological. War is obviously the most glaring example. Think of our idealistic young service men and there mostly positive intentions.

At a mythic world stage this ideal is mostly healthy, as is the "Virginal" ideal. But the world is more complicated now. An old book of tribal stories is not enough to make a cohesive society anymore. When these ideals play out in a modern or post-modern world space they are pathological. The notion of the "Hero" often transforms into, at the sacrifice of one's free will and discernment, the necessity of the "wage earner", the "provider", the "soldier"...

Now ask yourself, why would a man do this? Is that freedom? Many feminists seem to think so only to discover upon achievement that nope, it's just another form of slavery. What is the man's motivation? THE VIRGINAL BRIDE OF COURSE. He is implicitly taught by making these sacrifices, by subjecting himself to modern pathological hierarchies, being a "part" in another's "whole", with the loss of his inherent humanity for the sake of social function he may successfully unite with a woman.

Is the man wrong for thinking this? Largely no, for millennia matriarchy has rewarded this behavior. Furthermore, many men will stuck at this underdeveloped level until women stop rewarding it. Just as women will continue be financially dependent and personally, mentally, emotionally, spiritually underdeveloped until men stop rewarding it.

Biologically and subjectively/experientially sex allows one the illusion of being God (I don't mean to imply any gender based attributes with that term and if anyone thinks they can attach any attribute at the exclusion of another to the Absolute, well they are quite delusional) even if an orgasm is just a glimpse and offers the opportunity to "live forever". Now self-satisfaction, is the greatest deterant to personal growth and sex is for said and unsaid reasons satisfying. So if the mythic-idealistic pre-rational mindset is so successful at satisfying personal desires there is no need to grow beyond it, from the perspective of one in it (most of you, I hope and expect, can think of a litany of reasons to grow beyond that level).

So, what can we do? Well with the centrality of sex in this dualistic nightmare (in which members of each side are to blame, but neither is in control) BE MORE SELECTIVE WITH YOUR PARTNERS!

Women don't reward this kind of behavior in men. No man can "earn" you. Reward perspective, depth of character and a refusal to see you as anything but that which you are and a desire to be viewed in the same light.

Men, the course of our lives should be our joy, capital JOY, not a sacrifice for smaller fleeting joys. Pursue women who know (not in the cognitive sense, but in a lived sense) that they are your equal.

Everyone, take off your masks of projected self-conception and learn to be truly naked with each other. The power of ecstatic vulnerability is more than that which can be conceived. SEX CHANGES THE WORLD! ENLIGHTENED SEX BREEDS AN ENLIGHTENED WORLD!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'In Suze's new book she asks: "Why is it that women, who are so competent in all other areas of their lives, cannot find the same competence when it comes to matters of money?"

When Suze says "money," read: "men."'
==============================================
No, when Suze says "money" she means "money." It appears that YOU associate her statements with men. Kindly, stop projecting your battles with her comments. It isn't always a war with men if a person is lesbian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When speaking of the "status of respected wife and mother", this article seems to assume there is no intrinsic satisfaction in being a wife and mother. How much status is there in being a "respected wife and mother"? It's pretty thankless in terms of status and respect. Yet many women still do it because they want to.

I also find it hard to believe that lesbians don't care if their partner was a total slut before they met, just because there is no "economic basis". I would assume they are just like the rest of us when it comes finding someone who is stable, honest, responsible, capable of commitment, etc. Any lesbians care to comment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It never ceases to amaze me how women who are overly-linked with men will keep trying to re attach women who have freed themselves from that role. Ms. Bright has outed Suze to sensationalize her article - nothing more.

Let Suze Orman be Suze Orman! I don't care if she is gay or straight. She is fantastic just the way she is! She has helped women understand what money is - and isn't. She has helped thousands of women gain the confidence to make their own way in the world - with men, or with women, or on their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"But in one respect, Suze is radical: she has not been "a good girl." She never gave a shit what men thought, because she never fell in love with one."

If this were true then why wait so long to come out?

Meanwhile, my partner and wife is slowly but surely growing in confidence and control of her own financial situation by reading Orman. I think by watching her behavior I can see that she is growing despite what others, both men and women, have always encouraged her to be. Mom, get married, have babies, support your man. Dad, get married, don't worry a man will take care of you. Luckily, she has learned to ignore this advice and grow competent and resiliant and financially successful. Still, inside, where this belief was first placed when she was a child, she must combat it every day.

Personally, I have to agree with the posters who question the seriousness of this article BUT if it lets us take another look at what we think is true, if it lets us hear from others what they think is true, THEN that is why it's suitable fodder for the alternet site, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow! I cannot believe that this writer actually said that a woman should show some BALLS!!! This "expression" is one of the most sexist, stupid ones that has come into popular use in my lifetime. BALLS is NOT a synonym for courage, innovation, or any other compliment.

To use that term in an article that seems to be about how women shouldn't be subservient to men buys into the notion that to be a man (and have balls) is better than it is to be a woman (and have a pussy).

Come on! Aren't there much better ways to express oneself?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seriously.. does Susie Bright have ANYTHING to write about anymore that matters even a tiny bit???

First she lambasts Orman for giving a "classic closet" answer... to the question just before the one where she actually says she is in a relationship with a woman. Great tactic... attack her for not coming out in the very article where she comes out.

"I have never been with a man in my whole life. I'm still a 55-year-old virgin."

And Susie just skips merrily over that one... defining "virginity" as something impossible to lose without a male partner. The ONE thing worth talking about here as far as female homosexuality goes... and she passes on even talking about it. Nice one, Susie. Nice one.

"Someone must have died recently in her family, who was the last stumbling block. That's usually the celebrity sore spot. For whatever reason, Orman no longer needs to shelter someone's tender homophobia."

Wow... way to make assumptions about someone's life who you know next to nothing about. Way to go for even more venal, frankly juvenile "lezzier-than-though" finger pointing, susie.

"Yes. Absolutely. Both of us have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."

Yep.. others might have neglected that. Ah, the plight of the wealthy. They might lose 50 percent to estate taxes... then they'd only be left with their millions and half of their partner's millions. Nevermind that estate taxes are only applicable for those inheriting more than a million in assets to begin with.

"In Suze's new book she asks: "Why is it that women, who are so competent in all other areas of their lives, cannot find the same competence when it comes to matters of money?"

When Suze says "money," read: "men.""

Ok.. WHY? Because she is a lesbian? So what!

"What Orman is saying, a tiny bit more openly, in her new book, is that she knows most women's money lives are defined by their dependence on men, be they husbands, lovers, or fathers. She is urging women, rhetorically, to cut it off."

I'd love to see some stats to prove that. But, of course, none are presented.. because this is an article about hackneyed stereotypes and generalities.

"I know the word "virtue" sounds old -fashioned -- but so is the urge to "find a man," and "have a baby" with said man."

In other words... heterosexuality is old-fashioned... not an equally valid orientation, not to mention biologically necessary for the propagation of the species.

"as feminist philosophy becomes a novelty item."

No need to wonder why it is becoming a novelty with articles like this.

Its an old and frankly sexist and homophobic saw by this point that feminists, and especially lesbians blame men for all their problems, but frankly, that seems to be all this article really has to say. I wish it weren't so... but it is.

"In lesbian culture, there's no currency in being sexually virtuous. No one cares if you have slept with "X" number of women before you sleep with them -- not because they're so open-minded, but because there's no economic basis."

So.. lesbians don't care if they are dating the proverbial Village Bicycle, nor do they care about STDs. Not a single one.. much less more than one. Right, susie... right...

"Her advice to women is "no one is coming to rescue you, Prince Charming is deader than God, and you have got to wake the fuck up and DIY." Her book sounds like a pep talk to women in a domestic abuse group."

Ok... how exactly does domestic abuse have ANYTHING to do with what is being discussed???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She is about practical advice to average income people. She offers ways to get out of debt. She's brilliant and doesn't seem to dislike anyone. The author makes some wierd connection with the men and the money. I miss her point on that. Orman's advice is very timely. Many people wouldn't be in the financial binds they're in if the had listened to just some of her advice. I'm gonna pass on this book. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So maybe, if you're conservative, you got to ignore all her financial advice because it somehow advances the *homosexual agenda* we've heard so much about and that threatens the *American * way of life.

What an oddball world that wants *red-blooded, he-man* financial advice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you know she is on Senator Mary Landrieu(LA)'s staff??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"vir", in latin, means "man" - as in male.

Just couldn't let the irony stand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think most of the criticisms of the article reflect very poor reading.

S.B. is saying that Suze Orman has a special qualification: she is not and never has been dependent on men, emotionally or financially. Hence, she sees straight women's dependency as crippling them financially, and hands out advice designed to promote financial independence. Is there something wrong with that - or with the linkage to Orman's sexuality?

Second, and more entertainingly, she thinks it makes sense to substitute "men" for "money" in Orman's writing: self-reliance is a good thing in either case.

(The switch from "independent" to "self-reliant" is intentional: no one in a relationship is truly independent. But "self-reliance" is still a good thing; and FINANCIAL self-reliance is basic feminism. S.B.'s pointing to a truism: that lesbians have been role pioneers and models because they had little choice and little to lose.)

Makes sense to me, and I'm a straight man. Creative approach, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" ... and like most rich people, she considers herself entirely self-made."

She does? They do? And so what if she is/they are? Orman gives credit to those who helped her along the way, such as the man (gasp!) who raised the funds to launch her new restaurant. She points out that she did not major in finance nor does she have an MBA, but says if she can learn this stuff, so can anyone who takes the time to pay attention.

At any rate, I just don't see that her sexual preference has anything to do with her financial advice and Bright's assertion that Orman is talking about men and not money is really kind of stupid. Orman gives the same advice to men that she gives to women. And you know what? Orman is right.

What's Bright's problem with Orman, really?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Estate taxes are killing me?

Look - this isn't some Old European aristocratic system, where inherited wealth is the basis of everything, is it?

Oh, wait...

Never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I detest the advice Ms. Orman lectures us with. She is greed personified. I call PBS everytime they put her on to complain that they could do a whole lot better than her. I guess she just proves lesbians can be as money-grubbing and capitalistic as straight men. Who really cares what her sexual orientation is anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have just discussed Suze Orman on the forum of http://www.bimingle.com. I have often thought of Suze Orman's advice as more appropriate for the Depression Era Generation. She is an expert at what she does and if you listen to her it will benefit you because she knows what she's doing. No mater if Suze Orman is gay or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The line... "In lesbian culture, there's no currency in being sexually virtuous. No one cares if you have slept with "X" number of women before you sleep with them -- not because they're so open-minded, but because there's no economic basis..." is motivating me to waste my good and valuable time by going over to her web site to experience this Susie Bright person first-hand. What a nit she must be.
I've been with my partner for 20-plus years. I'm enraged, as is Suzie Orman, that our loving and caring relationship matters not one wit to our government and its draconian laws. We're not part of ANY culture, unless you mean American Culture, and, last time I looked, America didn't have much of one left. As for being virtuous, I think I can speak for most people with common sense when I say that one's orientation has nothing to do with virtue, integrity, dignity, or even money, except in that in our increasingly religious-based culture, being gay is a liability to one's financial potential and even a danger to one's safety.
I am still trying to wrap my brain around this entire article. I keep thinking that I'm missing a crucial point somewhere. But I keep coming back to this conclusion: that Susie Bright is NOT that bright when it comes to matters of individuality and personal etiquette. Suzie Orman always seemed to give good, sound financial advice, and her being in a relationship for 7 years with another woman sure doesn't have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING. To me. And I'm sure about MY virtue. As for Susie Bright, notsomuch.
As for the man-hating deal, it's another myth. Not many of us "dykes" (doncha just hate that box, that word) hate men. Most of us have LOTS of guy friends. And we don't wanna be GUYS. We just like people who are NICE to others. Lots of nice men around!
While Hillary and Obama slug it away like school-children, while our planet is in environmental meltdown, while every day more children die in senseless wars, while poverty and starvation claims millions of lives a day, this Bright person writes about a the orientation of a financial advisor, and how her love of her partner is somehow all wrapped up in the advice she gives... sounds Freudian to me! Get a life, lady.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Virtue comes from the roman translation of arete, a term of ancient greek which means excellence. It was most commonly used as a translation of 'ethike arete' which means excellences of character. I know that Victorian England perverted alot of the english language (the word virtue included) along with the sexual relationships between men and women, but it would be a shame to give in on this. Virtue is just the opposite of vice. Virtuousness is the opposite of viciousness. Viciousness is not a male or female only word, and it impoverishes our conceptual framework to let prudes steal the word virtue. Why keep the negative word and lose the positive one as a general moral description?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I went on over to susiebright.com ...and I was right. She IS a nit. Pink links and a pink left-column menubar, and a prominent article about a topless bar and restaurant where they feature women that... aren't.
So I click on a link to see a picture and it's good old Flickr, saying the content is too gross for me (unless I sign up) and I have to agree: it's WAY too gross. And I'm 60! So I don't click. I come back to AlterNet...

Why is she writing for AlterNet??? Where are the editors? This is what the right wing LOVES. Whackos like her posting SMEAR articles about decent people. SHE'S got a problem, people. And it's not Suzie Orman. Check out her web site.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I understood every word of this article ... but not in the order they came in ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hi, I'm Susie Bright, I wrote this essay. It was first published in a gay publication, for a largely lesbian audience who like to debate financial advice and its various schools of thought.

I subsequently posted the story on my blog, and Alternet syndicated it from there. I've written prolifically about feminism and sexual politics for a few decades now, and feel very at home in Alternet's milieu.

I'm surprised at the reaction to this story on Alternet, in terms of any reader who seem to concluded that I'm "homophobic," or have a grudge against Orman, or have invented a hateful agenda.

Perhaps the new headline here gave the wrong idea, or maybe my original audience orientation was lost... that I was speaking to fellow travelers.

But just for the record: I'm an old-school lesbian rights and culture advocate, and of course I'm delighted Suze Orman came out and made a good point about how anti-gay marriage laws personally affect her. Even better was that it was in The Times, where she could have such a great impact. Better late than never!

I don't have anything against Orman's money advice, which is hardly extreme or novel. Prudence, self-reliance, planning ahead, etc. More power to all of you with a healthy savings account!

Meanwhile... there's a VERY popular ongoing debate, within the financial-advice community, as to how money advice is marketed differently to men vs. women. A classic example in popular media is that women are urged to "save,"' while men are counseled to "invest." As you peruse the various money magazines and selfhelp books, you will notice how gender-coded the advice is. It's interesting to talk about if you watch this kind of social interaction!

The editor of Queercents was interested in my take on this subject, vis a vis Orman's coming out announcement.

As someone who came of age in a lesbian relationship, and as someone who writes about sexual politics, I do think domestic life and decision-making are influenced by our gender outlook... whether we conform or rebel. I mean, good grief, this is just standard feminist analysis!

My essay is up for contention, of course-- feel free. But please don't mistake me for either a "nit", a "homophobe," or a Rush Limbaugh stand-in.

Now back to your comment log!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was hoping for a little insight with this article. It sounded like an interesting freakonomics style thing. Instead, it's complete conjecture mixed in with a flawed understanding of male/female dynamics.
Replace money with men? No thanks. I'll let Orman take that kind of wild speculation and disrespect from someone like Bill-o.
It sure seems like gay women take a lot of unnecessary heat these days. If Orman has been gay all this time and no one was the wiser, I'm guessing that this news is not all that significant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like a homophobe article again. Sexual preference has nothing to do with her credibility or anything else. Anyone who thinks it does, like the author of this article, is either a Republican or a closeted one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"If You're Not Rich Yet, It's Your Own Fault
Channeling Suze Orman"

By NORMAN SOLOMON
an excerpt:
"Your money, your life. It's as simple as that. Ladies -- and you men, too -- the time is past when we hold back. Not having control over our own money is something we can't afford, and I mean that literally. We just cannot afford it.

I'll be blunt here. Anyone who tells you there's something wrong with getting rich and then richer has some serious unresolved problems. Heh heh.

If you want a solution, you go out and grab it. You rule money or money will rule you. People who can't wrap their minds around that vital concept -- they get nowhere.

You want to solve social problems, start with yourself. If you can't let yourself accumulate wealth, you're part of a social problem -- like I used to be. Now I do very well, thank you, and I don't want to hear about how some financial company is making money from my self-help website. Sure, I'm getting richer all the time. You got a problem with that?

The more people get rich, the happier I am. Even a leader of the Chinese Communists (and you know what dummies they were) said it straight out maybe 30 years ago -- "it's glorious to be rich." The baggage we're still carrying around tells us not to mind if some guy says it but if I as a woman make the same point then the knives come out. Ladies, to hell with that. We're not going back.

It's not glorious to be low-income, that's for damn sure. I know what that's like. Now I go back to PBS at pledge time, and they welcome me with open arms. Public broadcasting. Makes me almost sentimental. But catch me on CNBC these days, and you'll see that I'm swimming with the big-money fish.

I was a waitress for a pathetically long time. I had to find the courage. The courage, ladies. And I did. Now look at me.

I don't just want you to plan for the future. I want you to make enough money to buy your future: lock, stock and barrel. Money money money. I've got it on the brain, and I make no apology. I love money. It's freedom, and ladies -- you can earn freedom if you apply yourselves.

Some people can't stop complaining that the economic system has winners and losers. Whether they realize it or not, that's probably because they're bound and determined to be losers. Well, I think it's a heck of a lot better to be a winner -- don't you?

What kind of media future do you think I would've had if I chose to keep complaining about the system because of losers? I'd probably be a loser too! Not if I can help it. And I can, obviously.

So, I'm rich. And I'm trying to inform you about how to get rich, too. If you can't make it happen, maybe you haven't listened to my wisdom closely enough. You got a problem with that?"

--Norman Solomon
"Channeling Suze Orman"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that people determine how to invest their money based on a person's sexual preference. And if they do they are losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It appears that I am not the only reader who noticed that Ms. Bright is not very "bright."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try substituting "tripe" for just about every word of this article.

Ms. Bright should wake up to the fact that identity politics are as dead as a beaver hat.

Grade: Not worth grading

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]